Guy went to the AGM as an investor rather than a gamer. It's quite interesting as it shows how dismissive and backward GW are regarding their products and customers. I would also like to know how they come up with the figures of people playing the game rather than just collecting figures as they apparently do no market research..
I would be very interested in finding out where they get their numbers from. Given their apparent disdain from market research I suspect its from the faeries.
Also:
we make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever
He and Kirby have spent the last five years returning the business to high levels of profitability by taking out cost. Now, if it’s to grow
The company’s attitude towards customers is as clinical as its attitude towards staff. If you don’t like what it’s selling. You’re not a customer. The company believes only a fraction of the population are potential hobbyists, and it’s not interested in the others. The move to one-man stores has reduced the number of customers, sometimes by 30%
.... Great attitude to have when trying to grow a business ey?
Also:
When another shareholder asks if the company would sell games with pre-painted easy to assemble miniatures like the popular Star Wars themed X-Wing game, there’s a collective growl from the Games Workshop people. It wouldn’t be a hobby business then, it would be a toy company.
Given how amazingly well X wing has been selling that seems like a very poor response.
Also also:
The game’s narrative will continuously unfold with associated product launches and in a trick borrowed from the Space Marines of Warhammer’s futuristic sister universe, Warhammer 40,000, gamers can employ heroes with superpowers (Stormcast Eternals). Purists think they unbalance the game, but Warhammer 40,000 grew to be a far more popular game than Warhammer Fantasy.
This seems like a strange couple of lines to me. Does anyone else read that as people at GW or investors thinking that the 'unbalanced' issues people have with AoS is because of the sigmarines, not because of the lack of a points system?
I think this sums it up perfectly, talking about his son (who bought and discarded WHFB because he had no one to play with:
He just wants to play. He’s not an anointed one. He doesn’t have Warhammer DNA. I don’t think he’ll ever walk into a Warhammer store because he wants to paint a Stormcast Eternal.
davethepak wrote: They STILL do not understand what they are selling and who they are selling it to.
With leadership that has business acumen and can put aside their ego - this could be a billion dollar company.
A collector buys one nightscythe - a gamer buys six.
there is a your market - right there.
Read it though, they are under the impression these painters are building whole armies, buying the six nightscythes, for the pure reason of having thousands of dollars of armies sit idle on a display shelf somewhere...
Herzlos wrote: I think this sums it up perfectly, talking about his son (who bought and discarded WHFB because he had no one to play with:
He just wants to play. He’s not an anointed one. He doesn’t have Warhammer DNA. I don’t think he’ll ever walk into a Warhammer store because he wants to paint a Stormcast Eternal.
Maybe we’ll get him X-Wing instead.
Forget that, the sum-up is right at the start:
When he saw Games Workshop written in bold on the papers he asked what I was doing. I told him I was visiting headquarters to find out more about the company. “Good,” he replied, “Can you take back my set?”
davethepak wrote: They STILL do not understand what they are selling and who they are selling it to.
With leadership that has business acumen and can put aside their ego - this could be a billion dollar company.
A collector buys one nightscythe - a gamer buys six.
there is a your market - right there.
Read it though, they are under the impression these painters are building whole armies, buying the six nightscythes, for the pure reason of having thousands of dollars of armies sit idle on a display shelf somewhere...
It's absolutely boggling.
Agreed. I travel a lot (like...a lot) and I try to stop in at game stores in the various places I travel and talk to local folks - not just to check on GW mind you, but just to see what is going on in different markets (mostly in north america, but I have frequented many game and hobby stores in the EU).
When I ask about how many customers who buy gw products are gamers vs. just hobbyists, overwhelmingly the answer back is gamers.
Now, the percentages do change - for example the more the store is a "hobby shop" (which might also carry model rockets, RC cars, trains, etc.) the higher the percentage. The more the store is a traditional game store (wargames, rpgs, comics, board games, etc.) the lower the percentage (most game stores say the hobby only customers are less than 10%). They only places that had numbers approaching even 50% were GW stores (I feel this is them more towing the company line, or if the customer is buying the kit for a gift).
Very few of the stores did not know who was buying their products - many of them ask their customers - partly as having good customer service - but also to identify opportunities to sell other related products - for example, a gamer might want dice, gaming mats, codexes, etc. A dedicated hobbiest will spend more on tools, specialties adhesives, other high end model kits "have you seen the new fine molds falcon?" etc. Smart businesses try to know who their customers are (GW does not....).
Dont get me wrong - cool models sell. Heck, I owned a malentrhope long before the rules were good - but that was one model.
I also own 100 termagants.... also, now that the malentrhope DOES have good rules - many of my friends have one.
GW, that only thing standing between you and wild success - is you.
I get the impression that the author is very critical of GW's blinded tunnel vision and no regard for expanding its customer base. The present is good but the future is bleak.
I've never understood their insistance that most of their customes are collectors and hobbyists. I have only anecdotal evidence to go by but we see the bulk of our GW sales being the powerful in game miniatures and they are bought in multiples by the same customers. Perhaps if they would just ASK their retailers for that kind of information instead of coming up with their numbers?
Kimchi Gamer wrote: I've never understood their insistance that most of their customes are collectors and hobbyists. I have only anecdotal evidence to go by but we see the bulk of our GW sales being the powerful in game miniatures and they are bought in multiples by the same customers. Perhaps if they would just ASK their retailers for that kind of information instead of coming up with their numbers?
I imagine it's a pretty hard thing to quantify. I'd imagine very few people who buy products from a store actually play games at that store for the owner to know if they're gamers. And even if they are people who never game, they might still know the rules and might still build armies for gaming even though they never play games. I know several people like that, and indeed I myself have a couple of armies that have never seen the table (both from GW and from other companies).
Short of asking every customer how many games they play per month and doing that in a lot of different regions, it would be a very difficult thing to gauge.
I could totally believe that most purchases go to people who collect and don't game much or at all.... I could also believe most sales go to gamers. I know a bunch of people from both camps but I'd have no idea on a global scale which group is larger.
One thought came to mind through reading that. There isn't a Star Wars tabletop wargame other than X-Wing, is there? If GW could get the license for that, and produce a Star Wars equivalent of 40K / LOTR / AOS, they could pretty much make all the money. Who in the hobby wouldn't be interested in playing out, say, the battle of Hoth or Endor...?
Kimchi Gamer wrote: I've never understood their insistance that most of their customes are collectors and hobbyists.
Because they can use that as an excuse to justify poor rules and even poor sales at times to the shareholders ("these books didn't sell well, but that's ok, we're a model company first" or "this model didn't sell too well because it wasn't up to our usual premium standards"). At the end of the day, the only thing GW's board really cares about is the value of their stock and collecting their dividend checks (Kirby alone just got $700,000 in dividends). The actual longterm health of the company is irrelevant as long as they can keep on milking it until it's time to bail out. Who cares if you were on the board of a company you helped run into the ground if you made enough money off of it to retire and not work for the rest of your life, anyway?
MWHistorian wrote: I think many people collect with the intention/hope of gaming and that if there wasn't a game behind it, they wouldn't collect.
(personal theory)
I reckon there's a lot of people like that too, though I don't know how important the quality of the rules is to such people.
Personally, I don't mind that GW views its game as a profit machine. I mean, most companies are in business to make money. They can't raise prices infinitely, because at some point, it ceases to become profitable; I think they've largely reached the limits of the elasticity curve for their target market anyhow, and they recognize this.
MWHistorian wrote: I think many people collect with the intention/hope of gaming and that if there wasn't a game behind it, they wouldn't collect.
(personal theory)
I reckon there's a lot of people like that too, though I don't know how important the quality of the rules is to such people.
I'm sort of like that. I enjoy army building, but wouldn't do so without the context for building an army. For example, I wouldn't paint up 300 Cyrix models, because the game isn't made for that. But if the game did support it, and the models were at least posable if not truly multipart (to make them less repetitive), I probably would.
The quality of the rules is important insofar as the game must be enjoyable to play in whatever for we use them in. The balance of the rules coming out of the box is totally immaterial to our group, as we're totally happy with just changing anything that doesn't suit us. In other words, it's more important for the rules to provide a framework and context and generally enjoyable mechanics.
The quality and desirability of the models is paramount, because absent that, I will do something else, whether a boardgame with no miniatures, a computer game, some sport, etc. I have better things to do than to model and paint miniatures I don't love
I haven't been keeping up with all things related to GW lately, so it's interesting to read a rather unbiased article about them, especially as it's so consistent with what has been said of them over the last 5+ years.
Of course, I await hearing how this attitude at GW is the customer's faults.
I'm actually really curious as to how GW performs in its next half-year. Half of that period was spent exclusively on Age of Sigmar, so it will be amazing if sales don't take a nosedive, because even though I enjoy Sigmar, I don't see how its sales are anything comparable to 40k.
I was, for the second time, cheered up to read the CEO talking about more bang for your buck per boxed set. So if you don't want to lower the price of a box of imperial guardsmen GW, that's fine, if you are instead planning on putting more actual figures in there...
I do really pine for the apocalypse boxed sets some times, and the savings they represented for building full armies... the green tide and the leman russ box especially.
MWHistorian wrote: I think many people collect with the intention/hope of gaming and that if there wasn't a game behind it, they wouldn't collect.
(personal theory)
I reckon there's a lot of people like that too, though I don't know how important the quality of the rules is to such people.
Don't forget those folks that started their collections before the rules sucked, holding onto their collections, hoping for the day that the rules once again stop sucking.
Until a few years ago, I fell into that camp.
Now, I play Kings of War - and the rules don't suck. My collection for Fantasy sees use again.
I think it's strange that GW claims they are a model company, yet they always present their models in the context of a game, they sell the models in boxes with options and model amounts optimized for a game, the always make sure that all the models they release are usable in one of their games, they have heavily accelerated their game-related releases lately, the list goes on... If they were a model company, why go to all this trouble? They obviously consider their games to be extremely important to their success (otherwise they wouldn't go to all this trouble), yet they still make statements like this... It all seems contradictory. They used to be a model company, back in the 80s, before Warhamer and before Rogue Trader... The current GW is nothing like that.
Mymearan wrote: I think it's strange that GW claims they are a model company, yet they always present their models in the context of a game, they sell the models in boxes with options and model amounts optimized for a game, the always make sure that all the models they release are usable in one of their games, they have heavily accelerated their game-related releases lately, the list goes on... If they were a model company, why go to all this trouble? They obviously consider their games to be extremely important to their success (otherwise they wouldn't go to all this trouble), yet they still make statements like this... It all seems contradictory. They used to be a model company, back in the 80s, before Warhamer and before Rogue Trader... The current GW is nothing like that.
That's a rather good point, especially when you look at the other, real, model companies out there like Reaper, Scale 75, Nocturna, etc.
If GW were a true model company and not a game company I'd be able to buy a space marine bust in metal or resin at a 50 or 75 mm scale dammit!
I collect and only rarely game, I know quite a few guys who only collect. Last year i was house burgled, the cop who came round to look around saw my mini collection, which wasnt stolen, and commented that he used to play as a kid and just a few months ago he bought a ton of minis to paint but never got round to it. Again last spring I was waiting in the vets for some supplies when I saw one of the lab assistants reading a black library book so I went over to see if he played but the said he only collected.
I know this isn't evidence and I do think the 20% is a little low but not as far away as we all might think.
I'm not sure why more people don't do what GW want, and treat them as a model company.
I'm going to buy a load of stuff from them, but I'll be using KoW rules. I'll probably do the same when I want some more figures for Dungeon Saga.
The sooner they start doing more generic Sci Fi stuff, I'll grab stuff for a hopefully decent Warpath release. Will buy some new Tau stuff though as it's pretty.
We can all shed a tear at the death of a company we loved, and as someone that started in rogue trader 40k, it's a little sad. But there are some many companies out there, and the likes of Mantic and Wyrd are sat with a gamer outlook and open arms
personally, i don't find the rules to be expensive...
even though i don't play, i enjoy reading the books, being inspired by the fiction and art...
the actual rules bit give context to why i am building a model in a specific way...
more importantly, i can enjoy a thirty year old book just as much as a three month old one...
even though i am one of the pure collector customers, i buy all the books, and i do have thousands of dollars worth of armies awaiting that "one day", that i actually get time to build and paint an army that brings that fiction and art to life...
after over 30 years as a GW customer, i am happier than ever with the products they release...
the full-color books and the move to digital are a nice change, and the minis get better every year...
for me, they make a better product than ever, so i will continue to be the kind of customer that GW prefers...
i am easy to please, just give me cool stuff to paint and good books to read, and i am happy...
I know back in the day when I ran the games section for a local comic shop, the vast majority of my miniature gamer customers were gamers. They came to regular game nights, or played in the tourneys, or were part of a local group of players. I don't remember ANY of them just buying stuff to paint. This was 40K. Fantasy, Warzone, Blood Bowl, Battletech, Chronopia... and all the smaller GW games. We had a packed house every Wednesday for games night. It boggles the mind how they just dismiss so many people like that. What happened to all the guys who used to do White Dwarf? Do they not work there anymore?
