I do wonder if GW's system have come to the end of their life-cycle and no matter what they do the sales will drop off. We've had the 40K universe for 20 years now and in fairness it has done well considering there has been no real changes to the major races in all that time.
On the one hand it's great that it's so steady for all these years, that you could leave the hobby and come back, using the same army (with a few tweaks). Trouble is that it's harder to get new gamer's into the hobby and the vets (who GW have a love / hate relationship with) will probably have multiple armies and therefore not need any more.
In GW's favour it's taken this long for them to start bringing out stuff for 40K that just seemed to be about bringing out something for somethings sake. When PP brought out their "enhanced version" commanders I did raise an eyebrow, but I'd left the scene at that time.
To me a lot of GW's competitors are bringing a freshness to the hobby. It's ironic that Warlord Game's flourishing with the production of historical systems. These aren't "new" funky races or worlds, but old, used historical themes, but they are thriving with it.
Does GW have answer to this or will it plod forward to it's death?
I do wonder if Kirby has seen the writing in the wall and is trying to line his own nest before it goes belly up.
Wolfstan wrote: We've had the 40K universe for 20 years now and in fairness it has done well considering there has been no real changes to the major races in all that time.
On the one hand it's great that it's so steady for all these years, that you could leave the hobby and come back, using the same army (with a few tweaks). Trouble is that it's harder to get new gamer's into the hobby and the vets (who GW have a love / hate relationship with) will probably have multiple armies and therefore not need any more.
It's ironic that Warlord Game's flourishing with the production of historical systems. These aren't "new" funky races or worlds, but old, used historical themes, but they are thriving with it.
On one hand, background or setting is not the be-all end-all of wargames. This is something that many GW fans don't get, in my experience. Warlord Games also produce good rules in their own right, without all the shortcomings and hangups that can usually be laid at 40K and WHFB's feet. Including, in answer to some of your points: clockwork edition changes*, which in itself includes planned obsolescence, bringing out something for something's sake, and the 'few tweaks' of having to buy a lot more minis and/or learn and change your setup for a new meta. (Ironically, the tweaks never seem to include adapting the rules to proper company/mass army rules to account for the figure bloat)
WG also have the advantage of putting out plastic minis for a decent price, without perceived exclusivity to their rulesets (something shared by all historical miniatures), and with the bonus that they're one of the first of the new wave of 28mm historical plastic producers. It's bound to appeal to army builders.
On the other hand, the 'lore' (snort guffaw) of historical games is consistently popular. Heck, it's consistent, barring a dose or two of revisionism or any given rules writer's attitude towards warhounds or jomsvikings. It also can't be anything other than realistic, being the exploits of real people. Written on a page, they might not seem so 'epic' or superpowered to 40K fans; but to many they're more amazing and interesting because they happened, rather than being dreamed up and pulled out of Mat Ward's hrrhrmphhmph. Take that largely immutable credibility altogether, and it means WG isn't likely to retcon it's setting and inject nonsensical new models and unit types into it, just to bring out something for something's sake.
*Granted, Black Powder's been around only five years. But how many editions of 40K have we seen in that time?
In GW's favour it's taken this long for them to start bringing out stuff for 40K that just seemed to be about bringing out something for somethings sake.
GW have game settings.
Their game settings are quite detailed and inspire people to find out more.
(Apart from the last few years where the direction had been more 'Toys R Us ' than war game , IMO.)
I agree that GW are trying to apply a cyclical sales process to a product range that is not really suited to it.
I would say that GW life cycle is influenced far more heavily by poor management than the game backgrounds.
EG if the game backgrounds were supported by a solid rule set, and army composition lists.
Then the product could be promoted by campaign/scenario supplements.
So players could simply pick and chose what appealed to them , in a better defined and player controlled way.
There's pretty much infinite scope to keep 40K and Fantasy fresh - they have boundless universes and even timelines. GW seems to have fallen into the trap of just releasing stuff to fit a sales quota and shoehorning it into the game where they can (Centurions, flyers) instead of expanding on the fluff or improving the game.
What's killing GW isn't the fluff, it's the game and the company. The game because it's hugely convoluted and clunky, and the company because they make such head-scratching business decisions that the buyer/seller relationship seems almost adversarial.
As said, if it was a case of the setting being stale, then historics would have died out long ago. They use largely the same fluff with with different rulesets
For me personally it's units like the Centurions that appear to be wedged in and to some degree the Storm variant flyers. I can understand the need to add new stuff, but to me they do seem a bit forced. I do wonder if even coming up with a new race would help. I think it would need to be a new gaming experience, rather than the same recycled stuff.
Would it be too brutal to even suggest that long term GW gamer's just stop completely? Box it all up and move away for a few years, then come back to it?
As said, if it was a case of the setting being stale, then historics would have died out long ago. They use largely the same fluff with with different rulesets
I'm looking to get back into gaming and it will be with a Bolt Action Ffallschirmjäger force box. This I intend to use with the Bolt Action ruleset, the Too Fat Lardies ruleset and the Rules of Engagement ruleset.
I think that the 40k IP has massive scope and will continue to sell for generations yet, its only just scratching the surface, the real shame for me, is the way that GW have been using it.
They never did like adapting to the market, the IP could be used in so many different ways, ways which could benefit them as well im pretty sure.
There could be so many different types of games in so many settings, and im pretty sure they would sell well, but they just continue to streamline as we have seen for a while now, the opposite of what the real fans, the fans with lots of disposable income, really want.
I would not assume that someone else "does not get it", just because he does not agree though.
If they do go under, I will be sad, yet hopeful about what will happen to the IP.
In my opinion, GW has been bringing out "stuff" for the sake of bringing it out since at least 2009. I very strongly feel that the 5ed Blood Angels codex was the start of something bad. Blood Angels needed more to differentiate themselves from C:SM, and most importantly needed new models to sell, but the fluff had been well fleshed out for a decade and a half. So GW set about creating new, arguably unnecessary units, with sometimes poorly designed models and overall poorly written fluff, so that people would have new shinies to buy.
Sanguinary Guard - BA deserved the unique models, but jump pack honor guard (and for that matter, jump pack command squads) should always have been available to C:SM too. Running out of fluff to mine.
Librarian Dreadnought - I fail to see how BAs could be the only chapter whose librarians occasionally end up in a dreadnought. Again, a niche unit that would have fit in the C:SM codex too - scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
Sanguinor - should never have been conceived in the first place - stupid fluff, ugly model. Consider the army design space completely tapped.
Stormraven - So, again, this vehicle should have been available to all chapters (nonsensical fluff that has since been rectified). More importantly, the model itself is a god-awful abortion, heralding the start of GW's inability to design models that don't look like squashed, chunky toys for preschoolers. This process (which I call Chibification) probably has to do with a loss of design talent and/or art direction, and increased meddling from above to "Design an X but make sure it fits on Y sprues, I don't even care how it looks", and has also more recently given us the Taurox. The Stormraven was ugly enough that it turned a minor third party bits maker (Chapterhouse) into a well-known name simply by virtue of having created a kit to lengthen the vehicle.
So in my opinion the Stormraven is the primogenitor of everything wrong with 40k now. Flyers really should not be included in 40k at all (this is a whole separate issue), but at least in 5th as a skimmer this was more reasonable. Pushing bigger kits whose rules didn't fit the scale of the game (flyers in general, superheavies, etc) has been a direct result of the trend toward adding things to the game for the sake of selling new kits, whether it makes sense or not, and I think the Stormraven was at the leading edge of this trend.
I can't think of any codex release prior to that where it seemed like they were shoehorning in nonsense just for the sake of making new kits, and virtually every codex since then has included units that fit this description. The only exception has been the few armies that really needed a revamp - Necrons and Dark Eldar - where there was plenty of room to work on new units. Every other codex has been an attempt to squeeze in something new at the margins, whether it's by increasing the scale of the game, or by making "unique" units that really aren't that unique, or by dreaming up nonsense units that probably shouldn't exist due to the stupidity of their backstory or model design or both.
Sorry for the rant, but what I'm trying to say is, this is not new. 40k has been a mostly mature game for half a decade or more, with well-defined armies and units and relatively stable rules. Almost every change or addition to the game since then has been bloat or needless churn rather than refinement or improvement.
Couldn't have put it better myself, and it made me start thinking about when it was exactly I started becoming less an ambassador for the game and more a reluctant critic.
I remember when I was younger and first got in to Warhammer Fantasy. The store used to be packed with people playing games, painting minis or just catching up. They used to buy loads of stuff as well and the staff kept up the fun with campaigns and tournaments that could last for days. It was fun and many people just came in off the street as they saw everyone was having such a good time. Hell a good portion of the gamers where recruited that way.
Then GW started issuing mandates and orders. Suddenly you could only be in if you where shopping, painting or buying. Still the staff did their best and tried to accommodate all within this new regime. This displeased some of the higher ups and many of the good members got fired. Eventually the message seemed to get around and the staff stopped trying. Some quit.
These days GW Preston is rarely full of happy gamers. It tends to look empty and sad-like a memory of a bygone era and the golden days of Games Workshop.
Does GW have answer to this or will it plod forward to it's death?
I don't think it has the answer. Admitting in your financial report that you do no market research, nor care what the market wants is pretty damning as far as I'm concerned.
There'll be people clinging to 40k, telling us how new releases like GK are a great step forward, and a positive move for the faction/game, but the value isn't there. GW makes great plastic kits, but other companies are doing the same in plastic, or excellent work in resin, for far cheaper. That's not even touching on the train wreck the rules and codices are nowadays.
No, I think they'll continue to bleed customers. They have not demonstrated the slightest hint at changing their practices for the better.
I can't decide if I want GW to turn things around and recover 40k and it's (GW's) reputation back to something we can all choose to willingly and happily be involved in and be satisfied with again, or accelerate into it's demise to the point of recievership such that the 40k franchise with it's fluff, game, rights, moulds, kits etc etc in it's entirety can be sold off as an asset by administrators and taken on by someone else who can look after it properly.
My two worst situations would be someone taking a childish "it's my ball and no one else is allowed to play" and destroying sprue moulds etc in a fit of spite, or the whole organisation sadly bumbling on in a drawn out downward spiral that lasts years and slowly grinds what good is left of 40k into dust.
Vermis wrote: It also can't be anything other than realistic, being the exploits of real people. Written on a page, they might not seem so 'epic' or superpowered to 40K fans; but to many they're more amazing and interesting because they happened, rather than being dreamed up and pulled out of Mat Ward's hrrhrmphhmph.
Agustina de Aragón arguably had more balls than Yarrick and Calgar put together.
Lanrak wrote: GW have game settings.
Their game settings are quite detailed and inspire people to find out more.
So do other games. GW has the advantage that there's over 20 years of material to dredge for inspiration, while newer game settings have a quarter of that development time, at best. But to claim that it's something unique to Games Workshop games is a bit ignorant.
Nuclear Mekanik wrote: I can't decide if I want GW to turn things around and recover 40k and it's (GW's) reputation back to something we can all choose to willingly and happily be involved in and be satisfied with again, or accelerate into it's demise to the point of recievership such that the 40k franchise with it's fluff, game, rights, moulds, kits etc etc in it's entirety can be sold off as an asset by administrators and taken on by someone else who can look after it properly.
My two worst situations would be someone taking a childish "it's my ball and no one else is allowed to play" and destroying sprue moulds etc in a fit of spite, or the whole organisation sadly bumbling on in a drawn out downward spiral that lasts years and slowly grinds what good is left of 40k into dust.
At this point, I don't want them to. Losing GW will open up the market for a dozen other companies to better grow and compete. The last thing I want is for GW to reclaim their former highs, when they choked out all other games in the market. Dozens of other companies have slipped in while GW stumbled, too many to even list here. The best thing that could happen to the Warhammer games would be for them to be sold off to a new, smaller company that can tear them down and rebuild them leaner and better.
Nowadays though, I don't think that will happen. Whether the fall of GW comes quickly over two years or excruciatingly slow over four or more, I don't know that another company will jump at the chance to buy WHFB or 40K.
Lanrak wrote: GW have game settings.
Their game settings are quite detailed and inspire people to find out more.
So do other games. GW has the advantage that there's over 20 years of material to dredge for inspiration, while newer game settings have a quarter of that development time, at best. But to claim that it's something unique to Games Workshop games is a bit ignorant.
Battletech being a prime example.
The Auld Grump - who is not a fan of big stompy mecha... but is still impressed by the amount of background material for Battletech.
In my previous post I was trying to point out of all the factors in GW plc problems, the game setting /background is NOT a limiting factor.
Poor management that has led to poor rules and customer interaction are what limits GW plc life cycle.
If the game setting was given to game developers who were free to engage openly with customers, and work with the community, I am sure the 'life cycle ' would not even be mentioned after 50 years or so...
There are games with just as detailed background .
Thankfully no other game system is saddled with such arrogant/ignorant corporate managers as GW games are.
Wolfstan wrote: I do wonder if GW's system have come to the end of their life-cycle and no matter what they do the sales will drop off. We've had the 40K universe for 20 years now and in fairness it has done well considering there has been no real changes to the major races in all that time.
Brands and IP aren't really a system. They don't have start and end points, they rely on recognition to determine their usefulness.
Sales processes and marketing are systems. I don't like the ones in place now.
To understand the difference: I still think Terminator models are cool. I generally like thinking about them even though I don't really use them in my armies. But I hate the thought of paying $50 for 5 of them, and don't like the way GW manages the rules to make them more / less useful in new editions.
As long as people have favorable brand impressions, the brand can survive as long as the company adapts sales / marketing to consumer preference.
I do wonder if Kirby has seen the writing in the wall and is trying to line his own nest before it goes belly up.
If I understand the culture correctly, Kirby is charged with expanding revenues and profits for the company and is the final decision maker on decisions like introducing supplements. I don't have a favorable impression of the company's current sales and marketing strategies, therefore I am not a fan of the way he carries out this mission. Something tells me he doesn't like it either, and his departure is related to a lack of vision.
Herzlos wrote: There's pretty much infinite scope to keep 40K and Fantasy fresh - they have boundless universes and even timelines. GW seems to have fallen into the trap of just releasing stuff to fit a sales quota and shoehorning it into the game where they can (Centurions, flyers) instead of expanding on the fluff or improving the game.
What's killing GW isn't the fluff, it's the game and the company. The game because it's hugely convoluted and clunky, and the company because they make such head-scratching business decisions that the buyer/seller relationship seems almost adversarial.
As said, if it was a case of the setting being stale, then historics would have died out long ago. They use largely the same fluff with with different rulesets
This. If GW didn't feth up the rules and treat customers like dirt, they would be as strong as ever, regardless of competition.
CalgarsPimpHand wrote: In my opinion, GW has been bringing out "stuff" for the sake of bringing it out since at least 2009. I very strongly feel that the 5ed Blood Angels codex was the start of something bad. Blood Angels needed more to differentiate themselves from C:SM, and most importantly needed new models to sell, but the fluff had been well fleshed out for a decade and a half. So GW set about creating new, arguably unnecessary units, with sometimes poorly designed models and overall poorly written fluff, so that people would have new shinies to buy.
Sanguinary Guard - BA deserved the unique models, but jump pack honor guard (and for that matter, jump pack command squads) should always have been available to C:SM too. Running out of fluff to mine.
Librarian Dreadnought - I fail to see how BAs could be the only chapter whose librarians occasionally end up in a dreadnought. Again, a niche unit that would have fit in the C:SM codex too - scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
Sanguinor - should never have been conceived in the first place - stupid fluff, ugly model. Consider the army design space completely tapped.
Stormraven - So, again, this vehicle should have been available to all chapters (nonsensical fluff that has since been rectified). More importantly, the model itself is a god-awful abortion, heralding the start of GW's inability to design models that don't look like squashed, chunky toys for preschoolers. This process (which I call Chibification) probably has to do with a loss of design talent and/or art direction, and increased meddling from above to "Design an X but make sure it fits on Y sprues, I don't even care how it looks", and has also more recently given us the Taurox. The Stormraven was ugly enough that it turned a minor third party bits maker (Chapterhouse) into a well-known name simply by virtue of having created a kit to lengthen the vehicle.
So in my opinion the Stormraven is the primogenitor of everything wrong with 40k now. Flyers really should not be included in 40k at all (this is a whole separate issue), but at least in 5th as a skimmer this was more reasonable. Pushing bigger kits whose rules didn't fit the scale of the game (flyers in general, superheavies, etc) has been a direct result of the trend toward adding things to the game for the sake of selling new kits, whether it makes sense or not, and I think the Stormraven was at the leading edge of this trend.
I can't think of any codex release prior to that where it seemed like they were shoehorning in nonsense just for the sake of making new kits, and virtually every codex since then has included units that fit this description. The only exception has been the few armies that really needed a revamp - Necrons and Dark Eldar - where there was plenty of room to work on new units. Every other codex has been an attempt to squeeze in something new at the margins, whether it's by increasing the scale of the game, or by making "unique" units that really aren't that unique, or by dreaming up nonsense units that probably shouldn't exist due to the stupidity of their backstory or model design or both.
Sorry for the rant, but what I'm trying to say is, this is not new. 40k has been a mostly mature game for half a decade or more, with well-defined armies and units and relatively stable rules. Almost every change or addition to the game since then has been bloat or needless churn rather than refinement or improvement.
I think that they are trying to avoid a WWI aesthetic - given that trying to claim that the Land Raider was a unique design, and not at all based on the British Mark I tank went so well for them.
Mind you... Space Marines flying in a WWI Bomber would look really stupid cool.
Naberiel wrote: Buypainted have nice explanation of GWs behavior to gamers.
Really liked that video and the guy presenting.
Summary is the main product at first glance is to sell a game.
GW treats it like an "in joke" and the answer is no, collectable items = the "GW hobby".
The golden daemon winner gets mentioned often while the tournament winner is "a nobody", love that quote.
Hence the focus on all the collectable codex releases, cards and things... not a game but collectables.
Problem is, the association to give an object collectable worth (sports star, star, infamous person, important event, limited supply, gives advantage) all do not apply (much) to GW.
Hit the nail on the head why they are spinning their wheels and they cannot understand why a "limited edition" something cannot be $500 like the item in the video.
Kilkrazy wrote: Also they are missing the point that the majority of their customers buy stuff to play games.
Once the GW stuff is overpriced, people will go somewhere else.
It is my main motivation for a particular model is to field it (coolness does factor in a bit).
"Overpriced" still boils down to the thinking of size/coolness vs. cost of the item and not the emotionally charged collector item thinking they really wish we would use.
When the Khorn-mower came out at $300 which I would not touch with a ten foot pole (good detail, big model, interesting enough... but the price!).
It actually went down in price ($190 GW online store, $130 locally) so is almost in the realm of consideration... no logic to this at all but highlights what determines a buy.
I could buy the X-wing game and seventeen normal fighter booster packs for the same price (Game $40, $15 per ship X 17 = $295) gives me goose bumps thinking of fielding that.
It's interesting to me, at least, to think of GW's failings as a company, and their failings in the development of their background, as being related:
Both as a company, and as a creator of their IP, GW keeps wanting to make "the next big thing", instead of focusing on steady, quality, development.
On the company level, GW keeps releasing "Big New Products", even though I feel like a company would be better served by a steady stream of sales. This includes shifting the games towards huge models (giant vehicles, walkers, monsters, and centerpiece models), as well as introducing entirely new (or previously rare) elements, like Fliers, Lords of War, Fortifications, etc. They also seem to be focusing their efforts on driving sales through major changes/revisions/expansions to the rules, even when those directly contradict their development strategy previously (for instance, focusing on huge monsters in WFB, while putting out a rule edition that heavily favored large blocks of infantry and spells that are devastating to single model units). This also includes rolling out new editions or rules expansions which make major changes (The Nagash book changing Lord restrictions and allowing access to Necromancy to all armies).
In the background, GW also seems to be determined to have MAJOR CHANGES rather than normal development. The Nagash supplement seems to be heavily promoting the Time of Ending, just as everything in Warhammer 40,000 seems focused on the last 5-10 years of the 41st Millennium and the Time of Ending.
This whole focus on BIG DEVELOPMENT and BIG NEW RELEASES is just foolish. You have a huge game with hundreds of model choices. You can fill in options and expand options and create new options, without throwing gigantic models into the basic game. You also have two huge, well-developed game universes, but instead of exploring centuries (or millennia) of background, you focus on the very last percentage of the timeline.
Even when the sales data OBVIOUSLY point away from this strategy, GW ignores it. The Horus Heresy books are immensely popular, but they don't advance the 40K timeline by one minute. The Heresy era FW range is hugely popular, and it didn't really do anything to shift the focus of the game away from infantry and non-superheavy vehicles. Most of the releases are infantry and vehicle variants, and the other popular stuff (Ad Mech) is stuff that's been in the fluff for years with no models.
GW seems determined to market something new and different to us, despite there being an untapped market of unexplored stuff they have already created. Then they compound it all by insisting that their new stuff is so much more EXTREME and IMPORTANT than all of the old stuff.
Firefighters fight every fire. They don't turn down a fire because it's not bigger than the last fire they fought. The fourth house fire isn't safe because the first three were dangerous.
If they aren't going to fundamentally change the game (Oh, hey! Cadia fell. No more Cadians!), then stop overhyping stuff and stop acting like it's the end of the world (or the Imperium). Stop acting like everything cool and interesting happens in the last 15 years of the 41st Millennium. The Crimson Fists were heroes BEFORE the disaster at Rynn's World. The Grey Knights might respond to a daemonic incursion even if it isn't the biggest one EVAR.
Similarly, people will buy new models if they are good and cool, even if they aren't some new thing. People bought Meganobs and Flash Gits, even though they were not some new unit to the codex. People bought Space Wolves when you released a new sprue, even if the sprue didn't come with ICE LASERS or WOLFY BULLETS. You can make good stuff that people will buy, and you can have good background that people will read, even if its not THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT EVER HAPPENED.
Buypainted have nice explanation of GWs behavior to gamers.
Again I find myself torn between two sides I consider wrong. This game should not be made to be competitive. Or, more precisely, should be made more about narrative and fluff than from the perspective of a "game based on the universe". For example, how about we grow out of the d6 system, allowing more room for the broad scope of thing in this game? For example, allowing more than 2 inches of space between models in units that would naturally spread out in battle. Or how about making a Space Marine army consist of less marines that are more durable and deadly, or maybe make plaguebearers immune to poison, or relegate deep strike mishaps to armies that that actually happens to, roll to penetrate armor and THEN roll for toughness (why is it backwards in the first place?), and the list goes on. Who wouldn't like to see all this happen?
But when you extend that to the models, that sort of thing would be less competitive---at least right away. No matter which way you slice it the main demographic of this hobby is people playing to participate in a game, more focused on tactics and list building then a rich, characterful army. (Not to say you aren't interested in both) Plus Games Workshop would sooner make new units than updating models. If what they told Mr. Buypainted was true, then they'd be updating more than just their very worst unit per release. If there was a single element of their strategy that I could change it'd be that. The rules change, the models don't. I'd much rather have plastic noise marines than a maulerfiend/forgefiend kit. Most people wouldn't. You know why? Because Maulerfiend/Forgefiend are bigger, more powerful, and are "something I'd actually use". Something with good stats. Sell the hobby to the devil, why don't you...
Again I find myself torn between two sides I consider wrong. This game should not be made to be competitive. Or, more precisely, should be made more about narrative and fluff than from the perspective of a "game based on the universe". For example, how about we grow out of the d6 system, allowing more room for the broad scope of thing in this game? For example, allowing more than 2 inches of space between models in units that would naturally spread out in battle. Or how about making a Space Marine army consist of less marines that are more durable and deadly, or maybe make plaguebearers immune to poison, or relegate deep strike mishaps to armies that that actually happens to, roll to penetrate armor and THEN roll for toughness (why is it backwards in the first place?), and the list goes on. Who wouldn't like to see all this happen?
