If GW made it own Vassal like 40k simulator would it hurt mo

[zookie]

Do you think if GW made a super version of a Vassal like program (3rd graphic, random number generators, real-time on line play, the works) and made a virtual 40k table top and sold it commercially would it hurt model sales or adversely affect the 40k community? Or would it be a good thing?

I know that there is a virtual Magic the Gathering game out there now. I don't know how it has impacted the card game as I have not played it in over a decade.

[Inquisitor Stingray]

I think Magic video games have been a smart move on Wizard's behalf. I can see people playing Dual of the Planeswalkers on their Xbox and then thinking to themselves "Hey, I really like this game. I guess I could spend some 25 bucks to get into the actual card game."

I cannot imagine anyone playing a video game replica of Warhammer 40K and then thinking: "Hey, I really like this game, I think I'll sell off a bunch of non-vital organs so as to afford the models, paint, glue, rulebook, dice and terrain. I'll also quit my job now I'm at it, so as to make time for my new hobby!"

I love Warhammer, but if you were make a video game based exactly on the tabletop game, you would pretty much remove or make obsolete the (few or many) things the game has got going for it; assembling, converting, painting, the tactile sense of rolling the dice and moving the models. To be perfectly honest I don't think the game's core mechanics are solid enough to be translated into a video game, as it deprives the user of what (the majority of people) enjoy about the game. At the same time I cannot imagine any SC2 player or similar with interest in serious RTS/strategy gaming picking up a digital copy of Warhammer 40K once they realize how huge a chunk of the game is decided by rolling dice and the overall imbalance of the units.

Now, this is all coming from a player/consumer viewpoint. I can only make pseudo-educated guesses as to the financial ramifications of such a project; I think it would be quite catastrophic to the company. But it's 3 in the morning and I need sleep, heh.

[rinielle]

I think a good example of what Inquisitor Stingray has said is Bloodbowl, I have played it since the mid 90's but find myself playing it less and less on tabletop given I and my friends now have the digital editions and as such can now play it on 'non game nights,' my minis have almost been shelved indefinitely.

Ofcourse there is the argument that GW have ceased to support BB anyway but I think the argument still stands

[callios]

I don't think a virtual game would hurt miniature sales.

There' nothing like staring at your opponent across the table and joking about the current game situation.
This is something, you can not simulate.

It works for one-on-one card games like Magic etc, but for a game of tabletop scale... i wouldn't bet my money on it.

[coredump]

Magic works because you have to buy the virtual packs to get virtual cards, so WotC still makes money.

Would you be willing to buy virtual Crones and FLyrants to play the computer version?

[ilovethenids]

The only reason I'd want to have a virtual version would be so I could test out playstyles/army lists before buying any new models. Other than that, I'd much rather play the actual game.

[beeva]

Personally I find Vassal to be clunky and slow. OK, the whole experience could be relatively easily improved but I don't think it will ever be a substitute for the real thing.

I think the closest you're ever going to get (officially) is Dawn of War.

[Inquisitor Stingray]

Apr 9, 2014 22:07:23 GMT ilovethenids said:

The only reason I'd want to have a virtual version would be so I could test out playstyles/army lists before buying any new models. Other than that, I'd much rather play the actual game.

And in friendly environments you can proxy most things with little to no problems.

No, I don't think a 40K game would deter people who are already into the hobby from further investing in models, terrain, etc. Question is if it would make new players buy into the 'real' game. And I don't see that happening, though I suppose games like Dawn of War and Space Marine might have had a positive effect in this regard.

[saxif]

I think a proper job game, with all the rules, miniatures and everything translated over faithfully would be a gargantuan effort, force them to FAQ everything and then serve as a very very good test bed for balancing the game. You would instantly get leagues and ladders and people would want balance even more in that environment.

GW could still sell access to armies, unique HQs, escalation, stronghold etc and we'd be buying it all again and I think they would make a mint, depending on how much it cost to develop. However I think it would hit the physical game hard. Suddenly with no prep, you are ready to play almost every evening, in a year you have had enough and moved on to another computer game and maybe ebayed your physical army for peanuts as it just got massively devalued.

