(primarch @ Aug. 17 2006,02:03)

QUOTE

They DID it before under SM2...

..and that IS fact.

Primarch

(iblisdrax @ Aug. 16 2006,23:36)

QUOTE

The thing that annoys me, however, is the refusal to even consider licensing the Epic scale( or other SG lines, past and present) to another company willing to invest more time in it. ?Perhaps there have been offers to do such things, but the GW license was too high.

(tneva82 @ Aug. 17 2006,03:30)

QUOTE

Had all of them abandoned GW(or even significant part) that would have been seen on profit line.

If killing epic would have caused their profit margins go down they would have broken world record time it takes to reverse it as they would have brought epic into fully supported game faster you can say cat.

(Dwarf Supreme @ Aug. 17 2006,15:41)

QUOTE

A rise in profits doesn't necessarily indicate that killing epic was the reason for the rise. For example, increasing prices higher than increasing operating costs will cause a rise in profits. Plus, an influx of new gamers may have offset the number of disgruntled Epic players. Who knows how much higher profits could have gone up if GW hadn't alienated a ton of Epic players?

(dafrca @ Aug. 16 2006,22:28)

QUOTE

I would agree with this. Further, I would not agree that if someone did play another GW game it ment no loss for GW.

One of the people I know who has played 40k every Sunday for as long as I have known him has not bought a new mini in the time I have known him. More then 10 years. He is playing Orks using the old Space Orks from the eary RT days. He converts toys etc. for his vehicles.

Another person I know has played in quite a few of the WH Fantacy games and uses a Dwarf army made up of other companies minis. Both have bought new rule books, but have not bought new minis.

Just playing GW games does not mean you buy their stuff on a regular basis.

The Ork player bought Ork stuff for Epic when we started to play. So in his case (and I bet he is not alone) GW made MORE money with Epic then they ever would on him with 40k.

dafrca

(tneva82 @ Aug. 17 2006,03:27)

QUOTE

It's evidence it's far more profitable for them to not support epic than not. Since epic was not doing negative profit it's clear that majority did not abandon GW.

Yes some did but they are just tip of the iceberg.

Killing epic caused their profits go up. That's why they did it and that's why they haven't reversed it. Simple as that. You are just talking about few inviduals but you know what? Those 4 are just tiny spark in number of people who played epic. Don't make conclusion from them. It's far more usefull to look at the big picture.

(tneva82 @ Aug. 17 2006,03:30)

QUOTE

Had all of them abandoned GW(or even significant part) that would have been seen on profit line.

If killing epic would have caused their profit margins go down they would have broken world record time it takes to reverse it as they would have brought epic into fully supported game faster you can say cat.

It's simple thing: Profits. Since they haven't provided more support to epic it's clear current system is better for their profits.

(tneva82 @ Aug. 17 2006,03:33)

QUOTE

In that case epic must have been doing one heck of a negative money(ie cost more than sales do). Say 90% leave. The 10% then without support then would bring more profit to GW than the 100% with epic support fully did...

Did epic eat more money than it provided? If not that 90% is out of thin air and not at all realistic number.

(tneva82 @ Aug. 17 2006,03:35)

QUOTE

In terms of profits(that's what they are after) killing epic was good move for epic as profits went up.

So who cares if some people quit buying GW stuff? GW doesn't. Profits went up, GW is happy.

(tneva82 @ Aug. 17 2006,03:37)

QUOTE

Yes. And after killing epic they did even more profit. Which is the point.

If epic would bring more profit than not supporting GW would have darned good motive to keep epic alive. They aren't idiots. Just profit seekers.

(Hena @ Aug. 17 2006,03:54)

QUOTE

One thing to consider in this is how much would the support cost (new molds for new minis and so forth)? How many players leave vs switch to 40k? If the support cost is larger than the loss of player revenue, then it make business sense. If not then not.

However since there is no numbers of revenue from SG available to compare core games this is all speculation.

(CyberShadow @ Aug. 17 2006,04:59)

QUOTE

GW/SG could never agree to a license of Epic to another company, simply because this would also require an agreement about the copyright involved in the major 40K lines such as the Tau, Tyranids, etc. Any Epic license would have to include the fair use of these terms, images and whole package, and that could open up potential problems and conflicts with 40K.

The bottom line here is simply that GW have decided in some way that not supporting the specialist range (not just Epic) is more profitable for the company than supporting them. It is possible that Epic games suddenly buy into 40K. It is possible that Epic gamers storm away from any further GW products. However, whatever the reason or result from our perspective, this pattern has occured several times in several games (anyone remember the 'six month game lifespan').

My view is that the average player buys a lot of minis in the first few months, and that these purchases drop off as unpainted forces grow and the various army roles are filled by troops. After this, the sales from the player slow down. With this model, it makes for GW to push a game for a year and then drop... even if we dont like it.

As an aside, this topic is something close to everyones heart and therefore there is a risk that tempers will rise. Discussion so far has been exemplary and very well conducted. Keep it up guys.