It's like people think GW is still playing "eternal business". Silly, GW has been playing "Maelstrom of Business" since 7th ed dropped. In maelstrom of business, when you draw a Shareholder card, you better be ready to achieve that objective as fast as you can in any way possible.
-Filthy wargamers make less money than desired. In Eternal Business, investments are made to the competitive scene to grow popularity and increase staying power. However, if you draw a "turn a profit in X days" card that's not an option. Hence, charge the filthy wargamers to continue playing their game with more expensive more frequent codex drops.
-Filthy wargamers sometimes create profit but in unpredictable ways that causes random sales spikes and drops sales in other areas. It is believed that "cheesy net lists" cause these spikes. Therefore, introduce pre-built cheesy net lists in new codexes to direct sales spikes.
-Second game for filthy wargamers only makes up 13% of revenue as it lacks the bolstering power of moms purchasing space marines for young kids. Delete second game and replace with fantasy themed moms purchasing space marines re-enactment simulation system.
These all seem like brilliant moves to me. Perhaps people should just adapt to the new Metabusiness?
The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.
destrucifier wrote: The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.
destrucifier wrote: The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.
destrucifier wrote: The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.
Part of that is true. Part of it is WHFB is an inferior product. Little things like packaging movement trays with the models could have made a HUGE difference with percieved value
destrucifier wrote: The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.
Obviously it's the customer's fault for not buying an overpriced mediocre product.
destrucifier wrote: The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.
Obviously it's the customer's fault for not buying an overpriced mediocre product.
Yeah, those fething neckbeard customers. How dare they vote with their wallets. Obviously, they're too thick to appreciate a superior product.
Kirby sure taught them a lesson- he blew Warhammer Fantasy right up! They better watch themselves, or he'll blow 40k up too! And then whose faults will that be?? Think about that.
Accolade wrote: Kirby sure taught them a lesson- he blew Warhammer Fantasy right up! They better watch themselves, or he'll blow 40k up too! And then whose faults will that be?? Think about that.
Accolade wrote: Kirby sure taught them a lesson- he blew Warhammer Fantasy right up! They better watch themselves, or he'll blow 40k up too! And then whose faults will that be?? Think about that.
destrucifier wrote: The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.
You really need to detox from the consumerist culture. It is the job of a business to MAKE us want to buy their product, it is not the job of the customer to BUY gak and promote it themselves. GW doesn't do anything to make people want to buy WFB then it's somehow our fault it fails? How about put in effort to make decent rules, or community events based on what customers want? Market research? Demos? Product trials?
If you look at the actions of GW plc as those of a large company in steady decline.
Being managed by a good accountant from a small business, who has not got the skill set to be pro active and reverse the decline.
But is just doing what he thinks is best to slow down the decline as much as possible.
it really does explain the way GW plc behaves.
Imagine if a motor vehicle company like Ford had a C,E,O who had no idea about how engines worked.
And just made decisions based on power plant design, based on fuel consumption and exhaust emissions.
And ignored all communication with the designers making the engines and what customers were asking for as a whole.
But just fixated on these two elements at the exclusion of everything else.(Because he believes these are the only important issues.)
And turned all the motor vehicles into pedal power.Totally missing the big picture of what a MOTOR vehicle company is about.
It sounds ridiculous I know.
But when the man in charge of GAMES Workshop, just focuses on '..selling toy soldiers to children..'(His words NOT mine.)
You can see the reason for my analogy.
destrucifier wrote: The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.
Not that I play WFB, but... I think that ANY company with a $160+ million market capitalization, a giant IP, and rabid fan base that will buy nearly ANYTHING that posts consistent quarterly losses and lacks a social media foot print in the second decade of the 21st century speaks for itself.
Why is Hasbro booming? Mattel following. GW, in third is cratering. Is it because of some inate genetic superiority or better management?
Why arent they making more accessible board games? Better computer games? Aquiring other game companies? Making toys? Aps? How much non GW stuff you you buy to play GW stuff? Why arent they making FAT mats? Why arent they sponsoring major tournaments? Sponosoring events is a bad business model?! Look at Red Bull they are $1b market cap beverage company that sponsors air races? Oracle sponsors the dang americas cup? GW can't even get an international competitive circuit put together? Heard of Twitch? Why arent they on there? A free video game (league of legends) has international comps....
This company is sitting on a golden egg, but they aren't doing ANYTHING with it except killing it with crummy rules and short sighted strategic decisions like squeezing FLGS and simultaneously CLOSING their corporate franchisees?
Doesn't really seem like enlightened leadership to me... but what do I know about it.... I am just a consumer....
frozenwastes wrote: The main reason people have a low opinion of GWs intelligence is that they shrank and stagnated in an expanding and thriving industry.
I thought we established in another thread that miniature wargaming isn't growing at all, but is rather stable. Other companies are taking pieces of GWs pie but the pie isn't getting bigger.
I've said it before; They are an over excited child trying to cling onto a space hopper that's grown to big for them to ride. They make mistakes and break stuff, but still are entertaining many of us with their efforts.
destrucifier wrote: The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.
You really need to detox from the consumerist culture. It is the job of a business to MAKE us want to buy their product, it is not the job of the customer to BUY gak and promote it themselves. GW doesn't do anything to make people want to buy WFB then it's somehow our fault it fails? How about put in effort to make decent rules, or community events based on what customers want? Market research? Demos? Product trials?
You have not noticed the overwhelming sarcasm that pervades this thread, but I will play devil's advocate. The players make the game what it is. If the other players are fun to interact with, you'll have a good time no matter how bad the rules are. If interacting with them is tedious, the game won't be fun no matter how good the rules are. Without the community you just have some books and action figures. From a business perspective the quality of the rules is irrelevant. Just as McDonald's does not worry about making top-rated food, GW has no reason to worry about making top-rated games. If people like it they'll buy it, if they don't then it's time to make something different.
I thought we established in another thread that miniature wargaming isn't growing at all, but is rather stable.
The comes entirely from a single US distributor's data. There is no, and will never be, hard figures on the overall size of wargaming. However the sheer range of toy soldiers today is unprecedented, so in that sense Wargaming is growing and its entirely possible, even probable, that it is growing economically as well.
frozenwastes wrote: The main reason people have a low opinion of GWs intelligence is that they shrank and stagnated in an expanding and thriving industry.
So they've had their monopoly yanked out from under them and they're somehow supposed to be just as successful as before? They were better off as the big fish in a small pond.
destrucifier wrote: The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.
You really need to detox from the consumerist culture. It is the job of a business to MAKE us want to buy their product, it is not the job of the customer to BUY gak and promote it themselves. GW doesn't do anything to make people want to buy WFB then it's somehow our fault it fails? How about put in effort to make decent rules, or community events based on what customers want? Market research? Demos? Product trials?
You have not noticed the overwhelming sarcasm that pervades this thread, but I will play devil's advocate. The players make the game what it is. If the other players are fun to interact with, you'll have a good time no matter how bad the rules are. If interacting with them is tedious, the game won't be fun no matter how good the rules are. Without the community you just have some books and action figures. From a business perspective the quality of the rules is irrelevant. Just as McDonald's does not worry about making top-rated food, GW has no reason to worry about making top-rated games. If people like it they'll buy it, if they don't then it's time to make something different.
It's almost like one of those movie montages where a creator becomes popular, and struggles to deal with the monetary fallout of the popularity, until the end result becomes unrecognisable.
Except it's not wrapped up in 180 minutes, the songs have been cut, and the CGI is lousy... Poor GW, he just wanted to entertain...
Mcdonald's only pretends to worry about the quality of its food, and that "quality" is more a question of raw data for display on a nutritional chart. Their experimentation with "healthy" food has hurt the company's profits terribly, and was essentially a desperate attempt to improve their PR after the mass hysteria provoked by sensationalist propaganda like the film Super Size Me.
Trust me, the core of their business is still the greasy, unhealthy food upon which they built their company. Whatever market research they're doing is a waste of money because people are really still just buying the big macs, mcnuggets and fries. No need for research, the sales figures speak for themselves.
Age of Sigmar is more like the Arch Deluxe of the mid 1990s, or one of those ridiculous salads they were selling the last time I went to a Mcdonalds (ten years ago at least.) An experimental niche item that exists not to earn a profit, but to make their menu more attractive as a whole.
I think it's amusing that there are people who actually think GW would make more money if they wrote better rules or put more research into their writing. Such a naive and childlike understanding of the world, these people have. Such baffling ignorance of the way business works in the real world.
The truth of course is that rules are worthless. They're just words arbitrarily scrawled onto a piece of paper. GW is a company that makes models, and they only publish rules as an accessory for the models. They couldn't care less if you like the game or even if you play the game. They just want you to buy the models.
The quality of rule writing and testing have never affected a game's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with pretty playing pieces is worth ten billion perfectly written rulesets.
You're right.
GW had once a button "Gaming" on the homepage.
This has been replaced by "Painting and Modeling".
The rule set is important at least among the players I know.
Recently there was a threat about the playability of 40k.
The main tenor has been that it is only playable in a closed group.
Mr. Correct wrote: I think it's amusing that there are people who actually think GW would make more money if they wrote better rules or put more research into their writing. Such a naive and childlike understanding of the world, these people have. Such baffling ignorance of the way business works in the real world.
The truth of course is that rules are worthless. They're just words arbitrarily scrawled onto a piece of paper. GW is a company that makes models, and they only publish rules as an accessory for the models. They couldn't care less if you like the game or even if you play the game. They just want you to buy the models.
The quality of rule writing and testing have never affected a game's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with pretty playing pieces is worth ten billion perfectly written rulesets.
I don't understand why anyone but the sub 1% (who can paint an army to any kind of display standard) would want to spend so much money on models for the sake of models.
Making a joke game just to sell models sounds like foolishness to me.
Mr. Correct wrote: I think it's amusing that there are people who actually think GW would make more money if they wrote better rules or put more research into their writing. Such a naive and childlike understanding of the world, these people have. Such baffling ignorance of the way business works in the real world.
The truth of course is that rules are worthless. They're just words arbitrarily scrawled onto a piece of paper. GW is a company that makes models, and they only publish rules as an accessory for the models. They couldn't care less if you like the game or even if you play the game. They just want you to buy the models.
The quality of rule writing and testing have never affected a game's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with pretty playing pieces is worth ten billion perfectly written rulesets.
Why else do the majority of people buy the models, if not to play the game? If the rules are bad, less people will play the game, and so less people will buy the models. If the rules were written well, more people would probably play (there's other factors such as price obviously) and so more models would be sold. The fact that GW doesn't care whether we like the rules or not doesn't mean that they shouldn't care, or that it doesn't affect sales. The quality of rules definitely does affect a games success these days, I think, because of how much more competition there is. It didn't affect GW 30 years ago because they were about the only Wargaming company around. Now a days there's plenty of attractive alternatives, with better models, better rules, or both.
Mr. Correct wrote: I think it's amusing that there are people who actually think GW would make more money if they wrote better rules or put more research into their writing. Such a naive and childlike understanding of the world, these people have. Such baffling ignorance of the way business works in the real world.
The truth of course is that rules are worthless. They're just words arbitrarily scrawled onto a piece of paper. GW is a company that makes models, and they only publish rules as an accessory for the models. They couldn't care less if you like the game or even if you play the game. They just want you to buy the models.
The quality of rule writing and testing have never affected a game's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with pretty playing pieces is worth ten billion perfectly written rulesets.
On the flip side, the majority of the customers do play the game. The community of people who simply paint models aren't enough to sustain a company the size of Games Workshop. A figure here and there with a few weeks effort put into it is nice for the buyer, but for the seller, well, they need to pay wages, rent, manufacturing costs, etc.
A badly written ruleset doesn't give the larger mass of customers a reason to buy a model - while it might be a pretty model, if it doesn't see the tabletop, there's no reason to spend the money on it. A good example is Tyranids - they were once the best selling xenos model line they had, in 4th edition when they had a very powerful army list and were a top teir competitive army. Ever since 5th edition? Yeah, they're languishing at the bottom. They are maybe the best realised insectoid alien race model range on the market right now, but those models aren't selling themselves on looks, because there's a terrible army list that fails to work within the framework of the game rules.
Of course, some companies can get away with surviving on model sales alone. Corvus Belli gives their rules away for free, and through market research they know a significant amount of customers buy their models simply to paint, for whom they also made a specialty range of models. It also helps that they make some of the most amazingly detailed mass producton sci fi miniatures available right now. The painters really get their moneys worth. They still, however, maintain a balanced ruleset with balanced army lists because they know that the majority of the cusomters play the game, and people aren't going to buy a model that doesn't have an effect in the game worth considering (case in point, dropping their own insectoid alien race range, the Exrah, due to flagging sales due to in game impact).
Indeed, the rule set is decisive.
Here we noticed that with the 6th and 7th Ed of 40k, players were more and more looking for alternative tabletop games.
A large majority went into WMH and recently Boltaction, Infinity, and Xwing are played at the major gaming hours.
Some of the stuff I've read in the investors preambles is insane, not so much unintelligent as what is this guy smoking? Things like boasting how they hire for attitude not skill (I hope the reality is that you do need to show skill and experience to get senior positions but it's still a funny thing to proclaim), how market research is 'otiose in a niche' because their customers buy what they sell, complaining how the legal system is set up to prevent 'stealing pigs' and the lengthy ramble about how 3D printing isn't ever going to be a thing even over a decade away (this seems shortsighted, technology shifts a lot in ten years), and finally dismissing things like Pokemon because 'who remembers them'.
The Chapterhouse case had many moments from senior staff like Alan Merrett, head of IP, having basic IP law explained to him, and his making comments about 'people buy what we sell'.
It adds up to a company run by people who seemingly have their heads wedged up their asses. Maybe they're not unintelligent, but they seriously need some new people that can bring a fresh perspective to things instead of just promoting another long term board member to CEO to fuel the yes-man culture around Kirby.
I thought we established in another thread that miniature wargaming isn't growing at all, but is rather stable.
The comes entirely from a single US distributor's data. There is no, and will never be, hard figures on the overall size of wargaming. However the sheer range of toy soldiers today is unprecedented, so in that sense Wargaming is growing and its entirely possible, even probable, that it is growing economically as well.
With more buyers sidestepping the distribution chain, by going directly to the game companies.
Hell, Paizo has a subscription model! So people get their $20 - $50 worth of RPG material mailed right to them every month.
The Pathfinder Battles minis are selling out on a regular basis, and also have a subscription model.
Many, many smaller companies have given up on the distributors entirely, and rely on direct sales.
Which, I believe is where GW is headed - rather than increasing sales they are moving to a direct sales model.
Despite being the most widely distributed of the tabletop games.
Kirby would rather that GW get a bigger piece of a smaller pie - looking at percentages, not volume.
destrucifier wrote: The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.
True.
Been to Gencon multiple times. Quoted for eternal truth.
destrucifier wrote: The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.
True.
Been to Gencon multiple times. Quoted for eternal truth.
Quoted for eternal ridiculousness. Neckbeards are a problem, but when you lay the many, many failures of GW and it's games - and their obvious, internally-generated causes - at their feet, you're just taking scapegoating to an extreme length.
GW seemed hugely popular when I was younger, there was a great following for many games like Necromunda. All that is gone along with the goodwill. I don't think that's on the customer, GW have changed the way they operate and its cost them business.
wuestenfux wrote: JJ is probably the most intelligent employee at GW ever.
This doesn't sound like sarcasm at all.
Actually, it's probably accurate. Look at who his competition in the company is for the title of "most intelligent". You got a shampoo salesman who insults his customer base publicly playing CEO and a gym teacher playing IT wizard. Jervis is practically a rocket scientist by comparison.
Also, I'm surprised I was even able to respond in this thread. Figured it would last 4 posts before being shut.
Mr. Correct wrote: I think it's amusing that there are people who actually think GW would make more money if they wrote better rules or put more research into their writing. Such a naive and childlike understanding of the world, these people have. Such baffling ignorance of the way business works in the real world.
The truth of course is that rules are worthless. They're just words arbitrarily scrawled onto a piece of paper. GW is a company that makes models, and they only publish rules as an accessory for the models. They couldn't care less if you like the game or even if you play the game. They just want you to buy the models.
The quality of rule writing and testing have never affected a game's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with pretty playing pieces is worth ten billion perfectly written rulesets.
Mr Correct, this is exactly what GW managment says. Then look at the stock price fundamentals. Look at Dreadfleet. Look at FFG's rapid growth. Look at Hasbro.
Can you enlighten us children about the world of business? Tell us about your personal experience? Are you an international financeer, entrepeneur, run a multi-million dollar corporation, or what qualifies you to call other posters "children"? Or perhaps can you enlighten us to what makes you think that this "business as usual" model of GW is working? I have been an entrepeneur. I have started a still successful businesses and sold it. I sell internationally currently. And I am piloting my main current business, putting two kids through college and supporting a family. I don't feel as if my opinion is naive or childish....
wuestenfux wrote: JJ is probably the most intelligent employee at GW ever.
This doesn't sound like sarcasm at all.
Actually, it's probably accurate. Look at who his competition in the company is for the title of "most intelligent". You got a shampoo salesman who insults his customer base publicly playing CEO and a gym teacher playing IT wizard. Jervis is practically a rocket scientist by comparison.
Also, I'm surprised I was even able to respond in this thread. Figured it would last 4 posts before being shut.
And shall we add the person in charge of IP, for extra comic relief? Who didn't know the difference between Trademark and Copyright?
In one corner you have the neckbeards, and in the other you have the fanboys.
Two teams enter... only the survivors leave. (My bet is on the neckbeards - they're big and wily.)
The Auld Grump - I can't grow a neckbeard... I have a hard enough time growing a pencil mustache.
destrucifier wrote: The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.
True.
Been to Gencon multiple times. Quoted for eternal truth.
Quoted for eternal ridiculousness. Neckbeards are a problem, but when you lay the many, many failures of GW and it's games - and their obvious, internally-generated causes - at their feet, you're just taking scapegoating to an extreme length.
My response was in regards to the underlined portion. GW makes horrible rules and business decisions both. But a helluva lot of what will kill games is ravenous fans who glom onto you and try to force you to do everything their way. I have had situations where my wife was at either GenCon or the LGS with me, and had some rabid fan hear a comment of hers, butt in, and try to go into great depth about something in a negative fashion.
Why not blame the customer?
If its good enough for GW...
Lots of customers of wargames (what few there are near me) are a huge part of why I only play at home with buddies. I don't like to constantly hear about how "wrong" I am about some army idea that I am working on that I find fun, because some neckbeard thinks I should be playing Online Meta build "X", or top-tier army "Y" if I "want to do anything other than waste my time". Luckily, years of experience knowing what I need for my personal enjoyment lets me ignore them, but lots of newbies could easily be driven away.
But yes, GW confuses the ever-loving hell out of me sometimes, with the tangents they will take with their games. They seem overtly hostile to themselves, sometimes, and need to take a look at what went on in the years that got them the most successful.
I don't think a small portion of over zealous, socially inept fans was, is, or will be a significant factor of a game's success or failure. A small part, maybe, but a big part of why Fantasy failed? That'd take some serious argumentation to convince me.
Maybe not all over, but a given area it sure as hell can. There have been instances where my wife was picking up a box of minis for a gift for me. She new they were the exact unit that I was looking for, and had random customers in the aisle butt in over her shoulder and tell her they were a poor choice to get someone for a gift, because some other unit in their opinion was "much" better.
Depends on the area. I'll bet a newbie looking at Age of Sigmar here on Dakka is sure as hell going to get pushed away from the game far more effectively that anything GW marketing would do, regardless of where they are going to be gaming, unless that area has something overwhelmingly positive to counteract that.
It all depends. I know you think I am eternally wrong, but fellow customers at a place a gamer plans on playing such a game at can make a much larger impact (positive or negative) on sales than a Company's ad campaigns. I know of places where a store can move tons of Warmachine/Hordes (even earlier in it's lifespan than now, like the Prime 1.0/pre Hordes days where it was a teeny company) but you will see 40K of all shapes and sizes stock sit stagnant for months. And earlier in that games lifespan it was healthy and growing, but not even close to the wider 40K popularity.
Modern GW still sucks at being a likeable company versus pre-2000 GW though.
A rabid, over enthusiastic element is a normal element of fandom, and I don't see them being blamed for putting people off a more casual interest in any movie series, TV series, pop group, celebrity etc etc.
AegisGrimm wrote: Depends on the area. I'll bet a newbie looking at Age of Sigmar here on Dakka is sure as hell going to get pushed away from the game far more effectively that anything GW marketing would do, regardless of where they are going to be gaming, unless that area has something overwhelmingly positive to counteract that.
It all depends. I know you think I am eternally wrong, but fellow customers at a place a gamer plans on playing such a game at can make a much larger impact (positive or negative) on sales than a Company's ad campaigns.
Modern GW still sucks at being a likeable company versus pre-2000 GW though.
I guess my point is that the personalities of a select few gamers in certain areas are a much smaller determinant of success or failure than factors like price, value, quality of the rules, and other business practices.
I don't doubt for a second some mouth breather in a GW could ruin anyone's desire to play at that given location, or that someone may be put off from playing a game based on online reviews (though really, if there's that much negativity around a product, it stands to reason it may not be worth buying), but those factors are not the big part of the reason fantasy failed as was posted earlier.
AegisGrimm wrote: Maybe not all over, but a given area it sure as hell can. There have been instances where my wife was picking up a box of minis for a gift for me. She new they were the exact unit that I was looking for, and had random customers in the aisle butt in over her shoulder and tell her they were a poor choice to get someone for a gift, because some other unit in their opinion was "much" better.
Yep. There was a socially inept group of about 6 people at my FLGS that ended up being banned because of hygene issues and getting into people's faces as they were trying to play games or shop. The times they played any games usually devolved into arguments or loud sex jokes.
Sounds a bit like a club I haven't been to in a while. But that hasn't put me off the games they play or put an assumption in my head that they're representative of all those games' players. To wit...
Mr. Correct wrote: I think it's amusing that there are people who actually think GW would make more money if they wrote better rules or put more research into their writing. Such a naive and childlike understanding of the world, these people have. Such baffling ignorance of the way business works in the real world.
The truth of course is that rules are worthless. They're just words arbitrarily scrawled onto a piece of paper. GW is a company that makes models, and they only publish rules as an accessory for the models. They couldn't care less if you like the game or even if you play the game. They just want you to buy the models.
The quality of rule writing and testing have never affected a game's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with pretty playing pieces is worth ten billion perfectly written rulesets.
All 3 of our cooperating clubs with about 100 members in total have almost entirely switched from purchasing via webstores to buying from recasters. Not because we cannot afford it, quite in the contrary. But because of the rules. We decided to no longer support a company that purposefully releases a poorly developed product. Take that as anecdotal experience, if ya want, but the last purchase alone was about a (at GW prices) 30.000$ net loss for them.
As contradictory as it seems, I also started to seek out recasts as a way to not support GW, without cutting my own nose off.
The fact they offer more compelling prices was, initially at least, a bonus. These days I simply don't think I could afford to have the freedom with hobbying I currently enjoy without the cheaper prices, so the pricing has become increasingly important.
That said, the prices are so far out of whack on some lines for me, that I struggle to see the value in even the recast prices.
Azreal13 wrote: A rabid, over enthusiastic element is a normal element of fandom, and I don't see them being blamed for putting people off a more casual interest in any movie series, TV series, pop group, celebrity etc etc.
I don't know how many here ever watched "The Highlander", tv series but I remember an episode where they were searching for someone, and one of the helpers was out front of a GW shop with the main characters saying there was no one in there but strange people.
As contradictory as it seems, I also started to seek out recasts as a way to not support GW, without cutting my own nose off.
The fact they offer more compelling prices was, initially at least, a bonus. These days I simply don't think I could afford to have the freedom with hobbying I currently enjoy without the cheaper prices, so the pricing has become increasingly important.
That said, the prices are so far out of whack on some lines for me, that I struggle to see the value in even the recast prices.
I think we've been tru this discussion before, but recasts are absolutely not worthy. I bought a recast one, the promise that there is no delivery cost was a lie, they still charged me with 8 dollars. Still cheaper than GW, but when the stuff arrived at the customs I had to pay extra 20% tax just for receiving stuff from outside the EU (that's not an issue on Chinese end, but still it's some problem for me). Then the quality... well I spent hours of cutting hulls and other parts in order to make something and then after I broke some of the parts I realized that I actually have to put those parts in Boiling water and then fix them by hand. At the end of all this whole thing I saved... 10 or maybe 15 bucks and it's really not worthy.
Many apologies for de raling the thread like that.
Sorry, but the rest of you are just plain wrong. GW has explicitly stated in interviews that they are a toy company that makes toy soldiers. Toys come first, rules come in fifteenth place in terms of GW's priorities. This is because GW makes money by selling minis and fiction, not rules. That's just the way it is. If you disagree with me then you are wrong and ignorant.
Automatically Appended Next Post: See, one of the biggest problem with you gamer types is that you think the world revolves around you. It doesn't. GW doesn't care if you play the game or not. They want to sell their pretty models to little Jimmy, the boy whose mommy can only afford 400 points of models. Thousands upon thousands of people buy the models without ever fully diving into the game or associating with a gaming group. The models are the point of the company. That's why Citadel Miniatures owns Games Workshop, not the other way around.