We had something like that, it was called 2nd edition. Some weapons had variable wounds using other dice, one thing was a d20 but I can't remember what it was. Armies were fractions of what they are now - a 1,500 point Space Marine army was like 20 guys. That has feth all to do with competitive, a game can be built around competitive and not detract from narrative and fluff.
The issue is that 40k's rules are designed to be cumbersome, whether intentionally or not, so that games become ponderous affairs that take the better part of a day to play. All that's missing is weird logistic and map maneuvers like some old Napoleonic rules have.
But when you extend that to the models, that sort of thing would be less competitive---at least right away. No matter which way you slice it the main demographic of this hobby is people playing to participate in a game, more focused on tactics and list building then a rich, characterful army. (Not to say you aren't interested in both) Plus Games Workshop would sooner make new units than updating models. If what they told Mr. Buypainted was true, then they'd be updating more than just their very worst unit per release. If there was a single element of their strategy that I could change it'd be that. The rules change, the models don't. I'd much rather have plastic noise marines than a maulerfiend/forgefiend kit. Most people wouldn't. You know why? Because Maulerfiend/Forgefiend are bigger, more powerful, and are "something I'd actually use". Something with good stats. Sell the hobby to the devil, why don't you...
They would do a lot better if they streamlined the game and had steady releases rather than playing one-upsmanship every new codex with bigger, badder things, doubly so because it's hit or miss if those units will suck eggs or be insanely OP. There's barely any rhyme or reason or thought beyond "Hey it would be cool if this unit had X" and then it seems like they go along with X, balance or how it works be damned.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Competitive rules and a narrative game are not mutually exclusive. The narrative can be developed through the campaign structure.
Or you can abandon balanced rules and make it purely narrative.
The sad truth is that GW haven't tried to do either. They just use the "narrative" tag to excuse the slackness of their development.
Also this. You can have competitive rules that also foster narrative gaming, but not the way GW tries to do it with repeated cries that the game isn't meant for tournaments and this "forge the narrative" bullgak that is literally an excuse to cover their own shoddy rules by passing the blame; Unit X is underpowered versus Unit Y? It's not the designers fault, it must be yours because the game isn't competitive, you must be using it wrong or playing TFGs that aren't forging the narrative but are those nasty basement dwelling competitive gamer trolls.
Games Workshop doesn't understand it's own product or the market that buys it.
Their 'product' is the 'GW Hobby" which is an ecosystem of items (models, model supplies, fiction & the game), all items that primarily revolve around THE GAME. The models not collectibles, there is NOTHING collectible regarding the 'GW Hobby'. The accumulation of models and special edition items, while meeting the simplest definition of "collecting", is incredibly short sighted. If the ecosystem is a 'hobby' then there is the implication that what is being 'collected' has an appreciable value and that this value intrinsically makes the items desirable and thus collectible. GW's models have ZERO appreciable value; therefore they are not 'collectible'.
Plainly stated... If there wasn't a game that we could play using the models interest in the product would be abysmal. If GW stopped making rules, nearly everyone in the 'GW Hobby' would leave. If you think otherwise, you're fooling yourself. If there were no game, there would be no logical sense in purchasing 60+ Ork boyz or 40+ Tactical Space Marines or 80+ Tyranid Termagants (get the point?). If your intentions are nothing more than to accumulate models because 'they're cool looking' there is no incentive to purchase the same item in multiples. So... I'll repeat myself - Games Workshop's product is an ecosystem of items, items that primarily revolve around A GAME.
oni wrote: Games Workshop doesn't understand it's own product or the market that buys it.
Their 'product' is the 'GW Hobby" which is an ecosystem of items (models, model supplies, fiction & the game), all items that primarily revolve around THE GAME. The models not collectibles, there is NOTHING collectible regarding the 'GW Hobby'. The accumulation of models and special edition items, while meeting the simplest definition of "collecting", is incredibly short sighted. If the ecosystem is a 'hobby' then there is the implication that what is being 'collected' has an appreciable value and that this value intrinsically makes the items desirable and thus collectible. GW's models have ZERO appreciable value; therefore they are not 'collectible'.
Plainly stated... If there wasn't a game that we could play using the models interest in the product would be abysmal. If GW stopped making rules, nearly everyone in the 'GW Hobby' would leave. If you think otherwise, you're fooling yourself. If there were no game, there would be no logical sense in purchasing 60+ Ork boyz or 40+ Tactical Space Marines or 80+ Tyranid Termagants (get the point?). If your intentions are nothing more than to accumulate models because 'they're cool looking' there is no incentive to purchase the same item in multiples. So... I'll repeat myself - Games Workshop's product is an ecosystem of items, items that primarily revolve around A GAME.
And their lack of understanding of this is the crux of the issue. They don't sell models, they sell a game that uses models. In the same sense that Warlord or Privateer or Mantic or Battlefront or any other game + figures company sells models. In fact outside of some historical figures there's very few models that are basically sold for collecting and not to be used in a game, and even those are the outliers - I might buy a box of let's say Napoleonic infantry to paint up because I like the period and want a unit, but I'm not buying more than one if I'm not playing a game (or, in theory at least, doing a big diorama).
GW doesn't get this. Without the game, they'd sell gak because there would be no reason to buy it.
oni wrote: Games Workshop doesn't understand it's own product or the market that buys it.
Their 'product' is the 'GW Hobby" which is an ecosystem of items (models, model supplies, fiction & the game), all items that primarily revolve around THE GAME. .
Unfortunately so. As it stands, the guys writing the rules for a miniature game take official precedence over the novel writers. By god, John French tried to make Warp Talons work in a story...
Which, by the way, leads me to complain about the lack of civilian models. They're very common mission objectives in 40k, I can't imagine why they haven't been implemented in this oh so narrative of a game. Oh wait, I can.
oni wrote: Games Workshop doesn't understand it's own product or the market that buys it.
Their 'product' is the 'GW Hobby" which is an ecosystem of items (models, model supplies, fiction & the game), all items that primarily revolve around THE GAME. .
Unfortunately so. As it stands, the guys writing the rules for a miniature game take official precedence over the novel writers. By god, John French tried to make Warp Talons work in a story...
Which, by the way, leads me to complain about the lack of civilian models. They're very common mission objectives in 40k, I can't imagine why they haven't been implemented in this oh so narrative of a game. Oh wait, I can.
Infinity makes civilian models that are great for objectives and narrative battles.
oni wrote: Games Workshop doesn't understand it's own product or the market that buys it.
Their 'product' is the 'GW Hobby" which is an ecosystem of items (models, model supplies, fiction & the game), all items that primarily revolve around THE GAME. .
Unfortunately so. As it stands, the guys writing the rules for a miniature game take official precedence over the novel writers. By god, John French tried to make Warp Talons work in a story...
Which, by the way, leads me to complain about the lack of civilian models. They're very common mission objectives in 40k, I can't imagine why they haven't been implemented in this oh so narrative of a game. Oh wait, I can.
Infinity makes civilian models that are great for objectives and narrative battles.
3 reasons: First, and I don't mean to sound rude by saying this, they don't look good. Second, Games Workshop humans are disproportionate, "heroic scale" as people say. Which is of course just them trying to keep the range consistent (and making #3 more of a problem than it needs to be) Reason #3 being that they don't fit the Warhammer 40k aesthetic. If I imagine imperial citizens, I imagine people who are a bit more dryly dressed. But that's just me, I think that if you're making civilian models the whole point should be to make them look as generic as possible.
40K is a universe at war. Who are these civillains you are talking about ?
If civilians were anywhere near the battlefield they would be killed by the enemy, killed by the Inquisition for being tainted, killed by Grey Knights for witnessing something they shouldn't, or killed by an other Imperial Faction for cowardice.
adamsouza wrote: 40K is a universe at war. Who are these civillains you are talking about ?
If civilians were anywhere near the battlefield they would be killed by the enemy, killed by the Inquisition for being tainted, killed by Grey Knights for witnessing something they shouldn't, or killed by an other Imperial Faction for cowardice.
Or an enterprising Sgt would slap a helmet on him, scoop-up a lasgun from the nearest IG fallen and say "Keep going there private, I will overlook your sloppy uniform and misplacing your lasgun but it will be unforgivable if you do not advance and fire <whisper> welcome to the guard, you can thank me later"... "Oh Commisar! I have a newbie that can benefit from your wisdom... or your boot."
Agree that Infinity is somewhat more suited to having civilians involved in the conflict, although I'm sure you probably could work it in to a 40k scenario - Imperial Guard trying to evacuate civilians in front of a Nid invasion, A Space Marine kill-team attacking through a crowded government building to knock out an un-cooperative governor, Night Lords trying to capture some hive juves to induct into their ranks while local PDF try and stop them. All it needs is a little imagination, although the rules might need some tweaking.
3 reasons: First, and I don't mean to sound rude by saying this, they don't look good. Second, Games Workshop humans are disproportionate, "heroic scale" as people say. Which is of course just them trying to keep the range consistent (and making #3 more of a problem than it needs to be) Reason #3 being that they don't fit the Warhammer 40k aesthetic. If I imagine imperial citizens, I imagine people who are a bit more dryly dressed. But that's just me, I think that if you're making civilian models the whole point should be to make them look as generic as possible.
Points 2 and 3 are valid points definitely. But, Infinity civilians don't look good? I must only assume that you haven't seen these miniatures sir, or perhaps live in some kind of alternate universe?
oni wrote: Games Workshop doesn't understand it's own product or the market that buys it.
Their 'product' is the 'GW Hobby" which is an ecosystem of items (models, model supplies, fiction & the game), all items that primarily revolve around THE GAME. .... ...
Plainly stated... If there wasn't a game that we could play using the models interest in the product would be abysmal. If GW stopped making rules, nearly everyone in the 'GW Hobby' would leave. ... ....
This is it in a nutshell. And it gets worse. GW can make rules, and make them so crappy and expensive that people leave anyway.
When GW doubled the price of codexes I decided not to buy the two new ones I needed for my armies. Therefore I didn't buy any new models either. Then I didn't buy the next edition of rules, because what would be the point.
For the price of 7th edition, two codexes, and a couple of new units (Riptide, Flyrant, etc) I can instead buy myself a very nice X-Wing set up. So I will.
For each "me" who leaves, there is someone who does buy the double price codexes, thus keeping up the overall sales, but the financial evidence is that this is breaking down.
If I were itching for armed civilians, I'd go for Wargames Factory Survivors
Spoiler:
If I wanted unarmed normal folk walking around I'd just use O scale model railroad people. You can buy them by pretty inexpensively if you shop around. 10 seconds searching found them 100 for $13 on Amazon.
Look at GW financials year to year, not just one year. 2013 was GW's highest revenue and highest profit ever. Yep, 2014 it went down but their revenue and profit fell to about 2011 levels, which was still pretty good. SO hardly the outlook of a company at the end of their life cycle.
In 2008 they actually took a loss. They economy was in the toilet, so duh. Until GW posts a consistent loss over 2 or more years then I am not worried. Right now they are generating millions in profits and are debt free. The only game company doing better than them is Hasbro/Wizards.
I know its fashionable to think GW is going under and it's all gloom and doom but really, you hens need to get over yourselves. People have said GW is going down since the early 90's, people have been saying they are going under since then too. But they keep increasing their revenues and profits almost every year. Considering the economy since 2008 and the nature of game companies taking a one year drop in profit (which is still profitable) the way you guys go on is absolutely ridiculous.
We wrote:Look at GW financials year to year, not just one year. 2013 was GW's highest revenue and highest profit ever. Yep, 2014 it went down but their revenue and profit fell to about 2011 levels, which was still pretty good. SO hardly the outlook of a company at the end of their life cycle.
In 2008 they actually took a loss. They economy was in the toilet, so duh. Until GW posts a consistent loss over 2 or more years then I am not worried. Right now they are generating millions in profits and are debt free. The only game company doing better than them is Hasbro/Wizards.
I know its fashionable to think GW is going under and it's all gloom and doom but really, you hens need to get over yourselves. People have said GW is going down since the early 90's, people have been saying they are going under since then too. But they keep increasing their revenues and profits almost every year. Considering the economy since 2008 and the nature of game companies taking a one year drop in profit (which is still profitable) the way you guys go on is absolutely ridiculous.
But go ahead flame away.
adamsouza wrote: How dare you bring logic and facts to a hate fest
We have several threads, including the recent 78 page behemoth, that covers the actual financial facts. Actually saying "they posted profits and have no debt, so they'll be fine" is counter to the logic found in the financial data and continued devaluing of releases. Those are the facts of the matter. GW can very realistically fold in 12-24 months determining on how far the player base bails out. Sales are down, structure is flat, all costs to be cut are. No market research, no actual marketing, poorly leveraged IP, frivolous law suits, and higher and higher prices for less and less content.
We wrote: Look at GW financials year to year, not just one year. 2013 was GW's highest revenue and highest profit ever. Yep, 2014 it went down but their revenue and profit fell to about 2011 levels, which was still pretty good. SO hardly the outlook of a company at the end of their life cycle.
Now look beyond the numbers and consider WHY those numbers are what they are. There are two major issues here:
1) GW lost profit despite aggressive cost cutting and price increases (including day-1 DLC and a faster release cycle). Cutting costs is nice, but it's not something you can keep doing forever. At some point you simply run out of things to cut without sacrificing too much product quality. So what we have here is a really bad drop in sales that has been covered up by some temporary gains in efficiency. Once the cost cutting runs out we can expect GW to see a huge drop in profits. Which brings us to point #2...
2) GW has no plan for getting out of their decline. The new rules are garbage, and GW's desperate attempts to speed up the release cycle has eliminated what little quality control they used to have. The new models are uneven at best, with occasional nice kits balanced out by laughable failures like the Taurox. The quality of the new books is a joke, instead of lots of interesting fluff/art/etc we get page after page of the same old catalog photos. The new WD relaunch is only good for using as toilet paper and will be abandoned almost as soon as it started (not that anyone will notice because they already canceled their subscriptions). Their stores are reduced to one-man closets that nobody will ever go to willingly if there's an independent store within 50 miles. Their website has been stripped of anything that was even vaguely interesting, leaving only a store that nobody will visit unless they're buying something. More and more products are going direct-only, conceding shelf space in independent stores to GW's competition. In short, GW has no hope of attracting new customers by offering a superior product. Their only possible route to "growth" is to become even more efficient at milk the cash cow of their last remaining customers.
Meanwhile GW's competition is busy putting out appealing products and taking more and more of GW's market share. It's quite likely that the 2013 peak in revenue and profit was the best GW will ever do, and it's only downhill from here. Unless GW makes major changes (likely involving firing everyone involved in management or game design) the only question now is how long GW's sheer size and market share will allow them to survive as a declining company until the final end.
Figures we are seeing are also pre 7th edition release ?
all costs to be cut are.
1.) You have no way of knowing that
2.) Not being in a legal battle with Chapter House alone, will save them buckets of money
No market research
Again, you have no way of actually knowing that.
GW has been convinced for years that their most profitable demographic is teenage boys with disposable income who will play the game for 6 months to a year, and will probably play Space Marines. They got that idea from research from somewhere.
I'm certain GW is paying someone for marketing research. Someone conivinced them they could rebrand themselves as a collectables company, and not a toy maker, and charge premium prices after the rebranding. That smells distinctly of marketing redifining the paradigm nonsense.
poorly leveraged IP
That is a matter of opinion. They are not losing money on IP. FFG produces great products in the 40K universe, and every crappy video game someone churns out with Space Marines in it is money they make doing nothing themselves.
frivolous law suits
I agree with you on that, but GW had a stellar record bullying smaller companies with Law Suits before Chapter House, so that was entirely unexpected to them.
I doubt they will be involved in any this coming year.
higher and higher prices for less and less content.
They saw how well Apple Ipads/Iphones were selling and thought, "Hey we can do that to !!", which they have to some extant, because, you know they are still turning a profit.
Do I agree with GW's buissiness practices ? No
Do I see them crashing and burning in the next 12-24 months becuase of said buissiness practices ? No
Once the cost cutting runs out we can expect GW to see a huge drop in profits.
No.
Reducing operating expenses usually leads to increased profits, not the other way around. If they can keep the same amount of revenue and cost less to operate next year, than they did this year, they make more profits. That's why companies do that. We are still in a recession, most companies are looking for ways to tighten their belts and eliminate what they consider wasted expenses.
GW has no plan for getting out of their decline.
For the love of the Emperor, you have NO way of knowing that
adamsouza wrote: 2.) Not being in a legal battle with Chapter House alone, will save them buckets of money
No it won't. GW's legal expenses are an obscene amount of money compared to the average person's salary, but compared to GW's total revenue they're not all that much. Removing that expense is obviously a good thing, but it doesn't change the fundamental problems with GW's current situation.
No market research
Again, you have no way of actually knowing that.
GW's own financial report proudly states that they don't do market research.
and every crappy video game someone churns out with Space Marines in it is money they make doing nothing themselves.
And this is why GW's IP is poorly leveraged. Why are they settling for bad iphone games instead of making good games? Where are the space marine t-shirts?
They saw how well Apple Ipads/Iphones were selling and thought, "Hey we can do that to !!", which they have to some extant, because, you know they are still turning a profit.
Except they're making less profit. If you increase prices and make less money it means you've lost sales volume. GW is obsessively milking the cash cow of their remaining customers, but every time they milk it they lose a few more customers with nobody to replace them.
Reducing operating expenses usually leads to increased profits, not the other way around. If they can keep the same amount of revenue and cost less to operate next year, than they did this year, they make more profits. That's why companies do that. We are still in a recession, most companies are looking for ways to tighten their belts and eliminate what they consider wasted expenses.
Sigh. You completely missed the point there. Reducing operating expenses leads to increased profits, but you can't keep reducing operating expenses indefinitely. Right now that reduction in expenses is the only reason GW's numbers aren't much worse than they are. Once GW runs out of ways to reduce expenses they will no longer be keeping up with the annual decreases in revenue, and profits will start to drop. But let's give an example (with completely imaginary numbers):
2012 revenue: $100 million
2012 expenses: $80 million
2012 profit: $20 million
2012 revenue: $90 million
2013 expenses: $75 million
2013 profit: $15 million
Here we have a company that, like GW, has experienced a decline in both revenue and expenses. They lost 10% of their revenue and saw a 25% drop in profit, which is a pretty bad year. But the real situation is a lot worse. If they hadn't been able to cut costs by $5 million they would have suffered a 50% drop in profit. So their future depends on how much more they can cut their expenses. If they can continue to cut expenses every year they might be able to keep up with the decline in revenue and suffer only moderate losses in profit. But if they run out of things to cut their profit could disappear very quickly. For example, if 2014 sees another $10 million loss in revenue without matching cuts in expenses our hypothetical company will be down to $5 million in profit, a 75% drop compared to 2012.
For the love of the Emperor, you have NO way of knowing that
Of course we have a way of knowing it, we can look at GW's current behavior. If they had any kind of plan for reversing their current decline they'd be doing it, as they're well past the point where they should be concerned about the problem and start trying to fix it. Instead we see the same old business as usual that is responsible for their decline. Quality is down, prices are up, and GW's customers are rats fleeing a sinking ship.
I agree with you on that, but GW had a stellar record bullying smaller companies with Law Suits before Chapter House, so that was entirely unexpected to them.
I doubt they will be involved in any this coming year.
That assumes that Chapterhouse isn't going to drag them through the appeals process, which Chapterhouse has no reason to not do.
They've got a highly prestigious law firm working pro-bono, and many people here on dakka who work in the law sector believe they have a good chance of overturning many of the decisions that went against them.
Figures we are seeing are also pre 7th edition release ?
all costs to be cut are.
1.) You have no way of knowing that 2.) Not being in a legal battle with Chapter House alone, will save them buckets of money
No market research
Again, you have no way of actually knowing that.
GW has been convinced for years that their most profitable demographic is teenage boys with disposable income who will play the game for 6 months to a year, and will probably play Space Marines. They got that idea from research from somewhere.
I'm certain GW is paying someone for marketing research. Someone conivinced them they could rebrand themselves as a collectables company, and not a toy maker, and charge premium prices after the rebranding. That smells distinctly of marketing redifining the paradigm nonsense.
poorly leveraged IP
That is a matter of opinion. They are not losing money on IP. FFG produces great products in the 40K universe, and every crappy video game someone churns out with Space Marines in it is money they make doing nothing themselves.
frivolous law suits
I agree with you on that, but GW had a stellar record bullying smaller companies with Law Suits before Chapter House, so that was entirely unexpected to them.
I doubt they will be involved in any this coming year.
higher and higher prices for less and less content.
They saw how well Apple Ipads/Iphones were selling and thought, "Hey we can do that to !!", which they have to some extant, because, you know they are still turning a profit.
Do I agree with GW's buissiness practices ? No
Do I see them crashing and burning in the next 12-24 months becuase of said buissiness practices ? No
Once the cost cutting runs out we can expect GW to see a huge drop in profits.
No.
Reducing operating expenses usually leads to increased profits, not the other way around. If they can keep the same amount of revenue and cost less to operate next year, than they did this year, they make more profits. That's why companies do that. We are still in a recession, most companies are looking for ways to tighten their belts and eliminate what they consider wasted expenses.
GW has no plan for getting out of their decline.
For the love of the Emperor, you have NO way of knowing that
I don't like this style of posting in the least, so to acknowledge just a smidgen... you haven't actually read any of the relevant threads, obviously. They have leveled their entire staffing to the absolutely minimum (in the financial report), cut all almost all multi-staff stores (in the financial report), and they discuss about the costs associated with doing so, however year over year expenses excluding these costs barely changed (guess what? in the financial report).
They are poorly leveraging their IP simply because we can trace back through the financial reports (broken record) to show they made a killing with titles such as Space Marine and the Dawn of War series. Now, they have a few trade deals with FFG and are leverage their IP to shovelware game producers for mobile devices. And no, not every game they make is an instant seller of tons because again, you guessed it... you can check the royalties each year in the financial reports. Those are down. Surprise.
And the "turning a profit" thing is cute, but not relevant. The important part is while all this obviously bad "stuff" is going down, their profits have taken a massive hit; either 42% including temporary expenditures such as severance packages to flatten the corporate structure, or 25% without considering said expenditures. All while prices have been increasing. Meaning sales volumes continue to fall. At some point, the only thing left to cut in terms of cost is items directly linked towards revenue generation.
And we know they have no plan for coming out of this decline as their last financial statement and the words of Lord Kirby are indicative of such. So don't act like you're preaching some wisdom when it strongly appears that you are not spun up on the current facts of the matter. Games Workshop is hurting and is readily running itself into the ground based upon the information they've relayed to the public. They've given no indication to their shareholder that they have any magic outside of their "jewel-like wonders that are Games Workshop miniatures" (actual quote from... guess!).
As I mentioned, Historical's, especially WWII are still going strong. With the steady release of 28mm figures for WWII old and new gamer's have come on board. There should be no reason why the GW range can't continue, they just need to do something and not rest on their laurels.
With out crossing in to the subject matter of other posts I do wonder if they should concentrate on taking 40k back to being about the gaming and introduce the Horus Heresy period as their "shiney, awesome" range. All that lost tech that can be turned into models as well as all those races the Great Crusade exterminated., rather than wedging in models to the 40k universe "just cos".
Wolfstan wrote: As I mentioned, Historical's, especially WWII are still going strong. With the steady release of 28mm figures for WWII old and new gamer's have come on board. There should be no reason why the GW range can't continue, they just need to do something and not rest on their laurels.
With out crossing in to the subject matter of other posts I do wonder if they should concentrate on taking 40k back to being about the gaming and introduce the Horus Heresy period as their "shiney, awesome" range. All that lost tech that can be turned into models as well as all those races the Great Crusade exterminated., rather than wedging in models to the 40k universe "just cos".
