Fantasy Flight Games is one of the most important companies in the hobby games industry. With footprints in board, card, miniature, and roleplaying games, and successful games in each, the company has an unusual span of products and a high rate of success. We recently had a chance for an extended chat with Fantasy Flight Game CEO Christian Petersen on the games market and his company’s place in it. Here is the full version, a small portion of which was recently printed in Internal Correspondence #84.

In Part 1, we talk about the history of the company, the state of the market, and Fantasy Flight’s board games. In Part 2, we talked about keeping games in stock, FFG’s LCGs, Star Wars, and 2014.

For our readers who may not be familiar with the history of the company, could you start out by telling us a little about how Fantasy Flight Games came about?
I started the company back in 1995, and my first instinct was to get into the business of importing and translating European comic books and graphic novels. That didn’t fare so well. If you recall, those heady days of 1995 were not exactly the best time to launch a little graphic novel company, not only because of the market, but because graphic novels were not all that big of a deal back then.

So that didn’t go very well for us. But the nice thing about starting in that area is that we learned how to make print manufacturing, and started to learn the tools of the trade as far as the various desktop platforms needed to do publishing. So with the comics taking a serious southward turn, I turned more to my own personal hobby, which was hobby games, and developed the first board game that we ever made, called Twilight Imperium.

Since then we have built and are trying to make the best hobby games for hobby game stores that we can.

You mentioned “we.” Were you the sole founder or did you have partners?
I was the sole founder. There was another partner very early on from Indonesia, and he decided to return to Indonesia after the first six or seven months. I was alone then when we started the games. Then I had a few people helping me, and I had a part time helper for a while; but I didn’t have my first full-time employee, Todd, until 1997.

Let’s bring it up to the present day. We’d like to get your impression of the overall condition of the hobby game market.
I’d say the overall condition of the hobby game market is excellent. Over the last 19 years that I’ve done this, I’ve seen various ebbs and flows in the marketplace, and various interests congregate in specific areas, but I think now we have a greater influx of interested customers from all over in addition to a very broad sphere of interest across many different genres, whether that be collectible card games, miniatures games, board games, or games that fall in between those overlapping categories. So I find that the marketplace is about as robust and as healthy as it’s ever been, and I’m encouraged by the diversity in the marketplace that makes me hope that there could be some duration to that health.

We’ve never seen anything quite like the recent run in the hobby market.
I know, it’s really amazing. What I’m really encouraged by is that when we’ve seen booms in the past they’ve been very specific to a certain game or certain category, whether it was d20 or Pokemon, or Magic in the middle of the mid-to-late 90s. Now we’re seeing this boom, but I think except for Magic, which is resurgent and powerful, you’ll struggle to see one particular line whose fading would necessarily break the momentum in the hobby.

Why do you think that is, that the market is so healthy right now?
If I thought there was one particular reason, I’d have some news for you! The reality is that there have been a number of different factors that have occurred over the years. First of all, the actual quality and the visual appearance and the sheer enjoyment of games that have come out has just improved year over year over year. And I’m really proud of our contribution to this, and we certainly have not been alone in making really great quality content.

There have also been two other important factors. About 10, 11 years ago, we had a very large influx of gamers, very young gamers, in the Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh! category, and I think a certain percentage of them, in their contact with gaming stores, or their parents’ contact with gaming stores, became aware of this other marketplace and that has created some of the groundswell we’re seeing.

Third, I think that the technology sector and the computer game generation has started to become aware that some of the roots of the computer games that are out there today really harken back to this hobby gaming and specialty gaming field. So what we’ve seen with the greater interest is that people who have emerged into the software hobby have really taken it upon themselves to also be interested in these alternative ways of playing games. One thing I noticed through the past decade was how big of an interest group for our games there was among software game developers. So I think the interest in software games has helped the notion of hobby games, as people bring gaming into their lives more.

So there’s been a wide variety of different motions that would have made people more interested in these games, and I’d like to think that we have some great product for them as they enter that field, and that in itself has caused more energy in the coverage and more energy in the ability for the mass market to be receptive to these niche hobby, specialty science fiction, fantasy, horror themes.

As you cover on your site, you know that some of the biggest television shows that we have now are really fantasy geek shows, whether it be Game of Thrones (see “’Game of Thrones’ Sets Viewer, Pirate Records”) or The Walking Dead (see “’The Walking Dead’ Round-Up”) and so on. And that has helped us, inured this greater coverage.

We see Wil Wheaton’s TableTop show making some significant inroads, and attracting new audiences, by being able to profile games in a way that I certainly, in my experience, had never seen before in terms of an effect on sales based on press coverage (see “The ‘TableTop’ Bump”).

It’s definitely a unique thing in our history also. You mentioned the connection with interest in video games feeding back into their origins in tabletop games. Some companies are very explicitly mining that connection by developing apps that tie to their tabletop games. Where is Fantasy Flight in that world?
Well, there are a couple of types of apps you can do that tie to tabletop games. We’ve done some outright game conversions into the digital field. That’s an area we’re very cautious about, but that we’re still actively exploring to see how we can do this in the best, most effective way.

The other type of apps are the types that digitally support your tabletop games, and we’ve been fairly active in those and are still trying to discover the best ways to achieve a nice balance there. For example, we’ve done die rolling apps with custom dice and functionalities for our Star Wars games. We’ve done some support apps for our Arkham Horror line.

So there are two different fields here: there are tool set apps, which can help you better enjoy your physical games, and then there are the actual digital conversions.

Our most successful digital conversion (and we’ve only done two), is our Elder Sign: Omens app, which harkens back to our Elder Sign physical game. We’ve been very pleased with the reception of that and continue to use this approach, and we feel it has really helped the visibility and the actual sales of the physical game. So there’s a real awakening to that for us that these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I know you can have a successful software title and actually drive sales and interest back into the physical game.

We also think that’s something that a company like Days of Wonder, who has done some great apps, has seen as their digital side, for example with Ticket to Ride, has really grown their audience and has driven more activity back into the hobby market (see “15 Million Online ‘TTR’ Games”).

Can we drill down a little bit into the different categories that Fantasy Flight is active in? In your board game space, you have a wide range of families of games, with core games and expansions and support products, and the families move on and off our bestseller chart depending on the season and what releases are happening. So overall it’s hard to tell; what’s your best-selling board game family?
Well, we have a number of families that we’re very, very pleased with. I think the most famous would be the Arkham Horror series of board games, and we just launched a major new title for that, a sister game to Arkham Horror, called Eldritch Horror. That’s done very well for us.

Another important board game for us is the Game of Thrones board game, which is a game we did a second edition of. Our first edition sold very, very well back in the last decade; but of course now, borne on the increased popularity of that brand, and on what we think, not self-servingly I hope, is a pretty good game, it really turned out be a huge success for us.

Some other series of games that are workhorses for us, that we’re really proud of, include the Battlestar Galactica game, which despite that brand being off the air for a couple years, continues to be completely amazing for us.

Some of the classics we have brought back; Cosmic Encounter is a very strong performing line for us.

There’s a great number of other ones, there are probably obvious ones that aren’t coming to mind, but those are some titles that your retail readers will know well.

Fantasy Flight Games is one of the most important companies in the hobby games industry. With footprints in board, card, miniature, and roleplaying games, and successful games in each, the company has an unusual span of products and a high rate of success. We recently had a chance for an extended chat with Fantasy Flight Game CEO Christian Petersen on the games market and his company’s place in it. Here is the full version, a small portion of which was recently printed in Internal Correspondence #84.

In Part 2, we talk about keeping games in stock, FFG’s LCGs, Star Wars, and 2014. In Part 1, we talked about the history of the company, the state of the market, and Fantasy Flight’s board games.

As we interview retailers and distributors about your games, there seems to be a pattern where a game will go out of stock, demand will build up, and then you’ll bring it back a couple of months later and ship additional product. Is that a strategy of yours to let them go out of stock to build demand and then bring them back, so you can get faster sales on the reprints?
Well, I don’t think it’s necessarily a strategy of ours. Obviously one of the biggest challenges that any kind of publisher has is to manage the right balance between inventory and sales. The thing that is difficult for us is that we manufacture most of our games overseas and we have fairly long lead times. I would say our restock lead time is typically four to five months. So we tend to bring in our games in fairly large quantities and we tend to gauge how these games do relatively carefully, but we have been fortunate enough that some games just take off much faster than certainly we, or any of the initial stocking on the retail side, would have expected.

So we do have games that from time to time will go out of stock. When we have a game go out of stock, we of course believe the actual marketplace itself should have a two to three month supply. Of course, some retailers will have run out of stock, particularly if they stock very narrowly, but we believe in a three tier system of having a buffer of three or four months of stock, and then we try to restock as soon as we can.

But we have a large library of products. We bring in our stuff in very decent amounts, and we will occasionally go out of stock on products for a couple of months. I think it has more to do with the natural flow of things rather than a predetermined actual strategy. Does that make sense?

Then the question that follows is, if it’s not intentional, why does it happen so often?
The way we gauge our inventories (because, of course, we have to be careful of what kind of investments we put in inventories) is that we gauge demand, and then we gauge what we need to do to properly supply the marketplace. With our line of products and with the number of products that go in and out, I think it’s just natural that there will be, at any one time, a number of products that will be out and then come back. I don’t think it’s something that is particularly problematic.

