I had a thought while reading threads about GW's behavior/decisionmaking that the only real way of forcing change in this company from our position is to buy shares - we are always complaining about the jumping through hoops to please them so lets become shareholders ourselves!
We clearly have the capacity for large purchases and a year of spending that money on shares instead of models might actually start a change in the company;
all we have to do is wait for a terrible sales report making the shares dip in price to maximise our input and then afterwards we have a say in the boardroom!
I'm up for it - i've never owned shares in a company before!
We also as a collective have enough money to buy the damn company, if bankrupt ourselves. Even if every person on Dakka put $750 into the pot, we would have $70,707,000. I do believe that's more than the value of GW.
Stop giving in to nostalgia and stop buying GW stuff, even if they put out something you like or want.
Remember that the only time GW, or any corporation, will take notice and change is when there is a change of leadership, or their bottom line is affected. Usually the bottom line is also a cause for change. However, because of GW's corporate structure, that' won't happen. So, the only way is to affect their bottom line.
Vote with your wallet. GW knows most people won't, so if things get a little low, they just pop out something ridiculous or remake something old and people will engorge themselves on it.
Don't be that person if you are unhappy with things as they are.
Yeah, the only way they will learn is if sales keep decreasing, but there's always those diehards who are like "omg new knights can't wait!!!!" or "Take my money for X" that keep reinforcing the idea that what GW is doing is actually working.
Verviedi wrote: We also as a collective have enough money to buy the damn company, if bankrupt ourselves. Even if every person on Dakka put $750 into the pot, we would have $70,707,000. I do believe that's more than the value of GW.
Sorry chap, you're wrong.
Market Cap (values of shares) for GAW is £164M (or whatever that its in your foreign money of choice). That would rise if you were able to buy chunks of shares and once you were in a position to force a buyout offer the price would rise again.
You can't make GW change. Despite their continual slide towards irrelevancy in the industry, they continue to pursue the same strategies, continue to put out an accelerated rate of low effort, high price products in an attempt to stop the decline in their profits, continue to treat their customer base with practically open contempt.
The only thing you can do is stop buying, and let them get on with their self-destruction. There are so many other games out there that are better value and quality, after all.
WayneTheGame wrote: Yeah, the only way they will learn is if sales keep decreasing, but there's always those diehards who are like "omg new knights can't wait!!!!" or "Take my money for X" that keep reinforcing the idea that what GW is doing is actually working.
Or, I know this will totally sound crazy, but those people like the model and want one. Hence, they buy it without a care in the world because their main focus is having cool little plastic men (and mechs! and tanks! and Robots! AND CYBORG NINJAS!)
More likely we'd get Mantic prices with GW quality. And skirmish games.
What might be an interesting approach to GW is to buy stuff from someone else, and write to GW with a copy of the receipt explaining why the money didn't go to GW. Maybe that'd shock them into changing if enough people did so.
If GW had a business-strategy fitting for the 21st century, they would have a way for us to communicate, why we stop buying their products.
As things stand, they'll just have to learn by making less money every year and flail about trying to figure out why.
I don't think anyone's suggested this yet, but I'd recommend you stop buying GW products.
Venerate1 wrote: Nay! There is no such thing as free will! You are only in this hobby because GW holds a boltgun to your head and FORCES you to spend money!
You type this out as hyperbolic sarcasm, but I've seen lots of people reveal that they're psychologically trapped in GW games, to some degree or another. Reasons and excuses I've read include:
- I've spent too much money on GW products to stop now. (Classic sunk cost fallacy, and I used to see it with distressing regularity)
- I buy GW models/rules or play GW games because I like the fluff. (No actual mention of enjoying the minis, rules, or games. A BL novel might give them as much or more enjoyment)
- If I started a new game I'd have to spend tons of money on it. (For one thing, they're already spending tons of money, more than they'd need for most new games, on filling out already-huge armies with no end in sight. For another, as I keep harping on, there are plenty of alternate, cheap or free rulesets that you can use your existing 40K/WHFB collection with. I'm sure the GW police won't break your door down and arrest you if you try it.)
- I don't like that other game's minis and fluff. (Well, as above. The Mantic police aren't going to break your door down etc. etc. if you decide to use your WHFB models and Old World [or bubble universe] background with Kings of War, or whatever. Some of those other alternate rulesets don't even have any models or fluff.)
- I don't like that other game's rules. (More subjective, but I think this is still a particular example of wargaming Stockholm syndrome or something. 40K and WHFB rules are widely known, but are actually weird outliers compared to most rules dealing with similar sized or organised armies. Of course other rules are going to seem weird and uncomfortable if you've started with and been fully immersed in the GW HobbyTM for at least two or three editions; but most are built to be more appropriate and elegant to the size of their forces, and designed to have a bit more of a tactical, tabletop-decision aspect than overwhelming strategic, micromanaged listbuilding. People think the micromanagement and special rules spam is 'fluffy', but most of the fluff in GW rules is the little title and caption written beside the bit that tells you how many dice to roll and how many wounds your result causes. Much of the rest is a wargaming quagmire. Or: other rules are like brown bread - it'll take a little time to get used to, but in the long run it's better, and before long the old stuff will start to feel like an 'orrible, sticky, claggy mess... )
What else? People complain that their opponents are too stuck on GW games, but sometimes they mention that those opponents are tired of GW too. I wonder just how much of it is down to a lack of will or courage to take a punt, divert some of the roaring flow of cash going to GW's coffers into a little rulebook or download, try to put together a couple of little demo gangs (even, as mentioned, with existing collections or proxies) or summat. Similarly, people complain that a GW store is the only place to game, which can be a restrictive head-scratcher of a problem, but again I wonder if there's some kind of inertia, a comfortable rut, and an assumption that you need a FLGS to play anything else in. I found out about a nearby wargaming club, miles closer than the nearest GW, but years after I started attending that GW, because I never bothered to look and ask. I've also played on a few kitchen tables many times. It's not going to be possible for everyone, but I don't think it's as generally impossible as often made out.
Vermis wrote: I don't think anyone's suggested this yet, but I'd recommend you stop buying GW products.
Venerate1 wrote: Nay! There is no such thing as free will! You are only in this hobby because GW holds a boltgun to your head and FORCES you to spend money!
You type this out as hyperbolic sarcasm, but I've seen lots of people reveal that they're psychologically trapped in GW games, to some degree or another. Reasons and excuses I've read include:
- I've spent too much money on GW products to stop now. (Classic sunk cost fallacy, and I used to see it with distressing regularity)
- I buy GW models/rules or play GW games because I like the fluff. (No actual mention of enjoying the minis, rules, or games. A BL novel might give them as much or more enjoyment)
- If I started a new game I'd have to spend tons of money on it. (For one thing, they're already spending tons of money, more than they'd need for most new games, on filling out already-huge armies with no end in sight. For another, as I keep harping on, there are plenty of alternate, cheap or free rulesets that you can use your existing 40K/WHFB collection with. I'm sure the GW police won't break your door down and arrest you if you try it.)
- I don't like that other game's minis and fluff. (Well, as above. The Mantic police aren't going to break your door down etc. etc. if you decide to use your WHFB models and Old World [or bubble universe] background with Kings of War, or whatever. Some of those other alternate rulesets don't even have any models or fluff.)
- I don't like that other game's rules. (More subjective, but I think this is still a particular example of wargaming Stockholm syndrome or something. 40K and WHFB rules are widely known, but are actually weird outliers compared to most rules dealing with similar sized or organised armies. Of course other rules are going to seem weird and uncomfortable if you've started with and been fully immersed in the GW HobbyTM for at least two or three editions; but most are built to be more appropriate and elegant to the size of their forces, and designed to have a bit more of a tactical, tabletop-decision aspect than overwhelming strategic, micromanaged listbuilding. People think the micromanagement and special rules spam is 'fluffy', but most of the fluff in GW rules is the little title and caption written beside the bit that tells you how many dice to roll and how many wounds your result causes. Much of the rest is a wargaming quagmire. Or: other rules are like brown bread - it'll take a little time to get used to, but in the long run it's better, and before long the old stuff will start to feel like an 'orrible, sticky, claggy mess... )
What else? People complain that their opponents are too stuck on GW games, but sometimes they mention that those opponents are tired of GW too. I wonder just how much of it is down to a lack of will or courage to take a punt, divert some of the roaring flow of cash going to GW's coffers into a little rulebook or download, try to put together a couple of little demo gangs (even, as mentioned, with existing collections or proxies) or summat. Similarly, people complain that a GW store is the only place to game, which can be a restrictive head-scratcher of a problem, but again I wonder if there's some kind of inertia, a comfortable rut, and an assumption that you need a FLGS to play anything else in. I found out about a nearby wargaming club, miles closer than the nearest GW, but years after I started attending that GW, because I never bothered to look and ask. I've also played on a few kitchen tables many times. It's not going to be possible for everyone, but I don't think it's as generally impossible as often made out.
Agreed.
I also think that some people are so engrossed that they can't or won't see outside of 40k and anything that isn't 40k stinks. I've heard people who have no idea what __insert game__'s fluff is, but say it's crap because it isn't like 40k.
Heh! I think that might be related to the phenomenon of GW fans resenting someone with cheaper minis: if they stop and consider the alternative too closely, it might seem too much like a good idea.
- I've spent too much money on GW products to stop now. (Classic sunk cost fallacy, and I used to see it with distressing regularity)
Itas not a fallacy, itys a state of mind. Chsing lost income is the bite that makes addicts out of (some) gamblers, its is also the reason scammer victims continue to pay long after they know inside its a con.
While the two are not directly compatible the ideology that a time emotional and monetary investment is something to keep a connexion too is hard to break, and why should people do so in the case of GW.
It's a hobby game not a crack addiction, gamers need not stop or socially pressured to move on from GW.
And for those who say 'plastic crack', and look to cases of people who are obsessed, what is the move on to do, its not to escape gaming altogether, the emphasis of the thread is a move to other games.
- I buy GW models/rules or play GW games because I like the fluff. (No actual mention of enjoying the minis, rules, or games. A BL novel might give them as much or more enjoyment)
A valid argument, though that mostly aligns around 40K. Especially now the Fantasy game world has been nuked, GW no longer has incumbency there.
- If I started a new game I'd have to spend tons of money on it. (For one thing, they're already spending tons of money, more than they'd need for most new games, on filling out already-huge armies with no end in sight. For another, as I keep harping on, there are plenty of alternate, cheap or free rulesets that you can use your existing 40K/WHFB collection with. I'm sure the GW police won't break your door down and arrest you if you try it.)
Here is the rub, Privateer Press and Corvus Belli charge GW prices for miniatures, and Privateer Press are more hardline about third party miniatures than GW ever was. Though not Corvus Belli are not. Despite this there is no notable nerdrage over prices of
Most Hawk Wargmes models make GW look value for money by comparison. Dropzone Commander is very expensive on a per miniature basis, yet Hawk Wargames can do no wrong.
Yes GW has to cut prices long term, especailly for 40K but others have got away with high prices for smaller scale gaming.
- I don't like that other game's minis and fluff. (Well, as above. The Mantic police aren't going to break your door down etc. etc. if you decide to use your WHFB models and Old World [or bubble universe] background with Kings of War, or whatever. Some of those other alternate rulesets don't even have any models or fluff.)
Mantic expect and hope you will be using their models for playing Warhammer, it is what they were made for. However they now are making Kimng of War rules for discontinued GW lines due to the End Times brainfart.
- I don't like that other game's rules. (More subjective, but I think this is still a particular example of wargaming Stockholm syndrome or something.)
Hobbyists are allowed to be set in their ways. As it is a hobby, nostalgia is a valid part of it.
- If I started a new game I'd have to spend tons of money on it. (For one thing, they're already spending tons of money, more than they'd need for most new games, on filling out already-huge armies with no end in sight. For another, as I keep harping on, there are plenty of alternate, cheap or free rulesets that you can use your existing 40K/WHFB collection with. I'm sure the GW police won't break your door down and arrest you if you try it.)
Here is the rub, Privateer Press and Corvus Belli charge GW prices for miniatures, and Privateer Press are more hardline about third party miniatures than GW ever was. Though not Corvus Belli are not. Despite this there is no notable nerdrage over prices of
Most Hawk Wargmes models make GW look value for money by comparison. Dropzone Commander is very expensive on a per miniature basis, yet Hawk Wargames can do no wrong.
Yes GW has to cut prices long term, especailly for 40K but others have got away with high prices for smaller scale
A key thing to keep in mind (with DZC and PP games at least) is that a starter and rulebook are incredibly cheap compared to what GW offers ($20-$30 rulebook and $50 army, or a balanced 2 player starter for around $100 with rulebook).
On top of that, while the models are individually expensive, you need a lot less of them. The LVO winner list (IIRC) was around $800-$900 U.S. at MSRP, while the last major DZC tournament had the winner clocking in at around $300. I haven't priced PP armies recently, but last time I did a 3 list format army was around $700.
Vermis wrote: I don't think anyone's suggested this yet, but I'd recommend you stop buying GW products.
Venerate1 wrote: Nay! There is no such thing as free will! You are only in this hobby because GW holds a boltgun to your head and FORCES you to spend money!
You type this out as hyperbolic sarcasm, but I've seen lots of people reveal that they're psychologically trapped in GW games, to some degree or another. Reasons and excuses I've read include:
- I've spent too much money on GW products to stop now. (Classic sunk cost fallacy, and I used to see it with distressing regularity)
- I buy GW models/rules or play GW games because I like the fluff. (No actual mention of enjoying the minis, rules, or games. A BL novel might give them as much or more enjoyment)
- If I started a new game I'd have to spend tons of money on it. (For one thing, they're already spending tons of money, more than they'd need for most new games, on filling out already-huge armies with no end in sight. For another, as I keep harping on, there are plenty of alternate, cheap or free rulesets that you can use your existing 40K/WHFB collection with. I'm sure the GW police won't break your door down and arrest you if you try it.)
- I don't like that other game's minis and fluff. (Well, as above. The Mantic police aren't going to break your door down etc. etc. if you decide to use your WHFB models and Old World [or bubble universe] background with Kings of War, or whatever. Some of those other alternate rulesets don't even have any models or fluff.)
- I don't like that other game's rules. (More subjective, but I think this is still a particular example of wargaming Stockholm syndrome or something. 40K and WHFB rules are widely known, but are actually weird outliers compared to most rules dealing with similar sized or organised armies. Of course other rules are going to seem weird and uncomfortable if you've started with and been fully immersed in the GW HobbyTM for at least two or three editions; but most are built to be more appropriate and elegant to the size of their forces, and designed to have a bit more of a tactical, tabletop-decision aspect than overwhelming strategic, micromanaged listbuilding. People think the micromanagement and special rules spam is 'fluffy', but most of the fluff in GW rules is the little title and caption written beside the bit that tells you how many dice to roll and how many wounds your result causes. Much of the rest is a wargaming quagmire. Or: other rules are like brown bread - it'll take a little time to get used to, but in the long run it's better, and before long the old stuff will start to feel like an 'orrible, sticky, claggy mess... )
What else? People complain that their opponents are too stuck on GW games, but sometimes they mention that those opponents are tired of GW too. I wonder just how much of it is down to a lack of will or courage to take a punt, divert some of the roaring flow of cash going to GW's coffers into a little rulebook or download, try to put together a couple of little demo gangs (even, as mentioned, with existing collections or proxies) or summat. Similarly, people complain that a GW store is the only place to game, which can be a restrictive head-scratcher of a problem, but again I wonder if there's some kind of inertia, a comfortable rut, and an assumption that you need a FLGS to play anything else in. I found out about a nearby wargaming club, miles closer than the nearest GW, but years after I started attending that GW, because I never bothered to look and ask. I've also played on a few kitchen tables many times. It's not going to be possible for everyone, but I don't think it's as generally impossible as often made out.
Completely hit the nail on the head there, mate! I've heard hear arguments all too many times from lots of different people. Same people who are always first to volunteer when I offer a game with a different rule set and minis and then rave about how awesome it was. Then they take a psychological bitch slap from their abuser and silently crawl back to their GW stuff
Here is the rub, Privateer Press and Corvus Belli charge GW prices for miniatures, and Privateer Press are more hardline about third party miniatures than GW ever was. Though not Corvus Belli are not. Despite this there is no notable nerdrage over prices of
Most Hawk Wargmes models make GW look value for money by comparison. Dropzone Commander is very expensive on a per miniature basis, yet Hawk Wargames can do no wrong.
Yes GW has to cut prices long term, especailly for 40K but others have got away with high prices for smaller scale gaming.
You're conflating cost and value here. Sure some games have mini's that cost as much as GW mini's, but you rarely need anything like as much of them. That $40 Warmachine unit might have the same number of mini's as that $40 40K unit, but the Warmachine one might be 20% of a complete army whilst the 40K is only 5% and needs a $40 transport on top.
If you look at total cost to play, most of these other games come out ahead, especially when you consider the rules. I don't think anyone else does a BRB for anything close to GW's $75, in fact most other rulesets (based on a straw poll of my book case) cost less than a GW army book.
There is also the underdog and economies of scale to factor in. I'll happily pay more for mini's made in small numbers by a garage company, than a mass produced mini from an international company with it's own casting machines, because I know it costs the former an order of magnitude more to make it than the latter.
Perhaps a better way to influence the company than buying shares is to write letters to their non-Kirby directors:
Spoiler:
Chris Myatt (age 70). Chris Myatt is the senior independent director, joining the board on 18 April 1996. He was formerly a divisional managing director within Tarmac PLC, chairman and non-executive director of a number of manufacturing companies and treasurer of Keele University.
Nick Donaldson (age 60). Nick Donaldson was appointed to the board on 18 April 2002. A barrister by profession, Nick is a partner of London Bridge Capital Limited. Nick was, until 2003, head of corporate finance at Arbuthnot Securities Limited and previously held senior investment banking positions at Robert W Baird Limited and at Credit Lyonnais Securities. He is chairman of DP Poland PLC and a director of The Fulham Shore plc.
Elaine O’Donnell (age 43). Elaine O’Donnell was appointed to the board on 28 November 2013. A chartered accountant by profession, until recently Elaine was a corporate finance partner with EY. She is also a non-executive director/ trustee of The Manufacturing Institute.
I think GW are changing slowly. They've obviously stepped up production, they've released stuff that they probably should have released 20 years ago, such as titans, Ad mech, and Harlequins. It seems like plastic sisters could be just around the corner (at last). Who knows, at this rate they might even bring back squats!. Prices are still steep, but I was shocked to see the new Skitarii launch at only £23.50 for ten. I expected them to be priced more like Scions. My first thought was: "wow, I could actually buy those and only feel slightly ripped off" (as opposed to the usual mugged and raped level of shame that I'm accustomed to when dealing with GW). Of course I didn't actually buy any (I'm not an idiot). We also have the new Execution Force game coming out, which almost looks like one of the old introductory board games that were IMHO instrumental in getting new players involved in 40k during the 90s.
Of course many people will still consider all this too little too late, and the state of the rules is still obscene. But I like to think that they are slowly feeling the pain of dipping sales and starting to respond.
Hey look, another one of these threads. "I'm mad as heck so let's do something... like buy stock.. , or write letters..., or just stop buying..." Its been said many, many, times. It doesn't work. It will never work. Even if we, as a community, somehow got the gazillions together to buy a controlling interest in the company, then what? Do we have a consensus about what we want to do with it?
Perhaps we do, to some extent, and perhaps we can get where we want to go without spending more than we already do.
I'd say most of us are pretty happy with the models and the fluff, and the art. Its the rules that suck (and the constant push to buy the latest version that fixed this and breaks that, on and on and on every 4, or 2 years, at $50.00+ a pop). I say screw that. We should develop better rules ourselves, with free up-dates for everyone. We can use the models we already have and still enjoy the fluff, even embellish it with fan fiction and fan art. It wouldn't cost us much, practically nothing really. I know, this would be like herding cats; everyone has their own ideas on how the make the game better. But if you truly want to do something constructive and empowering then this is it. Nothing else is go'a work.
Which I guess means it's working? Just not the way that a lot of people would hope. But the way we all hope simply won't happen, so it looks like it's going to have to be the hard way.
I'm asking this from a position of curiosity, why does GW need to change?
With something as freeflow as tabletop gaming, model making etc. then once you own the figures, surely you can do as you wish with them?
In my eyes, it doesn't somehow become less of a game if you fiddle with it, tinkering with things as long as you mutually agree with your fellow players.
"Make GW change."
You couldn't, not in a way you would want.
Say we all go on strike and do not buy a single product for 3 months in protest.
I can guarantee GW will completely misinterpret what caused the downturn of sales no matter how much the protest is advertised.
When there is no room for handing out dividends, that is the only time we will see change (Kirby golden parachute).
I think the Dakka admins have spoken with their own actions, same for myself.
We're just making their own game that we want to play.
Dakka's ME is going to give GW a run for their money, and despite its growing pains, you've got an experienced group churning out original plastics (unlike Mantic's mediocre GW clones).
GW knows that there's a turn in the market. However, they also know they have a captive market audience that won't stop buying no matter how ridiculous of expensive it gets. Again, still talking about the gaming side of purchasers, but GW has doubled down in releasing just for that group of super purchasers.
They also know that they can milk these people for all their hobby money, then when thing truly get bad, they just reboot like End Times and fans will come flocking back.
MalusCalibur wrote: You can't make GW change. Despite their continual slide towards irrelevancy in the industry, they continue to pursue the same strategies, continue to put out an accelerated rate of low effort, high price products in an attempt to stop the decline in their profits, continue to treat their customer base with practically open contempt.
The only thing you can do is stop buying, and let them get on with their self-destruction. Therme are so many other games out there that are better value and quality, after all.
From the comments on the LotR threads, you would think GW was wholly vital to their existence.
I have not bought anything from GW, directly, since the 90's. And I have not bought anything even second hand since around 2007/08 (when I bought the very last of my LotR and Tau stuff. - although it has sat it a box since the purchase.
And none of those models are likely to ever get used with a GW game, given my low opinion of their current products.
And it seems that others voice this low opinion often enough, yet fail to act upon it.
Very strange.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vermis wrote: I don't think anyone's suggested this yet, but I'd recommend you stop buying GW products.
Venerate1 wrote: Nay! There is no such thing as free will! You are only in this hobby because GW holds a boltgun to your head and FORCES you to spend money!
You type this out as hyperbolic sarcasm, but I've seen lots of people reveal that they're psychologically trapped in GW games, to some degree or another. Reasons and excuses I've read include:
- I've spent too much money on GW products to stop now. (Classic sunk cost fallacy, and I used to see it with distressing regularity)
- I buy GW models/rules or play GW games because I like the fluff. (No actual mention of enjoying the minis, rules, or games. A BL novel might give them as much or more enjoyment)
- If I started a new game I'd have to spend tons of money on it. (For one thing, they're already spending tons of money, more than they'd need for most new games, on filling out already-huge armies with no end in sight. For another, as I keep harping on, there are plenty of alternate, cheap or free rulesets that you can use your existing 40K/WHFB collection with. I'm sure the GW police won't break your door down and arrest you if you try it.)
- I don't like that other game's minis and fluff. (Well, as above. The Mantic police aren't going to break your door down etc. etc. if you decide to use your WHFB models and Old World [or bubble universe] background with Kings of War, or whatever. Some of those other alternate rulesets don't even have any models or fluff.)
- I don't like that other game's rules. (More subjective, but I think this is still a particular example of wargaming Stockholm syndrome or something. 40K and WHFB rules are widely known, but are actually weird outliers compared to most rules dealing with similar sized or organised armies. Of course other rules are going to seem weird and uncomfortable if you've started with and been fully immersed in the GW HobbyTM for at least two or three editions; but most are built to be more appropriate and elegant to the size of their forces, and designed to have a bit more of a tactical, tabletop-decision aspect than overwhelming strategic, micromanaged listbuilding. People think the micromanagement and special rules spam is 'fluffy', but most of the fluff in GW rules is the little title and caption written beside the bit that tells you how many dice to roll and how many wounds your result causes. Much of the rest is a wargaming quagmire. Or: other rules are like brown bread - it'll take a little time to get used to, but in the long run it's better, and before long the old stuff will start to feel like an 'orrible, sticky, claggy mess... )
What else? People complain that their opponents are too stuck on GW games, but sometimes they mention that those opponents are tired of GW too. I wonder just how much of it is down to a lack of will or courage to take a punt, divert some of the roaring flow of cash going to GW's coffers into a little rulebook or download, try to put together a couple of little demo gangs (even, as mentioned, with existing collections or proxies) or summat. Similarly, people complain that a GW store is the only place to game, which can be a restrictive head-scratcher of a problem, but again I wonder if there's some kind of inertia, a comfortable rut, and an assumption that you need a FLGS to play anything else in. I found out about a nearby wargaming club, miles closer than the nearest GW, but years after I started attending that GW, because I never bothered to look and ask. I've also played on a few kitchen tables many times. It's not going to be possible for everyone, but I don't think it's as generally impossible as often made out.