That's something I'm surprised they haven't done. Do a Great Crusade type of game that has all those extinct races as unique forces and they can keep things going. Or, better yet, push the narrative forward and fracture the Imperium to make Imperial vs. Imperial something that can have a narrative behind it instead of playing "Who's the Heretic"
"They do no market research."
"You have no way of knowing that."
That's kinda funny because they said quite proudly that they don't, so yes, we can know that.
Sir, you have to go read the preamble and the financial report. Sure, they're still making a profit that that's not the entire picture. There's a lot more going on.
To get back to the life cycle idea, I recently starting thinking of GW's success as one of demographics.
When they grew from a UK importer of D&D to a worldwide seller of miniatures, the children of the baby boom generation where hitting their teenage years. They had a massive market that grew up with them through the 90s.
Then the Lord of the Rings boom happened. They maintained their focus on teenagers and made millions on the strength of the movies. Kirby even made the list of overpaid CEOs in the UK because of how much he was taking home in bonus money.
When LOTR faded, GW kept it's focus on the same demographic. But where were their customers? They were getting into their late 20s and 30s and today the same people that made up the bulk of their customer base are in their 30s. All while GW maintained it's focus on 14-19 year olds. Jervis even wrote in white dwarf that the codex needed to be accessible to this (then) 12 year old son.
So you've got GW growing on a demographic shift and then just accepting that their customers were just going to get old and leave, so they better concentrate on appealing to new young ones.
And now they've adopted a retail model which decreases every one of their stores exposure (in terms of hours) to these potential new customers and has resulted in a significant drop in revenue in the last two reports.
They're not replacing the customers that drop out fast enough and the great demographic shift of the children of the baby boomers is over for them. So now it's time for their decline unless they can figure out a plan to turn things around. Given that the current management seems proud that they don't do market research and don't ask the market what it wants, I have my doubts about their ability to do so.
Strange i am GW's demographic because i have always been a collector first and wargamer second, love the fluff but their prices drove me away. Living in the land of bandai, Tamiya, garage kit and mecha, i laugh at their prices of their imperial knight and their tanks, for those prices i can buy high quality tanks/mecha's with metal parts.
That is a good point. If you are a modeller or collector there are many alternatives to GW and most of them are at least arguably cheaper and/or better.
The only reason to choose to collect GW is if you particularly like their aesthetic.
I am more painter and collector too and I have two. But as collector i dont have big problem with they prices, yes they can be cheaper, but I buy one for year? so 30€ isnt that much and I have ten figs for painting.
The thing is that Games Workshop needs about five million "one box a year" collectors to keep going if they don't sell larger armies and books to game players.
Kilkrazy wrote: The thing is that Games Workshop needs about five million "one box a year" collectors to keep going if they don't sell larger armies and books to game players.
Which shows just how fething stupid their idea that they sell to collectors really is. Most collectors aren't going to buy enough figures to make an army, and if they do then they likely aren't really collectors. Yet the price is way too high for real collectors who might collect an entire Napoleonic regiment (barring weird things like 60mm figures or whatever which have tons more detail)
Kilkrazy wrote: The thing is that Games Workshop needs about five million "one box a year" collectors to keep going if they don't sell larger armies and books to game players.
Which shows just how fething stupid their idea that they sell to collectors really is. Most collectors aren't going to buy enough figures to make an army, and if they do then they likely aren't really collectors. Yet the price is way too high for real collectors who might collect an entire Napoleonic regiment (barring weird things like 60mm figures or whatever which have tons more detail)
Right there, that's the point that Kirby is missing about collectors. They buy pieces that they like. It could be a squad of Space Marines or it could be 90mm piece from a Spanish sculptor. As I've mentioned before I got out of gaming big time a long time ago, but the peces I'm seeing in Figure Painter Monthly are making me want to get back to painting / collecting big time. So Kirby's idea of a "collector" is way off big time.
Kilkrazy wrote: The thing is that Games Workshop needs about five million "one box a year" collectors to keep going if they don't sell larger armies and books to game players.
Which shows just how fething stupid their idea that they sell to collectors really is. Most collectors aren't going to buy enough figures to make an army, and if they do then they likely aren't really collectors. Yet the price is way too high for real collectors who might collect an entire Napoleonic regiment (barring weird things like 60mm figures or whatever which have tons more detail)
I cant agree collector will buy whole army as he like his fraction, but he likely wont buy nothing else. But anyway theh in the end will reduce prices, they cant that stupid.
Well, Kirby still thinks his product has a good shot of being the premier collector's items, it would only happen if it was like the below item:
Spoiler:
The only thing I can see happening to be able to mint money is to actually create a cult based on the 40k Emperor lore in real life.
The "Church of the Sub-Genius" got a bit of traction as a joke cult, "Bob" could be a great supporter.http://www.subgenius.com/index.htm What worked for L. Ron Hubbard should easily translate.
In all seriousness, if GW can make the connection that they sell a game:
1) Written rules defining how models behave.
2) Sell models that match what is in the rule books.
3) Support/advertise events that celebrate the above two things, I dunno, minimal stuff their competitors do.
I just cannot wrap my brain around the Kirby business model: "we are fantastic and they should flock to us", how is that created/deserved?
This sense of entitlement and big brass balls as if through just being belligerent he can bully us into buying their product.
This is just crazy stuff, thank goodness my friends have taken a sudden interest in Battletech Alphastrike so I may have little break from 40k and gain some perspective.
They (try to) behave just like HP, Apple, Microsoft and such big companies...money can make funny things with your brain. They are biggest and most succesfull companies in this hobby, so they think they may take to afford it.
Next thing is, they dont makes consumables items, its just natural they salles drop because there is no need for so many minis since demand isnt that big.
Yeah, good find/observation isn't it?
Whenever I think I am going too far in a hobby I search for others on the net that far exceed to what lengths I would go.
It makes you feel so much better.
Next thing is, they dont makes consumables items, its just natural they salles drop because there is no need for so many minis since demand isnt that big.
There should be a constant flow of demand for their products because they should be recruiting faster than people leave the hobby. That is like.. sales 101. You need to be gaining more customers in a year than you lose.
GW can't seem to understand this and their buy in price is just ludicrous so it isn't happening.
Pacific wrote: Agree that Infinity is somewhat more suited to having civilians involved in the conflict, although I'm sure you probably could work it in to a 40k scenario - Imperial Guard trying to evacuate civilians in front of a Nid invasion, A Space Marine kill-team attacking through a crowded government building to knock out an un-cooperative governor, Night Lords trying to capture some hive juves to induct into their ranks while local PDF try and stop them. All it needs is a little imagination, although the rules might need some tweaking.
3 reasons: First, and I don't mean to sound rude by saying this, they don't look good. Second, Games Workshop humans are disproportionate, "heroic scale" as people say. Which is of course just them trying to keep the range consistent (and making #3 more of a problem than it needs to be) Reason #3 being that they don't fit the Warhammer 40k aesthetic. If I imagine imperial citizens, I imagine people who are a bit more dryly dressed. But that's just me, I think that if you're making civilian models the whole point should be to make them look as generic as possible.
Points 2 and 3 are valid points definitely. But, Infinity civilians don't look good? I must only assume that you haven't seen these miniatures sir, or perhaps live in some kind of alternate universe?
Spoiler:
I just did a google image search of "Infinity Civillians". The results looked nothing like those. Still...Reasons 2 and 3.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well I'm not Games Workshop's demographic, but I can explain why I can understand their prices, and, dare I say, even think they are fair. It has to do with the ideal. You shouldn't be buying large amounts of miniatures at once. Starter sets I can see because of the price, but generally speaking, you should only ever be buying a kit every few weeks or every few months (depending upon what you're buying, how much time you have, etc.) once you're done with your last. You buy one, you build it, you paint it, and you take your time with it and do it well. THEN you do the next one. Eventually you'll have an army. As you're no doubt aware the greatest flaw of this ideal is startup time. Once you have a core army finished this process becomes much more enjoyable---constantly growing and changing your games, keeping them fresh. But there could easily be years between the point where you make your very first investment into this hobby and the day you actually have the army you visualized in your carrying case. In that time, your army book could be updated, the rules could be updated... typically anyone in this position breaks and starts playing with unpainted models. I've seen how this then leads to people feeling comfortable playing without paint and lose any motivation to paint them. These people (most players) then no doubt feel liberated enough to buy more miniatures, aiming for the gratification of playing with them before they're even finished, but then they hit the wall and realize they're spending more money than they should be on this hobby. Well I say you're doing it wrong. Take it easy, slow down, and actually learn how to paint. A wise man once said you have nothing to fear but fear itself. The end result will be a painted army and new expenditures lowered to the level of a cell phone bill.
As for the righteousness of raising prices needlessly.... While the model itself is archaic, their prices are still cheaper than Warmachine, you simply need to buy more to play. Plastic and Resin is cheaper than metal, but that's beside the point. Miniatures are sushi. Just because it's a tiny piece of fish not worth 50 cents on its own doesn't mean with the right labor it can't turn into something far more valuable. They have been expanding constantly for the last, well, ever. And in that time, think of how many presses they had to pay for since then, and all of the full time jobs that feed every single employee of the company from the CEO to the pushy man behind the desk. They all work full time, and rely solely on you to put gas in their car, food in their belly, and a roof over their heads. In my opinion that need for support alone is enough to justify it to me. And honestly, I'm sure they could lower their prices, but I don't know by how much, and if the amount that they need to lower them by to adequately increase sales would be as feasible for them as it would be for us. Once you buy the model, you're not buying it again.
P.S. If you're actually in Games Workshop's demographic, I can see why you're growing upset. The new cartoony aesthetic is working against the notion that someone would buy these models for their own sake.
Well I'm not Games Workshop's demographic, but I can explain why I can understand their prices, and, dare I say, even think they are fair. It has to do with the ideal. You shouldn't be buying large amounts of miniatures at once. Starter sets I can see because of the price, but generally speaking, you should only ever be buying a kit every few weeks or every few months (depending upon what you're buying, how much time you have, etc.) once you're done with your last.
Except that we are talking about games where you field armies - and games that have fielded armies that are arguably larger than most of their competition.
You cannot play the game until you have those armies.
People want to play the game. So they buy their miniatures, and typically start fielding them as bare plastic, or, if they are playing Space Marines they give them a quick one coat of the base color - sometimes.
So... no - not a valid argument.
With most other games I can spend less money, get a playable force, and not spend months painting the fershluginner things before I get to play.
Some games even sell *GASP!* prepainted miniatures that are still cheaper than GW unpainted plastic. (I hate prepainted miniatures, but the starting cost for the Star Wars game is a heck of a lot less that the starting cost for, oh, 40K... and a lot less than Fantasy.
Mantic and Kings of War are also aimed at having large armies - and sell miniatures for a lot less.
Historical games ten to have VERY large armies - and the Perrys are selling their figures for a whole lot less than GW.
And the Perry models look better than most GW plastics.
TheAuldGrump wrote: With most other games I can spend less money, get a playable force, and not spend months painting the fershluginner things before I get to play.
Some games even sell *GASP!* prepainted miniatures that are still cheaper than GW unpainted plastic. (I hate prepainted miniatures, but the starting cost for the Star Wars game is a heck of a lot less that the starting cost for, oh, 40K... and a lot less than Fantasy.
Mantic and Kings of War are also aimed at having large armies - and sell miniatures for a lot less.
Historical games ten to have VERY large armies - and the Perrys are selling their figures for a whole lot less than GW.
And the Perry models look better than most GW plastics.
The Auld Grump - GW ain't PORSCHE!
That's very true. As far as size goes the closest comparison to GW games is historicals (and things like KoW), but historicals tend to traditionally be 15mm or even smaller. Even the 28mm historicals though cost a fraction of what GW charges, but operate along the same lines (lots of figures = large armies). So again why does GW alone feel they can charge double or more for the same thing?
Did you miss me saying Games Workshop is slightly cheaper than Warmachine? And my admission that the biggest drawback to the aforementioned ideal was that yes, you do need an army to play, and that it is expected to be painted to a standard?
Quarterdime wrote: [size=9]
Well I'm not Games Workshop's demographic, but I can explain why I can understand their prices, and, dare I say, even think they are fair. It has to do with the ideal. You shouldn't be buying large amounts of miniatures at once. Starter sets I can see because of the price, but generally speaking, you should only ever be buying a kit every few weeks or every few months (depending upon what you're buying, how much time you have, etc.) once you're done with your last. You buy one, you build it, you paint it, and you take your time with it and do it well. THEN you do the next one. Eventually you'll have an army. As you're no doubt aware the greatest flaw of this ideal is startup time. Once you have a core army finished this process becomes much more enjoyable---constantly growing and changing your games, keeping them fresh. But there could easily be years between the point where you make your very first investment into this hobby and the day you actually have the army you visualized in your carrying case. In that time, your army book could be updated, the rules could be updated... typically anyone in this position breaks and starts playing with unpainted models. I've seen how this then leads to people feeling comfortable playing without paint and lose any motivation to paint them. These people (most players) then no doubt feel liberated enough to buy more miniatures, aiming for the gratification of playing with them before they're even finished, but then they hit the wall and realize they're spending more money than they should be on this hobby. Well I say you're doing it wrong. Take it easy, slow down, and actually learn how to paint. A wise man once said you have nothing to fear but fear itself. The end result will be a painted army and new expenditures lowered to the level of a cell phone bill.
As for the righteousness of raising prices needlessly.... While the model itself is archaic, their prices are still cheaper than Warmachine, you simply need to buy more to play. Plastic and Resin is cheaper than metal, but that's beside the point. Miniatures are sushi. Just because it's a tiny piece of fish not worth 50 cents on its own doesn't mean with the right labor it can't turn into something far more valuable. They have been expanding constantly for the last, well, ever. And in that time, think of how many presses they had to pay for since then, and all of the full time jobs that feed every single employee of the company from the CEO to the pushy man behind the desk. They all work full time, and rely solely on you to put gas in their car, food in their belly, and a roof over their heads. In my opinion that need for support alone is enough to justify it to me. And honestly, I'm sure they could lower their prices, but I don't know by how much, and if the amount that they need to lower them by to adequately increase sales would be as feasible for them as it would be for us. Once you buy the model, you're not buying it again.
P.S. If you're actually in Games Workshop's demographic, I can see why you're growing upset. The new cartoony aesthetic is working against the notion that someone would buy these models for their own sake.
Problem with this, is, that GW wants you to spend your $200-$1000 and never come back again. I didn't believe that at first, but then I started seeing that. The people who work at GW are not like that, they want you to come back, but I can see over the years how GW acted and works, I can see this being true. They want the rich parents to come in with their kids, buy the stuff they need and that is that.
GW doesn't act like they want you to come back. GW doesn't act like buy only a little bit, and then come back more when you are done. They act like buy all at once. especially their One Click deals. that is not buy a little bit now, and a little bit later at all.
Quarterdime wrote: Did you miss me saying Games Workshop is slightly cheaper than Warmachine? And my admission that the biggest drawback to the aforementioned ideal was that yes, you do need an army to play, and that it is expected to be painted to a standard?
And did you notice that it is cheaper to have a playable army in WARMACHINE than in any GW game?
And that with fewer models you can be painted in a lot less time?
And that the starter boxes are actually balanced between armies - and have enough to play right out of the box? And what you get are fieldable armies? That the Two Player Battle Box is cheaper than one Nagash? (Or try comparing the Imperial Knight to the WARMACHINE colossals... where you can get two of the largest colossal - in metal and resin - for the cost of one Imperial Knight inplastic.)
Hmmm?
Whereas the two player starter for WH40Kisn't balanced, and most often (though not always) can't be fielded in a regular game without adding another unit? That whole two Troop and one HQ thing, you know?
So - still not a valid argument.
And if we compare to what comes with Deadzone - which is thematically a much closer match than Warmachine....
Well I'm not Games Workshop's demographic, but I can explain why I can understand their prices, and, dare I say, even think they are fair. It has to do with the ideal. You shouldn't be buying large amounts of miniatures at once. Starter sets I can see because of the price, but generally speaking, you should only ever be buying a kit every few weeks or every few months (depending upon what you're buying, how much time you have, etc.) once you're done with your last. You buy one, you build it, you paint it, and you take your time with it and do it well. THEN you do the next one. Eventually you'll have an army. As you're no doubt aware the greatest flaw of this ideal is startup time. Once you have a core army finished this process becomes much more enjoyable---constantly growing and changing your games, keeping them fresh. But there could easily be years between the point where you make your very first investment into this hobby and the day you actually have the army you visualized in your carrying case.
You've just proved the stupidity of your own post. Well done. Most people who post such insane garbage are totally unaware of it. I salute your level of self-awareness.
1: I'd like to play Warhammer
2: I should collect and paint a new batch of figures every few weeks or months.
3: One day, in months or years time, I will be able to play my first game.
There is a reason that point keeps being made.... Games Workshop games are more expensive to enter than any of their competitors.
So, ho-hmmm away... and sooner or later GW will ho-hmmm away as well... most likely sooner, at the rate that they are pricing themselves out of the market.
Because, you see, ho-hmmm does not actually address the problem, now does it?
It is a response that translates to 'I have no actual answer, so I will ridicule the post in the hopes that it goes away'.
Just for interest I totted up the cost in today's prices of my Tau army.
£845.54
Cost at the original prices = £500 (approx)
I collected my army over a couple of years -- 2005 to 2007 -- at which time most of the units were cheaper, in some cases being a different model. The Crisis Commander and the Broadside were variations on the basic Crisis Suit.
Rules, Codex, Crisis Commander, Ethereal, Stealth Team, 2 Crisis Teams, 4 Fire Warrior Squads, 2 Kroot Squads with 4 Kroothounds and 2 Krootoxen, Pathfinder Team in Devilfish, 2 additional Devilfish, Vespids, Gun Drone Squadron, 3 Hammerheads, 3 Broadsides, 2 Sniper Drone Teams.
This gives you a unit for every slot in the standard FOC and a couple of spare Hammerheads that can be used as Devilfish or Heavy Support.
It gives you a bit of flexibility, for example for smaller games you can have three separate Broadsides. I can't point it up but I expect you can easily assemble a 2,000+ army by adding plenty of upgrades. There are none of the modern units like the Riptide and Sunray, as my models are all 3rd and 5th edition, but apart from that you can make a reasonably good army for any size of game except Apocalypse.
Kilkrazy wrote: Just for interest I totted up the cost in today's prices of my Tau army.
£845.54
Interesting. One "army" I just bought for Infinity (Morat Aggression Force) cost me a grand total of $167.11 including rules. Compare that to your $1,403 for a Tau army. Additionally, with GW, each time you "update" your army you are looking at $200-$300, just to update it. When you can start an entirely new game, with a complete tournament ready force for less than updating your army, GW is in trouble.
There is NO argument left that GW has no where to go. They are NOT going to recruit new customers with this kind of market disparity (at least not in sufficient numbers to survive) and it is now cheaper for existing customers to switch to a new system than updating their armies.
Tying this to the point of the OP:
New customers: Looking at 10 TIMES THE COST of almost any other game on the market just to enter the game.
Existing customers: Looking at almost a 50% REDUCTION IN COST to switch to any entirely new game system.
Then again, if GW did ANY market research they may at least begin to recognize this.
Yes, that is the other point. Merely to purchase the 7th edition rules and 6th edition Tau codex would cost me £80, before adding any of the new unit models (Riptide, etc.) I don't like a lot of the 6th and 7th edition rules (Flyers, Lords of War and so on.)
From my viewpoint GW not only have a pricing problem to get new customers, they also will have difficulty in retaining old ones as new rules and codexes are issued.
Just... how can someone compare W40k and Infinity?
Infinity neec to play how many?4-5 models? W40k x-times more, its just natural it will cost more, thats why are this two games incomparable.
And just btw, I like Inf. models, but they are smaler and metal, what is cheaper to produce compared to GW models, whats is another reason why they are cheaper.
There is a reason that point keeps being made.... Games Workshop games are more expensive to enter than any of their competitors.
So, ho-hmmm away... and sooner or later GW will ho-hmmm away as well... most likely sooner, at the rate that they are pricing themselves out of the market.
Because, you see, ho-hmmm does not actually address the problem, now does it?
It is a response that translates to 'I have no actual answer, so I will ridicule the post in the hopes that it goes away'.
The Auld Grump - ho-hmmm.
I'm sure GW could give to gaks about we think about their business practices. This is all conjecture and nothing more than wish listing. No thanks, knock yourself out.
1. It's not up to me to "address" the problem.
2. It's not up to me to have an "answer".
3. Nor would it matter if I did.
Quarterdime wrote: Did you miss me saying Games Workshop is slightly cheaper than Warmachine? And my admission that the biggest drawback to the aforementioned ideal was that yes, you do need an army to play, and that it is expected to be painted to a standard?
Except it's not slightly cheaper than Warmachine. They average out once you hit the higher points in Warmachine, but at the low end Warmachine is hands down cheaper than GW. I've done the price comparisons several times (force to force, not price per model which is what people usually mean when they say that Warmachine isn't cheaper) and every single time I get a NORMAL SIZED FORCE for Warmachine at the same time I get an ENTRY LEVEL ARMY from GW. For the price of the rules and a Codex for 40k I can get a 25-point Warmachine army (depending on what I buy of course), which is the equivalent (roughly) of a 1,000 point 40k army.
It is not in any way, shape or form cheaper if you actually look at what matters instead of looking only at price per individual model or price per box.
I still think the pricing of individual models really isn't relevant. Every system is going to have models that are cheaper or more expensive, and it's more a matter of taste anyways -- different aesthetics, plastic vs. resin vs. metal, etc. Getting what you want justifies the cost.
What's relevant is the cost/value ratio of the rules and the startup cost. The 40k rulebook costs as much as the 2 player battle box for Warmachine. That's exactly why I didn't bother buying 8th edition and instead decided to try WM. Additionally, the constant complete and utter lack of balance in 40k made we want to start looking for alternatives, and I consider that a quality issue with codices. Charging me $50 for a codex that gets blown out of the water by another codex every time is asinine, and I was done with it.
Naberiel wrote: Just... how can someone compare W40k and Infinity?
Infinity neec to play how many?4-5 models? W40k x-times more, its just natural it will cost more, thats why are this two games incomparable.
And just btw, I like Inf. models, but they are smaler and metal, what is cheaper to produce compared to GW models, whats is another reason why they are cheaper.
And yet model for model Infinity is still cheaper.
Clearly you know nothing about infinity because 10 is standard, anything less than 8 in a normal game is way too small and you can get 16 or so easily enough with the more horde-y faction(s), but that's not the point I want to focus on. Infinity models, even the line troops, are metal and beautifully sculpted. Each is essentially a character model, and a GW character model is still twice the price on average and unarguably inferior materials.
Naberiel wrote: Just... how can someone compare W40k and Infinity? Infinity neec to play how many?4-5 models? W40k x-times more, its just natural it will cost more, thats why are this two games incomparable. And just btw, I like Inf. models, but they are smaler and metal, what is cheaper to produce compared to GW models, whats is another reason why they are cheaper.
Infinity isn't a valid comparison to 40k at all for these reasons. It's not the same type of game. Warmachine, at least in part, is much closer to 40k. So is Bolt Action (also much cheaper). But Infinity's cost can't be a valid comparison because it's a small game, there's no way 40k could compete with it so it's already skewed out the box. But comparing Infinity doesn't really work, because nobody wants 40k to go to just 10 or so models per side (well not as the prime game anyways, as an addon sure why not).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
slowthar wrote: I still think the pricing of individual models really isn't relevant. Every system is going to have models that are cheaper or more expensive, and it's more a matter of taste anyways -- different aesthetics, plastic vs. resin vs. metal, etc. Getting what you want justifies the cost.
