Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

marxlives wrote:

After playing Monsterpocalypse and see Warcaster rules shape up, I think Warmachine in Mk4 need to start emulating those in house IP systems. It puts alot of the math behind the dice instead of in front of them and would make the game more accessible to people. Right now Mk 1-3 use a modified d20 system and I think most of the new generation don't have the patience for it.

I keep mentioning this, but people tend to shoot it down.

I still agree though. Mk4 is Warcaster. When Mk4 Warmachine officially releases in a few years after Warcaster's release, they'll pull in anything successful or useful.

WM won't ditch Warcasters on the table like WC did, but I bet the scenarios will no longer focus on Caster Kill. They won't have Gates porting stuff in, but you can bet they'll have the army list and constantly bringing in more troops.

I also suspect they'll go with smaller WC style squads of 3-6 models. WM Warjacks will be more freeform and powerful like the WC jacks are. Not just for gameplay, but also because it incentivizes people to buy more warjack and unit kits than they need so they can mix and match parts. Unit attachments are much easier to balance if they're not fighting for a slot, and instead can be brought in situationally mid-battle.

It's also less of a balance issue if your game is centered around hard counters and deadly combos, when you allow players to bring things back onto the board as needed.

I doubt they'll bring over the card based random magic system either.

As for PP. They'll likely move a new starter set in house using the resin casting division. But with all the cheap armies floating out there, they won't focus on making new starters until the next edition. There'll probably be 1-2 more expansion book level releases in the meantime as we wait and see how Warcaster does.

marxlives wrote:After playing Monsterpocalypse and see Warcaster rules shape up, I think Warmachine in Mk4 need to start emulating those in house IP systems. It puts alot of the math behind the dice instead of in front of them and would make the game more accessible to people. Right now Mk 1-3 use a modified d20 system and I think most of the new generation don't have the patience for it.

You know, I have to admit that I like the "just add dice" mechanics of MonPoc. You get a set amount of boost dice, the white dice are a push-your-luck limited resource, and power dice must be earned in game - so a roll isn't purely random, but the actual "math" is just counting explosions. Fallout/Elder Scrolls have a similar system where they have unique dice added based on the equipment (this gun has higher accuracy, so add a green die, this one hits harder, add a red one). I greatly prefer this kind of system to GW's roll 20 dice and keep half of them or Infinity/WMH's let's add a half dozen modifiers together!

I haven't looked into Warcaster's rules yet, but if it uses the MonPoc dice, that's a huge plus for me. I notice the starter sets only include the white and red dice, no blue...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vertrucio wrote:
There'll probably be 1-2 more expansion book level releases in the meantime as we wait and see how Warcaster does.

The Infernals seem like the perfect ending point to old Warmachine before relaunching. Regardless of whether the next version is 3.5 or 4, an end times cataclysmic event is the perfect opportunity to make sweeping changes.

They are, but the Internal apocalypse just happened. Unless story-wise they're still in the middle of it.

What I suspect they may do story-wise is some kind of magical awakening, with the death of so many powerful warcasters and warlocks to the infernals, a large number of new warasters awaken. Just in time for players to create their own.

I give PP a lot of crap, and a lot of it they deserve, a more overall open game would help both sales and attachment.

 Vertrucio wrote:
What I suspect they may do story-wise is some kind of magical awakening, with the death of so many powerful warcasters and warlocks to the infernals, a large number of new warasters awaken. Just in time for players to create their own.

I'm not a fan of the creating your own warcaster idea. They are the main characters of Warmachine, and their struggles ultimately define the conflict and the identity of the game. Seeing the warcasters change and grow (and grow more powerful) gives Warmachine a feeling of momentum that something like 40k, which has characters that live for centuries unchanged, doesn't.

What they need to do, though, is reduce the level of power warcasters have, and spread it out through other game mechanics. A warcaster is a unit unto itself, but then to also get a feat and a spell list and it affects how you build your army AND you lose the game if you lose the warcaster is just too much to put on a single model. They kind of broke out the army building aspects to themes, and I feel like they could just drop feats and maybe make spells selection independent of the warcaster.

I also wouldn't be offended if they introduced "time periods", so chronologically earlier warcasters couldn't fight future versions of other warcasters. Also, it would open up new themes. Like they added Flame in the Darkness which is a Cygnar/Khador theme meant to battle against the Infernal threat - it wouldn't make sense to use Sorscha0 in it. I don't know, maybe something like this already exists?