And I have my head metaphically blown-off for suggesting that someone else might be able to do LotR better than does GW.
or just stop buying..." Its been said many, many, times. It doesn't work. It will never work.
Financial reports beg to differ.
They still haven't changed their ways, just up their prices and cut staff. And the rules still suck.
I disagree, they have radically changed their ways, just not in the way that most people wanted them to.
I agree. GW are doing lots of different things and have changed quite a lot. They just haven't dropped the prices and pandered to the masses of "fans" who all give out different messages.
Buttery Commissar wrote:I'm asking this from a position of curiosity, why does GW need to change?
With something as freeflow as tabletop gaming, model making etc. then once you own the figures, surely you can do as you wish with them?
In my eyes, it doesn't somehow become less of a game if you fiddle with it, tinkering with things as long as you mutually agree with your fellow players.
Maybe I'm just soft.
True, true. But if you need to buy a lot of minis and rules for a game, it would be nice if the makers got on board right at the start and made a game with sane rules and affordable or better-value minis.
Since the Warhammer Total War announcement happened, I've seen people say things like 'Total War games are completely unplayable, but are great if you can get the fan mods for them'. I'm like, what? If Sega or whoever is in any way aware of these mods, why don't they just start making Total War games like these mods? If I buy the game, am I buying a pre-broken game that I then have to go find and download a fix for immediately? Who are these 'fans' anyway? What exactly do they want me to put on my computer?
It's a bit of a turn off right away. It's the way I see GW now, and I'd hazard others do too, with some caveats. Sure, based on the recommendations of people I (sort of) know, I can download the mods and have a whale of a time. Me myself, I'm constantly preaching about using your purpose-built Warhammer minis in other rule sets, to see how much more fun you might have. But it would be kinda nice if the company producing the starting, 'parent' product didn't screw it up so much right out of the gate, practically demanding a look elsewhere and a lot of tinkering.
Vertrucio wrote:
Dakka's ME is going to give GW a run for their money, and despite its growing pains, you've got an experienced group churning out original plastics (unlike Mantic's mediocre GW clones).
What, you mean the not-Catachans with even stumpier arms? Those original non-mediocre non-GW-clone plastics?
Fair play to the Dakka admin for adding to the choice in the market, but when you talk about 'giving GW a run for it's money' I think of Mongoose and it's original boasts of 'killing the GW cobra' with it's own limited ranges of clunky plastics.
Accolade wrote:Which I guess means it's working? Just not the way that a lot of people would hope. But the way we all hope simply won't happen, so it looks like it's going to have to be the hard way.
I agree. GW are doing lots of different things and have changed quite a lot. They just haven't dropped the prices and pandered to the masses of "fans" who all give out different messages.
I'm going to go ahead and assume your abilities to properly assess the market and it's desires are about on par with GW.
I don't know just what the market wants and what would get it to buy more GW products. Hey! That puts me on par with GW too! But I'm going to guess that if sales are dropping, the market wants something different to what's currently going on.
If the excellent article that Crablezworth posted up is any indication, it wouldn't be unsurmountably difficult to sift through those 'different messages', identify common threads, identify what's not working (most of the stuff that the current, remaining, decline-driving fanboys go mad for, perhaps?), and even address a number of them at once.
I think you're being a little bit unnecessarily harsh. To address your points...
- I've spent too much money on GW products to stop now. (Classic sunk cost fallacy, and I used to see it with distressing regularity)
It's not really a fallacy in many cases. If you have hundreds of dollars in an army, the cost to keep playing can be pretty negligible. When you consider the time as well, and you might actually LIKE the models. I've stopped playing 40k and WHFB because I don't like the games any more and don't have the time (FWIW I don't really play other wargames much either), but the cost to put one of my existing armies back on the table or even to flesh out one of my half finished armies wouldn't put a noticeable dent in my bank account (it's my car hobby that leaves giant gaping holes ).
- I buy GW models/rules or play GW games because I like the fluff. (No actual mention of enjoying the minis, rules, or games. A BL novel might give them as much or more enjoyment)
Some people don't get their kicks out of books. Liking the fluff might be enough to genuinely want to buy the minis, and just because they don't say it what's to say they don't like the minis?
If someone can lose themselves in a world they like by buying/painting/playing with models better than they can by reading a book, I'm not really sure how that counts as bad thing.
I'm sure there's a lot of people who aren't in love with WARGAMING in general, they are in love with the specific setting of 40k. The wargaming is just a way to immerse themselves in the 40k setting more. Nothing wrong with that.
- I don't like that other game's minis and fluff. (Well, as above. The Mantic police aren't going to break your door down etc. etc. if you decide to use your WHFB models and Old World [or bubble universe] background with Kings of War, or whatever. Some of those other alternate rulesets don't even have any models or fluff.)
You're ignoring the practical barrier and pretending it's a psychological barrier. A big problem there isn't that people are psychologically trapped in to playing 40k/WHFB rules with 40k/WHFB models, it's that practically speaking it can be a pain in the arse.
If a gaming group has 40k/WHFB models, chances are all the members of the group knows 40k/WHFB rules. I've had no end of trouble trying to get locals to even learn new rules let alone actually adopt them. When people finally did start moving away from 40k and Fantasy it was toward MtG and Warmahordes, 2 games I have precisely zero interest in playing
That's assuming the ruleset you're trying to convince them to play even covers the wide gamut of 40k models, which as far as I'm aware, none of them do.
TL;DR....At the end of the day I don't think we should read too much in to the psychology of other gamers, at best it's a bit disrespectful to start pigeon holing people. Even though we call it "plastic crack", it's not some sort of chemical addiction that's costing people their homes and livelihoods. When people cease enjoying it to a level that justifies their time and money investment... they'll stop doing it. If they're still buying models, it's probably because they still enjoy it enough to do that
The hope is that as people start moving away from GW products, GW realises the error of their ways and tries to adapt instead of just doubling down with the same old practices of sapping the most amount of money out of the least amount of customers and destroying the game and community in the process. It's all in GW's court, no point attacking the gamers themselves.
I agree. GW are doing lots of different things and have changed quite a lot. They just haven't dropped the prices and pandered to the masses of "fans" who all give out different messages.
Well, what do you expect from a company whose Chairman proudly proclaims that the company does no market research and in his last preamble stated, again with great pride, that he doesn't even bother to read the resumes of the people he hires in the company, on the board of directors. He then went on to brag about how much money GW spent, "an indecent amount", on the Chapterhouse lawsuit; I should say, lost here instead of spent because there was never any outcome of that lawsuit that would have netted GW as much money as they spent in legal costs against a garage business with pro-bono representation. GW didn't get what they wanted there so of course the entire American legal system was at fault, "a legal system designed to prevent people stealing hogs from one another"
Let that sit for a minute and then answer this question; "How long can a multinational company headed by such a deranged loon survive?"
From a financial standpoint, examining their records, GW has been leaking money like a sieve for a decade now and has only been able to pay dividends and keep a positive balance on the budget sheet by cutting costs. They are now to the point where their flagship retail stores are one-man operations; you can't cut any more costs without cutting into the bone, the fat is gone and some of the meat was thrown out with it. Sales continue to decline at a staggering rate (at rough estimate of 6-10% per annum) far exceeding the poor excuse of currency fluctuation that was used in the last report. I could go one, and others have. GW is in dire financial straights, headed by an aged, sorely out of touch individual that cares only about himself; he saw to his wife getting hired as a temporary contractor to oversee the development of the new website (that cost 4million pounds by the way). A person with zero credentials in this area, her prior experience being the secretary of a fictitious company headed by Kirby as a tax write-off, a company that never did any real business.
GW deserves to fail and for no other reason than Tom Kirby.
But yeah, blame it on the fans, they're the ones who are sending mixed messages and have been asleep at the wheel. Totally.
Buttery Commissar wrote: I'm asking this from a position of curiosity, why does GW need to change?
With something as freeflow as tabletop gaming, model making etc. then once you own the figures, surely you can do as you wish with them?
In my eyes, it doesn't somehow become less of a game if you fiddle with it, tinkering with things as long as you mutually agree with your fellow players.
Maybe I'm just soft.
I'll address this seeing as it seems to have slipped by unnoticed.
The issue here is you're viewing the game from the same viewpoint as GW seem to, ie. 40K is a game played in dining rooms and bedrooms amongst groups of friends who have known each other for years and whose makeup is the same from week to week.
In this context, you're quite right, any amount of fiddling and tinkering can occur in order to ensure everyone has a fun time.
There is, however, a decent sized and apparently increasingly dissatisfied percentage of players who do not play this way. These players either play in stores against people they may not know well, or people, like myself, who attend private clubs whose attendees range from long standing friends to people I just about tolerate.
It is this context, alongside those playing in tourneys as well I expect, that exposes the issues with 40K, and it is potentially much harder to work around them.
When this topic is discussed, the apologist element often create a mythical "other player." This is the guy waiting in the wings without an opponent, just waiting to step in and play you in exactly the right way, with all the checks and balances you feel are needed to enjoy the game, when your negotiations to try and make a fair game between your Orks and Eldar Jetbike spam break down. The reality is, it is frequently a choice between playing a game RAW or not playing at all, there is no ready supply of alternative opponents, and no guarantee they will share your view on how the game should be played.
I can only speak for myself, obviously, but I'd have far less of an issue with all the other issues people have with GW (prices, accelerated releases, LE and direct releases, aggressive litigation etc etc) if I was excited by the game. As it stands, the new Eldar codex (well, more what it represents in terms of GW's attitude to their stewardship of the game) has, I think, killed my last shred of interest in playing for now. I'll still be interested in the comings and goings of the various updates etc, but as of right now, the process of crating up the models, loading them in the car (along with my iPad and all the various books) travelling to my club the one day a week I can play, setting it all up and then doing the whole thing in reverse for a game I don't find rewarding to play anymore just doesn't seem worth it. Especially when I can just pick up a couple of boxes with all my X Wing in and get a couple of full sized games in of an evening which I can be fairly certain of finding much more engaging than one game of 40K.
This is what GW needs to change urgently. You can find any number of companies that have done horrendous things but still continued to trade and make robust profits, the key is that if you're turning people off to your product, bad behaviour will hasten your decline, if people love what you do, they simply won't care.
Here is the rub, Privateer Press and Corvus Belli charge GW prices for miniatures, and Privateer Press are more hardline about third party miniatures than GW ever was. Though not Corvus Belli are not. Despite this there is no notable nerdrage over prices of
Most Hawk Wargmes models make GW look value for money by comparison. Dropzone Commander is very expensive on a per miniature basis, yet Hawk Wargames can do no wrong.
Yes GW has to cut prices long term, especailly for 40K but others have got away with high prices for smaller scale gaming.
You're conflating cost and value here. Sure some games have mini's that cost as much as GW mini's, but you rarely need anything like as much of them. That $40 Warmachine unit might have the same number of mini's as that $40 40K unit, but the Warmachine one might be 20% of a complete army whilst the 40K is only 5% and needs a $40 transport on top.
If you look at total cost to play, most of these other games come out ahead, especially when you consider the rules. I don't think anyone else does a BRB for anything close to GW's $75, in fact most other rulesets (based on a straw poll of my book case) cost less than a GW army book.
There is also the underdog and economies of scale to factor in. I'll happily pay more for mini's made in small numbers by a garage company, than a mass produced mini from an international company with it's own casting machines, because I know it costs the former an order of magnitude more to make it than the latter.
This is pretty spot on. I have no trouble buying a $50 unit box for Warmachine because it's like 20% or more of an army and I likely won't need to buy a second one (some exceptions exist to this). A 40k box costs roughly the same but the unit is a small part of the army, often requires a transport at another $40 and sometimes requires additional boxes just to kit out the unit with the options you want (e.g. if you want a Tactical Squad with a lascannon, you need to buy a Devastator box too), and that's not even getting into the things like Dire Avengers that are 5 in a box for the same price as 10 other guys, and on top of that you might want 10 anyways so you have to pay double for a single unit.
That's the problem. It's not the cost of the individual figures or even the box itself, it's what the contents of the box means in the game, and 40k's are worth less value in game so you need to buy more of them thus spending more overall.
My personal angle on this whole issue is that the core ruleset and codecies have lost any sense of balance brought on by a managment type decision to increase turnover; but they seem to be rocking this idea that they can bring balance by changing one codex at a time.
What i think is needed is a complete re-start of the entire main rulebook complete with all codecies, properly playtested and released at the same time.
I'm pretty sure that will not happen because releasing one book at a time maximises turnover, so not doing so will be seen as a loss.
Also that project would be a mammoth undertaking for GW - i don't want to think about the amount of hours you'd have to spend playtesting to see how every variation of every codex played against each other!
GWwill make decisions to optimise profits, so some form of influence must happen at a beuracratic level to initiate a project like this and currently, player satisfaction does not feature highly in their business plan.
Bah, humbug, things were better in 1994, etc, etc...
I agree. GW are doing lots of different things and have changed quite a lot. They just haven't dropped the prices and pandered to the masses of "fans" who all give out different messages.
I'm going to go ahead and assume your abilities to properly assess the market and it's desires are about on par with GW.
Assume away, but you'd be wrong. I couldn't give a toss about GW one way or the other! Its fans even less.
Smacks wrote: I think GW are changing slowly. They've obviously stepped up production, they've released stuff that they probably should have released 20 years ago, such as titans, Ad mech, and Harlequins. It seems like plastic sisters could be just around the corner (at last). Who knows, at this rate they might even bring back squats!. Prices are still steep, but I was shocked to see the new Skitarii launch at only £23.50 for ten. I expected them to be priced more like Scions. My first thought was: "wow, I could actually buy those and only feel slightly ripped off" (as opposed to the usual mugged and raped level of shame that I'm accustomed to when dealing with GW). Of course I didn't actually buy any (I'm not an idiot). We also have the new Execution Force game coming out, which almost looks like one of the old introductory board games that were IMHO instrumental in getting new players involved in 40k during the 90s.
Of course many people will still consider all this too little too late, and the state of the rules is still obscene. But I like to think that they are slowly feeling the pain of dipping sales and starting to respond.
The problem is, as I see it, is that ok they may start bringing out more stuff, but the reason to buy it is missing. When I last played, which must be over 8 years ago now, the rules were still ok and codexes weren't £30!!
As a gamer collecting the models and building an army was enjoyable and there was a reason for it. You'd max out your Marine force and then get the urge to try something else or you'd read the fluff and it would inspire you to make a themed force based on that book. All GW want you to do now is just by their models, with no real gameplay reward to go with it.
Players would take part in a tourney and be inspired to start another force, or make or field 4 units of Tallarn Rough Riders. That has all gone out of the hobby now.
But yeah, blame it on the fans, they're the ones who are sending mixed messages and have been asleep at the wheel. Totally.
What, blame the fans who lap up any old bilge the company sell them, whilst complaining all the time about it? Kirby just flogged what he knew the suckers would buy "because they love the background". I don't blame him for extracting money from the daft whilst he can.
But yeah, blame it on the fans, they're the ones who are sending mixed messages and have been asleep at the wheel. Totally.
What, blame the fans who lap up any old bilge the company sell them, whilst complaining all the time about it? Kirby just flogged what he knew the suckers would buy "because they love the background". I don't blame him for extracting money from the daft whilst he can.
It doesn't make much sense does it? I also enjoy the GW hate posts by people who run to N&R and post about how they're going to pre-order the new shiny; cracks me up. That said, there are a fair amount of people who have walked away from GW and still check in, me being one; it's like a train wreck, you know you shouldn't look but you just can't help it.
SirDonlad wrote: My personal angle on this whole issue is that the core ruleset and codecies have lost any sense of balance brought on by a managment type decision to increase turnover; but they seem to be rocking this idea that they can bring balance by changing one codex at a time.
What i think is needed is a complete re-start of the entire main rulebook complete with all codecies, properly playtested and released at the same time.
I'm pretty sure that will not happen because releasing one book at a time maximises turnover, so not doing so will be seen as a loss.
Also that project would be a mammoth undertaking for GW - i don't want to think about the amount of hours you'd have to spend playtesting to see how every variation of every codex played against each other!
GWwill make decisions to optimise profits, so some form of influence must happen at a beuracratic level to initiate a project like this and currently, player satisfaction does not feature highly in their business plan.
Bah, humbug, things were better in 1994, etc, etc...
I agree. The rules need a complete re-start of the entire main rulebook complete with all codecies properly playtested. I also agree that GW isn't going to do it. So why don't we do it?
Let's try to stay focused. This thread is about getting us fans to pull together to buy stock to force a change in direction. Its a hell of a lot cheaper and more to the point to simply pull together to make a better game. Who's with me?
I agree. The rules need a complete re-start of the entire main rulebook complete with all codecies properly playtested. I also agree that GW isn't going to do it. So why don't we do it?
Let's try to stay focused. This thread is about getting us fans to pull together to buy stock to force a change in direction. Its a hell of a lot cheaper and more to the point to simply pull together to make a better game. Who's with me?
At that point, why don't you just play a different and better game altogether? There are several in the market, a few of them even allow you to use your GW miniatures.
Instead of buying new books we can just use old ones. 5 edition is looks stable to me. And maybe 4 edition.
If there is something missing, we can use home rules.
Instead of new boxes with 10 figures for 999 dollars - old used miniatures from ebay.
Instead of almost apocalyptic battles with 100500 tanks and flyers we can use Killteam or Necromunda. Or Necromunda-based skirmish with all races.
We should do something! People says "GW is dead" but they still spend a lot of money for buying dead things. Many of them even can't play normally, because can't collect full army
I agree. The rules need a complete re-start of the entire main rulebook complete with all codecies properly playtested. I also agree that GW isn't going to do it. So why don't we do it?
Let's try to stay focused. This thread is about getting us fans to pull together to buy stock to force a change in direction. Its a hell of a lot cheaper and more to the point to simply pull together to make a better game. Who's with me?
At that point, why don't you just play a different and better game altogether? There are several in the market, a few of them even allow you to use your GW miniatures.
Why do you think I play Kings of War?
And it looks like Mantic is going to be actively recruiting the Warhammer folks for the new edition of KoW, by coming out with official unofficial army lists for Warhammer like armies. (Unofficial - the army lists are not supported by Mantic miniatures or by the fluff. Official - they can be used in tournaments....)
I would really like to see somebody do the same for 40K.
weeble1000 wrote: Just don't buy anything. Better than buying shares. Cheaper too.
Don't buy nothing. Just buy better stuff from other companies. GW will catch on eventually when Mantic buys them out
That's what I meant. Don't buy anything from GW, including shares.
Gamers are going to spend money on games. If it isn't on GW games it'll be on something else. That's a big problem for GW. A lost sale is usually also lost market share.
Thirdeye wrote:
I agree. The rules need a complete re-start of the entire main rulebook complete with all codecies properly playtested. I also agree that GW isn't going to do it. So why don't we do it?
Let's try to stay focused. This thread is about getting us fans to pull together to buy stock to force a change in direction. Its a hell of a lot cheaper and more to the point to simply pull together to make a better game. Who's with me?
Me For Sure!
Freakazoitt wrote:Instead of buying new books we can just use old ones. 5 edition is looks stable to me. And maybe 4 edition.
If there is something missing, we can use home rules.
Instead of new boxes with 10 figures for 999 dollars - old used miniatures from ebay.
Instead of almost apocalyptic battles with 100500 tanks and flyers we can use Killteam or Necromunda. Or Necromunda-based skirmish with all races.
We should do something! People says "GW is dead" but they still spend a lot of money for buying dead things. Many of them even can't play normally, because can't collect full army
absolutely! when 7th edition hit i refused to buy into it - i thought that 6th edition was trying to do what i'm wanting with all the hardbackness and size of the BRB, so i just stuck with it.
I've said before on dakka that 40k is going to end up like D&D with different groups playing different editions (3.5th ed for me)
agnosto wrote: That said, there are a fair amount of people who have walked away from GW and still check in, me being one; it's like a train wreck, you know you shouldn't look but you just can't help it.
That. Don't conflate 'complainers' with 'fervent customers' so readily, Kitsune. (And I'll get back to your other post in a bit)
I agree. The rules need a complete re-start of the entire main rulebook complete with all codecies properly playtested. I also agree that GW isn't going to do it. So why don't we do it?
Let's try to stay focused. This thread is about getting us fans to pull together to buy stock to force a change in direction. Its a hell of a lot cheaper and more to the point to simply pull together to make a better game. Who's with me?
At that point, why don't you just play a different and better game altogether? There are several in the market, a few of them even allow you to use your GW miniatures.
Well, that's kinda what I'm on about. But there's no game out there that's set-up to play 40K right out of the box (other that GW's game(s) of course). They all need tweaked a bit, some more than others. And why not combine different elements from different game. If they work together and made a better game, why not?
What I'm thinking is we should try to come to some consensus about the core rules and go from there. I don't know what you guys are looking for but I want something that's clean, quick, and intuitive, but rich enough that it can easily capture the scope and breath of the 40K universe, while not sacrificing too much detail for simplicity and abstraction. Of course you're going have some of that; its really about where to draw the line.
I've been playing around with some ideas shared a bit by Tomorrow's War. I think it could work really well. One problem however, is not the rules. Those are are just what I'm looking for. The problem is that it's radically different from GW's version(s) of the game. But of course another game might make a better base.
OK, so here's the challenge: Take the following situation and test your favorite rules to see who can get a resolution that's clean, quick, and intuitive, but rich enough to captures the complexities of the scenario:
A unit of four Space Marines and a Veteran Sergeant are shooting at a unit of five Orks and one Nob. Two Marines have Bolters, one has a flamer, one has a Missile Launcher, and the Sgt. has a Bolt Pistol. The Nob is in front and in the open and at 12 inch range. The Boys are strung-out behind him. One Boy is at 14 inch range and partially shielded by some foliage. Another Boy is at 16 inch range and he's partially behind a large rock. Another Boy is in the open at 18 inch range. Another Boy is in the open at 20 inch range. Another Boy is behind a fortified wall at 22 inch range.
Thirdeye wrote:
I agree. The rules need a complete re-start of the entire main rulebook complete with all codecies properly playtested. I also agree that GW isn't going to do it. So why don't we do it?
Let's try to stay focused. This thread is about getting us fans to pull together to buy stock to force a change in direction. Its a hell of a lot cheaper and more to the point to simply pull together to make a better game. Who's with me?
Me For Sure!
OK, great. So tell me, what are you looking for in a game of 40K?
And it looks like Mantic is going to be actively recruiting the Warhammer folks for the new edition of KoW, by coming out with official unofficial army lists for Warhammer like armies. (Unofficial - the army lists are not supported by Mantic miniatures or by the fluff. Official - they can be used in tournaments....)
I would really like to see somebody do the same for 40K.
The Auld Grump
Well, yeah; it's as simple a piece of marketing as there possibly could be:
Mantic: "Hey folks! Come play a fantasy game that takes place in a world that isn't blowed up!"
It's not like GW put, "To be continued" or anything at the end of the last End Times book....and it's certainly not like they're putting ANY information out there at all. So for all intents and purposes, it's a dead universe with the factions in complete disarray. Who wants to play that for months while GW sorts our their gack and finally gets back to us with a supposed reboot?
And it looks like Mantic is going to be actively recruiting the Warhammer folks for the new edition of KoW, by coming out with official unofficial army lists for Warhammer like armies. (Unofficial - the army lists are not supported by Mantic miniatures or by the fluff. Official - they can be used in tournaments....)
I would really like to see somebody do the same for 40K.
The Auld Grump
Well, yeah; it's as simple a piece of marketing as there possibly could be:
Mantic: "Hey folks! Come play a fantasy game that takes place in a world that isn't blowed up!"