Far as I'm concerned GW can go suck it. There are way to many good companies out there with great games. If I ever want to play again I still have my 2nd ed rule books and access to molds for the old IG praetorians. I'll cast the whole damned army up and laugh.
I'd just like to thank Talys and jah, I'd been thinking about getting back into 40k, reading your responses in various threads reminds why I'm better off out than in.
Joyboozer wrote: I'd just like to thank Talys and jah, I'd been thinking about getting back into 40k, reading your responses in various threads reminds why I'm better off out than in.
care to elaborate???
i am curious to know what i have said that makes you feel that way...
i don't see how enjoying 40K minis and books would be a bad thing....
Joyboozer wrote: I'd just like to thank Talys and jah, I'd been thinking about getting back into 40k, reading your responses in various threads reminds why I'm better off out than in.
care to elaborate???
i am curious to know what i have said that makes you feel that way...
i don't see how enjoying 40K minis and books would be a bad thing....
cheers
jah
To enjoy GW products now, you have to have a certain point of view, anything even slightly outside that and you aren't a GW customer. GW say it and the two of you are an example of it.
I still love the GW universes, but why put time and effort into a companies product that doesn't want me as a customer?
I should point out I don't mean this as any kind of attack, I just read what you both write, and know that's not me.
Joyboozer wrote: I'd just like to thank Talys and jah, I'd been thinking about getting back into 40k, reading your responses in various threads reminds why I'm better off out than in.
care to elaborate???
i am curious to know what i have said that makes you feel that way...
i don't see how enjoying 40K minis and books would be a bad thing....
cheers
jah
To enjoy GW products now, you have to have a certain point of view, anything even slightly outside that and you aren't a GW customer. GW say it and the two of you are an example of it.
I still love the GW universes, but why put time and effort into a companies product that doesn't want me as a customer?
I should point out I don't mean this as any kind of attack, I just read what you both write, and know that's not me.
Joyboozer, you're just not the right kind of customer. (By GW's own admission.) They don't want you.
Joyboozer wrote: I'd just like to thank Talys and jah, I'd been thinking about getting back into 40k, reading your responses in various threads reminds why I'm better off out than in.
care to elaborate???
i am curious to know what i have said that makes you feel that way...
i don't see how enjoying 40K minis and books would be a bad thing....
cheers
jah
To enjoy GW products now, you have to have a certain point of view, anything even slightly outside that and you aren't a GW customer. GW say it and the two of you are an example of it.
I still love the GW universes, but why put time and effort into a companies product that doesn't want me as a customer?
I should point out I don't mean this as any kind of attack, I just read what you both write, and know that's not me.
no worries, mate...
your reply doesn't answer the question, though...
what is the point of view necessary for enjoyment of GW products that Talys and i are an example of???
Mymearan wrote: I think it's strange that GW claims they are a model company, yet they always present their models in the context of a game, they sell the models in boxes with options and model amounts optimized for a game, the always make sure that all the models they release are usable in one of their games, they have heavily accelerated their game-related releases lately, the list goes on... If they were a model company, why go to all this trouble? They obviously consider their games to be extremely important to their success (otherwise they wouldn't go to all this trouble), yet they still make statements like this... It all seems contradictory. They used to be a model company, back in the 80s, before Warhamer and before Rogue Trader... The current GW is nothing like that.
It gives the potential customer a narrative excuse for why they are going to buy the stuff. In other words you are not buying merely a set of boy's toys, like Airfix models, you are buying an entire universe of interactive conflict game.
BTWGW used to be a games company. They started to make 25mm fantasy figures and 15mm SF figures to complement the RPGs they were selling or publishing under licence.
As overreactions go, that's the best one I've ever seen on Dakka.
How do you explain 'heroic scale' then?
There really isn't any justification for the goofy big heads, hands and weapon other than them being gaming pieces. Hell, even most other gaming companies get the basic anatomy of a human being right.
BTWGW used to be a games company. They started to make 25mm fantasy figures and 15mm SF figures to complement the RPGs they were selling or publishing under licence.
I would argue that they were a games company until about 2000ish. There seems to have been a turning point around then.
The Division Of Joy wrote: I'm not sure why more people don't do what GW want, and treat them as a model company
The problem is that unless you want the gw aesthetic or fluff they don't compete very well as a pure minis manufacturer; they do some great models but at a high price. Plenty of other companies make just as nice models for less, often with better proportions.
can't say i have ever been put off by the GW minis' proportions...
heroic scale is my favorite, as i like my minis to look like they just stepped out of a comic book...
i am not as interested in realism as i am the fantastical when it comes to painting minis...
if i wanted realism, i would be painting fine scale model kits, or 200mm historicals...
i want badass Space Marines way more than i want a perfectly proportioned Iroquois warrior...
i want a Dark Eldar Venom way more than a perfect little replica of a Sherman tank...
don't get me wrong, i like pretty much any well sculpted mini, wether it is an Infinity Yu-Jing Domaru Butai, a PP Hordes Trollblood Warlock like Borka, a Kingdom Death White Speaker, a Freebooter's Fate Amazon Queen, or a Knight Models Batman, but, at the end of the day, nothing gives me more joy than painting a Space Marine that brings to life the 40K setting...
this is a hobby, and it should be about what makes each individual happy, right???
if we all had to conform to the same taste for what we liked, life would be pretty boring...
The Division Of Joy wrote: I'm not sure why more people don't do what GW want, and treat them as a model company
The problem is that unless you want the gw aesthetic or fluff they don't compete very well as a pure minis manufacturer; they do some great models but at a high price. Plenty of other companies make just as nice models for less, often with better proportions.
Oddly enough, I think GW's warped "heroic scale" proportions work very well as "gaming pieces/miniatures". Crudly oversized weapons, anatomics and more make it very easy to see their loadout or gear WYSIWYG, even in a dim gaming basement at the other end of the table, whereas things like Infinity miniatures with a "basic tabletop paintjob" blur more easily to indistinct shapes.
The latter make better "collectors" miniatures, painting to a high standard and best viewed closely in a nicely lit display area or in high-res shots on the internet, while GW's plastic stuff often makes really good (i.e. robust and easily identifiable) "gaming pieces" (with the exception of some of their frail, newer designs or oddly impractical miniatures like the Toxicrene).
The Division Of Joy wrote: I'm not sure why more people don't do what GW want, and treat them as a model company
The problem is that unless you want the gw aesthetic or fluff they don't compete very well as a pure minis manufacturer; they do some great models but at a high price. Plenty of other companies make just as nice models for less, often with better proportions.
The GW one is more expensive, a made up scale instead of one of the traditionally used scales for all kinds of miniatures and modeling, and made from a material that quite simply does not hold as much detail and has always been used for massed produced gaming purposes rather than high end modeling purposes.
Either GW is a gaming company or it's a modeling company that has absolutely no right to claim they make the best models around and actually might make some of the worst (*cough*40k vehicles compared to Tamiya*cough*),
MWHistorian wrote: I think many people collect with the intention/hope of gaming and that if there wasn't a game behind it, they wouldn't collect.
(personal theory)
Somebody's been studying KickStarter!
Quite a few differences between CMON and GW, but:
* High quality miniatures sold with game
* Appeal to collectors (eg. exclusives)
* Expensive for collectors (add-ons expensive relative to games)
CMON, though, goes only after collectors with its KS, while going after gamers -- or hopeful gamers -- as well.
Joyboozer wrote: I'd just like to thank Talys and jah, I'd been thinking about getting back into 40k, reading your responses in various threads reminds why I'm better off out than in.
care to elaborate??? i am curious to know what i have said that makes you feel that way... i don't see how enjoying 40K minis and books would be a bad thing....
cheers jah
To enjoy GW products now, you have to have a certain point of view, anything even slightly outside that and you aren't a GW customer. GW say it and the two of you are an example of it. I still love the GW universes, but why put time and effort into a companies product that doesn't want me as a customer? I should point out I don't mean this as any kind of attack, I just read what you both write, and know that's not me.
no worries, mate... your reply doesn't answer the question, though... what is the point of view necessary for enjoyment of GW products that Talys and i are an example of???
cheers jah
I'm pretty sure he was referring to the almost cult-like (sorry but that really is the best way to describe it) mindset that you have. You always come into these threads and say how you don't find GW's prices expensive, you think the miniatures are the best around and you buy them constantly because you can't wait to assemble and paint them, and no other company can offer you the same "unique" experience that GW can so you stick with them and defend their choices. While that's certainly your choice and the fact you're happy with that is all the more good for you, it's indicative of the type of mentality GW wants in a customer.
You are, in effect, the ideal GW customer: You are a collector/painter/modeler more than a gamer, you like their aesthetic and are willing to pay high prices to have that GW aesthetic that can't be gotten anywhere else, you don't find the rules lousy and unsuitable for any sort of play, and you are pretty much willing to only buy GW to the exclusion of all else because you *must* have Space Marines that look like 40k space marines, etc.
None of that is necessarily bad, but that's what I think he was referring to. Talys seems to be the same to a lesser extent, but basically it's the "I am happy with GW, so GW is doing nothing wrong at all" mindset.
None of that is necessarily bad, but that's what I think he was referring to. Talys seems to be the same to a lesser extent, but basically it's the "I am happy with GW, so GW is doing nothing wrong at all" mindset.
But that is true for all games and companies.
Look at the inverse.
If I go into an Infinity forum saying I'd love Corvus Belli to take a few pointers from GW, switch to multi-part hard plastic, make the game more suitable for larger amounts of miniatures, etc.. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Infinity is all about.
If I go into a Warmachine forum saying I'd love PP to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the "play like you have a pair/competitive schtick" and expand to unbound, narrative gaming, etc.. . because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Warmachine is all about.
If I go into a Kingdom Death forum saying I'd love Adam Poots to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the boobs, the wierd, NSFW and not-kid friendly, etc.. .. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Kindom Death is all about.
Repeat ad nauseam for Malifaux, X-Wing, Bolt Action, etc.., etc..
Yet when a customers choses to purchase from GW for the way GW likes to make things, you're suddenly a borderline Scientology-cultist?
Why are other companies allowed to emphasise specific aspects of the hobby, targeting people with specific preferences, even if it always means losing other customers who aren't going to be into their specific view of the hobby, but GW isn't?
Let GW do what GW does, just like PP, Kingdom Death, Corvus Belli, etc.. will do what they do. Customers will decide with their money what they like best. Welcome to the free market.
None of that is necessarily bad, but that's what I think he was referring to. Talys seems to be the same to a lesser extent, but basically it's the "I am happy with GW, so GW is doing nothing wrong at all" mindset.
But that is true for all games and companies.
Look at the inverse.
If I go into an Infinity forum saying I'd love Corvus Belli to take a few pointers from GW, switch to multi-part hard plastic, make the game more suitable for larger amounts of miniatures, etc.. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Infinity is all about.
If I go into a Warmachine forum saying I'd love PP to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the "play like you have a pair/competitive schtick" and expand to unbound, narrative gaming, etc.. . because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Warmachine is all about.
If I go into a Kingdom Death forum saying I'd love Adam Poots to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the boobs, the wierd, NSFW and not-kid friendly, etc.. .. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Kindom Death is all about.
Repeat ad nauseam for Malifaux, X-Wing, Bolt Action, etc.., etc..
Yet when a customers choses to purchase from GW for the way GW likes to make things, you're suddenly a borderline Scientology-cultist?
Why are other companies allowed to emphasise specific aspects of the hobby, targeting people with specific preferences, even if it always means losing other customers who aren't going to be into their specific view of the hobby, but GW isn't?
Let GW do what GW does, just like PP, Kingdom Death, Corvus Belli, etc.. will do what they do. Customers will decide with their money what they like best. Welcome to the free market.
Bingo and exalted!
I've been playing, in GTs and tournies starting back in 2nd ed to RTTs, etc. I also never play in a store, but instead in clubs and basements. That being said, much like Jah and Talys, I enjoy campaigns, lopsided games, and narrative rather than list building. I like the aesthetic of GWs minis as portraying the background and feel of the game. I've painted historicals, tanks, scale models, etc., but always go back to GWs models for my gaming.
Gw can make whatever claims they want about their quality, exclusiveness, cost, whatever - it makes no difference to me. I buy what I want to buy - do I buy less? Sure. Do I buy models that don't fit in any army I have because I like the model and want to paint it? Absolutely. Do I also look at the other popular model and game companies, and think they're following in GWs shadow with pricing because that's "industry standard" now? Yup.
There are a lot of people who derive enjoyment from their hobbies in many different ways - some painting models, some reading background, some playing competitive games, some playing narrative/casual, some who don't even really care about the actual rules when they play, and some who drift from one to the other over time. There are likely, as GW points out, way more people who consume their products in ways that differ markedly from the "majority opinion" as seen on intrawebz forums.