IMO.

I'd buy it though

[Deleted]

Apr 9, 2014 16:38:48 GMT coredump said:

Magic works because you have to buy the virtual packs to get virtual cards, so WotC still makes money.

Would you be willing to buy virtual Crones and FLyrants to play the computer version?

Keeping in mind the pricing between actual cards and virtual ones is similar.

Like,  I agree if they release an outright videogame of 40k, 40k dies. If it doesn't die it becomes crippled to an extent that it dies in the years immediately after while GW frantically tries to decide what direction to take(videogame wins out in end imo because of increased market breadth- easier to plug games like 40k on steam than saying "HEY COME INTO MY NERD CAVE IN THE MALL AND ROLL SOME DICE REAL FAST" )

You'd have a hard time starting up a game like 40k online where you pay for units because of reluctant player investment. The game should come with one "unlocked" army of your choice where you get a basic foundation army for the price of the game, but it should be kept intentionally low to promote buyers. Could probably integrate some victory based currency that lets you buy units for virtual currency but the amount should be kept in a manner that it takes forever and people give up on getting units they want that way(and once you "pay to win" you wont have as much use for the virtual currency anyways except for starting an 'alt' army). 

I'd be willing to make the transition, but very very very grudgingly. Like I suspect my degree of financial commitment to the hobby would stay near the same it is now and I'd just invest less and less in my minis(cause I'm in it much more for the game than the hobby). 

[maeloke]

Apr 10, 2014 9:22:24 GMT saxif said:

I think a proper job game, with all the rules, miniatures and everything translated over faithfully would be a gargantuan effort, force them to FAQ everything and then serve as a very very good test bed for balancing the game. You would instantly get leagues and ladders and people would want balance even more in that environment.

This sort of gets at the real issue with a vassal-type program: 40k rules are a horrific kludge that would require a lot of fixing and hacking to make work in a polished, fair, digital environment. If you wanted to make a turn-based game based on the 40k property, you'd have a much easier time starting clean and working from the ground up.

The better question to ask is 'why'? The 40k rules are meant to represent a more-or-less balanced conflict between two armed forces, which requires the addition of a lot of artificial tools and breakdowns (everything to do with an alternating turn structure, for one). These have to be in place because it's very hard to balance a tabletop game without them. On a digital platform there's nothing stopping you from reworking it as an RTS a'la Dawn of War - which was quite passable as a game, and mostly just foundered on issues like uninspired design and plodding gameplay.

The other issue is that you really can't generate parity between digital and real-life products with 40k the way you can with MTG. Cards are worth almost nothing in materials, which makes them easy to sync to the zero intrinsic value of a digital product. The supply chain for miniatures is much longer and much more expensive, and if you were shooting for an actual digital=real market implementation, you'd have to be supplying assembled, well-painted miniatures a'la AT-43 (and look how that worked out for Rackham).

[Inquisitor Stingray]

I certainly wouldn't pay £48 for a Hive Crone if I didn't get to dramatically move it through the air while making high-pitched shrieks and swooshes.

[ilovethenids]

Apr 9, 2014 23:14:22 GMT Inquisitor Stingray said:

Apr 9, 2014 22:07:23 GMT ilovethenids said:

The only reason I'd want to have a virtual version would be so I could test out playstyles/army lists before buying any new models. Other than that, I'd much rather play the actual game.

And in friendly environments you can proxy most things with little to no problems.

No, I don't think a 40K game would deter people who are already into the hobby from further investing in models, terrain, etc. Question is if it would make new players buy into the 'real' game. And I don't see that happening, though I suppose games like Dawn of War and Space Marine might have had a positive effect in this regard.

You can only proxy if you have enough models such that you can substitute one for the other. For example, I couldn't run a dual flyrant list because I have nothing that I could proxy for a flyrant - unless they'd be okay with me chugging a can of soda and using that.

I've always thought it would be interesting to have a 40K game somewhat like Star Wars Battlefront. It'd be very difficult to sort out and probably wouldn't work due to the vast number of unit choices and all that, but still I like imagining it