It's not like GW put, "To be continued" or anything at the end of the last End Times book....and it's certainly not like they're putting ANY information out there at all. So for all intents and purposes, it's a dead universe with the factions in complete disarray. Who wants to play that for months while GW sorts our their gack and finally gets back to us with a supposed reboot?
Kind of a bad move for a game that claims to be about the narrative. "My blowed up army will fight your blowed up army in some kind of weird warp bubble like the end of Interstellar....um...forge the narrative!"
And it looks like Mantic is going to be actively recruiting the Warhammer folks for the new edition of KoW, by coming out with official unofficial army lists for Warhammer like armies. (Unofficial - the army lists are not supported by Mantic miniatures or by the fluff. Official - they can be used in tournaments....)
I would really like to see somebody do the same for 40K.
The Auld Grump
Well, yeah; it's as simple a piece of marketing as there possibly could be:
Mantic: "Hey folks! Come play a fantasy game that takes place in a world that isn't blowed up!"
It's not like GW put, "To be continued" or anything at the end of the last End Times book....and it's certainly not like they're putting ANY information out there at all. So for all intents and purposes, it's a dead universe with the factions in complete disarray. Who wants to play that for months while GW sorts our their gack and finally gets back to us with a supposed reboot?
Kind of a bad move for a game that claims to be about the narrative. "My blowed up army will fight your blowed up army in some kind of weird warp bubble like the end of Interstellar....um...forge the narrative!"
Forge the heck out of that narrative! Keep forging until it makes sense and then forge so e more until the rules stop stinking and the fluff sucks less. Just call me a Games Workshop, Game Smith...not to be confused with a Poop Smith....though I can certainly see how one could confuse the two.
Buttery Commissar wrote: I'm asking this from a position of curiosity, why does GW need to change? With something as freeflow as tabletop gaming, model making etc. then once you own the figures, surely you can do as you wish with them? In my eyes, it doesn't somehow become less of a game if you fiddle with it, tinkering with things as long as you mutually agree with your fellow players.
Maybe I'm just soft.
The issue here is you're viewing the game from the same viewpoint as GW seem to, ie. 40K is a game played in dining rooms and bedrooms amongst groups of friends who have known each other for years and whose makeup is the same from week to week.
To add to what Az says about tight rules,
Our game group is exactly as described above. Four of us who play pretty much weekly in my garage. Though none of us have bought any rules since the beginning of 6th, we still love the universe and yearn to play with the models from time to time. So,...we fiddle and tinker away with house rules to get our speez mahreens back in action. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Without a third party arbitrated and published rule set set EVERYTHING becomes open to negotiation causing one game to rarely look like the next. Next thing we know the game has come to a stand still as we cite Black Library sources in an argument over the true velocity of a heavy bolter. House rules can be fun, but getting two people (let alone four) to agree on how their toy soldiers should interact is a lot more difficult than some people give it credit for.
In wargaming, I firmly believe in the good fences make good neighbors approach. Decisive answers to disputes are the best thing a game can do to avoid a lot of unnecessary frustration.....frustration that ultimately causes people to lose interest.
- I don't like that other game's rules. (More subjective, but I think this is still a particular example of wargaming Stockholm syndrome or something. 40K and WHFB rules are widely known, but are actually weird outliers compared to most rules dealing with similar sized or organised armies. Of course other rules are going to seem weird and uncomfortable if you've started with and been fully immersed in the GW HobbyTM for at least two or three editions; but most are built to be more appropriate and elegant to the size of their forces, and designed to have a bit more of a tactical, tabletop-decision aspect than overwhelming strategic, micromanaged listbuilding. People think the micromanagement and special rules spam is 'fluffy', but most of the fluff in GW rules is the little title and caption written beside the bit that tells you how many dice to roll and how many wounds your result causes. Much of the rest is a wargaming quagmire. Or: other rules are like brown bread - it'll take a little time to get used to, but in the long run it's better, and before long the old stuff will start to feel like an 'orrible, sticky, claggy mess... )
In lieu of Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps call it Games Workshop Trained Brain Syndrome -- GWTBS-- ( search Microsoft trained brain syndrome for a complete explanation.)
Red Harvest wrote: In lieu of Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps call it Games Workshop Trained Brain Syndrome -- GWTBS-- ( search Microsoft trained brain syndrome for a complete explanation.)
It's too bad "Microsoft Trained Brain Syndrome" is a load of crap
OK, great. So tell me, what are you looking for in a game of 40K?
I'm thinking - start with 6th edition and make changes from there. there was a lot of good ideas in 6th that just weren't worded properly 'focus fire' for example - it would simplify that scenario you've just described nicely without resorting to resolving each weapon individually.
my pet idea was to give initiative numbers as fractions and then use a model's initiative value more - I was impressed by the way 'x-wing' uses initiative to determine who moves and fires when; which is a really good idea!
I also like the notion of blurring the two player phases into one; each player taking turns to deploy or move a unit, going through your armies initiative values from lowest to highest then declare your shooting before anything has shot and resolve all shooting simultaneously.
I don't like the way the player who has first turn gets a free round of shooting for going first.
not sure how the assault phase is going to work in that scenario.
I also liked the old 'overwatch' (delay a unit's shooting attacks until the enemy movement phase when they move in range)
IMO 'WHFB in space' type rules are limited to skirmish games , up to about 2nd 40k ed size.
(A bolt gun is not a bow and arrow, and a Land Rider is not a chariot. WHFB in space based 40k rules need lots of additional rules to cover the functional differences.)
So for the current battle game size game play.I think starting with the rules for Epic Space Marine then adding detail to scale up to 28mm detail would be the way to go.
I would use stat values directly as a range in inches or the number of dice rolled.
And as opposed values with a universal resolution table.(As opposed to stating score to succeed as Epic rules do.)_
This is 2 resolution methods for the entire game rather than the SEVEN current 40k uses.(Along with OVER EIGHTY freeking special rules !!!!)
I think between 12 and 20 special rules is PLENTY for a game like 40k,IF they are used for actual special abilities .(Rather than patching up the gaps in the inadequate core rules.)
We use Assault stat(WS) vs Agility stat(I) for'to hit score ' in Close combat.(Simultaneous resolution.)
We use Shooting skill vs Stealth skill for 'to hit score 'at range.
We use targets Armour value vs weapon Armour Penetration for the 'to save roll score'.
We use the attackers weapon Damage value vs the targets resilience 'for the to damage roll score'
Have a look at my latest thread in the rule development forum for more details if you want...
If 40k is supposed to be a battle game with units mainly armed with ranged weapons, we need rules for that to start with.
Trying to convert 1970s Napoleonic rules for massed battles of regiments mainly armed with close combat weapons fighting in close order .Is possibly the WORST core rules to base 40k on IMO.
40k should be an EQUAL BALANCE of Mobility , Fire power , and Assault, IMO.
So the rules and stat line should reflect this.
In short to fix 40k, a re write is going to look a lot different to current rules .Even if the game play is more detailed and more intuitive.While using more straight forward resolution.
Smacks wrote: I think GW are changing slowly. They've obviously stepped up production, they've released stuff that they probably should have released 20 years ago, such as titans, Ad mech, and Harlequins. It seems like plastic sisters could be just around the corner (at last). Who knows, at this rate they might even bring back squats!. Prices are still steep, but I was shocked to see the new Skitarii launch at only £23.50 for ten. I expected them to be priced more like Scions. My first thought was: "wow, I could actually buy those and only feel slightly ripped off" (as opposed to the usual mugged and raped level of shame that I'm accustomed to when dealing with GW). Of course I didn't actually buy any (I'm not an idiot). We also have the new Execution Force game coming out, which almost looks like one of the old introductory board games that were IMHO instrumental in getting new players involved in 40k during the 90s.
Of course many people will still consider all this too little too late, and the state of the rules is still obscene. But I like to think that they are slowly feeling the pain of dipping sales and starting to respond.
I did some figures recently and since October 2012 to April 2015 GW have brought out over 120 reboxed/rehashed product and claimed them to new Apocalypse formations etc...., the GW hasn't stepped up production, it is just we think that because White Dwarf comes out every week rather than the old regime of once a month, also they (GW) has a scattergun approach that makes no sense. Imagine a further 120 new kits in the system that GW could have done, but didn't.
Smacks wrote: I think GW are changing slowly. They've obviously stepped up production, they've released stuff that they probably should have released 20 years ago, such as titans, Ad mech, and Harlequins. It seems like plastic sisters could be just around the corner (at last). Who knows, at this rate they might even bring back squats!. Prices are still steep, but I was shocked to see the new Skitarii launch at only £23.50 for ten. I expected them to be priced more like Scions. My first thought was: "wow, I could actually buy those and only feel slightly ripped off" (as opposed to the usual mugged and raped level of shame that I'm accustomed to when dealing with GW). Of course I didn't actually buy any (I'm not an idiot). We also have the new Execution Force game coming out, which almost looks like one of the old introductory board games that were IMHO instrumental in getting new players involved in 40k during the 90s.
Of course many people will still consider all this too little too late, and the state of the rules is still obscene. But I like to think that they are slowly feeling the pain of dipping sales and starting to respond.
^ Things are looking great on the MODEL side of it. Rarely do I hear that as a complaint. It's usually the 1 thing that gets people like me to keep buying their products despite the lack of balance and awful rules. If the rules were half as good as the models, you would hear a lot less complaints about GW in general and specifically their prices. Nobody complains about WMH prices even though they're as much if not more per model and just as much for tournaments (3x 50 points lists, a couple sets of tokens and all the various ring markers you need cost the same as an 1850 40k list with BRB and codex). PP writes solid rules, issues errata to fix broken and unbalanced units and acts like they give a feth about their customers rather than viewing us as walking wallets.
Vermis wrote: I don't think anyone's suggested this yet, but I'd recommend you stop buying GW products.
Venerate1 wrote: Nay! There is no such thing as free will! You are only in this hobby because GW holds a boltgun to your head and FORCES you to spend money!
You type this out as hyperbolic sarcasm, but I've seen lots of people reveal that they're psychologically trapped in GW games, to some degree or another. Reasons and excuses I've read include:
- I've spent too much money on GW products to stop now. (Classic sunk cost fallacy, and I used to see it with distressing regularity)
- I buy GW models/rules or play GW games because I like the fluff. (No actual mention of enjoying the minis, rules, or games. A BL novel might give them as much or more enjoyment)
- If I started a new game I'd have to spend tons of money on it. (For one thing, they're already spending tons of money, more than they'd need for most new games, on filling out already-huge armies with no end in sight. For another, as I keep harping on, there are plenty of alternate, cheap or free rulesets that you can use your existing 40K/WHFB collection with. I'm sure the GW police won't break your door down and arrest you if you try it.)
- I don't like that other game's minis and fluff. (Well, as above. The Mantic police aren't going to break your door down etc. etc. if you decide to use your WHFB models and Old World [or bubble universe] background with Kings of War, or whatever. Some of those other alternate rulesets don't even have any models or fluff.)
- I don't like that other game's rules. (More subjective, but I think this is still a particular example of wargaming Stockholm syndrome or something. 40K and WHFB rules are widely known, but are actually weird outliers compared to most rules dealing with similar sized or organised armies. Of course other rules are going to seem weird and uncomfortable if you've started with and been fully immersed in the GW HobbyTM for at least two or three editions; but most are built to be more appropriate and elegant to the size of their forces, and designed to have a bit more of a tactical, tabletop-decision aspect than overwhelming strategic, micromanaged listbuilding. People think the micromanagement and special rules spam is 'fluffy', but most of the fluff in GW rules is the little title and caption written beside the bit that tells you how many dice to roll and how many wounds your result causes. Much of the rest is a wargaming quagmire. Or: other rules are like brown bread - it'll take a little time to get used to, but in the long run it's better, and before long the old stuff will start to feel like an 'orrible, sticky, claggy mess... )
What else? People complain that their opponents are too stuck on GW games, but sometimes they mention that those opponents are tired of GW too. I wonder just how much of it is down to a lack of will or courage to take a punt, divert some of the roaring flow of cash going to GW's coffers into a little rulebook or download, try to put together a couple of little demo gangs (even, as mentioned, with existing collections or proxies) or summat. Similarly, people complain that a GW store is the only place to game, which can be a restrictive head-scratcher of a problem, but again I wonder if there's some kind of inertia, a comfortable rut, and an assumption that you need a FLGS to play anything else in. I found out about a nearby wargaming club, miles closer than the nearest GW, but years after I started attending that GW, because I never bothered to look and ask. I've also played on a few kitchen tables many times. It's not going to be possible for everyone, but I don't think it's as generally impossible as often made out.
Hm. I suffer from all of those. In my defense I do BFG from third party, and play Battletech. I jusf feel like since I have 2k pts, I may as well enjoy GW.
But I buy from ebay sellers... so yeah. Not sure if any of that applies.
OK, great. So tell me, what are you looking for in a game of 40K?
SirDonlad wrote: I'm thinking - start with 6th edition and make changes from there. there was a lot of good ideas in 6th that just weren't worded properly 'focus fire' for example - it would simplify that scenario you've just described nicely without resorting to resolving each weapon individually.
Yeah, when I first heard about 6th I thought I might like it. It was suppose to bring back some fun stuff from 2ed. And it did, to some extent. But I really have a problem with the core rules, which haven't changed since RT. Too many stats; plus the fact that they are expressed on a 1-10 scale but rolled with a D6, so ya need a chart to convert. Its very cumbersome, and many times small differences in stats end up being meaningless. Resolving combat with mixed detachments is messy, requiring multiple steps and repeated dice rolls. Sometimes the difference stats are meaningless as you use the majority stat. Then there's all the special rules and re-rolls. No wonder GW can't get the cost of things right. In the end its just a guesstimate. That's why I'm looking for a better way, a different system.
SirDonlad wrote: my pet idea was to give initiative numbers as fractions and then use a model's initiative value more - I was impressed by the way 'x-wing' uses initiative to determine who moves and fires when; which is a really good idea!
Yeah, that idea has been around. It kinda works. But I don't like being locked into phases. That's too robotic and mechanical. It also doesn't simulate the chaos of battle. I also don't like it much it for fight-sim games like x-wing because position is as important as being an Ace pilot. If I'm in your "6" I have a big advantage even if you're a better pilot. Such things can be simulated so much better on a computer game. But for a fun beer & pretzels game board-game it works good enough. The old Epic had something like that. You put out Orders for your units. Units with "Charge" Orders moved first and fired last. Units with "Advance" Orders moved second and fired second. Units with "First-Fire" Orders didn't move but fired first. We might want to use something like that.
SirDonlad wrote: I also like the notion of blurring the two player phases into one; each player taking turns to deploy or move a unit, going through your armies initiative values from lowest to highest then declare your shooting before anything has shot and resolve all shooting simultaneously.
Yeah, but low "I" armies are at a disadvantage. You would need some kind of counter to show which units have moved. Also, if units have the same "I", who moved first? But you could do simo shooting, just lay casualties on their side until shootings over, but that kinda defeats the whole "I" thing.
SirDonlad wrote: I don't like the way the player who has first turn gets a free round of shooting for going first.
Yeah that's one of my biggest gripes w/ GW's game. I like Unit Activation much better. There are different ways of doing it. We should explore them.
SirDonlad wrote: not sure how the assault phase is going to work in that scenario.
I also liked the old 'overwatch' (delay a unit's shooting attacks until the enemy movement phase when they move in range)
I have some ideas on that, but first we should focus on shooting. We need to get that right before moving on. In that regard, any ideas how you might resolve that scenario I posted above?
I like the idea of alternate activations. However I don't like the idea of random activations (that just strikes me as introducing far too large of a luck element in to the game) nor am I a huge fan of just going back and forth because that provides an advantage based on how many units you have.
Maybe something like breaking the army up in to 500pt chunks and then you "activate" an entire chunk at a time and alternate back and forth between the players.
Maybe you could do something like Bolt Action, but instead of pulling a dice, activating, pulling another dice, just pull ALL the dice out at the start of the turn and line them up on the side of the table. That way it's still random activation, but you at least you could plan out your activations instead of it all just falling to lady luck.
Lanrak wrote: IMO 'WHFB in space' type rules are limited to skirmish games , up to about 2nd 40k ed size.
(A bolt gun is not a bow and arrow, and a Land Rider is not a chariot. WHFB in space based 40k rules need lots of additional rules to cover the functional differences.)
So for the current battle game size game play.I think starting with the rules for Epic Space Marine then adding detail to scale up to 28mm detail would be the way to go.
I would use stat values directly as a range in inches or the number of dice rolled.
And as opposed values with a universal resolution table.(As opposed to stating score to succeed as Epic rules do.)_
This is 2 resolution methods for the entire game rather than the SEVEN current 40k uses.(Along with OVER EIGHTY freeking special rules !!!!)
I think between 12 and 20 special rules is PLENTY for a game like 40k,IF they are used for actual special abilities .(Rather than patching up the gaps in the inadequate core rules.)
We use Assault stat(WS) vs Agility stat(I) for'to hit score ' in Close combat.(Simultaneous resolution.)
We use Shooting skill vs Stealth skill for 'to hit score 'at range.
We use targets Armour value vs weapon Armour Penetration for the 'to save roll score'.
We use the attackers weapon Damage value vs the targets resilience 'for the to damage roll score'
Have a look at my latest thread in the rule development forum for more details if you want...
If 40k is supposed to be a battle game with units mainly armed with ranged weapons, we need rules for that to start with.
Trying to convert 1970s Napoleonic rules for massed battles of regiments mainly armed with close combat weapons fighting in close order .Is possibly the WORST core rules to base 40k on IMO.
40k should be an EQUAL BALANCE of Mobility , Fire power , and Assault, IMO.
So the rules and stat line should reflect this.
In short to fix 40k, a re write is going to look a lot different to current rules .Even if the game play is more detailed and more intuitive.While using more straight forward resolution.
Hey Lenrak, glad to see you joined the discussion. So, how would you resolve the scenario I posed above?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I like the idea of alternate activations. However I don't like the idea of random activations (that just strikes me as introducing far too large of a luck element in to the game) nor am I a huge fan of just going back and forth because that provides an advantage based on how many units you have.
Maybe something like breaking the army up in to 500pt chunks and then you "activate" an entire chunk at a time and alternate back and forth between the players.
Maybe you could do something like Bolt Action, but instead of pulling a dice, activating, pulling another dice, just pull ALL the dice out at the start of the turn and line them up on the side of the table. That way it's still random activation, but you at least you could plan out your activations instead of it all just falling to lady luck.
Yeah, I've done it a bunch of different ways. Nothing's perfect. Then ya throw-in reactions and it can get really messy. I heard Dakka's Maelstorm game has a reaction system. I'll have to look at that. But I've found the Bolt Action thing is the best all-in-all. I'm sure the designers of BA tried a lot of different systems before they settled on the system they did, so I'm going with their, and my, play-test results.
Hi folks.
I agree that 40k NEEDS a more interactive game turn structure to improve tactical depth and simplify the rules.(And make things more intuitive !)
Simply using alternating phases with your current favorite version of 40k is a simple way to see the basic benefit.
However, if alternating unit activation is used, it has to have other restrictions to compensate for the massive variance in unit types found in 40k.
Bolt Actions randomized alternating unit activation game turn works well when all units in the game have similar capabilities.
But 40k has Death Star type builds to MSU builds .
So a player activating two 'death star' type units one after the other ,would have a similar effect to the current alpha strike problem the game suffers from now.
This is why I suggested using the game turn based on Epic Space Marine.
When units activate is decided by the players on 2 levels .
The basic decision on what tactical stance the unit is going to take in the command phase
Fire support, charge, or advance .Do they activate in the 1st 2nd or 3rd action phase.
And then in each phase the players decide which units and when they are going to activate responding to the enemy actions.
As Epic Space Marine has similar units and model count to 6-7th ed 40k I think it is a good place to start from!
@Thirdeye,
It depends on what you want 40k to be?
A detailed skirmish game with up to 30 models a side I would use the rules based on Deadzone or Infinity.(Or any of the great skirmish rule sets out there.)
If we are to suppose that 40k would stay a battle game .
I would use alternating phases or the ESM game turn.
Which ever unit activated first.
Would roll to hit with all weapons in range .(Shooting skill vs target Stealth , determines chance to hit, models in cover get +1 to stealth)
The player owning the defending models hit would then roll armour saves.(Armour value vs Weapon AP determines chance to save .)
The attacking player would then roll to wound the models that failed thier save roll.(Weapon Damage vs targets Resilience determines chance to wound.)
The values are compared on a single table .(The one I posted in the thread in the game development forum.)
(Any special rules for weapons , like Chemical weapons ignoring cover, would be listed on the weapon profile.)
I probably need to explain that better,Please ask questions and comment so I can clarify...
Why would I invest money in a company that has a dwindling customer base over the last recent years, does no market research and caters to a niche market?
Kind of a bad move for a game that claims to be about the narrative. "My blowed up army will fight your blowed up army in some kind of weird warp bubble like the end of Interstellar....um...forge the narrative!"
Just going to blow into this bubble blower here.
There narrative forged.
Oh and on the whole GW is making more stuff conversation. Are they actually making more stuff, or are they increasing the variety of kits while producing around the same number of kits? (100 = 50 x 2 = 25 x 4 = 20 x 5 = 10 x 10)
SirDonlad wrote: I had a thought while reading threads about GW's behavior/decisionmaking that the only real way of forcing change in this company from our position is to buy shares - we are always complaining about the jumping through hoops to please them so lets become shareholders ourselves!
We clearly have the capacity for large purchases and a year of spending that money on shares instead of models might actually start a change in the company;
all we have to do is wait for a terrible sales report making the shares dip in price to maximise our input and then afterwards we have a say in the boardroom!
I'm up for it - i've never owned shares in a company before!
I said this years ago. Make a DakkaSeer Shareholder Group and provide GW with a unified message. Your message would have to ensure its in the best interest of the shareholders otherwise, you'll never see anything happen. You can own less than 10% of a Company and still make an impact (there have been instances in the US where the Board of Directors has been replaced from opposition). Here is an example and it happened to a Fortune 500 Company and collectively the activist shareholders owned ~ 10% - http://www.cnbc.com/id/102083268
You'd need to put together more than a shareholder petition but rather an action plan and have evidence that your method is better for their Company and would make the other investors more money over the long haul.
Even with a concerted effort to get a sizable amount of shares to have a voice that is heard by the GW chairman.
The chairman can still ignore you.
It could be said Tom Kirby has been acting in his own personal interest for at least a decade, at the detriment to the long term future of GW plc.
So unless he leaves there is little hope of change.
OK, so here's the challenge: Take the following situation and test your favorite rules to see who can get a resolution that's clean, quick, and intuitive, but rich enough to captures the complexities of the scenario:
A unit of four Space Marines and a Veteran Sergeant are shooting at a unit of five Orks and one Nob. Two Marines have Bolters, one has a flamer, one has a Missile Launcher, and the Sgt. has a Bolt Pistol. The Nob is in front and in the open and at 12 inch range. The Boys are strung-out behind him. One Boy is at 14 inch range and partially shielded by some foliage. Another Boy is at 16 inch range and he's partially behind a large rock. Another Boy is in the open at 18 inch range. Another Boy is in the open at 20 inch range. Another Boy is behind a fortified wall at 22 inch range.
Who's up for the challenge?
OK, so here's how I'd handle this scenario using Tomorrow's War type rules.
Instead of a bunch of states and charts TW uses a simple system of comparing dice roles. Basicly, each Player rolls a dice and the results are compared. Highest result wins! (Generally Defenders win ties as well). Better trained and equipped troops are represented by higher dice types. So, for example, Marines, they are an elite strike-force type army with access to some of the best mass-produced weapons the Empire has available. As such they are a base D8 army, meaning they will mostly be rolling D8's to resolve combat and related “in-game” situations. Orks are a rag-tag, insurgent, irregular type force. As such they are consider to be a D6 base army, meaning they will mostly be rolling D6's to resolve combat and related “in-game” situations.
OK, so, back to the scenario: Marines have 2xBolters, 1 Marine Flamer, 1 Marine Missile Launcher, and the Sgt. has a Bolt Pistol. That works out thus: 2D8 for the Bolters, plus 2D8 for the Flamer, plus another 2D8 for the Missile Launcher (Frag), and a D6 for the Bolt Pistol. (Basic pistol weapons are generally one dice-type less than the army's base dice type).