So you don’t think that it hurts sales and that the demand goes away, that the demand is still there when it comes back in stock?
There is that. I think it’s very important that we have a very good, serious partnership when it comes to our distribution and in our retail chain. Just because we go out of stock doesn’t necessarily mean that the marketplace is out of stock, right?

We do rely on our distributors and retailers to have some months worth of supply so we can gauge when we should bring something back in stock. But certainly, these things have to be made in large bulk, they take a long time to make, so we have to make our investments quite a bit ahead of time, and reprints take four or five months. So if there are spikes in demand, or there is less in the marketplace than maybe there should be then there will be periods where stuff is out of stock.

We often hear this, but keep in mind the number of active titles we have, so it is something that may be seen as more of a problem than it actually is on a mathematical basis. Certainly I understand some of the emotions that can run when you get that one game that they have particular demand for, and we, of course, are out.

There are other examples where we simply cannot make enough and I think specifically when it comes to a game like X-Wing, which goes out of stock regularly, the factories we have working on that game simply are working on them as fast as they can.

We had to make a very specific choice: do we want to limit the amount of supply we put out there or do we want to reduce the quality of the product over the short term? And we decided to keep the product quality as high as we could, and unfortunately that leaves some demand in the marketplace. We have worked really hard the last year and a half to expand our factory capacity to output more, but there may be times where we’re literally making things as fast as we can , whether that’s tool capacity or simply factory capacity to do more, particularly with painted product, to do accurate and nice paint jobs on these things.

How many games do you have in your catalog?
I believe the number of active SKUs that we carry right now across all of the different lines is somewhere in the range of 800 to 900.

What was your annual output in terms of new products in 2013, and what do you expect in 2014?
In terms of new product, we released somewhere around 220 new SKUs last year, we expect that to be around 260 new SKUs this year. In terms of actual productions that we hit every year, we just had a conservative estimate that we’ll start about 1,200 different productions in 2015. We actually start our factory up on a new production run five times a day so our factories are quite, quite active.

So once again, the notion that we print sparsely is maybe overstated, but that is certainly the challenge of keeping everything in stock at all time. It can be something of a challenge for us. But I hope you can also understand it is something that we have to treat very carefully.

We wanted to ask about your card games, the LCG format. You have a number of licensed and house brand titles that you do in that format. You started working in that format at a time when the collectible card game market was very unfriendly to new launches. It seems to have loosened up a little now. Are you still happy with that LCG format as a way of getting card games out there, or are you thinking about any collectible card games in the future?
We are super thrilled with the LCG format. It is probably the biggest shining star in our overall family of products. We really believe very strongly in the various strengths that format has to offer. I think you have had some articles about that in the past, and [SVP--Communications] Steve [Horvath] is a good evangelist for it.

It is a rapidly growing format; LCGs is our second largest category right now and it may be our biggest in a year or two; we’re very happy with it. We believe it’s a way for people to enjoy this kind of constructed card games and be able to enjoy multiple games; and we believe from a pure business model perspective it’s a fair and awesome model to put out there.

Whether we’ll ever do a collectible game again, we have no plans right now to do one. I can’t say we’ll never do one, but we’ve certainly made the non-collectible, fixed format a staple of ours. I don’t have much insight into where collectibles are right now; we’re certainly happy that Magic is as strong as it is, to keep our industry healthy. I have not seen a lot of new entrants into the game market, except for My Little Pony. I don’t have much visibility into how that’s doing other than the online marketing talk.

Fantasy Flight has had a number of licensed games, and a couple of years ago, you got maybe the granddaddy of them all in Star Wars, which you’re now doing in three different formats (minis, RPGs and LCGs). Can you talk about what it’s like to work on that property? Specifically what’s it like in terms of continuity, and is that changing with all the new plans now that they have for future movies and TV shows and so forth?
What’s it like to work on what you called the ‘granddaddy?’ I’m of the generation that grew up as a kid with Star Wars and the original trilogy, the various Kenner action figures, and so on; it’s really a gratifying thing for me personally to be able to put a lot of creativity and hard work and get some great output out of that category, to make our mark in the Star Wars universe a little bit.

We’re all excited, gratified and honored to be doing it.

In terms of continuity, we’ve been very happy to work with Lucasfilm; frankly they are a great licensor (and I don’t say that because I have to). In terms of the most recent changes that they’ve been talking about, they have yet to really hit any of the stuff that we’re doing, so I can’t speak to what kind of changes that it’s going to make. It’s my understanding that it’s not going to be anything that is as dramatic and as retcon-heavy as many may think. But it is something that we’re still studying. In particular, we’ve created a lot of content and written material for the role playing games, so that’s the department that’s most interested in seeing what’s going to go on there.

One of the things we were interested in was that the RPG is set in the Outer Rim, and now this new animated show, Star Wars Rebels, is going to be set there. That seemed interesting that they were exploring that part of the universe.
Yes. We have not been made aware that there’s anything that has been a problem with our Edge of the Empire roleplaying game. That is something we actually worked with them on very, very recently. We think that is still very much valid. But like I said, we don’t really know where they’re going with the forward-looking continuity until they start landing on some of their plans, and they’re ready to start talking about some of those storylines and decisions that they’re making vis-a-vis the movies.

We’re all waiting anxiously to find out what they’re going to be doing there.

What are you most excited about for 2014 at Fantasy Flight?
The problem that I have for 2014 is that we aren’t ready to announce them yet. All I can say is 2014 is going to be my favorite year of all our Star Wars content that we’ve put out; and there’s some new and exciting stuff in that category coming. I hope that will be enough for you.

Do you expect an up year in 2014? What do you see in terms of the overall market for 2014?
In some ways, 2013 was a very careful year for us. With a few exceptions, our teams did not work on a large range of new major releases. We have some major ones we’ve been working on for a while, but we have spent a great deal of our energy, and a large percentage of our teams working all through 2013 and into 2014, on a series of brand new games. So what you’ll see coming out in 2014 from FFG is a much more significant impact on new games and new lines than those that we had in 2013. Specifically, you’ll see some very exciting momentum behind what we’re doing with X-Wing.

We expect 2014 to be an up year for us, and I say with crossed fingers that we have been so fortunate in the market and with our fans pretty much nonstop for the last 10 years, so I hope that will continue.

weeble1000 wrote:
It means FFG doesn't need GW, doesn't care about GW, and will happily let other products eclipse GW.

"In terms of continuity, we’ve been very happy to work with Lucasfilm; frankly they are a great licensor (and I don’t say that because I have to)."

In other words, GW is a terrible licensor and I'm much happier working with Star Wars, and making a lot more money. In fact, Star Wars is a much better license than LoTR, so, Hey GW, go feth yourselves! Oh, and a little salt in the wound for you, our LoTR LCG is doing GREAT!

 notprop wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
It means FFG doesn't need GW, doesn't care about GW, and will happily let other products eclipse GW.

"In terms of continuity, we’ve been very happy to work with Lucasfilm; frankly they are a great licensor (and I don’t say that because I have to)."

In other words, GW is a terrible licensor and I'm much happier working with Star Wars, and making a lot more money. In fact, Star Wars is a much better license than LoTR, so, Hey GW, go feth yourselves! Oh, and a little salt in the wound for you, our LoTR LCG is doing GREAT!

I think you read far to much into it.

Also GW don't licence LotRs, it's not theirs to licence out.

 agnosto wrote:
I'm sure a GW white knight will be along presently to tell us how the surge in hobby sales over the past couple of years has nothing to do with GW and their loss of market share...

Edit:

To be fair the interviewer just asked about Star Wars specifically but if FFG was making money hand over fist with the GW IP, I'm sure he would have thrown in a comment about them....

....either that or he didn't mention them because he's afraid of receiving a C&D..

weeble1000 wrote:
The point is that FFG has acquired a license that GW is terrified of: Star Wars. Star Wars not only dwarfs the profit-fueling power of GW's LoTR license and buries the needle compared to Warhammer 40K, but FFG also has a license to LoTR and is producing more successful products with that license than GW is.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Why would GW be terrified of SW of all things? SW isn't exactly something new, and the games FFG produce don't compete directly (as in the same genre) as GW's own miniature games.

PhantomViper wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Why would GW be terrified of SW of all things? SW isn't exactly something new, and the games FFG produce don't compete directly (as in the same genre) as GW's own miniature games.

X-Wing would like to have a word about that assertion of yours. Or do you think that X-Wing is anything other than a miniature wargame?

 cincydooley wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Why would GW be terrified of SW of all things? SW isn't exactly something new, and the games FFG produce don't compete directly (as in the same genre) as GW's own miniature games.

X-Wing would like to have a word about that assertion of yours. Or do you think that X-Wing is anything other than a miniature wargame?

Sure? But I'd agree that it doesn't directly compete with anything GW is offering presently. I mean, there's pretty large difference between Arial dogfighting and mass battle boots on the ground Wargaming.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
The point is that FFG has acquired a license that GW is terrified of: Star Wars. Star Wars not only dwarfs the profit-fueling power of GW's LoTR license and buries the needle compared to Warhammer 40K, but FFG also has a license to LoTR and is producing more successful products with that license than GW is.