I personally see nothing wrong with Talys and Jah offering their enthusiasm about a hobby they enjoy. I enjoy their perspective. Heavens knows, I've heard enough about the other side of the coin (i.e. 90% of all the other dakka posts about GW)
@WayneTheGame: i don't know where this perception of a cult-like mentality comes from, when i always state that i like other companies' minis, too...
my most recent purchases were:
Infinity Yu-Jing Spec. Ops Trooper
Soda Pop Candy & Cola Relic Knight
GW Tech-Priest Dominus
Kingdom Death LE Sci-Fi Twilight Knight
X-Wing The Force Awakens Starter Set
Infinity Penthesilea Bootleg Special Edition
one out of six a GW mini, and not one of them a Space Marine...
it is not like i am never critical of GW...
i have boycotted Finecast from the start, and been very vocal about my dislike of the quality...
i don't use GW paint, and have been very open about championing P3 paints...
my brushes are W&N, Raphael, Rosemary&Co., and DaVinci...
i have worked as a painter for four miniature companies, none of whom where GW, and paint whatever comes across my desk in the constant flow of commissions...
my personal collection contains a couple of thousand minis from at least a dozen manufacturers...
i collect Rackham, Ilyad, Freebooter, PP, Studio McVey, Infinity, and many others...
it just so happens that i am a pure collector, so rules are the last thing on my list of priorities, since i don't play any games...
it also happens to be that, yes, Space Marines are my favorite thing in the world of tabletop miniatures...
none of this is new...
i always give props to the other companies that i am a fan of...
i just don't have any beef with GW, and am not hesitant to say that they make my favorite minis to paint...
if i belong to any cult, it is the cult of the "rule of cool"...
whatever looks the coolest gets my money...
Where does the '20% of customers game' come from? That's the only stat given in the piece and there's no basis for it given that GW boast to not need market research. I can believe that 20% could be true, but I see no way GW came to its conclusion.
The rest makes sense. GW have wound down the effort put into games and instead focus on impractical centrepieces and OTT models.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Where does the '20% of customers game' come from? That's the only stat given in the piece and there's no basis for it given that GW boast to not need market research. I can believe that 20% could be true, but I see no way GW came to its conclusion.
The rest makes sense. GW have wound down the effort put into games and instead focus on impractical centrepieces and OTT models.
It might have something to do with them counting people like the author's kid in that. If a 12 year old walks in, buys a box, forgets all about the hobby before it's even built and moved on he might count as a tick in the 'hobbyist purchase not gamer purchase' column.
None of that is necessarily bad, but that's what I think he was referring to. Talys seems to be the same to a lesser extent, but basically it's the "I am happy with GW, so GW is doing nothing wrong at all" mindset.
But that is true for all games and companies.
Look at the inverse.
If I go into an Infinity forum saying I'd love Corvus Belli to take a few pointers from GW, switch to multi-part hard plastic, make the game more suitable for larger amounts of miniatures, etc.. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Infinity is all about.
If I go into a Warmachine forum saying I'd love PP to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the "play like you have a pair/competitive schtick" and expand to unbound, narrative gaming, etc.. . because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Warmachine is all about.:
If I go into a Kingdom Death forum saying I'd love Adam Poots to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the boobs, the wierd, NSFW and not-kid friendly, etc.. .. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Kindom Death is all about.
Repeat ad nauseam for Malifaux, X-Wing, Bolt Action, etc.., etc..
Yet when a customers choses to purchase from GW for the way GW likes to make things, you're suddenly a borderline Scientology-cultist?
Why are other companies allowed to emphasise specific aspects of the hobby, targeting people with specific preferences, even if it always means losing other customers who aren't going to be into their specific view of the hobby, but GW isn't?
Let GW do what GW does, just like PP, Kingdom Death, Corvus Belli, etc.. will do what they do. Customers will decide with their money what they like best. Welcome to the free market.
There is, however, one significant difference between GW and all of those other companies: they don't act like GW. We've already seen how GW treats their customers with indifference, if not outright scorn. And GW would have you believe that no other companies exist at all, even for modelling supplies.
None of that is necessarily bad, but that's what I think he was referring to. Talys seems to be the same to a lesser extent, but basically it's the "I am happy with GW, so GW is doing nothing wrong at all" mindset.
But that is true for all games and companies.
Look at the inverse.
If I go into an Infinity forum saying I'd love Corvus Belli to take a few pointers from GW, switch to multi-part hard plastic, make the game more suitable for larger amounts of miniatures, etc.. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Infinity is all about.
If I go into a Warmachine forum saying I'd love PP to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the "play like you have a pair/competitive schtick" and expand to unbound, narrative gaming, etc.. . because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Warmachine is all about.
If I go into a Kingdom Death forum saying I'd love Adam Poots to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the boobs, the wierd, NSFW and not-kid friendly, etc.. .. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Kindom Death is all about.
Repeat ad nauseam for Malifaux, X-Wing, Bolt Action, etc.., etc..
Yet when a customers choses to purchase from GW for the way GW likes to make things, you're suddenly a borderline Scientology-cultist?
Why are other companies allowed to emphasise specific aspects of the hobby, targeting people with specific preferences, even if it always means losing other customers who aren't going to be into their specific view of the hobby, but GW isn't?
Let GW do what GW does, just like PP, Kingdom Death, Corvus Belli, etc.. will do what they do. Customers will decide with their money what they like best. Welcome to the free market.
I think he's referring to people who buy GW elusively (or appear to) and think GW is the best because they have Space Marines and nothing else will do.
The problem is, GW does nothing the best. There are companies that make better quality minis.
GW's minis are marketed for games, thus the plastic and in-game options they come with, but don't match up to more boutique minis (or even Infinity or Malifaux)
They don't make the best games.
It seems the only thing they do have is bulk. You can buy a lot of GW stuff, which according to the OP's linked article, is exactly what they want out of a customer.
Mymearan wrote: I think it's strange that GW claims they are a model company, yet they always present their models in the context of a game, they sell the models in boxes with options and model amounts optimized for a game, the always make sure that all the models they release are usable in one of their games, they have heavily accelerated their game-related releases lately, the list goes on... If they were a model company, why go to all this trouble? They obviously consider their games to be extremely important to their success (otherwise they wouldn't go to all this trouble), yet they still make statements like this... It all seems contradictory. They used to be a model company, back in the 80s, before Warhamer and before Rogue Trader... The current GW is nothing like that.
Iirc, that dramatic shift in the company line occurred during the Chapterhouse trial when GW found out that their castle and moat protecting their "original" IP was made of flimsy cardstock. I believe it was brought up during that time that toys and/or games have some sort of time limited time period of protection before they're public domain. As a result, Gw suddenly became a maker of fine miniature art for collectors who just happen to also make games on the side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Raven911 wrote: Check out Warzone Resurrection. All the fun of the old gaming with much better figures.
Check out tge AVP kickstarter thread before you do. You may not want to support a company at depises its customers and treats them as badly as Prodos does.
None of that is necessarily bad, but that's what I think he was referring to. Talys seems to be the same to a lesser extent, but basically it's the "I am happy with GW, so GW is doing nothing wrong at all" mindset.
But that is true for all games and companies.
Look at the inverse.
If I go into an Infinity forum saying I'd love Corvus Belli to take a few pointers from GW, switch to multi-part hard plastic, make the game more suitable for larger amounts of miniatures, etc.. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Infinity is all about.
If I go into a Warmachine forum saying I'd love PP to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the "play like you have a pair/competitive schtick" and expand to unbound, narrative gaming, etc.. . because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Warmachine is all about.
If I go into a Kingdom Death forum saying I'd love Adam Poots to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the boobs, the wierd, NSFW and not-kid friendly, etc.. .. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Kindom Death is all about.
Repeat ad nauseam for Malifaux, X-Wing, Bolt Action, etc.., etc..
Yet when a customers choses to purchase from GW for the way GW likes to make things, you're suddenly a borderline Scientology-cultist?
Why are other companies allowed to emphasise specific aspects of the hobby, targeting people with specific preferences, even if it always means losing other customers who aren't going to be into their specific view of the hobby, but GW isn't?
Let GW do what GW does, just like PP, Kingdom Death, Corvus Belli, etc.. will do what they do. Customers will decide with their money what they like best. Welcome to the free market.
Agree completely. Exalted! All fandoms have their fanatics, and the people who simply prefer the way they do it to anyone else's. It's nothing unique to GW, although GW might have a greater number of dedicated fans because they have been around the longest by FAR.
Thing is, there's undoubtedly people who feel exactly the way that Zwei is talking about, because that's just human nature.
The crucial difference is that there's next to nobody for any of those systems saying "I used to really love game X, but company Y has departed so much from what made them great, I no longer do."
GW are alienating a percentage of their existing customers in an effort to chase some mythical golden goose customer that they can't know exists in enough numbers to sustain the company in the long term. (And before anyone trots out the "but of course they do market research counter - I'm referring to people who aren't yet customers, not the current true believers.)
It isn't a question of people being fans and defending someone they love, it's a question of people who used to be fans and now have walked/been driven away.
None of that is necessarily bad, but that's what I think he was referring to. Talys seems to be the same to a lesser extent, but basically it's the "I am happy with GW, so GW is doing nothing wrong at all" mindset.
But that is true for all games and companies.
Look at the inverse.
If I go into an Infinity forum saying I'd love Corvus Belli to take a few pointers from GW, switch to multi-part hard plastic, make the game more suitable for larger amounts of miniatures, etc.. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Infinity is all about.
If I go into a Warmachine forum saying I'd love PP to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the "play like you have a pair/competitive schtick" and expand to unbound, narrative gaming, etc.. . because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Warmachine is all about.
If I go into a Kingdom Death forum saying I'd love Adam Poots to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the boobs, the wierd, NSFW and not-kid friendly, etc.. .. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Kindom Death is all about.
Repeat ad nauseam for Malifaux, X-Wing, Bolt Action, etc.., etc..
Yet when a customers choses to purchase from GW for the way GW likes to make things, you're suddenly a borderline Scientology-cultist?
Why are other companies allowed to emphasise specific aspects of the hobby, targeting people with specific preferences, even if it always means losing other customers who aren't going to be into their specific view of the hobby, but GW isn't?
Let GW do what GW does, just like PP, Kingdom Death, Corvus Belli, etc.. will do what they do. Customers will decide with their money what they like best. Welcome to the free market.
I think he's referring to people who buy GW elusively (or appear to) and think GW is the best because they have Space Marines and nothing else will do.
The problem is, GW does nothing the best. There are companies that make better quality minis.
GW's minis are marketed for games, thus the plastic and in-game options they come with, but don't match up to more boutique minis (or even Infinity or Malifaux)
They don't make the best games.
It seems the only thing they do have is bulk. You can buy a lot of GW stuff, which according to the OP's linked article, is exactly what they want out of a customer.
I don't get this at all. GW models are very high quality HIPS. No one can deny this. There might be better quality HIPS, sure. But they do not make 40k miniatures. They do not have 30 years of background and design behind their miniatures. So why would anyone who loves 40k for those aspect care about the fact that the Dreamforge Leviathan can be posed in hundreds of ways (but still look worse than the Imperial Knight IMO), or that Infinity sculpts are more detailed? The quality of the miniatures is important, but there is no doubt that GW is among the top. So what if they're not THE best? A person who wants 40k miniatures wouldn't buy another companies models simply because the detail is slightly crisper or the posing options are greater. Any quality gap is irrelevant, firstly because it's not that big, and secondly because they want figures connected to the universe they love. That's why they think GW is "the best", and that's why they keep buying GW, even if they might recognize that there are better rulesets out there. Reducing that to "they have Space Marines and nothing else will do" is doing these people a disservice, and saying that "all they have is bulk" is straight up disingenuous, because that's clearly far from all they have.
Check out tge AVP kickstarter thread before you do. You may not want to support a company at depises its customers and treats them as badly as Prodos does.
Prodos have treated me as well as I would expect, good customer service as well.
The biggest fantasy GW ever sold was the very ideas behind this kind of buying and style of hobbyist/gamer.
The ability to put up with regularly being screwed over, the tolerance for poor rules and shoddy balance, the ability to see nothing beyond a nostalgia, that's what GW sells. Even the ability to see them as a modeling company when their biggest product is sold by the vast majority based on their use first and foremost as a game.
I'm fine with GW as a business, and I'm fine with GW as a modeling company.
But I laugh every time I see people push the idea that all of this madness is okay just because 1 aspect of it is okay. Or that just because it's a business decision that people should accept and acquiesce to terrible consumer/customer decisions because business decisions should matter at all to the customer's bottom line. Or that it's okay because of the GW sponsored idea that the majority is some mythical moneypit of a modeling gamer like Talys.
That's pretty much stockholm syndrome at its finest.
None of that is necessarily bad, but that's what I think he was referring to. Talys seems to be the same to a lesser extent, but basically it's the "I am happy with GW, so GW is doing nothing wrong at all" mindset.
But that is true for all games and companies.
Look at the inverse.
If I go into an Infinity forum saying I'd love Corvus Belli to take a few pointers from GW, switch to multi-part hard plastic, make the game more suitable for larger amounts of miniatures, etc.. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Infinity is all about.
If I go into a Warmachine forum saying I'd love PP to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the "play like you have a pair/competitive schtick" and expand to unbound, narrative gaming, etc.. . because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Warmachine is all about.