What's relevant is the cost/value ratio of the rules and the startup cost. The 40k rulebook costs as much as the 2 player battle box for Warmachine. That's exactly why I didn't bother buying 8th edition and instead decided to try WM. Additionally, the constant complete and utter lack of balance in 40k made we want to start looking for alternatives, and I consider that a quality issue with codices. Charging me $50 for a codex that gets blown out of the water by another codex every time is asinine, and I was done with it.
Exactly. Price per model is NOT relevant at all, yet it keeps being brought up ("Look this unit of 10 guys for Warmachine is $85! GW sells 10 guys for $40! GW is cheaper!!!"), especially since when you compare plastic to plastic (the aforementioned $85 box is METAL) it's roughly the same at best, and then you get the typical "But the plastic quality sucks" or "But I don't get extra bits sprues" kind of arguments that ignore the fact nobody is talking aesthetics. You get a lot more for your money ("value") from Warmachine than you do 40k because a unit is typically self-contained; you buy one box of a unit, and then you're done. You don't need to buy a second or third box of that same unit except in rare skew lists.
I've done a comparison several times, most recent being the other day as I really was looking at getting back into 40k, and once I hit the $300 mark or so for barely a minimal force (and that's including the fact I have a Codex and Rulebook already from a previous attempt) i said feth it shelved the idea yet again (Time #4 now). There's also the fact that in 40k there is a "basic force" and a "good" force. You can buy a lot of certain units and get a playable army, but it might lose every game because the units you picked are bad. So there's more than just picking units to make a 1,000 point or 1,500 point force, you also have to look at what actually works because the rules are such gak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Byte wrote: I'm sure GW could give to gaks about we think about their business practices. This is all conjecture and nothing more than wish listing. No thanks, knock yourself out.
1. It's not up to me to "address" the problem. 2. It's not up to me to have an "answer". 3. Nor would it matter if I did.
Pat
And the fact they don't care about what we think is the reason why they are declining in a market that is growing. They should be listening because ex customers who left you can provide valuable insight to things you are doing wrong, because they used to buy from you and now don't. That's Business 101.
Naberiel wrote:Just... how can someone compare W40k and Infinity?
Infinity neec to play how many?4-5 models? W40k x-times more, its just natural it will cost more, thats why are this two games incomparable.
Perhaps you mean they can't be equated with one another, because you made a comparison in your post. You compared them and then talked about the differences, so they're obviously comparable.
The differences is what matters. It's why the comparison is useful.
To tie this back into the thread topic, this comparison is about both recruitment and competition. In GW's life cycle, they're at a stage where the demographic that made them huge has largely moved on and now their scrambling to recruit replacements. Since, however, they are failing to do so fast enough, they want to get as much cash out of each customer as possible before they quit.
That's why everything is front loaded. Expensive rules, expensive starter, expensive army books. Everything you need up front, is jacked up in price so they can maximize the revenue they get from each customer early on in that customer's life with the company.
Unfortunately, this just increases the barrier to entry and makes recruitment harder. So the existing customer base and new people who happen to get in anyway will be asked to pay more to make up the difference. Which then increases the barrier to entry and so on in a feedback loop.
GW also tries to segment their market away from the larger gaming market. Which means that the value of their segmented market in terms of marketing exposure goes down with every person who leaves and is not replaced by a new person. There's less word of mouth, less foot traffic in stores, less people seeing white dwarf, less people being exposed to GW marketing. As a marketing channel, GW's segmented approach loses value with each lost customer. Their eco-system isn't expanding and thriving, it's sick and wasting away.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, that is the other point. Merely to purchase the 7th edition rules and 6th edition Tau codex would cost me £80, before adding any of the new unit models (Riptide, etc.) I don't like a lot of the 6th and 7th edition rules (Flyers, Lords of War and so on.)
From my viewpoint GW not only have a pricing problem to get new customers, they also will have difficulty in retaining old ones as new rules and codexes are issued.
QFT. They should release "The Rules" again for 7th edition. It would also help if they included "The rules" in every faction's starter box. It's the least they could do.
Sorry but Infinity (or Warmachine, or Malifaux or X-Wing) are PERFECTLY comparable in this case.
The structure of the game is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is they are competing for the customers dollars and other companies are taking a lot of the dollars that used to go to GW. It's like going into a restaurant that has a prime rib dish for $40 and a chicken dish for $20. Sure, beef and chicken aren't the same so I get the chicken. Guess what that also means, that I didn't get the beef. Just because one is a skirmish and one is a full battle game (or wants to be even though it is terrible at it), does not matter. Fact is, they are very similar in that they are both GAMES.
Both 40k and the others mentioned are the exact same games - ones that use little toy heroes moved around a tabletop shooting dice at each other. The number of models required by the game are irrelevant other than what it means in total cost. For what one army for GW costs now, one can have a full tournament force for TEN other game systems now. In the end, what matters is where people are spending their money and GW as a GAME is terrible in almost every way now to their competition (both in its very poor rules and game play and it's overall cost)
Perhaps the market has shifted and more people today are busier than ever before, so skirmish games with 10-20 models a side and 60-90 minutes of play fit the market demographic better than a full battle game does. Of course, GW doesn't know this because they do zero research.
Naberiel wrote: Just... how can someone compare W40k and Infinity? Infinity neec to play how many?4-5 models? W40k x-times more, its just natural it will cost more, thats why are this two games incomparable. And just btw, I like Inf. models, but they are smaler and metal, what is cheaper to produce compared to GW models, whats is another reason why they are cheaper.
It's actually pretty simple answer.
People are talking about the BUY IN price. GWuse to be at the same scale as the games that are being compared too. Also what pare about the INTRO BOXES are equal points against other armies?
While in the end, other gaming systems can be just as expensive as GW, the Buy In is so much cheaper.
Buy in for X-wing, $40. No codices needed. No EXTRA books needed. GW Buy in is $120. Great deal for what you get. BUT then you need to buy codices. Also you can't even use the minis in the box for a LEGAL army in a lot of cases. Now we have Sanctus Reach books that are over $100 to buy, EACH! Then when another company does have extra books for you to buy, they are under $50, not over, and hell not costing over $100.
Mini wise, you are paying the same as GW or slightly less in some cases, book wise, you are paying DOUBLE to play 40K than other games.
Please I answer that. I will even go over it again. To play 40K you need to pay DOUBLE in prices to buy books than other companies for no reason whats so ever.
Wayshuba: Infinity,Warmachine, Malifaux and X-Wing are PERFECTLY comparable, but not with W40k I sadly dont understand your dish expalanation, maybe its just my orkish english
Davor: yeah there is no way to disagree GW buy in and mainly books are a lot expensive compared to other games, but thats goes again down to player, wana play all that fanci things? you have to pay.
Warmachine is certainly comparable to 40k, at least non-horde 40k armies, albeit without vehicles and flyers. You tend to have a Warjack or two, typically a squad or two (sometimes more) of 10 (usually) infantry, or some smallers squads of 4-6 infantry, maybe some larger-based 5-strong squads. That's fairly comparable to a Space Marine army, for example, minus vehicles. It obviously doesn't compare to something like an Ork or Tyranid horde, but even in 40k those are more expensive than average based on number of models, even if 40k had sane pricing they would be more expensive on volume alone.
In any event it's very easy to say 40k has no comparison and therefore stands alone, except it's not really no comparison. A 1,000 point 40k army is likely about as many models as an normal sized Warmachine army (give or take depending on what you field), but still costs probably double even at that level, and 1k points is supposed to be the entry-level points value for a new player. Therefore, 40k has less value because it's a similar type of game and costs twice as much for a smaller force; why would I spend $300 on the bare basics for 40k when I can spend $300 and get a good sized Warmachine army and play more games with that?
Naberiel wrote: Wayshuba: Infinity,Warmachine, Malifaux and X-Wing are PERFECTLY comparable, but not with W40k
If you're going to disagree with something, its generally best if you explain why, not just say no.
Infinity and 40k are both wargames. Number of models on the table is irrelevant as they're both competing for the same customer base.
40k isn't a special snowflake that can't be compared to anything. Its thinking like that that put GW in its current situation where more and more of the pie is being eaten up by other games.
Wargames are wargames are wargames. Drawing arbitrary lines in the sand because of model count does not make a strong argument. You might as well argue that X-wing isn't comparable because the models are pre-painted.
By that vein they also compete with other gaming hobbies a person might have.
GW's big scale battles are geared to those who want 40-100 models on the table
Infinity's smaller skirmish game is geared to those that want far less.
Sure, they have some overlap and most likely have overlap in the kind of gamers they attract, but once you start blurring the lines between the two types of games why stop here?
And yes, X-wing isn't 100% comparable because it's pre-painted because part of the demographic of GW/Infinity must be the type that likes to paint and wouldn't spent their money on X-wing because of it.
A miniatures wargame is comparable to another miniatures wargame by virtue of the two being miniatures wargames.
Claiming 40k can't be compared to Infinity would be akin to claiming Monopoly and Risk can't be compared because one is a war oriented board game and Monopoly is a business oriented board game.
The games are obviously different, and while people will prefer different themes, model count and price point, the simple fact is that 40k exists within a larger market than 'Just 40k' or 'GW products only'.
Shandara wrote: By that vein they also compete with other gaming hobbies a person might have.
GW's big scale battles are geared to those who want 40-100 models on the table
Infinity's smaller skirmish game is geared to those that want far less.
Sure, they have some overlap and most likely have overlap in the kind of gamers they attract, but once you start blurring the lines between the two types of games why stop here?
And yes, X-wing isn't 100% comparable because it's pre-painted because part of the demographic of GW/Infinity must be the type that likes to paint and wouldn't spent their money on X-wing because of it.
Example: The other week I had to decide what I wanted to buy. Did I want a box of Reciprocators for my Convergence army, a TAG for my Nomad army or get the starter box for X-Wing. (I went with the TAGs) But it shows how different games are indeed in the same market and competing against each other.
Even on a completely superficial comparison, 40k, Malifaux, Infinity and Warmachine are more closely related to each other and comparable than any are to X-Wing.
Those are the same scale, contain humanoid models as the mainstay, both are not pre-painted. They share those with each other and not with X-Wing.
While 40k was always bigger than Infinity, it wasn't that much bigger when it started and it only has had been bloated recently in its lifespan.
Warmachine is even closer in numbers to 40k is, and I would gather similar to 2nd edition 40k in how large an army is, which is significantly larger than an X-Wing one and would look more similar to a 40k army.
In terms of model count, X-Wing I would guess averages half the model count of Infinity.
40k is much more directly comparable to Warmachine than Warmachine is to X-Wing, even in the space of miniatures games.
Naberiel wrote: Just... how can someone compare W40k and Infinity?
They're both
wargames...
in a sci-fi setting...
that use 28mm...
unpainted minis...
with a skirmish rule system...
provided by the same company as the minis.
One has more sides on the dice, one has more skulls on the minis.
Naberiel wrote: Just... how can someone compare W40k and Infinity?
Infinity neec to play how many?4-5 models? W40k x-times more, its just natural it will cost more, thats why are this two games incomparable.
And just btw, I like Inf. models, but they are smaler and metal, what is cheaper to produce compared to GW models, whats is another reason why they are cheaper.
If you make an army for Fantasy or 40K using non-GW models it ends up much cheaper.
I always facepalm when I see the arguments in this thread being brought up over and over. Same gak, different day. People who want to piss on GW always bring up that despite the figures often being more expensive, Warmahordes costs less to start up.
Guess what, guys? Despite the rules being better and the game having less of an overall startup cost, you're still getting ripped off on the model prices. Just like 40k. Compare like to like in terms of models - take the materials into account as well.
When people bring up Historicals and the far, far lower price, it's always the same argument - that "historical players" buy thousands of figures, so arguments of scale abound as to why the historical figures are way cheaper than either the 40k or Warmahordes figures. News flash - histotrical games like Bolt Action or Saga (and quite a few more) don't require all that many models, and those same models (including the vehicles) cost a gakload less than either of your 40k or Warmahordes (or Infinity, et al) models.
And for the record, I own a healthy (unhealthy?) amount of all of the above. I know what I speak of. And it's people defending GW's high prices and others trying to defend PP's own high prices with "but startup cost is reasons!"
Startup cost IS a major reason. The issue isn't that GW is "ripping people off" it's that it costs a lot to START. I have no problem spending money on a unit for my Khador army. If have non problem spending money on a 40k unit. But I do have a problem when the money that would buy me a normal sized Warmachine army buys me like 750 points (entry level) for 40k on top of at least one $50 book to use it and $80 for the rules of the game.
Azazelx wrote: I always facepalm when I see the arguments in this thread being brought up over and over. Same gak, different day. People who want to piss on GW always bring up that despite the figures often being more expensive, Warmahordes costs less to start up.
Guess what, guys? Despite the rules being better and the game having less of an overall startup cost, you're still getting ripped off on the model prices. Just like 40k. Compare like to like in terms of models - take the materials into account as well.
When people bring up Historicals and the far, far lower price, it's always the same argument - that "historical players" buy thousands of figures, so arguments of scale abound as to why the historical figures are way cheaper than either the 40k or Warmahordes figures. News flash - histotrical games like Bolt Action or Saga (and quite a few more) don't require all that many models, and those same models (including the vehicles) cost a gakload less than either of your 40k or Warmahordes (or Infinity, et al) models.
And for the record, I own a healthy (unhealthy?) amount of all of the above. I know what I speak of. And it's people defending GW's high prices and others trying to defend PP's own high prices with "but startup cost is reasons!"
Bah. Bah, I say!
While I state, aloud and for the record, that the startup costs of WARMACHINE is lower than any GW game, I do not play it..
And I agree - the prices of WARMACHINE models are too high.
The few models that I have are for RPG purposes.
My game of choice these days is Kings of War - using figures that are, for the most part, very inexpensive, or that I have owned for decades. (Some of the miniatures are older than my girlfriend.... And she is in her thirties.)
Mantic miniatures are cheap, and easy to paint - my girlfriend has pretty much taken control of my Dwarf army.
Perry historicals work just fine for Kings of War, and the game does not have the huge battles common to historicals. (Though it can handle them quite well - it is in small scale skirmish battles that the game loses its shine.) My Kingdoms of Men army is about 75% Perry, and the rest old Empire models from GW.
My undead are from all over - but I really like the Mantic undead, and the price is decent.
I still play Mordheim - and, again, Perry historicals work just fine. I do not need new models for any of the warbands - I have plenty of old plastics.
Deadzone... Deadzone is weird... the armies can get smaller as the campaign continues. And a single boxed set can be the entirety of your force for quite some time. But possibly the lowest startup cost of any of the games discussed. (I am playing Enforcers and Plague... and have yet to go beyond the forces included in the two player box.)
As for Bolt Action... carry on - good game, good price, and they are starting to carry WWI stuff.
Azazelx wrote: I always facepalm when I see the arguments in this thread being brought up over and over. Same gak, different day. People who want to piss on GW always bring up that despite the figures often being more expensive, Warmahordes costs less to start up.
Guess what, guys? Despite the rules being better and the game having less of an overall startup cost, you're still getting ripped off on the model prices. Just like 40k. Compare like to like in terms of models - take the materials into account as well.
When people bring up Historicals and the far, far lower price, it's always the same argument - that "historical players" buy thousands of figures, so arguments of scale abound as to why the historical figures are way cheaper than either the 40k or Warmahordes figures. News flash - histotrical games like Bolt Action or Saga (and quite a few more) don't require all that many models, and those same models (including the vehicles) cost a gakload less than either of your 40k or Warmahordes (or Infinity, et al) models.
And for the record, I own a healthy (unhealthy?) amount of all of the above. I know what I speak of. And it's people defending GW's high prices and others trying to defend PP's own high prices with "but startup cost is reasons!"
Start up costs is a huge factor in attracting new customers. Seeing as how GW is shedding veterans faster than it's gaining them, start up costs IS a huge factor. Besides, WM is still cheaper to get a finished army. (Not to mention much cheaper and optional rule books.) It's cheaper to start and cheaper over all. I know of what I speak.
In a closed system competition is a bit of a zero sum game - if Bob has $100 a month to spend, and used to spend $50 on GW, $25 on Reaper, and $25 on WARMACHINE, but now 25 is spending $50 on Reaper, $25 on Mantic, and $25 on GW then both GW and WARMACHINE are losing a portion of that money while Reaper and Mantic are getting a bigger slice of the pie.
Unless the pie gets bigger then every dollar that Bob spends on one company is not going to be spent on another.
And, for the record - people do compare apples to oranges - they fill the same fruit shaped niche.
-are both wargames
-in both you compete against other player
-both are playable indoor and outdoor
would you compare they prices? I dont think so coz they are just too diferent, arent they?
Yea 100€ in Infinity give me more than 100 in W40k, yeah book are insane and yeah GWs politics are stupid, but that change nothing. I just cant wram my squid brain around this comparsion.
-are both wargames
-in both you compete against other player
-both are playable indoor and outdoor
would you compare they prices? I dont think so coz they are just too diferent, arent they?
Yea 100€ in Infinity give me more than 100 in W40k, yeah book are insane and yeah GWs politics are stupid, but that change nothing. I just cant wram my squid brain around this comparsion.
Infinity and 40k are both table top miniature wargames. The only difference between them is model count. How is that hard to understand?
Comparisons with chess, Infinity or golf are interesting but useless. To try and see what GW's customers are doing we need to compare GW's prices today with their prices in the past.
I did this using my Tau army -- bought between late 2004 and 2006 -- as a broadly representative "complete" army. My army cost a bit over £500 at the prices when I bought it. The same army now would cost a bit over £850.
That is a 70% increase in cost, compared to 30% of general price inflation over the same time, which is about a 30% increase in real terms. (170/130.) In other words a GW army now costs 30% more than it did eight years ago.
If you look at GW's sales figures over the same period, they roughly have bumped up and down between about £125 M and £135 M (adjusted for inflation.) In other words there was no dramatic up or down trend. The best figure would be 135/125 = 8% increase. That is ignoring the 8% decrease in sales in the last year.
It is not hard to see that if you increase your prices 30% and increase sales 8%, your customers are buying 17% less stuff than they used to.
Why they might do that is another matter, but it surely must have something to do with the perception of cost to benefit of buying GW.
Kilkrazy wrote: To try and see what GW's customers are doing we need to compare GW's prices today with their prices in the past.
I bought my sisters more than 15 years ago (early 3rd ed). I actually made money when I sold them. Truth is, even without the OOP factor on some references, the retail price of most sisters models have more than doubled since the late 90s.
The price increase is almost four times higher than the inflation.
Kilkrazy wrote: Comparisons with chess, Infinity or golf are interesting but useless. To try and see what GW's customers are doing we need to compare GW's prices today with their prices in the past.
I did this using my Tau army -- bought between late 2004 and 2006 -- as a broadly representative "complete" army. My army cost a bit over £500 at the prices when I bought it. The same army now would cost a bit over £850.
That is a 70% increase in cost, compared to 30% of general price inflation over the same time, which is about a 30% increase in real terms. (170/130.) In other words a GW army now costs 30% more than it did eight years ago.
If you look at GW's sales figures over the same period, they roughly have bumped up and down between about £125 M and £135 M (adjusted for inflation.) In other words there was no dramatic up or down trend. The best figure would be 135/125 = 8% increase. That is ignoring the 8% decrease in sales in the last year.
It is not hard to see that if you increase your prices 30% and increase sales 8%, your customers are buying 17% less stuff than they used to.
Why they might do that is another matter, but it surely must have something to do with the perception of cost to benefit of buying GW.
Silly question, but how does that compare to the increase in tin prices?
I... am likely wrong... but it would not surprise me if GW has linked the prices for their miniatures to that of tin. Even though they no longer use that material, and most of their miniatures are now one form of plastic or another.
Though I could have sworn that part of the push to plastics was because of increasing metal prices....
I can't see any logic in linking the figure price to the tin price, not only as GW stopped using tin alloy several years ago but also because the metal price is only a small part of the cost of getting a figure to market.
Anyway it isn't linked. Here is the five year commodity price of tin metal. Basically flat for the past three years.
Okay, just thought that I would ask... back in the '70s OPEC oil prices were linked to that of gold.... (Which has less to do with the price of oil than the price of tin does for a large number of miniatures manufacturers.)
Basically along the lines of 'Reaper prices have gone up 30% because of raising tin prices, so we will increase our prices, even though we don't use tin.'
But then Reaper have very low prices on their Bones miniatures line - a cheaper material that relies on mass production....
Kilkrazy wrote: Comparisons with chess, Infinity or golf are interesting but useless. To try and see what GW's customers are doing we need to compare GW's prices today with their prices in the past.
I did this using my Tau army -- bought between late 2004 and 2006 -- as a broadly representative "complete" army. My army cost a bit over £500 at the prices when I bought it. The same army now would cost a bit over £850.
That is a 70% increase in cost, compared to 30% of general price inflation over the same time, which is about a 30% increase in real terms. (170/130.) In other words a GW army now costs 30% more than it did eight years ago.
If you look at GW's sales figures over the same period, they roughly have bumped up and down between about £125 M and £135 M (adjusted for inflation.) In other words there was no dramatic up or down trend. The best figure would be 135/125 = 8% increase. That is ignoring the 8% decrease in sales in the last year.
It is not hard to see that if you increase your prices 30% and increase sales 8%, your customers are buying 17% less stuff than they used to.
Why they might do that is another matter, but it surely must have something to do with the perception of cost to benefit of buying GW.
Silly question, but how does that compare to the increase in tin prices?
I... am likely wrong... but it would not surprise me if GW has linked the prices for their miniatures to that of tin. Even though they no longer use that material, and most of their miniatures are now one form of plastic or another.
Though I could have sworn that part of the push to plastics was because of increasing metal prices....
Tin prices remaind stable from 1990 to 2003, around 2-3 USD per pound.
The prices have been stable, around 10USD/lb for the last 3 years. Between these periods, the prices have widly fluctuated, with two huge peaks (mid 2008 and early 2011).
The increase is slightly less pronounced if you take other currencies. Still, tin price has more than doubled since 2006.
-are both wargames
-in both you compete against other player
-both are playable indoor and outdoor
Completely comparable. They both cost money to buy. They both have a start up cost to get into. They both take time to play. You get enjoyment out of them. You usually need a partner to play with. Both can be played for fun or in competitions.
Chess can be cheaper to buy. You buy in cost is low as well. Buy once, play for ever. Paintball can be expensive. Buy in is high especially if you buy brand new. You need to keep buying paint balls, and then you have to pay a fee to be able to play in the arena. So it would be said Chess is the better cost effective way to play.
Both take time to play. You need to make sure you have enough time to commit to a game.
You can say Chess is better because travel times can be lessened because you can almost play it anywhere, while you can only paintball in certain places. You can't play it in public and not get in trouble for it.
People who play chess get enjoyment out of it. People who paintball get enjoyment out of it. Why play chess if you don't like it? Why paintball if you don't like it? It provides enjoyment for different reasons.
So yes you can almost compare anything with anything.
would you compare they prices? I dont think so coz they are just too diferent, arent they?
Yea 100€ in Infinity give me more than 100 in W40k, yeah book are insane and yeah GWs politics are stupid, but that change nothing. I just cant wram my squid brain around this comparison.
Again we are talking about Value now are we not? Some people think they are getting a better value with Infinity than they are in getting 40K. You are getting more bang for your buck. Why does that not change anything? This is what I am confused with your statement here. You are getting more. You are getting say 100 apples with Infinity while you are only getting 50 apples with 40K. You are getting more. Does that not change things? If you want a pear, Infinity will sell it for $25, GW will sell it for $75. What am I not seeing that you are seeing to say that is not comparable?