Or even use the Warcasters and Warlocks to represent different levels of authority that they would use on the battlefield. Xerxis1 doesn't need to be riding a massive rhino in small battles, but it would have an impact for battles which cover a lot of space.

It's easy enough to have both character warcasters that are powerful. Meanwhile you can have created warcasters that aren't at the same level, but provide some level of customization.

The biggest problem with the current crop of warcasters is that, well, that's all you had. There was limited diversity, it was mostly white people for example. And if you weren't into any of those characters, well you're out of luck because PP was going to keep beating that steam powered dead horse again and again with not one, but 2-3 epic versions.

PP also needs to stop screwing with anyone interested in licensing their stuff. I worked at a place licensing PP IP and it was a damned nightmare. We get it, they were idiots with the Monpoc movie license, but frankly PP properties needs media that can be enjoyed without playing the game. To get that, you have to work with people outside your now small hibby studio.

Heck GW has some powerful tools there - they almost don't seem to care who makes PC games with their IP so long as whoever gets it clearly has a passion even if they don't have the skill/studio for a top end game. Even though they can secure companies like Relic and CA they've had no problem going for underdog small no-name companies as well.

GW's view now seems to be if the game works great then both sides benefit - the game company gets GW's IP to help market and GW gets increased brand exposure. If the game fails it vanishes and any bad review is focused on the developers of the game whilst GW doesn't really have it affect anything.


PP's game burned them partly because they funded it in-house. If they farm it out like GW are doing they might just restore some IP brand awareness on the PC game market for themselves.

The biggest issue with Tactics was just that they listened to the fanbase who demanded it basically just be the game they already had. The dynasty warriors style demo they showed originally had a lot more potential, IMO.

oof. Tactics was painful.

I honestly don't think there's a problem with a turn based game for warmachine. I just don't think they had the time to really make a good one. Which makes me think an action game wouldn't have been any better.

There's always a fan base that wants the miniature game experiences in videogame form with the exact same rules -- but I don't think the experience really translates well if you try to make it an exact copy (which Tactics wasn't). Even the D&D games of the past 20 or so years never followed all those rules to a tee.

Wargames can translate to PC easily. The whole concept of them is a closed rules system with fixed data points for reference. If anything PC games achieve what tabletop wargames try to achieve - the computer environment removes ambiguity (am I in line of sight). It even allows for way more complex rule sets to operate because the user can grasp the basics (eg shooting on a flank deals more damage than head on); whilst the AI can calculate a vast body of information in seconds . Letting you add things like angles of elevation; etc....Things that in a tabletop game can also be done, but which slow the game to a crawl.


The reason we don't tend to see PC versions purely translated of tabletop games is twofold

1) Tabletop game makers don't want to do it. In the end their money and their passion is in the physical product. They don't want the risk of the digital product replacing the physical.

2) Digital gives you so many more options that sometimes you can do things differently that are just impossible in the tabletop (or impractical). So why leave that on the floor and not use the digital to a better degree.



Compare it to Magic the Gathering (which translates perfectly to computer); where they held back for years because they knew it could replace the physical product very quickly.

DnD is a poor comparison because in RPG games the rules are not as strict; furthermore the entire game is filtered through a DM. Imagination, adapting, shifting things around, straight up changing rules; reacting to the players. All things that can also vary game to game etc.... There's so much variation and change and independent content addition that to translate the experience faithfully into digital would require a monumentally complex system to be developed. Most of the ways I can think of making it work more tend to end up with the game being support software - eg showing maps - rather than the core game.

I think the fear of PC replacing tabletop was reasonable at the time it cropped up, but now we can see that not only is there room for both but the PC simply cannot completely replace the tabletop. Because at the end of the day it just is not the same, and there is a significant body of customers that prefer doing it with real physical objects in-person. MTG Arena is going full-bore, but regular card sales still remain tremendously strong.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the fear of PC replacing tabletop was reasonable at the time it cropped up, but now we can see that not only is there room for both but the PC simply cannot completely replace the tabletop. Because at the end of the day it just is not the same, and there is a significant body of customers that prefer doing it with real physical objects in-person. MTG Arena is going full-bore, but regular card sales still remain tremendously strong.