If I go into a Kingdom Death forum saying I'd love Adam Poots to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the boobs, the wierd, NSFW and not-kid friendly, etc.. .. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Kindom Death is all about.
Repeat ad nauseam for Malifaux, X-Wing, Bolt Action, etc.., etc..
Yet when a customers choses to purchase from GW for the way GW likes to make things, you're suddenly a borderline Scientology-cultist?
Why are other companies allowed to emphasise specific aspects of the hobby, targeting people with specific preferences, even if it always means losing other customers who aren't going to be into their specific view of the hobby, but GW isn't?
Let GW do what GW does, just like PP, Kingdom Death, Corvus Belli, etc.. will do what they do. Customers will decide with their money what they like best. Welcome to the free market.
I think he's referring to people who buy GW elusively (or appear to) and think GW is the best because they have Space Marines and nothing else will do.
The problem is, GW does nothing the best. There are companies that make better quality minis.
GW's minis are marketed for games, thus the plastic and in-game options they come with, but don't match up to more boutique minis (or even Infinity or Malifaux)
They don't make the best games.
It seems the only thing they do have is bulk. You can buy a lot of GW stuff, which according to the OP's linked article, is exactly what they want out of a customer.
I don't get this at all. GW models are very high quality HIPS. No one can deny this. There might be better quality HIPS, sure. But they do not make 40k miniatures. They do not have 30 years of background and design behind their miniatures. So why would anyone who loves 40k for those aspect care about the fact that the Dreamforge Leviathan can be posed in hundreds of ways (but still look worse than the Imperial Knight IMO), or that Infinity sculpts are more detailed? The quality of the miniatures is important, but there is no doubt that GW is among the top. So what if they're not THE best? A person who wants 40k miniatures wouldn't buy another companies models simply because the detail is slightly crisper or the posing options are greater. Any quality gap is irrelevant, firstly because it's not that big, and secondly because they want figures connected to the universe they love. That's why they think GW is "the best", and that's why they keep buying GW, even if they might recognize that there are better rulesets out there. Reducing that to "they have Space Marines and nothing else will do" is doing these people a disservice, and saying that "all they have is bulk" is straight up disingenuous, because that's clearly far from all they have.
I didn't make myself clear. I meant objectively, not personal likes of aesthetics or fluff. That's non-quantifiable.
If a modeler really loves modeling, then they wouldn't choose GW (Because there's better stufff out there) unless they liked the fluff and aesthetics. (That should go without saying.)
On a side note: someone that only likes Space Marines and nothing else, needs to broaden their horizons a bit.
Also, it's possible to really really like something and realize its not the best.
I love a lot of things and I don't assume they're the best just because I like the aesthetics more.
None of that is necessarily bad, but that's what I think he was referring to. Talys seems to be the same to a lesser extent, but basically it's the "I am happy with GW, so GW is doing nothing wrong at all" mindset.
But that is true for all games and companies.
Look at the inverse.
If I go into an Infinity forum saying I'd love Corvus Belli to take a few pointers from GW, switch to multi-part hard plastic, make the game more suitable for larger amounts of miniatures, etc.. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Infinity is all about.
If I go into a Warmachine forum saying I'd love PP to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the "play like you have a pair/competitive schtick" and expand to unbound, narrative gaming, etc.. . because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Warmachine is all about.
If I go into a Kingdom Death forum saying I'd love Adam Poots to take a few pointers from GW, ease up on the boobs, the wierd, NSFW and not-kid friendly, etc.. .. because that might "get me interested" as a (new) customer, you get shouted down about how you "don't get" what Kindom Death is all about.
Repeat ad nauseam for Malifaux, X-Wing, Bolt Action, etc.., etc..
Yet when a customers choses to purchase from GW for the way GW likes to make things, you're suddenly a borderline Scientology-cultist?
Why are other companies allowed to emphasise specific aspects of the hobby, targeting people with specific preferences, even if it always means losing other customers who aren't going to be into their specific view of the hobby, but GW isn't?
Let GW do what GW does, just like PP, Kingdom Death, Corvus Belli, etc.. will do what they do. Customers will decide with their money what they like best. Welcome to the free market.
I think he's referring to people who buy GW elusively (or appear to) and think GW is the best because they have Space Marines and nothing else will do.
The problem is, GW does nothing the best. There are companies that make better quality minis.
GW's minis are marketed for games, thus the plastic and in-game options they come with, but don't match up to more boutique minis (or even Infinity or Malifaux)
They don't make the best games.
It seems the only thing they do have is bulk. You can buy a lot of GW stuff, which according to the OP's linked article, is exactly what they want out of a customer.
I don't get this at all. GW models are very high quality HIPS. No one can deny this. There might be better quality HIPS, sure. But they do not make 40k miniatures. They do not have 30 years of background and design behind their miniatures. So why would anyone who loves 40k for those aspect care about the fact that the Dreamforge Leviathan can be posed in hundreds of ways (but still look worse than the Imperial Knight IMO), or that Infinity sculpts are more detailed? The quality of the miniatures is important, but there is no doubt that GW is among the top. So what if they're not THE best? A person who wants 40k miniatures wouldn't buy another companies models simply because the detail is slightly crisper or the posing options are greater. Any quality gap is irrelevant, firstly because it's not that big, and secondly because they want figures connected to the universe they love. That's why they think GW is "the best", and that's why they keep buying GW, even if they might recognize that there are better rulesets out there. Reducing that to "they have Space Marines and nothing else will do" is doing these people a disservice, and saying that "all they have is bulk" is straight up disingenuous, because that's clearly far from all they have.
I didn't make myself clear. I meant objectively, not personal likes of aesthetics or fluff. That's non-quantifiable.
If a modeler really loves modeling, then they wouldn't choose GW (Because there's better stufff out there) unless they liked the fluff and aesthetics. (That should go without saying.)
On a side note: someone that only likes Space Marines and nothing else, needs to broaden their horizons a bit.
Also, it's possible to really really like something and realize its not the best.
I love a lot of things and I don't assume they're the best just because I like the aesthetics more.
Alright, that sounds reasonable. But are modelers so different from gamers? How many would go for quality over any and all aesthetic considerations? I don't think you can really separate the two when it comes to purchasing decisions. And when I say "best" I'm talking in aggregate. If I only meant "technical quality", I would be more specific. I think most people are the same way.
Alright, that sounds reasonable. But are modelers so different from gamers? How many would go for quality over any and all aesthetic considerations? I don't think you can really separate the two when it comes to purchasing decisions. And when I say "best" I'm talking in aggregate. If I only meant "technical quality", I would be more specific. I think most people are the same way.
Better quality marines are still better marines... People who enjoy GW products because they like the grimdark aesthetics could still benefit from better quality models.
BTWGW used to be a games company. They started to make 25mm fantasy figures and 15mm SF figures to complement the RPGs they were selling or publishing under licence.
I would argue that they were a games company until about 2000ish. There seems to have been a turning point around then.
That's a reasonable argument because 2001 was their last original release (Lord of the Rings) until Dread Fleet, and then AoS. So, three new games in 15 years, during which time they also dumped a number of existing games. If you are looking at major releases you can forget Dread Fleet.
BTWGW used to be a games company. They started to make 25mm fantasy figures and 15mm SF figures to complement the RPGs they were selling or publishing under licence.
I would argue that they were a games company until about 2000ish. There seems to have been a turning point around then.
That's a reasonable argument because 2001 was their last original release (Lord of the Rings) until Dread Fleet, and then AoS. So, three new games in 15 years, during which time they also dumped a number of existing games. If you are looking at major releases you can forget Dread Fleet.
Well, it would qualify as a major flop, anyway. If GW were a games company, they wouldn't be sitting on their back-catalog like they are (apart from shoveling it out to random video game developers for some quick cash via licensing fees). It takes a certain kind of stupid to completely miss out on releasing a 25th Anniversary Edition of Blood Bowl, a game for which there are several 3rd parties still producing products for.
Vertrucio wrote:
I'm fine with GW as a business, and I'm fine with GW as a modeling company.
But I laugh every time I see people push the idea that all of this madness is okay just because 1 aspect of it is okay. Or that just because it's a business decision that people should accept and acquiesce to terrible consumer/customer decisions because business decisions should matter at all to the customer's bottom line. Or that it's okay because of the GW sponsored idea that the majority is some mythical moneypit of a modeling gamer like Talys.
Yes. This. Other IPs have their fanatics, but they tend to be a bit more justified and less mystifying than those who can't get enough of GW's customer-loathing sadism.
As MWHistorian said, we're not coming at this from the perspective of people who always disliked GW products or the way they operated, or dislike everything about it now; but there's only so long you can voluntarily take a Casino-Royale-style torture, but having a peanut thrown to you with each swing, before you get up and go find someone who just wants to sell you a bag of cashews. Strange as it may seem, for most people even space marines cant keep them sat there.
Silent Puffin? wrote:
I wouldn't be
Plenty of people have leapt at it anyway. Any of them you?
Wow, where to start. I guess I'll begin with Price, since that comes up the most; some people seem to get upset that I feel that GW prices are okay, so let me put it in perspective.
Price of Models
First of all, of course, like everyone else, I'd prefer the same models for less regardless of what I'm willing to pay for something. Are GW models expensive? It just depends on how you look at it, and in every instance it's relative. If you happen to like models made by the major players like GW, PP, Wyrd, and CB (Infinity) then *relatively* they are not any more expensive than their major competitors. If you're comparing it to generic fantasy or generic historical, and you don't care about specific model aesthetics, then PP, Wyrd, CB/Infinity and GW models are all horribly expensive.
It depends also whether you plan on spending 10 minutes to assemble and paint a model, or 10 hours, or 10 weeks, or 10 months: the price per hour of entertainment drops dramatically if you perceive modelling as entertainment, and if you spend more time on the models.
Relative to a minimum wage of $7.50 / hour or a weekly allowance of $20, yeah, GW games and models are unaffordable and stupidly expensive. But relative to the medium household income in the USA of $52,000, it's not so bad, but if the household has kids and a mortgage and that kind of thing, it's probably not a smart place to put your spare pennies. Relative to a household income of $80,000, $100,000, or more -- which is pretty common if there are 2 wage earners who are professionals -- miniatures of any brand are a cheap hobby relative to many other hobbies. Or even beer.
I personally don't have a problem with GW prices because I really enjoy modelling, miniatures, and wargaming, and nearly every other non-GW model I buy is $10-30 per infantry sized miniature anyhow. I have no interest in miniatures from board games generally, because they are not collection that I can grow over time; I want something that will "completed" in years, not in weeks. Plus, I really like the GW aesthetic. That's not to say I don't like anyone else's; I buy plenty of non-GW models too. But I'm willing to pay more for stuff I really like, and I spend more time on stuff I like than collections where I like a few things a lot, and most of the collection not-so-much.
Price of Rules
On an absolute basis, 2015 rulebooks aren't any more expensive that hardcover books from the Rogue Trader/Realm of Chaos books. There's still a price sticker on one, $45, back in the late 80s'. And back then, there were no 25% discounts. Sure, there are a lot roe rulebooks, but it's not like you MUST buy them all. Mostly, it's all faction books, and if it's not your faction, you don't need it. If you really love a game, spending $50 every couple of years can't be that bad; and if you don't really love a game, why not do something you really love instead? Life's too short to waste it on something only marginally interesting.
In 40k, you can easily get a softcover minirulebook (which is identical to the big version) for anywhere from free to $30, and a codex for $50 or so. That's not a crazy price for rules. In AoS, the rules are free, so surely that can't be a complaint.
With very few exceptions, there aren't many rulebooks superseded in a single year. Imperial Knights are a notable exception, but it's not like the original book actually had any content in it (7 pages of gaming materials, I think). Most rulebooks, even in the rapid-release era, are good for a couple years or more.
If you are a rules completionist and find it expensive to be one in the 40k universe, I can sympathize. But that's not really GW's fault.
Quality of Models
I'm not going to get into this, really. It really boils down to GW making among the cleanest, sharpest plastic models on the market (something I value), in an aesthetic that I really love. Plus, they are truly multipart and make great use of negative space, something that I also value. To me, having something behind the folds of the robes or tabard that you can see a hint of or not having a solid blob between the cape and the model is a big thing; and having models that can be connected to the base by just a couple of millimeters of plastic (for leaping poses) is awesome.
At the end of the day, it's just too hard to divorce subjective to objective qualities of models. If you like the GW models, you'll think they're great; if not, you'll think they're just more space marines, or whatever
But basically, if you don't like the GW models, I can't imagine any reason to buy them.
Quality of Rules
Well, here, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't like GW games, my simple advice is -- don't bitch about the prices or anything else, just don't play the games. They're never going to be to your liking; and frankly, I'm not really sure how they ever were, because the problems that GW wargames have today were the same types of problems GW wargames had going way back. It's never been balanced. It's always been more about cool models. There's been power creep going on since the mid 90s. There's always FoTM armies. There's always going to be a codex drop that's going to make something better and something else worse.
