Help support TMP


"Updating rules ethics" Topic


16 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board

Back to the Game Design Message Board


Areas of Interest

General
Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


837 hits since 12 Nov 2019
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

UshCha12 Nov 2019 9:49 a.m. PST

I read lots on the Latest FOW 4.0 and it's failures. Some of the issues saddened me and highlighted the abuses that can be heaped on our hobby by those that consider we are a simply a resource to be exploited not encouraged.

We at Maneouver Group are revising ours after 10 years of play. Many of the changes were already published a good while ago, the system never had big problems, so no real changes to the basics at all. Some simplification to damage but still compatible with the old standard if preferred. The only new(ish) bit is the air power which we had not envisaged as working well anyway but now improved.

It has ALWAYS been our policy to allow players to generate there own stats for vehicles based on real world data, though surprisingly this seems not to be the preferred method for most folk. Organisations just follow real world formats so no need for expensive books or stats.

All part of keeping our hobby going, not ripping folk off which does nobody any good in the end. Shame so many folk just see us as a resource to be exploited then thrown aside.

Wolfhag13 Nov 2019 1:50 a.m. PST

UshCha,
I think you should take a look at what has made them successful.

I remember someone saying that war games are never finished, only published. I never jumped on FOW but they do put out a nice shiny product and enough people keep coming back for more.

They seem to be a big company with overhead, expenses, and salaries. They need to be pumping out the product to stay in business, that's just a fact of life. Evidently enough people are satisfied to keep buying and why not? It's an attractive and slick product filled with information. I've never purchased as it's not my type of game.

Wolfhag

Legion 413 Nov 2019 7:01 a.m. PST

Routinely in, e.g. SPI's rules had errata and updates. No matter how much game testing goes on. It no surprising.

As well as e.g. GW, but they seem never to get anything right the first time round …

abuses that can be heaped on our hobby by those that consider we are a simply a resource to be exploited not encouraged
If a profit is to be made in many cases that takes priority over quality.

Personal logo McLaddie Supporting Member of TMP13 Nov 2019 8:08 a.m. PST

If a profit is to be made in many cases that takes priority over quality.

What, you mean those two things, quality and profit, aren't linked???

Sad.

Pan Marek13 Nov 2019 9:44 a.m. PST

Wolfhaug-
Your post seems to justify any abuse by any company if it makes them money.
People have been defrauded over the centuries due to "shiny" without substance. That these people bought the shiny does not excuse the lack of substance.
For example: A slick looking car that is unreliable. Would the slickness justify the lack of reliability?

Wolfhag13 Nov 2019 10:49 a.m. PST

Pan,
I'm not justifying anything. If you feel ripped off get a refund, sell it, stop buying the product and tell others. It doesn't matter if I condone it or not, I don't work for a Federal Consumer Advocacy Department. If you are getting ripped off file a complaint. I took one look at FOW when it came out and passed, it wasn't for me.

Buyer Beware: Most companies will do almost anything to cut costs, increase profits and please their shareholders. With minimal competition, they can do that. I doubt if that's new to anyone.

As demand increases, prices will go up, as demand decreases prices will go down. That's pretty much how a free market works. To support your product you need to keep introducing new stuff on a regular basis. As long as people are buying it they'll keep making it.

Most of the games available commercially I would not buy. However, some people spend hundreds of dollars and feel satisfied with the ones I'd return for a refund. Go figure.

I've watched a number of FOW events and just feel sad (and sometimes completely dumbfounded) but the players are having fun. Evidently many players feel it's a great system to showcase your models and take pictures, that's not why I play.

Ushcha sells a product. My recommendation was to look at what makes the FOW business model and marketing a success, not to get ideas on how to rip people off.

Wolfhag

Legion 413 Nov 2019 1:44 p.m. PST

Sad
Yes …

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP13 Nov 2019 3:26 p.m. PST

I cut the rules writer a lot more slack than I cut the franchise rules writer--especially on the matter of army lists, and you'll notice a lot of the ire directed at FOW 4 came from that. If Phil Barker invalidates my DBA armies (again) I may disagree with his research or his reasoning. I may suspect he'd like to sell me a new set of rules, but there are good and bad reasons for that, and even DBA 3.0 was only a single book.