Why would GW be terrified of SW of all things? SW isn't exactly something new, and the games FFG produce don't compete directly (as in the same genre) as GW's own miniature games.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW in the 80s to mid 90s was itself a hobby game company fairly like FFG, publishing a range of board games and RPGs as well as tabletop rules.

 judgedoug wrote:
Prediction
FFG will release a 28mm Star Wars miniatures game which will dominate sales

 judgedoug wrote:
Prediction
FFG will release a 28mm Star Wars miniatures game which will dominate sales

Prediction 2
...and within 5 years FFG will own a controlling share of Games Workshop.

 Manchu wrote:
28mm SW would have a huge impact on miniatures gaming, I suspect much more so than X-Wing (which is more of a board game). Although I have heard explanations as to why FFG has not done this just yet, it's harder to understand why they still haven't done it with each passing year of greater success with X-Wing. Perhaps it will be the successor to X-Wing?

PhantomViper wrote:


With that line of thinking then the only game that is a competition to 40k is Warpath since they are the only ones that also do futuristic mass battle boots on the ground in 28mm... That is kind of a simplistic way to see the miniature wargaming hobby.

 cincydooley wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


With that line of thinking then the only game that is a competition to 40k is Warpath since they are the only ones that also do futuristic mass battle boots on the ground in 28mm... That is kind of a simplistic way to see the miniature wargaming hobby.

Well, no.

Any other skirmish game with 28mm models is going to compete with GW products. Warpath, infinity, etc are more direct competitors to 40k while Warmahordes sits somewhere in between 40k and Fantasy, but is still a pretty direct competition. I'd probably argue that Flames of War is not a direct competition to any GW product, either, despite having more similarities than X-wing.

X-Wing is not a direct competition. The only similarities is that they involve miniatures in dice. Does it pull some market share as people are buying 2 x wings Instead of a 5 man 40k box? Sure. But the products aren't direct competition. Coke and Pepsi are. Coke and Pabst blue ribbon, while both beverages, are not.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But you can take that to the extreme. If I spent $30 on take-out, then that's $30 I didn't spend on GW, so technically GW has lost market share to Pizza Hut (wat?).

That's absurd, I know, but going back to my original point and the whole reason we got started down this tangent: The interviewer or the CEO not mentioning GW products isn't as meaningful as some people are claiming. The interview was about the successes of FFG as a company, so they talk about their own brands plus their biggest license deals (of which Star Wars is obviously the biggest).

"He didn't mention GW, therefore XYZ..." just seems like people are looking for a free kick at GW where there is none.

The interview was about the successes of FFG as a company

 cincydooley wrote:
In that regard, it really doesn't infringe upon my hobby budget for 40k at all.

 judgedoug wrote:
Prediction
FFG will release a 28mm Star Wars miniatures game which will dominate sales

 BrookM wrote:
I don't see FFG having another go at that after getting rid of Dust. They should stick to pre-painted stuff, board games and RPG's.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely Rackham must take some of the blame for the failure of AT-43. I don't see why an distributor would cease to sell a game that was selling well, and if they did, wouldn't another distributor take it up?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They seem to be doing all right with X Wing.

weeble1000 wrote:
It means FFG doesn't need GW, doesn't care about GW, and will happily let other products eclipse GW.

"In terms of continuity, we’ve been very happy to work with Lucasfilm; frankly they are a great licensor (and I don’t say that because I have to)."

In other words, GW is a terrible licensor and I'm much happier working with Star Wars, and making a lot more money. In fact, Star Wars is a much better license than LoTR, so, Hey GW, go feth yourselves! Oh, and a little salt in the wound for you, our LoTR LCG is doing GREAT!

 agnosto wrote:
I thought it was primarily a discussion of how they're competing products.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
I thought it was primarily a discussion of how they're competing products.

It was primarily a discussion about how Chris Petersen talking about their Star Wars license in an interview was somehow indicative of FFG not caring about GW. A logical leap if ever there was one.

 Manchu wrote:
FFG certainly cares about its GW licenses. Why would they not? I think the question is, between SW and GW, which would they choose if they had to?

 judgedoug wrote:
Prediction
FFG will release a 28mm Star Wars miniatures game which will dominate sales

Prediction 2
...and within 5 years FFG will own a controlling share of Games Workshop.

 Manchu wrote:
I'm more interested in what producing 28mm SW miniatures, fully assembled and painted or otherwise, would mean for FFG's relationship with GW. I cannot imagine GW could tolerate that because it obviously would hurt GW very badly. Given FFG has committed itself to a second edition of Dark Heresy, I don't think we'll see a line of 28mm SW miniatures from FFG anytime soon.

Which is a shame. FFG is doing much more exciting things with its SW products than its GW-licensed products. For example, FFG will never be able to release miniatures for GW IPs (as with Relic).

PhantomViper wrote:
I disagree. FFG had Dust: Tactics/Warfare which was also in direct competition with GW and they also had their current GW licensing at the same time. So we already have that precedent set.

 cincydooley wrote:
Is FFG even allowed to make 28mm models per their license? For some reason I think they can't as part of their agreement.

 Manchu wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
I disagree. FFG had Dust: Tactics/Warfare which was also in direct competition with GW and they also had their current GW licensing at the same time. So we already have that precedent set.

As you concede, a relatively obscure alternate history miniatures game like DUST is hardly comparable with SW. Why even bring it up?

 cincydooley wrote:
Is FFG even allowed to make 28mm models per their license? For some reason I think they can't as part of their agreement.

The press release would seem to indicate they can.

I guess I don't see where you're drawing the conclusion that the FFG-GW partnership is "winding down". Especially with conquest on the horizon, which is going to sell a ton of copies.

PhantomViper wrote:
Because it seems to negate the supposition that FFG as any clause in its GW licensing contract that prohibits them to produce products that compete directly with GW (in other licenses).

PhantomViper wrote:
The only evidence of any "winding down" that I see personally is the recent cancelling by FFG of the Warhammer LCG.

 Manchu wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Because it seems to negate the supposition that FFG as any clause in its GW licensing contract that prohibits them to produce products that compete directly with GW (in other licenses).

A supposition no one has made.

 cincydooley wrote:
I guess I don't see where you're drawing the conclusion that the FFG-GW partnership is "winding down". Especially with conquest on the horizon, which is going to sell a ton of copies.

 Manchu wrote:

As judgedoug mentioned above, the idea of FFG (or a company like FFG) owning GW sometime in the future is not unbelievable. Personally, I look forward to it.

Backfire wrote:
GW had the chance to buy the license and didn't take it. If they had thought it was a sure-fire way to make money, I'm sure they would have.

Backfire wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

As judgedoug mentioned above, the idea of FFG (or a company like FFG) owning GW sometime in the future is not unbelievable. Personally, I look forward to it.

Also, lots of people seem to be sure that 28mm Star Wars game is elephant in the room which is going to kill 40k. I don't think so. Sure, it would create buzz and probably be a success for at least some time, but in long term, it would run into same problem as LOTR: non-gaming universe is not really best suited for gaming fiction, and what looks good on a movie screen does not necessarily translate into visually impressive force on tabletop. GW had the chance to buy the license and didn't take it. If they had thought it was a sure-fire way to make money, I'm sure they would have.

Saldiven wrote:
The only thing that really surprises me is why nobody has come along and tried to make a Star Wars table-top wargame prior to now.

 Manchu wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
The only thing that really surprises me is why nobody has come along and tried to make a Star Wars table-top wargame prior to now.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Miniatures_Battles

Wrong time and place, if you ask me.

Mr.Church13 wrote:
Humm I wonder just what a 15mm AT-AT would look like on a table? Troops would have to be silly tiny though.

Mr.Church13 wrote:
Humm I wonder just what a 15mm AT-AT would look like on a table? Troops would have to be silly tiny though.

 azreal13 wrote:

Mr.Church13 wrote:
Humm I wonder just what a 15mm AT-AT would look like on a table? Troops would have to be silly tiny though.

Well, erm, no, they'd be 15mm!

 azreal13 wrote:
I'd argue the SW franchise would be better represented by a 10-15mm game, a 28mm AT-AT would be a tough prospect to produce, and even tougher to pull off at an affordable price.

Moot point though, as I think a SW tabletop wargame would take a huge bite out of GW's market right now, unless it was a total failure on several counts (ie atrocious models, ludicrous pricing and poor rules - they can probably get away with 2 out of 3 if 40K right now is any example.)

 Chute82 wrote:
Do you really believe there is a demand for a star wars tabletop war-game? I just don't see it, maybe other do. They tried before and it failed.

 Chute82 wrote:
Do you really believe there is a demand for a star wars tabletop war-game? I just don't see it, maybe other do. They tried before and it failed.

