Re: [NetEpic ML] Implications of "epic" proportions

From: <primarch_at_...>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 15:55:59 -0000

Hi!

> Now that is a really stupid requirement. There was NEVER going to
be THAT
> much interest in Epic. Epic is just like Necromunda. There are
those
> people who are fanatical about it, those people who play it for a
while on
> its release (or re-release) and those who ignore it. The fanatics
are a
> small percentage of the crowd, but its they who keep the game alive.
To
> expect to increase the fanatic base by releasing a completely new
version
> of the game is stupidity of the highest order.

<grin> I hear that! A good friend who owns a hobby shop in Long Island
went to the GW USA retailer meeting that was offered back then and
that was one of the many bits of wisdom given by GW. Of course it is
even funnier when in a later such retailer meeting most "epic"
questions were "unacknowledged".

> I'm not so sure that it was completely incompetence, I think more
blind
> stupidity. In the studio, Epic 40K had a huge following (according
to all
> reports). Because all the staff really liked playing it, they
thought they
> had a real shot at it. Unfortunately, it made most of us feel very
> alienated (I know I did). And THAT is where I see GW's big problem
> lies. They seem to think that their customer base is a completely
> inexhaustible resource. They really don't seem to grasp the concept
that
> they are alienating more and more of their loyal customers.
>
> FASA knew all about it which is why Battletech never really got
re-written
> and why old mechs never really became obsolete. They UPDATED and
simply
> EXPANDED on the game. The core rules and mechanics never really
> changed. I could take a mech I designed 15 years ago and still have
it run
> perfectly legally under the current rules with only a minor
modification or
> two (and often, no changes at all).

Well, its pretty standard tactic for GW to "alienate" exsisting
gamers. For their core games it seemsto work anyway, since they fill
the void with more (sometimes younger) gamers. But for the secondary
games like epic, it pretty much means the game goes unsupported or
weakly so due to lack of sales.
>
> But GW just doesn't seem to understand that you can do that to a
game and
> it will still make the cash you want. they seem to think that the
only way
> to keep a game alive is to COMPLETELY re-write it every 4 years
along with
> all the forces available for it, making my old force obsolete.

I have never understood this way of doing this. Most other companies
flagship games, get updated, never overhauled and redone. Even D&D
(although the current edition has a lot more changes), still has the
same recognizable core mechanics it started with 25+ years ago.

On another note, unlike other companies GW doesn't playtest their
games.I laugh at how they always want to push the point on how
"exhaustive" their testing is, but yet they are the only compnay I
know that doesn't employ outsde playtesters to test their games. IMO
if a pair of eyes other than those of the designer doesn't see the
game it is flawed, this is NOT ture testing of the rules. Of course
you can throw that in with GW's usual patronizing attitude of "well
you just don't have the right attitude to play GW games", as an excuse
to cover their shoddy rules. It seems if a particular problem did not
come up during their "testing" its either unimportant or your
"cheating".

Peter
Received on Thu Apr 05 2001 - 15:55:59 UTC