>The primary reason the most popular games such as 40k or MtG on /tg/ are popular is because they appeal to the lowest common denominator
just how true is this?
Appealing to the lowest common denominator is the only way to stay in business, unfortunately.
No, it's because of how old they are and luck.
>>43882711
It's because they are THE name brand of their respective fields, and completely dominate the scene due to their popularity. Therefore, more people are going to talk about them, because more people play it.
More people play it because it is more popular, therefore they are at least going to start with it as it's the easiest to get into.
People stick with it because it's what they started with, and they've invested a lot into the game, and they don't have to constantly worry about the size of their community just suddenly disappearing (no matter how much us 40Kfags bitch, GW isn't going anywhere for a while unless they dramatically accelerate undercutting long-term growth for short-term profit), as well as the ease of getting a game for them to play.
Combine this with the fact that there is an incredible amount of lore and fluff for people to dig into, and you've got why they're popular. Popular things are popular for a reason - they're doing something right.
40k is some seriously messed up shit. Highly doubt it appeals to the "lowest common denominator" you speak of.
>>43882711
Theyre popular because they're popular.
>>43883140
As someone who recently got into 40k, I can confirm this.
I'vve had art/wallpapers from 40k for years, long before I knew what it was. I've played 40k vidya. The weekly 40k /v/ threads got me into the lore. My last boardgame run, I picked up Space Hulk because of the upcoming Deathwing game and liked it. When deciding on a tabletop war game, 40k came naturally, because of how saturated I was in the game already.
It's popular. People get exposed to it even if you aren't looking for it. The lore is fun and big enough to get involved in - but how would I know if other tabletop games/war games are as immersive, when I've never been exposed to them?
>>43882711
>popularity = appeal to the LCD
Ime, the LCD aren't generally swimming in disposable income, and prefer stealing to shopping, anyway. Overpriced niche luxuries like unassembled, ten dollar wound counters for an obscure British TTG aren't in the top 100 things looters would try to grab before the cops arrive, so I'ma say False.
Folks at the lower third of the bell curve would never find the hobby aspect of 40k appealing in the first place. Not as long as Obamacare pays for medical marijuana, anyway.
>>43882711
They're popular for the same reason as D&D. They got into the game early, became one of the biggest names, and have continued along ever since. Some of them have been putting more work into it than others, but generally they're all riding on Brand Recognition in a Niche Market.
>>43882711
That's just the anti-fans who want to be clever.
The obsession with trying to make everything you don't like seem like it's objectively bad is silly as hell.
I really don't enjoy 40k, I love the miniatures and silly fluff though, but I wouldn't say your statement is true.
MTG and 40K both basically created their own markets, and have a huge lead over their competitors in the one way it counts: Playerbase.
They are both still niche hobbies and most people looking to get into them want a game thy can find opponents for, or get recruited by their friends who already play it.
It's the same with
MTG
D&D
GW games
Lotsa others.
People who first get into the hobbies don't sit down and research something they know 0 about and try to find the sweetspot between solid mechanics and good fiction or anything. They've probably only really heard of the one game they're picking up, or know there are tons of options but pick the safest one so they'll have someone to play with.
Do I think that this is sad and that it's kind of a vicious circle where some games I don't like basically feed themselves, because they're popular because they have many players because they're popular because they have many players? Absolutely.
But trying to come off superior and slam some of the most popular games like they're unplayable or whatever is just retarded. It's enough that you vote with your wallet and don't play them, you're not required to also join a hate group.
>>43882739
>I'm salty and I try to pass it off as common sense
>>43883057
>>43883140
>>43884967
>>43886053
>>43886312
This. When you have as much of a following already in a really niche market, you almost become too big to fail. You don't have to have the best product, you have enough money to make whatever you do look reasonably good, and tons of people will keep using your product because it's way more convenient than getting into the others.
It doesn't matter if Game X blows 40k/magic/D&D out of the water from a mechanics and gameplay point of view, because most people will stick to the game their friends play or that they can find players for at the local store.
it's like I'm really on /v/
>>43882711
Very true.
>>43886750
So what's the best way for a new game to break into the market?
X-Wing managed it because Star Wars is a Thing in and of itself, also TFA hype. But how would a new property make itself popular?
>>43882711
>it's popular, so it must be bad
just how true is this?
>>43886895
Provide something that the top dogs aren't.