Mr. Correct wrote: Sorry, but the rest of you are just plain wrong. GW has explicitly stated in interviews that they are a toy company that makes toy soldiers. Toys come first, rules come in fifteenth place in terms of GW's priorities. This is because GW makes money by selling minis and fiction, not rules. That's just the way it is. If you disagree with me then you are wrong and ignorant.
Automatically Appended Next Post: See, one of the biggest problem with you gamer types is that you think the world revolves around you. It doesn't. GW doesn't care if you play the game or not. They want to sell their pretty models to little Jimmy, the boy whose mommy can only afford 400 points of models. Thousands upon thousands of people buy the models without ever fully diving into the game or associating with a gaming group. The models are the point of the company. That's why Citadel Miniatures owns Games Workshop, not the other way around.
Again, it doesn't matter what GW are trying to be, or what they believe, the majority of models for tabletop Wargaming get sold to be used in the games. They make money selling models because people (less and less people) buy them to use in the game, most of the time. There's people who buy just to paint or whatever, but most people buy to game. If you disagree with me you are wrong and ignorant.
GW has not been making a loss for some years. It's just that their sales have been declining for two and a half years. This does not stop them making a profit though if the decline is not halted obviously they will eventually run into losses.
The ICV2 report covers part of the games industry. If we assume it is not unrepresentative, we can see the miniature games segment has not grown from 2012-13, to 2013-14. However we know that GW's sales fell in those two years, therefore the non-GW part of the segment must have grown.
Kilkrazy wrote: Just to set straight a couple of points of fact;
GW has not been making a loss for some years. It's just that their sales have been declining for two and a half years. This does not stop them making a profit though if the decline is not halted obviously they will eventually run into losses.
The ICV2 report covers part of the games industry. If we assume it is not unrepresentative, we can see the miniature games segment has not grown from 2012-13, to 2013-14. However we know that GW's sales fell in those two years, therefore the non-GW part of the segment must have grown.
Sales does not increase but the income stays the same... I don't know about you, by for me this means only one thing: no new people coming into the hobby, but dedicated old fans that are paying more and more.
Mr. Correct wrote: I think it's amusing that there are people who actually think GW would make more money if they wrote better rules or put more research into their writing. Such a naive and childlike understanding of the world, these people have. Such baffling ignorance of the way business works in the real world.
The truth of course is that rules are worthless. They're just words arbitrarily scrawled onto a piece of paper. GW is a company that makes models, and they only publish rules as an accessory for the models. They couldn't care less if you like the game or even if you play the game. They just want you to buy the models.
The quality of rule writing and testing have never affected a game's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with pretty playing pieces is worth ten billion perfectly written rulesets.
Mr. Correct wrote: Sorry, but the rest of you are just plain wrong. GW has explicitly stated in interviews that they are a toy company that makes toy soldiers. Toys come first, rules come in fifteenth place in terms of GW's priorities. This is because GW makes money by selling minis and fiction, not rules. That's just the way it is. If you disagree with me then you are wrong and ignorant.
.
Maybe but you'd sell a lot more models if the rules worked better, the strawman 'Little Jimmy's Mom' customer's total spend is going to be considerably less than people buying whole formations and armys, along with the paint and sundrys that needs.
Mr. Correct wrote: Sorry, but the rest of you are just plain wrong. GW has explicitly stated in interviews that they are a toy company that makes toy soldiers. Toys come first, rules come in fifteenth place in terms of GW's priorities. This is because GW makes money by selling minis and fiction, not rules. That's just the way it is. If you disagree with me then you are wrong and ignorant.
Automatically Appended Next Post: See, one of the biggest problem with you gamer types is that you think the world revolves around you. It doesn't. GW doesn't care if you play the game or not. They want to sell their pretty models to little Jimmy, the boy whose mommy can only afford 400 points of models. Thousands upon thousands of people buy the models without ever fully diving into the game or associating with a gaming group. The models are the point of the company. That's why Citadel Miniatures owns Games Workshop, not the other way around.
Ooooh, some other poster made that same mistake a week or two back.
If I can just find the post where I correct the I can get this troll ass account and the other one shut down for good.
But I think that the culture of the players can play an effect on how a game is perceived to new people. I will not play flames of war because of their neckbeards and "WWII know it alls" that must point out any inconsistency with real life.
Is this saying its the only reason? Nope... There is no one reason. Is it one OF the reasons, of course it is. Along with high prices, rules with holes in them, and losing their effective monopoly in the wargaming world. But they do seem to get a lot of harsh feelings aimed at them for acting like a corporation focused on shareholder wealth.
ImAGeek wrote: Again, it doesn't matter what GW are trying to be, or what they believe, the majority of models for tabletop Wargaming get sold to be used in the games. They make money selling models because people (less and less people) buy them to use in the game, most of the time. There's people who buy just to paint or whatever, but most people buy to game. If you disagree with me you are wrong and ignorant.
How about if I don't disagree with you, but just don't give a crap what you have to say?
Geek is making fun of another poster who likes to put in absolutes that paint anyone who disagrees with them as being wrong, ignorant, stupid, or whatever else.
Mr. Correct wrote: Sorry, but the rest of you are just plain wrong. GW has explicitly stated in interviews that they are a toy company that makes toy soldiers. Toys come first, rules come in fifteenth place in terms of GW's priorities. This is because GW makes money by selling minis and fiction, not rules. That's just the way it is. If you disagree with me then you are wrong and ignorant.
Automatically Appended Next Post: See, one of the biggest problem with you gamer types is that you think the world revolves around you. It doesn't. GW doesn't care if you play the game or not. They want to sell their pretty models to little Jimmy, the boy whose mommy can only afford 400 points of models. Thousands upon thousands of people buy the models without ever fully diving into the game or associating with a gaming group. The models are the point of the company. That's why Citadel Miniatures owns Games Workshop, not the other way around.
Ooooh, some other poster made that same mistake a week or two back.
If I can just find the post where I correct the I can get this troll ass account and the other one shut down for good.
Back in a minute...
lol. Inspector Azreal. I love the search function on this site, it took like 3 seconds to find what you were talking about.
Blacksails wrote: Geek is making fun of another poster who likes to put in absolutes that paint anyone who disagrees with them as being wrong, ignorant, stupid, or whatever else.
Dude the "friendly" LGS staff is at least as rabid as any fan, just in a different way. Far from being the people you could share an anecdote with and have a laugh about your latest game, they use any opportunity now to say you should buy X. Only the other day one tried to sell me ANOTHER "Retributor Armour" spray after I had just bought one. Y'know, to make sure I "don't run out". Never mind that I hadn't even told them what I wanted it for. They're like sharks now and have made it uncomfortable to be there. It never used to be that way. Not even ten years ago did they ask if you want more things with every purchase. Gone are the big staff led games where anyone could put a unit down and join in as that would distract from badgering customers to buy more "toy soldiers" The gaming space is now much smaller, and constantly hogged by 40k players who "booked" ahead. On Thursday gaming nights? 40k campaigns, can't get a game at all if you played fantasy. If you're like me and live only a drive away from GWHQ and have a group of friends there who all play all day on a wednesday than great, but if you rely on your LGS to get any game at all than seriously - good luck with that. One can tell instantly that the stores have changed due to directives from HQ.
Blacksails wrote: Geek is making fun of another poster who likes to put in absolutes that paint anyone who disagrees with them as being wrong, ignorant, stupid, or whatever else.
Ah, my apologies then to Geek.
No worries. It was a word for word copy of the last sentence of the post I was replying to. Probably should've quoted it.
TBM wrote: Dude the "friendly" LGS staff is at least as rabid as any fan, just in a different way. Far from being the people you could share an anecdote with and have a laugh about your latest game, they use any opportunity now to say you should buy X. Only the other day one tried to sell me ANOTHER "Retributor Armour" spray after I had just bought one. Y'know, to make sure I "don't run out". Never mind that I hadn't even told them what I wanted it for. They're like sharks now and have made it uncomfortable to be there. It never used to be that way. Not even ten years ago did they ask if you want more things with every purchase. Gone are the big staff led games where anyone could put a unit down and join in as that would distract from badgering customers to buy more "toy soldiers" The gaming space is now much smaller, and constantly hogged by 40k players who "booked" ahead. On Thursday gaming nights? 40k campaigns, can't get a game at all if you played fantasy. If you're like me and live only a drive away from GWHQ and have a group of friends there who all play all day on a wednesday than great, but if you rely on your LGS to get any game at all than seriously - good luck with that. One can tell instantly that the stores have changed due to directives from HQ.
I think you should clarify there you're talking about GW stores and not FLGS's.
Chairman Aeon wrote:
All this "destroying 30 years of Warhammer" gnashing reminds me of how the new Mustang isn't a Mustang because it doesn't have a live rear axle. It ignores the fact that time has moved on and what came before wasn't that great to begin with. It's obvious GW wasn't worried about current players so we can assume there was little downside to alienating them. Hence WHFB doesn't seem financially viable for GW (in the long term).
People also forget, Citadel Miniatures took over Games Workshop. The fact we still refer to the miniatures as Citadel is a constant reminder of which is the dog and which is the tail.
So, if you don't like the new rules I'm sorry for you. Felt the same when Rogue Trader became Warhammer 2nd Edition, I no longer played space elf pirates and now had to play Vulkan Sohei. But I'm actually interested in new rules and new fluff at the ground floor much like I was when Warmachine came out.
And no one can take away your current rules and minis. Epic players didn't care that GW abandoned them. Actually freed the players to make the changes they wanted.
Mr. Correct wrote: Sorry, but the rest of you are just plain wrong. GW has explicitly stated in interviews that they are a toy company that makes toy soldiers. Toys come first, rules come in fifteenth place in terms of GW's priorities. This is because GW makes money by selling minis and fiction, not rules. That's just the way it is. If you disagree with me then you are wrong and ignorant.
Gw don't do interviews. :p
But yes, this is what gw says. But wanting this to be the state of affairs and saying this is the state of affairs does not mean this is the state of affairs. Corporate spin 101.
Rules are a bonus. Good rules helps push a gsme for more than just little Timmy.
See, one of the biggest problem with you gamer types is that you think the world revolves around you. It doesn't. GW doesn't care if you play the game or not. They want to sell their pretty models to little Jimmy, the boy whose mommy can only afford 400 points of models. Thousands upon thousands of people buy the models without ever fully diving into the game or associating with a gaming group. The models are the point of the company. That's why Citadel Miniatures owns Games Workshop, not the other way around.
What gw wants isnt necessarily what it is.
Oh I get that they don't care. Im also well aware I'm not the target age group. And I'm also well aware thst gw's churn and burn policies, and a focus on selling to little Timmy, along with many other short term focused decisions has had the company stagnate and solely decline.
Mr. Correct wrote: Sorry, but the rest of you are just plain wrong. GW has explicitly stated in interviews that they are a toy company that makes toy soldiers. Toys come first, rules come in fifteenth place in terms of GW's priorities. This is because GW makes money by selling minis and fiction, not rules. That's just the way it is. If you disagree with me then you are wrong and ignorant.
Automatically Appended Next Post: See, one of the biggest problem with you gamer types is that you think the world revolves around you. It doesn't. GW doesn't care if you play the game or not. They want to sell their pretty models to little Jimmy, the boy whose mommy can only afford 400 points of models. Thousands upon thousands of people buy the models without ever fully diving into the game or associating with a gaming group. The models are the point of the company. That's why Citadel Miniatures owns Games Workshop, not the other way around.
Mr. Correct wrote: Sorry, but the rest of you are just plain wrong. GW has explicitly stated in interviews that they are a toy company that makes toy soldiers. Toys come first, rules come in fifteenth place in terms of GW's priorities. This is because GW makes money by selling minis and fiction, not rules. That's just the way it is. If you disagree with me then you are wrong and ignorant.
Automatically Appended Next Post: See, one of the biggest problem with you gamer types is that you think the world revolves around you. It doesn't. GW doesn't care if you play the game or not. They want to sell their pretty models to little Jimmy, the boy whose mommy can only afford 400 points of models. Thousands upon thousands of people buy the models without ever fully diving into the game or associating with a gaming group. The models are the point of the company. That's why Citadel Miniatures owns Games Workshop, not the other way around.
So do you get paid per post or per word?
+1.
This from the sig:
"Citadel Miniatures and its de facto marketing divisions Games Workshop and Forge World are toy companies. Before you complain about the rules or boast of your elite gaming skills, remember that you are playing with toy soldiers designed for a 12-year-old target demographic. "
Although we do have this in a thread about $ per points:
Exhibit B
Again, great models, lots of options, you get a SQUAD of vehicles, and huge value from one box. A measly $.25 more than a mek gun box, yet a jaw-dropping, one-fourth the cost in points per dollar spent.
The pricing for Mek Guns is pants-on-head, flying rodent gak insane.
Damning evidence that GW is intentionally designing its rules to drive up prices. Kans used to be good, now that everyone owns a few they're not good anymore. But GW hasn't had any new Ork artillery kits in about 20 years so they made sure the new one costs hardly any points and that your army can't be effective without several of them. Then they tacked on an arbitrarily inflated cash price because their experiences with Riptide, Dreadknight and Wraithknight models have demonstrated that players will pay anything for their army list's best unit.
I assume they had just finished designing the molds for the gorka/morkanaut and intended to make it a 100 point unit before they realized that they could sell mek guns in squads of five. When they realize that they aren't selling enough 'nauts, they'll introduce a formation that gives you five of them for no points.
And this in a (now locked) AoS thread:
Spoiler:
Mr. Correct wrote:
I think what we're seeing is not rage so much as smugness and schadenfreude. People have been predicting the death of GW's games for decades and finally just for once the doomsayers are right. They really killed FB and replaced it with a trifle, an insubstantial little board game. The cruel, cynical heart of the neckbeard has found validation in GW's antics, and maybe there is some degree of comfort in knowing that they will always make the worst decision possible at every turn.
WHFB certainly was not aimed at 12 year olds. Part of the reason it was canned is that it was seen as being too difficult for Little Timmies to get into, and I don't blame them.
That said, the system was a mainstay of GW's figure sales efforts for 30 years which does not support the position they are purely a toy company.
"Citadel Miniatures and its de facto marketing divisions Games Workshop and Forge World are toy companies. Before you complain about the rules or boast of your elite gaming skills, remember that you are playing with toy soldiers designed for a 12-year-old target demographic. "
Mr. Correct wrote: I think it's amusing that there are people who actually think GW would make more money if they wrote better rules or put more research into their writing. Such a naive and childlike understanding of the world, these people have. Such baffling ignorance of the way business works in the real world.
The truth of course is that rules are worthless. They're just words arbitrarily scrawled onto a piece of paper. GW is a company that makes models, and they only publish rules as an accessory for the models. They couldn't care less if you like the game or even if you play the game. They just want you to buy the models.
The quality of rule writing and testing have never affected a game's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with pretty playing pieces is worth ten billion perfectly written rulesets.
7/10
3/10, 4/10 at best - he lost points on the dismount.
The Auld Grump, somebody's gotta be the Russian judge....
Mr. Correct wrote: The quality of rule writing and testing have never affected a game's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with pretty playing pieces is worth ten billion perfectly written rulesets.
The quality of proper food preparation and seasoning have never affected a meal's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with expensive ingredients and pretty presentation is worth ten billion perfectly cooked portions.
The quality of reliability and crash safety have never affected a car's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with rumbling engine noise and chromed parts is worth ten billion perfectly reliable, safe automobiles.
The quality of proper spelling and punctuation have never affected a resume's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package on pretty stationary and letterhedd is werth 10 billions, pefektly, writin, job aplikashuns.
Kilkrazy wrote:WHFB certainly was not aimed at 12 year olds. Part of the reason it was canned is that it was seen as being too difficult for Little Timmies to get into, and I don't blame them.
Weeell... it was a bit more simple than some other mass combat games. Wheel, reform, block march, hit 'em in the flank, and a few others. Other games have deeper interactions between units, which aren't usually seen as too complicated. I think Warhammer's particular complications came from the combat resolution and casualty removal (a throwback to it's days as a skirmish game) and the reams of special rules that had to be memorised. The relatively tactics-lite, strategy-loaded system is what might appeal more to younger gamers with their scatty prefrontal cortexes (no srsly) and didn't seem to do 40K much harm. 4 pages of main rules and warscrolls of special rules seems to show they're still thinking along those lines. It's the paring down of horde units to an ostensible small model count game that's more telling, IMO.
keezus wrote:The quality of proper spelling and punctuation have never affected a resume's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package on pretty stationary and letterhedd is werth 10 billions, pefektly, writin, job aplikashuns.
Mr. Correct wrote: The quality of rule writing and testing have never affected a game's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with pretty playing pieces is worth ten billion perfectly written rulesets.
The quality of proper food preparation and seasoning have never affected a meal's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with expensive ingredients and pretty presentation is worth ten billion perfectly cooked portions.
The quality of reliability and crash safety have never affected a car's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with rumbling engine noise and chromed parts is worth ten billion perfectly reliable, safe automobiles.
The quality of proper spelling and punctuation have never affected a resume's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package on pretty stationary and letterhedd is werth 10 billions, pefektly, writin, job aplikashuns.
And yet, men line up to date the pretty girl, girls fawn over the hunky guy, books are judged by their covers, the car with the shiny mags sells... For that matter, nice looking people get hired over ugly and average-looking ones.
And actually, a well presented cv outperforms a poorly presented one. Printed on linen, watermarked bond, professionally typeset will give an inferior applicant a job over a slightly superior one.
Looks aren't everything.... But they matter way more than they should for almost everything in life. Life ain't fair, and the clever take advantage of that.
Show me a pretty girl, and I'll show you the man who's tired of her.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and only you would wilfully ignore the point being made in order to make some specific points about how they're not 100% factually accurate.
The universe isn't made of absolutes. I'm just saying that as with all things in life looks matter to some degree to most -- that's all.
People choose stuff with nice packaging all the time, and not looking nice is one of the reasons people choose otherwise. Who was the last ugly US president? What is the ratio of ugly actors to nice looking ones? When was the last time a tv ad featured someone unattractive, except to make fun of the? It's important for a game to have nice artwork and look cool. We live in relatively superficial times.
By the way, I'm willfully ignoring all arguments about whether GW writes good games or not, because I'm just tired of arguing about it. I happen to think that they write great games, and being a person who may choose to play any game that I wish to, GW games frequently fill the top spot for me. It's pointless for someone to argue that it's otherwise to me, because I happen to enjoy 40k, just as it's pointless for me to try to convince someone who doesn't like GW or their games otherwise. It's especially true on a forum where most people have no desire to change their mind, and are simply looking to vent or evangelize, or for others to affirm their own views.
Meh. Sure looks matter. At first blush.. GW is like a restaurant that sells the highest quality Kobe beef steaks. (Or Citadel Finebeef, to quote the vernacular.) They are served with spectacular side dishes made of the freshest exotic ingredients. The dining area is pristine, luxurious and elegant. Their expert chefs lovingly prepare the Citadel Finebeef to a mouthwatering well done. This is the patented GW way to enjoy Finebeef. This doesn't take away from the fact that Finebeef is the finest beef you can get, and as it is oft argued, you might buy the Finebeef and have it prepared another way at a different restaurant... however - given the pedigree of their product... one can only scratch their head at how GW management direct their chefs to handle it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On an aside... GW is actively cornering the market for well done premium steaks. This is an untapped market and GW is well positioned to dominate this area for years to come.
Azreal13 wrote: Show me a pretty girl, and I'll show you the man who's tired of her.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and only you would wilfully ignore the point being made in order to make some specific points about how they're not 100% factually accurate.
Many find it odd that Citadel Finebeef remains the best selling beef -- for some reason, despite declining sales, remains highly popular, and then there are those Sumo wrestlers that eat portions befitting a score of normal folk, and the Supersumos who buy Finebeef that they may enjoy it to the end of days, should there truly come the zombie apocalypse.
@Talys: To extend the metaphor: Without a doubt, GW sells good quality product. The reason that people sales stay high could come from many reasons:
1. GW Finebeef is the most commonly available premium beef, carried in most FLGS and has its own retail arm.
2. Unwillingness to try anything else. (i.e. Eeew Sushi is raw fish!!! etc)
3. They enjoy the taste.
4. They were brought in by the Finebeef but stay for the premium side dishes
5. They like the ambiance and exclusiveness of the restaurant.
This doesn't change the fact that Privateer Press is muscling in with their less marbled, less tender, and generally crappier beef - sure the sides aren't as good, and the crowd is rowdier... but you can get your steak made to order.
Mantic is jumping aboard with their knockoff Finebeef, crowding the steak market.
GW does a lot of things right, but just by doing the one thing wrong and not fixing it... they let others muscle in on their turf. This is why people can't quite figure out GW's fixation that all steaks must be well done.
Mr. Correct wrote: See, one of the biggest problem with you gamer types is that you think the world revolves around you.
I have to scratch my head over this statement.
It does revolve around me: my choice to spend my money on them or elsewhere.
Their amazing corporate plans will be for nothing if their product does not fit in a cost to "want" ratio of their consumers.
Gamer types feed their company, foolish business plan not to factor that in.
People do need to recognize that we are all attracted to the hobby for different reasons.
The real problem is the opinionated types that are more than happy to express their views as the only correct ones.
I see the same behaviors all over about sport teams, politics, you name it: gamers have not cornered the market in opinionated people, it is everywhere.
The trick is to be inclusive and friendly, Mr Correct here is showing a fine example of how to scare away the fledgling "gamer".
Many find it odd that Citadel Finebeef remains the best selling beef -- for some reason, despite declining sales, remains highly popular, and then there are those Sumo wrestlers that eat portions befitting a score of normal folk, and the Supersumos who buy Finebeef that they may enjoy it to the end of days, should there truly come the zombie apocalypse.
Wow, it's hard to believe there are so many people here who can't accept reality. You people really think GW is a gaming company and not a model company? Gaming companies don't last. GW has lasted for decades where companies like FASA and TSR collapsed during the 90s. That's because they make real money by selling toys. The pennies that they make from rulebooks are just icing on the cake, and they prefer to sell books electronically because there's less overhead that way.
GW is considered less intelligent by _me_ at least, because of its many lazy and downrigth silyl decisions.
Why did they not release Hero Quest, Gorka Morka, Necromunda, Mordheim , Battlefleet gothic and other "specialist games" again? These were excellent games and great sellers as far as I know. Instead they now only sell two games (plus the hobitt) which demands 300$ investment at least.
Dont you think its silly to retract your business to publishing 2 main games, and one minor, when clearly there used to be, and still is a large market for true skirmish games with 5-10 models?
People are basically obsessing about their 40k universe, their video games Dawn of War series sold very very well. So... Where is the spin-off for the board game that might introduce people to GW's products?!
I've boardgamed and miniaturegamed (to a lesser extent) since the 1980's, and the 2010's is the best we ever had it. The quality, range and selection og board games and miniature games are expcetional. But GW has chosen to shrink the places you can buy their products, the number of games and reduced all their social media presence...
Kilkrazy wrote: WHFB certainly was not aimed at 12 year olds.
Things may be changing though...
You are incorrect. I played WHFB when I was 12, and the dozens of people who played it at my LGS were in the 10-14 age range. I grew out of it when I turned 15 back in the mid 90s. This is because GW fiction is aimed STRICTLY at the preteen/early teen demographic. Now, it's perfectly fine to enjoy cartoons that are made for children. Great cartoons like Adventure Time and Rocco's Modern Life are fun for all ages. But 40k and FB have been strictly cartoonish fiction for children since the early 1990s.
triplegrim wrote: GW is considered less intelligent by _me_ at least, because of its many lazy and downrigth silyl decisions.
Why did they not release Hero Quest, Gorka Morka, Necromunda, Mordheim , Battlefleet gothic and other "specialist games" again? These were excellent games and great sellers as far as I know. Instead they now only sell two games (plus the hobitt) which demands 300$ investment at least.
Dont you think its silly to retract your business to publishing 2 main games, and one minor, when clearly there used to be, and still is a large market for true skirmish games with 5-10 models?
People are basically obsessing about their 40k universe, their video games Dawn of War series sold very very well. So... Where is the spin-off for the board game that might introduce people to GW's products?!
I've boardgamed and miniaturegamed (to a lesser extent) since the 1980's, and the 2010's is the best we ever had it. The quality, range and selection og board games and miniature games are expcetional. But GW has chosen to shrink the places you can buy their products, the number of games and reduced all their social media presence...
Kilkrazy wrote: WHFB certainly was not aimed at 12 year olds.
Things may be changing though...
You are incorrect. I played WHFB when I was 12, and the dozens of people who played it at my LGS were in the 10-14 age range. I grew out of it when I turned 15 back in the mid 90s. This is because GW fiction is aimed STRICTLY at the preteen/early teen demographic. Now, it's perfectly fine to enjoy cartoons that are made for children. Great cartoons like Adventure Time and Rocco's Modern Life are fun for all ages. But 40k and FB have been strictly cartoonish fiction for children since the early 1990s.
I disagree somewhat. 3rd edition 40k was an attempt to make it more mature and serious, meanwhile the rules ironically became somewhat simpler than 2nd edition.