The Marine rolls all his attack dice in one go, that 6xD8 +D6, and scores: 8,4,4,3,2,2,1. The dice are compared highest score to the closest defending model first. In our scenario that is the Nob. As a command model he gets a stepped-up on his base dice type, so he's rolling a D8. He is in the open so no modifier for cover, also at rage 12 he get no modifier for rage. The highest score of the attaching unit is an “8”, so the Ork Player must roll a nature “8” on a D8 to survive. He rolls a 6, and is removed as a casualty.
Next up is the Boy at 14 inch range. He is rolling against a score of “4” (the next highest attacking score). He also get a +1 for range (models a range 12-24 get a +1 modifier). Also, because he's partially shielded by some foliage he another get a +1 for cover. As a base model he's rolling a D6. He rolls a “3”, adds 2 for a score of “5” and survives.
Next up is the Boy at 16 inch range. He is rolling against a score of “4” (the next highest attacking score). He also get a +1 for range, and because he's partially behind a large rock he another get a +2 modifier for cover. As a base model he's rolling a D6. He rolls a “5”, adds 3 for a score of “8” and easily survives.
Next up is the Boy at 18 inch range. He is rolling against a score of “3” (the next highest attacking score). He also get a +1 for range, but because he's in the open he gets no modifier for cover. As a base model he's rolling a D6. He rolls a “1”, adds 1 for a score of “2”. He is removed as a casualty.
The Boys at 20 & 22 inch range don't need to roll. They both get a +1 for range and are rolling against an attack score of “2”, so they auto-save.
The remaining attack dice score of “1” is ignored as “1” are auto-fails.
studderingdave wrote: GW is still a giant. You want to push some change? STOP BUYING MODELS! Easier said then done I know but money speaks louder.
Yeah, its been said many, many times. Problem is, I, like many people, like their models and will continue to buy. And even if everyone stopped buying and we force a changes, who's to say it will be a change for the better, or the change we want? I know what I want: a better game with which to use my cool models, a game that's quick, clean, and intuitive. And I don't need GW for that, whether they change or not. I can make a better game on my own. We, as a community, can do it on our own. So, who's sick of complaining and wants to start doing something constructive instead?
SirDonlad wrote: I had a thought while reading threads about GW's behavior/decisionmaking that the only real way of forcing change in this company from our position is to buy shares - we are always complaining about the jumping through hoops to please them so lets become shareholders ourselves!
We clearly have the capacity for large purchases and a year of spending that money on shares instead of models might actually start a change in the company;
all we have to do is wait for a terrible sales report making the shares dip in price to maximise our input and then afterwards we have a say in the boardroom!
I'm up for it - i've never owned shares in a company before!
We have this conversation from time to time, GW's not going to change. if they don't fleece you for 200, they will bend your friends kid brother over for 120.00. Its horrible, but that's how GW wants to run, so let them do it on someone else. Stop going to them fro your stuff, there are too many other games out there to put up with aggravation.
Want to look at the admechs? Your looking at a 200.00 start in fee. If that's what you want, have fun with it. Me? I still have a lot of the old stuff that I'm quite happy with. Of course they are going to auto kill anyone on the table, and move on their own.
Necromunda and Mordhiem can get my cash, but I'm not going for this new bubble wrapped worlds stuff, nor am I going to be able to scrap enough cash for both the Star Wars game, and any one of the three or four board games/ starter sets coming from GW. And as a side note? $150+ for a gundam sized knight? seriously? 1 models worth more money they a starter set? It's not that great of a game to begin with, let alone large scale purchases that will end up costing as much as a car.
Thanks GW, but theres plenty of other girls out there, its not you, its me.
Ill admit, as a retired gamer with a retired gamer wife, we spend alot on GW products. In the past month we have spent over 2k for Lotr, and have spent close to 4k altogether. But every cent was worth it to us, the game is amazing, and we play 3+ games a week of it. Plus we enjoy the hobby side of it immensely. After playing lotr for quite a while, I had the itch to play 40k again, as I had not played since I was about 15 or so.
Got the wife on board, and we bought the 6th edition starter with dark angels and choas. We enjoyed it, and wanted to build small armies to play. Well, I bought the dv expansion for chaos, while she bought an eldar battleforce and wraithknight. But by the time we got most of it assembled, 7th had come out, so there was 85 bucks for a new rulebook. I bought the rulebook, and finally our codexes, and continued painting when we could. We played about 2 games, and then the new eldar codex came out, and we didn't feel like spending another 50 bucks for another book so soon. The reason we spend so much on lotr I think is because we have all the rules, which wont get updated ever, and our money can go towards models, paints, terrain, etc.
I want to get back into 40k, but I dont see the value there. Buying rules it seems every few months is too much wasted money. So atm we still play with our current codexes, but are going to play a warpath game with our models later this week. I love the models, but if I can play with free rules im going that route. Im sure GW would get much more money out of me if the rules were streamlined quite a bit, and they held there value for longer. Its weird because lotr is such a solid ruleset, but every time we play 40k there are just rules for rules sake for no reason and it really bogs the game down to the point where its just not enjoyable to us.
Alot of it has to do with the way the game is set up as well. Ill happily pay $50 for a great eagle, who will, 99% of the time, see a lot of combat throughout the game, in any game I play him in. I have a harder time spending $70 on a chaos maulerfiend (love the model) who may get destroyed well before I ever get to use him in any game. That and the fact of rules for rules sake is a pita. Eagle has fly and terror, easy enough to remember. The maulerfiend has all the rules for walkers, which is a chore to remember, plus about 6 rules of his own to remember. Its just a mess in my eyes.
XvReaperXv wrote: Alot of it has to do with the way the game is set up as well. Ill happily pay $50 for a great eagle, who will, 99% of the time, see a lot of combat throughout the game, in any game I play him in. I have a harder time spending $70 on a chaos maulerfiend (love the model) who may get destroyed well before I ever get to use him in any game. That and the fact of rules for rules sake is a pita. Eagle has fly and terror, easy enough to remember. The maulerfiend has all the rules for walkers, which is a chore to remember, plus about 6 rules of his own to remember. Its just a mess in my eyes.
And why on Earth is a Maulerfiend a walker and not a MC? Seeing as how it's monstrous creature and all.
XvReaperXv wrote: Alot of it has to do with the way the game is set up as well. Ill happily pay $50 for a great eagle, who will, 99% of the time, see a lot of combat throughout the game, in any game I play him in. I have a harder time spending $70 on a chaos maulerfiend (love the model) who may get destroyed well before I ever get to use him in any game. That and the fact of rules for rules sake is a pita. Eagle has fly and terror, easy enough to remember. The maulerfiend has all the rules for walkers, which is a chore to remember, plus about 6 rules of his own to remember. Its just a mess in my eyes.
And why on Earth is a Maulerfiend a walker and not a MC? Seeing as how it's monstrous creature and all.
Didn't have the book in front of me, but still applies, gotta remember all his rules AND MC rules on top of it, for one model, out of 50+ in your army. I may have been wrong but rules for rules sake still applies.
It is a mess. I've been saying the same thing for years. So join me in making a better game. How about it?
I'd love too, while the warpath game with our minis went well, I would still love to use the weapons and what not like I did when I was 15. I should really just go back to that edition and play the game lol, when the most badass weapon on the field was a lascannon.
Lanrak wrote: @Thirdeye.
Have you got a W.I,P we can look at /help with?
Humm, yeah... I had that thread on Warseeker. You contributed to it and I very much appreciate that. I had one going over here for a while too, but too little interest to keep it going. I even got some play testing in with my group but little interest there too I'm afraid. The guys still do 40K but mostly its X-Wing these days. I finally broke-down and recently bought a few ships of my own.
I've made some changes in the rules since the Warseer stuff. I really think its coming together but there's a ton of stuff yet to do. What do you think about how I resolved that scenario? Pretty cool, Humm... quick, clean, simple, intuitive.
I certainly want some other's perspectives. I'm thinking I should set-up a Face-Book page or something. But I don't want to do that unless I can get a few guy to commit to working on it with me. It just so hard to get guys interest in a project like this. Even if they're interested they don't have the time. I really need someone who's like retired and stuff. Hey XvReaperXv, I'm talkin to you!
Plenty of time over here, well, once all my yard work gets done getting the pool ready and all lol. But it sounds like a lot of fun and something ive never done before, so im in!
@Thirdeye&XvReaperXv.
How about starting a new thread in the rules development forum?
I can contribute ideas , and a limited amount of play testing feed back.
If XvReaperXv could type up an up to date PDF document for the latest core rules etc.(And attach it to the thread some where?)
Then the rules can be seen to be progressing and moving forward.
(If you folks could PM me to sort out the details, so we dont de rail this thread any further. )
XvReaperXv wrote: Ill admit, as a retired gamer with a retired gamer wife, we spend alot on GW products. In the past month we have spent over 2k for Lotr, and have spent close to 4k altogether. But every cent was worth it to us, the game is amazing, and we play 3+ games a week of it. Plus we enjoy the hobby side of it immensely. After playing lotr for quite a while, I had the itch to play 40k again, as I had not played since I was about 15 or so.
Got the wife on board, and we bought the 6th edition starter with dark angels and choas. We enjoyed it, and wanted to build small armies to play. Well, I bought the dv expansion for chaos, while she bought an eldar battleforce and wraithknight. But by the time we got most of it assembled, 7th had come out, so there was 85 bucks for a new rulebook. I bought the rulebook, and finally our codexes, and continued painting when we could. We played about 2 games, and then the new eldar codex came out, and we didn't feel like spending another 50 bucks for another book so soon. The reason we spend so much on lotr I think is because we have all the rules, which wont get updated ever, and our money can go towards models, paints, terrain, etc.
I want to get back into 40k, but I dont see the value there. Buying rules it seems every few months is too much wasted money. So atm we still play with our current codexes, but are going to play a warpath game with our models later this week. I love the models, but if I can play with free rules im going that route. Im sure GW would get much more money out of me if the rules were streamlined quite a bit, and they held there value for longer. Its weird because lotr is such a solid ruleset, but every time we play 40k there are just rules for rules sake for no reason and it really bogs the game down to the point where its just not enjoyable to us.
Want more 40K fun? Do what me and my son did when we got bored of 40K. Play 40K with Lord of the Ring/The Hobbit rules. Lots of fun.
Want more 40K fun? Do what me and my son did when we got bored of 40K. Play 40K with Lord of the Ring/The Hobbit rules. Lots of fun.
You're not playing 40k with LotR rules, though, you're playing LotR with 40k miniatures ;D
Hmmm...
I think with the abstractions used by both games that the distinction is non-existent.
Both are "games" in the proper sense of the word, rather than simulations of their respective "period" or "genre."
But the point is a good one, though... Philosophically, though, the ontology of what is happening is hard to decipher.
MB
:]
So i'm just waiting for a bad financial report to drop the share price a bit (but the new overpowered releases might stave that off for a while) the existing shareholders seemed happy to buy more at 500p, with enthusiasm capped at 530p so i recon <500p is my signal to buy-in.
I've been looking into share purchasing as a group or as an individual and the group based stuff looks complicated! it's a lot of effort to do and probably something i would undertake if i started to get a reasonable amount invested as an individual.
There are a number of shares investment companies out there and i worry that some of them will say they have invested in the shares you wanted, then not bother and invest your money in something else and give you whatever you might get from your requested shares allowing them to keep the difference from better performing shares elsewhere.
Those companies i suspect of doing this are the types which make it very easy to get into shares.
Though there was one in particular i noticed based in london which i am relativley sure do NOT do the practice i have just mentioned because thier prices are much higher (per trade per month) and they make a big point of shareholder benefits (vouchers from M&S was the example)
I wasn't aware of a fee for holding the shares but im sure they must have a fee for keeping and processing the returns from your portfolio.
Still, i'm basicly going with them when my expectations realize - to hell with the fees!
I think this will be a golden opportunity for a couple of reasons:
I could go to the shareholder meetings.
Shareholders are getting edgy about the player's support for the company.
On the latter subject; I noticed someone post a shareholders report on his worries about GW compared to tesco - it looks like shareholders are starting to notice to consternation from long-term players and recognise the threat to returns that poses.
I also noticed on a share-dealing forum that any profits made by GWPLC over operating costs and R&D/promotion are split between the shareholders according to percentage controlled! (no sources cited so pinch of salt etc...) To me that says that whenever sales take a nose-dive the shares take a dive because typically shareholders want a consistent or increasing return on having thier shares and will sell them to ensure their overall portfolio remains 'healthy' (yeah, wierd term for saying 'increasing in value without losses')
I am really excited about the shareholder meetings - i think i might be able to make a genuine positive impact; essentially we'd all spend more money with them if there was some sort of plan to give money off when you spend a certain ammount - i'm a fan of that because it can keep under-performing lines moving rather than stagnating and spoiling on the shelf. and lets face it - how pleased have you all been with the little pin-badges? i love mine!!
In my experience a little 'give' can facillitate a much greater 'take' from trading overall.
Another real positive of this is that because i'm not intrested in making money off the shares the performance of the company makes no difference to me other than facilitating purchasing more of the shares at a cheaper price! Huzzah!
Has anyone stopped to think that GWMIGHT JUST be trapped by the LAW regarding Corporate Profits?
Corporations are required by Law to maximize shareholder value.
MOST shareholders interpret this to mean immediate value as opposed to Long Term Value.
Apple and Google are examples of companies that have EXCELLENT Balance between long-term, and short-term shareholder value (i.e. "Profits").
GW is an example of a Company whose shareholders seem to force ONLY Short-Term value (profits) from the company. Or, if not "forcing," certainly the shareholders have not complained.
It took me a while to think about this. . . . .
But maybe the OP is correct.
Maybe gamers need to form a Shareholder Collective, whereby we form our own Fund for buying stock, and then at the Shareholders meetings, we get time to speak to the Shareholders to present a case for more longer term profits based upon what gamers WANT.
It would take a while, but you could lobby larger shareholders (which are probably mostly hedge-funds) to support a bid to force a change in management.
If you begin to see large single-digit numbers of support, or small two-digits numbers (percentages) of support for such a thing, then the current management will probably take notice and act, since things like that tend to cause momentum to build on a trend.
I believe GWs first obligation, above that of paying their investors, is to the survival of the company.
If you're striking rapidly in a market experiencing unprecidented growth and you can't find a single thing to invest your profits in rather than pay them out you should not be allowed anywhere near a managment position.
I stopped in 2009, when I acquired all of the LotR stuff I wanted.
I already had all the Tau for 40K I would ever use, or want. There is no way I could afford an Orca, or that humongous drop-ship (whose name escapes me... A Manta?) that holds four Devilfish (I think they only make that for Epic, in which case I MIGHT want one.
And, at this point, I am working on creating my own miniatures to use for any games I like, and trying to promote those (Hoplon, getting a re-write done of Striker for Traveller 5, and doing some Starships and game that uses a 1:1 ship:game scale), rather than feeding GW.
I do not dislike their models. They have VERY capable and talented artists.
It is the associations of those models with which I have a problem.
@SirDonald.
Just a word of warning, Tom Kirby has been paying out share dividends GW can not afford to pay just to keep shareholders on side.(And to swell his own wealth).
GW plc is loosing sales volumes at ever increasing rates, and the next bad report , will probably be one of a series of bad reports.
Tom Kirby will be retiring soon,(dementia seems to have set in based on the last share holders ramble. )
At which point any proper effort to turn thing around for long term survival will cut share dividends and drop the share value.
Or the company will continue to be run into the ground to pay dividends until it can not afford to pay dividends, and drop share value.
Lanrak wrote: @SirDonald.
Just a word of warning, Tom Kirby has been paying out share dividends GW can not afford to pay just to keep shareholders on side.(And to swell his own wealth).
GW plc is loosing sales volumes at ever increasing rates, and the next bad report , will probably be one of a series of bad reports.
Tom Kirby will be retiring soon,(dementia seems to have set in based on the last share holders ramble. )
At which point any proper effort to turn thing around for long term survival will cut share dividends and drop the share value.
Or the company will continue to be run into the ground to pay dividends until it can not afford to pay dividends, and drop share value.
This is actually pretty interesting, can you link me up to this overpayment of dividends please?
One does not change GW by any action of his own. One sits out an edition or two and considers other gaming systems.
GW is like an iceberg, where the pretty minis can be seen above the surface, and the demands of being a public company lie below. You never get a sense of the company as a whole, you are either a gamer or an investor, and you see what matters to you.
Interesting; quite a variety of sentiments/actions stated here (all valid) and i feel it reinforces my confidence in what i'm planning - I think i prefer the group of individual gamer/shareholder thing (we play 40k, conflict resolution won't be a problem) but i think it should be a very 'quiet' arrangement - i like the idea of just being there at the side, waiting for when other shareholders are abandoning ship..
the lack of purchasing will definetly send a message, but what message i wonder?
It might make new SoB come out quicker?
Something tells me i'm not going to like seeing some of the decisions that get made, but i feel that a push for higher volume production methods should be first priority and a modular multi-level building system for 40k should be second.
i thought kirby was already gone? someone on a shares-forum said that (so a pinch of salt, etc, etc...) and stated that the new releases were a result of the new guy- again; validity remains to be confirmed...
I like the idea that kirby will be setting the share price up for a fall as the shareholders realize how things are really going; although that gives me a certain amount of pessimism about how open the company actually is with the shareholders and gives me doubts that they would even let me into the factory!
Kirby stepped down as CEO in January of this year but remains the Chairman of the Board; he previously held both positions which is generally frowned upon in the business community.
He was able to secure a nice, short-term but high-paying job for his wife when GW paid 4million pounds to update their website. She headed the operation from the GW side because they contracted a company to do all of the work; a sort of over-paid business analyst type gig. Her previous experience? Secretary for a shell company held by Kirby and before that a recreation coordinator for a YMCA-type organization. Highly qualified to head a 4million investment, obviously.
I think Kirby will die at his desk and only retire if he manages to run GW PLC into the ground and then only exit via golden parachute.
Kirby will work as hard as possible to keep share value high, if you see a statement that he is dropping shares, that's your sign to bail on the company because he's the largest individual, non-institutional, share holder I believe. That's another reason dividends will always be paid, so that he can line his nest further.
agnosto wrote: Kirby stepped down as CEO in January of this year but remains the Chairman of the Board; he previously held both positions which is generally frowned upon in the business community.
He was able to secure a nice, short-term but high-paying job for his wife when GW paid 4million pounds to update their website. She headed the operation from the GW side because they contracted a company to do all of the work; a sort of over-paid business analyst type gig. Her previous experience? Secretary for a shell company held by Kirby and before that a recreation coordinator for a YMCA-type organization. Highly qualified to head a 4million investment, obviously.
I think Kirby will die at his desk and only retire if he manages to run GW PLC into the ground and then only exit via golden parachute.
Kirby will work as hard as possible to keep share value high, if you see a statement that he is dropping shares, that's your sign to bail on the company because he's the largest individual, non-institutional, share holder I believe. That's another reason dividends will always be paid, so that he can line his nest further.
All good info there agnosto (Champion of the religiously ambivolent!) particularly the tip on when kirby sells his shares - that will be my cue to get ready for devaluation and post devalue buy-in.
On top of that, while the models are individually expensive, you need a lot less of them. The LVO winner list (IIRC) was around $800-$900 U.S. at MSRP, while the last major DZC tournament had the winner clocking in at around $300. I haven't priced PP armies recently, but last time I did a 3 list format army was around $700.
Thrift shopping on Bartertown and Ebay have landed me THREE 2500+ GW armies for less than that.
On top of that, while the models are individually expensive, you need a lot less of them. The LVO winner list (IIRC) was around $800-$900 U.S. at MSRP, while the last major DZC tournament had the winner clocking in at around $300. I haven't priced PP armies recently, but last time I did a 3 list format army was around $700.
Thrift shopping on Bartertown and Ebay have landed me THREE 2500+ GW armies for less than that.
BeAfraid wrote: Has anyone stopped to think that GWMIGHT JUST be trapped by the LAW regarding Corporate Profits?
Corporations are required by Law to maximize shareholder value.
Sorry chap, but citation needed. It's been a while since I studied this topic and it's never been relevant in my career, but I had no recollection of this, and Google hasn't helped.
It is possible for employees of a Plc to be prosecuted should their actions or negligence damage the company finances, but that's not the same thing.
Equally, as often comes up in any thread about pricing, value is subjective and "shareholder value" is a spurious term at best.
As far as I know, no company type holds any legal obligation to make money, it's simply a good idea and that a company will try and do so is a logical assumption, fraudulent activity aside.
MOST shareholders interpret this to mean immediate value as opposed to Long Term Value.
Apple and Google are examples of companies that have EXCELLENT Balance between long-term, and short-term shareholder value (i.e. "Profits").
GW is an example of a Company whose shareholders seem to force ONLY Short-Term value (profits) from the company. Or, if not "forcing," certainly the shareholders have not complained.
Exactly, the shareholders haven't complained because GW is a tiny fish, but it is a tiny fish that has been paying good dividends. The sort of institution that holds enough shares in GW to affect change (Kirby notwithstanding) isn't interested in fixing GW, if they stop churning out dividends they'll just dump heir stock and invest the cash in something else. In fact, this exact thing has happened recently since the reports have started reporting falling profits and revenue.
It took me a while to think about this. . . . .
But maybe the OP is correct.
Maybe gamers need to form a Shareholder Collective, whereby we form our own Fund for buying stock, and then at the Shareholders meetings, we get time to speak to the Shareholders to present a case for more longer term profits based upon what gamers WANT.
It would take a while, but you could lobby larger shareholders (which are probably mostly hedge-funds) to support a bid to force a change in management.
If you begin to see large single-digit numbers of support, or small two-digits numbers (percentages) of support for such a thing, then the current management will probably take notice and act, since things like that tend to cause momentum to build on a trend.
It is something to think about.
MB
Not really, shareholders do hold power, they can vote to change the make up of the board, they can vote to liquidate the company and all sorts, but on the basis of a single AGM per year, shareholders will struggle to implement any direct change, won't be able to select replacements for board positions etc, etc.
The single greatest thing that is in the hands of every gamer to affect change is the withholding of cash. It might take a while but ultimately it will force a change in behaviour or weaken them to the point that another party takes over. That change may not be for the best, but that's a risk inherent to nearly all change.
All good info there agnosto (Champion of the religiously ambivolent!) particularly the tip on when kirby sells his shares - that will be my cue to get ready for devaluation and post devalue buy-in.
The beautiful thing there is that GW is legally required to report when a member of the Board or upper management buy or sell shares. Timing can be a bit tricky because they have 48 hours. The better bet is to set an alert or auto-sell if shares hit a set amount. I did this with GW shares and sold out the last time the stock took a dive; I can't complain because I made a tidy profit but GW shares have an uncanny ability to rebound, even with negative financials. I attribute this to general knowledge that GW WILL pay a dividend if they are at all able.
Edit:
On an interesting side note. I sometimes wonder if Kirby actually owns much more of the company than is public knowledge through a 10b5-1 plan; this would explain while certain institutional investors seem almost dogged in their support of the stock. I admit that I'm hardly an expert on the matter so I don't know if it's possible but I do know that programs like a 10b5-1 plan are a gray area that can allow for all sorts of behind the scenes stock manipulation due to how executives are not required to report such things. /tinfoil hat
Turns out it isn't exactly "by law" required to maximize shareholder value.
Turns out it is "by threat of lawsuit from the shareholders" that drives the practice.
I looked into it, at the prompting of my sister, whose job it is is to defend a petrochemical company/corporation (two firms - same owners/bosses) from exactly those kinds of suits.
And, she said, "It isn't "the law" so much as it is "the rule" based upon threat of shareholder lawsuit against the corporation" (it is one means of staging a hostile takeover with no capital: we claim that the company OWES us, because it could have done x, y, & z that would create $nnn,nnn value that they owe us, and, yes, we will take stock).
So... I looked it up, and while it is not "statute law," it is WELL PRECEDENTED in case law.
In my own research into it, apparently it came about during the 1980s Greed Fest (Michael Douglas movie time) with Milton Friedman (the arch-Libertarian) claiming that if a Corporation did not maximize shareholder value, then the executives and board were "stealing from the shareholders" (why is it ALWAYS about "theft" or "stealing" with Libertarians???).
And, what do you know... Shareholders took him up on that and began to sue corporations freaking silly and sideways.
And then when the dot-com boom hit, the Libertarian Tendencies of the Silicon Valley crowd created the myth (which I fell for, seeing as I spent/spend too much time around that crowd) that it was "The Law."