For other people (like me), the rules rate somewhere between quite enjoyable and great. I don't think they're perfect rules, but they're great rules to have fun with, and I understand that my version of fun isn't the same as some other peoples'. I also don't enjoy hypercompetitive play for TT wargames anymore, and almost never play pickup games, so there's that.
Something I don't see often mentioned is that unless you own a car transporting many average size GW armies is highly impractical. And even so, unless you play in your own home, transporting Knights, Prosecutors, Ravagers, or any number of models that are made for 40k/AoS is just... hard. 1850 points of most things are certainly NOT friendly to carrying on a bicycle or on a bus.
Specialist Games
Yeah, I loved these too. Bloodbowl and Space Hulk are awesome. Necromundia was terrific. Space Crusade, Advanced Heroquest, too! But obviously, GW sees these as dead end products: someone buys it, likes it, plays it and that's it. They see as far more profitable games that people buy into and spend money on for years or decades forward.
What does that tell you? If you don't want a game or hobby that you invest in, play, collect, and grow for years or decades forward... GW games are probably not going to be an ideal choice, because the company doesn't have you in mind when they're making their product, and at some point, you'll be disappointed or upset by changes.
Bottle wrote: If they are to embrace being a model company and not a game company, I hope Age of Sigmar leads the way and all the 40K rules are released for free too. I bought some AdMech Skitarii and painted them up but the biggest hurdle for me buying more is that i would need to get 1) The 40K Rulebook, 2)Codex Skitarii, 3)Codex Cult Mechanicus just to play with my models!
Be careful what you wish for. You may wind up with free rules and 'codexes' all right... made with all the care and respect put into AoS. Complete with joke rules.
Talys wrote: Are GW models expensive? It just depends on how you look at it, and in every instance it's relative. If you happen to like models made by the major players like GW, PP, Wyrd, and CB (Infinity) then *relatively* they are not any more expensive than their major competitors. If you're comparing it to generic fantasy or generic historical, and you don't care about specific model aesthetics, then PP, Wyrd, CB/Infinity and GW models are all horribly expensive.
And of course Talys is trying to relativize everything! Again!
Seriously, no hard feelings here, but have we still not got past the "well depends to what you compare it with" point? Because that argument can be taken advantage of to literally justify all kinds of insane princing policies. Also, now Wyrd is a "major player" but Mantic and certain companies which produce historical models are not? If you want a comparison to proveGW "is not that expensive"... some time ago I would have suggested Scibor, but guess what, nowadays GW plastic clampack characters for 40k have reached Scibor prices or even surpassed them, depending on the models. It's got to the point GW plastics are more expensive than FW resin. I guess the sky is the only limit now.
As I see it, GW pricing policies are simply insane. Sadly PP seems to be going in the same direction, as for now they seem to be getting away with it due to the fact that their games don't actually require a high model count so they're still "affordable". I guess Malifaux and Infinity make that their strong point, and CB at least has the excuse of their models being metal.
In the end I agree with you about the aesthetics thing. Certain companies are merely capitalising on the fact that (in my view) too many customers are too attached to a certain aesthetic, which IMO actually restrains and limits their creativity. As an example, just imagine if every Imperial Guard player tried to make their tanks and guardsmen as customized and distinctive as possible, at the same time looking for the best options in the market (in regards to price/quality). GW wouldn't probably sell a single plastic cadian or catachan box.
In short, companies charge as much as they think they can get away with, and some insane pricing policies are - still - kept afloat thanks to how narrow minded this community can sometimes be.
As usual, clarification: everyone is as free to do what they want with their money as I am to have an opinion about it.
MWHistorian wrote: And yes, GW books are still expensive. They're approaching text book levels.
Ugh, scary thought. yeah, textbooks are expensive... mostly because you're forced to buy a truckload of them all at the same time
My point, though, is that there's really no need (really, not much *use*) to buying every GW book for either 40k or AoS. In 40k, I think you need a mini rulebook (which is superior in every way to a big rulebook for gaming purposes) and 1 codex, maybe 2, depending on what you're playing.
In AoS, the gaming group on a whole would really benefit from having the campaign books, but they're hardly necessary.
Korinov wrote: Seriously, no hard feelings here, but have we still not got past the "well depends to what you compare it with" point? Because that argument can be taken advantage of to literally justify all kinds of insane princing policies. Also, now Wyrd is a "major player" but Mantic and certain companies which produce historical models are not? If you want a comparison to proveGW "is not that expensive"... some time ago I would have suggested Scibor, but guess what, nowadays GW plastic clampack characters for 40k have reached Scibor prices or even surpassed them, depending on the models. It's got to the point GW plastics are more expensive than FW resin. I guess the sky is the only limit now.
I notice that you didn't mention my reference to income. For some people, a $10 or $20 model here and there just isn't a lot of money (or a $5 cup of coffee, for that matter). So yeah, I think it's pricing is all relative.
I only picked Malifaux and WMH because in my area, the only games that there are games nights for are X-Wing, Malifaux, WMH, and GW games. But X-Wing doesn't have paintable miniatures, so it's a little different, right? I think that Malifaux and WMH are the chief competitors to GW for dollars of revenue at the hobby shops, but I don't discount the other games and I don't mean to belittle them.
There are no KoW groups in my area (though I'm sure there are some people that play it), and no Deadzone, DUST, etc., though a couple of shops sell the products. Just my observations, and not necessarily representative of other areas, of course.
As I see it, GW pricing policies are simply insane. Sadly PP seems to be going in the same direction, as for now they seem to be getting away with it due to the fact that their games don't actually require a high model count so they're still "affordable". I guess Malifaux and Infinity make that their strong point, and CB at least has the excuse of their models being metal.
I don't think being metal is really a plus, anymore. Surely not for people who enjoy larger models, which is what a lot of GW stuff is about these days. But really, that's just preference. In all of these cases, the selling price of the model has very little to do with the materials cost of manufacture.
In short, companies charge as much as they think they can get away with, and some insane pricing policies are - still - kept afloat thanks to how narrow minded this community can sometimes be.
Yeah, for sure. But this isn't exclusive to tabletop wargames. Sony charges more for TVs, Panasonic charges more for cordless phones and microwaves, Samsung charges more for cell phones... all because they have people who like their stuff and are willing to pay a premium for it.
Just to be clear, too, I spend a LOT of money every year on non-GW models, and at least a couple of hundred hours painting non-GW stuff. In some cases, those models are kits are more expensive than GW's, in some cases less but rarely are the models I really look forward to painting $2 models (though I do buy some of them). Generally, speaking, I just happen to like GW models *more*.
My opinion is that these companies should behave like most other companies on the planet, and look to maximizing their profits doing something they like to do and/or are good at doing, so charging as much as they can get away is just, well... normal. At some point, if they charge too much, they'll lose some customers, which is good for newcomers to the arena. Which is normal, and good, too, IMO.
On an absolute basis, 2015 rulebooks aren't any more expensive that hardcover books from the Rogue Trader/Realm of Chaos books. There's still a price sticker on one, $45, back in the late 80s'. And back then, there were no 25% discounts. Sure, there are a lot roe rulebooks, but it's not like you MUST buy them all. Mostly, it's all faction books, and if it's not your faction, you don't need it. If you really love a game, spending $50 every couple of years can't be that bad; and if you don't really love a game, why not do something you really love instead? Life's too short to waste it on something only marginally interesting.
In 40k, you can easily get a softcover minirulebook (which is identical to the big version) for anywhere from free to $30, and a codex for $50 or so. That's not a crazy price for rules. In AoS, the rules are free, so surely that can't be a complaint.
With very few exceptions, there aren't many rulebooks superseded in a single year. Imperial Knights are a notable exception, but it's not like the original book actually had any content in it (7 pages of gaming materials, I think). Most rulebooks, even in the rapid-release era, are good for a couple years or more.
If you are a rules completionist and find it expensive to be one in the 40k universe, I can sympathize. But that's not really GW's fault.
Now lets compare the price of rules with someone who's not GW. I can purchase the Flames of War rules from Battlefront for $40. That gives me a full color 308 page hardcover rulebook, a full color 100 page softback forces book and a full color 40 page softback hobby book. I can get a full color 340 page hardcover compilation for $30. If I want just the rules, I can get the 308 page rulebook as a softcover A5 book for ten bucks (without searching eBay or setting up a trade). My pocket rulebook was free however, since Battlefront gave everyone who owned the v2 hardcover rulebook a free v3 pocket rulebook.
Warmachine's book was what, $45? Full color, 256 pages with lots of fluff and units. Oh, and its free online. Also, no need to buy codexs.
Same with Maliafaux. Cheaper book. No codex.
Same with Infinity. Also free rules and free unit profiles and army builder.
So...yeah. 40k is still way more expensive. Especially now that you'll need more than one codex to compete.
@Ghaz - Yeah, I'm not saying there aren't cheaper (or free) games out there. In this respect, 40k is relatively expensive (compared to some competitors), and AoS is relatively cheap, since hundreds of pages of rules are free.
All I was getting at is that $50-$100 (less whatever discount) for rules doesn't seem out of this world expensive to me. Plus, you can get the digital editions, which are even cheaper -- and the iPad versions are arguably *better*.
I think a bone a lot of people have to pick with GW is that they went from black and white softcover codex to hardcover, full color superglossy books, and doubled (or more) the prices. Not only is it pricier, but it's very much pro-collector and anti-gamer, as the hardcovers are a real bitch to lug around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: Warmachine's book was what, $45? Full color, 256 pages with lots of fluff and units. Oh, and its free online. Also, no need to buy codexs.
This is not really true. The free version of the book online is identical to what comes in the starter box and is only half the book that you get if you buy the printed matter (unlike the mini rulebook that comes free with Dark Vengeance, which is identical to the 40kBRB). I think it's the first 100 or so pages out of 250ish.
Also, yeah, you don't need any faction books in WMH... so long as you don't care about having rules for any units, except the ones you actually buy the models of. Which isn't really the case for a lot of people who actually like the game. Unless I'm wrong and you can download the unit rules now? I did not think so.
In the same way, if you want to be competitive, you need to know your opponents' rules too, so again, no different in WMH than 40k (for most players, I don't think this is such a big deal, because you learn all that stuff as you play the game and meet people and such). In this respect, AoS is much, much cheaper.
@MWHistorian: in my opinion, there is no "best miniature company" out there as far as casting quality is concerned...
the difference between the HIPS releases from Kingdom Death, Malifaux, Dreamforge, GW, and others is not even an issue as far as injection molding quality is concerned...
the differences is in aesthetics alone...
some people prefer the heroic scale proportions of a GW mini to the true scale proportions of a Malfaux minis...
that doesn't make one objectively better than the other, it just makes them different styles...
the availability of different sculpting styles from different companies is a wonderful thing...
i have always been careful to say that GW makes my favorite minis, nothing more...
@Vertucio: how has GW ever screwed me over, let alone regularly???
if they make a product i like, i buy it...
if i don't like it, i don't buy it...
simple...
@jonolikespie: GW is constantly improving their Space Marines...
i get better versions with each new generation of kit, so i do benefit from better Marines...
the newer plastic Tac. Squad, Devastators, Assault Squad, Sternguard, Vanguard, BA Tacticals, DV Dark Angels, DA Termies box, BA Termie box, and DA Ravenwing Command are all very nice kits...
The app with all units is pretty cheap.
Besides, I thought we were talking about what we NEEDED to play. If we want to move the goalposts to what we WANT to play, then yeah, that's a different conversation.
All I was getting at is that $50-$100 (less whatever discount) for rules doesn't seem out of this world expensive to me. Plus, you can get the digital editions, which are even cheaper -- and the iPad versions are arguably *better*.
Well, yeah, a flight to Hawaii for my family isn't all that expensive to me but I don't begrudge people feeling that it is. I don't mean to pick on you Talys, you bring up some good points in conversations and are mostly fairly even-keeled but the elite collector schtick gets a bit wearing when you literally bring it up in every thread where someone mentions GW model prices.
People feel things are high-priced because that's reality. Some of us could literally buy an entire store of GW models without stressing our bank accounts but that doesn't mean that there is actual value in doing so. I recommend you not take the price gripes so literally when many people actually mean there isn't value for the price, not that they can't afford it. I think that we can all agree that value for the price is subjective.
All I know is GW charges 165 NZD for their main rulebook before I buy faction specific rules.
The Flames of War rulebook costs me 56NZD and comes with faction rules.
The Mantic Book costs me 60NZD and comes with ALL the rules I need.
Firestorm Armada Rules also barely cost anything (I think 40NZD from memory?)and their main rules come with enough stuff for me to play all the starter fleets.
Black Powder was $79 dollars and had everything I needed too.
I think I purchased the complete rules and faction books for Bolt Action for cheaper than I got my 40k Rules. Plus they came with free models.
Regardless GW charges usually about 3X the price for far less and does not offer free versions of their rules (AOS is the first time we see free rules from GW). There is also little positive to say about GW rules when compared to others. I would have to say GW rule books are the ugliest in my collection (7th edition onward).
I honestly cant think of a bigger rip off book wise than GW books. Looking at all the books I own. And I own a fair few.