I disagree somewhat. 3rd edition 40k was an attempt to make it more mature and serious
GHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA no, no it wasn't at all. If you're saying that over-the-top cartoon villains like the Dark Eldar were an attempt to appeal to adults rather than children then you might as well be saying Linkin Park was a band that targeted a mature demographic.
You must have missed the part where triplegrim wrote more. In that, on the whole, the entire edition was to make everything more mature and serious. Not that it was mature, but that it was more mature than previous incarnations.
I also have to wonder about an account with such a name, created today, with all 4 posts in the same heated GW thread.
Alternate Username wrote: Wow, it's hard to believe there are so many people here who can't accept reality. You people really think GW is a gaming company and not a model company? Gaming companies don't last. GW has lasted for decades where companies like FASA and TSR collapsed during the 90s. That's because they make real money by selling toys. The pennies that they make from rulebooks are just icing on the cake, and they prefer to sell books electronically because there's less overhead that way.
GW 'survived' decades while publishing a wide variety of games. Ever since they cut back on that, their fortunes have started to flag noticeably.
The past three years, when their game publishing activities have been lowest, and their model publishing activities have been highest, have seen continuous decline.
Kilkrazy wrote: WHFB certainly was not aimed at 12 year olds.
Things may be changing though...
You are incorrect. I played WHFB when I was 12, and the dozens of people who played it at my LGS were in the 10-14 age range. I grew out of it when I turned 15 back in the mid 90s. This is because GW fiction is aimed STRICTLY at the preteen/early teen demographic. Now, it's perfectly fine to enjoy cartoons that are made for children. Great cartoons like Adventure Time and Rocco's Modern Life are fun for all ages. But 40k and FB have been strictly cartoonish fiction for children since the early 1990s.
No doubt you are more intelligent than many players. I myself graduated from GW style games when I was about 12, and started playing much more complicated games. Since then I have had fun playing 40K largely for the modelling possibilities.
Of course if WHFB actually is aimed at 12 years old, it poses the question of what age the much simpler AoS rules are aimed at. GW suggest 10+, which I think is about right. If so, how much long term interest will they hold for 30 year olds?
Nomeny wrote: It's the Dunning-Kreuger effect, essentially. That and low-information inferences made in a situation where they can't be falsified.
I, too, found a thesaurus once.
Not everybody needs a thesaurus for that. If you engage in discussions on religion on even a semi-regular basis, that kind of vocabulary is pretty common.
Nomeny wrote: It's the Dunning-Kreuger effect, essentially. That and low-information inferences made in a situation where they can't be falsified.
I, too, found a thesaurus once.
Not everybody needs a thesaurus for that. If you engage in discussions on religion on even a semi-regular basis, that kind of vocabulary is pretty common.
Never use big words when a miniscule one will suffice.
Blacksails wrote: You must have missed the part where triplegrim wrote more. In that, on the whole, the entire edition was to make everything more mature and serious. Not that it was mature, but that it was more mature than previous incarnations.
Yes. The Dark Eldar is actually a good example at how the game turned darker and more serious; torture-fetischists with a clear sexual undertone to their post-raid activities.
I think Killkrazy has a good point in that GW actually sold games, not models, for a long and prosperous while. Many products like Space Crusade, Space Hulk and Hero Quest were actually pure board games. The models were not even compatible in many cases with the 40k game.
And in all honesty, would anyone really purchase space marine models if there was no game to play with them?
And further... where is GW's growth going to come from in the future? AoS?
Their failure to publish even a lazyday version of 7th edition for sisters of battle, a faction in their main game which has thousands of players, is stupefying for me. They are literally leaving their customers hanging out in the dark. It could just be a rehash of what they published back then, but it would sell! But they dont bother to put out an update even. What on earth are they thinking about?
The lack of creativity from them the last 4 years have been damaging, I am sure. Even if Dreadfleet was horribly executed, at least it was an attempt at something else than just re-releasing codex'es of various quality that just rehashes the 2.edition of 40k and continuously releasing new models for the factions that sells the best, which of course keeps on selling the best as they are continously being updated etc.
When I first saw WarmaHordes back in 2010, I smiled and thought; "No one is going to compete with the monumental GW", but now it is mainstream and gamewise quite the challenger at least in my eyes. Lets face it... You cant keep doing the same sh!t for ever and expect to turn a profit. The gaming/miniature model industry is no different.
Well that and the fact that X-wing and Armada are in the top three ICV2 selling games of last year kind of lends credence to the idea that a strong game sells more models. WM/H is also a good example, and it occupies the 4th and 5th slots on that list. Funny enough, Warhammer Fantasy dropped off, and I don't think its because the models were bad.
keezus wrote: Meh. Sure looks matter. At first blush.. GW is like a restaurant that sells the highest quality Kobe beef steaks. (Or Citadel Finebeef, to quote the vernacular.) They are served with spectacular side dishes made of the freshest exotic ingredients. The dining area is pristine, luxurious and elegant. Their expert chefs lovingly prepare the Citadel Finebeef to a mouthwatering well done. This is the patented GW way to enjoy Finebeef. This doesn't take away from the fact that Finebeef is the finest beef you can get, and as it is oft argued, you might buy the Finebeef and have it prepared another way at a different restaurant... however - given the pedigree of their product... one can only scratch their head at how GW management direct their chefs to handle it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On an aside... GW is actively cornering the market for well done premium steaks. This is an untapped market and GW is well positioned to dominate this area for years to come.
And then you discover that the finebeef came in a can labeled Alpo.
That it isn't the finest beef in the world, though it is premium beef byproducts....
But AoS is the next step - when water is added, it makes its own gravy!
@triplegrim: yes, some of us would purchase Space Marine models, even if there wasn't a game to play with them...
i've been collecting Space Marines since the first RT era minis came out, and i've never played a game with them...
i buy all of the products for the fiction and art, not the rules...
nothing inspires my imagination and desire to paint like the background of the Space Marines...
as to the debate about GW being a game or model company first, it is a neck and neck race...
Games Workshop was founded in 1975 to make wooden game boards for backgammon, Go, and the like...
they also started a gaming mag. (Owl & Weasel) in that year...
fast forward to 1977 and they changed the mag. to White Dwarf, and began to distribute D&D in the UK...
in 1978, the first Games Workshop retail store was opened...
in 1979 they helped finance the founding of Citadel Miniatures...
eventually, Citadel was absorbed by Games Workshop, not the other way around...
while the games have had a wide appeal, it is the miniatures that set GW games apart from the other games, like Battletech, that were using cardboard chits back in the day...
the models from Space Crusade and Heroquest were Citadel minis in a Milton-Bradely product, but were still compatible with the GW setting...
Space Hulk was pure GW, and the models ported straight into 40K...
i still see people getting use out of those 20+ year old minis, even today...
hell, i know people who use Battlemaster in their armies...
so really, there is not clear winner on either side of the argument...
it just boils down to GW's current marketing philosophy of, "do what you like"...
it's just a shame that so many people think that is a stupid way to promote a hobby...
jah-joshua wrote: @triplegrim: yes, some of us would purchase Space Marine models, even if there wasn't a game to play with them...
i've been collecting Space Marines since the first RT era minis came out, and i've never played a game with them...
i buy all of the products for the fiction and art, not the rules...
nothing inspires my imagination and desire to paint like the background of the Space Marines...
so really, there is not clear winner on either side of the argument...
it just boils down to GW's current marketing philosophy of, "do what you like"...
it's just a shame that so many people think that is a stupid way to promote a hobby...
cheers
jah
We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I always apreciated the painters and collectors in the hobby. But without the fluff, rules and games I would never have taken a second look at it, I firmly believe I belong to the majority.
Steelmage99 wrote: Not everybody needs a thesaurus for that. If you engage in discussions on religion on even a semi-regular basis, that kind of vocabulary is pretty common.
What, does religion have some sort of monopoly on language? How about, "Sometimes, people have a big vocabulary"?
@jah-joshua.
Could you try to see this from a 'gamers perspective,' rather than a 'collectors perspective?'
In an alternate reality where games workshop thinks rules are more important than minatures...
When you buy your box of GW minatures.You do not get excellent pre-formed pieces of H.I.P. on sprues.
But just some bases, a few bits of wire to make a minature armatures, and some green stuff to sculpt the minatures you want to.
So you get to pay a premium price for minatures you have to sculpt yourself.
And when you complain , GW say well if you know how to sculpt what is the problem, 'do what you like.'
And the other minature manufacturers are selling exquisite minatures that are a joy to assemble and paint.
When you point this out , the GW apologists say, sculpt the detail yourself!Or just go and buy the other minatures.
The quality of minatures and rules are equally important, IF you want to maintain and grow your business in the table top minature games market.
@Lanrak: there are plenty of people here to represent the gamer's perspective...
why should i not share my own view???
i am not going to silence my own voice in the mix, nor make up some elaborate "what if" to justify some people's dislike for the direction of AoS...
the game is playable out of the box, with the rules as written, it is just not playable in the manner that YOU would prefer...
it is not WFB 9th, but that doesn't mean that the game as written is analogous to your "Greenstuff in a box" analogy...
this is the second time i have seen you present this argument, and i ignored it the first time, because it doesn't hold water, in my opinion...
opinions vary, that is a fact of life...
some people said Dreadfleet was a horrible game, and some people have said they enjoy it...
i could be wrong, but i have a feeling that the majority of people who poopooed the game didn't actually play it, but read some bad reviews and piled on...
at least most seem to agree that the minis were beautiful...
some people are playing AoS right out of the box, and enjoying it...
some people choose to tweak the rules, which is their choice...
some people have tried it, and don't enjoy the radical change...
some people choose to dismiss the new rules out of hand...
some people say there are no longer any tactics, while the people playing are discovering more tactical depth each time they play...
your analogy falls down at "well GW say you know how to sculpt what is the problem"...
if i knew how to sculpt, why would i have a problem with a box that contained all of the building blocks i need to sculpt a mini???
the answer is, i wouldn't...
If game truly didnt matter people wouldn't be turned off starting a new WHFB army. But we all know practically every one is. I won the gw store golden gretchen award three times and am a golden demon finalist and I wouldn't make an army just for collectings sake. Forget that. Way too expensive. Easier to just paint a picture on canvas or computer and display that brah.
but that doesn't mean that the game as written is analogous to your "Greenstuff in a box" analogy...
It is. With no balance whatsoever, it's just a framework to build narratives.
"The hobby" is a balance of miniatures and gaming that tilts this way or that from one person to another. For some, the miniatures are a lot more important; for others, they're just game pieces.
Within the miniatures aspect, some people care about certain things (like big vehicles or interchangeable parts), while others have different priorities (like infantry, or nice models that don't take long to assemble to game-ready).
Within the game, different people find different aspects enjoyable -- to some, it's really important to meet up with people with agreed-upon limitations and surprise each other with armies and compete for victory; for others, it's more about creating the most enjoyable gaming experience; and other still it's all about storytelling. For some, none of that matters at all, as long as it's an excuse to get together with buddies, socialize, have food and drink, and move miniatures around.
So it just depends on what you want. GW makes great miniatures that has humongous customizability, depth and breadth for games that are best played with a cooperative pregame mindset, and GW really loves their campaigns. Their rules aren't the best (nobody thinks they're balanced), but some people find them very fun. It's also relatively expensive.
PP makes great miniatures that have minimal customizability, more limited depth and breadth that GW, but greater than any other company, and foster an environment for competitive gameplay. PP really likes that scene, including the tournaments. Their rules are well-liked by their players, though if you look on their forums, it's evident that there are huge balance and meta issues (certainly, not all 50 points are made the same, and contrary to what some would say, you can't win with just any 50 points against a good, competitive list). It's cheaper than 40k, about the same price as AoS, and also "relatively expensive" -- to some people.
To take a perfect example of an inexpensive game, I loved Battletech back when FASA just produced it in a box set with paper counters for all the mechs. Buy the game, have all the game pieces, and as a game it was perfect.
There are plenty of other games and miniature manufacturers all across the spectrum, so the best thing is simply to find a company that's a good fit for you, rather than force it with a company that ISN'T a good fit.
Obviously... I don't know how much more obvious GW can be about it... but *obviously* GW doesn't like the tournament / supercompetitive scene. So if that's your thing, as a game, GW games will probably not be the optimal experience.
You could say that it's equally obvious that PP has no interest in making games that fill out 6x4 and 8x12 tables with hundreds of models. Sure, you force it to work, but WMH with 100 models per side on a 6x4 is going to be an awful game without major tweaks.
It's like trying to enjoy your yacht on dry land, or drive your car through water.
Unless you're James Bond, it's just not going to work very well -- meaning, you can make the yacht lots of fun without water and you can make the car float like a boat and dive like a sub, but it's not easy, so why not just play with something closer to what you like to start with? If you like camping.. buy an RV, not a sailboat; if sailing is your thing, don't buy a third wheel! Or buy one, but don't be surprised when it's not what you expect.
keep in mind, i was replying to triplegrim's line of, "And in all honesty, would anyone really purchase space marine models if there was no game to play with them?"
my reply was, yes, SOME people would still purchase Space Marine models even if there was no game to play with them in...
i have never argued that that would be enough people to support the company without a game...
i have never claimed that the games are unimportant to the health of sales...
i have stated that the games are important to my clients, but that i would still collect and paint even if there were no games to go with the models...
please don't assume that i am saying the games aspect of Games Workshop is not important to the success of the company...
i have clearly stated that i don't play the games, not that the games are unimportant to the health of sales...
when someone makes an absolute statement that NOBODY would buy the models without the games, i simply chime in to say that there are plenty of painters out there who collect models exclusively to paint...
Because every guy sitting at his computer and pontificating on the right way to run a multi-million pound corporation after finishing his shift delivering pizza is smarter than guys who actually run multi-million pound corporations. Isn't that obvious?
jah-joshua wrote: keep in mind, i was replying to triplegrim's line of, "And in all honesty, would anyone really purchase space marine models if there was no game to play with them?"
my reply was, yes, SOME people would still purchase Space Marine models even if there was no game to play with them in...
Well, I would. But I probably would not have nearly as many!
Blacksails wrote: Well, I'm sure we can all agree that calling GW strictly a miniatures company is ridiculous.
I agree. That's just silly They don't just write games and game rules, but they like doing it! Just their idea of a good time diverges greatly from a decently large chunk of the population.
jah-joshua wrote: keep in mind, i was replying to triplegrim's line of, "And in all honesty, would anyone really purchase space marine models if there was no game to play with them?"
my reply was, yes, SOME people would still purchase Space Marine models even if there was no game to play with them in...
i have never argued that that would be enough people to support the company without a game...
i have never claimed that the games are unimportant to the health of sales...
i have stated that the games are important to my clients, but that i would still collect and paint even if there were no games to go with the models...
please don't assume that i am saying the games aspect of Games Workshop is not important to the success of the company...
i have clearly stated that i don't play the games, not that the games are unimportant to the health of sales...
when someone makes an absolute statement that NOBODY would buy the models without the games, i simply chime in to say that there are plenty of painters out there who collect models exclusively to paint...
cheers
jah
GW making a business model on such hobbyists though....there are some who would deem it unwise.
Bede19025 wrote: Because every guy sitting at his computer and pontificating on the right way to run a multi-million pound corporation after finishing his shift delivering pizza is smarter than guys who actually run multi-million pound corporations. Isn't that obvious?
Did you have something useful to add to this conversation?
Depends if the guys actually running multi-million pound corporations are experiencing ever-decreasing sales and apparently don't have a clue why it's happening.
I don't think most of the criticisms are so much 'here's how I'd run GW' as 'here's what GW should do to get me buying again', anyway. It just so happens that a lot of ex-GW fans have the same handful of problems with what GW's doing, so some inferences can be drawn.
Bede19025 wrote: Because every guy sitting at his computer and pontificating on the right way to run a multi-million pound corporation after finishing his shift delivering pizza is smarter than guys who actually run multi-million pound corporations. Isn't that obvious?
What makes you think that a former taxman with no experience of running any business at all outside of the one he's currently making a mess of is more intelligent than me?
@TheAuldGrump: well, i did say that i could be wrong...
my point was that i have seen people say that they have enjoyed Dreadfleet, and AoS, out of the box...
the depth may not be enough for you, and a large number of other people, but that does not mean that the games are unplayable, rules as written, right out of the box, which is where i feel Lanrak's "Greenstuff" analogy falls down...
@TBM: different strokes for different folks...
if i wanted to paint pictures, i would...
i happen to want to paint miniatures...
nothing else will scratch that itch...
@Blacksails: i'm pretty sure it is GW pushing that line, and not the majority of the customer base...
that doesnt make it ridiculous, especially since their actual description is, "Games Workshop is the largest and the most successful hobby miniatures company in the world.", and " At its core the hobby is all about our amazing miniatures and collecting, modelling, painting and playing games with armies of them", not we are STRICTLY a miniatures company...
the recent trend in sales strategy does seem to have turned up the need for more models in their games, so the game aspect is still there, but the minis take priority in what they are pushing...
a sale of one Codex and rulebook, versus the whole army of minis, illustrates why they would push the importance of the minis more...
for me, they ARE a miniatures company first and foremost...
for others, the game is most important...
then there are a lot of people in between...
this is why i put more importance on individual perspective, rather than overarching statements about some collective "them"...
again, i am not saying that collectors are enough of a source of revenue without the games, and i don't think that GW is saying that either...
they did just release a new game, after all...
jah-joshua wrote: keep in mind, i was replying to triplegrim's line of, "And in all honesty, would anyone really purchase space marine models if there was no game to play with them?"
Some people like the hobby side much more than the game side. I live in BFE with absolutely no gaming group within 30-50 miles, have played about a half-dozen games of 40k since getting into miniatures with 2nd edition, but still have 6 different armies, ranging from Marines, to SoB, to Necrons, Eldar and even 4th edition Kroot Mercs.
If I even play soon, it will be 2nd edition with the wife or a buddy.
jah-joshua wrote: keep in mind, i was replying to triplegrim's line of, "And in all honesty, would anyone really purchase space marine models if there was no game to play with them?"
Some people like the hobby side much more than the game side. I live in BFE with absolutely no gaming group within 30-50 miles, have played about a half-dozen games of 40k since getting into miniatures with 2nd edition, but still have 6 different armies, ranging from Marines, to SoB, to Necrons, Eldar and even 4th edition Kroot Mercs.
If I even play soon, it will be 2nd edition with the wife or a buddy.
I dont ment to insult anybody, but if the hobby is more interesting for certain people than the actual playing and dice rolling why.... why dont just buy Revell, Tamiya and etc. kits and... you know, just paint minis rather than come to forums and complain about rules, prices and etc.
jah-joshua wrote: it just boils down to GW's current marketing philosophy of, "do what you like"...
it's just a shame that so many people think that is a stupid way to promote a hobby...
The thing is, people don't think that 'do what you like' is a stupid way to promote the hobby. What they think is stupid is not backing that philosophy up with a product that actually encourages this philosophy, beyond expecting players to finish writing the rules themselves.
IF GW wrote a solid, functional, complete ruleset, and published it with that same philosophy ('Hey, here's a set of rules. Do with them what you will!') there would be far fewer complaints.
If they backed that up with campaign books that provided ideas and material for building campaigns, or suggested ways to change the game to mix the experience up a little, there would be far fewer complaints.
What we're seeing instead is exactly the same thing as happened when GW released the Inquisitor game - In that case, they published what was essentially an RPG, with a bare bones range of miniatures, and said 'There you go! Have fun!' ... and players by and large said 'Uh... what am I supposed to do with it?'
Because at the end of the day, most players don't want to write their own rules. They want to buy a game that they can play. The freedom to alter those rules is inherent in any game that you buy... but to ensure that your game reaches the widest audience, the framework you give your players has to be solid.
People might want to alter your rules. They don't want to have to finish writing them.
Well, I guess we all can agree that there is a majority that plays the game, and a minority that mostly models and collects. Not making any comment on the sizes of these two groups.
I also should say that I like 7th edition 40k. It has rarely been better to play 40k than now.
I am just crestfallen that GW would choose to shrink their appeal, their product range, their advertisements, their outlets, their sellers etc.
Perhaps it is because of their philosophy of controlling every unit in the production chain... It is part of what made them the biggest company in the hobby, and might be what is holding them back now. Their war on their own retailers is something they must be quite alone in doing.
@DalinCriid: neither AegisGrimm, nor i, were complaining about prices, rules, etc...
we were just saying we like to buy and paint 40K models, whether or not they get used in the game...
i thought that a forum was a place for people who enjoy the same thing to get together and talk shop, for better or worse...
as to why not Revell and Tamiya, for me, as i have said many times, they don't inspire me to paint in the same way as a Space Marine kit does...
why buy something i am not that interested in???
i think you are right in one aspect, the more i post, the more i see that i should just shut up and paint, rather than talk about why i love painting GW minis...
@insaniak: as i said, i see people playing with the ruleset right out of the box...
from what i am seeing, it is a complete ruleset, it just isn't the ruleset that a large amount of the community wanted...
@triplegrim: those all seem like very reasonable statements to me...
Nah, don't get me wrong, I adore painting GW stuff, but for me they will always be a game developer, rather than model sellers. But there are also another party of fans that read only the fluff and could not care less If we have a models vs game argument.
I go paint too. Apologies if i derail the thread or something.
I have a feeling that GW only produced Boutique Miniatures, the cost in general would be much less to consumers. Here's my reasoning. If GW was minis only:
1. There would be no brick and mortar retail arm.
2. There would be no game devs 2a: There would probably be no White Dwarf, and if it was reduced to a modelling publication, it'd probably be made quarterly.
3. The model ranges would be much smaller. Without a game to support, there would be little reason to produce all the variants for any particular model. The quantity of rank and file troops would be much reduced. This has positive impacts on costs for the whole production process from design, equipment and inventory.
4. Without the game pushing the production of such huge quantities of models, much of the range would remain metal, lowering their internal costs.
5. All but the most basic vehicles would be moved over to Forgeworld which would act as GW's super-enthusiast arm.
Alas, this isn't possible, as GW's strategy hinges on the game acting as a gateway to their product. Their fiction doesn't have enough penetration into the market consciousness. They have had middling success with video games, but haven't acted to take advantage of increased visibility those opportunities offered. Their Legal team has shut down all the fan films and GW proper released the laughable: Ultramarines film.
Any company that takes pride in not doing market research and have cut themselves off from all forms of customer feedback can be thought of as idiotic in at least that choice.
Nomeny wrote: It's the Dunning-Kreuger effect, essentially. That and low-information inferences made in a situation where they can't be falsified.
I, too, found a thesaurus once.
Not everybody needs a thesaurus for that. If you engage in discussions on religion on even a semi-regular basis, that kind of vocabulary is pretty common.
Yep... And some of us even went to school and got to sit through entire classes where the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and the tendencies of the masses were concerned. It's our career (or will be as soon as I get a new freaking doctor who isn't going to hold me hostage).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lanrak wrote: @jah-joshua.
Could you try to see this from a 'gamers perspective,' rather than a 'collectors perspective?'
In an alternate reality where games workshop thinks rules are more important than minatures...
When you buy your box of GW minatures.You do not get excellent pre-formed pieces of H.I.P. on sprues.
But just some bases, a few bits of wire to make a minature armatures, and some green stuff to sculpt the minatures you want to.
So you get to pay a premium price for minatures you have to sculpt yourself.
And when you complain , GW say well if you know how to sculpt what is the problem, 'do what you like.'
And the other minature manufacturers are selling exquisite minatures that are a joy to assemble and paint.
When you point this out , the GW apologists say, sculpt the detail yourself!Or just go and buy the other minatures.
The quality of minatures and rules are equally important, IF you want to maintain and grow your business in the table top minature games market.
Jah-Joshua seems to enjoy being a contrarian and post-modernist.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
keezus wrote: I have a feeling that GW only produced Boutique Miniatures, the cost in general would be much less to consumers. Here's my reasoning. If GW was minis only:
1. There would be no brick and mortar retail arm.
2. There would be no game devs 2a: There would probably be no White Dwarf, and if it was reduced to a modelling publication, it'd probably be made quarterly.
3. The model ranges would be much smaller. Without a game to support, there would be little reason to produce all the variants for any particular model. The quantity of rank and file troops would be much reduced. This has positive impacts on costs for the whole production process from design, equipment and inventory.
4. Without the game pushing the production of such huge quantities of models, much of the range would remain metal, lowering their internal costs.
5. All but the most basic vehicles would be moved over to Forgeworld which would act as GW's super-enthusiast arm.
Alas, this isn't possible, as GW's strategy hinges on the game acting as a gateway to their product. Their fiction doesn't have enough penetration into the market consciousness. They have had middling success with video games, but haven't acted to take advantage of increased visibility those opportunities offered. Their Legal team has shut down all the fan films and GW proper released the laughable: Ultramarines film.
Oh well... it's their company.
Yep!
That is how Model Companies operate.
I have a bunch of Tamiya, Hasegawa, Aoshima, and Fujimi 1/700 Scale Waterline ships.
But I can go out and buy aftermarket brass-etched parts, or cast-resin replacement turrets for early/mid/late-war upgrades for many ships, or resin scenics for displaying them.
I don't really play games with them (I would if I could find someone with a basketball court on which to play), but simply to collect them (mostly destroyers, since they are pretty small, but a few cruisers).