Neil Stephenson apparently did not help by propagating the myth in two or three of his novels.
So... Pardon my mistake.
Otherwise... Even though it is not "The Law," it is still the predominantly driving behavior of Corporations whose shareholders tend to reinforce or buy into the myth,
Another point of order is just because you can sue doesn't mean your suit has merit. The shareholders would have to present sufficient evidence to convince a jury that the executives actually intended to bring the company down. Not an easy feat. Usually shareholder lawsuits revolve around compensation packages and mergers/acquisitions, not on incompetence.
On top of that, while the models are individually expensive, you need a lot less of them. The LVO winner list (IIRC) was around $800-$900 U.S. at MSRP, while the last major DZC tournament had the winner clocking in at around $300. I haven't priced PP armies recently, but last time I did a 3 list format army was around $700.
Thrift shopping on Bartertown and Ebay have landed me THREE 2500+ GW armies for less than that.
This is new and MSRP, if a player knows about those places and is willing to risk severe repair work (or removing thick layers of paint), or picking up an army that will no longer be supported (like chunks of the Fantasy line) I'd say go for it
Moreover, buying second hand means that GW is not selling a new player kit, which is what they want to do.
GW will never change in anyway we would want them to. GW dose no market research so even when we don't buy something they will not fix what is wrong with it, because they don't even know what was wrong with it in the 1st place.
Even not buying products from them you dislike won't realy have a effect.
If your frustrated with GW's polices you just need to change games sadly because nothing we do will change anything, unless something drastic happens at the top of the company.
So out of their expansion from a UK based importer of games into a global miniature manufacturer and retailer in the 90s and into their height and the LOTR boom, we have steady dividend growth in keeping with the growth of the company.
Then the LOTR bubble popped and GW didn't know how to make things work with their decline in revenue. So they started slashing costs everywhere they could. From 2007 to 2009 the investment model of GW fundamentally changed. Prior to this they were a growth company that paid a small dividend and were interested in expanding their market to as many customers as possible.
Just look at the numbers from 1998-2006 and from 2010 to 2014. They look like the numbers from completely different companies. From 2007 to 2009 GW was transformed from a growth story into what Kirby calls an efficient cash machine.
What did Kirby say when the dividends returned?
"Dividends have returned. I am as pleased as you are. Does this herald in a new era of progressive dividends on an assured yield? Hardly. We return truly surplus cash to shareholders. 'Truly surplus' means the cash we can not use because we have already spent all we need for the growth of the business. It would sit in a bank account if we didn't return it. Working this way means the payment of dividends will be fairly happenstance; I can see us having surplus cash in the future and when we have (assuming it is a sensible sum) it will be returned, not according to a schedule, but right then and there." Kirby 2010-11 annual report
He wants the investors to believe that they actually could not think of anything to reinvest in. That they had spent all they could and just had so much surplus cash they just had to give it to the shareholders because there was nothing they could do with it.
Does anyone actually believe that paying more in dividends than you are earning is sustainable? That doing so is just returning "truly surplus" cash that would just sit in the bank because there's nothing they can actually spend it on?
When the LOTR bubble popped and their sales of 40k and WFB fell over years that followed, GW stopped being profitable. They even propped up their last dividend of this period by borrowing money to pay it. At this point they changed their business model from one of growth to one of efficient cash extraction.
Given that GW is willing to pay all of their earnings (and more) as dividends and the 2nd half of 2014 saw the dividend reduced from 20p to 16p (totally 36p for 2014) we can assume that their earnings per share will be dropping by a similar amount. If they had the money rolling in during Q3 of 2014 they would have announced a larger dividend in October.
The machine isn't working. It's not growing because they are no longer investing in growth and on top of that they actually want to sell less product to fewer people at a higher price because it gives them a better margins and if they ship half the product at twice the price, they can lay off production, shipping and sales staff and save even more money. Switching their stores from fully staffed into single employee locations costs them sales but it also costs them recruitment. Which over time means their player base is shrinking. And those losses in volume compound over time and demand higher and higher prices to make up for it.
I hope that this information helpful to those wanting to invest in GW.
The OP and others assumes that all players are a "united front" with a shared of what the game and company should be.
If you spend more than five minutes on DaKka or in any game store gaming group you will know that that is far, far, far from reality.
Many gamers have horrible ideas about how things should be. Many would think my ideas are horrible.
In all honesty most of us couldn't do any Better GW is doing and probably would do worse.
As for the decline of GW: it isn't just due to GW "not doing it right". Tabletop wargaming is becoming sort of inevitably antiquarian due to the passage of time. Young kids more and more have other options and traditional wargamers more and more are sounding and looking like the out of touch old men who start everything they say with "back in my day..."
Except there is a variety of evidence suggesting that tabletop gaming of all varieties is growing, which really does suggest that GW could be doing it better and aren't doing it right.
Azreal13 wrote: Except there is a variety of evidence suggesting that tabletop gaming of all varieties is growing, which really does suggest that GW could be doing it better and aren't doing it right.
I don't have any numbers about the hobby overall (and I don't think ANYONE has those) but we do have some indicators from conventions. Gencon for instance has been steadily growing and has pretty much always been the largest tabletop gaming con in the US.
I believe the Adepticon folks have said that they're steadily growing as well but a quick google search didn't bring up any numbers to verify that. Origins is growing as well (albeit at a smaller rate).
Being a "nerd" is cool... for now... but GW doesn't seem to be capitalizing on that growing and/or returning fanbase but are instead cannibalizing their ever shrinking herd.
Azreal13 wrote: Except there is a variety of evidence suggesting that tabletop gaming of all varieties is growing, which really does suggest that GW could be doing it better and aren't doing it right.
I don't have any numbers about the hobby overall (and I don't think ANYONE has those) but we do have some indicators from conventions. Gencon for instance has been steadily growing and has pretty much always been the largest tabletop gaming con in the US.
I believe the Adepticon folks have said that they're steadily growing as well but a quick google search didn't bring up any numbers to verify that. Origins is growing as well (albeit at a smaller rate).
Being a "nerd" is cool... for now... but GW doesn't seem to be capitalizing on that growing and/or returning fanbase but are instead cannibalizing their ever shrinking herd.
Great... now you have put Lord of the Flies in my head....
So out of their expansion from a UK based importer of games into a global miniature manufacturer and retailer in the 90s and into their height and the LOTR boom, we have steady dividend growth in keeping with the growth of the company.
Then the LOTR bubble popped and GW didn't know how to make things work with their decline in revenue. So they started slashing costs everywhere they could. From 2007 to 2009 the investment model of GW fundamentally changed. Prior to this they were a growth company that paid a small dividend and were interested in expanding their market to as many customers as possible.
Just look at the numbers from 1998-2006 and from 2010 to 2014. They look like the numbers from completely different companies. From 2007 to 2009 GW was transformed from a growth story into what Kirby calls an efficient cash machine.
What did Kirby say when the dividends returned?
"Dividends have returned. I am as pleased as you are. Does this herald in a new era of progressive dividends on an assured yield? Hardly. We return truly surplus cash to shareholders. 'Truly surplus' means the cash we can not use because we have already spent all we need for the growth of the business. It would sit in a bank account if we didn't return it. Working this way means the payment of dividends will be fairly happenstance; I can see us having surplus cash in the future and when we have (assuming it is a sensible sum) it will be returned, not according to a schedule, but right then and there." Kirby 2010-11 annual report
He wants the investors to believe that they actually could not think of anything to reinvest in. That they had spent all they could and just had so much surplus cash they just had to give it to the shareholders because there was nothing they could do with it.
Does anyone actually believe that paying more in dividends than you are earning is sustainable? That doing so is just returning "truly surplus" cash that would just sit in the bank because there's nothing they can actually spend it on?
When the LOTR bubble popped and their sales of 40k and WFB fell over years that followed, GW stopped being profitable. They even propped up their last dividend of this period by borrowing money to pay it. At this point they changed their business model from one of growth to one of efficient cash extraction.
Given that GW is willing to pay all of their earnings (and more) as dividends and the 2nd half of 2014 saw the dividend reduced from 20p to 16p (totally 36p for 2014) we can assume that their earnings per share will be dropping by a similar amount. If they had the money rolling in during Q3 of 2014 they would have announced a larger dividend in October.
The machine isn't working. It's not growing because they are no longer investing in growth and on top of that they actually want to sell less product to fewer people at a higher price because it gives them a better margins and if they ship half the product at twice the price, they can lay off production, shipping and sales staff and save even more money. Switching their stores from fully staffed into single employee locations costs them sales but it also costs them recruitment. Which over time means their player base is shrinking. And those losses in volume compound over time and demand higher and higher prices to make up for it.
I hope that this information helpful to those wanting to invest in GW.
Indeed - good find and extremely ineresting reading!
CT GAMER wrote:The OP and others assumes that all players are a "united front" with a shared of what the game and company should be.
If you spend more than five minutes on DaKka or in any game store gaming group you will know that that is far, far, far from reality.
Many gamers have horrible ideas about how things should be. Many would think my ideas are horrible.
Spoiler:
In all honesty most of us couldn't do any Better GW is doing and probably would do worse.
As for the decline of GW: it isn't just due to GW "not doing it right". Tabletop wargaming is becoming sort of inevitably antiquarian due to the passage of time. Young kids more and more have other options and traditional wargamers more and more are sounding and looking like the out of touch old men who start everything they say with "back in my day..."
I have to concede that you absolutely right there, we're a fractious bunch at best. But i feel that i should add that we do tend to default to 'current' rulesets even if we don't like them just because they are 'official' I beleive that we all would just accept a new rulebook as long as it was more complete than the last and written in consideration of all codexes, playtested properly and then released however GW feel is most profitable - just with the proper playtesting against all future codecies before the BRB release.
I would like them to clearly define an edition for use with each codex too!
Only problem i have is that these issues are adressed at a company management level, not at shareholder meetings so the limit of the scope of change which can be effected will be funding decisions for the different arms of the company, maybe some input on future sources of plastic or discussion about the viability of trying another 'finecast' attempt with some new, cheaper material.
You could probably seed some ideas to the management exec's after the presentation; like a crusade-era xenos/eldar little red book, or making the lucius pattern warhound in plastic since it's no longer produced in resin and doesn't appear in the horus heresy.
I'm determined not to get ideas about what we could achieve before i see how things are up in nottingham.
Azreal13 wrote: Except there is a variety of evidence suggesting that tabletop gaming of all varieties is growing, which really does suggest that GW could be doing it better and aren't doing it right.
I don't have any numbers about the hobby overall (and I don't think ANYONE has those) but we do have some indicators from conventions. Gencon for instance has been steadily growing and has pretty much always been the largest tabletop gaming con in the US.
I believe the Adepticon folks have said that they're steadily growing as well but a quick google search didn't bring up any numbers to verify that. Origins is growing as well (albeit at a smaller rate).
Being a "nerd" is cool... for now... but GW doesn't seem to be capitalizing on that growing and/or returning fanbase but are instead cannibalizing their ever shrinking herd.
ICv2's data is unscientific but is a decent indicator of what is selling in stores; Kickstarter reports a huge amount of money pledged on tabletop wargaming as well.
True.. while the quarterly results don't tell us anything about the overall health of the hobby, the subjective rankings do indicate that GW has gone down in popularity within their hobby niche (non-collectible minis) mainly due to the disappearance of fantasy completely from the list.
This article though does say that the hobby games market (not just minis but all games) is 2.25x larger than in 2008 and they have had 6 straight years of growth. You can generally see the OPPOSITE in the GW reports when you account for yearly price increases.
On the bright side, it wouldn't cost that much just to buy the whole company. Lots of people have $160 million dollars, give or take
If I were a multi-billionaire, I would buy Games Workshop, make it private, and just have them make cool models and a nice game, to hell with the profits. SISTERS OF BATTLE models, bwahahahaha.
And yes, even if I had a billion dollars of cash, I would still love wargaming and modelling. I'd have like, 10,000 sq ft of a home dedicated to it and hire people to dust off my models and gaming tables
I just saw this article about an industry-leading company that kept doing the same old thing rather than looking into the innovations that consumers were interested in. Turns out it wasn't a good idea. Who'd'a thunk it?
Vermis wrote: I just saw this article about an industry-leading company that kept doing the same old thing rather than looking into the innovations that consumers were interested in. Turns out it wasn't a good idea. Who'd'a thunk it?
Kodak is another. They invented the first digital camera but shelved it because it could ruin their photo film business...so someone else did the job for them. Gw's stance on 3D printing is scarily similar.
Azreal13 wrote: So, like I said, not the law, just a good idea. Make money and don't feth up, because of you do you'll get your arse sued off!
As I pointed out, this attitude tends to promote pathologies in Corporate Behavior based upon Toatlitarian Utilitarian Philosophies that prioritize Short-term gains over the longer term.
The AI researcher Steve Omohundro (he was one of the team with Danny Hillis, and Richard Feynman who built the Connection Machine back in the 80's/90's - a computer FAR ahead of its time. In fact, we are just now beginning to apply its architecture to chips) wrote a paper titled Basic AI Drives which detail variations in different sorts of Agent Systems.
One such System is that used by Corporations: The Rational Economic Agent (REA).
An REA operates by basic rules, which prioritize behaviors based upon rewards from a Utility function.
If a Corporation or REA is not careful in how they word this Utility Function, then the REA/Corporatin can wind up showing AWESOME GAINS for a short period of time, only to wind up consuming not just itself, but everything else around it as well.
This is similar to the Apprentice in Goethe's The Sorcerer's Apprentice, as depicted by Mickey Mouse in the movie Fantasia.
Mickey is ordered to fill a basin in the Sorcerer's Castle. He trudges up and down a LOONG flight of stairs, carrying heavy buckets of water, while the Sorcerer literally moves the stars at his command.
When the Sorcerer goes out, Mickey uses his Spell book to animate a broomstick with the command: Carry water from the well to that basin.
The broomstick complies, all too well, rapidly filling the basin.
Mickey drops off into dreams of his new power, only to be wakened by the flooding of the castle, and the inability to stop the broomstick (his attempts only make things worse) as the broomstick(s) threaten to drown him in their single minded pursuit of their IMMEDIATE GOAL.
This is the perfect metaphor for Corporations prioritizing short-term over long-term profits.
It leads to unintended consequences, often poorly, or even dangerously, considered to begin with.
Obviously a Corporation needs to make enough money to operate. But shareholders clammoring for profits NOW!!! will destroy a corporation (and possibly the economy along with it, if the corporation is a major component in the Systems' Economy) without consideration for the longer term.
And GW is a perfect example of such short-term goal thinking (They are by no means the worst, though).
So... Even though it is not a legal mandate does in no way imply that it must be a good idea, nor should it be thought of us such.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vermis wrote: I just saw this article about an industry-leading company that kept doing the same old thing rather than looking into the innovations that consumers were interested in. Turns out it wasn't a good idea. Who'd'a thunk it?
And thus my point about the behavior and consequences of Rational Economic Agents with poorly conceived goals and plans.
Vermis wrote: I just saw this article about an industry-leading company that kept doing the same old thing rather than looking into the innovations that consumers were interested in. Turns out it wasn't a good idea. Who'd'a thunk it?
Kodak is another. They invented the first digital camera but shelved it because it could ruin their photo film business...so someone else did the job for them. Gw's stance on 3D printing is scarily similar.
Talys wrote:
If I were a multi-billionaire, I would buy Games Workshop, make it private, and just have them make cool models and a nice game, to hell with the profits. SISTERS OF BATTLE models, bwahahahaha.
.
I think this would be the best possible outcome.
The company still has to make profits, but it would be nice if their was some acknowledgement that some people want to play and enjoy the games as well.
SirDonlad wrote:I love the mechanicum (Ordo Reductor FTW! MOAR THALLAX!) but Nissan GT-R>Mechanicum^£100000
The sad thing is that you can't have both of these things, that the price of the latter doesn't have to be measured up against a new purchase of a car.
@warboss.
A better comparison with Kodak and GW would be GW specialist games.
This range of games made getting into GW games very easy and appealed to a wider range of players.
And the 40k and WHFB players could try out different game sizes in the same GW setting.
If a WHFB player wanted to try a skirmish game there was Mordhiem.
If a WHFB player wanted to try a sports game there was Blood Bowl.
If a WHFB player wanted a dungeon crawler game there was Warhammer Quest/Hero Quest.
If a WHFB player wanted a bigger battle game there was Warmaster.
40k players had Inquisitor RPG, Necromundia skirmish , Kill team /40k in 40 mins ,standard 40k Epic , and B.F.G.
Rather than see these other games as gateway games to WHFB and 40k, and customer retention games.
The bean counters at GW towers just saw the lower profits they made in compared to WHFB and 40k lines.
(Even though some sales of 40k and WHFB kits were for use in some specialist games!)
So like Kodak blindly thinking their customers would not go elsewhere for this other product, GW axed all the Specialist games.
And all these smaller companies made games to replace them, and did very well thank you very much.
Which is great if you are a gamer that is happy to buy from other companies.
But it is not so great for GW plc , fewer customers lower sales volumes and lower profits.
I know GW plc loss of profits has been expected for the last 10 years or so.But fanatical support of GW plc by some is just astounding, and has delayed the tipping point well past expectations.
GW plc are now on a downward trend.
They have cut costs to the bone, no more savings to be had without reducing efficiency and sales.(Some say they have already gone too far.)
They have raised prices past the tipping point , so the fall in sales volumes can not be covered by increasing prices any more.
They have paid for share dividends with money that should have been spent on growing their market share.
The only option they have is to cycle through releases faster and faster hoping for short term (very short term) sales spikes to squeeze as much money out of their remaining customer base as possible to keep the 'Kirby cash machine' operating.Just enough money to pay good dividends so Tom Kirby gets a few extra £M before he uses his 'golden parachute'.
GW plc are now on a downward trend.
They have cut costs to the bone, no more savings to be had without reducing efficiency and sales.(Some say they have already gone too far.)
They have raised prices past the tipping point , so the fall in sales volumes can not be covered by increasing prices any more.
They have paid for share dividends with money that should have been spent on growing their market share.
The only option they have is to cycle through releases faster and faster hoping for short term (very short term) sales spikes to squeeze as much money out of their remaining customer base as possible to keep the 'Kirby cash machine' operating.Just enough money to pay good dividends so Tom Kirby gets a few extra £M before he uses his 'golden parachute'.
I think it's even worse than that - every time they borrow money to pay dividends they are taking it directly out of the next year's profits - how many years could that happen before the debt became too much for the company to deal with?
GW plc are now on a downward trend.
They have cut costs to the bone, no more savings to be had without reducing efficiency and sales.(Some say they have already gone too far.)
They have raised prices past the tipping point , so the fall in sales volumes can not be covered by increasing prices any more.
They have paid for share dividends with money that should have been spent on growing their market share.
The only option they have is to cycle through releases faster and faster hoping for short term (very short term) sales spikes to squeeze as much money out of their remaining customer base as possible to keep the 'Kirby cash machine' operating.Just enough money to pay good dividends so Tom Kirby gets a few extra £M before he uses his 'golden parachute'.
I think it's even worse than that - every time they borrow money to pay dividends they are taking it directly out of the next year's profits - how many years could that happen before the debt became too much for the company to deal with?
I don't know that they're borrowing money, they still have a cash reserve and the financials don't show debt service. There was a fair amount of debt about 5 or 6 years ago but it's been paid off.
The new Assault Squad is not only AUD$15 more expensive than the last Assault Squad (with no discernible difference beyond poses), it's more expensive than the far more fancy Vanguard box.
AUD$70 for 5 models that used to cost $55 (and were less than that when they first came out). People were shocked at the cost of 10 Witch Elves. This, and the Electro-Priests before them, is worse.
GW plc is still charging remaining customers their 'incompetent management ' tax.
The fact GW plc is following this idiocy to its depressing conclusion is not change.
A well run company would be making significantly more profit off products at HALF the RRP GW plc charge. (Many actually do!)
GW plc will only change after Kirby has squeezed enough cash out of GW and retires as chairman.(Probably about 6 months before GW plc goes into a terminal nose dive.)
Although GW plc has borrowed money to pay dividends before,ATM they are just chewing through their dwindling cash surplus.I am sure Kirby will probably borrow money to pay the last lot of dividends before he retires if needed though.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The new Assault Squad is not only AUD$15 more expensive than the last Assault Squad (with no discernible difference beyond poses), it's more expensive than the far more fancy Vanguard box.
AUD$70 for 5 models that used to cost $55 (and were less than that when they first came out). People were shocked at the cost of 10 Witch Elves. This, and the Electro-Priests before them, is worse.
GW is changing... by making things worse.
My favorite part of all of that is watching people who seem to have infinite hobby budgets being nonplussed by the price increases and then wondering why the rest of the plebs are complaining. Or, even worse, saying that 40k is a luxury hobby that isn't for everyone, conveniently forgetting everything about the game previous to 6th edition.
I've always wondered if 40k would be reduced to a collection of rich players who submit yearly $1millon checks, fly to Nottingham and have an annual Apocalypse game. Truly a bright future ahead for them.
The very best part is that GW is in a perfect position to still shutdown the market if they chose. They aren't constrained by the production limitations of other companies as they can do full production, save printing, in hous. All things considered, because of this, their miniatures should be the cheapest not the most expensive.
Given their deep range of flexible model kits, they'd really just need to open conversation (good with the flood of bad pent up) with folks, see what's selling in the competition, and use their remaining clout/weight to hire premiere rules writers and remake their side games while completely gutting their main ones from the horrible mess they are in.
The reason why GW gets so much disdain it's rationally justifiable from anyone who isn't emotionally attached, blinded by their rose colored FineGlasses. If more folks put aside their cherished love for the setting and realize how bad GW really is, then they'd hopefully change or at least bottom out sooner so we have a chance of rebuilding with new management.
The reason why GW gets so much disdain it's rationally justifiable from anyone who isn't emotionally attached, blinded by their rose colored FineGlasses. If more folks put aside their cherished love for the setting and realize how bad GW really is, then they'd hopefully change or at least bottom out sooner so we have a chance of rebuilding with new management.
I think the first emphasised part is the reason for the disdain, and the second emphasised part explains it. I'd say, from previous experience, the people who complain still like the setting (older parts of it, at least), but realise that the setting is a discrete entity from the (overpriced) models and the (terrible) rules. It's harder to explore the setting, in wargame form, given those two factors, and the great frustration is that - as you say, Kbob - it really shouldn't be the case.
Me, I still have attachment to the setting. At the mo I'm starting to explore it again using Troublemaker and Onslaught 6mm minis, and Epic: Armageddon. Overall quite a bit less money-grubbing and aggro.
TheKbob wrote: The very best part is that GW is in a perfect position to still shutdown the market if they chose. They aren't constrained by the production limitations of other companies as they can do full production, save printing, in hous. All things considered, because of this, their miniatures should be the cheapest not the most expensive.
Given their deep range of flexible model kits, they'd really just need to open conversation (good with the flood of bad pent up) with folks, see what's selling in the competition, and use their remaining clout/weight to hire premiere rules writers and remake their side games while completely gutting their main ones from the horrible mess they are in.
The reason why GW gets so much disdain it's rationally justifiable from anyone who isn't emotionally attached, blinded by their rose colored FineGlasses. If more folks put aside their cherished love for the setting and realize how bad GW really is, then they'd hopefully change or at least bottom out sooner so we have a chance of rebuilding with new management.
I think the thing that boggles my mind is that people will adamantly refuse to look at facts and just wave away any commentary on GW's financials as "hate." I don't hate a company that is spending more money than they take in, just to fund dividends to investors, I question the sanity of the executives who decide to do that but I don't hate them.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The new Assault Squad is not only AUD$15 more expensive than the last Assault Squad (with no discernible difference beyond poses), it's more expensive than the far more fancy Vanguard box.
AUD$70 for 5 models that used to cost $55 (and were less than that when they first came out). People were shocked at the cost of 10 Witch Elves. This, and the Electro-Priests before them, is worse.
GW is changing... by making things worse.
I find the fact that new kits are always priced higher with very little or no changes to be mind-boggling. What justification is there for a price increase on this kit? It's still 5 guys. Why is it more expensive? Currently it's $33 USD for 5 Assault Marines (sold out, of course). What makes these new ones cost $8 more? That means a full assault squad (because really who is going to field just 5 of them?) is going to cost $82 for 10 models in plastic.