Azazelx wrote: I always facepalm when I see the arguments in this thread being brought up over and over. Same gak, different day. People who want to piss on GW always bring up that despite the figures often being more expensive, Warmahordes costs less to start up.
Guess what, guys? Despite the rules being better and the game having less of an overall startup cost, you're still getting ripped off on the model prices. Just like 40k. Compare like to like in terms of models - take the materials into account as well.
When people bring up Historicals and the far, far lower price, it's always the same argument - that "historical players" buy thousands of figures, so arguments of scale abound as to why the historical figures are way cheaper than either the 40k or Warmahordes figures. News flash - histotrical games like Bolt Action or Saga (and quite a few more) don't require all that many models, and those same models (including the vehicles) cost a gakload less than either of your 40k or Warmahordes (or Infinity, et al) models.
And for the record, I own a healthy (unhealthy?) amount of all of the above. I know what I speak of. And it's people defending GW's high prices and others trying to defend PP's own high prices with "but startup cost is reasons!"
Can't this just be summed up as; a lot of games miniatures are probably over-priced for what they are, some are more over-priced than others. But, GW fronts the way with this pricing charge?
I think the pricing issue also highlights another problem - say I was a parent, looking for something for my kids to play. If you look in a copy of White Dwarf you see the GW games as GW themselves would have you play. That's the 1500pt 40k army or 2000pt WFB army, as a minimum. If they then take a calculator to the price list and get a total, for I think most people other than relatively high-income earners (at least in the UK - this is what has changed a lot with GW gaming here, it used to accessible to a larger chunk of the population) are going to laugh sardonically and then click onto game.com.
Pacific wrote: If they then take a calculator to the price list and get a total, for I think most people other than relatively high-income earners (at least in the UK - this is what has changed a lot with GW gaming here, it used to accessible to a larger chunk of the population) are going to laugh sardonically and then click onto game.com.
Wouldn't they just be laughing at looking at the one click bundles? I know if I ever saw those prices 15 years ago, I never would have started 40K and I would't have looked back either.
Pacific wrote: If they then take a calculator to the price list and get a total, for I think most people other than relatively high-income earners (at least in the UK - this is what has changed a lot with GW gaming here, it used to accessible to a larger chunk of the population) are going to laugh sardonically and then click onto game.com.
Wouldn't they just be laughing at looking at the one click bundles? I know if I ever saw those prices 15 years ago, I never would have started 40K and I would't have looked back either.
For this reason I think GW's current policies; of lack of smaller scale introduction games, of making life difficult for independents, of the high prices, are actually dangerous for the future livelihood of the industry. The issue is that GW is still generally the most visible wargame (at least here in the UK) with the high street presence and computer games etc. It will act akin to a great-big uncaring white elephant that blocks the doorway to wargaming, and there is a chance that people will not be able to see past the elephant at some of the other games on offer and walk away for good.
Here (in the US) there are now quite a few gamers who start up playing miniatures games with games that are not GW (mostly Warmachine, although I've heard of Malifaux even).
Once this was unheard of.
GW is contributing to this largely by raising their buy in prices, while every other company is trying to create low buy ins for their games.
odinsgrandson wrote: Here (in the US) there are now quite a few gamers who start up playing miniatures games with games that are not GW (mostly Warmachine, although I've heard of Malifaux even).
Once this was unheard of.
GW is contributing to this largely by raising their buy in prices, while every other company is trying to create low buy ins for their games.
I used to get a codex for $20.
You're seeing this more and more in the uk as well. I know a lot of people get into wargaming via things like flames of war.
I would say that they have passed the peak of their sales, and I can see them dwindling but not ceasing trading. From what I know and have observed they have the following advantages in their market, that will continue to stand to them:
+The best design and art team team
+The highest quality / most detailed miniatures
+The most extensive selection? I'm not familiar with all other ranges, so not 100% sure on that)
+The best written and most atmospheric background, with a reasonable amount of originality (when it comes to 40k in any case).
They are beset by the following disadvantages which are damaging them:
-Prices that can be called greedy at best, immoral at worst (considering half their target market is kids)
-Coroporate BS syndrome. The drive to implement policies, which might on paper seem good or generate money, but in the long terrm do more harm than good. Their stance on intellectual properties is a fine example, as is their standardisation / streamlining of elements of a game that ultimately thrives on its individuality.
-An attitude towards their customers that can be described as inconsiderate at best, callous at worst.
To give an example which sums up the company to me: I was in the Dublin store last year. There were a bunch of teens in there painting their own figures. One of the staff...and I have to stress I have no issue with most of the staff, they're normally nice...but one of the staff says to one of the kids "Em, I see you haven't brought your paints in" "Huh?" said the kid. "Em yeah, you're using ths store's paints for the second time, you have to bring your own. You're technically stealing from us if you're using out paints." I couldn't believe it. Here was a kid that would probably spend every spare euro he had for the next 4 years on the hobby, and that dork was giving him a hard time over a few drops of paint... It alienated me as a customer, and I've bought second hand and discounted minis and restored them, sooner than support a store that has such a greedy policy.
I think rival companies will take a chunk out of their profits. They'll get some back through intellecutal property royalites from companies producing space marine knock-offs. The biggest blow to them will come in 5-10 years, when 3d printing becomes widely affordable and will be abused horribly to churn out armies. They'll fight that, but it will axe their sales. I think in 10-15 years, they'll end up a quarter the size of what they are now, but hopefully they will survive, and hopefully they will get back to their roots, as a bunch of cool guys who provide the best tabletop battle games at an affordable rate
thegreatchimp wrote: +The best design and art team team
+The highest quality / most detailed miniatures
These are very subjective things, and IMO not really an advantage for GW. They can't compete with the high-end "collector" models (even their FW brand makes "main" GW look like a joke), and their successes are offset by spectacular failures like the Taurox or that SW chariot thing. GW's only advantage is making decent gaming pieces at a reasonable price, and they're doing everything they can to throw away that advantage through constant price increases.
-Prices that can be called greedy at best, immoral at worst (considering half their target market is kids)
There is nothing immoral about GW's prices. Their emphasis on milking the cash cow of their most dedicated customers instead of genuine innovation and superior products is bad for the company in the long run, but that's not a moral flaw. This is a luxury item, not an essential product or service, no matter how high GW's prices get you always have the option to stop buying. Therefore the entire concept of moral or immoral prices does not apply.
The biggest blow to them will come in 5-10 years, when 3d printing becomes widely affordable and will be abused horribly to churn out armies.
This is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Even if you assume that printers capable of matching GW's quality will ever exist (they currently don't) and drop in price to the point that an average person can afford them it's still not a very practical manufacturing process. 3d printing is great for producing prototypes at minimal cost and/or enabling the use of digital sculpting tools to create a master model, but injection molding is always going to be cheaper for mass production.
These are very subjective things, and IMO not really an advantage for GW. They can't compete with the high-end "collector" models (even their FW brand makes "main" GW look like a joke), and their successes are offset by spectacular failures like the Taurox or that SW chariot thing. GW's only advantage is making decent gaming pieces at a reasonable price, and they're doing everything they can to throw away that advantage through constant price increases.
There is nothing immoral about GW's prices. Their emphasis on milking the cash cow of their most dedicated customers instead of genuine innovation and superior products is bad for the company in the long run, but that's not a moral flaw. This is a luxury item, not an essential product or service, no matter how high GW's prices get you always have the option to stop buying. Therefore the entire concept of moral or immoral prices does not apply.
This is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Even if you assume that printers capable of matching GW's quality will ever exist (they currently don't) and drop in price to the point that an average person can afford them it's still not a very practical manufacturing process. 3d printing is great for producing prototypes at minimal cost and/or enabling the use of digital sculpting tools to create a master model, but injection molding is always going to be cheaper for mass production.
Regarding modelling, I tend to agree with you. There are some rotten eggs in there. and just plain bad design choices (e.g. the need to give every faction a knight size walker, just becasue Tau got the riptide). Don't even get me started about the Dreadknight, or Centurions! Perhaps a more acurate statement is "GW are certainly capable of producing superior minis,even if only 2/3 of what they make hits this mark."
Regarding prices, I firmly believe that yes, it is morally wrong for a company to charge exorbitant prices when so much of their target audience are teens who have very little income. That's the opinion of most of my gaming group, but it is an opinion, so I'm not going to press it upon you. In any case I agree it's a bad decision for them in the long run.
Regarding 3d printing, no offence, but i don't think you're up to speed on this technology. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/heroforge/customizable-3d-printed-tabletop-miniatures Its only a matter of time before that level of accuracy is improved upon and becomes widepread, and the hardware becomes affordable. After that the only expense is the material used and electrical costs. On a slightly related note, a functioning human kidney was recently printed, which is fantastic news.
I'd say that no, GW don't have an advantage in the quality of their sculpts anymore. Most of Infinity's recent models put GWs recent characters to shame when it comes to technical details and the Knight is laughable compared to a fully posable Dreamforge leviathan.
3D printing technology is going to be a challenge soon, plenty if companies already use it to print their masters and cast off that, the technology is there it just needs a few years to get cheaper.
A bigger disadvantage for GW is their stores though, they sink far too much money into keeping them open and with one employee each that's simply not bringing in enough new customers to be worth it.
3D printing may still take a few years to be affordable for the home consumer (with enough resolution for miniatures), but it already has a huge impact on the miniature business, the quickness in which small companies churn out stuff is largely due to the advances in 3D printing and because of, that more design is done on the computer instead of sculpting.
thegreatchimp wrote: Regarding prices, I firmly believe that yes, it is morally wrong for a company to charge exorbitant prices when so much of their target audience are teens who have very little income.
Who cares if they have very little income? It's their choice to buy a single expensive GW model or multiple cheaper things. It's not like GW models are an essential part of being a teen (or a person of any other age), so being unable or unwilling to pay GW's prices isn't a major hardship. It might be a stupid business decision to price themselves out of their core market, but that's not even close to making it immoral.
No, you're just being incredibly optimistic about the technology. Those models are garbage if you enjoy the modeling and painting side of the hobby, they suffer from the same grainy texture that most/all 3d printed models have and that makes them useless for painting. They're nice game pieces if you just want some unpainted figures to push around the table, but that's all. And you should notice two things about this:
1) They aren't offering anything new in 3d printing. All they're doing is offering customizable model files, the actual printing is going to be done by Shapeways (a service you can order from right now). This is a useful tool that probably has a market, but it's not doing anything to change the problems of 3d printing.
2) They're charging $30 per model. Remember how lots of people think GW's models are incredibly overpriced when a single 28mm character costs $15?
After that the only expense is the material used and electrical costs.
And the most important expense: time. Do you want to wait a month to print your own tactical squad, or would you rather just pay $50 to have it right now? When you answer this question remember that most of GW's customers are either younger kids who are unlikely to have high-end 3d printers in the foreseeable future, or adults with full-time careers/families/etc and more money than time.
After that the only expense is the material used and electrical costs.
And the most important expense: time. Do you want to wait a month to print your own tactical squad, or would you rather just pay $50 to have it right now? When you answer this question remember that most of GW's customers are either younger kids who are unlikely to have high-end 3d printers in the foreseeable future, or adults with full-time careers/families/etc and more money than time.
I would rather buy something else from some other company, and use the 3d printer to make terrain elements for my own use. Not copies of GW stuff, but my own designs.
Either way, GW isn't getting a cent of my money - that $50 can buy a whole lot more from Mantic, or at Reaper than at GW - and the money will be going there, not to GW.
The Auld Grump - who has lusted after such a machine for twenty years, ever since reading an article in Analog Science Fiction.
2) They're charging $30 per model. Remember how lots of people think GW's models are incredibly overpriced when a single 28mm character costs $15?
It's about value though - is a custom mini worth more than a generic single-pose mini?
And the most important expense: time. Do you want to wait a month to print your own tactical squad, or would you rather just pay $50 to have it right now? When you answer this question remember that most of GW's customers are either younger kids who are unlikely to have high-end 3d printers in the foreseeable future, or adults with full-time careers/families/etc and more money than time.
Do these machines need to be attended? Like, are they at the point where I can set it off printing and then go out for the day? If it's just that printing time is high but the manual intervention is minimal and infrequent, then I could easily produce an army in a couple of weeks with minimal effort just by reloading it once a day and otherwise ignoring it, and it might take me less time than going to the store (a 2 hour round trip).
They are most useful when you want something fast and quality isn't a concern, but when you need high quality it gets expensive fast.
What they are currently being used for is to print digital sculpts into 'greens' and prototypes which then get mass produced in a traditional method.
A lot of companies still opt to buy lithographic printed documents than go with a much cheaper digital printed version (even from a print shop no less) because the quality difference is noticeable with the human eye still, and the cost difference starts shrinking as your runs get larger.
Digital printing will be good for one-off, prototype designs which is exactly where you want high quality, and high quality means expensive so it is likely to be only ever available to companies or the very wealthy.
When there is a mass market use for 3D printing (like with 2D printing, when printing off directions or a CV or school project and general use like that), you will see prices drop and quality of those devices go up.
In the future, it is more probable that if you want a 'tactical squad' printed, it is likely to get the quality you want you need to take it to a 3D print shop with the renders and have them do it. The cost is probably not going to be small either, and the quality won't match injection moulding but may well be 'good enough'; however, it is more of a tool to print off your own designs or parts than making one for someone. When buying a print book, you don't get a PDF, take it to a printers and get it bound for you there as that is much more expensive than buying a book.
Daba wrote: In the future, it is more probable that if you want a 'tactical squad' printed, it is likely to get the quality you want you need to take it to a 3D print shop with the renders and have them do it.
And of course then you run into massive legal issues. Printing at home is going to fall into the same "illegal but unenforceable" category as pirating scans of rulebooks, but a business offering 3d printing services is going to be a lot easier to catch and have a lot more to lose. So I don't think we're going to see any significant loss in sales from this aspect of 3d printing.
Most of us own paper scanner/printers at home for home-office and schoolwork, yet we don't print out books because the cost and nuisance makes it better to buy them ready printed.
Most of us have no reason to own 3D printers at home. When you can buy kits of plastic models and figures for something like 35 to 50 pence per figure, it does not seem likely that it will be worthwhile using 3D printing except for special items like custom parts.
The difficulty with making custom parts is the creation of the CAD-CAM files, which requires software and design skills, so not many people are going to do it at home, they will rely on downloads or commissioning work from specialists.
Either way, once you have your custom part file, unless you need hundreds of copies, it will be easy to go and get them printed at your local print shop.
Kirby's preamble rant about 3D printing was just a red herring, a way of distracting attention from the real issues facing Games Workshop, for which he had no answers. In fact he did not even acknowledge that there were any questions to be asked.
Daba wrote: In the future, it is more probable that if you want a 'tactical squad' printed, it is likely to get the quality you want you need to take it to a 3D print shop with the renders and have them do it.
And of course then you run into massive legal issues. Printing at home is going to fall into the same "illegal but unenforceable" category as pirating scans of rulebooks, but a business offering 3d printing services is going to be a lot easier to catch and have a lot more to lose. So I don't think we're going to see any significant loss in sales from this aspect of 3d printing.
Not sure what you mean by "Illegal but unenforceable" category, because as I understand it, anything for "personal" use an "not making money off it" is legal. At least in Canada we are allowed to make copies and keep the original as a back up. It's illegal to distribute said material either by Torrents, or selling it in stores or the back of your trunk.
Who cares if they have very little income? It's their choice to buy a single expensive GW model or multiple cheaper things. It's not like GW models are an essential part of being a teen (or a person of any other age), so being unable or unwilling to pay GW's prices isn't a major hardship. It might be a stupid business decision to price themselves out of their core market, but that's not even close to making it immoral.
I care. So do most people I've discussed it with. You don't think it's immoral -fine, that's your opinion and I can respect that.
No, you're just being incredibly optimistic about the technology.
If I'm being incredibly optimistic, then you're being incredibly pessimistic about it! I didn't send you that link because I thought the company were doing anything particualrely novel, I sent it as an example of the level of detail that's currently capable of being achieved. Consider that 10 years ago the most complex shape that could be manufactured was a key, and compare that to what's beeing produced now. it seems reasonable to me to assume that it's likewise going to improve considerably in the next 10. Having never handled a 3d printed mini, I can't comment as to the material being substandard or not. If you have, I'll take your word on it. However It's a small matter to develop a more suitable one. And print time will likewise improve. Imo.
Anyway I'm a 3d modeller not an economist, but I know enough to say definatevely that when someone stands to make a lot of money out of a developing technology, obstacles are overcome. That's been the case with any manufacturing process in history anyway, so I don't see why 3d printing would be any different.
Time wil tell. If in 10 years I turn out to be wrong, I'll exalt your last post
Kilkrazy wrote: Most of us own paper scanner/printers at home for home-office and schoolwork, yet we don't print out books because the cost and nuisance makes it better to buy them ready printed.
A lot of that is down to form and binding. I can print out any document and take it to get spiral bound, but without a huge amount of money I'll never get something that looks like the book.
With mini's, you'll be able to produce something that is more or less visually and functionally identical, just in a different material, so whilst it'll still likely cost more, that's the only compromise you have to make to get it printed on demand. In another couple of generations of the technology, once it's painted you won't be able to tell the difference between a HIPS plastic cast model and a 3d printed model.
Your home printer, even a Laser one still is nowhere near the quality of worst-quality trash paperbacks. Even most office printers don't even get that quality.
2D printing has been around for how long? Why do you assume that good quality 3D printing will become affordable?
I see it being affordable for dedicated businesses, but for a home user I don't see it ever happening because I don't see a mass market function for such a high quality 3D printer.
Not sure what you mean by "Illegal but unenforceable" category, because as I understand it, anything for "personal" use an "not making money off it" is legal. At least in Canada we are allowed to make copies and keep the original as a back up. It's illegal to distribute said material either by Torrents, or selling it in stores or the back of your trunk.
You believe copyright myths and misunderstand personal use. By your definition, *everything* a product is intended for is personal use.
*Let's say I buy a model, but I don't know what paint scheme I want to use. I cast 10 copies of it so I can try out a bunch of techniques and schemes until I find out the one I want to use. I then paint the original and destroy the copies. That is an example of 'personal use'
*If I buy a model and I simply want 10 copies for my army and I cast 10 copies, that is not personal use.
Also 'backup copies' is dubious applied to miniatures because different media has different copyright laws. Just because you can make a copy of your cassette tape doesn't mean you can recast your miniatures... And honestly recasting a miniature to make a SINGLE backup is not ever gonna happen if it was legal and is just a stupid excuse.
And as to the 'PP is cheaper even though it has the same prices as GW', GW has explicitly said 2/3rds of their customers never play the game. This is 'gameplayers' underestimating how many people out there buy and paint models and never play the associated games. I guess it feeds into thier opinions of self worth and how important their dollars are to the companies. PP is *VERY* expensive for miniature collectors and is no cheaper than GW price per mini. Anyone who thinks PP is 'cheap' must not know anything about the thousands of miniature companies out there and makes comments based upon nothing but playing a game and only sees GW/PP as the only two choices.
Either way, I don't think 3D printing is GW's main problem right now. They got a whole lotta other problems to worry about before some questionable future technology becomes widespread.
Daba wrote: Your home printer, even a Laser one still is nowhere near the quality of worst-quality trash paperbacks. Even most office printers don't even get that quality.
2D printing has been around for how long? Why do you assume that good quality 3D printing will become affordable?
I see it being affordable for dedicated businesses, but for a home user I don't see it ever happening because I don't see a mass market function for such a high quality 3D printer.
It could easily reach the point of being "good enough" though - my parents have been printing family photos at home with acceptable results for about a decade now. Sure they aren't as good as repo shop prints, but that doesn't bother them. I don't see why the same won't apply to 3D printing.
Daba wrote: Your home printer, even a Laser one still is nowhere near the quality of worst-quality trash paperbacks. Even most office printers don't even get that quality.
2D printing has been around for how long? Why do you assume that good quality 3D printing will become affordable?
I see it being affordable for dedicated businesses, but for a home user I don't see it ever happening because I don't see a mass market function for such a high quality 3D printer.
It could easily reach the point of being "good enough" though - my parents have been printing family photos at home with acceptable results for about a decade now. Sure they aren't as good as repo shop prints, but that doesn't bother them. I don't see why the same won't apply to 3D printing.
There are various reasons but I would not say it was impossible, just probably less likely than you think. I agree with MWHistorian that a technology that might threaten GW in five or 10 years is not the concern right now. It's possible they won't survive long enough to have to worry about it.
And as to the 'PP is cheaper even though it has the same prices as GW', GW has explicitly said 2/3rds of their customers never play the game.
GW as stated and takes pride in the fact that it doesn't do any market research, ergo they have no way of knowing what their customers do or don't do so any statement that they put out on this is completely irrelevant since it has no basis in actual facts.
And as to the 'PP is cheaper even though it has the same prices as GW', GW has explicitly said 2/3rds of their customers never play the game.
GW as stated and takes pride in the fact that it doesn't do any market research, ergo they have no way of knowing what their customers do or don't do so any statement that they put out on this is completely irrelevant since it has no basis in actual facts.
Jervis has said during interviews that two thirds of their customers never actually play their game. They call them "craft hobbyists" and see them as their core market. Considering 'craft Hobbyists' are a real thing, to try to discount them as having power int he market place or not existing again goes to 'veterans' overestimating their self-worth and their buying power and how much they should be catered to.
The issue is there is a significant market of people who buy minis but don't play specific games, so 'cost per mini' is perfectly relevant. This makes GW and PP both similar in cost and are both expensive. 'Cost of entry' doesn't make figures cheaper when entry is a single figure to paint/collect.
And as to the 'PP is cheaper even though it has the same prices as GW', GW has explicitly said 2/3rds of their customers never play the game.
GW as stated and takes pride in the fact that it doesn't do any market research, ergo they have no way of knowing what their customers do or don't do so any statement that they put out on this is completely irrelevant since it has no basis in actual facts.
Jervis has said during interviews that two thirds of their customers never actually play their game. They call them "craft hobbyists" and see them as their core market.
The issue is there is a significant market of people who buy minis but don't play specific games, so 'cost per mini' is perfectly relevant. This makes GW and PP both similar in cost and are both expensive. 'Cost of entry' doesn't make figures cheaper when entry is a single figure to paint/collect.
Again, they don't do any market research so how can they possibly know this?
And not only that but every shred of evidence that we have access to contradicts this. We know that kit sales are directly influenced by the rules released for them, with even older kits suffering sale spikes when new and more powerful rules are released for them... This wouldn't happen if the vast majority of people are only buying them to paint and display.
It all boils down to competition for our "disposable" income.
We all may have a set amount for war gaming.
I was about to go into a long comparison of what you get for $300 from each leading game company.
I got lazy and figure most of you have that already figured out.
I find X-wing exciting and have little problem with the cost of the waves that have been released.
Battletech is getting dusted off lately with my group so a new book and some mech models are purchased (Really like the new "Alpha Strike" rules).
A couple of the latest codex's released by GW were purchased and that is pretty much it...
Still waiting on Robotech Tactics kickstarter rewards....
There are so many other great games out there that I cannot see for any reason me starting a new army in 40k which happened a fair bit in the long forgotten past.
We maintain what we have since entry is too expensive for GW and entry in other systems is equivalent in cost to a GW "update" so it is looking not good for GW.
I look at where my money goes and this year compared to last: GW is getting 1/4 of my cash than last year.
I am not all that special, there are plenty of others that have a multitude of shiny new games out there to get interested in.
MTG is still kicking hobby butt so could be creating a money vacuum.
Not sure what you mean by "Illegal but unenforceable" category, because as I understand it, anything for "personal" use an "not making money off it" is legal. At least in Canada we are allowed to make copies and keep the original as a back up. It's illegal to distribute said material either by Torrents, or selling it in stores or the back of your trunk.