Saldiven wrote:

From what I just read online, the game existed for almost 10 years before the license ended.

 cincydooley wrote:

And Weeble.... I have to be honest...I don't know that many of the properties you listed are really that hot right now save Game of Thrones. Conan? No. Gears of War? No (and I love the board game). Battlestar? No, though I'd love to see a Battlestar X-Wing game. I guess Cthulu is always popular as a whole, but it isn't in my area at all, and I personally think it's a lame property. I guess I think you're really underestimating how much people are invested in the 40k Universe. As much as Star Trek or Star Wars? Naw, I don't think so. But moreso than Conan or Gears or Battlestar, for sure.

weeble1000 wrote:

Warhammer and Warhammer 40K RPGs and games may have been a comparatively big deal next to FFG's onece off Battlestar and Gears of War board games, and maybe even next to its Arkham series of board games. But today FFG has LotR, Game of Thrones, and Star Wars licenses, and is spinning out products from those licenses in multiple categories in which the GW licensed products merely co-exist. Conquest is simply another FFG LCG alongside similar products from more popular, more powerful, and more relevant brands. FFG's 40K RPGs now sit next to FFG's Star Wars RPGs, which any way you slice it have a broader appeal.

Saldiven wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I'd argue the SW franchise would be better represented by a 10-15mm game, a 28mm AT-AT would be a tough prospect to produce, and even tougher to pull off at an affordable price.

Moot point though, as I think a SW tabletop wargame would take a huge bite out of GW's market right now, unless it was a total failure on several counts (ie atrocious models, ludicrous pricing and poor rules - they can probably get away with 2 out of 3 if 40K right now is any example.)

Assuming wookipedia and the like are correct on their dimensions, at 28mm, an AT-AT would be a hair under 12" tall and a bit under 11" from nose to tail.

That's not really all that much bigger that some of the larger GW models.

 Chute82 wrote:
Do you really believe there is a demand for a star wars tabletop war-game? I just don't see it, maybe other do. They tried before and it failed.

Backfire wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Warhammer and Warhammer 40K RPGs and games may have been a comparatively big deal next to FFG's onece off Battlestar and Gears of War board games, and maybe even next to its Arkham series of board games. But today FFG has LotR, Game of Thrones, and Star Wars licenses, and is spinning out products from those licenses in multiple categories in which the GW licensed products merely co-exist. Conquest is simply another FFG LCG alongside similar products from more popular, more powerful, and more relevant brands. FFG's 40K RPGs now sit next to FFG's Star Wars RPGs, which any way you slice it have a broader appeal.

Yes...so?

So FFG has tons of brands and aren't 100% dependant on GW licenses (some of which have been milked rather dry, such as RPG's. There is only so much the market can take, so it's hardly huge big shock if they receive less attention presently). Good for them. I'm still not sure how this supposedly spells doom on Games Workshop.

weeble1000 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Warhammer and Warhammer 40K RPGs and games may have been a comparatively big deal next to FFG's onece off Battlestar and Gears of War board games, and maybe even next to its Arkham series of board games. But today FFG has LotR, Game of Thrones, and Star Wars licenses, and is spinning out products from those licenses in multiple categories in which the GW licensed products merely co-exist. Conquest is simply another FFG LCG alongside similar products from more popular, more powerful, and more relevant brands. FFG's 40K RPGs now sit next to FFG's Star Wars RPGs, which any way you slice it have a broader appeal.

Yes...so?

So FFG has tons of brands and aren't 100% dependant on GW licenses (some of which have been milked rather dry, such as RPG's. There is only so much the market can take, so it's hardly huge big shock if they receive less attention presently). Good for them. I'm still not sure how this supposedly spells doom on Games Workshop.

When did I ever say that this spells doom on GW? All I said was that FFG probably isn't as reliant on GW as it was in years past and that FFG probably prefers it this way because dealing with GW is a fething nightmare.

 cincydooley wrote:
Wait no. It was, "go feth yourselves GW" says Chris Peterson.

weeble1000 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Wait no. It was, "go feth yourselves GW" says Chris Peterson.

Yea. Exactly. A humorously hyperbolic representation of increasing competitiveness between two major companies in the little niche market we all enjoy so well.

Forgive me for putting inappropriate words in Chris Peterson's mouth. You can tell him I'm sorry the next time you speak with him because I think it would make him feel so much better.

weeble1000 wrote:

Again, and again, all one has to do is appreciate the context of the present discussion. This all started when I thought it was amusing how the FFG CEO mentioned that Lucasfilm is a good licensor and stressed that he isn't obligated to say so. I felt that this was amusing in the context of FFG's long licencee relationship with GW, which it would be reasonable to speculate was never peachy in the first place and which has probably become politely volatile of late. Or not so politely. It's not like Allan Merrett hates berating people.

I amused myself by imagining that the subtext of the CEO's comment was a subtle F-you aimed at GW, which produced a slew of discussion surrounding whether FFG is better off with its Star Wars license than its GW license.

Nobody said GW is doomed or is dying or that FFG is going to take over GW next year. But some people in this thread do seem to think that X-Wing: The Miniatures Game doesn't compete directly with other table top miniatures wargames,

that it isn't a wildly successful product for FFG, and that there's no reason GW would or should be concerned about a Star Wars license in the hands of one of its largest and most competent competitors.
.

And if you look at Google Trends, Warhammer 40,000 is pretty well on par with both BSG and GoW.

 Manchu wrote:
I agree that not mentioning (or being asked about) GW in that interview is probably significant.

weeble1000 wrote:
But FFG is clearly winding down its involvement with GW.

 Manchu wrote:
And RPG.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But you can take that to the extreme. If I spent $30 on take-out, then that's $30 I didn't spend on GW, so technically GW has lost market share to Pizza Hut (wat?).

That's absurd, I know, but going back to my original point and the whole reason we got started down this tangent: The interviewer or the CEO not mentioning GW products isn't as meaningful as some people are claiming. The interview was about the successes of FFG as a company, so they talk about their own brands plus their biggest license deals (of which Star Wars is obviously the biggest).

"He didn't mention GW, therefore XYZ..." just seems like people are looking for a free kick at GW where there is none.

 azreal13 wrote:
I'd argue the SW franchise would be better represented by a 10-15mm game, a 28mm AT-AT would be a tough prospect to produce, and even tougher to pull off at an affordable price.

weeble1000 wrote:

When did I ever say that this spells doom on GW? All I said was that FFG probably isn't as reliant on GW as it was in years past and that FFG probably prefers it this way because dealing with GW is a fething nightmare.

weeble1000 wrote:

Again, and again, all one has to do is appreciate the context of the present discussion. This all started when I thought it was amusing how the FFG CEO mentioned that Lucasfilm is a good licensor and stressed that he isn't obligated to say so. I felt that this was amusing in the context of FFG's long licencee relationship with GW, which it would be reasonable to speculate was never peachy in the first place and which has probably become politely volatile of late.

weeble1000 wrote:

Nobody said GW is doomed or is dying or that FFG is going to take over GW next year. But some people in this thread do seem to think that X-Wing: The Miniatures Game doesn't compete directly with other table top miniatures wargames, that it isn't a wildly successful product for FFG, and that there's no reason GW would or should be concerned about a Star Wars license in the hands of one of its largest and most competent competitors.

If you think any of those things, I vehemently disagree with you.

 Manchu wrote:

Backfire wrote:
GW had the chance to buy the license and didn't take it. If they had thought it was a sure-fire way to make money, I'm sure they would have.

Nothing about how GW actually does business supports that claim.

Backfire wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

When did I ever say that this spells doom on GW? All I said was that FFG probably isn't as reliant on GW as it was in years past and that FFG probably prefers it this way because dealing with GW is a fething nightmare.

Is it? Has FFG made a statement to that effect?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But you can take that to the extreme. If I spent $30 on take-out, then that's $30 I didn't spend on GW, so technically GW has lost market share to Pizza Hut (wat?).

That's absurd, I know, but going back to my original point and the whole reason we got started down this tangent: The interviewer or the CEO not mentioning GW products isn't as meaningful as some people are claiming. The interview was about the successes of FFG as a company, so they talk about their own brands plus their biggest license deals (of which Star Wars is obviously the biggest).

"He didn't mention GW, therefore XYZ..." just seems like people are looking for a free kick at GW where there is none.

 Pacific wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:
Do you really believe there is a demand for a star wars tabletop war-game? I just don't see it, maybe other do. They tried before and it failed.

Are you joking?

It would sell like hot-cakes (at a time when hot-cakes were massively popular!)

I find this talk of GW signing FFG to not make a 28mm SW game pretty amusing. If FFG thought they could make a pile of money out of it (and they would be right in thinking so) then they would make efforts to release it. The quality of the X-Wing game and rules makes me hopeful that if they did try, it would stand a good chance of being successful.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Unfortunately, in this case, there is indeed one. The market grew by 20% last year, meaning gamers spent 20% more cash on the hobby than the year prior.
.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Just look at the difference between the two companies. FFG has grown by expanding their product lines, licenses and category of products. GW has contracted them down to two product lines. FFG has had solid growth over the few years. GW is declining. All of GWs eggs are pretty much in one basket now - 40k. WHFB only accounts for less than 10% of their revenue. If 40k was ever to have a serious challenge, GW would, without a doubt, almost collapse overnight.

 Wayshuba wrote:

I agree. One also has to bear in mind that with the previous SW Miniatures Game, only Episodes 4-6 had been released. The original Star Wars trilogy was pretty much all skirmish battles, with the notable exception of the Hoth battle. Since then, with the release of Episodes 1-3 and the Clone Wars series, the public has now been exposed to massive battles in the SW universe. And who knows what Episodes 7-9 will hold.