All I was getting at is that $50-$100 (less whatever discount) for rules doesn't seem out of this world expensive to me. Plus, you can get the digital editions, which are even cheaper -- and the iPad versions are arguably *better*.
Well, yeah, a flight to Hawaii for my family isn't all that expensive to me but I don't begrudge people feeling that it is. I don't mean to pick on you Talys, you bring up some good points in conversations and are mostly fairly even-keeled but the elite collector schtick gets a bit wearing when you literally bring it up in every thread where someone mentions GW model prices.
People feel things are high-priced because that's reality. Some of us could literally buy an entire store of GW models without stressing our bank accounts but that doesn't mean that there is actual value in doing so. I recommend you not take the price gripes so literally when many people actually mean there isn't value for the price, not that they can't afford it. I think that we can all agree that value for the price is subjective.
I was actually referring to the mini-rulebook + 1 codex as being cheap in an absolute fashion -- relative to median US household income ($52,000 in 2014). A lot of people seem to think 40k or WMH require you to buy every book that's out there. In fact, you don't, and that was all I meant. You could put on the other shoe and just say, "well, how much should 300 pages of rules for a game cost?". If it's free, a lot of companies will struggle. Should it be $20? $40? $60?
But anyways, as an absolute, yes, you are right: there are a lot of people who can't afford 40k. Likewise, though, the hobby of miniatures can be expensive, which is why I said, to someone who makes $7.50 an hour or gets a $25 a week allowance, it's totally unaffordable. By this metric, there are a lot of people who can't afford to model armies for Kings of War, either. Is $2 a model for 100 models expensive? It sure is, if you don't have a spare $200 for gaming/entertainment. You see what I mean?
If you want to get into that debate, the more useful comparison would be to take a household income, call it $50,000 or whatever (which, again, is BELOW the median 2014 US household income), and say, "would it be expensive, affordable, or inexpensive at that income level considering that it's an entertainment product that offers X number of hours of entertainment?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: All I know is GW charges 165 NZD for their main rulebook before I buy faction specific rules.
Well, no argument there, bud. For whatever reason, GW and New Zealand or Australia just ends up in super duper expensive prices.
Though I don't think anyone other than a collector should buy the BRB 3-book set. The mini book is identical to the rulebook (down to the page numbers and color pictures) and way more useful for gaming, and can be had very cheap to free, as it comes free with 3 different box sets.
davethepak wrote: They STILL do not understand what they are selling and who they are selling it to.
With leadership that has business acumen and can put aside their ego - this could be a billion dollar company.
A collector buys one nightscythe - a gamer buys six.
there is a your market - right there.
They could do better, but they will never, ever, never, make a billion dollars.
Make a billion dollars? No, but they could become worth a billion dollars. They're already worth at least a quarter of a billion, last time I checked their stock prices. Simply put, the only reason games like Kings of War, Malifeaux, Dropzone Commander, etc. exist is because GWallowed their creation by ditching their own "Specialist Games" that those games and their companies have moved in to replace. GW has their own artists, writers, sculptors, and manufacturing. With that much vertical integration of the game creation process, there is absolutely no reason why GW cannot maintain multiple game systems, while simultaneously undercutting the competition's prices and penetrating the hell out of the market with their stores (GW's stores are currently a millstone because they sell only three games, imagine if they sold everything).
But, no, some time ago GW decided they didn't want all the money, just some of the money. Example: Someone buying a BFG ship was someone who wasn't buying more Space Marines (which have a better profit margin), in their minds. What they completely failed to grasp was that many of the people buying BFG ships were never going to buy Space Marines, so dropping BFG has lost them that income.
Swastakowey wrote: All I know is GW charges 165 NZD for their main rulebook before I buy faction specific rules.
Well, no argument there, bud. For whatever reason, GW and New Zealand or Australia just ends up in super duper expensive prices.
Though I don't think anyone other than a collector should buy the BRB 3-book set. The mini book is identical to the rulebook (down to the page numbers and color pictures) and way more useful for gaming, and can be had very cheap to free, as it comes free with 3 different box sets.
When I got the rules a mini alternative was not available nor did GW say that one would be available. Another pain in butt thing GW likes to do.
When I got the rules a mini alternative was not available nor did GW say that one would be available. Another pain in butt thing GW likes to do.
LOL, yeah, that would help, right? In our group, what happened was two people bought the set, and the rest just shared and waited for the DV refresh (which didn't take long). I mean, we were sure they'd either refresh DV or release some other new starter box. From a gaming perspective, the Dark Millenium book is pretty useless, and the third book gets flipped through once and never looked at again for the vast majority of people
All I was getting at is that $50-$100 (less whatever discount) for rules doesn't seem out of this world expensive to me. Plus, you can get the digital editions, which are even cheaper -- and the iPad versions are arguably *better*.
Well, yeah, a flight to Hawaii for my family isn't all that expensive to me but I don't begrudge people feeling that it is. I don't mean to pick on you Talys, you bring up some good points in conversations and are mostly fairly even-keeled but the elite collector schtick gets a bit wearing when you literally bring it up in every thread where someone mentions GW model prices.
People feel things are high-priced because that's reality. Some of us could literally buy an entire store of GW models without stressing our bank accounts but that doesn't mean that there is actual value in doing so. I recommend you not take the price gripes so literally when many people actually mean there isn't value for the price, not that they can't afford it. I think that we can all agree that value for the price is subjective.
I was actually referring to the mini-rulebook + 1 codex as being cheap in an absolute fashion -- relative to median US household income ($52,000 in 2014). A lot of people seem to think 40k or WMH require you to buy every book that's out there. In fact, you don't, and that was all I meant. You could put on the other shoe and just say, "well, how much should 300 pages of rules for a game cost?". If it's free, a lot of companies will struggle. Should it be $20? $40? $60?
But anyways, as an absolute, yes, you are right: there are a lot of people who can't afford 40k. Likewise, though, the hobby of miniatures can be expensive, which is why I said, to someone who makes $7.50 an hour or gets a $25 a week allowance, it's totally unaffordable. By this metric, there are a lot of people who can't afford to model armies for Kings of War, either. Is $2 a model for 100 models expensive? It sure is, if you don't have a spare $200 for gaming/entertainment. You see what I mean?
If you want to get into that debate, the more useful comparison would be to take a household income, call it $50,000 or whatever (which, again, is BELOW the median 2014 US household income), and say, "would it be expensive, affordable, or inexpensive at that income level considering that it's an entertainment product that offers X number of hours of entertainment?"
I understand your opinion and share it in some measure; however, I can't help but feel that you're merging two somewhat different concepts. There's subjective value; someone could easily afford a $75 rulebook but not find value in it vs. a new computer/playstation/xbox game due to their own preferences. There there's objective value where the $75 book is poor value when compared to a competitor's offerings of a closely similar product. The WMH rulebook is 295 pages, in full color, and is offered in softback and hardback formats. The softback is about $30 and the hardback is about $40 depending on where you buy. I use PP here as I feel it to be the closest competitor (though I could very well be wrong in that assumption with the growth of XWing, but I feel that to be a bit of apples and oranges). BTW, the "just the rules" isn't available that I could see on GW's webstore (I checked because I couldn't remember if $75 was accurate) all that's available is the $165 set; the ebook is available through BL at $59.99. People have already mentioned other competitors and their book prices; so, yeah, I feel comfortable in saying that objectively, GW's rulebooks are a poor value; subjectively, people may not feel that way.
Your second point continues to confuse the two concepts. The actual number of hours of entertainment that an individual will receive from the product will vary greatly per person. Some people love all the pictures and so spend a great deal of time pouring over those, the same with the "fluff" and so on while some people will read the entire book front to back and then do so again; conversely, others will just open the book to check a rule while they play. To compare the books to the models, I would argue there is less value, as there should be since they want to sell you models above all else but we're talking about the books.
Subjective vs. Objective value. When economists talk about objective value, they're talking about facts and figures, things you can count that apply universally. Subjective values are those things that depend on opinion, taste, whim, whatever. Objectively, GW books are a bad value while subjectively they may or may not be, depending upon the person. To me that is why these conversations always go in circles, people naturally speak subjectively when dealing with something as near and dear as money (or nerd toys ) while it's a bit more difficult to approach a discussion objectively.
Wonderwolf wrote: Why are other companies allowed to emphasise specific aspects of the hobby, targeting people with specific preferences, even if it always means losing other customers who aren't going to be into their specific view of the hobby, but GW isn't?
GW most certainly is 'allowed' to do that.
The reason that they're copping flak for it in this particular instance, though, is that they are suddenly (as in, comparitively recently in their history as a company) claiming that their aims are, and always have been, something different to what a large chunk of their customer base expects, and to what nearly 30 years of releases suggest.
This current emphasis on collecting rather than gaming is something that only really built up steam during the Chapterhouse case, when GW discovered that having their products classed as toys rather than collectible art might result on the completely losing any right to claim copyright on them. And so, all of a sudden, Games Workshop wasn't about producing games, and their customers are supposedly just buying their models to look at rather than to play with.
If any of those other companies you mentioned made such an abrubt shift, I would suspect that you would see similar comments being made by their current customer base as we see now with GW.
For what it's worth, I can actually believe that only 20% of GWs customers actively play their games. But from my experience gaming in a number of different venues over the years, and from following online discussion for almost as long, I would guess that a reasonable chunk of the remaining 80% actually still consider themselves 40k 'players' rather than just model collectors... but only play sporadically if at all, for various reasons. And as such, they're still going to have similar concerns and preferences to 'actual' gamers, because their purchases are still at least to some extent influenced by the trends in the game
Trying to market a product that was designed specifically for use in a game as anything other than a game piece seems like nailing jelly to a tree, frankly. GW's models are nice as game pieces, but are left well behind by miniatures made specifically for display. Their materials are nice (easy to work with, durable, etc) for game pieces, but as more and more of the range shifts to their soft polystyrene mix are left behind by model kits made for display in the right plastic for that use. And the current emphasis on cycling rules through as quickly as possible and getting people to buy as many new books as you can in the shortest time possible is (arguably) great for promoting a game and keeping things fresh... but completely irrelevant to (according to GW) the vast majority of their customer base.
So GW aren't copping ridicule just for claiming that their product is aimed at collectors rather than gamers. They're copping ridicule for claiming that in the face of, well, pretty much everything that they do directly contradicting this claim.
Person 1: "Well I like what GW are doing" Person 2: "Well I don't like what GW are doing"
The crux of the problem to me is this...
Niche businesses are often very profitable and the hard decisions they take is what makes them different, but they’re also vulnerable if unforeseen events reduce the attractiveness of the niche. That’s why most niche companies try to expand their niches, or develop related niches.
GW are marketing to a niche and for some reason they are narrowing their niche even further. Whether you like what GW are currently producing or don't like what GW are currently producing, narrowing your market just seems like a stupid thing to do.
Pissed off customers are an inevitable by-product (and no matter how much you care about money more than making customers happy, I think most successful business would agree that a vocal pissed off customer is one of the worst things for your wallet) and even if you manage to up your profits, you end up sitting on a knife's edge if you squeeze your niche too hard and it all falls apart.
davethepak wrote: They STILL do not understand what they are selling and who they are selling it to.
With leadership that has business acumen and can put aside their ego - this could be a billion dollar company.
A collector buys one nightscythe - a gamer buys six.
there is a your market - right there.
They could do better, but they will never, ever, never, make a billion dollars.
Make a billion dollars? No, but they could become worth a billion dollars. They're already worth at least a quarter of a billion, last time I checked their stock prices. Simply put, the only reason games like Kings of War, Malifeaux, Dropzone Commander, etc. exist is because GWallowed their creation by ditching their own "Specialist Games" that those games and their companies have moved in to replace. GW has their own artists, writers, sculptors, and manufacturing. With that much vertical integration of the game creation process, there is absolutely no reason why GW cannot maintain multiple game systems, while simultaneously undercutting the competition's prices and penetrating the hell out of the market with their stores (GW's stores are currently a millstone because they sell only three games, imagine if they sold everything).
But, no, some time ago GW decided they didn't want all the money, just some of the money. Example: Someone buying a BFG ship was someone who wasn't buying more Space Marines (which have a better profit margin), in their minds. What they completely failed to grasp was that many of the people buying BFG ships were never going to buy Space Marines, so dropping BFG has lost them that income.
I agree with all the reasons you've listed that GW will never be worth a billion dollars.
I understand your opinion and share it in some measure; however, I can't help but feel that you're merging two somewhat different concepts. There's subjective value; someone could easily afford a $75 rulebook but not find value in it vs. a new computer/playstation/xbox game due to their own preferences. There there's objective value where the $75 book is poor value when compared to a competitor's offerings of a closely similar product. The WMH rulebook is 295 pages, in full color, and is offered in softback and hardback formats. The softback is about $30 and the hardback is about $40 depending on where you buy. I use PP here as I feel it to be the closest competitor (though I could very well be wrong in that assumption with the growth of XWing, but I feel that to be a bit of apples and oranges). BTW, the "just the rules" isn't available that I could see on GW's webstore (I checked because I couldn't remember if $75 was accurate) all that's available is the $165 set; the ebook is available through BL at $59.99. People have already mentioned other competitors and their book prices; so, yeah, I feel comfortable in saying that objectively, GW's rulebooks are a poor value; subjectively, people may not feel that way.