But you can look at ANYModel Company and see this exact same organization or "business model" used for these companies, and they are have fairly successful businesses.
jamesk1973 wrote: If the game doesn't matter, why does GW charge higher prices for game's most effective units?
Historically, because most of the more effective units were things that you didn't need as many of. Units or models that you only ever need to buy one of have always (or mostly always) been priced higher than things that people buy a lot of.
It's never been tied specifically to power level, though. There are plenty of expensive kits out there for units that people just don't want to use.
some people said Dreadfleet was a horrible game, and some people have said they enjoy it... i could be wrong, but i have a feeling that the majority of people who poopooed the game didn't actually play it, but read some bad reviews and piled on... at least most seem to agree that the minis were beautiful...
... ...
When I first saw Dread Fleet I thought the models looked rather amazing and the game could be fun even if I'm not interested in the WHFB background. However it quickly became clear from reviews that the game was a somewhat incoherent mash-up of rule ideas, heavily dependent on luck. As a keen naval gamer, I decided I was not interested.
However I know there are people who enjoy it because of the models and dependence on luck.
The point is that if you are experienced at games, and know what you like, you can read a set of rules and understand the key points of how a game will play. You don't need to play it. It's like being able to read a map. The map is not the territory, but if you know how to read the symbols and contour lines, and if you have done some hiking, you can get a good feel from the map for how tough a walk it will be, and whether it will go through woods or open hills, without having actually to walk it.
Back to the topic, Dread Fleet was GW's only new game between Lord of the Rings (2000) and Age of Sigmar (2015). The fact that it was a serious failure does not argue for GW's skills at game design or toy design. They obviously misjudged their audience.
Alternate Username wrote: Wow, it's hard to believe there are so many people here who can't accept reality. You people really think GW is a gaming company and not a model company? Gaming companies don't last. GW has lasted for decades where companies like FASA and TSR collapsed during the 90s. That's because they make real money by selling toys. The pennies that they make from rulebooks are just icing on the cake, and they prefer to sell books electronically because there's less overhead that way.
Accuses people of not accepting reality. But takes a skewed and innacurate position himself? Pots and kettles come to mind.
Tsr failed because of appalling management decisions, as well as having a management thst didn't 'get' the product, or the fanbases and didn't care to find out either. And did a lot of the things gw are currently doing.
Nothing to do with the fact that they were selling rpg's. The product (ie dnd) was in demand. The fact that their successor took dnd and kept it going proves this.
And I hardly consider £50 for a codex to be 'pennies'.
For GW, the rules are sufficient srs biznis that they had near monthly releases for about a year, and are still spamming rules releases. While this is fairly obviously about making people buy the models (the largest % of their income), it does go to show that even GW has to admit, they'd be f*cked without a ruleset to drive purchases.
I'm pretty sure the 'we're a miniatures company not a games company' is all about repositioning themselves after the Chapterhouse case. Hell, you could see them doing it during the case, trying to argue that they are making collectible art sculptures instead of toys. When you assume everything they do is about protecting their perceived IP it all makes a lot more sense. They hugely overstate it's uniquness and their part in its creation - according to their head of IP everything is created in a vacuum without any reference materials at all, and they wouldn't lie to a court would they?
Tsr failed because of appalling management decisions, as well as having a management thst didn't 'get' the product, or the fanbases and didn't care to find out either. And did a lot of the things gw are currently doing.
Agreed, they got rid of the original designer Gary Gygax because of a divorce. He was forced out of his own company while he was in California being consultant for the cartoon spinoff of DnD. TSR managed to stumble on for 10 years, but they never understood their audience, their game or how to make money. Half of the novels were written by friends of the owners. Sourcebooks were lazy, campaign settings would be random and for instance have two pages about some minor thing about the setting, but nothing about the important things... Dungoneers Handguide springs to mind as an especially inferior product... They thought they could release anything and it would sell, because they did no customer profiling... GW is doing the same now.
destrucifier wrote: The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.
Not that I play WFB, but... I think that ANY company with a $160+ million market capitalization, a giant IP, and rabid fan base that will buy nearly ANYTHING that posts consistent quarterly losses and lacks a social media foot print in the second decade of the 21st century speaks for itself.
Why is Hasbro booming? Mattel following. GW, in third is cratering. Is it because of some inate genetic superiority or better management?
Why arent they making more accessible board games? Better computer games? Aquiring other game companies? Making toys? Aps? How much non GW stuff you you buy to play GW stuff? Why arent they making FAT mats? Why arent they sponsoring major tournaments? Sponosoring events is a bad business model?! Look at Red Bull they are $1b market cap beverage company that sponsors air races? Oracle sponsors the dang americas cup? GW can't even get an international competitive circuit put together? Heard of Twitch? Why arent they on there? A free video game (league of legends) has international comps....
This company is sitting on a golden egg, but they aren't doing ANYTHING with it except killing it with crummy rules and short sighted strategic decisions like squeezing FLGS and simultaneously CLOSING their corporate franchisees?
Doesn't really seem like enlightened leadership to me... but what do I know about it.... I am just a consumer....
This. Totally this. GW is this worst thing for the Warhammer IP. If any other game company had such an incredible IP, they would be growing the game and increasing their revenue and profit. Instead, GW's decisions have lead to reduced rev and profit and that's after a rapid storm of new releases this year. Not to mention all the players that they're losing. I sometimes wonder how great the Warhammer games would be if the IP was owned by FFG, PP, Mantic, Warlord, etc. etc. You know, companies who actually play test rules, communicates with the community, and whose sole objective is to MAKE GAMES.
I always like to say.... GW is to Warhammer as George Lucas is to Star Wars. And each year GW just keeps coming out with more midichlorians and Jar-Jar Binks.
I'd just like to point out that GW's IP isnt' as golden as you make it out to be anymore.
I remember when I first started in 40k in 2nd Ed. There were the broad strokes of the background but nothing was fleshed out. This let players "imagine" what things might have been like. You didn't know anything about the primarchs really, except their names. Lion El'Johnson, Leman Russ and Sanguinus were the only ones who had a smattering of background. On the Chaos side, only Angron, Mortarion, Horus and Magnus the Red had any major fluff. Back then, Fulgrim was just a name. The Horus Heresy was the most covered item, with a few pages devoted to it. Siege of Terra was a two page spread! Flight of the Eisenstein was covered in a paragraph! There was lots that was unknown and it let our imaginations run wild.
Then they put out the Chapter Approved articles detailing the legions. It was cool, but some of the lustre wore off. The Imperial Fists were transformed overnight from a super cool niche army (nobody wanted to paint the yellow!) who were the implacable defenders of the Imperial Palace to a bunch of self-mutilating rigid-thinkers led by overly stubborn, politically tone-deaf and tunnel visioned Rogal Dorn. They didn't even get good rules as compensation... Back then they got Sgt Lysander and BOLTER DRILL. I didn't want to know that the Alpha Legion was driven by a hydra sized inferiority complex.
Now pretty much every major event is mined dry and explicitly spelled out. There's not much that is left to the player imagination. I think that GW is strangling the fluff to death as hard as they're trying to squeeze money out of their withering customer base.
Mr. Correct wrote: The quality of rule writing and testing have never affected a game's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with pretty playing pieces is worth ten billion perfectly written rulesets.
The quality of proper food preparation and seasoning have never affected a meal's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with expensive ingredients and pretty presentation is worth ten billion perfectly cooked portions.
The quality of reliability and crash safety have never affected a car's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with rumbling engine noise and chromed parts is worth ten billion perfectly reliable, safe automobiles.
The quality of proper spelling and punctuation have never affected a resume's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package on pretty stationary and letterhedd is werth 10 billions, pefektly, writin, job aplikashuns.
And yet, men line up to date the pretty girl, girls fawn over the hunky guy, books are judged by their covers, the car with the shiny mags sells... For that matter, nice looking people get hired over ugly and average-looking ones.
And actually, a well presented cv outperforms a poorly presented one. Printed on linen, watermarked bond, professionally typeset will give an inferior applicant a job over a slightly superior one.
Looks aren't everything.... But they matter way more than they should for almost everything in life. Life ain't fair, and the clever take advantage of that.
So if you owned a business, you would hire the less qualified person because his/her resume was on prettier paper? Yeah, good luck on that.
Yes, people fawn over good looking people. But unless that person has a good personality, people are usually only interested in sleeping with them, not having long meaningful relationships. Also, with that analogy, you're suggesting GW's business strategy is to recruit new players, burn them, and then go out and find more new players. Actually, now that I think about it, GW has been doing that. Problem is, they have an incredibly hard time finding new players because burned players talk and GW's reputation is beyond tarnished.
keezus wrote: I'd just like to point out that GW's IP isnt' as golden as you make it out to be anymore.
I remember when I first started in 40k in 2nd Ed. There were the broad strokes of the background but nothing was fleshed out. This let players "imagine" what things might have been like. You didn't know anything about the primarchs really, except their names. Lion El'Johnson, Leman Russ and Sanguinus were the only ones who had a smattering of background. On the Chaos side, only Angron, Mortarion, Horus and Magnus the Red had any major fluff. Back then, Fulgrim was just a name. The Horus Heresy was the most covered item, with a few pages devoted to it. Siege of Terra was a two page spread! Flight of the Eisenstein was covered in a paragraph! There was lots that was unknown and it let our imaginations run wild.
Then they put out the Chapter Approved articles detailing the legions. It was cool, but some of the lustre wore off. The Imperial Fists were transformed overnight from a super cool niche army (nobody wanted to paint the yellow!) who were the implacable defenders of the Imperial Palace to a bunch of self-mutilating rigid-thinkers led by overly stubborn, politically tone-deaf and tunnel visioned Rogal Dorn. They didn't even get good rules as compensation... Back then they got Sgt Lysander and BOLTER DRILL. I didn't want to know that the Alpha Legion was driven by a hydra sized inferiority complex.
Now pretty much every major event is mined dry and explicitly spelled out. There's not much that is left to the player imagination. I think that GW is strangling the fluff to death as hard as they're trying to squeeze money out of their withering customer base.
I wouldn't mind all that so much if the writing was actually good.
@MW: In 3rd Edition, we did an Istvan megabattle. Sure we could do it again now, but now that there is -canon- fluff, it feels less that we are forging our own epic narrative than recreating a meaningless part of the established storyline.
keezus wrote: @MW: In 3rd Edition, we did an Istvan megabattle. Sure we could do it again now, but now that there is -canon- fluff, it feels less that we are forging our own epic narrative than recreating a meaningless part of the established storyline.
Considering that my army was Dark Angels: Fifth Company - Engineering 'Badgerwing'... I have to admit that I also like going off of the beaten track a bit. (My Vindicator was done up as a Demolitions and Vehicle Recovery tank, back when the Vindicator was a 'how to' article in White Dwarf.)
MWHistorian wrote: I wouldn't mind all that so much if the writing was actually good.
I'm not a big fan of their novels. They're just not my kind of fiction. These days, mostly, I like crowd-pleasing, entertaining novels that are well-written with nothing too deep, and no disturbing endings, and 40k books don't do that for me. However, their "future history" -- the chronicling of the past looking back from 40k is pretty cool.
There are also bits of 40k lore that lend itself better to future history two-liners, than a book. For instance, Maugan Ra defeating Hive Fleet Leviathan single-handedly is epic on a timeline. It leaves much to my imagination, a Phoenix Lord butchering endless waves of Tyranid, in the same way that it was cool to see the door close behind Summer Glau's character, River Tam, in the last fight scene, and then when it opens again, the endless reavers are just a pile of broken bodies.
i am a big fan of the novels...
i enjoy reading about the characters, and then setting out to recreate the feel of some moment from a novel in miniature form...
very inspirational for painting...
the move to limited edition hardbacks is not something i can get behind, but that just made my switch to digital a no-brainer...
same book content, at a lower price, and i don't have to wait for anything to clear customs...
@MWHistorian: i get that you don't rate GW's fiction writing, but how do you feel about the PP stuff???
are you a fan of their novels, and the sourcebook fiction???
i like both, personally, but they scratch completely different itches...
jah-joshua wrote: keep in mind, i was replying to triplegrim's line of, "And in all honesty, would anyone really purchase space marine models if there was no game to play with them?"
Some people like the hobby side much more than the game side. I live in BFE with absolutely no gaming group within 30-50 miles, have played about a half-dozen games of 40k since getting into miniatures with 2nd edition, but still have 6 different armies, ranging from Marines, to SoB, to Necrons, Eldar and even 4th edition Kroot Mercs.
If I even play soon, it will be 2nd edition with the wife or a buddy.
I dont ment to insult anybody, but if the hobby is more interesting for certain people than the actual playing and dice rolling why.... why dont just buy Revell, Tamiya and etc. kits and... you know, just paint minis rather than come to forums and complain about rules, prices and etc.
Because as others have said in my defense (thanks!) I want to paint minis that are part of one of my long-time favorite fictional universes (I believe for me it's 18 years, now). I gripe about the rules because I also like to paint functional armies for the mainstream rules governing games in those universes, when i can get the rare game in, but I find many of the rules involved to suck some of the fun out of the game, so I gripe about those.
The prices, well, who wants to see figures they think are really awesome and would be fun to paint, not to mention fit in with the army they are currently working on, become ever-increasingly expensive to buy? A single-sprue character for $25+? A 50% drop in the models in a box, but remaining the same price? The huge up to and over 100% price hikes from the same model in metal to Finecast (which was supposedly a material change due to the instability of the metal markets- though other companies seem to be doing just fine keeping their models in it)?
tl;dr
For example, Revell/Tamiya tanks are not Land Raiders. Those are part of a universe I love, but in the years since the modern kit has been out have had a price hike of around 100%, which I periodically feel is gripe-worthy. I am in love with Games Workshop, but holy Jesus since 2000 she's become more and more of an abusive girlfriend, and now seems to resent my existence, despite my helping to pay her bills for nearly 20 years.
MWHistorian wrote: I wouldn't mind all that so much if the writing was actually good.
I'm not a big fan of their novels. They're just not my kind of fiction. These days, mostly, I like crowd-pleasing, entertaining novels that are well-written with nothing too deep, and no disturbing endings, and 40k books don't do that for me. However, their "future history" -- the chronicling of the past looking back from 40k is pretty cool.
There are also bits of 40k lore that lend itself better to future history two-liners, than a book. For instance, Maugan Ra defeating Hive Fleet Leviathan single-handedly is epic on a timeline. It leaves much to my imagination, a Phoenix Lord butchering endless waves of Tyranid, in the same way that it was cool to see the door close behind Summer Glau's character, River Tam, in the last fight scene, and then when it opens again, the endless reavers are just a pile of broken bodies.
GW just has seriously poor quality control on the writers it hires. Some of it is good, some of it is great, a lot of it is god awful.
For example, Revell/Tamiya tanks are not Land Raiders. Those are part of a universe I love, but in the years since the modern kit has been out have had a price hike of around 100%, which I periodically feel is gripe-worthy. I am in love with Games Workshop, but holy Jesus since 2000 she's become more and more of an abusive girlfriend, and now seems to resent my existence, despite my helping to pay her bills for nearly 20 years.
Sometimes you just gotta move on and find a new love.
For example, Revell/Tamiya tanks are not Land Raiders. Those are part of a universe I love, but in the years since the modern kit has been out have had a price hike of around 100%, which I periodically feel is gripe-worthy. I am in love with Games Workshop, but holy Jesus since 2000 she's become more and more of an abusive girlfriend, and now seems to resent my existence, despite my helping to pay her bills for nearly 20 years.
Sometimes you just gotta move on and find a new love.
It would be much more likely for me if other companies made models like land raiders, drop pods, voidravens, night scythes and that kind of thing. Futuristic vehicles in plastic kits are really cool -- besides futuristic knights (Space marines) and a system that promotes large, futuristic armies -- a wide variety of futuristic vehicles are the biggest draw for me to 40k.
I have no idea why so few companies do it, to be honest. I'm sure there would be a big market for those models.
For example, Revell/Tamiya tanks are not Land Raiders. Those are part of a universe I love, but in the years since the modern kit has been out have had a price hike of around 100%, which I periodically feel is gripe-worthy. I am in love with Games Workshop, but holy Jesus since 2000 she's become more and more of an abusive girlfriend, and now seems to resent my existence, despite my helping to pay her bills for nearly 20 years.
Sometimes you just gotta move on and find a new love.
It would be much more likely for me if other companies made models like land raiders, drop pods, voidravens, night scythes and that kind of thing. Futuristic vehicles in plastic kits are really cool -- besides futuristic knights (Space marines) and a system that promotes large, futuristic armies -- a wide variety of futuristic vehicles are the biggest draw for me to 40k.
I have no idea why so few companies do it, to be honest. I'm sure there would be a big market for those models.
The big 4 in models
Anime/popular movies
Trains and rail ways
History
Cars and planes.
I doubt Sci Fi (outside of popular sci fi like Starwars etc) is probably not high on the popularity scale of modelers. Unless there is Sci Fi popular enough out there to do a huge range. Even then 40k style kits are very easy to assemble (half the fun gone) and very chunky compared to most models out there.
Maybe there is a market out there, but outside of wargaming I doubt it a bit.
destrucifier wrote: The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.
Now they can have another go with AoS. The neckbeards I mean.
For example, Revell/Tamiya tanks are not Land Raiders. Those are part of a universe I love, but in the years since the modern kit has been out have had a price hike of around 100%, which I periodically feel is gripe-worthy. I am in love with Games Workshop, but holy Jesus since 2000 she's become more and more of an abusive girlfriend, and now seems to resent my existence, despite my helping to pay her bills for nearly 20 years.
Sometimes you just gotta move on and find a new love.
It would be much more likely for me if other companies made models like land raiders, drop pods, voidravens, night scythes and that kind of thing. Futuristic vehicles in plastic kits are really cool -- besides futuristic knights (Space marines) and a system that promotes large, futuristic armies -- a wide variety of futuristic vehicles are the biggest draw for me to 40k.
I have no idea why so few companies do it, to be honest. I'm sure there would be a big market for those models.
The big 4 in models
Anime/popular movies Trains and rail ways History Cars and planes.
I doubt Sci Fi (outside of popular sci fi like Starwars etc) is probably not high on the popularity scale of modelers. Unless there is Sci Fi popular enough out there to do a huge range. Even then 40k style kits are very easy to assemble (half the fun gone) and very chunky compared to most models out there.
Maybe there is a market out there, but outside of wargaming I doubt it a bit.
If I were to take a guess I'd assume it's because companies feel in the consumer base of people who like to spend 10's if not 100's of hours assembling and painting a kit, most of them wouldn't want to spend that time on unrealistically proportioned futuristic vehicles like 40k uses.
At a guess I'd say fine scale model cars and planes are probably a larger market than wargaming models (I'd be extremely surprised if they aren't, I pass more than a dozen shops where I can buy a Panzer before I hit a shop that sells a Land Raider ) and for the most part the companies that make plastic models of vehicles stick to real life ones, occasionally venturing in to movie vehicles and whatnot but almost never inventing their own models out of nothing.
I guess part of it comes down to the appeal of those things being strongly linked to the universe in which they exist and no one thinks inventing a universe just for the sake of making a few models of them is worth the effort.
I know if I wasn't already interested in the 40k universe I'd think a lot of the models were junky toys
Talys wrote: It would be much more likely for me if other companies made models like land raiders, drop pods, voidravens, night scythes and that kind of thing. Futuristic vehicles in plastic kits are really cool -- besides futuristic knights (Space marines) and a system that promotes large, futuristic armies -- a wide variety of futuristic vehicles are the biggest draw for me to 40k. I have no idea why so few companies do it, to be honest. I'm sure there would be a big market for those models.
Two points:
1. Most sci-fi vehicles are made to be non-scale display pieces. There are few games that use vehicles the same way that 40k does because of movement/armor issues at the scale the games are played.
2. Kits that are stylistically not compatible with your aesthetic preferences does not equal "do not exist"...
Spoiler:
Apart from the obligatory: Star Wars, Star Trek, Gundam, Terminator, Aliens, BSG... pretty much all the robot kits from Japan... Titanfall, Halo,
For example, Revell/Tamiya tanks are not Land Raiders. Those are part of a universe I love, but in the years since the modern kit has been out have had a price hike of around 100%, which I periodically feel is gripe-worthy. I am in love with Games Workshop, but holy Jesus since 2000 she's become more and more of an abusive girlfriend, and now seems to resent my existence, despite my helping to pay her bills for nearly 20 years.
Sometimes you just gotta move on and find a new love.
It would be much more likely for me if other companies made models like land raiders, drop pods, voidravens, night scythes and that kind of thing. Futuristic vehicles in plastic kits are really cool -- besides futuristic knights (Space marines) and a system that promotes large, futuristic armies -- a wide variety of futuristic vehicles are the biggest draw for me to 40k.
I have no idea why so few companies do it, to be honest. I'm sure there would be a big market for those models.
The big 4 in models
Anime/popular movies
Trains and rail ways
History
Cars and planes.
I doubt Sci Fi (outside of popular sci fi like Starwars etc) is probably not high on the popularity scale of modelers. Unless there is Sci Fi popular enough out there to do a huge range. Even then 40k style kits are very easy to assemble (half the fun gone) and very chunky compared to most models out there.
Maybe there is a market out there, but outside of wargaming I doubt it a bit.
If I were to take a guess I'd assume it's because companies feel in the consumer base of people who like to spend 10's if not 100's of hours assembling and painting a kit, most of them wouldn't want to spend that time on unrealistically proportioned futuristic vehicles like 40k uses.
At a guess I'd say fine scale model cars and planes are probably a larger market than wargaming models (I'd be extremely surprised if they aren't, I pass more than a dozen shops where I can buy a Panzer before I hit a shop that sells a Land Raider ) and for the most part the companies that make plastic models of vehicles stick to real life ones, occasionally venturing in to movie vehicles and whatnot but almost never inventing their own models out of nothing.
I guess part of it comes down to the appeal of those things being strongly linked to the universe in which they exist and no one thinks inventing a universe just for the sake of making a few models of them.
I know if I wasn't already interested in the 40k universe I'd think a lot of the models were junky toys
I agree 100%
For example the car models appeal to people who:
Love cars
Love a car or 2
Love modeling and cars
Love doing custom paint jobs on car displays
Love doing custom paint jobs on car displays for bedrooms, shops or workshops
And the list goes on. We all know cars are far more popular than we can probably fathom. Makes sense to make model cars for that huge group of the world. Same with history. More people know/like the Tiger tank than people will ever like an X wing etc.
Maybe it is because Sci Fi does not have the technical side of things sorted or the deep history, stories and details behind it to keep people interested for long. You cannot make a model of a Land Raider that works beyond looking cool. Looking cool only lasts for so long. Take the land raider, we have very vague information on how it works, why it is the way it is or how it was developed. How much armour does it have? How long does it take to make? How many stories do we have of the tanks crew? How has it changed how Space Marines fight? What are it's draw backs? How does it perform non combat wise? What is it's operational range? What did crews do to the tanks to improve its use on the battle field? Does it have technical issues that never got addressed?
The amount of depth to a land raider is nothing compared to even the tanks we have next to no information about. How is the average person going to be interested in such a thing for long? It's only substance is it's appearance and that only goes so far. The Sci Fi would have to be deep and very well thought out to make a major line of model kits that people will care about decade after decade.
Hey, I'm not saying that none exist. But there aren't a lot, and they aren't great for army-building, which is my thing.
Buy what you like! I know that I will, and for all your immense distaste for GW, they will continue to build creative models that guys like me will buy.
Not that I know what this has anything to do with the subject of the thread. Are we just continuing this as the obligatory 'hate on GW thread?' before it gets locked for being totally off topic too?
I can save you some time... non-GW models exist, Az thinks anyone who buys GW has no taste and low standards, HBMC can't (or won't) say anything substantive but likes short quips that doesn't contribute at all to the topic, and Talys will defend GW as a company that makes cool models that he likes and games he plays.
Edit -- just to keep it slightly on topic, HBMC thinks GW is incapable of (or unwilling to) doing anything intelligent and Talys thinks that GW is plenty intelligent by making stuff that appeal to its core customers, but could be more intelligent by appealing to more potential customers. Wheee.
Talys wrote: I can save you some time... non-GW models exist, Az thinks anyone who buys GW has no taste and low standards, HBMC can't (or won't) say anything substantive but likes short quips that doesn't contribute at all to the topic, and Talys will defend GW as a company that makes cool models that he likes and games he plays.
Edit -- just to keep it slightly on topic, HBMC thinks GW is incapable of (or unwilling to) doing anything intelligent and Talys thinks that GW is plenty intelligent by making stuff that appeal to its core customers, but could be more intelligent by appealing to more potential customers. Wheee.
lol.. you guys need to get a life.
Anyways to answer the question. They can't write a game for gak, but that doesn't mean they're not intelligent.
As much as I disliek them, of course GW is intelligent. They know how to milk every last buck out of their customers. Plus apparently they know how to get rid of the people they don't want as customers, too. As long as they have customers that are happy to give them their hard-earned money, sure they're smart.