 Eggs wrote:
Regarding whether Xwing competes with GW stuff; I spend between £100 and £300 a month on product. Before I started X wing, most of that money went to GW. Since I started X wing, not a single penny has gone to GW, its mostly gone to X wing, or X wing related product. Anecdotal? Yes, but I find it hard to believe I'm the only one.

Backfire wrote:
Oh please, not the "market is growing 20% annually" claim again. It has been discussed time & time again and it has always proven to be a red herring.

Backfire wrote:
Whilst I agree that the business strategy of "concentrating on our core businesses" is generally a sign of a declining company and I think GW is not being smart there, this kind of direct comparison between FFG and GW is silly. FFG is primarily a board game maker and produces few miniatures. Their businesses have only very limited overlap. Second, it is always easier to grow from zero: for all FFG's growth, GW is still five times bigger than FFG.

Backfire wrote:
Ummm...are you seriously suggesting that people would be lining up to buy miniatures necessary to refight the epic battle between robots and Gungans in Episode 1? Or even more epic battle between robots and Clones in Episode 2? Or the battle between robots and Wookies in Ep3? Oh, and don't forget Ewoks!

If Star Wars license was a 100% surefire way to produce hugely popular tabletop wargame, it would have happened already

 azreal13 wrote:
That 20% is the ICv2 figure, which has been demonstrated on multiple occasions to be a less than scientific method of collecting data.

Which isn't to say it should be completely disregarded, I think it is fair to say that the wider tabletop market is growing, and it is incontrovertible that GW have hit a bit of a speedbump, financially speaking, but it would be a mistake to get too bogged down in exact figures, when those figures aren't exact.

 azreal13 wrote:
Well, without wanting to sound facetious, can you share some quotes or links, because this is a topic I tend to gravitate towards when it is discussed in threads, and I'm completely unaware of any of that in the public domain?

It would be very interesting.

 agnosto wrote:
So...specific information please?

Backfire wrote:
New games will always come out and people spend money on them. The key will be, how long is it sustained? Do you really spend hundreds of pounds to X-wing, month after month? X-wing doesn't even have that much material released, I believe that for like £200 you have already bought everything available?

 Wayshuba wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
So...specific information please?

I can't publish. You have to look it up yourself, sorry. That information is available to subscribers of the research companies which all specifically prevent users from publishing certain information to public domain space (kind of a big deal to protecting their business models).

For example, NPD Group publically published that overall tabletop gaming market grew by 13%. That is in public domain. To see the segments of that data, however, requires membership to DecisionKey or SolutionFolders where you can see the individual growth rates of various segment within that top level market.

 Wayshuba wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
So...specific information please?

I can't publish. You have to look it up yourself, sorry. That information is available to subscribers of the research companies which all specifically prevent users from publishing certain information to public domain space (kind of a big deal to protecting their business models).

For example, NPD Group publically published that overall tabletop gaming market grew by 13%. That is in public domain. To see the segments of that data, however, requires membership to DecisionKey or SolutionFolders where you can see the individual growth rates of various segment within that top level market.

 silent25 wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
So...specific information please?

I can't publish. You have to look it up yourself, sorry. That information is available to subscribers of the research companies which all specifically prevent users from publishing certain information to public domain space (kind of a big deal to protecting their business models).

For example, NPD Group publically published that overall tabletop gaming market grew by 13%. That is in public domain. To see the segments of that data, however, requires membership to DecisionKey or SolutionFolders where you can see the individual growth rates of various segment within that top level market.

13% is very different from the 20% you're tossing around. And from talking with ex-PP employees, PP has not seen any growth in the last several years. They were making about $15 million back in 2010 and it came out they made $15 - 16 million in 2013. That is at best growing with inflation.

 silent25 wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
So...specific information please?

I can't publish. You have to look it up yourself, sorry. That information is available to subscribers of the research companies which all specifically prevent users from publishing certain information to public domain space (kind of a big deal to protecting their business models).

For example, NPD Group publically published that overall tabletop gaming market grew by 13%. That is in public domain. To see the segments of that data, however, requires membership to DecisionKey or SolutionFolders where you can see the individual growth rates of various segment within that top level market.

13% is very different from the 20% you're tossing around. And from talking with ex-PP employees, PP has not seen any growth in the last several years. They were making about $15 million back in 2010 and it came out they made $15 - 16 million in 2013. That is at best growing with inflation.

 Wayshuba wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Well, without wanting to sound facetious, can you share some quotes or links, because this is a topic I tend to gravitate towards when it is discussed in threads, and I'm completely unaware of any of that in the public domain?

It would be very interesting.

Hasbro makes various segment information available in shareholder reports, there are also several other sources who track this or similar information (TrendReports, ReportLinker, IBISWorld, EuroMonitor International, NPD Group, et al.) Since I use some of these companies for other market research, I am able to see the research on this market as well. Finally, another good source to gauge market growth is Kickstarter, where you can see the massive growth in traditional board and miniature game growth (information available on the KickStarter site).

The problem you have with the "wargaming" market in particular, is most research companies only publish the top-level findings in public domains (so in this case tabletop gaming) and unless you have an expensive subscription will not be able to get access to the sub-level data within that report. Common way the research companies sell subscriptions or reports, so not really a big surprise.

As I mentioned before, as a long time market researcher, I never base my market findings on one source but rather several coupled with common market observances of trends. This gives the best cross-section of actual market performance. What people don't understand, is this market is studied a lot more than people realize.

 Wayshuba wrote:


Also, there is another report from TempleCon that PP admitted to approximate revenue numbers. $10-$11 million in 2010 and $16-$17 million in 2013. So according to the admission at TempleCon, it appears they have seen quite a bit - about 59% over a three year period. Sure, the number are small compared to GW, but they are big enough to be doing more than WHFB now.

 silent25 wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:


Also, there is another report from TempleCon that PP admitted to approximate revenue numbers. $10-$11 million in 2010 and $16-$17 million in 2013. So according to the admission at TempleCon, it appears they have seen quite a bit - about 59% over a three year period. Sure, the number are small compared to GW, but they are big enough to be doing more than WHFB now.

That is the first I heard of the $10-11 million number. Several different people were quoting the $15 million, in person and on this board a couple years ago during other GW financial discussions. Also all posts I have seen from Templecon this year report $15 million as well. Where did you find the $10 - 11 million number? Even at $17 million, it would still only equal to less than 10% of GW's revenue. By all accounts, WHFB has not dropped bellow 10% of GW's revenue yet. You have even stated it isn't under 10% in your own posts.

Back to the other topic of FFG doing a 28mm game and having it sell like hot cakes, a number of people including myself thought the same would happen with the last SW miniature game. It didn't sell like hot cakes and drive 40k under. 40k is still here and it's gone. It did good, but faded. Given FFG's abandoning of Dust and the previous performance of the other SW miniature game, I'm not sure is ready to jump back into that pool.

 Wayshuba wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Well, without wanting to sound facetious, can you share some quotes or links, because this is a topic I tend to gravitate towards when it is discussed in threads, and I'm completely unaware of any of that in the public domain?

It would be very interesting.

Hasbro makes various segment information available in shareholder reports...

Backfire wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Well, without wanting to sound facetious, can you share some quotes or links, because this is a topic I tend to gravitate towards when it is discussed in threads, and I'm completely unaware of any of that in the public domain?

It would be very interesting.

Hasbro makes various segment information available in shareholder reports...

Does Hasbro even produce tabletop wargames?

 Wayshuba wrote:

Let's say then, for sake of the discussion, that PP is currently in the $15M-$18M range (I would say that it is probably a safe bet since Hoover's reports their revenue at $5.2 million and my experiences with Hoover's shows their private company reporting to be about a quarter to a third of actual revenues - they reported the last company I worked for as $45 million in sales when actual revenue were just shy of $220 million). ICv2 currently shows WHFB slipping out of the top 5 and both Warmachine and Hordes in the Top 5. Given that they represent $15M-$18M in sales, WHFB would have to be below them to have fallen off the top 5. Now, it is probably a bit more in reality, but I don't think it is that much more. Also, watching the emphasis GW has thrown behind 40k in the last six months especially, their behaviors seem to indicate this to be the case.

 Wayshuba wrote:

As for FFG, I wouldn't be so sure. I think they are playing with different formats and experimenting. Sometimes the success of a product is a matter of market timing. The first Star Wars miniatures game came as GW was too strong and dominating the growth of the market.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Okay. What did GW start as? A board game and RPG publisher (from 1975 to 1983). Not as a miniature company. That came with Citadel and Warhammer (in 1979 and 1983 respectively). Do you really believe FFG can not show the same path to growth that GW took to get where they are?

 Wayshuba wrote:

No, what I am saying is those films paved the way for huge battles in the SW universe. I didn't think people would be lining up to buy a starship game based on SW, but they are so much so they can't even keep it stocked. So to dismiss the possibility it could also happen with a tabletop game is not feasible. Even if it didn't have the longevity of 40k, it doesn't matter. All that has to happen is for a good two or three years the game dominates gamer spending and it will destroy GW.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Finally, longevity does not guarantee survival. Put another way, past success does not indicate future success. If it did Atari, which once had over 85% of the home console market, would still dominate today. We would still be going to Border's to get books, instead of Amazon. D&D would still be a bigger selling product than Pathfinder (which WotC clearly admits that Pathfinder outsells them).