But when GW or Battlefront start dropping existing units from the lists, there can't be much doubt that they're thinking primarily of compelling all their addicts to buy yet more armies. And the purchase of the rules is only a down payment: theater books and army books will follow--not only for the new armies created and old ones rebuilt, but logically for the armies the tournament player can expect to face. As the cycle continues, the franchise owner is unlikely to even bother to update all the books to reflect the current rules before revising the rules and starting over again.

I may carp a little (OK, a lot) over rules revisions driven by a concern for historical accuracy or ease of play. But what the franchises do is far, far beyond that.

UshCha, if you've actually improved the product--greater ease of play and greater historical accuracy, or at least improved not at the expense of the other--go for it. If it's a mistake, the players will tell you.

UshCha14 Nov 2019 2:18 a.m. PST

Robert,
With ten years play we have learnt a lot, probably the term is un-learnt a lot. Looking back I am horrified how poor the rules we started wargamein on were they required stratergies absolutely contrary to those of the real world. Maneouver Groupe I blame on my Co author. During a game we found the then rules showed up the Land rover Wolf and al those Malisha's with Ma Browings on the back of pickups were idiots or the rules were wrong. My money was on the British army, they were right the rules were hopeless. Paul said he thought we could do better, 2000 hr later we proved him right.

Even now 10 years on I cannot understand why anybody would knowingly perpetuate such a farce in terms of rules. The only excuse I can see and it's a poor one, they just did not care!

All the most significant changes were published as fee bulletins anyway so not really any desperate need to by the upgraded set except perhaps the air power rules and perhaps they may go out in the end free.

Our only disappointment is the despite so many copies going we have had little feedback, good or bad despite giving out contact email.

Legion 414 Nov 2019 6:12 a.m. PST

E.g. over the years, with GW's 40K, they'd make some bigger $$$ [over]priced models more deadly in the game to increase sales. Of those pricy models. Many, many, things changed with every version …

Many reasons I don't play 40K, but that is one of the many.

Epic was the same. With the 2d version. Never like that version. Rarely played it. The game rules/mechanics had few redeeming qualities …

You'd have to buy a box set of figures that had 3 different factions. So if you wanted to play one faction you'd have to buy the box set that included the one you wanted plus 2 others. frown

Also the rules required huge numbers of forces on the table. Making the board look more like the ACW than a game that had tanks, FA, Robots, etc. And many units had no saves. So it took longer to put the forces on the board then having to remove many in the first turn.

I can't see any other reason for GW's plan for this version save to sell more models … frown Was more of a game than a wargame … < 2 thumbs down >

UshCha14 Nov 2019 7:23 a.m. PST

We see it as important to keep the hobby going. A profit is reasonable, exploiting the customer does the hobby no good, eventually the entry price is too high so the hobby fades. That may be of little concern to big franchises the just look for somewhere else to exploit and kill off. Essentially they are assessed strippers.

Legion 415 Nov 2019 7:23 a.m. PST

If you are looking for ethics from many in big business you may be looking for a long time.

As was said decades ago in the USA, "Let the buyer beware!" …

Lion in the Stars16 Nov 2019 1:43 p.m. PST

If you are looking for ethics from many in big business you may be looking for a long time.

As a wargaming friend of mine who runs an independent bookstore says, "Business Ethics? What are those?"

Legion 416 Nov 2019 2:31 p.m. PST

evil grin

Blutarski18 Nov 2019 12:48 p.m. PST

Legion 4 wrote "As was said decades ago in the USA, "Let the buyer beware!" …"

Hah! Those clever Romans beat us to it by two millennia or so. The Latin phrase "caveat emptor" translates to "Buyer beware" in English. I took Latin for five years in school; the above is one of a pitiful handful of Latin phrases that I have retained in memory.

Wise words, though ….. whatever the language.

B

Legion 418 Nov 2019 2:28 p.m. PST

Yes, I remembered that, but forgot how spell it … frown Too busy/lazy to look it up ! old fart

Romans beat us to it
They beat us to a lot of things ! evil grin

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.