Why do people still put up with this bullgak? You're paying more money for the same gak, using molds that have likely already paid for themselves. The markup on this has to be huge.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The new Assault Squad is not only AUD$15 more expensive than the last Assault Squad (with no discernible difference beyond poses), it's more expensive than the far more fancy Vanguard box.
AUD$70 for 5 models that used to cost $55 (and were less than that when they first came out). People were shocked at the cost of 10 Witch Elves. This, and the Electro-Priests before them, is worse.
GW is changing... by making things worse.
I find the fact that new kits are always priced higher with very little or no changes to be mind-boggling. What justification is there for a price increase on this kit? It's still 5 guys. Why is it more expensive? Currently it's $33 USD for 5 Assault Marines (sold out, of course). What makes these new ones cost $8 more? That means a full assault squad (because really who is going to field just 5 of them?) is going to cost $82 for 10 models in plastic.
Why do people still put up with this bullgak? You're paying more money for the same gak, using molds that have likely already paid for themselves. The markup on this has to be huge.
I think that part of it is due to production limitations. GW may be pricing certain kits at a level that will ensure that fewer kits are sold so that their production facilities may focus on the new releases. It's all churn and burn.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The new Assault Squad is not only AUD$15 more expensive than the last Assault Squad (with no discernible difference beyond poses), it's more expensive than the far more fancy Vanguard box.
AUD$70 for 5 models that used to cost $55 (and were less than that when they first came out). People were shocked at the cost of 10 Witch Elves. This, and the Electro-Priests before them, is worse.
GW is changing... by making things worse.
I find the fact that new kits are always priced higher with very little or no changes to be mind-boggling. What justification is there for a price increase on this kit? It's still 5 guys. Why is it more expensive? Currently it's $33 USD for 5 Assault Marines (sold out, of course). What makes these new ones cost $8 more? That means a full assault squad (because really who is going to field just 5 of them?) is going to cost $82 for 10 models in plastic.
Why do people still put up with this bullgak? You're paying more money for the same gak, using molds that have likely already paid for themselves. The markup on this has to be huge.
I think that part of it is due to production limitations. GW may be pricing certain kits at a level that will ensure that fewer kits are sold so that their production facilities may focus on the new releases. It's all churn and burn.
Probably. I mean they ARE cool figures. But the price point is getting more and more crazy. If the game itself encouraged/only allowed 5 in a squad, then okay it's not that bad. But it really feels like they're trying to cheat you by making 10 desirable and selling boxes of 5 instead so you have to pay twice. Maybe I'm wrong, and 5 Assault Marines isn't terrible (it was awful back in my day, they'd die before they did anything at all) but their pricing is weird as hell with that.
It shouldn't bother me, I don't play. But I always think of playing and things like this make me not want to. I even was looking for a while of playing the way GW wants me to, and for instance only fielding 5 Assault Marines, since 5 is what comes in the box.
It shouldn't bother me, I don't play. But I always think of playing and things like this make me not want to. I even was looking for a while of playing the way GW wants me to, and for instance only fielding 5 Assault Marines, since 5 is what comes in the box.
I agree. I played 40K for almost 25 years, with a few breaks here and there when life got in the way. I haven't played a game since the end of 5th edition or so, or maybe beginning of sixth. Every now and again I consider getting back into it, but the price point is the single thing that prevents me from doing so.
It shouldn't bother me, I don't play. But I always think of playing and things like this make me not want to. I even was looking for a while of playing the way GW wants me to, and for instance only fielding 5 Assault Marines, since 5 is what comes in the box.
I agree. I played 40K for almost 25 years, with a few breaks here and there when life got in the way. I haven't played a game since the end of 5th edition or so, or maybe beginning of sixth. Every now and again I consider getting back into it, but the price point is the single thing that prevents me from doing so.
last time I played was around 2001-2002, shortly after the Tau first came out and IIRC just before the 3.5 Chaos Codex (which I bought but never got to use as I stopped playing right around then)
But yeah, price most of all, crappy rules second. I keep telling myself that there's a dedicated 40k group nearby, so I know I could get games in, just it doesn't feel like it's worth it as I'd have to spend a lot of money anyways, and if I played the way I want I'd probably get steamrolled. I picked up Warmachine about 2 years ago and i'm liking having actual good rules.
Well, collecting slowly since second edition makes for interesting armies and what goes out of style comes back in again.
I find the only expense is the darn BRB and the various codex's you think you will use for the combined mess this edition is. Due to the mix and match nature of the present game they MUST be selling more books than ever.
The occasional new models are fine.
Anyone buying from scratch: that would hurt.
"Making GW change." is not possible, never mind if you could get them to change: would they do it the way you would want? Not likely.
I have done what I can:
- I do not buy ANY supplies of theirs (paint, prime, wash, tools).
- I buy used where feasible if I need to bulk out a force.
- I have invested in other game systems to keep me happy for "pick-up" games.
GW40k stuff is pretty much for playing with friends or "regulars" I know at the FLGS.
No matter how GW messes around, at this stage they give me little reason to splurge on their product unless they can find a way to make the game fun for pick-up games again.
Right now it is like trying to negotiate an armistice otherwise.
A point i'd like to make vis-a-vis prices of the models is the inflation one.
Last time i looked at prices of models compared to when i was getting into 40k have basicly followed inflation - back in 1994/1995 a dreadnought cost about £20 for those lead ones in the styrofoam tray boxes - now it's £28 for a plastic one which doesn't suffer catastrophic existence failure when you look at it too quickly.
Obviously things are different with different kits, but it got me thinking that maybe it's my interpretation of the value of my money which is at fault here and i should be more angry at the politicians/bankers over that than GWplc.
So as i see it, complaints about the prices are more a sign that the wealthy are screwing the poor a bit too hard right now and the balance needs to be reset.
All that said; It kinda feels like the new kit prices are ones which GW knows will sell well and are raking in as much as possible - normally i'd say that probably is a sign of poor financial expectations later on in the year, but given the amount of 'must have' units which have been released (jetbikes, farseer jetbike, skitarii, onager, kataphrons, etc etc) and the spending that caused in people who wouldn't normally buy GW stuff, i'd say it's more them cashing in hard on the 'wants' of us with some cash spare - especially after seeing the rush there was for skitarii and jetbikes.
TheKbob wrote: The very best part is that GW is in a perfect position to still shutdown the market if they chose. They aren't constrained by the production limitations of other companies as they can do full production, save printing, in hous. All things considered, because of this, their miniatures should be the cheapest not the most expensive.
Given their deep range of flexible model kits, they'd really just need to open conversation (good with the flood of bad pent up) with folks, see what's selling in the competition, and use their remaining clout/weight to hire premiere rules writers and remake their side games while completely gutting their main ones from the horrible mess they are in.
The reason why GW gets so much disdain it's rationally justifiable from anyone who isn't emotionally attached, blinded by their rose colored FineGlasses. If more folks put aside their cherished love for the setting and realize how bad GW really is, then they'd hopefully change or at least bottom out sooner so we have a chance of rebuilding with new management.
I think the thing that boggles my mind is that people will adamantly refuse to look at facts and just wave away any commentary on GW's financials as "hate." I don't hate a company that is spending more money than they take in, just to fund dividends to investors, I question the sanity of the executives who decide to do that but I don't hate them.
SirDonlad wrote: A point i'd like to make vis-a-vis prices of the models is the inflation one.
Last time i looked at prices of models compared to when i was getting into 40k have basicly followed inflation - back in 1994/1995 a dreadnought cost about £20 for those lead ones in the styrofoam tray boxes - now it's £28 for a plastic one which doesn't suffer catastrophic existence failure when you look at it too quickly.
Obviously things are different with different kits, but it got me thinking that maybe it's my interpretation of the value of my money which is at fault here and i should be more angry at the politicians/bankers over that than GWplc.
So as i see it, complaints about the prices are more a sign that the wealthy are screwing the poor a bit too hard right now and the balance needs to be reset.
There's a lot more to it than that. Asset prices have skyrocketed in the last fifteen years, for example, much faster than overall inflation. The inflation rate is an average, but prices for individual things can vary enormously above or below that average. As technology improves it becomes possible to make more detailed models using different materials, but the process for doing so is more expensive than the old one. Even just changing the casting process or re-designing the moulds can raise prices, even if all other things remain equal.
In general though, while GW prices have risen, they're not really any higher overall than other companies charge for similar stuff.
Really? a 5 man assault marine squad at 15 dollars a few years ago, and now they are wanting 82bucks for 10? 30bucks for 10 to now 82 is a BIG price increase
In general though, while GW prices have risen, they're not really any higher overall than other companies charge for similar stuff.
Im sorry, that's just demonstrable nonsense.
When comparing like for like, GW are nowhere near the prices other, smaller companies with fewer economies of scale are charging.
When other companies are charging similar prices per model, those models frequently compose a greater proportion of a typical collection required to play at a given level.
No other company has such a high compulsory buy in to field a legal force as GW, their barrier to entry is a veritable stockade.
In general though, while GW prices have risen, they're not really any higher overall than other companies charge for similar stuff.
I'm sorry, that's just demonstrable nonsense.
When comparing like for like, GW are nowhere near the prices other, smaller companies with fewer economies of scale are charging.
When other companies are charging similar prices per model, those models frequently compose a greater proportion of a typical collection required to play at a given level.
No other company has such a high compulsory buy in to field a legal force as GW, their barrier to entry is a veritable stockade.
Hell, nearly all of those other companies outsource their manufacture![/i] GW is getting the same for cheaper because they do it all in house - and into the bargain they do not need to work their releases around the manufacturer's schedule.
They charge more because they have enough suckers buying their overpriced miniatures - and every time they lose a sucker they fleece the remaining victims for that much more.
Eventually they will have one customer that will buy one box of marines for 18 million pounds, once a year - and they will call it progress. (Why, yes, that was hyperbole... how could you tell?)
The Auld Grump - and paint for same at 10,000 quid per bottle.
*EDIT* Removed Warhammer $40,000 joke... it has been done.
shasolenzabi wrote: Really? a 5 man assault marine squad at 15 dollars a few years ago, and now they are wanting 82bucks for 10? 30bucks for 10 to now 82 is a BIG price increase
good point there, maybe fuelled by a re-design of the molds?
A US inflation calculator is a little limited in it's use for a company that is based in the UK.
I mean sure, it can tell you what the US prices should be in relation to what they are, but if you're trying to figure out what influence inflation is having on GW, UK inflation is more pertinent.
Azreal13 wrote: A US inflation calculator is a little limited in it's use for a company that is based in the UK.
I mean sure, it can tell you what the US prices should be in relation to what they are, but if you're trying to figure out what influence inflation is having on GW, UK inflation is more pertinent.
He was using dollars for his reconing so i figured it's best to use the same units while in converse to help things along a bit.
And wouldn't GW having a division in the US and selling goods there mean that the US inflation figures are in fact relavent?
@TheAuldGrump: why are those of us who still like GW minis suckers???
have you ever stopped to think that it is a source of enjoyment for some people???
could you be a little more insulting next time???
i bought my first Citadel minis in 1984...
i've been through all of the price rises since then, and never once felt like a victim...
nobody is forcing me to buy them, and i am not blind to rising costs...
i buy GW books and minis because i love the aesthetic and world, and i do it willingly and happily...
doing what i love makes me a sucker????
i doubt i will ever be priced out of collecting GW books and models, because i buy only what i like, and don't pay any of the "troop tax", or buy the "latest cheese"...
every single model i buy makes me happy, so what is wrong with that???
one thing that really gets me, is people's inability to seperate the execs from the design studio...
to me, GW is the design studio...
i can support the work of Jes Goodwin without saying Kirby is awesome...
as far as i'm concerned, Kirby & Cronies can all go to hell for how much they have upset the community, and driven away customers, but Jes & Co.'s work will always have my support...
with that in mind, i will continue buying what i like, not buying what i don't, and not worrying about the policies or economics...
Azreal13 wrote: A US inflation calculator is a little limited in it's use for a company that is based in the UK.
I mean sure, it can tell you what the US prices should be in relation to what they are, but if you're trying to figure out what influence inflation is having on GW, UK inflation is more pertinent.
He was using dollars for his reconing so i figured it's best to use the same units while in converse to help things along a bit.
And wouldn't GW having a division in the US and selling goods there mean that the US inflation figures are in fact relavent?
A bit, sure, but the majority of their business (and by that I mean employment, raw material purchases, overheads etc not just where they sell stuff) is outside of the U.S. and sterling inflation will be significantly more important.
Azreal13 wrote: A US inflation calculator is a little limited in it's use for a company that is based in the UK.
I mean sure, it can tell you what the US prices should be in relation to what they are, but if you're trying to figure out what influence inflation is having on GW, UK inflation is more pertinent.
He was using dollars for his reconing so i figured it's best to use the same units while in converse to help things along a bit.
And wouldn't GW having a division in the US and selling goods there mean that the US inflation figures are in fact relavent?
A bit, sure, but the majority of their business (and by that I mean employment, raw material purchases, overheads etc not just where they sell stuff) is outside of the U.S. and sterling inflation will be significantly more important.
If you live in the US the inflation rate is more than a 'bit' relevant, and 'shasolenzabi' came up with a blinder of an example to prove his point - it's probably one of the more extreme examples, but the fact that is true and probably isn't an isolated case really pushes the argument for GW 'pricing high because they can' being the true state of affairs.
This discussion has drifted into "do the products rise in line with inflation or not" and it seems that outside of core lines like the dreadnought (which was £20 in 1996 and is £28 now - inflation would have it at £29.40 using the consumer price index and £34.23 with the retail price index) and the razorback (which was £15 in 1996 and now is £25 - inflation says £22.05 using CPI and £25.68 using RPI) the price rises have been pretty stratospheric; the humble rhino was £6 (!) now £22.50 which is £8.82 CPI or £10.27 RPI and the mighty land raider was £13 (!!!) in 1996 and is now £45 inflation putting it at £19.11 CPI and £22.25.RPI.
Both these kits have had a dramatic overhaul in structure and looks so the aurgument is probably still open on those two but the trend continues with special characters which have not been re-designed - ragnar blackmane, ulrik the slayer, njal stormcaller and wolfgaurd runepriest (in terminator armour).
Ragnar, ulrik and njal all cost £5 then, and now cost £12 (£7.35 CPI £8.56 RPI); the rune priest was £3, now £12 and should be nearer £4.41 and £5.14 by CPI and RPI repectively.
With GW's old pricing you could get a feel for how much work and materials went into the model (fully plastic land raider vs part metal razorback) that you don't really get now unless you're really into your factories and machnes!
The point about the Marines is a pretty poignant one.
Considering that companies like Wargames Factory, or Gripping Beast (or Victrix, or the Perrys, or any of the other companies that make plastics for Wargames) can create what are VASTLY more detailed miniatures (in terms of surface topology) than a Space Marine, and they sell FOURTY of them for about ⅔ the price of a Box of Space Marines. . . .
That TENDS to suggest that GW's prices are a BIT inflated.
It costs no more to make the molds for a spree of Space Marines than it does to make a Sprue of Vikings, Republican Roman LegionIres, Imperial Roman Legionaires, Greek Hoplites, Saxon Fyrd, Napoleonic Fusiliers or Grenadiers/etc., or War of the Roses Men-at-Arms.
The plastic for 5 Space Marines costs LESS than the plastic for 12 Legionaires, or 10 Vikings, or the other sprues which contain the parts for more than five figures.
The design work for the Space Marines is non-existent, since that was done in the 1980's, when they were first created. All work since then has just been a repetition of that earlier work.
So... There is really NOTHING to support the claim that the Five Space Marines contained on the Sprue is worth the $40 it costs to buy them.
Look at a comparable plastic model kit from Tamiya, Revell, or ANY other high-quality scale model, and you will not even find that kind of expense for a model similar to the Space Marines (I think their WWII, 1/48 scale Soldiers are around $24 for a box of 12 to 18 soldiers, last I checked... It could have gone up some since then, I will admit). But the point remains that the value for money just does not exist with GW when compared to other products of similar type.
Azreal13 wrote: A US inflation calculator is a little limited in it's use for a company that is based in the UK.
I mean sure, it can tell you what the US prices should be in relation to what they are, but if you're trying to figure out what influence inflation is having on GW, UK inflation is more pertinent.
He was using dollars for his reconing so i figured it's best to use the same units while in converse to help things along a bit.
And wouldn't GW having a division in the US and selling goods there mean that the US inflation figures are in fact relavent?
A bit, sure, but the majority of their business (and by that I mean employment, raw material purchases, overheads etc not just where they sell stuff) is outside of the U.S. and sterling inflation will be significantly more important.
If you live in the US the inflation rate is more than a 'bit' relevant, and 'shasolenzabi' came up with a blinder of an example to prove his point - it's probably one of the more extreme examples, but the fact that is true and probably isn't an isolated case really pushes the argument for GW 'pricing high because they can' being the true state of affairs.
If you live in the U.S. Then US inflation is of course very relevant, but inflation is more led by the producer than the consumer, and as a UK based company, it is more relevant to look at UK inflation because this is what puts the pressure on GW's expenses, it is the cost of raw plastic, utilities, rents, rates, mortgages and wages in the UK in sterling which will be any driving force.
Sure, if you want to compare the prices in US$ now to what they should be then US inflation would be the figure to use, but UK inflation would be what drove any financial pressure on the majority of GW's overhead if you wanted to assess the true impact of inflation.
It's mostly moot anyway, as you yourself have pointed out most things are in front of inflation, in some cases significantly. Whether it's naked greed or (more likely) a pretty dreadful method of maintaining revenue, inflation isn't likely much of a component in GW prices.
jah-joshua wrote: @TheAuldGrump: why are those of us who still like GW minis suckers???
have you ever stopped to think that it is a source of enjoyment for some people???
could you be a little more insulting next time???
Bear in mind - the person that popularized the term 'Sucker' was P.T. Barnum - who was selling 'a source of enjoyment for some people'.
Your enjoyment of the game does not make you less of a sucker.
Knowing that GW is treating you like a sucker and buying anyway simply means that you are an informed sucker.
People continued going to the circus after P. T. Barnum called them suckers.
They too were informed suckers.
So, yes, the term 'Sucker' applies.
Me, I followed the sign pointing to the Egress....
And I am not going back to the GW circus until they stop treating their supporters as suckers.
Leaving the circus is the only way to stop being a sucker - no matter how much fun you have on the midway.
Kirby may liken himself to Jobs - but Barnum is a lot closer.
Except that Barnum was a competent manager.... B. & B. & R. B. C is a lot bigger than GW, even today, when most of the big tops have come down.
It may be that you think enjoying GW games is worth being a sucker - goodness knows there are things that I consider it being worth being a sucker for.... But when either you or I is being a sucker, enjoyment does not mean that we are not being suckered.
The Auld Grump - I took my girlfriend to an amusement park last week... and, trust me, I was suckered.... (The fried dough... it's all about the fried dough....)
Here is just an example of why people buying from GW are being 'suckered'.
If you buy a £50 box of the brand new Assault marines.
Do you know how much it cost GW plc research develop manufacture (including ALL associated overheads.)and pack this product ready to be transported to the shops?
£12.
Other companies basically add the logistic cost on to this price.(To ship the product to retailers and wholesale.)
And double this cost to arrive at the RRP..
Eg £12 +£1. logistic cost = £13 This is doubled to £26. RRP.
The retailer gets £6.50 profit , and the manufacturer gets £6,50 profit, off each box sold. (25% gross profit for the manufacturer.)
As plastic manufacture is geared to maximize profit from economies of scale.(The more you sell the more profit you make.)
Pricing to sell lots and lots makes much more sense if you are selling a product as a 'social event' as war games are.
(The more people play and have good experiences the more you sell to more people!).
If the current £50 price tag was just £26, then they would sell quite a lot more product.
So where does the extra £23 per box that GW charges go ?GW plc are not making 46% gross profit ...Only about 12 %.
All the extra £23 pounds GW customers pay on a £50 box set pays for GW plc outdated ideas of owning their own retail chain.
As GW plc have been reducing the value of GW hobby shops by making them sub par one man retail outlets.
You are actually paying an extra £23 on a £50 box RRP to make up for GW plc incompetent corporate management.
This is what I like to call GWs incompetent management tax.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Knowing that GW is treating you like a sucker and buying anyway simply means that you are an informed sucker.
Lanrak wrote: Here is just an example of why people buying from GW are being 'suckered'. If you buy a £50 box of the brand new Assault marines. Do you know how much it cost GW plc research develop manufacture (including ALL associated overheads.)and pack this product ready to be transported to the shops? £12.
This is the type of attitude that just makes no sense to me.
I like Coca-Cola, a nice bottle of wine, a good steak at a good restaurant, a decent car, a good computer, a good novel, and a good movie in the theatre. All of these things cost a fraction to produce of the final sale price; does that make anyone who enjoys these things "a sucker"? If someone buys a painting for thousands of dollars, are they a sucker?
I do not subscribe to the notion that: (a) people who spend money on things they enjoy in life are necessarily foolish or (b) people who produce desirable things in life for a profit, however high that might be, are necessarily looking for foolish people.
If I made something for $12 and I sold it for $50, and the profit were $38, **and people would buy it** that would be great! If people would pay $100 for it, that would be even better! Microsoft sells Office for a way higher multiple of its cost; Google sells advertising for a much higher multiple of its cost; the Avengers movie tickets (and Robert Downey Jr's salary) are sold at a very high planned profit margin.
How much is a box of assault marines worth? The same thing as a box of chocolates: it's worth what people are willing to pay for it. That could be $0, $25, $50. It has nothing in the least to do with production cost, other than that the manufacturer can't sell it for lower than that, without losing money. It should be manufacturer's goal to optimize their profits, not to make any particular person happy. If it were my company, surely this is what I would do -- of course, with the caveat that growing the market is a part of optimizing profits, which is something GW doesn't seem to care about.
The other thing that baffles me is the commoditization of miniatures. Miniatures, like video games, are not commodities. Just because you can buy a video game for $2.50 doesn't mean it will bring you as much enjoyment as a video game for $60. Or, maybe, with a particular title, the $2.50 title it will bring you MORE enjoyment, and the $60 will be a waste of money. Miniatures are the same thing. A miniature from company X is not identical to a miniature to company Y, even if they are of "equivalent quality". Hell, even two miniatures from Company X are not necessarily worth the same. Because they're not the same miniature! If I like Iron Man, I'll buy Iron Man comics, but not Superman comics, even if DC comics are 50% cheaper than Marvel comics. If I like George Martin, I'll buy the next Song of Fire and Ice book, even if it costs 50% more than the next JK Rowling book. Is that so hard to understand?
What you're not grasping is the crucial difference, which is the attitiude to you as the customer.
I'm sure most restraunteurs, movie producers, authors etc are, on a greater or lesser level depending on the immediacy of the relationship, appreciative of your custom.
Stories of GW's contempt for their customer base, and their apparent attitude that their customers are a resource to be exploited rather than an asset to be nurtured are what make the distinction here.
As Grump says, if you're aware of their behaviour towards their customers and other parties inside and outside of the wargaming industry and continue to buy, then all that means is you're well informed.
Azreal13 wrote: What you're not grasping is the crucial difference, which is the attitiude to you as the customer.
I'm sure most restraunteurs, movie producers, authors etc are, on a greater or lesser level depending on the immediacy of the relationship, appreciative of your custom.
Stories of GW's contempt for their customer base, and their apparent attitude that their customers are a resource to be exploited rather than an asset to be nurtured are what make the distinction here.
As Grump says, if you're aware of their behaviour towards their customers and other parties inside and outside of the wargaming industry and continue to buy, then all that means is you're well informed.
Yes, but being informed and buying product from a company that doesn't care about me is not being a sucker. I do this every time I fill up with gas at Chevron, purchase Frito-Lay potato chips, or a can of pop. Hell, every time I take public transit, or turn on the lights, or watch cable TV, use the cell phone, or browse the Internet. I eat McDonald's, and I'm certain they could give a crap about me. I don't need the company that makes stuff that I like to love me, I just need them to make stuff that I like (or need). Now, obviously, if I like the company, I'll be happier giving them more of my money.
Now, specifically Games Workshop: I disagree with the characterization that they have a poor attitude towards me. I've emailed both the White Dwarf guys and Customer Service, and always gotten a pleasant, human response, and even carried a conversation via email. I would actually say that Games Workshop treats me better than most companies that aren't local small businesses treat me. Certainly as well as I would expect any multimillion dollar company that's located halfway around the world would.