As far as I am concerned, their products are grossly overpriced, because I see them as nothing more than expensive game tokens for a bad game. Now keep in mind that I don't like models >> at all << but I really enjoy PLAYING miniature wargames. Since all the people I play with insist on having painted models, I have to buy models and pay to get them painted to a decent quality so that I don't look like a turd.
Now if you think they're beautiful works of art and want to pay top dollar for them, whatever. I mean, people pay thousands of dollars to stick a baseball sweater on the wall or a painting of a bowl of fruit.
As to their pricing structure, they have it right. They're just pricing it at the highest price that the people who like their stuff will pay for it. Like no gak Sherlock, that's basic business. I wish they would increase the price of their products more so that more people would leave their game and come play other, better games ^^
Talys wrote: I can save you some time... non-GW models exist, Az thinks anyone who buys GW has no taste and low standards, HBMC can't (or won't) say anything substantive but likes short quips that doesn't contribute at all to the topic, and Talys will defend GW as a company that makes cool models that he likes and games he plays.
Edit -- just to keep it slightly on topic, HBMC thinks GW is incapable of (or unwilling to) doing anything intelligent and Talys thinks that GW is plenty intelligent by making stuff that appeal to its core customers, but could be more intelligent by appealing to more potential customers. Wheee.
lol.. you guys need to get a life.
Anyways to answer the question. They can't write a game for gak, but that doesn't mean they're not intelligent.
As much as I disliek them, of course GW is intelligent. They know how to milk every last buck out of their customers. Plus apparently they know how to get rid of the people they don't want as customers, too. As long as they have customers that are happy to give them their hard-earned money, sure they're smart.
As far as I am concerned, their products are grossly overpriced, because I see them as nothing more than expensive game tokens for a bad game. Now keep in mind that I don't like models >> at all << but I really enjoy PLAYING miniature wargames. Since all the people I play with insist on having painted models, I have to buy models and pay to get them painted to a decent quality so that I don't look like a turd.
Now if you think they're beautiful works of art and want to pay top dollar for them, whatever. I mean, people pay thousands of dollars to stick a baseball sweater on the wall or a painting of a bowl of fruit.
As to their pricing structure, they have it right. They're just pricing it at the highest price that the people who like their stuff will pay for it. Like no gak Sherlock, that's basic business. I wish they would increase the price of their products more so that more people would leave their game and come play other, better games ^^
I thought an intelligent business wants all people as customers... Everything GW does goes against that.
Judging by your "insight" you don't have much to do with running a business in your line of work.
Waaaaaaaagh. Okay, this is too much for me, lol... This has gone to the twilight zone.
@Marlov - without models, video games are so much better than tabletop games, aren't they? I don't agree with you, but this topic is/has gotten just too wierd for me anyhow. To anyone who disagrees with me, I'll just disagree without being disagreeable and go on my merry way.
@Swastakowey - I too think that "big tent" is better. You can't make everyone happy, for sure, but to make products that appeal to as many people as possible (and certainly try to retain your existing customers) seem intuitively the right way to do it. Though I've never run a quarter billion dollar business, so I'm willing to admit my ignorance on the subject
Going to paint muh models. Peace, all, and out for the night... good gaming (or painting!) to you, Marlov, Swastakowey, Az, HBMC, & Keezus.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Nonsense. I'm contributing snarky comedy to the thread. And how dare you say otherwise!
And I never said GW wasn't intelligent. Don't put the goalposts you keep moving into my mouth Talys!
Oops. I guess I misread...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Plastic Flesh Hounds would'a been a really good idea.
So it makes sense that GW aren't doing them.
I like snark. But some non-snark here or there wouldn't hurt.
And hey. I play with GW rules. This is Maelstrom of War, where the goalposts are different every turn. And besides, if you don't like the rules, the solution is not to play, or to make up your own and play with like-minded folks
Since we are TOTALLY off topic. And nobody has answered me in the 40k thread. If anyone who's watching THIS thread has an opinion of whether Space Marine scouts should go on a 32mm base instead of 25mm, please PM me! Or reply to the other thread in 40kGD, which is what I popped online to check.
Wait, that thing is cheaper* than a Taurox, but sports:
Linked movable front steering
Rotating soft plastic wheels
Green tint see through windows
Working doors hatches and hood
Movable defense gantry
Detailed crew compartment
12 seated crew
on top of it looking like it might actually be used/useful in combat.
Herzlos wrote: Wait, that thing is cheaper* than a Taurox, but sports:
Linked movable front steering
Rotating soft plastic wheels
Green tint see through windows
Working doors hatches and hood
Movable defense gantry
Detailed crew compartment
12 seated crew
on top of it looking like it might actually be used/useful in combat.
...Dang!
*On sale at $45 from $65, Taurox is $50.
Yes, which is why those of us with a less GW-centric view tend to scoff a little when people try to claim that GW kits are 'premium' or 'superior.'
Talys wrote: Hey, I'm not saying that none exist. But there aren't a lot, and they aren't great for army-building, which is my thing.
That's a pretty narrow view, considering that the only manufacturer who uses vehicles en-masse is Games Workshop and said in-universe vehicles are designed to be generally incompatible with any other system. You are by-definition excluding all other manufacturers who don't create garage kits expressly for use in 40k.
While it is understandable that GW would want to position itself in such a fashion by slathering its offerings with an almost impenetrable wall of IP protected gribbles - I think Games Workshop is definitely limiting itself by not producing more generic base kits with separate frames of IP protected gribbles. If the Taurox had options for wheels, all the iconography was separate or built onto separate panels, (and it was a tad cheaper... I mean $60!!!!), it could see use with other systems as an APC/Truck and or scatter terrain. The separate iconography would let users customize their vehicle's markings without having the skulls/banners/purity seals in the same place AND allow non-GW customers to use it. The same with their terrain. It is with much frustration that the AoS terrain has all the crazy gribbles built right into the frames. This means that every fething wall section / arch looks the same AND limits the audience for these kits - from within the GW customer base AND beyond. Realistically, there's no reason that the "Wall of Martyrs" needs to have guardsmen molded right onto the base... what about the population of gamers that don't play Imperial Gua... ahem... Astra Millitarum? Its telling that the best selling terrain kits are the generic ones: The discontinued "3rd Edition Gothic Ruins", "Fortified Manor House", "Ruins of Osgiliath" and "Necromunda Bulkheads" were very good value. The more recent "Dreadstone Blight" and "Skullvane Manse" were awesome, if somewhat expensive. Even the old "Arcane Ruins" and "Temple of Skulls" are more flexible than the new kits they are putting out. Alas, they are all DISCONTINUED. Its insane that just a short time ago the Temple of Skulls was $40cdn for a gigantic kit and now $40 buys you almost nothing, terrain wise. I'm convinced that the "worn out molds" is a weak excuse considering that the plastic battlefield accessories have been around since 40k 2nd Edition.
It really does feel that GW has adopted a more adversarial approach with their customers. There is a thin veneer of "buy what you like" over a sea of "we don't care what you think".
This attitude is really concentrated at the management level. The frontline employees are usually much more open about the company's shortcomings. I don't often frequent the GW outlets, now that they are few and far between and the product is more easily accessible online - I have noticed, both at our local GW and at Gencon that the staffers are much more open about talking about GW's direct competition, be it Mantic, Wyrd, Corvus Belli or Privateer Press. It wasn't that long ago - maybe 5 years - that openly talking about other systems in their outlets was frowned upon, if not forbidden. I don't dispute that a lot of the product on offer is of high quality... Only that the price does not match the offering. The current clippers had better be artificer level, master-crafted and ignore armor saves, as $40cdn for a pair of clippers is insane... (disclaimer: the old clippers were pretty good, and I would probably part with $25 for a set of them...) The $30cdn measuring tool is insane... metal or not...
I thought an intelligent business wants all people as customers... Everything GW does goes against that.
Judging by your "insight" you don't have much to do with running a business in your line of work.
An intelligent business will seek to maximise it's achievement of the goals that it has said. This is generally maximum profit.
Maximising customers may be an objective but it is not a particularly intelligent aim. The sacrifices in terms of price that will have to be made will render the business more or less unprofitable.
Additionally, there are some things, and Miniature Wargames would be one of them, where all people would not become customers. Loads of people would have no interest in Wh40k even for £0.50 a model or less.
Games workshop are producing a product they believe should be high value, and operate in a niche, this is high up the supply curve. Due to the presupposed inelasticity of demand for their product, the Demand Curve will alter gradient, and their profit will increase. So they are not bothered by maximising production and maximising the market due to the costs of production, and the opportunity to sell at a higher price in a niche market. This is in fact intelligent business practice.
Judging by your insight you've never studied business at any level beyond 14.
IGtR= wrote: Games workshop are producing a product they believe should be high value, and operate in a niche, this is high up the supply curve. Due to the presupposed inelasticity of demand for their product, the Demand Curve will alter gradient, and their profit will increase. So they are not bothered by maximising production and maximising the market due to the costs of production, and the opportunity to sell at a higher price in a niche market. This is in fact intelligent business practice.
Just because Games Workshop believes the product is high value doesn't make it the case in practice. The inelasticity of demand for their product is also presumed (y'know... market research being otiose in a niche and all that). While price might actually be inelastic for some customers, it is obviously not the case for all customers as sales volume is demonstrably lower year over year. Games Workshop would need to make up revenue either by raising prices or replacing lost customers. As Games Workshop does not advertise outside its own network, they have doubled down on the option of raising prices.
Not entirely sure this is intelligent business practice.
If we want to talk about scifi vehicle models, we should take it to a new thread, instead of tacking it onto this one? Would be a far more positive thread, anyhow. It is possible to talk about alternate manufacturers of scifi models without being pro- or anti-GW, too, right?
IGtR= wrote: Games workshop are producing a product they believe should be high value, and operate in a niche, this is high up the supply curve. Due to the presupposed inelasticity of demand for their product, the Demand Curve will alter gradient, and their profit will increase. So they are not bothered by maximising production and maximising the market due to the costs of production, and the opportunity to sell at a higher price in a niche market. This is in fact intelligent business practice.
Just because Games Workshop believes the product is high value doesn't make it the case in practice. The inelasticity of demand for their product is also presumed (y'know... market research being otiose in a niche and all that). While price might actually be inelastic for some customers, it is obviously not the case for all customers as sales volume is demonstrably lower year over year. Games Workshop would need to make up revenue either by raising prices or replacing lost customers. As Games Workshop does not advertise outside its own network, they have doubled down on the option of raising prices.
Not entirely sure this is intelligent business practice.
I was gonna leave this thread, but since there is some more on-topic stuff
GW's new MO is to keep prices of the old kits the same, raise prices of new replacement kits (with new models) of stuff that sells and -- most significantly -- crank up the release schedule. Note that for AoS, the troops model prices (old stuff that isn't selling) are being dropped significantly, down as low as $1.50 or $1.75 per model, I think.
In this way, its core customers will get more value AND spend more money. It just goes back to making the core customers happy at the expense (or frustration) of customers GW determines as non-core. The vast majority of the stuff they come out for is great for people who are into the fluff and the models -- for example, newer, better assault marines, devastators, or jetbikes appeal to a very specific niche, but that niche will guaranteed buy those models in multiples; just like newer splashier codexes in full color and in hardcover appeal to a specific type of person.
I do not believe that GW is "unintelligent", because any company's management that can turn double-digit profit margins in this niche market on hundreds of millions of dollars of sales and employs thousands of people is not stupid; this is not mutually exclusive with the fact that, like every company, they haven't made bad decisions and that with hindsight, they wouldn't do some things differently. They're brighter than me, though: I haven't built such a company. Before anyone denigrates them by calling them unintelligent, they should ask themselves if they could or if the have done anything comparable -- if not, then they're raising the bar for intelligence to a height that they themselves can't cross.
Talys wrote: Note that for AoS, the troops model prices (old stuff that isn't selling) are being dropped significantly, down as low as $1.50 or $1.75 per model, I think.
Can you substantiate this? The two regiment boxes that have been redone to my knowledge are the Dryads (+17% purchase price, +33% contents - essentially buy 14 dryads, get 2 free) and the Plague Monks (+0% purchase price, +0% contents). I feel that price per miniature is poor metric. There's only two types of units in AoS... Those that have an ability based on unit size breakpoint, and those that don't. Depending on the updated rules: Right now, there may be some advantage in buying Dryads in a box of 16 over the old box of 12, since the breakpoint for their special ability is 12. Presently: the Plague Monks have zero advanatage to being in a box of 20. For those who are model builder / painters only: Unless they are building a full ranked unit (also gone the way of the Squats), I feel it is unlikely they will be using the whole box at once - so I think they'll be generally indifferent to the price per model and be more sensitive to the overall capital cost of the box.
"There are plenty of examples of faulty thinking and decision biases. Each of us can learn to recognize the kinds of flawed thinking that contribute to decision errors:
Spoiler:
•Confirmation bias—a tendency to favor information that confirms our existing beliefs
•The status-quo trap—an irrational preference for the current state of affairs. The current baseline serves as a reference point, and any deviation is perceived as a loss.
•Loss aversion—a tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses over acquiring gains. Some studies suggest losses are psychologically twice as powerful as gains.
•Sunk-costs fallacy—when people make decisions about a current situation based on what they have already invested
•Planning fallacy—Estimating and forecasting errors occur when an optimism bias influences decisions and forecasts in policy, planning and management. Leaders tend to underestimate costs and overestimate completion times.
So maybe they are just plagued with a bad case of the classic decision bias that we are all prone to?
Hey, cool site, then they came up with these gems:
...intelligent, well-educated people are particularly susceptible to five fallacies that stop them from making wise choices and actions...
Spoiler:
1.The unrealistic-optimism fallacy: believing only good things will result from one’s ideas and actions.
2.The egocentrism fallacy: believing that one’s opinions are the only ones that matter.
3.The omniscience fallacy: believing one knows everything.
4.The omnipotence fallacy: believing one can do what one wants.
5.The invulnerability fallacy: believing one can get away with anything.
Ouch, Kirby, you know this stuff?
More:
Optimism fuels success. And success augments our belief in ourselves, sometimes too much.
Here’s a passage from Marshall Goldsmith’s What Got You Here, Won’t Get You There:
Spoiler:
… All of us in the workplace delude ourselves about our achievements, our status, and our contributions. We:
•Overestimate our contribution to a project
•Take credit, partial or complete, for successes that truly belong to others
•Have an elevated opinion of our professional skills and our standing among our peers
•Conveniently ignore the costly failures and time-consuming dead-ends we have created
•Exaggerate our projects’ impact on net profits because we discount the real and hidden costs built into them (the costs are someone else’s problems, the success is ours)
All of these delusions are a direct result of success, not failure. We get positive reinforcement from our past successes, and, in a mental leap that’s easy to justify, we think that our past success is predictive of great things in our future.
Talys wrote: Note that for AoS, the troops model prices (old stuff that isn't selling) are being dropped significantly, down as low as $1.50 or $1.75 per model, I think.
Can you substantiate this? The two regiment boxes that have been redone to my knowledge are the Dryads (+17% purchase price, +33% contents - essentially buy 14 dryads, get 2 free) and the Plague Monks (+0% purchase price, +0% contents). I feel that price per miniature is poor metric. There's only two types of units in AoS... Those that have an ability based on unit size breakpoint, and those that don't. Depending on the updated rules: Right now, there may be some advantage in buying Dryads in a box of 16 over the old box of 12, since the breakpoint for their special ability is 12. Presently: the Plague Monks have zero advanatage to being in a box of 20. For those who are model builder / painters only: Unless they are building a full ranked unit (also gone the way of the Squats), I feel it is unlikely they will be using the whole box at once - so I think they'll be generally indifferent to the price per model and be more sensitive to the overall capital cost of the box.
The blood reavers are 20 to a box now, too. Plague monks seem really cheap, but I am actually not really familiar with the old boxes, as I am not a fantasy guy. I don't think that PPM is really that important either, but other people bring it up a lot, as in "I can buy x models for y price in z game". It is somewhat important in that people like to compare prices of different models from different companies.
One tactic that I had as a weapon of last resort for GW was to sell its troop type, generic models at dirt cheap prices and kill the market for them. In other words, if they're not making money from elves with bows, sell them at $0.50 per model, and people of other game systems will buy them, dorcif companies that write rules for free to generate revenue elsewhere.
GW can do this better than other companies because it owns its own plants, already has HIPS molds long since paid for, and makes most of its money on 40k anyhow. I mean, if people want low priced models, give it to them, right?
Talys wrote: The blood reavers are 20 to a box now, too.
Blood Reavers are a new box at $58/20. These aren't a repack.
Talys wrote: One tactic that I had as a weapon of last resort for GW was to sell its troop type, generic models at dirt cheap prices and kill the market for them. In other words, if they're not making money from elves with bows, sell them at $0.50 per model, and people of other game systems will buy them, dorcif companies that write rules for free to generate revenue elsewhere.
I was under the impression in your previous post that this was happening already. Thanks for the clarification.
I was under the impression in your previous post that this was happening already. Thanks for the clarification.
Yeah, I think they are just trying to make the game attractive for new players atm. At least the prices haven't gone *up* (generally) and there seem to be some well priced bundles (at least on the GW scale). I don't think they're anywhere near scorched earth yet -- prices would have to drop to about a third of their current levels -- maybe $15 for a box of 50 (with all discounts figured in) and suddenly the landscape for rank-and-file models becomes very tough for everyone.
The way to make that happen would be direct-only, and minimum $50 for free shipping. Then a person and their buddy would have to order 3 boxes to get free shipping, and it basically screws anyone else making generic dwarves, elves, etc. Not that nobody else would buy other models, but people who see models only as tokens, or people on a budget, or people who just wanted to bulk up their armies would go there.
It would force other companies to focus on making more expensive specialist models (because sales volumes will be lower), which indirectly helps GW by making their own pricier models seem more in line with industry averages.
Talys wrote: I don't think they're anywhere near scorched earth yet -- prices would have to drop to about a third of their current levels -- maybe $15 for a box of 50 (with all discounts figured in) and suddenly the landscape for rank-and-file models becomes very tough for everyone.
I think it is very unlikely that GW will lower prices, let alone lower to that extent. There is no need to go to the 50/$20MSRP route. On top of being needlessly cheap, there are few units in the game (with the possible exception of skeletons and gobblins) that would want units of that size. This sales model will similarly not function for 40k. Cheaper prices may improve GW's customer uptake. It will definitely pressure its competition. Lowering prices to the extent you suggest seems to serve no useful purpose.
Talys wrote: I don't think they're anywhere near scorched earth yet -- prices would have to drop to about a third of their current levels -- maybe $15 for a box of 50 (with all discounts figured in) and suddenly the landscape for rank-and-file models becomes very tough for everyone.
I think it is very unlikely that GW will lower prices, let alone lower to that extent. There is no need to go to the 50/$20MSRP route. On top of being needlessly cheap, there are few units in the game (with the possible exception of skeletons and gobblins) that would want units of that size. This sales model will similarly not function for 40k. Cheaper prices may improve GW's customer uptake. It will definitely pressure its competition. Lowering prices to the extent you suggest seems to serve no useful purpose.
No, I wasn't suggesting for 40k -- only generic fantasy models to which there are obvious competitors. So, elves, dwarves, humans, Orcs, goblins. Flood market with cheap models, and force other manufacturers to derive profits from specialist models, which essentially drives up the price of everything OTHER than common fantasy generics.
You don't flood the market out of the goodness of your heart, but to take away the market from your competitors. At a scorched earth price, not only do you kill the generic market by creating an unsustainable ceiling price, but because the niche is so small, a big chunk of the customers will buy their elves, dwarves, and Orcs and never need them again for the rest of their lives.
It would be very hard for a competitor to do this to GW on the 40k side, because people buy 40k models specifically because they're 40k models, because of the modularity, the aesthetic, the collection, et cetera.
GW fantasy figures arguably are not generic, they are recogniseably GW style and scale, and don't fit well with other ranges.
It's true that GW has got a large back catalogue of plastic rank and file fantasy figures, for which the capital costs of moulds have been amortised long since. It won't cost them much to print off copies and sell them cheaply..
However if GW are pursuing a premium pricing policy, they will not want to confuse their own customers by offering figures that cost a fraction of the comparable new AoS kits. Sigmarines are basically £6 each for infantry figures. Even with the relative size and detail in mind, it will be difficult for people to swallow that price when compared to another fantasy infantry figure costing say £1.50.
Kilkrazy wrote: However if GW are pursuing a premium pricing policy, they will not want to confuse their own customers by offering figures that cost a fraction of the comparable new AoS kits. Sigmarines are basically £6 each for infantry figures. Even with the relative size and detail in mind, it will be difficult for people to swallow that price when compared to another fantasy infantry figure costing say £1.50.
This is already the case though:
Sigmarite Liberator £30 / 5 = £6 ea
Bloodreaver £35 / 20 = £1.75 ea Sylvaneth Dryad £25 / 16 = £1.56 ea Skaven Plague Monk £20.50 / 20 = £1.03 ea
We'll see as the other factions pan out, what the ppm of older models becomes.
But I mean, really, when was the last time you saw anyone buy peasant bowmen, Bretonian men-at-arms or Knights Errant? There are a few boxes of those with sun-bleached spines that have been sitting at my favorite store for *years*. Or even High Elf Archers & Spearmen, for that matter. If you wanted to play those models with AoS, it would work, but you'd still have to buy the big expensive models to play against most people -- GW is counting on the Plagueclaws and such to make up for the cheap skaven sales.
For example the car models appeal to people who:
Love cars
Love a car or 2
Love modeling and cars
Love doing custom paint jobs on car displays
Love doing custom paint jobs on car displays for bedrooms, shops or workshops
And the list goes on. We all know cars are far more popular than we can probably fathom. Makes sense to make model cars for that huge group of the world. Same with history. More people know/like the Tiger tank than people will ever like an X wing etc.
Maybe it is because Sci Fi does not have the technical side of things sorted or the deep history, stories and details behind it to keep people interested for long. You cannot make a model of a Land Raider that works beyond looking cool. Looking cool only lasts for so long. Take the land raider, we have very vague information on how it works, why it is the way it is or how it was developed. How much armour does it have? How long does it take to make? How many stories do we have of the tanks crew? How has it changed how Space Marines fight? What are it's draw backs? How does it perform non combat wise? What is it's operational range? What did crews do to the tanks to improve its use on the battle field? Does it have technical issues that never got addressed?
The amount of depth to a land raider is nothing compared to even the tanks we have next to no information about. How is the average person going to be interested in such a thing for long? It's only substance is it's appearance and that only goes so far. The Sci Fi would have to be deep and very well thought out to make a major line of model kits that people will care about decade after decade.
A large part of what makes something cool is knowledge of what it is.
In isolation, I don't think there's anything cool about a Land Raider. It's a boxy tank with bad suspension and chunky details. IMO opinion it's knowledge of where the tank lies within the 40k universe that makes it cool.
Same with Space Marines (at least for me). They look kind of derpy with their giant flares, giant shoulders, armour that doesn't look like it would allow much movement and hideous proportions. As someone who has been collecting 40k for so long I had kind of forgotten that until someone who was new to the game pointed out to me how stupid they look
It's not just 40k, I didn't see Star Wars until I was in my mid teens and had been collecting historic models prior to that... when I saw models of TIE fighters and X-wings for the first time I thought they looked pretty stupid as well.
There aren't too many things that are inherently cool (if anything?). I tend to think making generic futuristic models or generic fantasy models isn't going to produce a large market, you sell the universe as much as you sell the individual models and GW have done a good job of using a game to introduce people to a universe and in turn get them excited about the models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: But I mean, really, when was the last time you saw anyone buy peasant bowmen, Bretonian men-at-arms or Knights Errant? There are a few boxes of those with sun-bleached spines that have been sitting at my favorite store for *years*.
The Bretonnian men at arms are some of my favourite models in the WHFB line up, I have quite a lot of the blighters. I haven't bought any recently and frankly I doubt anyone has bought any recently because the last Bretonnian Army Book came out more than 11 years ago.
Talys wrote: But I mean, really, when was the last time you saw anyone buy peasant bowmen, Bretonian men-at-arms or Knights Errant? There are a few boxes of those with sun-bleached spines that have been sitting at my favorite store for *years*. Or even High Elf Archers & Spearmen, for that matter. If you wanted to play those models with AoS, it would work, but you'd still have to buy the big expensive models to play against most people -- GW is counting on the Plagueclaws and such to make up for the cheap skaven sales.
The bretonnian boys were likely sold in the inmediate years following their last released armybook: eleven years and two editions ago (not counting AoS here of course). You can't expect a product to keep selling when you try your hardest to completely neglect it and give it no support. Also those models face competition from historical ranges which tend to offer alternatives of similar - if not higher - quality for a fraction of the price.
Regarding Elves, I don't even know where to begin with. Easy example: GW sells 10 plastic Phoenix Guards for 34€ (and that doesn't even make them the most expensive elves of GW's range, lol), while Mom Miniatures offers 10 Elves with Halberds, resin models of arguably even higher quality, for 15€.
So good luck trying to blame the potential customers for not buying an overpriced and mostly outdated product, while the market is blooming with better alternatives.
Herzlos wrote: Wait, that thing is cheaper* than a Taurox, but sports:
Linked movable front steering
Rotating soft plastic wheels
Green tint see through windows
Working doors hatches and hood
Movable defense gantry
Detailed crew compartment
12 seated crew
on top of it looking like it might actually be used/useful in combat.