Are you sure about that?
The last time I ran into a person saying that, it took me less than 5 minutes to look up the copyright laws of his specific country (New Zealand), and quote the law showing that he was wrong.
Please note, I am not saying that you are wrong. I have not looked up the copyright laws pertaining to Canada.
I am just pointing out that a lot of times we are just spreading internet myths, and not taking the time to look up the actual law.
And of course we need to keep in mind that the laws of various countries differs wildly, so stating that "the law is such and such" is always sketchy at best.
Daba wrote: Your home printer, even a Laser one still is nowhere near the quality of worst-quality trash paperbacks. Even most office printers don't even get that quality.
2D printing has been around for how long? Why do you assume that good quality 3D printing will become affordable?
I see it being affordable for dedicated businesses, but for a home user I don't see it ever happening because I don't see a mass market function for such a high quality 3D printer.
It could easily reach the point of being "good enough" though - my parents have been printing family photos at home with acceptable results for about a decade now. Sure they aren't as good as repo shop prints, but that doesn't bother them. I don't see why the same won't apply to 3D printing.
The question is, whether there is a mass market use.
If I make a 3D printer that I can manufacture inexpensively, I still require a mass market use for it to shift at mass market prices.
If my consumer base is going to be small, I need to price it high with a large profit margin otherwise I will sell my stock to those who want it and not sell any more again, and no longer have a business.
If my numbers are low, and those who want it would set up business, I am better served in creating a more expensive, higher quality machine that will go to those 'print shops', who themselves are serving a niche market.
The question is, how do I create need for it? What do I have to create need?
Wargamers are better and more cheaply served by existing companies, who can cast, produce and sell for a lower price than a high quality 3D print would (possibly even lower than the material cost to 3D print it, nevermind the equipment).
What I think is stopping it from being in houses is a mass market use to make it worthwhile to make and sell.
Currently, I see use in it by existing companies to produce fast prototypes and masters or parts. In fact, this is how they are currently used, and the quality is possibly already there. Without a mass market use though, that's where 3D printers are going to stay.
The example of 2D printers printing the photo being 'good enough' is a use for a 2D printer that is reasonably mass market. What is an equivalent in 3D printing for the home?
We don't know what the mass market for 3d printers will be yet. Just like there wasn't initially a mass market for 2d printers or cd writers either.
There are a lot of small companies that could benefit from rapid prototyping facilities particularly in design and engineering. Fabricators making components or templates for instance. Architectural models. It might never make it into every home but I can see it being in the shop of every 1 man manufacturing and enthusiasts outfit. My dad would get one just to make random stuff with, should the price be good rather than make wooden templates
The comment Jervis and some other GW studio staff make about who they think their target audience are, is directly derived from what Tom Kirby tells them .
If he tells them via the sales department , he wants them to write rules to sell the latest releases to 11 to 16 year old boys, that what they do.
If he tells them that well defined , edited proof read and play tested rules are a waste of time because less than a third of customers actual bother playing the games.That is the instruction they follow.
Shows GW has no dang idea what they are doing. When a simple survey shows 78% of people buy GW for the game and 16% are collectors, I guess GW, in their infinite incompetence, will cater to the 16% instead of the 78%.
I mainly play Infinity and occasionally Hell Dorado. I do, however, collect some minis I want to just paint, convert, or display as well. Know what, I very, very rarely look at GW. Collectors want one or two models of what interests them (like you used to be able to get in boxed sets).
When GW began the conversion to plastic, it was mostly the basic regiments with the remainder being available in blisters. I'd be willing to bet at that time, it was mostly gamers who bought the regiment sets while both gamers and collectors bought blisters. Now that everything is in a box set (and ridiculously priced to boot), which is of little appeal to most collectors and the rules are written as if they are unimportant since they target collectors and now have turned off many gamers.
GW has an idea of what they believe a collector is. Unfortunately, because they don't do any research they have no idea that it is not the largest segment of the market and the kits they make for collectors are of limited appeal. In other words, they no longer know their market or customers.
You think in the millions they spent on the site they could have put a simple poll in the online store to ask what your purchase is for. Gift, game, collect, other. Four simple options at the very bottom in an optional block would give them a lot of useful data.
Savageconvoy wrote: You think in the millions they spent on the site they could have put a simple poll in the online store to ask what your purchase is for. Gift, game, collect, other. Four simple options at the very bottom in an optional block would give them a lot of useful data.
I was just wondering, How do people know that they don't do any market research ?
Is there any proof of this ? or are people just assuming it.
I've noticed this seems to crop up in all the GW debates as a major point, but I have yet to see anything to back it up.
I always like reading these debates, GW really cause a lot of division on these forums, its fun to read mostly, there are always a few with agendas, but thats expected.
Rayvon wrote: I was just wondering, How do people know that they don't do any market research ?
Is there any proof of this ? or are people just assuming it.
I've noticed this seems to crop up in all the GW debates as a major point, but I have yet to see anything to back it up.
I always like reading these debates, GW really cause a lot of division on these forums, its fun to read mostly, there are always a few with agendas, but thats expected.
Tom Kirby explicitly stated it in the Financial Report.
Rayvon wrote: I was just wondering, How do people know that they don't do any market research ?
Is there any proof of this ? or are people just assuming it.
I've noticed this seems to crop up in all the GW debates as a major point, but I have yet to see anything to back it up.
I always like reading these debates, GW really cause a lot of division on these forums, its fun to read mostly, there are always a few with agendas, but thats expected.
"Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.
Easy enough to find, go look.
Still makes me feel all strange reading those words.
Regardless of the motivation for doing so, all the big stuff and fliers they release doesn't mesh well with a rule set designed for 28mm miniatures.
I stopped GW largely because I just got fed up of every single release consisting of expensive rulebooks and overly large kits. Very few new infantry kits were being released which - considering both Fantasy and 40K were originally infantry based games - was infuriating.
I got into Warhammer to play with the little guys with the occasional big guy to act as a centre piece for my army (the benefit of this approach is that you didn't need hordes of miniatures to make the game work). This was clearly not the focus of GW anymore, so I just stopped caring and thus stopped buying too.
Yea that is pretty backwards, I could understand if they were growing nicely without it, and if they were at least gathering some feedback in house, but neither are the case.
"Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.
Otiose - That's a new word for me. I will try and use it in a sentence today
EDIT - But if you do no market research, how do you know who your niche market is?
Just had an amusing thought as to what it would be like to have Tom Kirby on The Apprentice in the project manager role of a task involving selling a product.
Specifically, what Alan Sugar would think of him and say to him in the boardroom after Kirby's team lost the task
EDIT - But if you do no market research, how do you know who your niche market is?
Well it's just common sense and whatever niche market is cheapest for the company, obviously
It's an odd thing to claim that you know your target market with no market research. The definition of their market may have been true in the 90s, but these things shift over time. I would be very dubious of this sort of sweeping statement if I was a shareholder.
And as to the 'PP is cheaper even though it has the same prices as GW', GW has explicitly said 2/3rds of their customers never play the game.
GW as stated and takes pride in the fact that it doesn't do any market research, ergo they have no way of knowing what their customers do or don't do so any statement that they put out on this is completely irrelevant since it has no basis in actual facts.
Jervis has said during interviews that two thirds of their customers never actually play their game. They call them "craft hobbyists" and see them as their core market. Considering 'craft Hobbyists' are a real thing, to try to discount them as having power int he market place or not existing again goes to 'veterans' overestimating their self-worth and their buying power and how much they should be catered to.
The issue is there is a significant market of people who buy minis but don't play specific games, so 'cost per mini' is perfectly relevant. This makes GW and PP both similar in cost and are both expensive. 'Cost of entry' doesn't make figures cheaper when entry is a single figure to paint/collect.
Can it really be true that "craft hobbyists" actually buy more stuff than people who play the game?
Someone in this thread or another similar one said they buy about one or two kits a year, just for painting, in other words a "craft hobbyist". Someone building an army needs to buy a lot more kits and books too. Even if "craft hobbyists" are 2/3rds of customer numbers it seems unlikely they contribute 2/3rds of revenues.
Actually I doubt GW could survive if they lost 1/3rd of their revenue.
When I see that "most of our customers don't play" claim I don't think of dedicated hobbyists lovingly building and painting model after model for their display shelf, without ever allowing such tasteless concerns as "will this win the game for me" to interfere with the true art of the GW™ Hobby™. It makes me think of the kid who begs their parents for a box of space marines and forgets about it by the end of the week, or the potential player who gives up after realizing that the $100+ starter box is barely 10% of what they need to spend to actually play the game, or people like me who have mostly moved on to better games but might still occasionally buy something for the display shelf. Instead of deciding that the correct response to most customers never playing the game is to skip investing in making better rules GW should be asking why so many customers are buying a game and never playing it, and what they can do to get those customers to start playing. They've taken something that should be a giant red flag and turned it into an idiotic propaganda statement!
Peregrine wrote: When I see that "most of our customers don't play" claim...
Spoiler:
I don't think of dedicated hobbyists lovingly building and painting model after model for their display shelf, without ever allowing such tasteless concerns as "will this win the game for me" to interfere with the true art of the GW™ Hobby™. It makes me think of the kid who begs their parents for a box of space marines and forgets about it by the end of the week, or the potential player who gives up after realizing that the $100+ starter box is barely 10% of what they need to spend to actually play the game, or people like me who have mostly moved on to better games but might still occasionally buy something for the display shelf. Instead of deciding that the correct response to most customers never playing the game is to skip investing in making better rules GW should be asking why so many customers are buying a game and never playing it, and what they can do to get those customers to start playing. They've taken something that should be a giant red flag and turned it into an idiotic propaganda statement!
Good observation: why claim the limitation that the main customers of theirs are collectors and not those who play.
Rather a self-fulfilling prophesy when with a little effort gamers can be included too.
It does seem that Kirby likes to pick and choose his type of customers.
He is not asking "why" they are buying and not playing because that is not his target customer (he does not care what they do).
He seems to think the consumer base he has is sufficient for his needs, until the stocks dip a bit more there is little to convince him otherwise.
(You know, that not doing market research thing...)
I am seriously reminded of the first episode of Gordon Ramsay's "Hotel Hell" show. There was this pompous owner running a failing inn in a small town and he charged like $350 a room a night, with a 2-night minimum, and meals were three courses for $60 or $75 with rack of lamb. Anyways, Gordon Ramsay makes a comment to him about how the prices are too high for the locals, and the guy makes some comment about how, since the locals find the price too high, they aren't the kind of people he wants patronizing the inn.
That's how I imagine Kirby talking, clearly anyone who isn't willing to pay such high prices for those "small, jewel-like objects" are riffraff and not the kind of person that GW wants as customers.
Here's the quote:
Gordon Ramsay: How can you expect to appeal to the locals? Owner: We haven't identified the appropriate people to come here Gordon Ramsay: Hold on, what do you mean "appropriate people"? Owner: People who can afford $59 for three courses.
Change some wording and that could be a Tom Kirby meeting
Wayshuba wrote: GW has an idea of what they believe a collector is. Unfortunately, because they don't do any research they have no idea that it is not the largest segment of the market and the kits they make for collectors are of limited appeal. In other words, they no longer know their market or customers.
I think collectors were the largest market for them but I also think their definition of collector is somebody who collects a lot of GW boxes/kits. My guess is that at some point collectors were the tournament players who buy armies as complete packages and teenager who managed to squeeze a starter army out of their parents. Just these days the rules are not tournament acceptable and the cost of entry to try a whole new army is beyond high-but-acceptable.
And a small starter army just doesn't look to be of enough value for parents these days too. I remember when a box of space marines or a land raider could be sold for less than a console game (there was something to compare against volume/weight wise) and also be something that the kids work on with their hands instead of just sitting in front of a TV screen. Telling parents that their kid needs this, that, and that thing over there, plus some paints is not that easy anymore as you end up with something that now actually is more expensive than a console and a game. And I don't know how the comparison is with Lego. While their boxes also got more expensive I think they didn't have the same price explosion as GW stuff had.
Some ways of selling their stuff to parents just got screwed over by the cost, as well as army size creep.
I don't think collector's and tournament players where one in the same, I think the mentality of 'kids who buy a bunch but never play' was something that came about during the LotR days. At that time it was working for them so they stuck with it, ignoring how the market it entirely different now than it was then because they think they know better.
Not sure what you mean by "Illegal but unenforceable" category, because as I understand it, anything for "personal" use an "not making money off it" is legal. At least in Canada we are allowed to make copies and keep the original as a back up. It's illegal to distribute said material either by Torrents, or selling it in stores or the back of your trunk.
Are you sure about that?
The last time I ran into a person saying that, it took me less than 5 minutes to look up the copyright laws of his specific country (New Zealand), and quote the law showing that he was wrong.
Please note, I am not saying that you are wrong. I have not looked up the copyright laws pertaining to Canada.
I am just pointing out that a lot of times we are just spreading internet myths, and not taking the time to look up the actual law.
And of course we need to keep in mind that the laws of various countries differs wildly, so stating that "the law is such and such" is always sketchy at best.
I am talking about music, movies, books and computer programs. Someone mentioned something about how that is illegal. That is legal (that I know of in Canada. It was suppose to change but to my knowledge, the law hasn't changed yet. That was back when we had cassette tapes and video cassettes, and programs were on floppy 3.5 and CD's. Has the law changed in Canada now? I don't think so if I am wrong please someone correct me.)
I think there is a subset in "GW collectors" that refers specifically to aspiring players- that is, players who dream big and purchase a number of kits without necessarily following-through on building a particular army. This can be great with bandwagon players, who are easily seduced by ideas of different armies.
But I think even these aspirants are dependent on the concept of there being a game behind all of the models. And if they see the potential "eventual game" being threatened, say through (what they perceive as) shoddy rules or a movement away in gaming communities from GW games, this could easily start an exodus that could severely undermine 40k and Fantasy sales.
And while there may never be a "40k-killer" like there may not be a "WoW-killer," GW games could slip into obscurity from the player base fracturing into multiple, somewhat competing games (think Yu-gi-Oh vs. Magic vs Pokemon, or something similar).
Accolade wrote: I think there is a subset in "GW collectors" that refers specifically to aspiring players- that is, players who dream big and purchase a number of kits without necessarily following-through on building a particular army. This can be great with bandwagon players, who are easily seduced by ideas of different armies.
But I think even these aspirants are dependent on the concept of there being a game behind all of the models. And if they see the potential "eventual game" being threatened, say through (what they perceive as) shoddy rules or a movement away in gaming communities from GW games, this could easily start an exodus that could severely undermine 40k and Fantasy sales.
And while there may never be a "40k-killer" like there may not be a "WoW-killer," GW games could slip into obscurity from the player base fracturing into multiple, somewhat competing games (think Yu-gi-Oh vs. Magic vs Pokemon, or something similar).
Can't agree more. I've spent far more time aspiring to have finished armies for GW games than actually playing them, but it was always with the end goal of actually playing a game. I never would have gotten as interested in the wargaming hobby if there wasn't a game to play after the painting is finished, and I'm definitely not the only one. The day GW stops producing rulebooks is the day that they truly sign their own death warrant.
On the idea of a "40K-killer," I don't think one is coming, and I also think that's a good thing. The greatest benefit of GW's downward spiral has been the rise of dozens of smaller game companies. GW rose to the level of prominence that it (still) enjoys through extraordinary circumstances, which I doubt that any other company can replicate. PP is the second-largest company in the industry, but I'll be shocked if they grow so much bigger than the rest of the market that they strongarm out their competition. The future of the industry will be interesting, and it will come as GW fades away.
I think this would be an interesting topic for a poll. Are you a gamer or a collector?
The results here in dakka might be a bit skewed but I'd wager gamers outnumber collectors 4 to 1. And that divide probably gets wider if you separate painters out of collectors.
I don't want to see GW die, just get taken down a peg, and as long as I can play my armies I'm happy. Otherwise I paint em' for fun, and in the case of Warhammer they double as my D&D/Pathfinder minis.
jonolikespie wrote: I don't think collector's and tournament players where one in the same, I think the mentality of 'kids who buy a bunch but never play' was something that came about during the LotR days. At that time it was working for them so they stuck with it, ignoring how the market it entirely different now than it was then because they think they know better.
There were definitely a lot of collectors in the LOTR era who were only interested in the Tolkien figures. I've no interest in the game but I bought some. I'm not sure GW was aware of the link but I wouldn't be surprised if they just assume the Tolkien collectors would move on to 40K.
Flashman wrote: Regardless of the motivation for doing so, all the big stuff and fliers they release doesn't mesh well with a rule set designed for 28mm miniatures.
I stopped GW largely because I just got fed up of every single release consisting of expensive rulebooks and overly large kits. Very few new infantry kits were being released which - considering both Fantasy and 40K were originally infantry based games - was infuriating.
I got into Warhammer to play with the little guys with the occasional big guy to act as a centre piece for my army (the benefit of this approach is that you didn't need hordes of miniatures to make the game work). This was clearly not the focus of GW anymore, so I just stopped caring and thus stopped buying too.
This was the case for me also, at least with 40k.
For years I have 'scraped by' on the imagery of 40k (I haven't been a fan of the mechanics for some time) and later on specifically the Great Crusade and Horus Heresy series which was a fantastic opportunity for converting/modelling, making something 'new'. Had some tremendous fun at specific Heresy events, against other guys who had made similar effort with their forces.
But, in the 'casual' game you get at a club, having your infantry force carpet-bombed by what looked to me like giant Tomix toys somewhat killed the immersion for me. Once the immersion is gone, rules are not strong enough, and it requires constant investment to keep on top of the rules.. it is enough to kill the game for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be honest guys, the particualars of copyright law when it comes to replicating miniatues (through any means) or photocopying codexes, within the bounds of your own home, is completely moot, becasue as a previous poster pointed out, it's utterly unenforcable. Even software and music companies with 100 times the influnence and resources of GW haven't managed to clap down much on piracy.
The only instance I can see this being an issue is showing up to a GW sanctioned tournament with a mini which is clearly not GW manufactured, and even then, the worst they could do is show you the door.
Obviously, if you're distributing copied products, or otherwise generating money from them, it's a different story.
Certainly it is moot in the sense that it is nigh on impossible to be detected, so you can usually get away with it. There is still a moral dimension, though, and I think it is right for people to be reminded that it is wrong to copy someone else's work in order to avoid paying for it.
Kilkrazy wrote: Certainly it is moot in the sense that it is nigh on impossible to be detected, so you can usually get away with it. There is still a moral dimension, though, and I think it is right for people to be reminded that it is wrong to copy someone else's work in order to avoid paying for it.
You're quite right of course. I don't agree with downloading films or music for that very reason. I can understand pirating of codexes anr rulebooks becasue I think they're so overpriced. But in all realty even if they were a quarter of their current price, people would still copy them...
People who "copy" were never going to buy in the first place. They were never customers to begin with. So they are really not lost sales.
I know if the codices were half price, I would buy them all. At current prices I only buy what I play. I was going to buy the Ork codex but not at those prices. So no more codex buying for me.
What I like to know is, what is GW now? Are they a mini company? If so, how come are the codices so expensive then? You would think, people buying more codices, the "impulse" would be to buy more minis.
I swear GW is getting out of the miniature market and are concentrating on the publishing side of the hobby now. Minis are coming in second when they should be considered first.
These are the people that 2nd ed of Dystopian Wars was outselling 40k 7th 6 to 1 through and they are one of the biggest retailers in Oz from what I can tell*.
10-15%
*Edit*
The Combat Company wrote: We have the largest bricks and mortar outlet in the Southern Hemisphere which sells to customers in-store, over the counter by way of face to face transaction.
Guess that settles that, they are very clearly one of the biggest.
Some of the replies to the ACCC proposal are pretty good (and damning on GW), so hopefully they'll be taken seriously.
I've just had an unrelated thought; do you think that the WHW renovations are part of a plan to revitalize GW in the area? and if so is that the best use of presumably at least £1m when they are struggling. I can see that the aim it to bring all the events in-house to save money, but it's going to take them years to see the money back on that investment.
Are they doing it now to try and explain away the drop in next years profit with more one-time expenses?
Or do you think the aim is to convert WHW into a more generic shop/venue set-up (glass rather than medieval castle) with the aim of making it easier to sell in the future?
You're quite right of course. I don't agree with downloading films or music for that very reason. I can understand pirating of codexes anr rulebooks becasue I think they're so overpriced.[i] But in all realty even if they were a quarter of their current price, people would still copy them...
While I understand you agree in general terms, the bolded part of your post is a somewhat dubious road to walk down.
Value (and thus whether something is overpriced) is a very subjective matter.
Also is begs the question of whether it is more acceptable to steal a Porche as opposed to stealing a Toyota?*
*If the word "steal" is an issue, you can substitute in any word that follows the general meaning of "inappropriate appropriation".
WarPuppy in a long and very well written submission says 53% of his sales are GW products but the proportion has been dropping steadily for two years.
He attributes this partly to increased competition and partly to customer attitudes hardening against GW caused by factors such as price rises and their heavy handed litigation. Obviously Australia has suffered much worse than Europe or North America from the price rises, so GW may hope this customer antipathy is confined to the southern hemisphere. I don't think it is.
Interestingly, Warpuppy only began to stock GW four years ago so it grew from nothing to the majority of his sales very quickly. I wonder how much GW took over from the other products he already stocked.
The point about this is that independents clearly can be a major point of focus for GW's marketing, depending on the territory, and their attitude of wanting to lock them out seems quite perverse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A few years ago I used to look at GW's apparently weird business actions and said, "It makes no sense to me but I am sure they know what they are doing". I am not sure any more. Increasingly I think GW have lost their way and are thrashing around off the fairway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: An interesting thing about the submissions is that several of them make the point that there are no substitutes for The HHHobby. You are either in The HHHobby or not. You cannot play 40K without buying GW products.
This amusingly uses GW's claim of hobby pre-eminence as a weapon against their claim to exclusive distribution of their own products.
I am not sure I agree fully with that position. It seems to me that you can play 40K with non-GW models, or you can play other SF wargames that are broadly similar, and not have to use the 40K rules (though of course you then are not playing 40K.)
I do agree with the point that 40K and Magic: The Gathering are not substitutable for each other.
I think the point is that GW have drummed in this idea that you can only play 40K with 40K models - you can't use other models in store, or in a competitions or events (when GW ran them), and there's a prevalent mindset within the community that 40K uses 40K models.
So whilst you're technically correct that you can play 40K with other companies models, or play other dystopian sci-fi skirmish games, if you happen to be in a predominantly GW community, you might find it difficult and there genuinely is no competition.
Herzlos wrote: I think the point is that GW have drummed in this idea that you can only play 40K with 40K models - you can't use other models in store, or in a competitions or events (when GW ran them), and there's a prevalent mindset within the community that 40K uses 40K models.
So whilst you're technically correct that you can play 40K with other companies models, or play other dystopian sci-fi skirmish games, if you happen to be in a predominantly GW community, you might find it difficult and there genuinely is no competition.
There were some rules where if you wanted to have a hope of your army being pictured in White Dwarf, no competing model parts could be visible.
Since GW nicely withdrew from holding game competitions it has handily opened the way for all kinds of "add-on" manufacturers and for us as customers to use anything we want as our starting conversion piece.
Funny how many of their problems stem from their decisions...
Herzlos wrote: I think the point is that GW have drummed in this idea that you can only play 40K with 40K models - you can't use other models in store, or in a competitions or events (when GW ran them), and there's a prevalent mindset within the community that 40K uses 40K models.
Actually I was a bit surprised by how leniant GW can be with his. I rang up my local store to see what their stance was on using parts from other ranges, as I'm doings ome conversions using parts from Scibor, etc. I was nicely surprised to be told by one of the staff that it's generally not an issue if my marines have a few heads, shoulder pads and cloaks from other ranges, even when playing tournaments, etc. He said it would only be frowned on if say I showed up to play a game in store with an army ehich contained a number of full models from a different range like Warmachine.