Do some of their rules infuriate me? YES. Do I wish some of the products cost les? YES! But you know what, I don't think it's because they don't hear the noise from the crowd, I think it's because they want the game a different way. Just because they don't do what I want doesn't mean they aren't listening to me, it just means they disagree. It's their product, and they can write it however way they want. If it diverges too much from what I want, or if someone makes something that I want more, or if they make a product I can't afford, my money will go elsewhere.
Now, specifically Games Workshop: I disagree with the characterization that they have a poor attitude towards me. I've emailed both the White Dwarf guys and Customer Service, and always gotten a pleasant, human response, and even carried a conversation via email. I would actually say that Games Workshop treats me better than most companies that aren't local small businesses treat me. Certainly as well as I would expect any multimillion dollar company that's located halfway around the world would.
I suggest you do your homework and read up on several things GW have said about their customers, either behind closed doors or in a court of law.
The latter has brought about the fact GW see the hobby as simply "Buying GW products". So, yeah...
Now, specifically Games Workshop: I disagree with the characterization that they have a poor attitude towards me. I've emailed both the White Dwarf guys and Customer Service, and always gotten a pleasant, human response, and even carried a conversation via email. I would actually say that Games Workshop treats me better than most companies that aren't local small businesses treat me. Certainly as well as I would expect any multimillion dollar company that's located halfway around the world would.
I suggest you do your homework and read up on several things GW have said about their customers, either behind closed doors or in a court of law.
The latter has brought about the fact GW see the hobby as simply "Buying GW products". So, yeah...
How do you think other multinational, multimillion dollar companies think of you? But regardless, I judge a company by how the *actually* treat me -- ie when I contact them -- rather than a snippet of something in a legal proceeding. Do you think Universal Pictures, at a corporate level, sees you as anything other than movie tickets and advertising dollars? On the other hand, if you call them, you'll get someone pleasant on the phone.
I might not like their answers, but (a) they always answer me, (b) with a real person and (c) and politely, intelligently and often in good humor. All I can ask for, from a company, man.
I can't even get this out of my cell phone company. Call... robot woman... hold...... 30 mintues later ... hold... 30 mintues later... "would you like us to call you back?". Followed by useless CSR in India who is reading from a flowchart, takes my comments and throws them in the garbage.
Azreal13 wrote: I don't think you're in a position to judge that dude.
Did you mean me? That I'm not in a position to judge whether I (or jah, for example), is a sucker?
That seems like an odd thing to say, as it's just a matter of opinion.
Yeah, it's an opinion that one isn't really in a position to make a call on for oneself.
I very much doubt anyone considers themselves a sucker.
Talys wrote:[I judge a company by how the *actually* treat me
That's a really, really bad metric. You mean you'd heartily endorse "Dirty Bombs R Us" as long as they had good CSRs on the phone and replying to emails?
Azreal13 wrote: Yeah, it's an opinion that one isn't really in a position to make a call on for oneself.
I very much doubt anyone considers themselves a sucker.
I do consider that I'm a sucker for liking Reece's Peanut Butter Cups, because they keep shrinking them every year, and I keep bitching about it, but I keep buying them. And I'm a sucker for getting my car washed by donation folks, because I'll do it even when my car is perfectly clean, and I'm a sucker for giving kids who knock on my door money for chocolates and cookies that I'll never eat. Not so much spending money on miniatures that I really enjoy.
But anyways, there's no point in arguing this, so I'll just disagree with you and leave it at that
Azreal13 wrote: That's a really, really bad metric. You mean you'd heartily endorse "Dirty Bombs R Us" as long as they had good CSRs on the phone and replying to emails?
That's a terrible comparison, because I wouldn't want the original, illegal product is intended to kill innocent people and would at best land the purchaser in a 7x10 cell for the rest of their life.
Give me an example of something that can actually be sold, and that I might actually want to buy, and let's have a debate about it. I think girl scout cookies are as good an example as anything else. I am almost 100% guaranteed to be a sucker by buying them even though I'll just toss them in the food donation bin; even though they cost five times more than a box of cookies at a grocery store; and even though I don't like cookies!
Another example might be British Petroleum: they probably have great customer service and great PR, but they're probably not a great company, at least not to the environment. However, other than the oil spill a few years back (the Deepwater Horizon) I actually know not that much about them, so I won't rush to a judgment.
Now, specifically Games Workshop: I disagree with the characterization that they have a poor attitude towards me. I've emailed both the White Dwarf guys and Customer Service, and always gotten a pleasant, human response, and even carried a conversation via email. I would actually say that Games Workshop treats me better than most companies that aren't local small businesses treat me. Certainly as well as I would expect any multimillion dollar company that's located halfway around the world would.
I suggest you do your homework and read up on several things GW have said about their customers, either behind closed doors or in a court of law.
The latter has brought about the fact GW see the hobby as simply "Buying GW products". So, yeah...
How do you think other multinational, multimillion dollar companies think of you? But regardless, I judge a company by how the *actually* treat me -- ie when I contact them -- rather than a snippet of something in a legal proceeding. Do you think Universal Pictures, at a corporate level, sees you as anything other than movie tickets and advertising dollars? On the other hand, if you call them, you'll get someone pleasant on the phone.
I might not like their answers, but (a) they always answer me, (b) with a real person and (c) and politely, intelligently and often in good humor. All I can ask for, from a company, man.
I can't even get this out of my cell phone company. Call... robot woman... hold...... 30 mintues later ... hold... 30 mintues later... "would you like us to call you back?". Followed by useless CSR in India who is reading from a flowchart, takes my comments and throws them in the garbage.
I think what he was trying to point out wasn't at the customer services people that work on the telephones (obviously they are paid to do a job, and GW get plus points for allocating enough resources for them to do it effectively) but at the executive/management level.
I have read (and actually heard for that matter) several pretty appalling comments from both my time working for GW and from other people I know that worked there. I would never repeat it in a public forum, suffice to say that the punter that comes into their shops is not exactly held in high regard.
You mention Universal Pictures, I agree there are probably a lot of corporations that regard their customers in the same way. The difference is that the wargaming and miniature industry is still pretty small fry, and has always been very personable. That whole 'answerable to share-holders, screw the rule balance it might impact kit sales by 10%' attitude just seems ugly and out of place in such a small industry. And especially while there are so many other companies that do care about putting out quality products, listen to their customer feedback, try and make better games. Without everything having to go through a filter of sales departments and hardline price/cost ratios.
I think it's something that a lot of, certainly the more veteran, customers feel and you certainly start to pick up on once you have been around for a while. Of course, like everything else, it bothers people to either a greater or lesser extent.
Talys wrote: Do some of their rules infuriate me? YES. Do I wish some of the products cost les? YES! But you know what, I don't think it's because they don't hear the noise from the crowd, I think it's because they want the game a different way. Just because they don't do what I want doesn't mean they aren't listening to me, it just means they disagree.
They have explicitly said that they do, in fact, not listen.
Talys wrote: I do consider that I'm a sucker for liking Reece's Peanut Butter Cups, because they keep shrinking them every year, and I keep bitching about it, but I keep buying them.
How is this different from Games Workshop? Apart from that you're not bitching about it, of course.
Pacific wrote: I think it's something that a lot of, certainly the more veteran, customers feel and you certainly start to pick up on once you have been around for a while. Of course, like everything else, it bothers people to either a greater or lesser extent.
See, I think this is the core of it.
I am totally desensitized to companies that make stuff I like, not really valuing me beyond my potential as a customer. A fantastic example is Blizzard Entertainment. I **love** their products. I will happily give them money for their next Warcraft, StarCraft, Diablo, Hearthstone, etc. product, despite knowing that their customer service is terrible, and that they barely listen to their customers. To me, a great product is much more important than the company "treating me as an valued individual", or whatever. I really don't care what the corporate culture is at a company that I'm consuming products of, unless they're horribly abusing their employees, doing something illegal, or the like.
By the way, I have corresponded with people inside GW other than customer service for various reasons. To a person, they have always been nice folks, and happy to just chat about models, 40k, and so on.
Lanrak wrote: Here is just an example of why people buying from GW are being 'suckered'.
If you buy a £50 box of the brand new Assault marines.
Do you know how much it cost GW plc research develop manufacture (including ALL associated overheads.)and pack this product ready to be transported to the shops?
£12.
Other companies basically add the logistic cost on to this price.(To ship the product to retailers and wholesale.)
And double this cost to arrive at the RRP..
Eg £12 +£1. logistic cost = £13 This is doubled to £26. RRP.
The retailer gets £6.50 profit , and the manufacturer gets £6,50 profit, off each box sold. (25% gross profit for the manufacturer.)
As plastic manufacture is geared to maximize profit from economies of scale.(The more you sell the more profit you make.)
Pricing to sell lots and lots makes much more sense if you are selling a product as a 'social event' as war games are.
(The more people play and have good experiences the more you sell to more people!).
If the current £50 price tag was just £26, then they would sell quite a lot more product.
So where does the extra £23 per box that GW charges go ?GW plc are not making 46% gross profit ...Only about 12 %.
All the extra £23 pounds GW customers pay on a £50 box set pays for GW plc outdated ideas of owning their own retail chain.
As GW plc have been reducing the value of GW hobby shops by making them sub par one man retail outlets.
You are actually paying an extra £23 on a £50 box RRP to make up for GW plc incompetent corporate management.
This is what I like to call GWs incompetent management tax.
It's simple to determine really. You take the company's stated cost of sales and divide it by the gross profit. I'll skip to the end and just say that they're earning roughly 70% profit on products sold. This would include sale of such items as hobby supplies and books but excludes royalties and other income.
About 43% of sales are direct channel through their hobby stores, about 13% via website and 30something% through trade channels. So, 56% or more of sales will not have the detracting 40% trade discount cutting into profit but even considering trade discounts, they're making 30% profit average per items sold.
The label of "sucker" will just not go anywhere constructively.
Some stuff you can only get from GW (mainly the grim-dark models) so you will get dinged for IP and their estimation of a monopoly supply and demand.
From my own estimation they are pushing that limit: Do I get the new assault marines or a "few" items for Star Wars Armada?
Hard thing to gauge that gaming bang for your buck, what genre means more to you in a monetary way?
I am progressively being distracted away from GW with things a little more shiny and "seems" to give me stuff of more "value" to me than what GW has on offer.
I have a mature enough collection I am in no hurry to get the latest hotness of GW and as the prices climb for less models or stuff in general they will just decrease in relevancy.
The OP title for this should be "Making GW change, before they cease to matter.".
Yeah Kirby, just keep cannibalizing the company to pay yourself those dividends until there is no more and pull out that golden parachute.
Azreal13 wrote: I don't think you're in a position to judge that dude.
Did you mean me? That I'm not in a position to judge whether I (or jah, for example), is a sucker?
That seems like an odd thing to say, as it's just a matter of opinion.
Yeah, it's an opinion that one isn't really in a position to make a call on for oneself.
I very much doubt anyone considers themselves a sucker.
Talys wrote:[I judge a company by how the *actually* treat me
That's a really, really bad metric. You mean you'd heartily endorse "Dirty Bombs R Us" as long as they had good CSRs on the phone and replying to emails?
I have to agree with Talys.
Expecting a company to care - at all - about the customers who use it's products reeks of entitlement. Also, you misquoted PT Barnum. His sucker reference was to folks who paid a nickel to see the snake lady, then got disappointed it wasn't really a snake lady. He always felt sure of his entertainment under the big top and its value.
What matters when you spend is you get what you expect. If you are spending anyways, knowing you aren't getting that, then sure. Sucker. But if all you expect from GW is a kit of 5 nice looking marines for 40$, and you get it, then you aren't being suckered. You're are being content, unthrifty, but content.
Azreal13 wrote: I don't think you're in a position to judge that dude.
Did you mean me? That I'm not in a position to judge whether I (or jah, for example), is a sucker?
That seems like an odd thing to say, as it's just a matter of opinion.
Yeah, it's an opinion that one isn't really in a position to make a call on for oneself.
I very much doubt anyone considers themselves a sucker.
Actually, I very much did call myself a sucker - in particular because I bought food while at an amusement park, and that specifically I bought fried dough.
The mark up on fried dough, as a percentage, makes GW seem reasonable - yet at the same time, I 'only' bought about eight dollars of fried dough - far less than even one box of space marines. (I bought two and a half orders- I split one order with my girlfriend, and let her steal another half from me....)
Between my last post and this one,my girlfriend sent me a link to that comic... it seemed applicable....
@TheAuldGrup: good reply, even though i still disagree with your rationale...
you misunderstand me, though...
i am not a gamer, and never have been...
i am a painter...
i have nothing to say about the rules being good, or bad...
i don't use them...
i don't feel like i am on some merry-go-round of must-buy products, as dictated to me by Kirby and Crew...
i don't feel like i have been suckered in any way...
i have had over 30 years of enjoyment from the books and minis that GW sell, and still enjoy the products just as much as i did as a kid...
just because someone else thinks i'm a sucker, if i don't feel like one, which one of us is right???
one thing that i think people overlook in these debates, is that GW is not a person...
i don't have to like Kirby & Crew, their descisions, the direction they take the company, or their contempt for their customers...
i do like the people who work the phones, man the shops, design, sculpt, and cast the models, make the artwork, and write the books...
i am not going to boycott a company, that has never done anything wrong to me personally, just because the management are greedy jerks...
especially not at the expense of taking away all of the good jobs the company provides, and the products that i enjoy...
jah-joshua wrote: @TheAuldGrup: good reply, even though i still disagree with your rationale...
you misunderstand me, though...
i am not a gamer, and never have been...
i am a painter...
i have nothing to say about the rules being good, or bad...
i don't use them...
i don't feel like i am on some merry-go-round of must-buy products, as dictated to me by Kirby and Crew...
i don't feel like i have been suckered in any way...
i have had over 30 years of enjoyment from the books and minis that GW sell, and still enjoy the products just as much as i did as a kid...
just because someone else thinks i'm a sucker, if i don't feel like one, which one of us is right???
one thing that i think people overlook in these debates, is that GW is not a person...
i don't have to like Kirby & Crew, their descisions, the direction they take the company, or their contempt for their customers...
i do like the people who work the phones, man the shops, design, sculpt, and cast the models, make the artwork, and write the books...
i am not going to boycott a company, that has never done anything wrong to me personally, just because the management are greedy jerks...
especially not at the expense of taking away all of the good jobs the company provides, and the products that i enjoy...
cheers
jah
As I said - it just means that you are an informed sucker - you do know that the company is treating its fans (if not you specifically) poorly.
And I am willing to boycott a company that is managed by greedy jerks.
That insults their fan base.
That indulges in frivolous lawsuits while attempting to be IP bullies.
That refuses to properly playtest and balance their rules.
That refuses to acknowledge a changing paradigm, and make the needed adjustments. then brags about it.
That provides a shrinking benefit for investing in the game.
And that engages in deliberate price gouging.
As for the folks working for the company that will be impacted when the company fails... the sculptors and artists are the lucky ones - they will not remain unemployed long.
The game designers... will likely fair less well - and given the recent crop of rules... deservedly so.
So, I am afraid that my reaction to GW failing is to shrug and say 'we all saw that coming'.
The biggest problem that I have is that Kirby has done a very good job of lining his parachute with gold.
I am more saddened by the impact on the 3rd party companies that support the GW games - and often do a better job of doing so than GW themselves.
@agnosto.
GW plc admit to a 76% gross profit before the cost of logistic and retail is factored in.
(GW sources tell me logistics runs at about 10% of gross profits.)
So without the cost of GWs own retail chain they would have a nett profit of about 68%.
After the cost of GW s own retail chain is taken out , they are left with less than 13% nett profit.
So the GW plc retail chain cost them 55% of their turn over.And only generates 43% of sales.
They spend £68M on their own shops to get £53M worth of sales.(To generate appx £38M profit.)
They spend less than £2M on the remaining sales channels that generate £70M of sales .(To generate appx £42M profit.)
So if GW did not have its own expensive retail chain and just sold through independent retailers.
They could halve the retail price , and make more nett profit due to increased sales and massively reduced overheads...
Lanrak wrote: @agnosto.
GW plc admit to a 76% gross profit before the cost of logistic and retail is factored in.
(GW sources tell me logistics runs at about 10% of gross profits.)
So without the cost of GWs own retail chain they would have a nett profit of about 68%.
After the cost of GW s own retail chain is taken out , they are left with less than 13% nett profit.
So the GW plc retail chain cost them 55% of their turn over.And only generates 43% of sales.
They spend £68M on their own shops to get £53M worth of sales.(To generate appx £38M profit.)
They spend less than £2M on the remaining sales channels that generate £70M of sales .(To generate appx £42M profit.)
So if GW did not have its own expensive retail chain and just sold through independent retailers.
They could halve the retail price , and make more nett profit due to increased sales and massively reduced overheads...
The numbers that I pulled from their financial statement IS pre-retail chain cost but the question was how much profit each model is sold for and what I stated takes production, manufacturing and storage into consideration.
What's obvious to you and I apparently escapes current management. I suspect these are the same people who feel that a UK business model will work in every market.
@TheAuldGrump: like i said, i don't feel like a sucker in any way, shape, or form...
if you insist that i am, that's your opinion...
i will simply disagree with you, and walk away...
i happen to like some of the minis that GW makes, enjoy the Black Library novels, and think Forge World is awesome...
i will continue to buy the things that i like, and not buy the things i don't..
simple...
I'm with Thunderfrog, Jah-Joshua, and Talys. How can you call someone who is happy spending money on something they want being a sucker? That sounds so silly. I spend about $200 every month on new books from Amazon. That's almost $2,500 a year, which is way, way more than I'll ever spend on Warhammer 40,000 or any other game, and the cost of printing isn't even a teenie tiny portion of the sticker price.
Each set of wedding photos is WAY more expensive than the paper to print them on. How about a wedding dress? They cost many, many more times the cost of fabric. You could buy just as functional clothing at Walmart!
What if I told you that the people that print those books you love are not only charging you a massive markup over cost, but they're laughing at you for buying them?
Azreal13 wrote: What if I told you that the people that print those books you love are not only charging you a massive markup over cost, but they're laughing at you for buying them?
i would believe you...
then i would buy what makes me happy, at the best price i can get it for, and enjoy something that brings way more pleasure than money in my pocket does...
Different strokes for different folks. I prefer money in the bank (or stock portfolio in my case) than otherwise. I stopped buying hobby related materials after the birth of my daughter, almost a year now....gosh, and instead converting my hobby budget away into stock; after a few choice investments, I could cash out now and buy a whole fleet of mantas or just use the dividends to buy an army every year and continue to put more into stock as I go, the best of both worlds and I only had to delay satisfaction a year to get here.
you are free to that opinion, Az, but i disagree...
if i didn't buy any products in this world that has a high mark-up, or was run by execs that snidely laugh behind their customers' backs, i'm sure i would be left naked, holding nothing...
it's a cruel world...
again, if i don't feel like a sucker, then i'm not one...
you, or anyone, else calling me a sucker for doing what makes me happy is just you being rude...
i say that i work all the angles, to get the best deal available, in the price rise thread, and i get treated like a hypocrite who doesn't really support the guys in the design studio...
i say i only buy what i like in this thread, and get called a sucker...
it's just rude and unnecessary...
you guys are obviously not interested in the viewpoint of anyone else, so there isn't really much point in a discussion...
agnosto wrote: Different strokes for different folks. I prefer money in the bank (or stock portfolio in my case) than otherwise. I stopped buying hobby related materials after the birth of my daughter, almost a year now....gosh, and instead converting my hobby budget away into stock; after a few choice investments, I could cash out now and buy a whole fleet of mantas or just use the dividends to buy an army every year and continue to put more into stock as I go, the best of both worlds and I only had to delay satisfaction a year to get here.
see, now this is a reasonable response...
good on you, agnosto...
personally, i could die tomorrow out surfing 20-foot waves, so i enjoy what i have today...
i also happen to make a living painting models, which means that everything that i buy can turn a profit...
every model i buy is an investment...
Azreal13 wrote: What if I told you that the people that print those books you love are not only charging you a massive markup over cost, but they're laughing at you for buying them?
I would tell you that you are crazy, because I assure you, Bantam Books or Random House doesn't laugh at its customers for, you know, buying books. I would also tell you that you're a person who doesn't like paying for nice things or that you don't like to read?
Since the latest Song and Fire and Ice book is translated into 40 languages at least some people agree that buying books is a worthwhile way to spend money.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jah-joshua wrote: personally, i could die tomorrow out surfing 20-foot waves, so i enjoy what i have today...
i also happen to make a living painting models, which means that everything that i buy can turn a profit...
every model i buy is an investment...
That is very neat, jah-joshua, and by the way, if I may say so, you have gorgeous models in your gallery! I hear you though. Leaving behind a fortune and not living a life without experiencing the things you want to experience is no way to live life. There has to be a responsible happy medium between spending all your money on frivolous things and spending none of your money on things that you want.
If you want and can afford Warhammer models or grilling cookbooks or a Naomi Novik novel, you should enjoy it!
agnosto wrote: Different strokes for different folks. I prefer money in the bank (or stock portfolio in my case) than otherwise. I stopped buying hobby related materials after the birth of my daughter, almost a year now....gosh, and instead converting my hobby budget away into stock; after a few choice investments, I could cash out now and buy a whole fleet of mantas or just use the dividends to buy an army every year and continue to put more into stock as I go, the best of both worlds and I only had to delay satisfaction a year to get here.
see, now this is a reasonable response...
good on you, agnosto...
personally, i could die tomorrow out surfing 20-foot waves, so i enjoy what i have today...
i also happen to make a living painting models, which means that everything that i buy can turn a profit...
every model i buy is an investment...
cheers
jah
I get you, mainly because I used to feel the same way, but my daughter coming along forced me to start taking the long view on a lot of things. I will admit that I cheat now and again, usually when forgeworld makes something that I absolutely have to have. ;-). I also get that you have a business related to miniatures so you don't necessarily have the leisure of waiting to buy.
Like I said, different strokes for different folks, value is completely subjective and what's worth me spending money on will be completely useless to someone else. I spent $2000 building my own gaming PC and my wife just shook her head; conversely I can't fathom her infatuation with shoes and Coach purses... :-D
Azreal13 wrote: What if I told you that the people that print those books you love are not only charging you a massive markup over cost, but they're laughing at you for buying them?
I would tell you that you are crazy, because I assure you, Bantam Books or Random House doesn't laugh at its customers for, you know, buying books. I would also tell you that you're a person who doesn't like paying for nice things or that you don't like to read?
Since the latest Song and Fire and Ice book is translated into 40 languages at least some people agree that buying books is a worthwhile way to spend money.
My point exactly.
Random House or Bantam don't mock the people who buy their products because they love them, because they appreciate that it is those people who keep the lights on and their children in shoes.
There's a compelling body of evidence, albeit largely anecdotal, that key senior staff at GW view their customers in a decidedly less sensible and appreciative light, and it is that attitude to people who deign to give them a massive amount more cash than common sense would suggest is appropriate for their product which prompted Grump's whole "suckers" commentary.
agnosto wrote: Like I said, different strokes for different folks, value is completely subjective and what's worth me spending money on will be completely useless to someone else. I spent $2000 building my own gaming PC and my wife just shook her head; conversely I can't fathom her infatuation with shoes and Coach purses... :-D
LOL. Let's not get into handbags and shoooooos. Without even getting into jewelry, my wife's handbag and shoe collection dwarf 30 years of hobby collecting. On the bright side, she can never say anything about me spending $50 on a box of 5 space marines.
If we are ever both unemployed and in dire straights, she can sell her barely-used handbags and I can ebay my new-in-box GW and PP collection
I think you'll have better luck herding cats than getting GW to change their policies on anything ...
... Until you own enough shares that they HAVE to listen to you.
*NOT just enough shares to get you a "say" in matters.
*Enough shares that EVEN the chairman of the board, CEO and CFO HAVE TO listen to you. Controlling interest amounts.
There just AREN'T enough of those shares out there on the market, though.
jah-joshua wrote: @TheAuldGrump: like i said, i don't feel like a sucker in any way, shape, or form...
if you insist that i am, that's your opinion...
i will simply disagree with you, and walk away...
i happen to like some of the minis that GW makes, enjoy the Black Library novels, and think Forge World is awesome...
i will continue to buy the things that i like, and not buy the things i don't..
simple...
cheers
jah
The only reason that you think that Forge World is awesome is because it is. (And I have a feeling that the folks inside of Forge World are a bit more in contact with their fan base than is standard for GW.)