...Dang!
*On sale at $45 from $65, Taurox is $50.
I know, it's hard for people who play GW games to imagine a vehicle that is designed to actually seat the number of occupants that it's stated to be carrying around. INSANITY!!!!1!!11!!
keezus wrote: Can somebody more familiar with WH Fantasy comment: I believe the Plague Monks aren't even that old. Aren't they circa Island of Blood???
Oh, plague monks are much older than that. They came out at least five years ago, although I'm pretty sure they're older than that by twice that amount.
@Accolade: Wow. 2005. They seemed much newer... The ones that I KNOW are old... Empire State Troops, Free Company, Knights, High Elf Spears are absolutely ancient. Warhammer Fantasy really IS team No Love.
Well, I think GW hasn't been sure what to do with Fantasy for a long time. The difficulty with the ranked system was making models that are both dynamic and fit together in neat blocks. Once they come up with a design (i.e. like with the plague monks), there doesn't appear to be a lot of different ways they can vary the mold. Personally, I think the plague monks still look pretty decent, although I definitely agree that the likes of the High Elf bowmen and warriors look pretty poor (same thing applied to Dark Elves, who finally got a makeover in the general ranks).
Accolade wrote: (same thing applied to Dark Elves, who finally got a makeover in the general ranks).
Which is actually funny, because many of the metal models that were replaced by newer plastic kits over the course of 7th and 8th edition were actually way better models than their replacements. Corsairs, Executioners and Black Guard instantly come to mind. And with the exception of Corsairs, actually cheaper.
Corsairs are actually one of GW's cheaper options now at 10/$24. There was much gnashing of teeth when the Goldswords debuted... (10/$41). Now we have the high price for the Witch Elves 10/$60 reaching crazy levels.
keezus wrote: Can somebody more familiar with WH Fantasy comment: I believe the Plague Monks aren't even that old. Aren't they circa Island of Blood???
Nah they're a good bit older. 2006/2007 they were out, because it wasn't long after I started in 2005. They came out with the Lustria supplement for fantasy.
Oops didn't realise this was answered on the last page. 2005? Even older than I remembered.
ImAGeek wrote: Nah they're a good bit older. 2006/2007 they were out, because it wasn't long after I started in 2005. They came out with the Lustria supplement for fantasy.
I demand my Lustria Warscrolls... Now that AoS offers unbound type army selection, I can actually use all 9 of my Fenbeasts, but GW plays the cruel joke and doesn't warscroll them!
Talys wrote: But I mean, really, when was the last time you saw anyone buy peasant bowmen, Bretonian men-at-arms or Knights Errant? There are a few boxes of those with sun-bleached spines that have been sitting at my favorite store for *years*. Or even High Elf Archers & Spearmen, for that matter. If you wanted to play those models with AoS, it would work, but you'd still have to buy the big expensive models to play against most people -- GW is counting on the Plagueclaws and such to make up for the cheap skaven sales.
The bretonnian boys were likely sold in the inmediate years following their last released armybook: eleven years and two editions ago (not counting AoS here of course). You can't expect a product to keep selling when you try your hardest to completely neglect it and give it no support. Also those models face competition from historical ranges which tend to offer alternatives of similar - if not higher - quality for a fraction of the price.
Regarding Elves, I don't even know where to begin with. Easy example: GW sells 10 plastic Phoenix Guards for 34€ (and that doesn't even make them the most expensive elves of GW's range, lol), while Mom Miniatures offers 10 Elves with Halberds, resin models of arguably even higher quality, for 15€.
So good luck trying to blame the potential customers for not buying an overpriced and mostly outdated product, while the market is blooming with better alternatives.
I don't disagree with you at all. I'm just giving some examples of models GW could price reduce and flog as genetic fantasy model (down to 50 cent levels), without having an impact on their core Sales. If you scrolled up from the post that I made, you'd see that I wad suggesting atavtoc of last resort would be to take all the models that were generic fantasy and price them so low that people would buy them, thus killing the market for generic fantasy models and forcing competitors to sell specialist models at a higher price to compensate.
GW can afford to do this because the molds gave long since been paid for, and they make most of their money from 40k anyhow. So, if AoS doesn't work out, they could try to fix it, and failing that, just dump their old rank and file models to flood (and kill) the market. The net effect will be more expensive models from everyone in the genre, because nobody else is capable of competing with GW on the low end if that's where they go (since it's not going to be profitable).
But they won't, because reducing prices of stuff that they've already paid for the productions costs on, and paid for the production of, that doesn't sell so that it does sell somehow financially damages their 'premium' reputation.
Azreal13 wrote: But they won't, because reducing prices of stuff that they've already paid for the productions costs on, and paid for the production of, that doesn't sell so that it does sell somehow financially damages their 'premium' reputation.
GW = unintelligent.
Yup, as I've said before. GW like to think they're the Louis Vuitton of wargaming. They'd rather destroy their product than reduce it.
Kilkrazy wrote: However if GW are pursuing a premium pricing policy, they will not want to confuse their own customers by offering figures that cost a fraction of the comparable new AoS kits. Sigmarines are basically £6 each for infantry figures. Even with the relative size and detail in mind, it will be difficult for people to swallow that price when compared to another fantasy infantry figure costing say £1.50.
This is already the case though:
Sigmarite Liberator £30 / 5 = £6 ea
Bloodreaver £35 / 20 = £1.75 ea Sylvaneth Dryad £25 / 16 = £1.56 ea Skaven Plague Monk £20.50 / 20 = £1.03 ea
We'll see as the other factions pan out, what the ppm of older models becomes.
But I mean, really, when was the last time you saw anyone buy peasant bowmen, Bretonian men-at-arms or Knights Errant? There are a few boxes of those with sun-bleached spines that have been sitting at my favorite store for *years*. Or even High Elf Archers & Spearmen, for that matter. If you wanted to play those models with AoS, it would work, but you'd still have to buy the big expensive models to play against most people -- GW is counting on the Plagueclaws and such to make up for the cheap skaven sales.
Kilkrazy wrote:Well then, I suppose that is why people might regard GW as unintelligent. They don't seem to understand the psychology of premium price brands.
I think it goes back to appealing to their core customer.
GW's thing has been for a long time to generally avoid across-the-board price increases (not that this has never happened) and increase prices on new releases. That makes new products disproportionately more expensive than stuff that came out 10+ years ago.
For someone who is part of their core customer base -- say me -- I am totally happy at Sigmarites costing 6x more than Plague Monks. Since I do NOT see them as just game pieces, the models are incomparable. Would I pay 6 times more for a Sigmarite than a Plague Monk? Well obviously, because I've bought every Sigmarite release, and I've never bought a Plague Monk, and wouldn't even if they dropped the price by another 50%, because they don't interest me.
I don't think that even GW would assert that *by today's standards* their entire collection consists of premium models. At the time they were cast, the models were arguably premium for the material they were cast in; that they're even salable today is a testament to that (I think Plague Monks actually look kind of decent as a model; just warrior rats hold no appeal to me).
The pricing strategy specifically benefits GW when they are selling to people like me. I won't buy more of the old stuff (which is cheap) because anything I would buy, I purchased when it launched anyways. So I bear the entire brunt of the price increases on the new stuff. And it's justified to someone like me, because I see the new stuff as being a better sculpt as the old stuff, and am willing to pay for it. Whether a model is premium or not is a relative term that changes with time because of a rising bar (and better technology).
Anyways, objectively, "Is GW intelligent" comes down to how you define success in a company. Subjectively, many of us define it as whether we like the way GW operates its company. A lot of companies do seemingly unfathomable (stupid) things, yet those companies make untold fortunes.
It's much easier to be a critic than an author.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: But they won't, because reducing prices of stuff that they've already paid for the productions costs on, and paid for the production of, that doesn't sell so that it does sell somehow financially damages their 'premium' reputation.
GW = unintelligent.
And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?
I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.
The fact that you are not as able as someone else to do sonmething doesn't necesarily qualify them to actually do that job. My medical knowledge is terrible, but that doesn't mean everyone better than me should be entrusted to carry out brain surgery.
And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?
I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.
Yep, this is what drives me nuts. Doesn't mean we can't judge GW's business practices from the sidelines, but pretending that we have all the information and pieces to the puzzle to sort out GW is ludicrous. There is so much more going on with a company the size of GW that most people don't want to comprehend. The world looks very small and simple in a forum, but the real world does not operate or think the same.
And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?
I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.
Equally, one could ask how many millions of pounds they fail to make through unintelligent business decisions?
If I am capable of running a marathon in less than 5 hours, and run one in 7, I have achieved the fairly significant goal of running a marathon, but I've still missed fulfillng my potential by a significant margin.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Equally, if I couldn't run a marathon, but I observe that someone running one wanders off the route and runs over a mile extra, resulting in a slower time, does my own inability to complete a marathon somehow exclude me from making that observation?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, Kirby was a fething taxman why does anyone think that he is somehow better qualified to run GW than anyone else (other than a chronic lack of self esteem?)
Talys wrote: I don't disagree with you at all. I'm just giving some examples of models GW could price reduce and flog as genetic fantasy model (down to 50 cent levels), without having an impact on their core Sales. If you scrolled up from the post that I made, you'd see that I wad suggesting atavtoc of last resort would be to take all the models that were generic fantasy and price them so low that people would buy them, thus killing the market for generic fantasy models and forcing competitors to sell specialist models at a higher price to compensate.
GW can afford to do this because the molds gave long since been paid for, and they make most of their money from 40k anyhow. So, if AoS doesn't work out, they could try to fix it, and failing that, just dump their old rank and file models to flood (and kill) the market. The net effect will be more expensive models from everyone in the genre, because nobody else is capable of competing with GW on the low end if that's where they go (since it's not going to be profitable).
The worst part is the fact that they are not even able to price similar kits within a similar price range.
As keezus said, dark elf corsairs are right now some of the models with the best price/quality ratio in the whole GW range. Which doesn't make them cheap, but 2'1€ per plastic model makes it somewhat reasonable.
Without getting out of the Dark Elves range, next we have the warriors/spearmen/crossbowmen (I refuse to call them by their stupid new names) at 2'5€ per model. Then executioners and dark guard come at 4€ per model, and witch elves at 4'5€ per model.
Why such a disparity in prices? At the end of the day, it's elven infantry with the same scale and size and similar detail. I could understand very slight differences due to some models representing "elite" units, but still, the current differences make no sense. They're all plastic kits, and I could care less if some are dual kits, in the end you're getting 10 infantry models out of the box and that's it, the extra bits should be considered a bonus as much as the sprues (chunks of worthless plastic).
If you go take a look at other elven ranges (High and Wood) the inconsistencies remain, with non-dual infantry kits at 3'4€ per model (the already mentioned phoenix guard) or dual infantry kits at 3'1€ per model (weirwood rangers).
Do they throw some dice around to decide the pricing of the kits?
And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?
I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.
Equally, one could ask how many millions of pounds they fail to make through unintelligent business decisions?
If I am capable of running a marathon in less than 5 hours, and run one in 7, I have achieved the fairly significant goal of running a marathon, but I've still missed fulfillng my potential by a significant margin.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Equally, if I couldn't run a marathon, but I observe that someone running one wanders off the route and runs over a mile extra, resulting in a slower time, does my own inability to complete a marathon somehow exclude me from making that observation?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, Kirby was a fething taxman why does anyone think that he is somehow better qualified to run GW than anyone else (other than a chronic lack of self esteem?)
Makes a lot of sense, with his knowledge of financial methods he should be able to turn the company into a healthy, profiteering business with a massive and dedicated customer base
And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?
I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.
Equally, one could ask how many millions of pounds they fail to make through unintelligent business decisions?
If I am capable of running a marathon in less than 5 hours, and run one in 7, I have achieved the fairly significant goal of running a marathon, but I've still missed fulfillng my potential by a significant margin.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Equally, if I couldn't run a marathon, but I observe that someone running one wanders off the route and runs over a mile extra, resulting in a slower time, does my own inability to complete a marathon somehow exclude me from making that observation?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, Kirby was a fething taxman why does anyone think that he is somehow better qualified to run GW than anyone else (other than a chronic lack of self esteem?)
U wot m8? You lost me amidst some of the analogy rambling there... Any business can and does miss out on making "potential" money. There's no such thing as a company running at absolute 100% efficiency. Because they're ran by people like you and me, and people make mistakes.
I think the point is, it's easy to sit on the outside looking in and judge every perceived misstep of Kirby as incompetence. It's more to take a step back and actually consider what goes on outside the walls of Dakka and the wargaming community at large.
And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?
I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.
Equally, one could ask how many millions of pounds they fail to make through unintelligent business decisions?
If I am capable of running a marathon in less than 5 hours, and run one in 7, I have achieved the fairly significant goal of running a marathon, but I've still missed fulfillng my potential by a significant margin.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Equally, if I couldn't run a marathon, but I observe that someone running one wanders off the route and runs over a mile extra, resulting in a slower time, does my own inability to complete a marathon somehow exclude me from making that observation?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, Kirby was a fething taxman why does anyone think that he is somehow better qualified to run GW than anyone else (other than a chronic lack of self esteem?)
U wot m8? You lost me amidst some of the analogy rambling there... Any business can and does miss out on making "potential" money. There's no such thing as a company running at absolute 100% efficiency. Because they're ran by people like you and me, and people make mistakes.
I think the point is, it's easy to sit on the outside looking in and judge every perceived misstep of Kirby as incompetence. It's more to take a step back and actually consider what goes on outside the walls of Dakka and the wargaming community at large.
If you can't follow a 4 line analogy chap, then the fault isn't with me.
I'm also not just on the outside looking in, not entirely. I've run a business of my own and I've worked at a relatively high level in a business with a turnover in the tens of millions, so while I may not have every single detail of GW's financial minutiae to hand, I have qualifications, pertinent experience both as a hobbyist and from an business perspective and their financial reports informing my opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
timetowaste85 wrote: So...what I'm getting out of this thread is that Talys likes everything GW. And HBMC is snarky. Is that about accurate?
I think if most intelligent people went back and reviewed their choices, they'd probably score themselves as having about a 50% rate of making the best choice.
I heard a phrase from an absolutely terrible management trainer which happened to be true: "Nobody ever makes a bad decision. They make the best decision they can, and it might turn out poorly."
So much of what GW does is contrary to our assumptions. Some of that might be group think, or an ossified old guard, or being owned by what amounts to an absentee landlord. Or, it could be that some of our assumptions are not accurate. Or, most likely, a combination of the two.
I generally try not to be an armchair quarterback. I supervise a dozen lawyers, and I watch them second guess every management decision. Nearly every time, they come to a wrong conclusion about our choices because they are either missing vital information, or misjudge our goals.
GW is not a overly well run company. In a time when hobby gaming is exploding, they are treading water while sitting on one of the best non-licensed gaming worlds and an untouchable model range. My instinct is to assume they're idiots and yesmen that are running a company into the ground. My calmer, cooler question is: "what don't I know?"
@Az: well, no, he said he doesn't like Skaven. But getting between him and the new Sigmarines and all older marines is kind of like putting yourself between a lap dancer and a businessman. Just...don't do it. *shudder*
And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?
I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.
By that metric I'm equivalent to Einstein and GW is Forrest Gump then.
"I may be dumb but I know what miniatures are."
"Life is like a box of space marines, you never know when the price is going to go up."
And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?
I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.
Equally, one could ask how many millions of pounds they fail to make through unintelligent business decisions?
If I am capable of running a marathon in less than 5 hours, and run one in 7, I have achieved the fairly significant goal of running a marathon, but I've still missed fulfillng my potential by a significant margin.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Equally, if I couldn't run a marathon, but I observe that someone running one wanders off the route and runs over a mile extra, resulting in a slower time, does my own inability to complete a marathon somehow exclude me from making that observation?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, Kirby was a fething taxman why does anyone think that he is somehow better qualified to run GW than anyone else (other than a chronic lack of self esteem?)
U wot m8? You lost me amidst some of the analogy rambling there... Any business can and does miss out on making "potential" money. There's no such thing as a company running at absolute 100% efficiency. Because they're ran by people like you and me, and people make mistakes.
I think the point is, it's easy to sit on the outside looking in and judge every perceived misstep of Kirby as incompetence. It's more to take a step back and actually consider what goes on outside the walls of Dakka and the wargaming community at large.
If you can't follow a 4 line analogy chap, then the fault isn't with me.
I'm also not just on the outside looking in, not entirely. I've run a business of my own and I've worked at a relatively high level in a business with a turnover in the tens of millions, so while I may not have every single detail of GW's financial minutiae to hand, I have qualifications, pertinent experience both as a hobbyist and from an business perspective and their financial reports informing my opinion.
If you can't form your thoughts into coherent sentences, then the fault isn't with me . (see how fun that is) Not to get into a manhood measuring contest, but I currently run my own business and have previously worked in sales for a large company as well. But I'm certain loads of other people on Dakka and the Wargaming community at large have similar if not much better qualifications. Now if we could just gracefully dismount our highhorses.
Granted much of GW's current position is due to their early prevalence in the Wargaming market, but it's not like it's all by accident. They know how to market their IP and keep people invested in a game that they easily could have stopped collecting models for years ago. Once you have say 2,500 pts there's no reason to buy more without the right incentives. GW knows how to put the squeeze on our wallets and does it well, credit where credit is due there. Either it's through new models, new rules or power creep.
Thinking of how many other companies could do it better, many have tried. Hell even Dakka had the Maelstroms edge deal recently. There's a myriad of companies doing things to rival GW, but at the end of the day 40K is still the most common game. Whether you like the game systems or models, there is some credit to what they've achieved. Some of the hyperbole on Dakka about GW gets pretty bananas.
My point is simply that there are different ways of measuring "smart" or "intelligent". To take a step back and look specifically at wargaming, is the smart company the one that prides itself on excellence in rules and fosters competitive gaming... or is it the company that makes a massive amount of money based on miniatures that cater to a specific niche that buys a lot of stuff and over-the-top heroic games?
One view is that GW is "smart" because it's making a lot of money doing the type of things that its founders wanted to do. Another view is that GW is not "smart" because it's not doing what a big segment of the wargaming community wants it to do.
Personally, I think it's a balance. A company that can pursue its vision AND make money is a "smart" company. A company that can pursue its vision and survive OR make money in the absence of pursuing its vision is a slightly less smart. A company that can achieve neither is probably not very smart, at least at operating a business.
Also, Agnosto, we're not talking about "intelligence" as in the ability to make scientific discoveries (or at least I'm not), because it's just not applicable to a toy maker. Rather, I'm talking about intelligence as in business acumen -- the ability to set and realize business goals.
For sure, GW is a polarizing company, but almost every company that makes it to the top is. Just look at the tech industry -- most people love or hate the companies at the top.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: I mean, Kirby was a fething taxman why does anyone think that he is somehow better qualified to run GW than anyone else (other than a chronic lack of self esteem?)
Replace the name Kirby, and change Games Workshop to a business you don't care much about: say, chocolates, chickens, or coffee.
If you happened to have gone to school with a guy who became "a taxman" and joined a chocolatier, made his way to the top of that company that was also the largest chocolatier in the world, raked in that kind a whole bunch of money for himself and his shareholders -- all legally -- wouldn't you think your schoolmate was pretty intelligent?
My point is simply that there are different ways of measuring "smart" or "intelligent". To take a step back and look specifically at wargaming, is the smart company the one that prides itself on excellence in rules and fosters competitive gaming... or is it the company that makes a massive amount of money based on miniatures that cater to a specific niche that buys a lot of stuff and over-the-top heroic games?
there are, but even if you tease out different competencies, you can still rate them. If GW's goal is to simply sell minis, that's fine. Their goal cannot be to create a coherent game at this point, so lets assume they are what they always claim to be: a company that makes minis.
Performance is not an absolute. You can't point to them, and say "they made millions in profit." Performance is only rated according to expectations. As a company with enormous market penetration, a large and enthusiastic fanbase, great IP, and a great catalog, not to mention capitalization beyond any other minis companies dreams, I think a cogent case can be made that GW has underperformed.
I don't have all the facts, I don't have all the data, so I'm guessing just as much as anybody else. But... from five years ago, I would have expected GW to grow as a brand, when it's sales have stayed reasonably stagnant. The market is there, the money is there, the product is there... yet sales are flat. Is that managements fault?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: If you happened to have gone to school with a guy who became "a taxman" and joined a chocolatier, made his way to the top of that company that was also the largest chocolatier in the world, raked in that kind a whole bunch of money for himself and his shareholders -- all legally -- wouldn't you think your schoolmate was pretty intelligent?
You're making a pretty trivial point. Nearly all people in positions of power and influence have at least some form of intelligence, although plenty have more social intelligence and get by on consensus and team building than actual analysis or decision making.
On the one hand, "Intelligence" is such a broad and ill defined concept that to argue about it is simply a waste of time. On the other, even if you narrow it down, talking about intellectual endowment is about as seemly as any other sort of endowment: what matters is what you accomplish with it.
On the one hand, "Intelligence" is such a broad and ill defined concept that to argue about it is simply a waste of time. On the other, even if you narrow it down, talking about intellectual endowment is about as seemly as any other sort of endowment: what matters is what you accomplish with it.
So I don't have to be well endowed, just have to do lots of stuff with it... Taking notes...
On the point of judging intelligence though, I completely agree. There's no point in trying to match and show who has more intelligence since it comes in so many forms, I'm not going to tell a welder how to do their job or a trucker how to drive their rig. I think you can also apply this to looking at a company like GW and Kirby.
Games Workshop's sales have only stagnated, really, in recent years, though. The largest, oldest companies are the ones that are hardest to grow. In the same way, companies like IBM and Microsoft went gangbusters during their growth period, and then tapered off (even dropped some) and stabilized at an equilibrium. No company can grow forever, and GW has done pretty well. It's actually amazing that after 30 years, nobody has unseated them as the largest game company. In many markets this would be quite unusual.
In addition, a lot of the growth in "the hobby" isn't just in wargames, GW's niche. ICv2 claims that wargames are pretty much flat, and I don't have any other data to dispute that. One must also attribute some growth to new entrants (let's try this cool new game!); and also some attrition to simply desiring change (let's try something different!).
With respect to Kirby, the accusation being leveled at him is that he's essentially an incompetent fool. Could there be a better CEO or Chairman for Games Workshop? Quite possibly. But that doesn't make Kirby unintelligent or stupid; like I said, swap out the personal and industry details, toss it in as a different person doing something you don't care about, and make it someone that you tangentially know. I can't speak for you, but I'd be impressed.
Also, it's not like he was handed the company as a part of a dynasty. We can argue that it was bad for the game and for the community for GW to go public, as that changed to focus of the company from just making cool products to share prices, dividends, and profits; but we can hardly argue that it was bad, financially, for GW's founders and corporate stakeholders -- and Kirby was the one to push for and guide the company through that.
If you've ever worked for a company that had the chance to go public, there is a strong desire at some point, even if it's something that is a personal passion, to have an exit strategy and monetize your work (I've been in that position), so I cannot fault GW's founders for wanting that.
clamclaw wrote: Once you have say 2,500 pts there's no reason to buy more without the right incentives... ...Either it's through new models, new rules or power creep.
There are quite a number of problems with the above statement.
1. On players stopping their buying at an arbitrary points level (i.e. army completeness) - Even without new releases, if the system is well balanced, the player stands a high chance of branching into a second, third (or more) army. They are the prime customers as they are heavily steeped in the hobby since they already COMPLETED an army without leaving as a customer. This was the case in the glory days of 40k/Fantasy, and is the case in WM/H, Infinity, Malifaux. The assumption that customers are one-and-done is very short sighted.
2a. New models and power creep aren't the only drivers of sales. Running events is a driver of sales as everyone needs to get their army tuned up. Spit-shined if there is an appearance award (and a painted requirement).
2b. Power creep as a sales driver is a strange one as GW professes that they design for fun on the one hand - but power creep is directly catered to TFG. Not to say that play for fun types won't buy the new releases for fun, but TFG buys specifically for game effect.
2c. AoS seems entirely unsuitable for structured, competitive play without extensive house ruling. This may or may not affect the quantities of TFG who will buy the power creep content.
@ Talys: I think the best you can say about the current regime is that they are effective caretakers, but do not recognize a shifting market.
Warmachine is eating lunch precisely because it does what GW refuses to do: create a tight, competitive rule set. And I use the word "refuse" here carefully. GW came awfully close to good rules on a few occasions, most recently in late 5th edition, when codex balance aside, the game was highly playable. Since then, they have actively shifted away from creating a balanced game. And this isn't in a zero sum environment: better rules would cost only marginally more, and would have broader appeal.
At some point the inability to evolve with the market becomes a failure of management. I don't know if GW is there, and probably never will, but I've seen them lose customers due to their product, which is more or less the opposite of what you want in a mature enterprise.
Talys wrote: It's actually amazing that after 30 years, nobody has unseated them as the largest game company. In many markets this would be quite unusual.
I think it is telling that many of GW's competitors have ties to / were founded by ex-GW employees. I think that once PP managed to get off the ground and GW didn't smother them in their defenseless infancy... this really opened the door to competition.