I guess the risk might not necessarily be from the consumer switching en-mass, but a few aspects:

1) Your current generation doesn't shift, but your potential future generation "might" shift. Ergo (and MTG might well suffer more since you don't make or paint cards) people getting new new make their first steps in the computergame world rather than the physical. Which makes sense, games devalue fast over time. So you run a risk that your computer market grows, but not your physical. Considering how much easier it is to get games and get a varied player skill base online (because you're now dealing with a national/regional/world playerbase instead of the 10 locals) you could see players at all levels warming to online for the game side of things more and more; esp if their local scene is small. Which of course means if your local scene is small and you don't focus on growing it, then it won't grow.

2) Managers start to see potential greater profits from digital over physical. Design work might cost the same, but you don't have to produce stock; you don't have to ship it; run shops; run promotions; deal with overseas import problems; material shortages... Managers thinking purely of the cash might well start to think that the digital game could be made for less and also presents a bigger population and profit pool. It might not be an overnight change but a subtle one. The digital getting more funding, steadily dropping funding for more physical goods etc....
We've seen this with Konami who basically decided that making gambling machines was more profitable than games and shifted their focus in a massive way toward the former at the cost of the latter.

Now GW has a lot of passion for their game; but at the same time if they got hit with a series of physical product problems - new factory - power supply issues - shipping problems- massive physical store costs - rising store costs etc... Then whilst they can soak it for a while; the upper end might just see more gain shifting to an easier market that offers them potentially more profit.

Heck they might not even set out to change, but focus on the area that grows quicker in the hope they can then prop up the physical later with their expanded brand awareness.



Honestly this gets into a lot of theories and at the core of them is often the intentions of key players within the company as well as the spread of resources. Our biggest protection right now is that GW and PP lack internal game development staff. In the end all they have is an IP licence. So if they did go full digital they are totally reliant on outside contracts not internal staff - so re-designing from physical to digital product companies likely comes with enough costs to put both off the idea.

 Overread wrote:
Wargames can translate to PC easily. The whole concept of them is a closed rules system with fixed data points for reference. If anything PC games achieve what tabletop wargames try to achieve - the computer environment removes ambiguity (am I in line of sight). It even allows for way more complex rule sets to operate because the user can grasp the basics (eg shooting on a flank deals more damage than head on); whilst the AI can calculate a vast body of information in seconds . Letting you add things like angles of elevation; etc....Things that in a tabletop game can also be done, but which slow the game to a crawl.


The reason we don't tend to see PC versions purely translated of tabletop games is twofold

1) Tabletop game makers don't want to do it. In the end their money and their passion is in the physical product. They don't want the risk of the digital product replacing the physical.

2) Digital gives you so many more options that sometimes you can do things differently that are just impossible in the tabletop (or impractical). So why leave that on the floor and not use the digital to a better degree.

#2 is why I don't think they translate well as you're no longer limited that if you followed the rules 100% it be a bit boring/simplistic game and not taking advantage of what you can really do.

 LunarSol wrote:
The biggest issue with Tactics was just that they listened to the fanbase who demanded it basically just be the game they already had. The dynasty warriors style demo they showed originally had a lot more potential, IMO.

PP were the ones that squashed that original concept.

I would love to play a scrolling beat em up with the Warmachine Tactics assets. I liked looking at the game.

Shame I am not better at computers.

You can download Unity for free, and if you have time you can grind through all the tutorials online.

Im interested to see that it has been confirmed that the next wave of Riotquest which overlaps its releases int WM/H is to be another Kickstarter in the same vein as Warcaster.

Seems that PP intend to use Kickstarter for all preorders and initial retail orders going forward. Its a sensible and interesting way to do it but it going to put a lot of people off.

The online event on the 7th where they show us their plans for next year will be interesting to say the least.

Sunno wrote:
Im interested to see that it has been confirmed that the next wave of Riotquest which overlaps its releases int WM/H is to be another Kickstarter in the same vein as Warcaster.

Seems that PP intend to use Kickstarter for all preorders and initial retail orders going forward. Its a sensible and interesting way to do it but it going to put a lot of people off.

The online event on the 7th where they show us their plans for next year will be interesting to say the least.