Backfire wrote:
ICv2 listings are based on their estimate on US sales - not global sales. ICv2 reported WHFB as being #4 behind Warmahordes in 2009 already. That is almost five years ago. Now, how big was that annual growth again...?

Backfire wrote:
First Star Wars miniature game came out in early '90s when GW was less than one-fifth of the size it currently is, even figuring in inflation. And there were many other miniatures companies back then, like Ral Partha etc. And this was BEFORE terrible prequels had nearly killed the SW franchise.

Backfire wrote:
I actually do believe they can't. Not because there is anything wrong with FFG as a company, but because it's not 1983 anymore.

Backfire wrote:
No, it does not. This is not a smartphone market we're talking about here. Tabletop armies don't get "obsolete" in few years.

Backfire wrote:
No, longevity does not guarantee survival. Hovewer, you make the mistake assuming that people would flock into SW universum just because SW is just a such an awesome franchise. This is like saying that if there was a Star Wars RPG released, it would kill Warhammer, D&D etc. roleplaying franchises by the strength of its brand power: because lets face it, Star Wars is much bigger brand than D&D, much less any scifi RPG. The obvious fact that SW RPG or CCG or boardgames have not killed off competive brands (quite the contrary!) tells us that it is quite unlikely to happen in tabletop wargames either.

Backfire wrote:
Now, GW could of course screw things up (even more) royally and kill its franchises, but it would be their OWN doing, not because of something their competitors did.

 silent25 wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:


Also, there is another report from TempleCon that PP admitted to approximate revenue numbers. $10-$11 million in 2010 and $16-$17 million in 2013. So according to the admission at TempleCon, it appears they have seen quite a bit - about 59% over a three year period. Sure, the number are small compared to GW, but they are big enough to be doing more than WHFB now.

That is the first I heard of the $10-11 million number. Several different people were quoting the $15 million, in person and on this board a couple years ago during other GW financial discussions. Also all posts I have seen from Templecon this year report $15 million as well. Where did you find the $10 - 11 million number? Even at $17 million, it would still only equal to less than 10% of GW's revenue. By all accounts, WHFB has not dropped bellow 10% of GW's revenue yet. You have even stated it isn't under 10% in your own posts.

Back to the other topic of FFG doing a 28mm game and having it sell like hot cakes, a number of people including myself thought the same would happen with the last SW miniature game. It didn't sell like hot cakes and drive 40k under. 40k is still here and it's gone. It did good, but faded. Given FFG's abandoning of Dust and the previous performance of the other SW miniature game, I'm not sure is ready to jump back into that pool.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Backfire wrote:
ICv2 listings are based on their estimate on US sales - not global sales. ICv2 reported WHFB as being #4 behind Warmahordes in 2009 already. That is almost five years ago. Now, how big was that annual growth again...?

Yes, and now WHFB has fallen completely off the list while the entire market has grown, just 20% last year (http://www.icv2.com/articles/markets/28125.html). In fact, the market has grown for five consecutive years (http://www.icv2.com/articles/markets/28119.html) to the point of the market now being double the size it was in 2008. So while Warmahordes may still hold similar positions (or close to) as 2009 - it is of a much bigger market than it was in 2009, while WHFB has fallen off the list entirely. That is the growth I was speaking of.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Backfire wrote:
First Star Wars miniature game came out in early '90s when GW was less than one-fifth of the size it currently is, even figuring in inflation. And there were many other miniatures companies back then, like Ral Partha etc. And this was BEFORE terrible prequels had nearly killed the SW franchise.

Yes, GW was smaller than today, but they were still bigger than those attempting SW franchise then. Warhammer had already been introduced in the space ten years by then.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Huh? A company can still grow and expand their product base regardless of year. This is a general path of business, year has nothing at all to do with it. Warlord Games, PP, FFG are all EXPANDING their product ranges. Pretty much like GW did in the past and isn't doing now. Like it or not, half these companies owe their existence to GW retracting from certain spaces, like tabletop skirmish games.

By your point, Google should not exist today because they were two guys in a garage taking on powerhouses like DEC (AltaVista), Lycos (fastest IPO in history at that point) and others who had search engines. But Google produced a better product than those powerhouses who were too busy sitting on their laurels of size to worry about two kids in a garage. GW is acting the exact same way now and is ripe for "two kids in a garage" (i.e., the smaller companies) to take their market share (which by GW last period financials they are already doing).

 Wayshuba wrote:

Backfire wrote:
No, it does not. This is not a smartphone market we're talking about here. Tabletop armies don't get "obsolete" in few years.

Unless they are GW armies, who make a point of obsoleting/making useless certain units/weapon combinations every edition to keep the sales coming in.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Backfire wrote:
No, longevity does not guarantee survival. Hovewer, you make the mistake assuming that people would flock into SW universum just because SW is just a such an awesome franchise. This is like saying that if there was a Star Wars RPG released, it would kill Warhammer, D&D etc. roleplaying franchises by the strength of its brand power: because lets face it, Star Wars is much bigger brand than D&D, much less any scifi RPG. The obvious fact that SW RPG or CCG or boardgames have not killed off competive brands (quite the contrary!) tells us that it is quite unlikely to happen in tabletop wargames either.

No mistake. Your making the assumption because someone failed in the past that FFG will not succeed now.

 Wayshuba wrote:

This is GWs exact problem, they think competition has no effect on them. Competition ALWAYS has an effect on business, no matter the market or segment. If there was no competition for the gamer's dollar than GW could do just about anything they like because gamer's would have no better choice.

Backfire wrote:
..snip...

 Wayshuba wrote:

Backfire wrote:
..snip...

I'm done the discussion. I present facts, you counter with opinion, conjecture and assumptions. The only discussion with numbers, you base the entire market around what GWs numbers are and a gross assumption of what you believe their market share to be or to have been. Just FYI, there are hundreds of companies in the gaming space. Most very small, but still hundreds.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Backfire wrote:
..snip...

I'm done the discussion. I present facts, you counter with opinion, conjecture and assumptions. The only discussion with numbers, you base the entire market around what GWs numbers are and a gross assumption of what you believe their market share to be or to have been. Just FYI, there are hundreds of companies in the gaming space. Most very small, but still hundreds.

Let's just leave this at, let's see where FFG is in a year or two versus where GW is in a year or two. My bet, based on the actual facts is that FFG is going to be in a much better place while GW is struggling for relevance. One thing history teaches, is that when the collapse comes it happens fast. TSR was a strong brand for 30 years, then just two years of mis-steps and they were completely gone.

 cincydooley wrote:
Hey Wayshuba - I'd like to kindly remind you that the ICV2 numbers don't include any of GWs direct sales from their we store or their B&M stores.

Those two impact overall sales numbers for GW more than any other game, as none of the others are doing a bulk of their sales directly to the consumer.

That's a big reason the ICV2 numbers are to be taken with copious spoonfuls of salt.

 cincydooley wrote:
You're throwing out nearly as much conjecture and assumption as he is, my friend.

 cincydooley wrote:
Haha. Okay. I'd be willing to bet GW sells more stuff in the Horus heresy series than FFG sells in total over the next two years. That property alone is enough to keep them alive and relevant.

 Wayshuba wrote:


You already lost this one. GW reports that all of FW accounts for about $7 million in revenue. FFG is near the $40 million mark. In 2 and a half months FFG sells what FW does the entire year.

 azreal13 wrote:
Cincy - Wayshuba has access to subscription information about sales that he isn't permitted to share, so while he may be posting as if it where his opinion or making leaps of logic, it is fair to assume that those leaps are well grounded and the opinion well informed. .

 cincydooley wrote:


You already lost this one. GW reports that all of FW accounts for about $7 million in revenue. FFG is near the $40 million mark. In 2 and a half months FFG sells what FW does the entire year.

 cincydooley wrote:
What's the reason for the 3-4x function of hoovers (purely a curiosity question, not a validity one )?

 azreal13 wrote:
Cincy - Wayshuba has access to subscription information about sales that he isn't permitted to share, so while he may be posting as if it where his opinion or making leaps of logic, it is fair to assume that those leaps are well grounded and the opinion well informed.

Backfire has no such qualifications as far as I'm aware, and reading the two, as someone who is at least slightly qualified in this area, I know who's opinion I'd consider closest to the truth.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:


You already lost this one. GW reports that all of FW accounts for about $7 million in revenue. FFG is near the $40 million mark. In 2 and a half months FFG sells what FW does the entire year.

Where is the $40mm figure from?

weeble1000 wrote:
BTW, CHS had revenue over 100k per year and growing. The company started at something like 30k in 2008 and was up to over 100k in 2012. CHS is not exactly the biggest, baddest player in the market. In terms of revenue, 100k is not that big in this market.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Some of the following for thought:
- Numerous market studies showing double-digit growth over the last five consecutive years.
- The CEO that is subject of the OP and the interviewer commenting on the tremendous growth.
- Hasbro doubling sales of MtG over that same period.
- Several game manufacturers, FFG one of them, commenting on the tremendous growth in the market in the last five years (in other words, it is VERY noticeable)
- Convention vendor floors at gaming cons selling out in record time (see GenCon)
- Several distributors/game resellers reporting double digit growth (I even believe Wayland games commented on their growth on dakka)
- GW reporting a double-digit decline.