Stopping at 2,500 points isn't really reasonable in 40k, even if you're just playing 1 faction. It doesn't give you a lot of flexibility in terms of what you want to field.
You really need about 4,000 points of models for a faction under the current meta before an army is complete enough that you can play with most of the toys that army offers; and you need probably 20,000+ points before you can field *anything* the codex offers. My buddy has at least 20k points of Eldar, and he still can't field every formation in the current codex.
In terms of your point about "taking up a new army", keezus, in my opinion, it's much easier to get a person to spend money to improve their current army than to start another from scratch. The GW40k model is highly profitable because (a) completeness for a faction runs into thousands of dollars and (b) completeness for multiple factions runs into TENS of thousands of dollars and (c) there are people willing to spend this.
I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.
Polonius wrote: Warmachine is eating lunch precisely because it does what GW refuses to do: create a tight, competitive rule set.
To be fair... WM/H's solid foundation is getting shaky with the amount of crap they've bolted on to MK2. I think that we'll need to move to a MK3 shortly... hopefully.
Talys wrote: It's actually amazing that after 30 years, nobody has unseated them as the largest game company. In many markets this would be quite unusual.
I think it is telling that many of GW's competitors have ties to / were founded by ex-GW employees. I think that once PP managed to get off the ground and GW didn't smother them in their defenseless infancy... this really opened the door to competition.
Well, sure, but that's like saying that a lot of Microsoft's competitors are run/founded by its former employees. At some point in a mature company you have a desire to do something fresh or you hit the corporate ceiling.
Talys wrote: The GW40k model is highly profitable because (a) completeness for a faction runs into thousands of dollars and (b) completeness for multiple factions runs into TENS of thousands of dollars and (c) there are people willing to spend this. I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.
I think you are missing the point.
1. I don't understand why you would need to be "faction complete". There is no requirement to own everything available in the army before moving to a new army. (Nevermind that even in WM/H, faction complete is thousands of dollars).
2. Why would 40k as a competitive system generate less money? Players were buying like fiends when there were Grand Tournaments. Ask players in competitive WM/H whether they are faction complete. I think the response will surprise you. Instead of going faction complete, most go with the builds that they like in multiple factions.
Any sales should be good sales right? Not sure why GW uses the "Turn and Burn" strategy basically shooing veterans out of the system-and-don't-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out.
My point is simply that there are different ways of measuring "smart" or "intelligent". To take a step back and look specifically at wargaming, is the smart company the one that prides itself on excellence in rules and fosters competitive gaming... or is it the company that makes a massive amount of money based on miniatures that cater to a specific niche that buys a lot of stuff and over-the-top heroic games?
One view is that GW is "smart" because it's making a lot of money doing the type of things that its founders wanted to do. Another view is that GW is not "smart" because it's not doing what a big segment of the wargaming community wants it to do.
Personally, I think it's a balance. A company that can pursue its vision AND make money is a "smart" company. A company that can pursue its vision and survive OR make money in the absence of pursuing its vision is a slightly less smart. A company that can achieve neither is probably not very smart, at least at operating a business.
Also, Agnosto, we're not talking about "intelligence" as in the ability to make scientific discoveries (or at least I'm not), because it's just not applicable to a toy maker. Rather, I'm talking about intelligence as in business acumen -- the ability to set and realize business goals.
Objectively, I would say that a "smart" publicly traded company is one that creates opportunities for growth, expansion and larger revenues, year-on-year, that can be returned to owners. The only "smart" thing that I see GW doing is returning "excess" earning back to their stockholders in the form of dividend payments though I will not comment on how smart the size of these payments are in the grand scheme of things. There a plenty of companies that make money but without growth, I would not label them as smart as I believe smart decisions and leadership lead to growth and not prolonged retraction or stagnation.
I was just playing by your metric and being silly with it since it was a bit silly to begin with (in context and in intent I believe). As to your new statement, realizing business goals, let's see what GW believes its business goals to be:
We have a simple strategy at Games Workshop. We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever.
Yay! We have a winner! - success. It's a broad goal and one that can easily be met; if they had stayed with this one, we could call them the smartest company in the universe. Unfortunately, they wrote a whole load of malarky after this which made their IQ drop into the toilet.
We make things. We are a manufacturer. Not a retailer. We do have outlets in retail locations. We call these Games Workshop Hobby centres because they show customers how to engage with our hobby of collecting, painting and playing with our miniatures and games. They are the front end of our manufacturing business. If our Hobby centres do a great job, we will recruit lots of customers into our Hobby and they will enjoy spending their money on the products we make.
Not a retailer yet we have retail locations that we call hobby centers and fire people who don't meet sales quotas, yeah, that's not retail at all. Looking at hard sales data, they are either successful at recruiting people who will only buy online or not successful at recruiting new people at all.
Every year we seek new and better ways of making our products and improving the quality. This is not simply a personal obsession; it also makes good business sense. We know that, for a niche like ours, people who are interested in collecting fantasy miniatures will choose the best quality and be prepared to pay what they are worth.
lol wut? Complete denial of such concrete business concepts as price elasticity. - I uh, don't know what to say to this. Willful ignorance of the real business world?
Because it takes time and care to find the right person to run a Games Workshop Hobby centre, it will take us many years to get the global penetration we want to achieve. So, in order to improve our coverage today, we seek out other businesses which can help us get to the places where our hobbyists may be found. The best businesses at helping us are independent shops, run by owners who know their customers and offer them a good personal service. We call these Stockists and we supply them with an easy to manage range of our fastest selling products, which we resupply every month.
More restrictive trade terms, more shops dropping product, reduced trade sales. - fail
For emerging markets in Eastern Europe, Asia and South America we work through experienced local distributors to ensure our product is available through their local networks of retailers. And, of course, in all these locations, we also have the Games Workshop Webstore, which gives customers a huge amount of information on the Hobby and access to our entire range of products with a fast and efficient delivery service to wherever they live in the world.
Product availability - success, unless you want one of the endless "limited" items, then fail and nonsensical loss of income opportunity. You don't make money by creating an environment that prohibits people from buying your product.
We don’t spend money on things we don’t need, like expensive offices or prime rent shopping locations or advertising that speaks to the mass market and not our small band of loyal followers.
Translation: we don't spend money on things that have objectively proven to create growth in literally every market across every industry. - stupid
Our continual investment in product quality, using our defendable intellectual property, provides us with a considerable barrier to entry for potential competitors: it is our Fortress Wall.
We are also clear that we will only make fantasy miniatures, not historical ones. Fantasy miniatures from our own Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 worlds allow us unlimited scope for product innovation. In addition, we can, and do, defend our intellectual property rigorously against imitators, thus ensuring that our worlds are synonymous with quality.
Hugely costly, pyrrhic legal victory that cost them control of more IP "properties" than they actually retained. - fail
Compared to the UK, most of the rest of the world is for us still “green field” territory. This means we believe we can keep on growing steadily, using the same tried and tested approach of recruiting and retaining customers by opening Games Workshop Hobby centres, supported by the Games Workshop Webstore and independent Stockist accounts across the globe. With this growth we should be able to put more volume through our dedicated manufacturing and warehouse facilities ensuring that our gross margin continues to improve.
"keep on growing steadily" - fail.
-note: just having a bit of fun here making fun of GW is a pastime that I enjoy while I wait for my next dividend payment in September. Kirby's lucky that I haven't been able to take time off and travel to England to give him an earful at the annual shareholder meeting.
clamclaw wrote: Once you have say 2,500 pts there's no reason to buy more without the right incentives... ...Either it's through new models, new rules or power creep.
There are quite a number of problems with the above statement.
1. On players stopping their buying at an arbitrary points level (i.e. army completeness) - Even without new releases, if the system is well balanced, the player stands a high chance of branching into a second, third (or more) army. They are the prime customers as they are heavily steeped in the hobby since they already COMPLETED an army without leaving as a customer. This was the case in the glory days of 40k/Fantasy, and is the case in WM/H, Infinity, Malifaux. The assumption that customers are one-and-done is very short sighted.
2a. New models and power creep aren't the only drivers of sales. Running events is a driver of sales as everyone needs to get their army tuned up. Spit-shined if there is an appearance award (and a painted requirement).
2b. Power creep as a sales driver is a strange one as GW professes that they design for fun on the one hand - but power creep is directly catered to TFG. Not to say that play for fun types won't buy the new releases for fun, but TFG buys specifically for game effect.
2c. AoS seems entirely unsuitable for structured, competitive play without extensive house ruling. This may or may not affect the quantities of TFG who will buy the power creep content.
Very much this.
Back in the days of 2nd and 3rd ed. WH40K most of the players owned at least two armies - and the fantasy players often had more.
I can field Undead (going back to the days when Undead were a single army), Orcs, and Dwarfs.
Polonius wrote: Warmachine is eating lunch precisely because it does what GW refuses to do: create a tight, competitive rule set.
To be fair... WM/H's solid foundation is getting shaky with the amount of crap they've bolted on to MK2. I think that we'll need to move to a MK3 shortly... hopefully.
Well, there's only so much you can add and keep everything balanced. I'd wager you could eliminate half the casters and jacks, and a third of the units from the big eight factions, and have only a slight effect on what shows up in tuned tournament lists. Sure, people point out interesting uses, but when you get down to it, there are simply tiers.
I mean, look at M:Tg: what percentage of the cards available in any given tournament format see play? It's shocking how well PP has done with the game.
Games Workshop's sales have only stagnated, really, in recent years, though. The largest, oldest companies are the ones that are hardest to grow.
...
.
They have been stagnating since the end of the LoTR boom. In the last three years they have been declining.
Talys wrote: The GW40k model is highly profitable because (a) completeness for a faction runs into thousands of dollars and (b) completeness for multiple factions runs into TENS of thousands of dollars and (c) there are people willing to spend this. I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.
I think you are missing the point.
1. I don't understand why you would need to be "faction complete". There is no requirement to own everything available in the army before moving to a new army. (Nevermind that even in WM/H, faction complete is thousands of dollars). 2. Why would 40k as a competitive system generate less money? Players were buying like fiends when there were Grand Tournaments. Ask players in competitive WM/H whether they are faction complete. I think the response will surprise you. Instead of going faction complete, most go with the builds that they like in multiple factions.
Any sales should be good sales right? Not sure why GW uses the "Turn and Burn" strategy basically shooing veterans out of the system-and-don't-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out.
Evidence for this can be found in a much-disdained comparison with competitive trading card games. Tourney players are not strangers to laying down £50+ for a single deck-changing card with which to compete, even compared to a price of <£2 for a normal card (allowing for variation as I'm not an expert on card prices). Would they do this for a love of the card? Probably not. To win? Hellz yea.
Well, sure, but that's like saying that a lot of Microsoft's competitors are run/founded by its former employees. At some point in a mature company you have a desire to do something fresh or you hit the corporate ceiling.
You've brought up Microsoft a lot, which makes sense because they are both mature companies with huge market share. I decided to check and see how Microsoft has been doing.
Thing is about Microsoft is they're operating in an industry which is (I assume) growing as tech becomes more and more important to more and more people.
Whereas GW is operating in an industry which is, oh, wait, also growing!
Talys wrote: The GW40k model is highly profitable because (a) completeness for a faction runs into thousands of dollars and (b) completeness for multiple factions runs into TENS of thousands of dollars and (c) there are people willing to spend this. I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.
I think you are missing the point.
1. I don't understand why you would need to be "faction complete". There is no requirement to own everything available in the army before moving to a new army. (Nevermind that even in WM/H, faction complete is thousands of dollars).
2. Why would 40k as a competitive system generate less money? Players were buying like fiends when there were Grand Tournaments. Ask players in competitive WM/H whether they are faction complete. I think the response will surprise you. Instead of going faction complete, most go with the builds that they like in multiple factions.
Any sales should be good sales right? Not sure why GW uses the "Turn and Burn" strategy basically shooing veterans out of the system-and-don't-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out.
Evidence for this can be found in a much-disdained comparison with competitive trading card games. Tourney players are not strangers to laying down £50+ for a single deck-changing card with which to compete, even compared to a price of <£2 for a normal card (allowing for variation as I'm not an expert on card prices). Would they do this for a love of the card? Probably not. To win? Hellz yea.
But $100 is a drop in the bucket. There are people that spend 100 times that in a year on CCGs, that never play with their collector cards. Likewise, completionists (like myself) own, and usually have painted, at least a one of every model of the factions they collect, and as many of the models for units as are useful. You don't want to know how many drop pods I've painted since they've come out... and a blue drop pod is different from a red drop pod which is different from a grey one.. and a dark red one with black markings is different from a bright red one with silver markings... et cetera. Drop pod for a command squad? It's gotta look different. Calgar is going to be in it? OMG. Better make it epic.
The huge sales come not in wanting a functioning battle force, which is a few hundred dollars, but in complete collections, which start at thousands and go into $10,000+ over years -- and then multiples of those for each faction, and multiples of those for each reboot.
Incidentally, I never said that a competitive 40k would make less money; I said a competitive game in the scale of WMH (model count) would probably make less money, because if you take the game reason to build massive armies away, then some people (like me) won't.
Well, sure, but that's like saying that a lot of Microsoft's competitors are run/founded by its former employees. At some point in a mature company you have a desire to do something fresh or you hit the corporate ceiling.
You've brought up Microsoft a lot, which makes sense because they are both mature companies with huge market share. I decided to check and see how Microsoft has been doing.
I picked those dates more or less at random, but most articles I saw showed a pretty nice upward trend for Microsoft.
No, you are correct that Microsoft revenues YoY have increased -- though not at a rate that makes shareholders happy in recent years. Microsoft is usually bashed for its stock price, which has stayed relatively flat (for many Steve Ballmer years, flat or declining), especially compared to AAPL.
I picked MSFT, because they started business around the same time as Games Workshop (well, 1975; not sure exactly about GW), and became the dominant company in their field, in part by being a near-monopoly at some point. They've also both stumbled at times (Windows Phone!), but managed remained highly profitable despite errors. Also, they both have stable revenues, so even if their popularity wanes, they have a core customer base that provides an income floor that is predictable. Also, because their last CEO was highly unpopular and derided by the anti-Microsoft crowd and many Microsoft fans alike -- despite that he brought Microsoft great profits (I actually never disliked Ballmer, but I mean, Gates is an impossible act to follow). Also, significantly, MSFT is often criticized for having blinders on, and not doing what it thinks the market wants rather than what the market actually wants.
If you wanted to pick a company with declining revenues and profits, you could choose Hewlett Packard. In many ways, it's a better parallel: in particular, you could point to management wonders like Carly Fiorina, or its course change from engineering wizardry to mass market appeal. But I didn't, because HP is a much older company (1939), its decline is only in recent years, and although it has loyal corporate customers, its core customer base that choose HP for reasons beyond technical ones and price is a relatively small percentage of its total revenue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Thing is about Microsoft is they're operating in an industry which is (I assume) growing as tech becomes more and more important to more and more people.
Whereas GW is operating in an industry which is, oh, wait, also growing!
Actually, many sectors in which Microsoft is operating is contracting, most significantly, PCs. It seems like tablets and smartphones are sectors that will be stagnating, too. Of course, there are other sectors like server software and cloud computing that are going gangbusters, but this is hardly the same business as video games or smartphones.
Just like with Games Workshop and Hobby, you can't lump everything Microsoft does under "Computing". However, GW only participates in one sector of its industry (95%+ of its revenue is derived from one defined category). ICv2 would disagree with you that miniature wargaming is growing in North America, in 2014-2015.
Right, so despite the fact that areas Microsoft operates in have contracted, they've posted significant growth?
Yet GW operate in a market where many sectors are expanding and they are barely treading water?
Doesn't really make GW look better does it?
The key difference here is MS have clearly gone after different sectors with good degrees of success, whereas GW, that could easily segue into table top games, card games, full board games etc have resolutely sat there, arms metaphorically crossed, and refused to adapt.
Azreal13 wrote: Right, so despite the fact that areas Microsoft operates in have contracted, they've posted significant growth?
You should do your research before posting stuff like that.
Microsoft's sales in contracting markets have also contracted (for instance, Windows). The reason its revenues have grown are because it's also involved in sectors which are growing. I gave some examples, like server software and cloud computing. Office 365 is another real gem for them.
Azreal13 wrote: Yet GW operate in a market where many sectors are expanding and they are barely treading water?
No, not really.
Microsoft's PC-related businesses are contracting as per that sector. GW's miniature wargaming business is treading water as per that sector.
MSFT is a far superior stock and a far superior company to GAW.L, , if that's what you're trying to say. If you had the choice, you'd own all of MSFT over every single company in the entire hobby industry, quadrupled, too.
Azreal13 wrote: The key difference here is MS have clearly gone after different sectors with good degrees of success, whereas GW, that could easily segue into table top games, card games, full board games etc have resolutely sat there, arms metaphorically crossed, and refused to adapt.
GW has gone into all sorts of stuff, and gotten out of it, for whatever reason, we don't know.
Anyways, getting back to the thread topic:
My contention is that GW is not "unintelligent", because they continue to make more money than anyone else, and by extension, they sell more stuff than anyone else. I think Kirby is a plenty intelligent fellow because the company has done pretty well under him. At least, no company in their sector has done better, lots of people are employed, and shareholders and founders are well-compensated.
You say that they're "unintelligent" because they're not realizing their potential; in fact you think they're blind to the low-hanging fruit. You think Kirby isn't very intelligent, because the company could be doing a whole lot better under someone else's leadership.
I don't know if you're right, frankly. If GW had cheaper products that appealed to more people, it's entirely possible that they'd actually make less money -- if in doing so, they were less appealing or less profitable from their core customers. For all we know, they have perfected the formula for their own profit.
But I don't think a company should be measured solely on profit and performance if it's something that I care about (as opposed to an unemotional investment) and as a hobbyist, I would far prefer for GW to be welcoming to more types of players and gamers. On this basis, I do not believe that Games Workshop is successful, although I'll (happily) eat my words if AoS proves to attract new gamers to the wargaming hobby. However, it has nothing to do with their intelligence.
Azreal13 wrote: Right, so despite the fact that areas Microsoft operates in have contracted, they've posted significant growth?
You should do your research before posting stuff like that.
Microsoft's sales in contracting markets have also contracted (for instance, Windows). The reason its revenues have grown are because it's also involved in sectors which are growing. I gave some examples, like server software and cloud computing. Office 365 is another real gem for them.
Azreal13 wrote: Yet GW operate in a market where many sectors are expanding and they are barely treading water?
No, not really.
Microsoft's PC-related businesses are contracting as per that sector. GW's miniature wargaming business is treading water as per that sector.
MSFT is a far superior stock and a far superior company to GAW.L, , if that's what you're trying to say. If you had the choice, you'd own all of MSFT over every single company in the entire hobby industry, quadrupled, too.
Azreal13 wrote: The key difference here is MS have clearly gone after different sectors with good degrees of success, whereas GW, that could easily segue into table top games, card games, full board games etc have resolutely sat there, arms metaphorically crossed, and refused to adapt.
GW has gone into all sorts of stuff, and gotten out of it, for whatever reason, we don't know.
Anyways, getting back to the thread topic:
My contention is that GW is not "unintelligent", because they continue to make more money than anyone else, and by extension, they sell more stuff than anyone else. I think Kirby is a plenty intelligent fellow because the company has done pretty well under him. At least, no company in their sector has done better, lots of people are employed, and shareholders and founders are well-compensated.
You say that they're "unintelligent" because they're not realizing their potential; in fact you think they're blind to the low-hanging fruit. You think Kirby isn't very intelligent, because the company could be doing a whole lot better under someone else's leadership.
I don't know if you're right, frankly. If GW had cheaper products that appealed to more people, it's entirely possible that they'd actually make less money -- if in doing so, they were less appealing or less profitable from their core customers. For all we know, they have perfected the formula for their own profit.
But I don't think a company should be measured solely on profit and performance if it's something that I care about (as opposed to an unemotional investment) and as a hobbyist, I would far prefer for GW to be welcoming to more types of players and gamers. On this basis, I do not believe that Games Workshop is successful, although I'll (happily) eat my words if AoS proves to attract new gamers to the wargaming hobby. However, it has nothing to do with their intelligence.
No, you're not going "back to topic" you're trying to move away from an area very much on topic because you're on decidedly shaky ground, and have misunderstood, either wilfully or otherwise, the point I was making.
I wasn't making any comparisons to stock value (where on earth did you get that from?) just to the differing approaches, Microsoft have continued to grow, despite the alleged contraction of their core business (if I need to "do my research" does that mean I can't take anything you say at face value, because I'm just using what you're saying here?) because they've clearly successfully identified and successfully exploited other opportunities for growth.
GW are set in the middle of a massive industrial growth spell, yet the very products that people seem to be identifying as the best performers are the ones GW has licensed out to FFG. They resolutely stick to their core business, apparently not interested in exploring other avenues (otherwise why license them?) despite being better positioned than anyone else to diversify, and despite their core business performing relatively poorly to other, similar, products.
They have, in essence, done the complete opposite to what MS must have done, if, as you say, MS's core businesses have shrunk.
Sure, they've explored other products, and if they've not succeeded, they've withdrawn. But then, given they'd have no idea why they failed, that's the safe option. GW does not like taking risks.
GW are doing well enough, certainly well enough for an old man with a lot of stock, why spend cash on expansion into new products to grow the company when you can pay it to yourself in a nice fat dividend?
GW are not run intelligently, exploitative would be a better word.
At this point in this thread, combined with knowledge of performance in other threads, does anyone think they'll be able to convince Talys of...anything at all contrary to his 'position'?
I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.
Why?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote: At this point in this thread, combined with knowledge of performance in other threads, does anyone think they'll be able to convince Talys of...anything at all contrary to his 'position'?
At this point, it's more about minimising the number of other people who, left unchallenged, may think he's on to something!
Well, scaling back sizes of armies obviously would make less, duh. After Apocalypse started out as a "just once for fun" thing, now GW wants us to be turning 4x6 tables into what looks like the line at 10AM at Gencon.
Sprinkle in tanks and titans for flavor, and roll dice to remove models by the handful. That does nothing for quality of rules nor does it really give the hobby portion a fair shake.
40K would be awesome if it had a tightly running ruleset. Remember when they introduced USR's, and it was about three pages of them- most of which had already bee in individual codexes already?
Bit of a pre-emptive strike, but the scale part of that claim I think is misleading. At the end of the day, what people want in the most basic form are rules that work clearly, simply, and offer meaningful and deep player involvement that affect the outcome of the game directly.
This benefits the most hardcore tournament players and the most basement campaign, beerhammer players equally. I cannot for a minute fathom that producing rules of a tournament level quality would in any harm their revenues or profit margins, bar maybe the salary of a full time editor and community manager for testing.
Bit of a pre-emptive strike, but the scale part of that claim I think is misleading. At the end of the day, what people want in the most basic form are rules that work clearly, simply, and offer meaningful and deep player involvement that affect the outcome of the game directly.
This benefits the most hardcore tournament players and the most basement campaign, beerhammer players equally. I cannot for a minute fathom that producing rules of a tournament level quality would in any harm their revenues or profit margins, bar maybe the salary of a full time editor and community manager for testing.
Exactly.
I think the main thing that 40K rules have always been encumbered with is that a ruleset is great when it knows what it is trying to do, and throughout the rulebook keeps that theme. 40K has increasingly been pulled into more and more ways since about 5th edition. Maybe even earlier.
Take Kings of War 2.0 for example. It's not huge or lengthy, but you can clearly see what it has as a goal, and nearly all of it works well towards achieving that.
Azreal13 wrote: No, you're not going "back to topic" you're trying to move away from an area very much on topic because you're on decidedly shaky ground, and have misunderstood, either wilfully or otherwise, the point I was making.
I disagree. We can leave it at that or keep going
Azreal13 wrote: GW are set in the middle of a massive industrial growth spell, yet the very products that people seem to be identifying as the best performers are the ones GW has licensed out to FFG. They resolutely stick to their core business, apparently not interested in exploring other avenues (otherwise why license them?) despite being better positioned than anyone else to diversify, and despite their core business performing relatively poorly to other, similar, products.
They have, in essence, done the complete opposite to what MS must have done, if, as you say, MS's core businesses have shrunk.
Sure, they've explored other products, and if they've not succeeded, they've withdrawn. But then, given they'd have no idea why they failed, that's the safe option. GW does not like taking risks.
Have you considered that GW simply doesn't want to be in the business of board games and card games?
Also, if you don't think that Age of Sigmar is a risk....
Azreal13 wrote: GW are doing well enough, certainly well enough for an old man with a lot of stock, why spend cash on expansion into new products to grow the company when you can pay it to yourself in a nice fat dividend?
GW are not run intelligently, exploitative would be a better word.
Perhaps, because they're doing what they like doing, and have make enough profits to fulfill their goals.
You call it exploitative; I call it pleasing the choir.
Granted, at this point, it'd take some time and effort to un-taint their image, and the poor bastard working as a the community manager would be a punching bag for some time. Not an envious job, or for the faint of heart.
Azreal13 wrote: No, you're not going "back to topic" you're trying to move away from an area very much on topic because you're on decidedly shaky ground, and have misunderstood, either wilfully or otherwise, the point I was making.