Unless you have massive resources for marketing and production, you're not going to compete, you're going to have to find your own niche.
There are entire companies that sort of live off the crumbs from GW's tables, and a fairly large hobbyist-tier market for products aimed at GW's discontinued games, and there are a lot of different rule-sets out there that are not specific to a product line or setting, but just aim to provide generic wargaming rules.
Dropzone commander, Dropfleet commander are filling the void left by battlefleet gothic and to a smaller extent Epic (epic is alive and well without GW's help, thankyouverymuch) Frostgrave cashed in on there not being a Mordheim any more, and Mantic basically started as cheaper off-brand GW but is now in an even better spot because GW abandoned massed formation fantasy combat in 28mm.
Those are basically your best options, either create an amazing rules set, make it look slick as fuck, send it out to some nerd youtubers or whatever to let them try it and review it once you've tested the fuck out of it yourself, and maybe a few people will buy it to play with their friends.
Lets be honest, GW hasn't had a good set of rules since Epic Armageddon, so people are open to trying new ones as long as they don't need new minis.
If you want to release a line of miniatures, find an already existing market and put out products for it. Generic 6, 10 and 15 mm miniatures that can be used for existing games is a good option since it's a much more realistic scale to produce minis for without years and years and years of experience, someone with medium level 3d modeling skills can knock out stuff that looks great when it's that tiny and you need to cut down on detail, and high-res 3d prints of the models can then be turned into rubber or silicone molds fairly cheaply.
But just putting out a new game and going "It's like warhammer 40k but better!" is just not realistic.
it explains the MtG art direction
>>43882711
>lowest common denominator
the fuck do you mean by that?English isn't my first language
>>43882711
I don't know, but I kinda want to fuck the shit out of that suit.
>>43887230
It isn't true when phrased that way, but in this hobby of ours, being Top Dog leads to stupid corporate (ie. sociopathic) behavior. The hobby is loaded with examples of designers who became so popular that they could do no wrong.
40k came along just as FASA was culling the Battletech fanbase by releasing Clan bullshit. BT had been the leader up to that point, but overconfidence on their part meant a bunch of people already conditioned to associate a tabletop game with a highly specific miniatures line went looking for something else to play. Along came Rogue Trader.
WotC/Hasborg was so confident that the D&D name was solid gold that they let a shitty balance-obsessed idiot write 4e, opening the way for Paizo to steal the top spot. Paizo is now facing the same problem as 5e slowly steals back some part of the fickle fanbase.
FFG plays a bit fast and loose because they know their stuff will sell. Still on the rise, they are already making visible and unapologetic mistakes. The near impenetrable rules for Death Angel are just one obvious example.
Back to FASA and its current licensees, they all manage to jizz out high word count, low clarity road apples because they all have rabid fanbases for Shadowrun, Battletech (still), Earthdawn, Clix of all flavors, and now DiceMasters.
Popular isn't inherently shitty, but it sure enables it.
>>43892984
It all just boils down to the really simple and understandable fact that most people care a lot less about playing the game that's the "best" on paper, and a lot more about playing the one they'll actually get to play, because their friends already have it and the local store has people who play it.
It's like asking someone why they go to the local pub where all their friends hang out when there's a much better one two towns away.
>>43890133
The term is borrowed from mathematics. In the way it's used, it refers to the least tasteful, least intelligent portion of a market.
>>43892984
Was pathfinder really more popular than 4e?
Outside of /tg/ I never got that impression
>>43893742
I don't think outside of /tg/ it was, but I could be totally wrong. All the local groups/individuals I knew of barely even acknowledged Pathfinder existing before swapping to 4E (Shame, really)
>>43882779
Fucking this.
However, a new franchise can rise off of astroturfing bad PR for an existing one, if it recently fucked up a lot, especially if they appeal to the whole updated nostalgia craze.
>>43893857
Locally 4e sat on shelves while PF flew out the door. sales figures in industry rags told the same story. After a release surge in those first few months 4e sales dropped like a rock forthe core line, bouncing only for the alt worlds (Gamma World, Eberron, and Dark Sun) and for the 4.5 class revision thingy. Once PF hit for real, after the year of open playtesting, it took over.
Why do you think WotC took two years off of any RPGs other than SW Epic, then took another two years after that went away tuning 5e?
>>43894532
That timing let PF rise, shine, and plateau. By the time the 5e was ready, WotC had managed to do to Paizo what Paizo had done to them.