Backfire wrote:
Wayshuba claims to have massive amount of information and expertise on the area, yet he seems to be unaware just how not representive ICv2 listings are about overall market situation. Missing such a basic factor does not exactly lend to credibility.

I have absolutely no qualifications in this matter whatsoever, yet I have easily outdebated him and when I pointed out how the numbers do not match what he claims, he quit the argument. Make of that what you want.

Backfire wrote:
However, MtG is not a tabletop wargame, most of the stuff FFG makes are not tabletop wargames so the relevance of quoting them to support your case is extremely limited since GW business is almost exclusively on tabletop wargames. You might just as well quote say, car sales.

Backfire wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
BTW, CHS had revenue over 100k per year and growing. The company started at something like 30k in 2008 and was up to over 100k in 2012. CHS is not exactly the biggest, baddest player in the market. In terms of revenue, 100k is not that big in this market.

But that sorta the point - for small companies to make up the kind of growth Wayshuba claims, you need not one, not dozens, not hundreds but literally thousands of companies like CHS.
...

However, MtG is not a tabletop wargame, most of the stuff FFG makes are not tabletop wargames so the relevance of quoting them to support your case is extremely limited since GW business is almost exclusively on tabletop wargames. You might just as well quote say, car sales.

 Wayshuba wrote:

I quit the debate because it is pointless. You have a bias and will grab assumptions as needed to fit that bias. Throughout this thread, I have given reference to information that can be shared publicly and, where it can't, I have given reference to the other sources of information should anyone wish to do the homework themselves. Many of those sources correlate to one another and can be observed through many of the trends I covered. My discussion has been consistent and referenced to proof (or where the information can be found where I am unable to share that publicly).

Secondly, on the numbers don't match what I claim (which is not a claim but an assertion of the facts pulled from various sources), that is hogwash. You put ALL your assumption on the performance of GW alone, including a wild stab at what their market share was. You share no facts, just some self-done math and dismissals of things you don't believe to be true. Fair enough.

Backfire wrote:
Talking about CCG sales has more complete information. Overall it shows decent growth (minor drop because of recession), however sales of physical cards seem to be on decline.

 Wayshuba wrote:

As an example, when you walk into your FLGS, do they not carry GW in addition to RPGs, CCGs, board games, et al? Well, if you have $200 in your pocket and you decide to spend $100 on a board game and buy $100 in MtG cards, is that not $200 GW did not capture at the point of sale? They do, in fact, compete for the same share of wallet.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Talking about CCG sales has more complete information. Overall it shows decent growth (minor drop because of recession), however sales of physical cards seem to be on decline.

And yet, overall, the micro-segment of all CCGs shows a 43% growth over that period. Thanks for supporting my point in the debate.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Lastly, and then I am done, on the subject of miniature games, there has been numerous sources of reported double-digit growth (see my myriad of posts above) in the segment. While not as spectacular as CCGs or board games, it is still double-digit growth at a time when GW is showing a double-digit decline.

 azreal13 wrote:
Wow.

Not a single supported fact or statement close to being anything other than sheer conjecture or opinion and you really asserted that you had "out debated" someone?

Backfire wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Wow.

Not a single supported fact or statement close to being anything other than sheer conjecture or opinion and you really asserted that you had "out debated" someone?

Well, if you disagree with a specific point, feel free to chime in.

I'm sure you wouldn't make this kind of statement if you didn't have hard evidence that I was wrong. So, lets hear it where you can improve over Wayshuba who didn't want to disclose his numbers.

 Wayshuba wrote:

And it does add up. You are looking at two examples out of many in comparing against GW. Wyrd Miniatures, Corvus Belli, Warlord (who has had significant growth with Bolt Action), Battlefront, PP, FFG, Mantic Games and many others have shown this growth. Not to mention, the MASSIVE growth in ONE YEAR ALONE, of expenditures on KickStarter in this segment. I mean Sedition Wars - one single tabletop game, did almost $1 million alone, Dreadball did almost three-quarters of a million, DeadZone $1.2 million - this list goes on and on).

Edit: Here, this gives an idea of the massive growth of spending in the tabletop segment on Kickstarter alone over one year.

 Wayshuba wrote:

I gave the numbers where available publicly.

Backfire wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

And it does add up. You are looking at two examples out of many in comparing against GW. Wyrd Miniatures, Corvus Belli, Warlord (who has had significant growth with Bolt Action), Battlefront, PP, FFG, Mantic Games and many others have shown this growth. Not to mention, the MASSIVE growth in ONE YEAR ALONE, of expenditures on KickStarter in this segment. I mean Sedition Wars - one single tabletop game, did almost $1 million alone, Dreadball did almost three-quarters of a million, DeadZone $1.2 million - this list goes on and on).

Edit: Here, this gives an idea of the massive growth of spending in the tabletop segment on Kickstarter alone over one year.

Am I supposed to be impressed? ENTIRE tabletop segment there was about $16 million in 2012 - and that includes board games and CCGs and RPG's...If generously we assume that one-third of that went to miniatures that's little over $5 million...and lets not forget that some of those pledges were by estabilished companies who just used KS as an alternative marketing channel, thus it is uncertain just how much net growth it produced. Probably some, since it is a good marketing channel.

It is also lovely how you list nearly all big players on the field (whose combined revenue is probably not even half of GW) and then close "...and many more". Sure, there are more, but few of them are noteworthy names (like Spartan Games). Again, not a shred of evidence for this mythical doubling of the segment since 2008.

 azreal13 wrote:
You've missed the bit where I asked you to support your unsupported (and, in the absence of a telepathy machine or the mother of all surveys, unsupportable) assertion.

Backfire wrote:


Yes you did. And none of them supported your position. None. In fact, they overwhelmingly showed that the absolute size of the companies you mentioned is too small to produce growth of the kind of magnitude you claim. As I made clear in my examples, which you did not attempt to show wrong.

Backfire wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
You've missed the bit where I asked you to support your unsupported (and, in the absence of a telepathy machine or the mother of all surveys, unsupportable) assertion.

Well, if you insist, it is an observation of my own shopping habits and what I have seen on my fellow citizens. I'm sure there are people who just walk into FLGS with a wad of cash and just pick what looks like interesting, but I've seen only couple of examples of this kind of shopping behaviour and never done anything like that myself. Maybe it's different elsewhere?

 Wayshuba wrote:


I give up. That is 2012 numbers (2013 not available yet) and yet, chart after chart after chart is showing things going up and to the right, while GW goes down and to the right.

 Wayshuba wrote:

You provided a chart of CCGs which shows an overall 43% growth.

 azreal13 wrote:

Exactly.

So in no way does your experience qualify you to cite that "most people" in a multi million dollar, worldwide market behave in a certain way.

Backfire wrote:

Now, I do think that GW is doing quite a many things wrong, but the idea that we're in middle of some kind of miniature wargames boom which GW is missing, is not supported by any evidence I've seen.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Now, I do think that GW is doing quite a many things wrong, but the idea that we're in middle of some kind of miniature wargames boom which GW is missing, is not supported by any evidence I've seen.

Privateer Press, Mantic, Corvus Belli (Infinity), Wargames Factory (and Dreamforge Games), Raging Heroes, Perry Brothers, Chapterhouse Studios, Kromlech, Puppets War, MaxMini, Spartan Games, Wyrd, Hawk Wargames, Warmill, Antenociti's Workshop, CNC Miniature Scenery, Sarissa, Warsenal, Micro Arts Studios, Secret Weapon Miniatures, and countless other miniatures/wargaming manufacturers that have all seen their businesses grow significantly in the past few years while GW has remained stagnant (even with rising prices and cutting costs), would like to have a word with you.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Let's say then, for sake of the discussion, that PP is currently in the $15M-$18M range (I would say that it is probably a safe bet since Hoover's reports their revenue at $5.2 million and my experiences with Hoover's shows their private company reporting to be about a quarter to a third of actual revenues - they reported the last company I worked for as $45 million in sales when actual revenue were just shy of $220 million). ICv2 currently shows WHFB slipping out of the top 5 and both Warmachine and Hordes in the Top 5. Given that they represent $15M-$18M in sales, WHFB would have to be below them to have fallen off the top 5. Now, it is probably a bit more in reality, but I don't think it is that much more. Also, watching the emphasis GW has thrown behind 40k in the last six months especially, their behaviors seem to indicate this to be the case.

Backfire wrote:
And what word would that be? Most of the companies you list are sub-millionUSD operations.

 silent25 wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

Let's say then, for sake of the discussion, that PP is currently in the $15M-$18M range (I would say that it is probably a safe bet since Hoover's reports their revenue at $5.2 million and my experiences with Hoover's shows their private company reporting to be about a quarter to a third of actual revenues - they reported the last company I worked for as $45 million in sales when actual revenue were just shy of $220 million). ICv2 currently shows WHFB slipping out of the top 5 and both Warmachine and Hordes in the Top 5. Given that they represent $15M-$18M in sales, WHFB would have to be below them to have fallen off the top 5. Now, it is probably a bit more in reality, but I don't think it is that much more. Also, watching the emphasis GW has thrown behind 40k in the last six months especially, their behaviors seem to indicate this to be the case.