Obviously that's not the official company policy, its just what a guy int my local storte had to say about it, but all the same, it was good to know they're not draconian about it.
Herzlos wrote: I think the point is that GW have drummed in this idea that you can only play 40K with 40K models - you can't use other models in store, or in a competitions or events (when GW ran them), and there's a prevalent mindset within the community that 40K uses 40K models.
Actually I was a bit surprised by how leniant GW can be with his. I rang up my local store to see what their stance was on using parts from other ranges, as I'm doings ome conversions using parts from Scibor, etc. I was nicely surprised to be told by one of the staff that it's generally not an issue if my marines have a few heads, shoulder pads and cloaks from other ranges, even when playing tournaments, etc. He said it would only be frowned on if say I showed up to play a game in store with an army ehich contained a number of full models from a different range like Warmachine.
Obviously that's not the official company policy, its just what a guy int my local storte had to say about it, but all the same, it was good to know they're not draconian about it.
I regularly used to use non-GW bits in a store (although that is going back 4-5 years, before the proper veteran gaming evenings and tables stopped). Even used non-GW minis in Warhammer World, many people were doing the same, and a chap I know even had some of his stuff on display in WHW with Maxmini heads and the like.
But, that was some years ago. I did hear that they tightened up a great deal, specifically when the official Horus Heresy books and minis started coming out (not sure to what level this restricted things however).
While I understand you agree in general terms, the bolded part of your post is a somewhat dubious road to walk down.
Value (and thus whether something is overpriced) is a very subjective matter.
Also is begs the question of whether it is more acceptable to steal a Porche as opposed to stealing a Toyota?*
I agree with those principles, and yes it is dubious, but there is of course the other side to it:
Literally nothing produced by the company is affordable compared to the rest of the market. For the last 17 or so years, they've pretty much have charged the most that they feel they can get away with on all items. Even their glues, modelling materials and tools are about 60% more expensive than other brands, with no improvement in quality that I can see. One thing in particular which has me shaking my head it -the pdf / digital versions of the codexes are just as expensive as the hard copies.
There'll always be gamers who are loyal to them, and those enough money that the prices are inconsequential to them, but I think the kind of sales tactics that GW use creates a bad vibe, wherin customers start resenting the company, and feeling like suckers for paying those prices. It's bad for both parties really.
thegreatchimp wrote: Literally nothing produced by the company is affordable compared to the rest of the market. For the last 17 or so years, they've pretty much have charged the most that they feel they can get away with on all items. Even their glues, modelling materials and tools are about 60% more expensive than other brands, with no improvement in quality that I can see. One thing in particular which has me shaking my head it -the pdf / digital versions of the codexes are just as expensive as the hard copies.
And your point is? If you feel that GW's products are too expensive then don't buy them. The fact that you would prefer to have lower prices doesn't mean that you're entitled to steal them.
thegreatchimp wrote: Literally nothing produced by the company is affordable compared to the rest of the market. For the last 17 or so years, they've pretty much have charged the most that they feel they can get away with on all items. Even their glues, modelling materials and tools are about 60% more expensive than other brands, with no improvement in quality that I can see. One thing in particular which has me shaking my head it -the pdf / digital versions of the codexes are just as expensive as the hard copies.
And your point is? If you feel that GW's products are too expensive then don't buy them. The fact that you would prefer to have lower prices doesn't mean that you're entitled to steal them.
We were discussing customers in general, not my own actions. Follow the conversation properly before you make childish comments, and if you still feel compelled to say something smart, don't state the obvious.
thegreatchimp wrote: We were discussing customers in general, not my own actions. Follow the conversation properly before you make childish comments, and if you still feel compelled to say something smart, don't state the obvious.
Do you understand how the general "you" works when referring to an unknown (and possibly hypothetical) person? For example, "to roll to hit you roll a D6 and compare it to your BS". Perhaps you should learn about this before making rude posts?
Herzlos wrote: I think the point is that GW have drummed in this idea that you can only play 40K with 40K models - you can't use other models in store, or in a competitions or events (when GW ran them), and there's a prevalent mindset within the community that 40K uses 40K models.
So whilst you're technically correct that you can play 40K with other companies models, or play other dystopian sci-fi skirmish games, if you happen to be in a predominantly GW community, you might find it difficult and there genuinely is no competition.
There was a time long long ago, if i needed some conversion parts, i could order them from GW, if i felt the need to convert a Landraider i could do that because they were reasonably cheap. Fast forward to now, i use more Non 40K stuff than ever before, because GW prices have become too high 120$ for a baneblade, wait this gundam 1:35 scale tanks costs only half. Yes i am a heretic.
Peregrine, yes, downloading is illegal, and yes buying knock offs is hurting GW's business, but you must agree that because of the pricing practices, that it will lower the moral bar for some people to buy Chinese knock offs or download the rules instead buying it from GW.
Peregrine wrote: . Do you understand how the general "you" works when referring to an unknown (and possibly hypothetical) person? For example, "to roll to hit you roll a D6 and compare it to your BS". Perhaps you should learn about this before making rude posts?
Tbh Peregrine, I found your comment rude because you were jumping down my throat with a snappy comment, without having read the conversation between myself, Steelmage and Killzraz. (those comments made it pretty clear I was refering to others).
You might find my opinion on GW prices annoying, but differences of opinion are inevetable. I'm not on this forum to cause offence. As I've said before, I can respect your opinion. Just keep the comments constructive please.
All the arguments around the morality or ethics of copying GW stuff are interesting but only relevant to the actual topic in so far as it might be the widespread purchase of cheaper knock-offs that is damaging GW's sales.
I don't know if that is true. I rather doubt it, but my feelings are based on general experience and instinct, not hard data.
That said, the higher that GW price their models the more gap there is underneath for other companies, legit or not, to undercut them and the more incentive there is for people to look at those companies' offerings.
Kilkrazy wrote: All the arguments around the morality or ethics of copying GW stuff are interesting but only relevant to the actual topic in so far as it might be the widespread purchase of cheaper knock-offs that is damaging GW's sales.
I don't know if that is true. I rather doubt it, but my feelings are based on general experience and instinct, not hard data.
That said, the higher that GW price their models the more gap there is underneath for other companies, legit or not, to undercut them and the more incentive there is for people to look at those companies' offerings.
I am sure GW also views the various custom "bits" sold by "knock-off" companies are money out of their pocket too: buy another squad that comes with bits if you need them!
I like the look of a 40k game so some competition is eliminated if replacement models do not have a similar look to GW models.
Most of the time I just modify existing models with some supplementary heads or gear from other suppliers which does not hit their bottom line of selling models.
Agreed that their pricing does give some incentive to shop around and there is no mechanism to force me to field 100% GW models in my army other than my need for WYSIWYG.
They seem to also view sellers of their own spare bits as money out of their pockets for the same reason. You want a squad of devastators with 4 rocket launchers? Buy 4 boxes.
This is from Infinity's FB page. (because they actually have one)
Due to the BIG success of O:I pre-order, we need to produce the double of the initial number of boxes, so this will cause a little delay to arrive to stores (only a few days, not weeks or months). Sorry for the inconvenience.
Doubled their expectations. Now compare that with Dystopian Wars outselling 7th ed 40k and I'd call that mounting evidence that the piranhas are circling the shark. GW has competition and they need to learn that quick before they go down. I actually don't want them to. I want them to turn around so I can like them again.
MWHistorian wrote: This is from Infinity's FB page. (because they actually have one)
Due to the BIG success of O:I pre-order, we need to produce the double of the initial number of boxes, so this will cause a little delay to arrive to stores (only a few days, not weeks or months). Sorry for the inconvenience.
Doubled their expectations. Now compare that with Dystopian Wars outselling 7th ed 40k and I'd call that mounting evidence that the piranhas are circling the shark. GW has competition and they need to learn that quick before they go down. I actually don't want them to. I want them to turn around so I can like them again.
That store that said Dyst outsold 40k has since relieved that GW products make up only 10-15% of their revenue.
Herzlos wrote: They seem to also view sellers of their own spare bits as money out of their pockets for the same reason. You want a squad of devastators with 4 rocket launchers? Buy 4 boxes.
On the flip side of that, when Concord Mills still had a store, the manager was the first person that actually encouraged me to buy a box (HTG I can't remember what it was though...it was a Chaos unit...) and trade the bitz out to another player he knew was looking for the pieces, I needed. And we did. In store.
But what has annoyed me, is when someone buys a box of devastators and sets them out and the opponent laughs or mocks them for having the HB, ML, PC, and Las set up as if that person should of not only KNEW that it wasn't optimized but was somehow a sign of inferiority. And the opponent will brag that he DID buy 4 boxes to get his squads the weapon set ups. And a 'real' 40K player would do the same.
But what has annoyed me, is when someone buys a box of devastators and sets them out and the opponent laughs or mocks them for having the HB, ML, PC, and Las set up as if that person should of not only KNEW that it wasn't optimized but was somehow a sign of inferiority. And the opponent will brag that he DID buy 4 boxes to get his squads the weapon set ups. And a 'real' 40K player would do the same.
Herzlos wrote: They seem to also view sellers of their own spare bits as money out of their pockets for the same reason. You want a squad of devastators with 4 rocket launchers? Buy 4 boxes.
That is GW exact way of thinking. Problem is when people don't want to do that, you should be adapting. What ever happened to GIVING your CUSTOMERS what they WANT.
Rant time, sorry.
For what ever reason, GW thinks we need to bend over backwards for GW. Funny people use to do that, but now the value is not there anymore with price increase after price increase after price increase. GW doesn't have to increase prices anymore and people will still balk because the prices are just too insane now.
People say GW is a luxury. Well Monopoly, checkers is a luxury as well. GW is no Porsche. GW is not Ford either because then they would claim they are a Cadillac. GW is just a regular company that isn't anything special. They use to be special but now what ever they had is gone because of crappy rules, poor materials (Finecast) HORRIBLE support, and add all that together, you get price increases, so GW doesn't set it's self out from other companies now.
GW has to stop thinking they are a Ferrari. As I said they are not even a Porsche in the gaming industry anymore. GW has to realize who and what they are actually now. That will not happen because I believe GW is happy where they are. Having only 2000 or so customers who are willing to keep buying no matter what. It doesn't matter that 10 000 people have stopped buying. All that means is GW doesn't have to produce as much anymore. GW thinks they can make more money with less customers.
That is why I think GW acts so smug and disrespectful. By keeping quiet and ignoring everyone doesn't make them the "evil company" they are, but by keeping quiet they are not showing us they are the company "that cares and respects" it's customers either.
Herzlos wrote: They seem to also view sellers of their own spare bits as money out of their pockets for the same reason. You want a squad of devastators with 4 rocket launchers? Buy 4 boxes.
That's an odd attitude for them to take, as I'm guessing a considerable percentage of their sales are to bitz companies?
But, that was some years ago. I did hear that they tightened up a great deal, specifically when the official Horus Heresy books and minis started coming out (not sure to what level this restricted things however).
That's useful to know man. I'm wary of overdoing conversions and making my army "non-GW compliant", so to speak. Csutomisation comes first for me, but I would still like to be able to use it in tournaments.
It's a shame its gone that way really. I'd say it was a great laugh when the hobby was just kicking off ,people showed up at tournaments using all kinds of miniatures and nobody cared.
And as to the 'PP is cheaper even though it has the same prices as GW', GW has explicitly said 2/3rds of their customers never play the game.
GW as stated and takes pride in the fact that it doesn't do any market research, ergo they have no way of knowing what their customers do or don't do so any statement that they put out on this is completely irrelevant since it has no basis in actual facts.
Jervis has said during interviews that two thirds of their customers never actually play their game. They call them "craft hobbyists" and see them as their core market.
The issue is there is a significant market of people who buy minis but don't play specific games, so 'cost per mini' is perfectly relevant. This makes GW and PP both similar in cost and are both expensive. 'Cost of entry' doesn't make figures cheaper when entry is a single figure to paint/collect.
And if gaming isn't a factor, wouldn't people be buying individual PP (or whoever) models just as much as GW ones? You'd have a hard time arguing that GW miniatures are vastly more appealing to a painter than anybody else's. Seems to me if I was buying stuff just for painting, I'd search around for something specific that really appeals to me and then buy it, regardless of who makes it.
In all honesty probably 85% of the reason I buy minis is just as a collector rather than as a gamer. I'm 29, have high disposable income and probably spend anywhere from £200-£600 a year on GW. Maybe more if I really thought about it. Apart from the odd and very occasional kickstarter deal for interesting minis I just like the look of, I only ever buy GW products, or 3rd party bits to customise GW stuff.
Despite the fact that I mainly collect as a hobbyist/modeller/painter rather than as a gamer, I buy GW stuff because I like buying into the fluff and the game and the idea even if I don't actually play the game very often. As such, it's highly unlikely that I would by anything from PP, Infinity, WarmaHordes or whatever else is out there.
Also, despite the fact that I happen to fit the bracket GW think is there main market, I genuinely believe this is more by luck than judgement on their part and that they are as out of touch with their customers as the internet thinks they are. How any retailer can justify the kind of market research policy they have is completely beyond me. If it was up to me I think they should bin off all of the bricks and mortar stores they have (except Warhammer World) and use 100% of the savings/released revenue/capital/money for Market Research, R&D and Advertising.
I don't think they should bin all of their bricks & mortar stores; just the smaller/uunprofitable ones and maybe ones with nearby independents or toy stores they can strike deals with to keep the range visible.
No point having your own store if you can have a counter in Toys'R'Us or Hobbycraft.
Instead of binning all of them they should consolidate. Take 10 stores that are ea ch 1 man and the size of a shoe closet and replace them with 1 battle bunker with 20+ tables, 3-5 staff on at all times, the full range on their shelves, more popular FW stuff, FFGRPGs, run official events.
There are plenty of successful gaming stores out there, hell more than a few of them are run by ex GW employees. Take a page out of their book and rebuild the damn community.
jonolikespie wrote: Instead of binning all of them they should consolidate. Take 10 stores that are ea ch 1 man and the size of a shoe closet and replace them with 1 battle bunker with 20+ tables, 3-5 staff on at all times, the full range on their shelves, more popular FW stuff, FFGRPGs, run official events.
There are plenty of successful gaming stores out there, hell more than a few of them are run by ex GW employees. Take a page out of their book and rebuild the damn community.
That is exactly what they should do. Perhaps not quite closing 9 out of eveery 10 stores, but you have the right idea. Unfortuantely you'll find they might be stuck in old-school business philosophy which mandates that they have a store in every large town. That may have worked fine in the 90's but its probalby becoming a huge drain on their resources now.
jonolikespie wrote: Instead of binning all of them they should consolidate. Take 10 stores that are ea ch 1 man and the size of a shoe closet and replace them with 1 battle bunker with 20+ tables, 3-5 staff on at all times, the full range on their shelves, more popular FW stuff, FFGRPGs, run official events.
There are plenty of successful gaming stores out there, hell more than a few of them are run by ex GW employees. Take a page out of their book and rebuild the damn community.
That is exactly what they should do. Perhaps not quite closing 9 out of eveery 10 stores, but you have the right idea. Unfortuantely you'll find they might be stuck in old-school business philosophy which mandates that they have a store in every large town. That may have worked fine in the 90's but its probalby becoming a huge drain on their resources now.
I don't think its a 90s mentality, I think it's a UK mentality. The population density there and the amount of stores they have opened in the last 20 years meant it worked (for a while at least) but it can't possibly work in the US, Australia or.. actually I have no idea if it would work in Europe. I quite possibly could but as far as I know GW don't have many stores there.
It can work in the US in certain areas. The store by me did over $3,000 in sales just on Friday. They're having a hard time keeping stuff like imperial knights and the large army boxes in stock. They need to close the stores that aren't hitting their numbers and figure out what the difference is between the failing stores and the thriving ones. I'm sure location has something to do with it. However, a year ago the store near me was doing $1,200 a week. The only thing that changed was the manager. The new manager made more gaming space, constantly has a fun event going on where purchase isn't mandatory but the type of event boosts sales, and doesn't use hard selling techniques. He alternates between 40k and WFB events so nobody goes too long without an event and nobody gets burnt out from constant leagues and campaigns. Maybe they should try this approach in their other stores. We have enough population density here for stores in affluent suburbs of large cities to do very well, they just need to be run properly.
Stores not hitting the numbers. I wonder why? Move to one man stores where they are not open all the time, and are out in secluded areas where they will not get any walk in traffic.
I wonder who thought this was a great idea? Did GW actually think that us customers would flock to them no matter where they went and what they did?
Davor wrote: I wonder who thought this was a great idea? Did GW actually think that us customers would flock to them no matter where they went and what they did?
Looking at their business policies and the that comes out of their upper management's mouths it's not a stretch at all to think that is exactly what they think.
Davor wrote: I wonder who thought this was a great idea? Did GW actually think that us customers would flock to them no matter where they went and what they did?
Looking at their business policies and the that comes out of their upper management's mouths it's not a stretch at all to think that is exactly what they think.
Are you saying all that stuff is true? Those Premables or what ever they were called for the share holders? You mean that wasn't a hoax? No way on earth I would think a CEO of a company would ever say that. I thoughts someone was making things up for a good laugh. Wow, GW management really thinks that?
Davor wrote: I wonder who thought this was a great idea? Did GW actually think that us customers would flock to them no matter where they went and what they did?
Looking at their business policies and the that comes out of their upper management's mouths it's not a stretch at all to think that is exactly what they think.
Are you saying all that stuff is true? Those Premables or what ever they were called for the share holders? You mean that wasn't a hoax? No way on earth I would think a CEO of a company would ever say that. I thoughts someone was making things up for a good laugh. Wow, GW management really thinks that?
Allen Merret said, under oath, in a bloody courtroom: "Games Day is a place where our fans can participate in their favourite part of the Hobby, buying things from Games Workshop."
Davor wrote: I wonder who thought this was a great idea? Did GW actually think that us customers would flock to them no matter where they went and what they did?
Looking at their business policies and the that comes out of their upper management's mouths it's not a stretch at all to think that is exactly what they think.
Are you saying all that stuff is true? Those Premables or what ever they were called for the share holders? You mean that wasn't a hoax? No way on earth I would think a CEO of a company would ever say that. I thoughts someone was making things up for a good laugh. Wow, GW management really thinks that?
It was so bad this time that most of use really believed it was a hoax, even though it was on their official investors page. Unfortunately, it turned out to be completely true; you couldn't make up stuff that bad.
Allen Merret said, under oath, in a bloody courtroom: "Games Day is a place where our fans can participate in their favourite part of the Hobby, buying things from Games Workshop."
Wow, so that is what GW management thinks of us their customers? We are sheep or drones eh?
Allen Merret said, under oath, in a bloody courtroom: "Games Day is a place where our fans can participate in their favourite part of the Hobby, buying things from Games Workshop."
Wow, so that is what GW management thinks of us their customers? We are sheep or drones eh?
Thank you for sharing that quote.
He's not far off the truth tho. How many times has the "I hate GW, I'm just gonna buy the things I need to finish my army then I'm done with them" line been trotted out? Hate the company, so throw more money their way and keep playing their game, which they update so people have to keep throwing money at them and griping whilst doing it.
He's not far off the truth tho. How many times has the "I hate GW, I'm just gonna buy the things I need to finish my army then I'm done with them" line been trotted out? Hate the company, so throw more money their way and keep playing their game, which they update so people have to keep throwing money at them and griping whilst doing it.
People love buying new minis!
There's no reason to drop a game you like just because you don't like the company though. There are lots of people who would probably buy extras and multiple armies that are now focusing on getting to a complete state and stop purchasing. Yes it's some money for GW but it's less than they'd otherwise have gotten and it still allows those customers to play the game.
He's not far off the truth tho. How many times has the "I hate GW, I'm just gonna buy the things I need to finish my army then I'm done with them" line been trotted out? Hate the company, so throw more money their way and keep playing their game, which they update so people have to keep throwing money at them and griping whilst doing it.
People love buying new minis!
There's no reason to drop a game you like just because you don't like the company though. There are lots of people who would probably buy extras and multiple armies that are now focusing on getting to a complete state and stop purchasing. Yes it's some money for GW but it's less than they'd otherwise have gotten and it still allows those customers to play the game.
I'd argue that disliking the company is a great reason for not giving them money.
It's a great reason for not giving them *more* money. Why decry customers for wanting to spend a small amount to get them to a stage where they never need to purchase again instead of bodging by with an almost complete army?
Ideally they could proxy something else in though.
Herzlos wrote: It's a great reason for not giving them *more* money. Why decry customers for wanting to spend a small amount to get them to a stage where they never need to purchase again instead of bodging by with an almost complete army?
Ideally they could proxy something else in though.
Hence GW's "add something new, make it very good" to keep people buying. When is an army ever complete?
Herzlos wrote: It's a great reason for not giving them *more* money. Why decry customers for wanting to spend a small amount to get them to a stage where they never need to purchase again instead of bodging by with an almost complete army?
Ideally they could proxy something else in though.
Hence GW's "add something new, make it very good" to keep people buying. When is an army ever complete?
When you get fed up with GW's "add something new and 50/50 chance it'll be good or garbage, buy White Dwarf and the Codex, preferably the LE one, to find out!!" "marketing" "strategy".
I wonder how many customers who feel that they have been treated poorly, or somehow got poor value for money, would look at the wide spectrum of different available games if they had the choice?
This is where you guys come in surely.. ?
It's all of the arguments again monopolies in motion - companyies that have sole control of an industry become fat, lazy and lacking in vision, and push the customer as far as they can while giving as little as possible in return. Having several top line companies, producing quality miniatures and games, is beneficial for the industry and ultimately better for the customer. But for this to happen some of those customers will have to have the wherewithal to look around on the shelves and see what else is for sale - if enough people do this, then hopefully even those fat toads will turn lazily to the diminishing pile of cash they are sitting on and jump on that treadmill, start thinking about what else they can do - and again, this is good for the customers of that company who still enjoy their products but perhaps wish they would try a little harder.
Herzlos wrote: It's a great reason for not giving them *more* money. Why decry customers for wanting to spend a small amount to get them to a stage where they never need to purchase again instead of bodging by with an almost complete army?
Ideally they could proxy something else in though.
That is so true. How much more money would I have spent? Right now, I only bought a few books. Why? Because I wanted to read. I am a Tyranid player. I didn't spend much money on minis. What, a Harpy kit was all I bought when the new edition of Nids came out. 2 data slates, not the last one. Last purchase I bought was the iPad 7th edition book. Final purchase. Was going to start Orks for the wife, but nope. No more. So now I don't buy GW for now. I am not saying I am never going to buy GW anymore, but for now after my last purchase, that was what, May I think when 7th came out, so that is now 5 months of no GW purchase. Maybe one day I will buy something again, but for now, no. I don't give GW "more" money. I might give them some in the future, but it would have been something that I would have purchased months ago.
Exactly; I've now finished my guard army (was 3K now down to about 2K) after making a couple of final purchases, but I've avoided the temptation to expand it further or to start any new armies (and I've been tempted by Dark Angels, Grey Knights and Eldar). I won't even be buying the new books (7th Ed BRB or 6th Ed Codex) unless I really have to, but since 40K is no longer my go-to pick-up game I can probably avoid it entirely.
So in the last 2 years GW has seen maybe £100 out of me, rather than the £100/month that now goes elsewhere.
Kilkrazy wrote: You are part of the reason why sales dropped 8% last year.
Really? Is that aimed at Herzlos? Me? I don't see now smiley so not sure if serious or not. Yes that is what something Kirby would say, blame the customers.
Kilkrazy wrote: You are part of the reason why sales dropped 8% last year.