I disagree. We can leave it at that or keep going
Azreal13 wrote: GW are set in the middle of a massive industrial growth spell, yet the very products that people seem to be identifying as the best performers are the ones GW has licensed out to FFG. They resolutely stick to their core business, apparently not interested in exploring other avenues (otherwise why license them?) despite being better positioned than anyone else to diversify, and despite their core business performing relatively poorly to other, similar, products.
They have, in essence, done the complete opposite to what MS must have done, if, as you say, MS's core businesses have shrunk.
Sure, they've explored other products, and if they've not succeeded, they've withdrawn. But then, given they'd have no idea why they failed, that's the safe option. GW does not like taking risks.
Have you considered that GW simply doesn't want to be in the business of board games and card games?
Also, if you don't think that Age of Sigmar is a risk....
Azreal13 wrote: GW are doing well enough, certainly well enough for an old man with a lot of stock, why spend cash on expansion into new products to grow the company when you can pay it to yourself in a nice fat dividend?
GW are not run intelligently, exploitative would be a better word.
Perhaps, because they're doing what they like doing, and have make enough profits to fulfill their goals.
You call it exploitative; I call it pleasing the choir.
I haven't considered any company may wilfully ignore money making opportunities they are demonstrably capable of taking advantage of. I have considered that the returns may not come back on the investment in a timeline short enough for some with a vested interest in cake today.
AoS is not a risk because it's Fantasy Space Marines and a product that was essentially flatlining.
What the hell is "pleasing the choir?" Is that a Canadian thing, because our priests get into trouble for that over here.
They know perfectly well how many figures they can sell at the expense they put them at. I think we all have to admit that those of us surprised at their prices are not the ones making them all their money.
We are the minority, the majority are the ones buying droves of 25-30 dollar (US) clampack plastic figures and 50 dollar 5-man sets that are essentially monopose figures that honestly are without a whole heckuva lot of detail for this day and age.
Granted, at this point, it'd take some time and effort to un-taint their image, and the poor bastard working as a the community manager would be a punching bag for some time. Not an envious job, or for the faint of heart.
If I could be assured that I would be in a position to at least have anything that was a consistent issue be addressed or a well reasoned answer as to why it wasn't viable, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Alpharius wrote:At this point in this thread, combined with knowledge of performance in other threads, does anyone think they'll be able to convince Talys of...anything at all contrary to his 'position'?
I'm not sure what you think my position is -- but to be clear, I don't think GW is the best company or best stock in the world. I do think it's profitable, an industry leader, and makes a product that I like at a price that I can afford. I am obviously not alone in this; as much as I spend on wargaming, it's not GBP 100m.
My positions are easily mutable, except that I won't change my opinion that I enjoy GW models and games (because I do), and I won't accept silly absolutist positions such as "GW is unintelligent". I'm perfectly willing to move on most reasonable things, such as observable and measurable technical superiority, how to best attract new players, how to reinvigorate old players, and that sort of thing. I'm totally willing to listen to what are issues for other people.
Azreal13 wrote:At this point, it's more about minimising the number of other people who, left unchallenged, may think he's on to something!
Perhaps the only reason I keep coming back and posting on thread is that I keep getting PMs from people I've never spoken to, that I don't know, and some of whom post very little, who tell me that they enjoy my posts and that they're glad that there are a few people who stand up to defend GW. In addition to that, I'm pretty agreeable with and open-minded to folks who aren't explicitly out there just to bash GW.
I don't love everything about GW; far from it. I wish the faction that I'm spending at least $5,000 on right now (Blood Angels -- and the final tally will probably be twice that) didn't suck so badly, and it makes no sense that they'd print a codex that's so uncompetitive with the one printed a month later (Necron). But I think they make cool stuff and that many of the online criticisms are hyperbole from disaffected customers. When I have spare time, I don't mind taking up the position and standing up for something I genuinely enjoy, especially since there seem to be a few people who say something negative about GW whenever there's an opportunity to do so.
If you wish to bash GW, that's certainly your prerogative, and likewise, it is mine to write reasoned opposition to it (as it is HBMC's to write snarky commentary!). You may note that on occasion, I have agreed with you -- just not on the stuff like "GW is unintelligent"
AegisGrimm wrote: They know perfectly well how many figures they can sell at the expense they put them at. I think we all have to admit that those of us surprised at their prices are not the ones making them all their money.
We are the minority, the majority are the ones buying droves of 25-30 dollar (US) clampack plastic figures and 50 dollar 5-man sets that are essentially monopose figures that honestly are without a whole heckuva lot of detail for this day and age.
I'd happily join that majority of there were a decent game to use the models in.
Hanging out on the Spartan forums (or reading anything about them) just leaves you wondering what GW is even doing. Spartan is a fraction of a fraction the size of GW, and yet they already understand the concept of interacting with and assuaging or answering any fears or concerns of upcoming products. It may not always be what people want to hear, but at least now they're informed, which I'm almost 100% certain is better than being angry and not knowing the reasons why.
Alpharius wrote:At this point in this thread, combined with knowledge of performance in other threads, does anyone think they'll be able to convince Talys of...anything at all contrary to his 'position'?
I'm not sure what you think my position is -- but to be clear, I don't think GW is the best company or best stock in the world. I do think it's profitable, an industry leader, and makes a product that I like at a price that I can afford. I am obviously not alone in this; as much as I spend on wargaming, it's not GBP 100m.
My positions are easily mutable, except that I won't change my opinion that I enjoy GW models and games (because I do), and I won't accept silly absolutist positions such as "GW is unintelligent". I'm perfectly willing to move on most reasonable things, such as observable and measurable technical superiority, how to best attract new players, how to reinvigorate old players, and that sort of thing.
Azreal13 wrote:At this point, it's more about minimising the number of other people who, left unchallenged, may think he's on to something!
Perhaps the only reason I keep coming back and posting on thread is that I keep getting PMs from people I've never spoken to, that I don't know, and some of whom post very little, who tell me that they enjoy my posts and that they're glad that there are a few people who stand up to defend GW.
I don't love everything about GW; far from it. But I think they make cool stuff and that many of the online criticisms are hyperbole from disaffected customers. When I have spare time, I don't mind taking up the position and standing up for something I genuinely enjoy, especially since there seem to be a few people who say something negative about GW whenever there's an opportunity to do so.
What, you think you're Spartacus?
Other people send other users very different messages.
Why do people think its admirable or desirable to 'stand up' for a corporation?
Fan-boyism will never make sense to me.
*Edit* For my sanity Talys, surely you must get more PMs for your painting skills than your posts about GW? I can't imagine a world where someone goes out of their way to...thank (?) you for posting about GW but not about your painting.
Perhaps the only reason I keep coming back and posting on thread is that I keep getting PMs from people I've never spoken to, that I don't know, and some of whom post very little, who tell me that they enjoy my posts and that they're glad that there are a few people who stand up to defend GW.
Wait...what?!?
Is this really happening - or is that 'perhaps' there to suggest that maybe that's not actually happening?
Hanging out on the Spartan forums (or reading anything about them) just leaves you wondering what GW is even doing. Spartan is a fraction of a fraction the size of GW, and yet they already understand the concept of interacting with and assuaging or answering any fears or concerns of upcoming products. It may not always be what people want to hear, but at least now they're informed, which I'm almost 100% certain is better than being angry and not knowing the reasons why.
I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.
Why?
In case Talys missed it for the...fourth time? Fifth?
I don't think he missed it. I think he's willfully ignoring it because he made a bad statement that he can't back up. Don't hold your breath on a response.
In the case of Everyone vs. Talys, I find in favor of Everyone. Court of Dakka adjourned. Everyone wearing a white floured wig is awarded the "no contempt of court" award.
Azreal13 wrote:I haven't considered any company may wilfully ignore money making opportunities they are demonstrably capable of taking advantage of. I have considered that the returns may not come back on the investment in a timeline short enough for some with a vested interest in cake today.
AoS is not a risk because it's Fantasy Space Marines and a product that was essentially flatlining.
What the hell is "pleasing the choir?" Is that a Canadian thing, because our priests get into trouble for that over here.
1. There are MANY such companies, especially in the luxury goods business. Pick any number of watch, jewelry, footwear, or apparel companies. You're not going to see a $30 pair of Jimmy Choo's or Milano Blaihnik's, regardless of how many millions of pairs they'd sell. I assure you of this.
2. AoS is a huge risk. Do you know how much it costs to make all those miniatures? It's not just Sigmarites; there are a ton of books and investments into Other factions too. Ripping off WMH would have been low-risk.
3. Pleasing the Choir - "the Choir" is simply a reference to the people who are like-minded with you (like "singing to the choir" means convincing people who are already convinced). I've said this before: GW does extraordinary things for people it feels are its core customers, and absolutely nothing for people that it feels aren't. Not that they're unhappy to take anyone's money.
Granted, at this point, it'd take some time and effort to un-taint their image, and the poor bastard working as a the community manager would be a punching bag for some time. Not an envious job, or for the faint of heart.
I believe that this is a reason that AoS attempts to reach non-traditional wargamers. They don't have a tainted view of GW because they haven't been GW customers before. They're not offended by GW's prices, because they've never experienced cheap GW models. And because nobody else has a product like AoS -- explicitly non-competitive, ultra cooperative setup, hyper-pro-casual, etc -- it's not like there's any competition in this microniche.
I can tell you that the people I know who are playing it regularly absolutely love the game. I don't think they'll be big model buyers, though I think they will buy an awful lot of the books.
Blacksails wrote: Bit of a pre-emptive strike, but the scale part of that claim I think is misleading. At the end of the day, what people want in the most basic form are rules that work clearly, simply, and offer meaningful and deep player involvement that affect the outcome of the game directly.
This benefits the most hardcore tournament players and the most basement campaign, beerhammer players equally. I cannot for a minute fathom that producing rules of a tournament level quality would in any harm their revenues or profit margins, bar maybe the salary of a full time editor and community manager for testing.
I think that the one of the goals of AoS is to attract the non-competitive (even, non-wargaming) community by making the game unattractive to the competitive crowd. The likelihood of meeting TFG is pretty low, because that TFG is never going to have anyone to play against, at least more than once. In addition, I think that by making such a striking statement as, "No Points", people talk about it -- and the people who are so inclined will give it a chance.
It really doesn't matter who doesn't like your game, as long as there are enough people who do, and those people loyally buy your products.
By the way, AoS meets most of your criteria: the rules are certainly clear and simple; and whether it offers meaningful and deep player involvement is answered differently by different people. When you look in the AoSGD forum, there are clearly people who love the game, and it's not because it comes down to just 2 people rolling dice against each other.
Some of the things people don't like: there is no element of list surprise, it makes a poor game for winning by ambush, it is antithetical to getting efficiency out of a list, it's poor for meeting a stranger to play at a predetermined army size, and it's poor for tournaments. The thing is, all of those things make some people happy.
Talys wrote: 3. Pleasing the Choir - "the Choir" is simply a reference to the people who are like-minded with you (like "singing to the choir" means convincing people who are already convinced).
I've never heard either expression before.
"Preaching to the Choir" means preaching to people who already agree with you. "Singing to the Choir" sounds like a pastor who is singing over the choir while the choir stands around thinking "err, dude, aren't we the ones who are supposed to be singing". "Pleasing the choir" sounds like a bad joke about priests and sexual assault.
Azreal13 wrote:I haven't considered any company may wilfully ignore money making opportunities they are demonstrably capable of taking advantage of. I have considered that the returns may not come back on the investment in a timeline short enough for some with a vested interest in cake today.
AoS is not a risk because it's Fantasy Space Marines and a product that was essentially flatlining.
What the hell is "pleasing the choir?" Is that a Canadian thing, because our priests get into trouble for that over here.
1. There are MANY such companies, especially in the luxury goods business. Pick any number of watch, jewelry, footwear, or apparel companies. You're not going to see a $30 pair of Jimmy Choo's or Milano Blaihnik's, regardless of how many millions of pairs they'd sell. I assure you of this.
GW aren't luxury goods, other than in the very specific economic definition of the term. Cutting price to increase volume IS NOT the same as exploiting other opportunities. Do you think Jimmy Choo wouldn't consider making massively overpriced accessories to go with their shoes?
2. AoS is a huge risk. Do you know how much it costs to make all those miniatures?
Yep, about 20% of RRP.
It's not just Sigmarites; there are a ton of books and investments into Other factions too. Ripping off WMH would have been low-risk.
Yes, and all likely to sell enough to recoup their development costs.
3. Pleasing the Choir - "the Choir" is simply a reference to the people who are like-minded with you (like "singing to the choir" means convincing people who are already convinced). I've said this before: GW does extraordinary things for people it feels are its core customers, and absolutely nothing for people that it feels aren't. Not that they're unhappy to take anyone's money.
You're mx img it's all up with "preaching to the choir" I think, meaning continuing to try and persuade people who already agree with you? Might I suggest "pandering to the fanboys?"
By this, I mean that Age of Sigmar appeals to casual players in an extraordinary way: it seems to appeal to casual players to the exclusion of all other players, something that very few games have tried in the past.
Azreal13 wrote: GW aren't luxury goods, other than in the very specific economic definition of the term. Cutting price to increase volume IS NOT the same as exploiting other opportunities. Do you think Jimmy Choo wouldn't consider making massively overpriced accessories to go with their shoes?
GW products are luxury goods. Under practically every meaningful definition of luxury goods. It certainly isn't a necessity, and is something that can make some people happy if they happen to have the money to buy the stuff (and want it).
Azreal13 wrote: You're mx img it's all up with "preaching to the choir" I think, meaning continuing to try and persuade people who already agree with you? Might I suggest "pandering to the fanboys?"
If you prefer, GW panders to its biggest fans -- who happen to be its biggest or most profitable customers, or at least, they think so.
I'll avoid using "fanboy" simply because of its negative connotations, and use "superfan" instead. But that's exactly it, and I've said this a hundred times on these forums -- and also that, were I in charge, I would aim for more inclusivity.
By this, I mean that Age of Sigmar appeals to casual players in an extraordinary way: it seems to appeal to casual players to the exclusion of all other players, something that very few games have tried in the past.
I...
...love it!
I think you came up with "Super-Fan" too...in terms of GW's new 'target'?
TFG is not limited to competitive play, not in the slightest.
It does matter who doesn't like your product because you can learn why, and figure out how to include them as well.
The rules are simple, but they swung too far and still have the classic GW incompleteness and confusion. X-wing is as simple, but is also tournament ready and offers rewarding tactical play.
AoS does not.
AoS does two things well, compared to other and previous GW games. It's simpler and cheap. Other than that, it's not good for narrative gaming, useless for competitive gaming, has no backbone to build a campaign from, and any additional (and mediocre) rules content will be behind an expensive pay wall, this negating it's advantage of being cheap (excluding models, but we all know GW is expensive there).
I can't understand how someone is happier playing a game that excludes other play styles or doesn't cater to a certain method of play. It's ridiculous. In any game ever you are free to pick and choose your opponent, so it'd only be logical to want to play a game with the largest pool to choose from.
Honestly how does a game being poor for tournaments act as a selling point for anyone. No one has ever browsed a game and said "I like everything about this game, but some people I'll never play with use it for tournaments. That's not acceptable. Pass."
I don't think AOS is for non competitive players, I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play. They don't want to agonize over every move and think strategies several turns in advance.
That just happens to be the opposite of what I want. I'm not a tournament going guy. Never been to one. It's the story that's most important to me.
But I need a good game that reflects the fluff behind it.
I don't think GW knows its player base or why people buy what they buy.
Not doing market research is unintelligent.
By this, I mean that Age of Sigmar appeals to casual players in an extraordinary way: it seems to appeal to casual players to the exclusion of all other players, something that very few games have tried in the past.
I...
...love it!
I think you came up with "Super-Fan" too...in terms of GW's new 'target'?
I don't think I can take credit for "superfan" I saw it and just liked it. But -- I genuinely think that GW organizes its entire production/release/pricing schedule on the basis of, "what would make our best customers happiest?" rather than other metrics like, growing the number of fans, the community, and all that.
Taking the cynical approach, I would say that I suspect that there is some pricing analyst fella there who says, "this is the most profitable route". Taking the non-cynical approach, the GW bunch genuinely seem like a bunch of guys who like dioramas, painting, modeling, causal gaming, over-the-top weapons and heroes and villains, "herohammer" and all that -- and their biggest fans & spenders seem to like that too, so they say, "why not, let's make them happy?"
In the past, I've argued that the prices have gone up in part because they recognize that, in order to make the superfan happy, they know they will lose some other customers, and therefore, the superfan must pay more for the product.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: I can't understand how someone is happier playing a game that excludes other play styles or doesn't cater to a certain method of play. It's ridiculous. In any game ever you are free to pick and choose your opponent, so it'd only be logical to want to play a game with the largest pool to choose from.
Honestly how does a game being poor for tournaments act as a selling point for anyone. No one has ever browsed a game and said "I like everything about this game, but some people I'll never play with use it for tournaments. That's not acceptable. Pass."
Well, I don't feel this way, and I don't want to speak for other people -- so just look on the AoSGD threads. There are plenty of people who are attracted by AoS's balancing system being, "hey guys, you two figure out a fair game cooperatively".
There are also people who feel that points are "destined to fail" from the perspective that it's just a race to list efficiency and that's not what they want to engage in. By being exclusionary, you can pretty much guarantee that if you play AoS, and you meet someone else who is playing AoS, they also don't care about points and want to figure out a game in a cooperative way -- since, really, that's the only way to play it at the moment
The obvious counterargument is, you might have a very small pool of people to play with. But is that preferable to having a large pool of people, and having to sift through the ones who you may or may not want to play with? I'm not going to answer that, because (a) I'm not a fan of the AoS system and (b) I pretty much play with the same 5 other people all the time anyways, and they are about as like-minded in the hobby as people could be.
Azreal13 wrote: GW aren't luxury goods, other than in the very specific economic definition of the term. Cutting price to increase volume IS NOT the same as exploiting other opportunities. Do you think Jimmy Choo wouldn't consider making massively overpriced accessories to go with their shoes?
GW products are luxury goods. Under practically every meaningful definition of luxury goods. It certainly isn't a necessity, and is something that can make some people happy if they happen to have the money to buy the stuff (and want it).
Azreal13 wrote: GW aren't luxury goods, other than in the very specific economic definition of the term. Cutting price to increase volume IS NOT the same as exploiting other opportunities. Do you think Jimmy Choo wouldn't consider making massively overpriced accessories to go with their shoes?
I do not need GW products to live, technically they make my life nicer if I buy them (although right now a healthy does of buyers remorse is likely for more than a few pots of paint.) They are definitely something more popular in developed countries where there is a higher per capita proportion of disposable income.
But, they are readily accessible, not particularly expensive in the grand scheme (whether you consider them overpriced or not) and don't intrinsically offer anything that other models do not (and please, no "but I only like Space Marines" comebacks, one stick together army man is essentially the same as any other.)
As I said, by the strict economic definition they're luxury goods, but I don't consider something even I, on currently a very modest income, can go into a shop in essentially any town and purchase, and for that thing not to even necessarily be the most superior example of its kind, to be in any way luxurious in a wider sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Trying to force your product into a niche it doesn't naturally occupy is unintelligent.
Automatically Appended Next Post: GW is Walmart, but they think they're Whole Foods
(Is that the right analogy? Out of my cultural knowledge zone here!)
Talys wrote: But -- I genuinely think that GW organizes its entire production/release/pricing schedule on the basis of, "what would make our best customers happiest?" rather than other metrics like, growing the number of fans, the community, and all that.
In the past, I've argued that the prices have gone up in part because they recognize that, in order to make the superfan happy, they know they will lose some other customers, and therefore, the superfan must pay more for the product.
If you're right, it would certainly go a ways towards towards explaining the recent trend of stagnation and shrinking sales - and it would seem to be something that cannot continue if GW wants to continue!
@Blacksails - you just posted while I was posting, so I didn't see your post
What is the question about PMs? I couldn't find it. And sorry, I will look for the question when I get back. I must go seek sustenance now (rather, wife has delicious smelling dinner cooking and my nose is directing me that way)
I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.
Why?
I've actually answered this question (more than once), but here's the short version:
1. Smaller scale = less models = less revenue = less profit. GW wants you to own a collection of thousands of miniatures, not game with 30
2. Part of the attraction of 40k (to people like me) is that there is everything from grots to jets to titans in the same game. But that's terrible for balance. I see it. But I don't care. I like it. I would love to see a Reaver titan in a game, dying for my buddy to put his together; I don't care if it is totally unbalanced (or not). It's just cool.
3. Better internal balance = less scrambling after whatever the new meta is. That means less buying new models. GW switches up the rules every few years, presumably by fans and non-fans alike, so that you end up buying everything.
Blacksails wrote: Why do people think its admirable or desirable to 'stand up' for a corporation?
Fan-boyism will never make sense to me.
*Edit* For my sanity Talys, surely you must get more PMs for your painting skills than your posts about GW? I can't imagine a world where someone goes out of their way to...thank (?) you for posting about GW but not about your painting.
i don't know about anyone else, but i am not here to "stand up" for GW as a corporation, only to stand up for my freedom to enjoy GW's books and models without being called simple-minded, a sucker, a sheeple, or a fanboy...
when someone conceeds that they are a fan of miniatures in general, but that GW miniatures are their favorite, that is not "fan-boyism", it is simply a matter of taste...
telling me that i can buy something completely different for a lower price is not helpful...
telling me that i am a fool for wanting the GW aesthetic, when there is nothing that looks the same for that lower price, is not helpful...
at the end of the day, as Talys has said many times, the behavior of management, and the high prices are not significant enough to turn us away as customers, because they produce a product that we want...
people keep saying GW makes unintelligent choices...
going by my reading of the forums, if GW tried to please everyone, they would be so busy chasing all of the different ideas that each individual has of their perfect product that they would never acomplish anything...
all of the conflicting opinions would lead to an inability to make one choice...
when one choice has to be made, you are inevitably going to alienate some of your potential customer base...
what inspires each person is going to vary, and there is nothing wrong with that...
GW has chosen to make a certain segment happy, and the other companies out there have picked up the ones that don't feel catered to by GW...
honestly, i don't see the competition as a bad thing for the market, but we will have to see if it makes GW unprofitable in 5 or 6 years time...
it certainly hasn't yet...
there is more choice than ever, and more ways for people to get exactly what will make them happy...
with the advent of Kickstarter, and other means of crowdfunding, as well as the easier learning curve with digital sculpting, it is not a surprise that the market has grown more diverse...
with an immensely larger amount of games and minis to choose from coming along each year, is it any surprise that GW is losing a couple of million in profit each year???
@Blacksails: i have also received PMs for standing up for what i believe, by people who didn't want to get attacked for posting their position...
not only here on Dakka, but on other forums as well, and not just recently, but for years...
it really isn't that strange...
Alpharius wrote: If you're right, it would certainly go a ways towards towards explaining the recent trend of stagnation and shrinking sales - and it would seem to be something that cannot continue if GW wants to continue!
Well, I've said many-a-time that I could be full of it too It's just my hypothesis, postulating by a guy who is semi-retired and has too much time on his hands now. Who knows.
Blacksails wrote: Why do people think its admirable or desirable to 'stand up' for a corporation?
Fan-boyism will never make sense to me.
*Edit* For my sanity Talys, surely you must get more PMs for your painting skills than your posts about GW? I can't imagine a world where someone goes out of their way to...thank (?) you for posting about GW but not about your painting.
i don't know about anyone else, but i am not here to "stand up" for GW as a corporation, only to stand up for my freedom to enjoy GW's books and models without being called simple-minded, a sucker, a sheeple, or a fanboy...
Have you read my sig recently?
Prof Brian Cox wrote:The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!”
MWHistorian wrote: I don't think AOS is for non competitive players, I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play. They don't want to agonize over every move and think strategies several turns in advance.
That just happens to be the opposite of what I want. I'm not a tournament going guy. Never been to one. It's the story that's most important to me.
But I need a good game that reflects the fluff behind it.
I don't think GW knows its player base or why people buy what they buy.
Not doing market research is unintelligent.
And as a 15 year player of WHFB (3+ armies) and 40k (5+) armies, I'd respectfully disagree on AoS. Played it with my Brets, and it "felt" like the Brets in the fluff. It included some thinking and consideration of when and when not to charge (some units work better on the defense), and the ebb and flow of the combats, the flexible movement, all felt much more natural than the square block, argue over a millimeter, let me get my protractor games of WHFB in the past (8th did some nice things for the "fiddly" in WHFB, but botched others). I play AoS more regularly than I did WHFB, and we're already making up a campaign between Empire, Orks, and Brets.
I'm not GWs target audience - I'm older, with discretionary income - but I still like their models, and games, and I still buy them. I also have 30+ sci-fi, fantasy, historical rulesets on my shelves, and keep coming back to GW for sci-fi and fantasy. The others don't scratch the itch, and none have the background and immersion I find with GW.
So, yeah, people are different, and some of us even like GWs product. Shocker I just don't post here or even lurk much anymore, because its the same old, same old GW bashing, over and over and over and over....yawn...
They don't just write games and game rules, but they like doing it! Just their idea of a good time diverges greatly from a decently large chunk of the population.
I just don't post here or even lurk much anymore, because its the same old, same old 