The "just rules" is available all over the place on ebay. This guy, for instance has sold 112 copies at $25
Not only is it a lot cheaper, but it's WAY better for gaming, because it weighs a tiny fraction of the BRB and is much smaller. Or you could buy DV, Deathstorm or Stormclaw (if you can find them), and get a free copy. And DV gets you the templates, measuring sticks, and dice, too.
The codex books are $50 - $58 print; $41 if you can find stock of the mini version (I think they were limited release? I can't recall). I think the digital versions are about $40. They range, IMO, from mediocre to good value. For instance, I don't know anyone who plays (I mean, actually plays) Eldar or Space Marines who isn't happy with their last codex purchase.
A lot of times, people conflate "my army sucks" with "this book is bad value". Case in point, a lot of Guard, CSM, Tyranid, DE, and BA players think their codex blows chunks.
What exactly is "too expensive" or "good value" anyways? Lots of people buy the Forge World books, gleefully, and they are WAY more expensive than the 40k books. This is why I marry entertainment value with "value". If you use something a lot, it's going to be more valuable *to you*, and if you'll never use it (or just flip through it for pictures), it will be of a tiny value.
I get it that there are people who want a neat game with tight and inexpensive or free rules, either with or without cool minis. In my opinion, these people are better served by a company other than GW.
Your second point continues to confuse the two concepts. The actual number of hours of entertainment that an individual will receive from the product will vary greatly per person. Some people love all the pictures and so spend a great deal of time pouring over those, the same with the "fluff" and so on while some people will read the entire book front to back and then do so again; conversely, others will just open the book to check a rule while they play. To compare the books to the models, I would argue there is less value, as there should be since they want to sell you models above all else but we're talking about the books.
Subjective vs. Objective value. When economists talk about objective value, they're talking about facts and figures, things you can count that apply universally. Subjective values are those things that depend on opinion, taste, whim, whatever. Objectively, GW books are a bad value while subjectively they may or may not be, depending upon the person. To me that is why these conversations always go in circles, people naturally speak subjectively when dealing with something as near and dear as money (or nerd toys ) while it's a bit more difficult to approach a discussion objectively.
Yes, you're right; there is subjective and objective value. But you can't really just nail objective value to things that aren't *identical*, or at least equally desirable. If I may have A or B, and I would like A and B equally, and A is cheaper than B, then A is objectively cheaper. But the instant A and B are differentiated enough that I prefer A to B, than objective value is no longer relevant. You see this all the time, for instance, with cars, where two cars on paper are nearly identical, and one is a cheaper than the other. They might even look similar. People who buy the more expensive one, for whatever reason, aren't all irrational; they simply don't see the two products as equivalent.
With games and models, that's just the way it is. If you like WMH or 30k or 40k or AOS or Infinity better, it doesn't really matter if the books are free, $30, $50, or $100. You'll find a way to justify it in your mind and say, "this is good value, because it's awesome and I want it." Conversely, if you don't like the game, the free rules don't really matter, right? It's still a terrible value, because all the rules are just a waste of time. I just don't think you can separate subjective and objective value (at least not totally) on something that depends so much on, "I like this more."
Person 1: "Well I like what GW are doing"
Person 2: "Well I don't like what GW are doing"
The crux of the problem to me is this...
Niche businesses are often very profitable and the hard decisions they take is what makes them different, but they’re also vulnerable if unforeseen events reduce the attractiveness of the niche. That’s why most niche companies try to expand their niches, or develop related niches.
GW are marketing to a niche and for some reason they are narrowing their niche even further. Whether you like what GW are currently producing or don't like what GW are currently producing, narrowing your market just seems like a stupid thing to do.
Pissed off customers are an inevitable by-product (and no matter how much you care about money more than making customers happy, I think most successful business would agree that a vocal pissed off customer is one of the worst things for your wallet) and even if you manage to up your profits, you end up sitting on a knife's edge if you squeeze your niche too hard and it all falls apart.
It's also a strange way to grow a business. We want to get new customers, so we'll alienate as many of them as we can. As for squeezing the niche too far, i don't think that'll be a problem for kirby. He's made his money, everything is just gravy till it's time for the golden parachute to be deployed.
Plenty of people have leapt at it anyway. Any of them you?
Yes although I am lost in the crowd. I find it interesting that all those posts essentially say the same thing but were all written completely independently of each other due to the requirement for admin approval of posts (who apparently doesn't work weekends).
Whatever anyone says about relative prices the evidence of the annual results for the past few years is that the market is walking away from GW.
That may be because of prices, poor rules, bad marketing and PR, or a combination or whatever, but it certainly has been happening.
From the collector versus player angle the fact these worsening results have gone in parallel with a substantial amount of new books and models, might suggest that players are turning away and collectors are not picking up enough of the slack.
We will see the results of the introduction of AoS in the half year report in January.
Kilkrazy wrote: Whatever anyone says about relative prices the evidence of the annual results for the past few years is that the market is walking away from GW.
That may be because of prices, poor rules, bad marketing and PR, or a combination or whatever, but it certainly has been happening.
From the collector versus player angle the fact these worsening results have gone in parallel with a substantial amount of new books and models, might suggest that players are turning away and collectors are not picking up enough of the slack.
We will see the results of the introduction of AoS in the half year report in January.
This is something I defiantly see with my gaming circle, we haven't played 40K for over a year but have definitely been investigating other systems such as Malifaux and Infinity
This is in part due to the prices and perceived value of the product but also the relentless release rate makes it difficult to keep up.
The game also takes longer and longer to play so smaller games fit in with our schedules now more easily.
Also completely anecdotally, it seems to me as a long term lurker that the news and rumours section seems to have less and less GW content in it now. This is in part, I feel, to their rumour policies but also could be indicative of a changing market.
Gw need to react to the market rather than try and dictate it. They aren't such a big fish these days (even though they are still big) and need to wake up to that fact.
MWHistorian wrote: I think many people collect with the intention/hope of gaming and that if there wasn't a game behind it, they wouldn't collect.
(personal theory)
This is one of the many reasons AoS will fail as a product line. Even if you like the models sufficiently (for some reason), to entertain the idea of collecting and painting them, making the decision to buy them is going to be even harder knowing you can't use them for anything, with no one to play with.
I realize GW would probably put me down as a 'collector' because I spend more time painting and assembling, than I game. In the last couple of years, I've played 4-5 times a year on average, but that's only because my friends live on the other side of the country. If they weren't still into 40k, then I wouldn't be either. Everything I model, I do in anticipation of the next game, whenever that might be.
GW of all companies, should know from experience, that even the most well-designed game system is going to do badly if it can't find a player base. Most of their defunct Specialist Games, were better games and arguably better products than WHFB and 40k.
Ok, so changing the GW stores to one man affairs saves money, but doesn't it also hide the fact that you are losing money? That old 4 man town centre store used to cost £500,000 a year to run, the new one man store, in a slightly different location, is only costing £100,000. That's a lot of leeway to hide the loss of sales isn't it?
I can't help but wonder how many of those 'collectors' GW talks about are people like me.
I don't play GW games anymore, when I buy a GW box it is just to paint. That does NOT mean I am a 'collector' rather than a 'gamer'. I used to play GW games, and if they put some effort into the rules I might again. I do play a lot of other companies games and I spend a lot more money on those other companies because when it comes down to it I am a gamer.
You're arguing semantics but yes it would refer to people like you.
Me as well I guess. I bought a ton of FW stuff and some of those Khorne bloodchaps but haven't played 40k since 6th. Played lots of other games but from GWs perspective I am collecting their models.
It makes no difference to me what label that attracts, but the thought process is clear enough.
All I was getting at is that $50-$100 (less whatever discount) for rules doesn't seem out of this world expensive to me. Plus, you can get the digital editions, which are even cheaper -- and the iPad versions are arguably *better*.
Well, yeah, a flight to Hawaii for my family isn't all that expensive to me but I don't begrudge people feeling that it is. I don't mean to pick on you Talys, you bring up some good points in conversations and are mostly fairly even-keeled but the elite collector schtick gets a bit wearing when you literally bring it up in every thread where someone mentions GW model prices.
People feel things are high-priced because that's reality. Some of us could literally buy an entire store of GW models without stressing our bank accounts but that doesn't mean that there is actual value in doing so. I recommend you not take the price gripes so literally when many people actually mean there isn't value for the price, not that they can't afford it. I think that we can all agree that value for the price is subjective.
I was actually referring to the mini-rulebook + 1 codex as being cheap in an absolute fashion -- relative to median US household income ($52,000 in 2014). A lot of people seem to think 40k or WMH require you to buy every book that's out there. In fact, you don't, and that was all I meant. You could put on the other shoe and just say, "well, how much should 300 pages of rules for a game cost?". If it's free, a lot of companies will struggle. Should it be $20? $40? $60?
But anyways, as an absolute, yes, you are right: there are a lot of people who can't afford 40k. Likewise, though, the hobby of miniatures can be expensive, which is why I said, to someone who makes $7.50 an hour or gets a $25 a week allowance, it's totally unaffordable. By this metric, there are a lot of people who can't afford to model armies for Kings of War, either. Is $2 a model for 100 models expensive? It sure is, if you don't have a spare $200 for gaming/entertainment. You see what I mean?
If you want to get into that debate, the more useful comparison would be to take a household income, call it $50,000 or whatever (which, again, is BELOW the median 2014 US household income), and say, "would it be expensive, affordable, or inexpensive at that income level considering that it's an entertainment product that offers X number of hours of entertainment?"
I understand your opinion and share it in some measure; however, I can't help but feel that you're merging two somewhat different concepts. There's subjective value; someone could easily afford a $75 rulebook but not find value in it vs. a new computer/playstation/xbox game due to their own preferences. There there's objective value where the $75 book is poor value when compared to a competitor's offerings of a closely similar product. The WMH rulebook is 295 pages, in full color, and is offered in softback and hardback formats. The softback is about $30 and the hardback is about $40 depending on where you buy. I use PP here as I feel it to be the closest competitor (though I could very well be wrong in that assumption with the growth of XWing, but I feel that to be a bit of apples and oranges). BTW, the "just the rules" isn't available that I could see on GW's webstore (I checked because I couldn't remember if $75 was accurate) all that's available is the $165 set; the ebook is available through BL at $59.99. People have already mentioned other competitors and their book prices; so, yeah, I feel comfortable in saying that objectively, GW's rulebooks are a poor value; subjectively, people may not feel that way.
Your second point continues to confuse the two concepts. The actual number of hours of entertainment that an individual will receive from the product will vary greatly per person. Some people love all the pictures and so spend a great deal of time pouring over those, the same with the "fluff" and so on while some people will read the entire book front to back and then do so again; conversely, others will just open the book to check a rule while they play. To compare the books to the models, I would argue there is less value, as there should be since they want to sell you models above all else but we're talking about the books.
Subjective vs. Objective value. When economists talk about objective value, they're talking about facts and figures, things you can count that apply universally. Subjective values are those things that depend on opinion, taste, whim, whatever. Objectively, GW books are a bad value while subjectively they may or may not be, depending upon the person. To me that is why these conversations always go in circles, people naturally speak subjectively when dealing with something as near and dear as money (or nerd toys ) while it's a bit more difficult to approach a discussion objectively.
As for the amount of enjoyment over time argument....
I have played more Kings of War in the last six months than I have Warhammer Fantasy Battle in the last six years.
The Kings of War rules are available for free - though I have the hardcover, which still cost less than a GW codex.
Kings of War is demonstrably cheaper than Warhammer Fantasy. (I am not counting Age of Stockholders - since I would never play it, the free rules do not matter - zero divided by zero is still zero.)
I have played more Deadzone over the last year than I have Warhammer 40K in the last ten years. Deadzone is about the same price as a 40K starter box. (Another difference - I bought the Deadzone Starter box, and skipped Dark Vengeance, even though I used to play Dark Angels.)
There is a subjective reason - growing dislike for the GW rules.
But an objective result - I play more Mantic than GW.
I buy more Mantic than GW.
I buy more Reaper than GW.
I buy more Stonehaven than GW.
I buy more Raging Heroes than GW.
I buy more CMoN than GW.
I spend a fair amount on gaming, and none of it is finding its way into GW's pockets.
Sir knight, you have mustered upon the wrong field. I fear that this battle here has already been lost. It is time to put up your spurs and accept the reality of change.
I bought about 12 things from GW since I started.
All of them codices/rules.
I own a whole Ultramarines chapter and I literally added it up - I'm paying less than 25% for my whole Chapter on eBay than GW. The rest went on Forge World, a site worth my time.
When the prices are acceptable I might buy more (i.e Fantasy because there's barely any Bloodbound on eBay)
That's an excellent article, OP - thanks for linking to it! Good to see that the investors are not unaware of what GW's policies are doing to their market share / etc, even if there's no way to effect change in them.
That's an excellent article, OP - thanks for linking to it! Good to see that the investors are not unaware of what GW's policies are doing to their market share / etc, even if there's no way to effect change in them.