Really? Is that aimed at Herzlos? Me? I don't see now smiley so not sure if serious or not. Yes that is what something Kirby would say, blame the customers.
I am serious. I too am part of the reason, since I tailed off my 40K spending as the 5th edition Tyranids started to become expensive, and stopped entirely when codexes doubled in price.
Everyone who a few years ago was happily buying GW stuff and has cut or dropped it due to price/benefit dissatisfaction has contributed to the reduction in sales.
Guilty here as well. I cannot reward unreasonably high prices and product-limiting, community-killing business practices and policies with further patronage. I soooo want SH, but with how they handled it last time and what they are doing now, I still can't bring myself to spend ducats on it.
WGF Shock Troopers ~$20 US per 18 (and on sale at times for even less!), GW Cadians $29 US per 10, and you NEED at least 20 for a platoon at arguably HALF-strength.
C'mon it's just plastic, sell more at a lower price and reap more profit.
In this climate, GW evidently feels that customers are just otiose, as are demographic research, customer retention, and market analysis.
Tom Kirby, you are an incompetent fool, and you will only ever have incompetence serve you as long as you are there in any capacity whether as CEO or Chairman, retire and get out of the frelling way!
I'm part of the reason as well. When I sold off my SOB army, I just made it cheaper and easier for someone to buy SOB without giving GW a dime.
(changing the subject a bit.)
I think there are enough die hard fans to keep GW afloat for a while. It'll limp on like the crumbling Roman Empire. It's glory and influence will far outweigh its actual power. It's financials are worse than many people realize, but perhaps it'll fall into a kind of desperate equilibrium with its remaining hard core fans.
I'm proud to be part of the reason. They haven't gotten a dime from me since 7th...though I do need some devlan mud wash. I haven't found a good substitute for that yet.
Musashi363 wrote: I'm proud to be part of the reason. They haven't gotten a dime from me since 7th...though I do need some devlan mud wash. I haven't found a good substitute for that yet.
GW doesn't make it's paints, it's just a pass through. So theoretically, if they didn't exist, the paints would go through a different company (I'd bet).
Musashi363 wrote: I'm proud to be part of the reason. They haven't gotten a dime from me since 7th...though I do need some devlan mud wash. I haven't found a good substitute for that yet.
GW doesn't make it's paints, it's just a pass through. So theoretically, if they didn't exist, the paints would go through a different company (I'd bet).
Maybe then they wouldn't rip you off by charging more than everyone else for less than everyone else. I like the GW paints but buying them feels like being robbed.
Musashi363 wrote: I'm proud to be part of the reason. They haven't gotten a dime from me since 7th...though I do need some devlan mud wash. I haven't found a good substitute for that yet.
Army Painter 'Strong tone' is exactly the same, 'Dark tone' is the same as Badab black.
Musashi363 wrote: I'm proud to be part of the reason. They haven't gotten a dime from me since 7th...though I do need some devlan mud wash. I haven't found a good substitute for that yet.
Army Painter 'Strong tone' is exactly the same, 'Dark tone' is the same as Badab black.
Buypainted have nice explanation of GWs behavior to gamers.
Again I find myself torn between two sides I consider wrong. This game should not be made to be competitive. Or, more precisely, should be made more about narrative and fluff than from the perspective of a "game based on the universe". For example, how about we grow out of the d6 system, allowing more room for the broad scope of thing in this game? For example, allowing more than 2 inches of space between models in units that would naturally spread out in battle. Or how about making a Space Marine army consist of less marines that are more durable and deadly, or maybe make plaguebearers immune to poison, or relegate deep strike mishaps to armies that that actually happens to, roll to penetrate armor and THEN roll for toughness (why is it backwards in the first place?), and the list goes on. Who wouldn't like to see all this happen?
But when you extend that to the models, that sort of thing would be less competitive---at least right away. No matter which way you slice it the main demographic of this hobby is people playing to participate in a game, more focused on tactics and list building then a rich, characterful army. (Not to say you aren't interested in both) Plus Games Workshop would sooner make new units than updating models. If what they told Mr. Buypainted was true, then they'd be updating more than just their very worst unit per release. If there was a single element of their strategy that I could change it'd be that. The rules change, the models don't. I'd much rather have plastic noise marines than a maulerfiend/forgefiend kit. Most people wouldn't. You know why? Because Maulerfiend/Forgefiend are bigger, more powerful, and are "something I'd actually use". Something with good stats. Sell the hobby to the devil, why don't you...
You can, it's called Tomorrows War by Ambush Alley Games. Give it a try, its kinda neat having 10 marines that can mow down the op-for likes in the books, but using tactics you can still take them down. I Highly recommend it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: You are part of the reason why sales dropped 8% last year.
For me it's been longer then last year. I kinda gave up in 5th edition after I was 'let go' by the local GW store for 'restructuring'. I had a tau army I had in the store but the SOB's have been my 40k love since 2nd edition. I wanted to put my sisters army on display in the store but was told no b/c we don't carry most of the range by the manager. Then I was canned along with the other two full times on dec 1st. Merry fething xmas!.
I started playing 40k in the Rogue Trader era, I also played Space Marine and Adeptus Titanicus (which soon became epic 2nd edition) so I have been around for a while. I will never give that company a direct dime again. Anything 40k I have wanted I have bought second hand as I would rather help someone else out then give GW a dime.
My only conflict is forgeworld.... I love the models, I love the 30k game. I love the setting, I love the lore.....so while I do try to buy FW second hand...sometimes I have to lie to myself and say FW isn't part of GW norm....meh whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.
This company has been a cluster-feth for a long while now, and its kinda funny to watch it slowly dig its own grave /popcorn.
I haven't played it yet, but I do play Force on Force, which is from the same designer and company (Ambush Alley Games).
There are so many great, and really intuitive things about his rules that make them just amazing. One of my favorite things is that real-life tactics are able to be utilized on the tabletop, things such as: breaking your squad in to two-man fire teams, true bounding overwatch, interrupt fire (defensive overwatch), and the way things are abstracted for speed of play while not ruining the feel of what is represented. Basically things work like they should inside the mechanics and make sense without a lot of fancy-pants extra rules.
Kilkrazy wrote: You are part of the reason why sales dropped 8% last year.
Typical Dakka blame the victim?
GW are the reason their sales dropped.
No according GW the HHHobby is buying GW mini's, if you are not doing that then it is the Consumers fault as GW know what we want, and we should buy it!
I am part of the decline also i have spent a lot of my money on the dreaded 3rd party stuff, and the only thing i bought the last few years are the Horus Heresy books, Space Hulk will be my first big GW purchase in years if my supplier can get get one.
Shame on you for spending money on such GW knock-offs as Infinity or Warmachine. Everybody knows GW was the first company to produce scale miniatures and develop a rule set for playing out battles with them. All the others are idea thieves, and the only reason they're allowed to operate is because the law is inadequate. If you buy other miniatures, you aren't a true wargamer.
Same goes for Lego, which are the only legit building brick manufacturer, and Bandai, which are the only company allowed to make plastic mecha kits.
If they streamlined the rules to not encourage huge battles with lots of expensive things, I'd love to play 40k again. But not spending hundreds on a small force.
Allen Merret said, under oath, in a bloody courtroom: "Games Day is a place where our fans can participate in their favourite part of the Hobby, buying things from Games Workshop."
Wow, so that is what GW management thinks of us their customers? We are sheep or drones eh?
Thank you for sharing that quote.
He's not far off the truth tho. How many times has the "I hate GW, I'm just gonna buy the things I need to finish my army then I'm done with them" line been trotted out? Hate the company, so throw more money their way and keep playing their game, which they update so people have to keep throwing money at them and griping whilst doing it.
People love buying new minis!
Ok, people do love buying new minis. It's true. For a lot of us, the hobby is dreaming about painting minis (we all own way more than we can ever possibly paint) and so we engage in the buying part.
However, I disagree with people who think that the complaints about GW don't lead to lost customers. Sure, I know people who complain about GW and still throw tons of money at them. I also know a lot more people who don't like GW, and started playing Warmachine and Malifaux instead.
Some of them don't buy minis at all anymore. And I know some people who might have started playing GW games, but heard all of the complaints, and picked up different games instead.
I actually know a lot of people who play miniatures games, but didn't start with a GW game.
I think GW should be paying attention to this. And I wish their official statements would make them sound like they understood their culture and cared about their customers. I think that'd change a lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WayneTheGame wrote: If they streamlined the rules to not encourage huge battles with lots of expensive things, I'd love to play 40k again. But not spending hundreds on a small force.
Man, you've got to spend $140 around here just to get the rules you'd need to proxy a force (rulebook+codex). I don't know of any other tabletop game company with a buy in like that.
WayneTheGame wrote: If they streamlined the rules to not encourage huge battles with lots of expensive things, I'd love to play 40k again. But not spending hundreds on a small force.
Man, you've got to spend $140 around here just to get the rules you'd need to proxy a force (rulebook+codex). I don't know of any other tabletop game company with a buy in like that.
That's my point. No other wargame has as much of an initial startup cost as 40k. For $ 140 I would expect to get a starting army, not the rules required to play before I buy a single model.
I think GW should be paying attention to this. And I wish their official statements would make them sound like they understood their culture and cared about their customers. I think that'd change a lot.
Another reason why I don't buy much GW anymore and my money that would have gone to GW has gone on to other companies now. Why? As you said, I feel GW doesn't care about me as a customer. Why would I want to give my money to a company who I feel doesn't want me. Customer Service is great, but then I see GW actions towards others and then Kirby's statements, I really believe GW management doesn't respect their customers at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yonan wrote: There has been some misinterpretation of KKs comment I think ; p
Well, he didn't put a smiley face on it, and it sounds something like Kirby would say. I even asked if it was a joke and he was serious. What misinterpretation is there? Yes he really means we are at fault. I think I know what he means though. It's our fault that we don't buy. The thing is, why are we not buying? Because we are not buying can be blamed back to GW.
Yes yes, it's our fault, but it's GW fault because it's our fault. Still I wished he didn't say it like that. I take it more of it's our fault and GW is not to blame.
The misinterpretation is the malice behind it - there was none. Yes, people choosing to not buy GW products is why their sales are down which is great. But that's not a bad thing, and yeah the reason people are choosing to not buy GW products is because of GWs actions - which is why it's great.
I don't usually post in these sorts of threads but I too have stopped buying new GW stuff. Thinking back on it, it has been several years since I spent actual money on anything that went to GW. I have traded for what i have now and I have no interest in spending what is required to fill out what I lack. The latest Fantasy products have really piqued my interest but their price completely stops me from getting them (End Times and Nagash & friends) when in years past I would have gotten them all. I can't believe that a modern company would act like they are and after so many years of watching them I realize that they are not a modern company at all. They want profit made the old way and are vehemently opposed to updating their methods. At this point I believe it is only a matter of time before they are bought or shuttered completely.
All we need now is a vitriolic response from Gamesworkshop, with Kirby ranting that "Wargamers are dead! Wargamers don't need to be our customers!"
Well, if that quote allegedly from Jervis that keeps getting thrown around is, in fact, a legitimate quote, GW clearly does believe that Wargamers are a minority of their customers, though I have no idea how they'd come to that conclusion, considering
We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.
This might be an odd thought, but is Kirby from a business background or a games/model design background, because he might start making a little sense if it's the latter.
Small, Far Away wrote: This might be an odd thought, but is Kirby from a business background or a games/model design background, because he might start making a little sense if it's the latter.
He's a businessman. Only entered the wargaming industry when he signed on at GW. I can't remember where he came from, though.
IIRC he was the CEO of a shampoo company prior to GW? I don't remember for sure. Maybe that was Mark Wells.
Either way, he doesn't make sense regardless of his background.
EDIT: Hmm, google-fu says:
" Prior to joining Games Workshop, he worked for six years for a distributor of fantasy games in the UK and was an Inspector of Taxes."
also, this is interesting:
"Mr. Kirby is Visiting Professor of Business and Management to the Derbyshire Business School at the University of Derby."
Welcome to the real world: people with a passion create something, run it with love and care, and while it's small and pure, it's a blast.
Eventually, the bean counters come in, take it over to "improve" everything, and run it into the ground in the name of greed, not giving a damn about understanding what it is they're ruining.
Pricing is the main thing I suspect. They continue to price it like a premium, niche item.
It was a strategy that worked when they were the head honchos, unchallenged in terms of worldbuilding, models etc.
Now, there are any number of companies looking to drag them off the throne, and they're pumping out high quality models that are far cheaper. On top of that, these companies are creating their own interesting universes or drawing from popular history.
There's actual competition for the attentions of wargamers now, and downward pressure on pricing because of economic problems in the wider economy on top of competition.
Then there are smaller things, like having a place to play. Seems there are less and less of those about, as far as I can tell.
slowthar wrote: Welcome to the real world: people with a passion create something, run it with love and care, and while it's small and pure, it's a blast.
Eventually, the bean counters come in, take it over to "improve" everything, and run it into the ground in the name of greed, not giving a damn about understanding what it is they're ruining.
'tis the way of the world, really.
Hey, careful there - Reaper was founded by bean counters! (Look up their videos on the founding of Reaper - they worked as accountants for manufacturing firms, and decided that having hands on experience in manufacturing would be good for helping them understand their clients better.)
I have no problems with the bean counters at Reaper.
Kilkrazy wrote: AFAIK Kirby was an accountant before he came to run GW.
Accountants aren't businessmen.
Think his educational background is in accounting.
Before GW, he worked for TSR UK...the game distributor mentioned above. Though, he didnt work on the business side, he was low level editor (proof reader type...not content) and wrote an occaisional article for the UK version of Dragon (forget the name off the top of my head). While there, he also has author credentials on one Adventure Module. That is mostly from when I know him.
Small, Far Away wrote: This might be an odd thought, but is Kirby from a business background or a games/model design background, because he might start making a little sense if it's the latter.
Accountants have a lot of influence on business decisions, you can tell by how much cost cutting measures that have been done by GW over the last several years. They have trimmed so much "fat" at GW it's going to be interesting to see what GW does now to stay in the black.
Kilkrazy wrote: AFAIK Kirby was an accountant before he came to run GW.
Accountants aren't businessmen.
Think his educational background is in accounting.
Before GW, he worked for TSR UK...the game distributor mentioned above. Though, he didnt work on the business side, he was low level editor (proof reader type...not content) and wrote an occaisional article for the UK version of Dragon (forget the name off the top of my head). While there, he also has author credentials on one Adventure Module. That is mostly from when I know him.
Prior to that...he was a tax man.
Ah, so TSR is where he learned how to drive a company into the ground.
CalgarsPimpHand wrote: Every other codex has been an attempt to squeeze in something new at the margins, whether it's by increasing the scale of the game, or by making "unique" units that really aren't that unique, or by dreaming up nonsense units that probably shouldn't exist due to the stupidity of their backstory or model design or both.
I´ve noticed people have been whining about not many new units being introduced in the recent codices ( not nearly as many as in the codices before them. ) Dark Eldar for example didn´t get almost any new models. So some folk aren´t happy about no new models, and some aren´t happy about new models being introduced.
I´m starting to think no matter what GW does it can´t win with some people, because some people are never satisfied. With anything. Ever.
I find a part of the community is just plain unreasonable.
CalgarsPimpHand wrote: Every other codex has been an attempt to squeeze in something new at the margins, whether it's by increasing the scale of the game, or by making "unique" units that really aren't that unique, or by dreaming up nonsense units that probably shouldn't exist due to the stupidity of their backstory or model design or both.
I´ve noticed people have been whining about not many new units being introduced in the recent codices ( not nearly as many as in the codices before them. ) Dark Eldar for example didn´t get almost any new models. So some folk aren´t happy about no new models, and some aren´t happy about new models being introduced.
I´m starting to think no matter what GW does it can´t win with some people, because some people are never satisfied. With anything. Ever.
I find a part of the community is just plain unreasonable.
( Not directed at you, CalgarsPimpHand. )
I think you're making a mistake with your observation. Sure some people are never satisfied with anything, that's just how some people are. however, that only applies to the matter of people being upset with GW whether they do or do not add new models to a codex is only applicable if the people complaining about the additional models are the same ones complaining about not getting new models. I hope you can see the importance of that distinction. Considering that GW is the biggest company in the hobby and 40K is the most popular game I think what you're seeing is that 40K players form such a large and diverse group that there will always be people who don't like what GW does with a codex update. Of course, the fact that you can't please everyone is true for every company that manufactures anything so it's not a GW problem or a GW community problem it's just a fact of life.
I don´t think the same individual whines about no new models and new models being introduced. I hope that no one is that paradoxical... but one can always hope. You can´t please everyone ( occasionally anyone ) indeed, and it feels like GW doesn´t get same leeway regarding this fact while other manufacturers seem to. GW has done more annoying things than other manufacturers, sure, but they also aren´t forgiven even half the things other manufacturers do, it seems. It´s an attitude thing and often people just see things the way they want to see them, not the way they are. Like I said, I feel part of the general wargaming community is just plain unreasonable and overly sensitive. If someone quits a wargame as a whole because of things that comprise 5% of the content of the entire game or it´s mechanics, then I see them as never having loved said game in the first place. I can understand it if pretty much everything is wrong about a game in their mind ( which seems to be the case with a lot of people... either a game is perfect and the manufacturer a god or everything about it and it´s manufacturer sucks, there is no middle ground. Dunno what makes people take extreme stands. Maybe it feels more exciting. )
It also seems people have illusions regarding the differences when it comes to GW and other games:
-People saying that communities of other games are better. People are the same everywhere. There are good 40k communities and bad 40k communities, and there are good and bad Infinity and Warmachine communities. There are different people, and that´s all these communities are. You see great folks on 40k forums just the same as any other games forum. Playing a certain wargame doesn´t make people nasty/nice.
-Some claim balance issues do not exist in any other game. They exist in all games, in different magnitudes.
-Others say people never threaten to quit/sell their miniatures regarding other manufacturers. They do.
These things just aren´t true. Before counterargumenting do read what I wrote - I´m tired of users accidentally/deliberatelly arguing besides the point. If I say balance issues exist in all games in different magnitudes I mean just that, and nothing more. Should someone interpret it as anything else its their own fault, not mine.
The "depth" of hatred is the same - people threaten to quit, whine, sell their miniatures and actually quit on every wargame forum of any manufacturer. It happens all the time.
Sure GW probably gets more hatred amount-wise. GW also has the biggest playerbase numerically. Do the math.
I don't think people are honestly claiming things NEVER happen in other gaming communities, regarding complaints, quitting, and so on.
I thought it was clear that the amount, however, in other games is significantly less, and arguably comparatively less considering the numbers difference.
The reason GW doesn't get 'forgiven' is that they've done nothing worth forgiving them for. Any change done for the positive has been met equally with a change for the worse. The quick release schedule has the side effect of blander, slimmer codices that lack any real soul or character. Any new and cool kits are met with significant price increases. Selling a rules only book for the new edition that had to be purchased with two other books.
If you want to see people 'forgiving' GW, they'd have to actually make some steps that are overall positive and in line with current trends in the wargaming scene. Things like free, downloadable rules; cheaper minis; balanced and play-tested rules; company forums that take in feedback; and previewing their new products in a modern way, rather than the current hush hush surprise method they currently use.
So yeah, you can't please every single person. You can please a pretty significant majority however and constantly seek to improve by taking in all the feedback and distilling out all the gibberish and nonsense and finding the worthwhile stuff to consider.
It isn't easy, but its doable. The success of other companies is testament to that.
Is there still enough time for me to change that to Stalin and gulags?
To be fair, I still kind of chuckled (at both).
In any event, I still disagree with you, inasmuch as GWcould make changes that would make it easier to get new customers and to convince old customers to return.
All these talk over GW not being able to please everyone is neither here nor there.
GWdoesn't care about pleasing its customers. It doesn't know what we want, and it doesn't care to find out because "Market research is otiose in a niche market". - Tom Kirby. We buy whatever they make, period.
GWdoesn't care about pleasing its customers. It doesn't know what we want
Can you prove that there aren´t people within Games Workshop that care about their customers? Can you prove "GW doesn´t know what we want"?
Market research doesn´t cover even half of the things that comprise "knowing what the community wants" incase we are talking about the same thing. And just because someone has said they don´t do market research doesn´t actually mean anything. You can bet GW follows their competitors and is staying aware of the market and it´s shifts. The idea that they really would function completely blind as a multimillion company is absurd and fictional. Ofcourse they do research on some level.
Thing is, none of you actually know, you assume. So do I, but I´ve spent enough time in the world of corporate business to know there´s not a single company as big as GW that doesn´t do any kind of research. Just doesn´t happen, and a pseudo PR statement from someone like Kirby doesn´t really prove anything. He might infact be completely oblivious to some of the things the company does ( like research for example ) or he might be trying to build trust and visions of a positive future to investors by making it seem like they don´t need to do anything to dominate the market. I´ve seen that happen before too but I won´t mention any names.
You can stop quoting Kirby now, as it really doesn´t mean anything on a concretical level. In the end it´s just words. And if you ( not directed at an individual ) don´t trust GW and their word in anything positive, why do you take something negative like Kirbys statement about research as the ultimate truth?
I´ll answer that for you: Because you are biased and unable to remain objective, seeing lies and truths where you see fit, and that´s that.
If you´ve ever worked in your life you´ll know things are quite different inside the company than what is shown to the outside, in both good and bad.
I´m pretty sure there are a ton of employees who know what the community would want, and who care about the game and go to work every day trying to better different areas of it. Just because it doesn´t translate into what community member X wants doesn´t mean they don´t know. Everyone wants different things and as concluded before the community will never be satisfied for that very reason, and in a way "knowing what we want" is an unreachable goal. Some want simpler rules, some are unsatisfied with simplified codices. Some want new models upon Codex release, some are disappointed when there are none. It is known.
Can you prove that there aren´t people within Games Workshop that care about their customers? Can you prove "GW doesn´t know what we want"?
Market research doesn´t cover even half of the things that comprise "knowing what the community wants" incase we are talking about the same thing. And just because someone has said they don´t do market research doesn´t actually mean anything. You can bet GW follows their competitors and is staying aware of the market and it´s shifts. The idea that they really would function completely blind as a multimillion company is absurd and fictional. Ofcourse they do research on some level.
I´m pretty sure there are a ton of employees who know what the community would want, and who care about the game and go to work every day trying to better different areas of it. Just because it doesn´t translate into what community member X wants doesn´t mean they don´t know. Everyone wants different things and as concluded before the community will never be satisfied for that very reason, and in a way "knowing what we want" is an unreachable goal. Some want simpler rules, some are unsatisfied with simplified codices. Some want new models upon Codex release, some are disappointed when there are none. It is known.
So you're claiming that even though they say in their financial report that they don't do market research, they do market research, or otherwise gather market data? They explicitly state they don't ask the market what it wants, but you're assuming they try and figure out what the market wants?
Then why would they proudly state those things in their financial report? What would they have to gain?
You seem to have some sort of fallacy in your head that it's not possible for companies to reject common sense. I can tell you from experience that in some places, the company culture is absurd, and common sense has no place. In fact, they're somewhat common. From their financial report, GW appears to quite possibly be one of those places.
What other companies do you know of that don't engage in social media? That don't do marketing? That don't have sales? That don't engage (or even acknowledge) their playerbase? I literally know of none. Hell, I write a beer brewing app in my spare time that I have a Facebook page for so I can gather feedback.
As a (former) long time WoW player, among other games, I can appreciate your point that all communities are filled with people complaining. It does get old. However, I think you're giving WAY too much credit to GW being run properly and actually knowing what's going on. Just because there are complainers in every community doesn't mean every community (and company that community is around) is the same.
How dare you bring logic and facts to a hate fest 
)
that comes out of their upper management's mouths it's not a stretch at all to think that is exactly what they think.