You have been throwing out completely wild numbers. First you said in a previous thread, that Privateer Press was around $20 - 40 million and now you are backtracking and saying they are around $15 - 18?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/360/575487.page#6487113

Then you back-up your data with the Hoover site info and how they are generally around 3 to 4 times off based on your experience. But you dismissed Hoover numbers previously saying based on your experience they are off by a factor of 10.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/390/575487.page#6490788

And just to show how off ICv2 numbers are, when X-wing exploded on the scene and was #2-3 on the charts for 2012-2013 it made only $2.5 million for FFG in domestic sales. This came out last year when discussing the 2013 financial results for FFG. That was not even 5% of GW's North American revenue for that same period.

 azreal13 wrote:
You're kidding, I've probably spent close to that on X Wing myself!

But seriously, every single release sells out almost everywhere immediately, restocks evaporate almost as quickly, and one must assume they're doing their best to increase production with each successive round of orders, assuming the factory isn't already at the limit of its capabilities, and you are having a hard time believing it is generating $2.5m in sales worldwide?

Pull the other one, it's got cookies.

EDIT
That's not even 100 000 starters, and as we appear to be allowed to use anecdotal evidence in this discussion, I don't know anyone who plays who hasn't bought multiple copies.

KommissarKarl wrote:
Just read this thread from "cover to cover", as it were. A very interesting read.

I'd give the victory to Backfire personally. Wayshuba seems to be spewing out dubious numbers - without caveats - as well as obvious nonsense like Kickstarter trends representing growth...and yet we all know that Kickstarter itself is growing. If I open a new online store and growth of paperback books increases by 300% in the first year, it means my *store* is more popular, not paperback books. Frankly the fact that he didn't even mention this obvious flaw makes me question his credentials, that and the fact that he doesn't seem to have proven a single one of his claims, despite the fact that they should be easily provable.

Herzlos wrote:
Yeah you'd think that they'd have noticed that for pretty much every specialist game they dropped, someone else has produced a successful equivalent (apart from WHQ, Manowar and Space Hulk), and that they'd want to do something about it.

KommissarKarl wrote:
Just read this thread from "cover to cover", as it were. A very interesting read.

I'd give the victory to Backfire personally. Wayshuba seems to be spewing out dubious numbers - without caveats - as well as obvious nonsense like Kickstarter trends representing growth...and yet we all know that Kickstarter itself is growing. If I open a new online store and growth of paperback books increases by 300% in the first year, it means my *store* is more popular, not paperback books. Frankly the fact that he didn't even mention this obvious flaw makes me question his credentials, that and the fact that he doesn't seem to have proven a single one of his claims, despite the fact that they should be easily provable.

Herzlos wrote:
Yeah you'd think that they'd have noticed that for pretty much every specialist game they dropped, someone else has produced a successful equivalent (apart from WHQ, Manowar and Space Hulk), and that they'd want to do something about it.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I would be nice if GW would Follow their competitors, "Hey, X-wing the space battle miniature game is doing well, didn't we kill a similar like this a few years ago?"

I am still pissed that FFG dumped Dust Tactics!

 Wayshuba wrote:

Lastly, you are making the classic mistake of looking at one datapoint in isolation. The market grew by 20% last year (links provided previously). Kickstarter also had tremendous grow in tabletop games. Observations or claims have been make of many other companies - Warlord Games, Privateer Press, FFG (who claims double digit growth every year for the last five years), Wyrd Miniatures, Hawk Wargaming, Battlefront, Corvus Belli, et al. All of these things support the claims that the market is growing - even in tabletop wargaming. You read the thread, but did you also read the various links and off site information provided in the thread? There were plenty of links provided for the "proof of the claims". Where I couldn't provide the information because it is from paid market research services, I listed who those companies were.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
...snip...

 agnosto wrote:
Did someone in this thread actually say X wing would kill GW?

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
The assumption that GW's piece of the pie was a majority of the pie. An assumption that a lot of people make - especially when they come from GW-centric backgrounds.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

* Just to sort of give you an idea of it (mind you - this is just for illustrative purposes...you have to dig deeper to get a deeper meaning - and I don't have time to draw a picture right now) there are currently 2468 manufacturers listed in the TMP manufacturers directory:

http://theminiaturespage.com/man/

GW sold $226,081,474 last year worth of stuff. Each of those companies would only need to sell less than $100K worth of stuff to equal GW. That might sound like a lot - but considering that that would only put their take home (after costs) at less than $50K for pure retail and somewhere around $30K per year for distributed sales...that is nothing. Throw in a few companies who are making $1 million plus - and GW's share starts to shrink really fast.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

Regarding discounting Kickstarter as a valid dataset to the discussion...in order to do so, the growth in tabletop games would need to be the same or lower than the overall growth of Kickstarter. KS grew at roughly 50% from 2012 to 2013. The tabletop game category almost tripled (might have tripled - don't have the actual numbers in front of me). Their growth far outstripped growth of KS alone, enough to almost ensure that growth on KS represents real market growth as opposed to only being an artifact of increased adoption of crowd funding in general. Yes, a lot of them are board games - however a lot of them are straight miniatures/wargame related as well. They are all growing, above and beyond the rate of KS alone.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

Finally a word (again) regarding ICv2 and their methodology. Yes, it is not based on hard sales figures (largely - they do have access to the largest distributor in the US)...but that is still how a lot of sales data is collected. It is rare to actually have the ability to see real units sold. You don't know how many boxes are on shelves, in warehouses or otherwise not moving. If you look at a single source (Amazon for example) you can get real numbers - but that doesn't often exist. It seems that most people are pointing back toward mikhalia saying he doesn't like the way they tabulate their data, but then missing the bit where he goes on to say that his data isn't too far removed from the ICv2 data:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/390/575487.page#6492680

1. 40k
2. Warmahordes
3. Flames of War
4. WFB

And from ICv2 for that period:

1. Warhammer 40k Games Workshop
2. Star Wars X-Wing Miniatures Fantasy Flight Games
3. Warmachine Privateer Press
4. Warhammer Fantasy Games Workshop
5. Hordes Privateer Press

Although they do not mirror each other - they do have significant similarities. Each local store will have different games that are popular at different times, and while he doesn't have X-Wing listed (not sure...he might not even stock it) it could be popular at a different store in the Philly area.

He is correct though in saying that it isn't a hard set of numbers. There is no indication of how much (or how little) each game is more or less popular than the next game. It also does not take into account GWs direct sales (either through their website or through their retail stores). It does however take into account stores that have trade accounts with GW (as most stores will order directly with GW unless they move so little GW product that they just throw it on with their weekly Alliance order).

We also do have data which we can use to assign points with. We know roughly how much WFB GW sells in the US at various points in time. We know roughly how much GW sells through third parties, their webstore and through GW retail at various points in time. These allow us to say that sales of these games are probably above a certain point and below a different point. We can then backtrack through the numbers to determine approximations of total sales and correlate those with other numbers from other sources (confidential sources, news interviews, convention presentations, corporate filings...).

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

While the list on its own is really no more or less than a popularity contest - the list combined with other bits of information does allow you to make inferences to the overall market and come to the conclusion that while the market is growing - GW is not.

 silent25 wrote:
Thanks Sean. On the numbers for PP, surprised to hear the 10 - 15% growth. You stated their 2010 numbers were $15 million and the numbers being tossed around this thread range from $15 to 17 million for 2013. Is that growth number retail sales and possibly not revenue? Given what you said about only getting a third of European sales back in revenue, they many not be reaping the rewards of the games popularity.

Backfire wrote:


This logic doesn't hold water. By same logic, video game industry should be in a middle of an enormous boom, given how huge growth video game Kickstarters have enjoyed. Yet in reality, opposite is true: video game market is stale or in decline.

I do not think Kickstarter growth tells anything about the health of a business as such. Some mediums just suit better to crowd funding than others and KS is an exciting new thing. It will be interesting to see this years numbers, there has been talk about people having KS burnout, but does it translate to actual lack of growth?

Backfire wrote:
The point was a specific claim that a wargames market has doubled over last 5 years, which to me seemed hilariously optimistic and not supported by my observations of general state of the hobby - and still isn't.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Backfire wrote:


This logic doesn't hold water. By same logic, video game industry should be in a middle of an enormous boom, given how huge growth video game Kickstarters have enjoyed. Yet in reality, opposite is true: video game market is stale or in decline.

I do not think Kickstarter growth tells anything about the health of a business as such. Some mediums just suit better to crowd funding than others and KS is an exciting new thing. It will be interesting to see this years numbers, there has been talk about people having KS burnout, but does it translate to actual lack of growth?

Sorry, my friend, your are arguing his logic doesn't hold water based on your own limited personal observations. Here is how absolutely wrong your personal observations are.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Backfire wrote:
The point was a specific claim that a wargames market has doubled over last 5 years, which to me seemed hilariously optimistic and not supported by my observations of general state of the hobby - and still isn't.

Here's the thing though, on one side there is the ICv2 guys (who's numbers aren't perfect by any means but are still the closest thing we have to real numbers freely avalible), the CEO of FFG, and most (all?) of GW's competition saying they are experiencing massive growth. And on the other side is your personal observations?