Traditional distribution has been failing most of the industry in the last few years. PP is trying to establish other means of getting their models to stores. Steamforge has been doing something very similar lately. The big challenge is just that many stores still see Kickstarter as competition and resent its use more than even customers even if they're usually the first to tell you how terrible traditional distribution is lately.

 LunarSol wrote:

Sunno wrote:
Im interested to see that it has been confirmed that the next wave of Riotquest which overlaps its releases int WM/H is to be another Kickstarter in the same vein as Warcaster.

Seems that PP intend to use Kickstarter for all preorders and initial retail orders going forward. Its a sensible and interesting way to do it but it going to put a lot of people off.

The online event on the 7th where they show us their plans for next year will be interesting to say the least.

Traditional distribution has been failing most of the industry in the last few years. PP is trying to establish other means of getting their models to stores. Steamforge has been doing something very similar lately. The big challenge is just that many stores still see Kickstarter as competition and resent its use more than even customers even if they're usually the first to tell you how terrible traditional distribution is lately.

It must be working because i haven't seen anything from Steamforge in the past few years.....

It would have helped if PP had tried to maintain good relationships with retailers to help them in this. In the UK, with the exception of a few store, most dont want to know and are "done" with PP. The Kickstarter as a preorder mechanism is sensible but the messaging just isn't getting through or if it is, UK stores etc are not biting.

Sadly we have seen a lot of comments recently on this board and other places where store owners etc thought that PP were out of business. That's the level of engagement they have right now in some places.

I think the virtual lock and load presentation on the 7th will show the direction of travel that PP has set for themselves. We can all take a view as to whether that is viable for people or if PP are digging themselves a hole. Its a shame. Im a huge fanboy of WM/H as a game. Im just not that impressed and im fairly worried about the capacity and direction of the company right now. We shall see.

Sunno wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Sunno wrote:
Im interested to see that it has been confirmed that the next wave of Riotquest which overlaps its releases int WM/H is to be another Kickstarter in the same vein as Warcaster.

Seems that PP intend to use Kickstarter for all preorders and initial retail orders going forward. Its a sensible and interesting way to do it but it going to put a lot of people off.

The online event on the 7th where they show us their plans for next year will be interesting to say the least.

Traditional distribution has been failing most of the industry in the last few years. PP is trying to establish other means of getting their models to stores. Steamforge has been doing something very similar lately. The big challenge is just that many stores still see Kickstarter as competition and resent its use more than even customers even if they're usually the first to tell you how terrible traditional distribution is lately.

It must be working because i haven't seen anything from Steamforge in the past few years.....

It would have helped if PP had tried to maintain good relationships with retailers to help them in this. In the UK, with the exception of a few store, most dont want to know and are "done" with PP. The Kickstarter as a preorder mechanism is sensible but the messaging just isn't getting through or if it is, UK stores etc are not biting.

Sadly we have seen a lot of comments recently on this board and other places where store owners etc thought that PP were out of business. That's the level of engagement they have right now in some places.

I think the virtual lock and load presentation on the 7th will show the direction of travel that PP has set for themselves. We can all take a view as to whether that is viable for people or if PP are digging themselves a hole. Its a shame. Im a huge fanboy of WM/H as a game. Im just not that impressed and im fairly worried about the capacity and direction of the company right now. We shall see.

Truth. Our local FLGS with a large warmachine scene (til to this day) in California had a bad experience with PP. The owner hosts their tournaments out of gratitude and she did, in fact, go in on the retail level for the WC Kickstarter.

I would love nothing more than to play Warmachine again with my son. It got us started gaming together. But, not in its current state. As for how to fix that, I'm at a loss. I wager the company is as well.

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
I would love nothing more than to play Warmachine again with my son. It got us started gaming together. But, not in its current state. As for how to fix that, I'm at a loss. I wager the company is as well.

Focus on other games for a couple years until the hardcore player base has died off enough that they can relaunch with the changes they need without making things even more toxic?

 LunarSol wrote:

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
I would love nothing more than to play Warmachine again with my son. It got us started gaming together. But, not in its current state. As for how to fix that, I'm at a loss. I wager the company is as well.

Focus on other games for a couple years until the hardcore player base has died off enough that they can relaunch with the changes they need without making things even more toxic?