Many of the GW minis are excellent - I will admit that. Though it seems to me that the number, or at least the percentage, of those excellent figures is diminishing, with computer created models badly made from pre-existing elements taking their place. (Triangular fur ticks me off - every time that I see it.)
But I will not argue about Forge World - they do indeed make some beautiful models.
Fascinating thread - but a lot of, shall we say, subjective emotional comments here about "value" and to use the crude term "sucker".
The facts are that gw sales and profits are both falling, and their margins are very good.
Again, these are business facts and ratios - comments about handbags, golf clubs or what ever - are irrelevant. Note: I am not ignoring or dismissing peoples personal value proposition - I am saying that any one person's perspective of value is independent of the company performance.
They are losing customers (increased prices, and flat revenues and greater releases means less customers = this is bad). Any person with a business or accounting degree can read their financials and see its not a good situation.
And their profits are falling.
This is a sign that they need to increase demand - and basic business to do so is either increase the value of their product, marketing, or lowering the price.
They brag about not doing marketing, and not needing it.
They think their product is the best in the world - and while you could debate as to if their minis are - the rules, sadly are not even close. When is the last time they released a faq? Where is their customer forum?
for them, customer service ends at the cash register of the sale of the MODEL - yes, if you have a physical problem with the model, they will replace it.
But many players also have problems with the rules - something they ignore.
They are a classic example of the old business catch phrase in the late 80s - paradigm paralysis.
Hopefully, eventually someone will realize that without the game to support their minis, and customer service to support that game, they will continue to shrink until they are a small 'boutique' minis company, but then be behind the quality of the players in that space (fine molds, Hasegawa , etc.).
TheAuldGrump wrote: Knowing that GW is treating you like a sucker and buying anyway simply means that you are an informed sucker.
Lanrak wrote: Here is just an example of why people buying from GW are being 'suckered'.
If you buy a £50 box of the brand new Assault marines.
Do you know how much it cost GW plc research develop manufacture (including ALL associated overheads.)and pack this product ready to be transported to the shops?
£12.
This is the type of attitude that just makes no sense to me.
I like Coca-Cola, a nice bottle of wine, a good steak at a good restaurant, a decent car, a good computer, a good novel, and a good movie in the theatre. All of these things cost a fraction to produce of the final sale price; does that make anyone who enjoys these things "a sucker"? If someone buys a painting for thousands of dollars, are they a sucker?
I do not subscribe to the notion that: (a) people who spend money on things they enjoy in life are necessarily foolish or (b) people who produce desirable things in life for a profit, however high that might be, are necessarily looking for foolish people.
If I made something for $12 and I sold it for $50, and the profit were $38, **and people would buy it** that would be great! If people would pay $100 for it, that would be even better! Microsoft sells Office for a way higher multiple of its cost; Google sells advertising for a much higher multiple of its cost; the Avengers movie tickets (and Robert Downey Jr's salary) are sold at a very high planned profit margin.
How much is a box of assault marines worth? The same thing as a box of chocolates: it's worth what people are willing to pay for it. That could be $0, $25, $50. It has nothing in the least to do with production cost, other than that the manufacturer can't sell it for lower than that, without losing money. It should be manufacturer's goal to optimize their profits, not to make any particular person happy. If it were my company, surely this is what I would do -- of course, with the caveat that growing the market is a part of optimizing profits, which is something GW doesn't seem to care about.
The other thing that baffles me is the commoditization of miniatures. Miniatures, like video games, are not commodities. Just because you can buy a video game for $2.50 doesn't mean it will bring you as much enjoyment as a video game for $60. Or, maybe, with a particular title, the $2.50 title it will bring you MORE enjoyment, and the $60 will be a waste of money. Miniatures are the same thing. A miniature from company X is not identical to a miniature to company Y, even if they are of "equivalent quality". Hell, even two miniatures from Company X are not necessarily worth the same. Because they're not the same miniature! If I like Iron Man, I'll buy Iron Man comics, but not Superman comics, even if DC comics are 50% cheaper than Marvel comics. If I like George Martin, I'll buy the next Song of Fire and Ice book, even if it costs 50% more than the next JK Rowling book. Is that so hard to understand?
You are a sucker if you continue to buy Coca-Cola at $4 a bottle from the airport ONLY, rather than buying it at some other location where it is 75¢ a bottle.
This is the analogy being used.
The claim that GW's customers are suckers is because GW's prices are grotesquely inflated compared to the market average.
You are paying more for a product than it is really worth.
And, before anyone steps in with the 'People charge what the market will bear" BS....
The "Market" is not perfect, and it is easily gamed, or rigged, such that a market will be filled with products that are either over or under valued.
This is where "bubbles" come from in markets: suckers who buy into a craze, only to have the floor drop out from under them. Some of the people buying into a bubble MAY manage to make money off it, but most will not, which is why Bubbles produce such catastrophic effects in a market when they collapse.
But that is irrelevant to the fact that GW has essentially suckered a huge population into paying more for their products than they are worth, and GWs financials show that this isn't sustainable.
Thank you for pointing out the 'Bubbles' - and it is very true.
It is also a cause for inflation, and in a niche industry a market leader increasing their prices beyond elasticity can lead to the entire market doing so - and being heavily damaged when that bubble bursts.
BeAfraid wrote: You are a sucker if you continue to buy Coca-Cola at $4 a bottle from the airport ONLY, rather than buying it at some other location where it is 75¢ a bottle.
If I'm waiting at the airport, I'm thirsty, and there's a choice between a warm can of Coca-Cola in my bag, and a cold one for $4, thanks I'll cough up the $4. If I can't afford it, I will go to the water fountain and drink from there.
Either way, I won't hate on the vendor in the airport, the airport authority, or Coca-Cola.
BeAfraid wrote: The claim that GW's customers are suckers is because GW's prices are grotesquely inflated compared to the market average.
You are paying more for a product than it is really worth.
This is assuming that miniatures are commodities. If I want Red Bull, it doesn't help me for you to say Dr. Pepper is being sold at 1/6 the price. It's not the same thing! If I like Grey Goose, it doesn't help that Smirnoff just because it is a lot cheaper.
To me, every miniature is unique, and its value to me is individually assessed, based on how I like it independently, its gaming value, how it looks with the rest of that collection, whether I want it for conversion purposes, et cetera. Generally speaking as a factor of what I'm willing to pay per hour of entertainment, miniatures by ANY company are about as cheap entertainment as I can find.
BeAfraid wrote: This is where "bubbles" come from in markets: suckers who buy into a craze, only to have the floor drop out from under them. Some of the people buying into a bubble MAY manage to make money off it, but most will not, which is why Bubbles produce such catastrophic effects in a market when they collapse.
But that is irrelevant to the fact that GW has essentially suckered a huge population into paying more for their products than they are worth, and GWs financials show that this isn't sustainable.
Just because a company chooses to cater to a smaller segment of the population (that doesn't include you) doesn't mean that it's not sustainable. It might be less profitable, but as long as it's profitable at all, it's infinitely sustainable. When they start to lose money, that's when you can say that it's unsustainable.
As has been stated earlier, GW would be suckering people if they said they were selling X, but gave you Y. If they sell you X, at whatever price, and you get what you paid for, then you are not being suckered at all.
You're not being a sucker for taking a woman out to an expensive restaurant, buying an expensive watch, buying popcorn at the movies, or buying a hot dog at the street corner, just because those things are pricey and there are cheaper alternatives. You're not even being a sucker for buying something at Best Buy for more money than it would cost on Amazon.
BeAfraid wrote: You are a sucker if you continue to buy Coca-Cola at $4 a bottle from the airport ONLY, rather than buying it at some other location where it is 75¢ a bottle.
If I'm waiting at the airport, I'm thirsty, and there's a choice between a warm can of Coca-Cola in my bag, and a cold one for $4, thanks I'll cough up the $4. If I can't afford it, I will go to the water fountain and drink from there.
Either way, I won't hate on the vendor in the airport, the airport authority, or Coca-Cola.
That not what he said at all.
And the last point about profit, if you understand their reports you wouldn't say that.
Just because a company chooses to cater to a smaller segment of the population (that doesn't include you) doesn't mean that it's not sustainable. It might be less profitable, but as long as it's profitable at all, it's infinitely sustainable. When they start to lose money, that's when you can say that it's unsustainable.
I agree with everything you said up until the above. Value is subjective and people aren't being "suckered" if they choose to spend their hard-earned money on GW-priced items. I make a very comfortable living and have stated that I will likely throw thousands of dollars worth of OK and VC fantasy models in the trash if 9th turns out to be as blinkered as the pessimistic rumors make it out to be. My money, my time, my property yet people in the fantasy thread were aghast, meh, whatever. I use this to illustrate that people place value on items differently; for me the models are counters to be moved on a make-believe battlefield and their 3D representations assist me in visualizing what the battle would look like. If I stop to enjoy the possession, I throw it away, much like you would do with used personal items of any other stripe. I don't give used items to people, generally, I have and odd, personal reason for this so when I gift someone with miniatures, I only do so with new items. Used things are donated or trashed, depending upon my feeling on the matter.
Back to your quoted statement. It would be asininely stupid of a retail game company to intentionally limit the reach of their merchandise. We're talking about a game, not taking someone out on the town, a new car, an expensive consumer good with world-renowned cachet, a game, and in a niche market at that. So, to intentionally ensure that you have as small a pool of consumers as possible is asking for disaster. GW has done this but I don't think they've done it intentionally; you see, the downside of not know who your consumers are and what they want is that you're unintentionally showing them the door before or shortly after they've started a relationship with your company. Over and over upper management has stated that they're in the business of selling toys to teenage boys but then pricing their product in such a way as to supremely curtail the number of this target group who actually have the means to purchase. They then set-up their retail chain as the primary vehicle for introducing people into their ecosystem but then limit hours of operation and accessibility by stripping the stores of the ability to serve clientele. They then look at falling revenue and admit that it is in part due to the one-man stores but only because the new structure hasn't had time to germinate.
I tend to get long-winded, apologies, but I work in an industry where you have to explain things as clearly as possible and I want to be sure that we understand each other. You believe that GW will change if and when they start to lose money; the fact is, they are losing money and have been doing so over the last several financial reports. They have only been able to maintain a positive balance sheet through some careful manipulation of corporate cost-cutting and restructuring efforts. We have now seen the end of any benefits from these efforts and from now on the company will survive or die on their own merits, there simply isn't any more fat to trim in my opinion, unless they start to rapidly close stores and produce a savings there but then that's a last gasp for their current business model and one that I highly recommend, particularly in the US and possibly Canada.
GW is currently healthy but they're paying dividends at rates higher than their EPS which is most certainly unsustainable by any economic metric you weigh it against. People are buying stock, but these are institutional investors who will divest themselves of stock seconds after GW appears to be taking the final financial nose-dive.
Back to your quoted statement. It would be asininely stupid of a retail game company to intentionally limit the reach of their merchandise. We're talking about a game, not taking someone out on the town, a new car, an expensive consumer good with world-renowned cachet, a game, and in a niche market at that. So, to intentionally ensure that you have as small a pool of consumers as possible is asking for disaster. GW has done this but I don't think they've done it intentionally; you see, the downside of not know who your consumers are and what they want is that you're unintentionally showing them the door before or shortly after they've started a relationship with your company. Over and over upper management has stated that they're in the business of selling toys to teenage boys but then pricing their product in such a way as to supremely curtail the number of this target group who actually have the means to purchase. They then set-up their retail chain as the primary vehicle for introducing people into their ecosystem but then limit hours of operation and accessibility by stripping the stores of the ability to serve clientele. They then look at falling revenue and admit that it is in part due to the one-man stores but only because the new structure hasn't had time to germinate.
Well, we differ on this, though I certainly concede that you could be right. In my opinion, the vision GW sees for its game world -- 40k -- is one where all the participants are highly invested model collectors who ALSO aspire to model and paint to a very high standard and ALSO like to game with like-minded hobbyists. That is, other people who have or want to have giant model collections and play them to re-enact scenarios. Yes, this demographic may be miniscule in 2015 and be so niche that it can't sustain a business the size of GW.
In my opinion GW would rather make less money catering to these folks that people who want to buy a few models, and pop into stores and casually play smaller scale games or board games. My only evidence of this is that GW seems to get rid of anything small scale, and doesn't really do any specialist or board games anymore, even though many of their customers have given very positive feedback. It seems to be the type of people that work there, at least from the glimpses that we can see.
There are lots of companies that decide to go exclusive rather than to go wide. In the jewelry and fashion, you see this all the time. Many services are like this. In my own world (software design), we are selective about our customers, and simply don't want customers that aren't a good fit for our company, even if it means a big profit. In the world of miniatures, Forge World is generally quite liked, and their products are priced only for the serious hobbyist with deep pockets, and they have no desire to make it anything but that.
Of course, like you say, GW could not be like this at all, and I concede it is entirely possible that they want the opposite, but have totally screwed things up.
agnosto wrote: You believe that GW will change if and when they start to lose money;
I actually mean, if they start bleeding red (losses exceed profits), they will have to decide to restructure or to restrategize. Barring that, even if they shrink as a company and even if shareholder value falls, I think GW will hold its course, because they're doing what they want to do. I don't think making less money will enact change, at least not under the current Board.
Again, I'm happy to concede that this is just an opinion of someone who is making casual observations.
Also, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that any of this is good for gamers, or that I particularly like any of it (though I may understand and tolerate it, and buy GW product regardless). In a nutshell, I would like GW to be more inclusive. I philosophy is that big tent is the way to go, because as you say, this is a niche market with a small enough customer base anyhow. Get people playing your game, make it a good game, and everyone will win in the long run, including the people that are the serious collector hobbyist types.
No, they are not, which is why this statement is obsured.
Talys wrote: Just because a company chooses to cater to a smaller segment of the population (that doesn't include you) doesn't mean that it's not sustainable. It might be less profitable, but as long as it's profitable at all, it's infinitely sustainable. When they start to lose money, that's when you can say that it's unsustainable.
They are losing profits faster than they can cut costs. The company has practically no middle management left and closed all its HQs in important markets like NA for feths sake. They have some great accountants who are manipulating the numbers but they are losing sales at a terrifying rate and are not doing anything to stop that, just hide it behind cost cuts.
No, they are not, which is why this statement is obsured.
Talys wrote: Just because a company chooses to cater to a smaller segment of the population (that doesn't include you) doesn't mean that it's not sustainable. It might be less profitable, but as long as it's profitable at all, it's infinitely sustainable. When they start to lose money, that's when you can say that it's unsustainable.
They are losing profits faster than they can cut costs. The company has practically no middle management left and closed all its HQs in important markets like NA for feths sake. They have some great accountants who are manipulating the numbers but they are losing sales at a terrifying rate and are not doing anything to stop that, just hide it behind cost cuts.
No, financially they're healthy. They have no debt and are profitable. They are a company in serious decline but they are financially healthy.
Nobody is more convinced that GW need to change direction than me, but until their revenue drops below their expenditure, they're not in any danger whatsoever.
No, financially they're healthy. They have no debt and are profitable. They are a company in serious decline but they are financially healthy.
Profitable this year is irrelevant.
How is falling profits healthy for even the short term?
They've been profitable for some time now, not just this year or even the previous. Their profit margin is falling and they're paying dividends at a rate higher than their EPS but none of this detracts from the fact that they are financially healthy. I fully expect the year-end report to be just as dismal as the last several but their cash reserves are sufficient to sustain their current business model for the next 2-3 years at least, thanks to all the cost-savings initiatives that were put in place over the last several years.
Azreal13 wrote: Assuming their revenue doesn't fall through the floor of course.
Which I would think will happen, but in all fairness I'm Australian and GW seem to be trying to pull out of our market and pretend our country doesn't exist so in other markets things might not be so bleak.
Azreal13 wrote: Assuming their revenue doesn't fall through the floor of course.
I don't currently expect that to happen; if anything, their, "and the kitchen sink" approach to product release will keep them treading water this year in my inexpert estimation.
It would be a surprise for sure, but there must be a tipping point where critical mass is exceeded and the lack of people playing means fewer people play and so on and so forth.
Whether things ever get to that point is very much up in the air, but somewhere there's a magic number after which the revenue will drop off a cliff.
Azreal13 wrote: It would be a surprise for sure, but there must be a tipping point where critical mass is exceeded and the lack of people playing means fewer people play and so on and so forth.
Whether things ever get to that point is very much up in the air, but somewhere there's a magic number after which the revenue will drop off a cliff.
Not yet though.
Probably.
Oh to be sure there is; one example is that GW has already hit one ceiling of sorts in price elasticity. Dropping sales volume after the last annual grand price rise indicated that more people were leaving GW than were entering and their response was to institute the current stealth model of increasing prices which further pushed people away being as consumers aren't as stupid as GW thinks they are..that and recruiting new customers is hampered by the extravagant entry price. One thing that I'm fairly certain of is that GW management did not anticipate as large a drop in sales as what they've witnessed so the corporate bigwigs put their heads together and we got the currwnr, "throw gack at the wall and see what sticks" release cycle.
BeAfraid wrote: You are a sucker if you continue to buy Coca-Cola at $4 a bottle from the airport ONLY, rather than buying it at some other location where it is 75¢ a bottle.
If I'm waiting at the airport, I'm thirsty, and there's a choice between a warm can of Coca-Cola in my bag, and a cold one for $4, thanks I'll cough up the $4. If I can't afford it, I will go to the water fountain and drink from there.
Either way, I won't hate on the vendor in the airport, the airport authority, or Coca-Cola.
Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I said, does it?
The analogy was that you would be spending $4 on that same bottle of Coke when NOT at the airport, or traveling to the airport EVERY TIME you want a Coke.
THEN you would be a "sucker" because you would be spending an extravagant amount of money for something that was available for much less elsewhere.
BeAfraid wrote: The claim that GW's customers are suckers is because GW's prices are grotesquely inflated compared to the market average.
You are paying more for a product than it is really worth.
This is assuming that miniatures are commodities. If I want Red Bull, it doesn't help me for you to say Dr. Pepper is being sold at 1/6 the price. It's not the same thing! If I like Grey Goose, it doesn't help that Smirnoff just because it is a lot cheaper.
To me, every miniature is unique, and its value to me is individually assessed, based on how I like it independently, its gaming value, how it looks with the rest of that collection, whether I want it for conversion purposes, et cetera. Generally speaking as a factor of what I'm willing to pay per hour of entertainment, miniatures by ANY company are about as cheap entertainment as I can find.
No such analogy is necessary. Whether miniatures are a commodity or not, there are still miniatures that have an inflated value, and those which do not.
"Commodities," as you are trying to define them, are not the only things that can have an inflated value.
BeAfraid wrote: This is where "bubbles" come from in markets: suckers who buy into a craze, only to have the floor drop out from under them. Some of the people buying into a bubble MAY manage to make money off it, but most will not, which is why Bubbles produce such catastrophic effects in a market when they collapse.
But that is irrelevant to the fact that GW has essentially suckered a huge population into paying more for their products than they are worth, and GWs financials show that this isn't sustainable.
Just because a company chooses to cater to a smaller segment of the population (that doesn't include you) doesn't mean that it's not sustainable. It might be less profitable, but as long as it's profitable at all, it's infinitely sustainable. When they start to lose money, that's when you can say that it's unsustainable.
As has been stated earlier, GW would be suckering people if they said they were selling X, but gave you Y. If they sell you X, at whatever price, and you get what you paid for, then you are not being suckered at all.
You're not being a sucker for taking a woman out to an expensive restaurant, buying an expensive watch, buying popcorn at the movies, or buying a hot dog at the street corner, just because those things are pricey and there are cheaper alternatives. You're not even being a sucker for buying something at Best Buy for more money than it would cost on Amazon.
Azreal13 wrote: It would be a surprise for sure, but there must be a tipping point where critical mass is exceeded and the lack of people playing means fewer people play and so on and so forth.
Whether things ever get to that point is very much up in the air, but somewhere there's a magic number after which the revenue will drop off a cliff.
Not yet though.
Probably.
I fear that that point is a lot closer than most of us believe. The decrease in revenue will only get sharper, and no amount of new releases can fix the inherent flaws in GW's system.
I think that the real indicator that the end is nigh will be Ebay sales and trades. When people stop buying up others' GW minis secondhand, that'll be the day that the player base has truly shrunk so far as to be too small to sustain 40K. Because let's be real, Fantasy is already unsustainable.
What I like to do at my FLGS is intercept newbs before they make it to the GW section of the store.
Then I invite them come play WarmaHordes, x-wing, or infinity.
If they ask, i just tell them, "GW is fading in popularity and has such a high cost of entry that finding new players is difficult."
If they mention that five guys from infinity costs as much as five guys for 40k, I just mention that those five guys are all you NEED to play infinity while those five GW guys are completely unusable by themselves for a game.
GW will listen to their customers when they are being sold off.
People who say "they made profit sin x quarter" are really missing the bigger picture that GW is not maintaining a sustainable business model. They haven't circa 2008-2009, and 2014 saw the first real cracks. It's juts going to get worse every year.
I think the point those folks are making is that the investors who receive dividends don't care if it's sustainable or not, they'll keep their money in until they stop making a buck.
Until those investors pull out, GW is financially healthy in the short term.
It might be bathing in SARS and H1N1, but at the moment, healthy is the correct term, as far as investors are concerned.
But how many of us are investors? It might be the right term for someone who never gives it a second glance until their dividend comes through, but it's a bit (grossly?) misleading in this kind of discussion, with people who have 'invested' in different ways, carefully monitoring their downward spiral.
To use your analogy, it's like a Harley Street doctor phoning a patient riddled with SARS, H1N1, and half a dozen other horrible diseases, every couple of months to see if they're still moving, and declaring them healthy if they say yes. All while the family and friends watch them coughing up blood and wasting away every day. It's stupidly inadequate, to put it mildly.
Whether you, me, or the masses grasp the definition of what it means to be financially healthy is irrelevant. It's not those who invests fault that we don't understand the correct financial terminology.
To be fair, I agree. I don't think GW sees 2020 under it's current ownership. I just hope whoever claims it has an idea of what to do.
My suspicions are GW is Mr. Kirby's hobby and he's happy to keep GW ticking along than to turn it into something he doesn't want it to be (whatever that means!).
SirDonlad wrote: I had a thought while reading threads about GW's behavior/decisionmaking that the only real way of forcing change in this company from our position is to buy shares - we are always complaining about the jumping through hoops to please them so lets become shareholders ourselves!
We clearly have the capacity for large purchases and a year of spending that money on shares instead of models might actually start a change in the company;
all we have to do is wait for a terrible sales report making the shares dip in price to maximise our input and then afterwards we have a say in the boardroom!
I'm up for it - i've never owned shares in a company before!
Let the company rot in its own filth.If i wont buy a marine from them..I aint going to buy a share
SirDonlad wrote: I had a thought while reading threads about GW's behavior/decisionmaking that the only real way of forcing change in this company from our position is to buy shares - we are always complaining about the jumping through hoops to please them so lets become shareholders ourselves!
We clearly have the capacity for large purchases and a year of spending that money on shares instead of models might actually start a change in the company;
all we have to do is wait for a terrible sales report making the shares dip in price to maximise our input and then afterwards we have a say in the boardroom!
I'm up for it - i've never owned shares in a company before!
Let the company rot in its own filth.If i wont buy a marine from them..I aint going to buy a share
Thankfully that is part of the plan
I suppose your angle on this begs the question that ifGWdid make a genuine change for the better towards the customers would we notice?
And probably more importantly - How far would they have to change to satisfy us? and Would that really generate greater profits?
I do like the metal pins with the webstore purchases though, and i feel that is something which could be expanded upon.
They would have to pull a Domino's and start a marketing campaign that says something to the effect of "Our products used to suck. We know that now, and we're revamping everything from the ground up."
nareik wrote: My suspicions are GW is Mr. Kirby's hobby and he's happy to keep GW ticking along than to turn it into something he doesn't want it to be (whatever that means!).
No, GW is Kirby's cash cow - and he intends to milk it 'til the bucket fills with blood....
...
On the bright side, she can never say anything about me spending $50 on a box of 5 space marines.