Obviously it's too early for to know how warcaster is doing but it seams Monsterpocalypse is doing well. Not sure how Riot Quest has been received I guess we'll see how the KSer this week goes. But if they can offset enough earnings to the other games then they could easy burn all of warmahordes down and relaunch with a MK4. I suspect one thing they're really wanting to do before then though is figure out a way to get the models into peoples hands as I'm sure they don't want to move to MK4 and have people who actually want to play it struggle to acquire stuff as there always will be an influx of old/ex players when a new edition has been announced.

I haven't seen any numbers to support the idea that MonPoc is going well sales-wise. But it's a good enough game to be successful from what I played of the original.

Thing is, they kind of alienated a bunch of their original MonPoc players by switching scales and also not making any kind of cards available to people who already had collections.

So instead of launching the game with a built in audience of players ready to promote it everywhere they went... they tried to nickel and dime their core audience to try to avoid people reusing the CMG stuff. The scale change could have gone over fine if it wasn't for that.

Warcaster's going to be a slow grow, but I think it'll grow nonetheless since it's specifically designed to be easier to grow.

FWIW, there's no scale change for MonPoc. All the models and maps work perfectly fine in the new game outside of the stuff that just doesn't have rules.

 Vertrucio wrote:
I haven't seen any numbers to support the idea that MonPoc is going well sales-wise.

It's doing well enough that they are releasing models every month, and they seem to generally sell pretty well (based on the stock numbers at Miniature Market). Also, at this point, they've started adding factions and models that weren't in 1.0 (the upcoming cold war-era Russian robots, for example). There's still a couple 1.0 monsters they haven't updated, but scope-wise, they've left 1.0 in the dust.

Thing is, they kind of alienated a bunch of their original MonPoc players by switching scales and also not making any kind of cards available to people who already had collections.

They didn't really switch scales - I mean, the MonPoc 1.0 models (particularly the buildings) are a little smaller due to the base needing to have all the model icons, but the base sizes are the same and you can easily use the same models (and even maps) in 2.0. The cards are easy enough to find online - PP publishes them before the models are even released. What PP did say was that at tournaments and in official settings, the 1.0 models can not be used, and that the 1.0 models would not be supported.

Where PP really alienated the 1.0 fans was the move from prepainted, cheapish collectible monsters to unpainted, unassembled, expensive hobby miniatures. All the conversations I had with people upset with 2.0 were 100% surrounding this fact. People who aren't into hobby miniatures are overly intimidated by them.

So instead of launching the game with a built in audience of players ready to promote it everywhere they went... they tried to nickel and dime their core audience to try to avoid people reusing the CMG stuff. The scale change could have gone over fine if it wasn't for that.

First of all, it had been 10 years(?) since MonPoc 1.0 - there wasn't a huge core audience that played it then and managed to keep their collection of models. They were the most hardcore players (and the loudest complainers), but my impression is that they were obsessed with the way the game used to be, and any and every change would've been met with open hostility (they took out dual monster power attacks! No radioactive hazards? Blasphemy!)

Second, there are a LOT of 1.0 models on the second hand market, dirt cheap (we're talking a few bucks for complete collections). These aren't players passionate about the game, and flooding the market with cheap, inferior alternatives is generally not a good thing. You can call it a cynical decision, but MocPoc's relaunch would've been a disaster if nobody bothered to buy it. Plus, it isn't like you are getting nothing for the money. The 2.0 sculpts are HUGE upgrades over those crappy, bendy rubber ones painted by a 6 year old in a Taiwan sweat shop.

You're going to have to explain the nickel and diming accusation too, especially considering that MonPoc 1.0 was a blind buy collectible game. You want to talk about nickel and diming? How about paying $15 and getting your third flying saucer when you still haven't gotten a single Cthulhu model? Or having to buy a box of packs to make sure you get all the models in your preferred faction? And that's before they started adding super rare buildings that only showed up once per case. Or convention exclusive hyper forms.

Exactly, MonPoc was 10 years ago. But collections are still out there. It's still an outdated business mindset to not capitalize on that audience when you don't already have it.

You wanna talk about PP forcing hobby miniatures on people? Well again, they provided no way for those gamers to bring their collections back into play without spending for expensive resin/metal miniatures just to get a few rules on cards.

So my argument still stands. The CMG model sucked, but forcing people to rebuy just to eke out profits on the short term is a boneheaded business move after already shooting themselves in the foot with a bad movie license. Imagine spending that time and money finding the model you want, then PP now forcing you to buy an expensive new model you'll never use.

I don't really care that I was wrong about scale, it was a small issue anyway.

That brings us to Mk4, PP will have to abandon a lot of those ways of thinking to keep alive without being bailed out by rich family members. Warcaster is a big step in the right direction, and I'm still predicting a lot of the ideas behind it get folded into Mk4. I think they'll announce Mk4 at the keynote tomorrow either.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Exactly, MonPoc was 10 years ago. But collections are still out there. It's still an outdated business mindset to not capitalize on that audience when you don't already have it.

You wanna talk about PP forcing hobby miniatures on people? Well again, they provided no way for those gamers to bring their collections back into play without spending for expensive resin/metal miniatures just to get a few rules on cards.

So I was curious as Sqorgar said PP made cards available. Didn't see anything on the official website but apparently they post them on Facebook and you can find collections of those images online and there's multiple fan base list builders.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MonPoc/comments/ba6fio/monsterpocalypse_card_galleries/


https://monsterroom.app/

https://monpoc.net/MonpocListBuilder/MonPocBuilder.html

This took all of 5 minutes to find by someone who's never played the game. So, ya, you don't need to spend any money to use your old stuff that has rules in 2.0.

 Vertrucio wrote:
So my argument still stands. The CMG model sucked, but forcing people to rebuy just to eke out profits on the short term is a boneheaded business move after already shooting themselves in the foot with a bad movie license. Imagine spending that time and money finding the model you want, then PP now forcing you to buy an expensive new model you'll never use.

I have two questions:
What was the bad movie license.
Also, how is PP forcing people to buy an expensive new model they'll never use? I mean, I own a few of those, but the manufacturer not only didn't force me, but appeared to go to some effort to discourage me (notably Hastur Cthulhu Wars model from Fenris Games). I mean, so they have the CMG pre-painted model and then they have to buy the hobby-version for some reason. Why wouldn't they use it? Also, why not just own things?

Nurglitch wrote:
What was the bad movie license.

PP sold the movie rights to MonPoc. Apparently, Tim Burton was attached to direct at some point, but rumor has it the studio lost interest when Pacific Rim came out and didn't do very well. Regardless, MonPoc 1.0 stopped updating - no news, no updates, no new models, not even an acknowledgement that it existed by PP - after the movie rights were sold, leading many (including myself) to believe that the movie deal was what killed the game. They had even previously shown images of a 6th set in progress that never came out.

Also, how is PP forcing people to buy an expensive new model they'll never use?... I mean, so they have the CMG pre-painted model and then they have to buy the hobby-version for some reason. Why wouldn't they use it? Also, why not just own things?

I think the implication is that the players would choose to keep using the prepaints and they would be buying the model just for the included stat card. Though honestly, if you put the two together, side by side, the prepaints are really terrible (the Terrasaurs are decent though). If someone were to choose the prepaint over the hobby model, it would be purely to choose mediocrity over having to do a bare minimum amount of painting.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
What was the bad movie license.

PP sold the movie rights to MonPoc. Apparently, Tim Burton was attached to direct at some point, but rumor has it the studio lost interest when Pacific Rim came out and didn't do very well. Regardless, MonPoc 1.0 stopped updating - no news, no updates, no new models, not even an acknowledgement that it existed by PP - after the movie rights were sold, leading many (including myself) to believe that the movie deal was what killed the game. They had even previously shown images of a 6th set in progress that never came out.

Also, how is PP forcing people to buy an expensive new model they'll never use?... I mean, so they have the CMG pre-painted model and then they have to buy the hobby-version for some reason. Why wouldn't they use it? Also, why not just own things?

I think the implication is that the players would choose to keep using the prepaints and they would be buying the model just for the included stat card. Though honestly, if you put the two together, side by side, the prepaints are really terrible (the Terrasaurs are decent though). If someone were to choose the prepaint over the hobby model, it would be purely to choose mediocrity over having to do a bare minimum amount of painting.

That's interesting; especially where Pacific Rim II eventually got made. That said, movie production isn't my area of expertise. Interesting point about the cards, although didn't someone point out they also gave them away via Fb and stuff? It's an interesting division between people that just want to play games and people that want to paint models.