No worries, I'm not normally quick enough to post stuff before there are already pages of discussion about it!
I don't think anyone knows that GW's market share is. There is a wide supposition that it has been falling for some years. I think this is correct but there is no un-challengeable evidence to support this presumption except for GW's own financial reports, which cannot be accurately read in a vacuum.
GW's own financial reports are by far the best indicator of it, and with other games growing hugely in popularity, for them to stay level in terms of profit (and lower in terms of volume of sales) year on year is definitely losing market share (whatever their current "share" is).
It's hard to know what the market share is without knowing the market, and presumably that's information distributed amongst distributers, GW, and various other parties.
I think we can make some estimations based on things like the number of off-brand manufacturers, counterfeiters, and bits-sellers, since those depend on market conditions to remain in business.
We can all see GW's sales revenue was roughly static for several years of high price rises (meaning fewer units sold) and has been falling for several years.
However we do not know for sure if the whole market is growing or contracting.
Personally I believe it has been growing, due to all sorts of evidence from other sources, but there is nothing like a well-founded research report I could offer as definitive evidence.
Nomeny wrote: It's hard to know what the market share is without knowing the market, and presumably that's information distributed amongst distributers, GW, and various other parties.
I think we can make some estimations based on things like the number of off-brand manufacturers, counterfeiters, and bits-sellers, since those depend on market conditions to remain in business.
It's largely anecdotal but with a wide distribution but ICV2 runs a survey several times per year of stores that seems to mirror what we see in GW's financial reports, that WHFB fell out of the top 5 and was axed in favor of a total reboot instead of a refresh and XWing moving up into dominance.
Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines – Spring 2015 (posted in July):
1 Warhammer 40k
2 Star Wars X-Wing
3 Star Wars Armada
4 Warmachine
5 Hordes
Honestly, I'd be surprised if XWing doesn't take the top spot by the next report. So, if you assume that the same people who play(ed) 40k are interested in Star Wars, there's a strong argument for loss of market share.
We can all see GW's sales revenue was roughly static for several years of high price rises (meaning fewer units sold) and has been falling for several years.
However we do not know for sure if the whole market is growing or contracting.
Personally I believe it has been growing, due to all sorts of evidence from other sources, but there is nothing like a well-founded research report I could offer as definitive evidence.
Depending on how accurate you believe ICV2 to be (and it is just the US market, not worldwide), they posted the following:
even with the higher estimates for 2013, the growth rate was a robust 20%, with RPGs growing the fastest, at a 67% rate; and miniatures the lowest growth category, with flat sales in 2014 compared to 2013.
So, flat miniature sales in the US with GW raising prices just to maintain modest losses in revenue.
Nomeny wrote: It's hard to know what the market share is without knowing the market, and presumably that's information distributed amongst distributers, GW, and various other parties.
I think we can make some estimations based on things like the number of off-brand manufacturers, counterfeiters, and bits-sellers, since those depend on market conditions to remain in business.
It's largely anecdotal but with a wide distribution but ICV2 runs a survey several times per year of stores that seems to mirror what we see in GW's financial reports, that WHFB fell out of the top 5 and was axed in favor of a total reboot instead of a refresh and XWing moving up into dominance.
Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines – Spring 2015 (posted in July):
1 Warhammer 40k
2 Star Wars X-Wing
3 Star Wars Armada
4 Warmachine
5 Hordes
Honestly, I'd be surprised if XWing doesn't take the top spot by the next report. So, if you assume that the same people who play(ed) 40k are interested in Star Wars, there's a strong argument for loss of market share.
We can all see GW's sales revenue was roughly static for several years of high price rises (meaning fewer units sold) and has been falling for several years.
However we do not know for sure if the whole market is growing or contracting.
Personally I believe it has been growing, due to all sorts of evidence from other sources, but there is nothing like a well-founded research report I could offer as definitive evidence.
Depending on how accurate you believe ICV2 to be (and it is just the US market, not worldwide), they posted the following:
even with the higher estimates for 2013, the growth rate was a robust 20%, with RPGs growing the fastest, at a 67% rate; and miniatures the lowest growth category, with flat sales in 2014 compared to 2013.
So, flat miniature sales in the US with GW raising prices just to maintain modest losses in revenue.
ICV2 only measures miniature sales through stores right? With the popularity of Kickstarter I could see overall miniature purchases being up but purchases via brick and mortar stores being flat. I know for me personally I've bought more stuff through kickstarter in the last couple years than from stores.
It's largely anecdotal but with a wide distribution but ICV2 runs a survey several times per year of stores that seems to mirror what we see in GW's financial reports, that WHFB fell out of the top 5 and was axed in favor of a total reboot instead of a refresh and XWing moving up into dominance.
ICV2's data is largely worthless though given that 60% of GW's sales are direct, it only has data for North America and it misses lots of sources (such as Ebay).
The kind of challengeable evidence I mean is the amount of Kickstarters, the number of board game Meet-ups, the amount of traffic on forums, and so on.
All the indications are that the market has grown, but there is no definitive report that would prove it.
It's largely anecdotal but with a wide distribution but ICV2 runs a survey several times per year of stores that seems to mirror what we see in GW's financial reports, that WHFB fell out of the top 5 and was axed in favor of a total reboot instead of a refresh and XWing moving up into dominance.
ICV2's data is largely worthless though given that 60% of GW's sales are direct, it only has data for North America and it misses lots of sources (such as Ebay).
Incomplete, but far from worthless.
It is still the best insight to the industry we have and to dismiss it is to say 'we don't know 100% of how this works therefore it might as well be magic'.
It's largely anecdotal but with a wide distribution but ICV2 runs a survey several times per year of stores that seems to mirror what we see in GW's financial reports, that WHFB fell out of the top 5 and was axed in favor of a total reboot instead of a refresh and XWing moving up into dominance.
ICV2's data is largely worthless though given that 60% of GW's sales are direct, it only has data for North America and it misses lots of sources (such as Ebay).
Yes, I wouldn't use this data for anything significant but as trivia for US-based people, it's still not a terrible representation of what most people are seeing in the broader market here. Ask anyone, "Are you seeing more or less GW games being played in FLGSs around your vicinity?" and I believe the majority of people would say "less." More so than the UK, the US mini-gaming market depends on FLGSs as the major point of sale for products as it is not feasible for a company the size of GW to canvas the entire country, it's just too darn big.
This is all opinion and somewhat educated guestimation since GW doesn't perform market research and there's no real data to back it up from other sources. When faced with lack of data, you use the data that is available and start from that point.
jonolikespie wrote: And yet it was written by a fairly impartial shareholder, not a 'griper'.
It's amazing how much griping is done by enthusiasts on this site. They're not mutually exclusive.
I'd be willing to bet the story about his kid at the beginning is made up. It seems very coincidentally convenient how he walked in and saw the papers that very morning. And if it is true, why couldn't the writer be the one to play games with his kid? His excuse is he's not a modeller, yet he draws a distinction between gaming and modelling throughout the paper, sounds like a charming fellow.
The story is filled with statements and vocabulary meant to sway opinion, sometimes he's just putting words in other people's mouths:
Not for the first time that day the thought crossed my mind that Games Workshop’s management might view staff, customers, and investors as figures on a tabletop that they must manoeuvre ruthlessly to victory.
I’ve got bad news for disenchanted gamers complaining on the Internet. The company’s attitude towards customers is as clinical as its attitude towards staff. If you don’t like what it’s selling. You’re not a customer.
He has no direct quotes, only his own reactions. Even referring to GW as a "relentless profit machine" is pejorative. They're not taking food out the mouths of babies, they sell toys. And yes I model much more than game myself.
GW's insistence that its a miniature company and not a gaming company I think is the single most dangerous notion for their future. First it means they're failing to recognize any other opportunities. Second it shows a complete misunderstanding of what motivates their customers. To me it sounds like an excuse for bad business decision and rather insincere.
If this is truly how they see their business why aren't they producing miniatures for Star Wars like they did for LotR; why aren't they licensing other IP's? -Even if we accept the notion that they are purely a miniature company producing models for collectors they've failed to capitalize on that approach.
aka_mythos wrote: If this is truly how they see their business why aren't they producing miniatures for Star Wars like they did for LotR; why aren't they licensing other IP's?
Because in general, the return from licensed product isn't anywhere near as good as the return on your own, unique product, as you have to pay licencing fees and royalties.
GW said on several occasions after taking on LotR that as a general rule they had no interest whatsoever in taking on licences... they only took LotR on because LotR is special.
I'd buy the ratio thing about modelling hobbyists vs gamers if it were adjusted a little to say, 80% of GW's sales are to customers who are primarily interested in modelling and painting miniatures.
I think within the realm of people who consider themselves "mostly modelers", a lot of them still do play 40k games and buy 40k books and rules. For myself, each month, I paint about 100-150 hours, and I game about 12-15 hours. I think with a 10:1 ratio, I can be solidly considered a modelling hobbyist first, and a gaming hobbyist second. However, the game is really important as it gives a context with which to build the models.
I like that tanks, buildings, infantry, flyers and giant stompies can have all sorts of different loadouts, and I like spending time thinking about both "which would look cool?" and "which do I want to use in the game?". To me, one of the best features of GW models versus some (not all) of their competitors is the very wide variety of loadout configurations available to models. And I'm not always just modelling for the game: sometimes, I'll give a guy a heavy bolter or heavy flamer or power fist just because that makes the squad look the way I want it. Other times, I'll give a guy a grav cannon because I want a grav cannon.
Game rules are also useful in the context of army building: in an imagined battleforce, should you have 30 infantrymen for every giant robot, or 5? Should there be 1 tank or 10?
And, of course, there's the opportunity to actually game with them, which is a real treat.
I my thinking, as the prices of Games Workshop products go up, so does the target age. After all, not many 15 year olds can afford a thousand-dollar game, but this isn't really a problem for many 35-55 year olds. To a point, as people get older, they have fewer financial commitments and more money to spend on random stuff that makes them happy. If you're in a happy, long-term relationship of many years (or decades), you also tend to spend less money on other stuff, and more money on your hobbies.
On the other hand, the people in that demographic, I think, simply have less time to game, unless they're actually retired. If you have kids, a family, an extended family, house stuff... gaming and organizing long games is just a lot harder to do. Money becomes less an issue and certain types of time are more of an issue. Hence, you'll get some folks like me, who just paint and model more than they play, not necessarily because that's their preferred ratio of modelling vs gaming, but because it's just easier to sneak in time here and there than to coordinate big chunks of it to play tabletop wargames.
So anyways, back to my point: I'm not so sure that 80% of GW's sales go to people who don't play 40k or AoS **at all**. However, I suspect a large chunk of those sales go to people who spend a proportionately small amount of time gaming.
This is actually a pretty smart group to target, because they tend to be less price sensitive. On the other hand, they're also harder to make new customers of, because by that age, they've already found things they enjoy doing, and they tend not to pick up as many new hobbies as in their youth. Who starts skiing or fishing at 40, right? But someone might have started skiing or fishing in their youth, and then gone back to it as they had more time and money. So infusing "new blood" is pretty important if GW wants to make miniatures forever and ever.
As always, it's just speculation on my part. I have no proof of any of this, and I take no offence if you consider it ramblings of a madman
You know, I honestly bet there is more bare plastic sitting out there, possibly even unassembled bare plastic than built and painted models worthy of display. Almost like the operative imperative of the majority is to play with the models regardless of the status of their completion.
Insaniak had it right, they pivoted their marketing lingo to suit the chapter house case because they don't want to be seen as a toy company. That's also why they can look at the success of x-wing and still have no intention of releasing pre-painted/assembled models because that's what a toy company would do.
And I mean, people play with toys. We all know we congregate here on dakka to discuss the time honoured tradition of collecting lol. Gaming is a silly thing for kids afterall. It's sad that dropzone commander never really took off in my neck of the woods, perfect example of a company AND game I really like, but without a groundswell of people playing it I can't really justify simply "collecting" their models as fantastic as they are. As fewer and fewer people keep playing 40k, it affects my perceived investment in the game. But maybe that's because I've never been pretentious enough to consider myself a collector.
They also really should have just gone by citadel miniatures if they wanted people to swallow the tripe. They're freaking called games workshop, like for feths sake guys lol
It wasn't being the best miniatures that made me drop my hard earned on what to my eyes were fugly models (devastator centurions) it was that they had good rules, in so much as they were very effective in game. Period. That doesn't mean I haven't bought a model primarily because it was cool without seeing much merit in it's potential effectiveness in the game no one plays. On a side note, I see some similarities between the GW of today and scientology.
I think people are gamers first, collectors second. But really collector is just kinda pr bs anyway, consumer is less glamorous but more accurate, for every beautiful army or collection on display you've got boxes worth of stuff piled up in a darkened room or closet. Now if you'll excuse my I'm going to go collect as many chicken wings as my stomach can temporarily display.
It's largely anecdotal but with a wide distribution but ICV2 runs a survey several times per year of stores that seems to mirror what we see in GW's financial reports, that WHFB fell out of the top 5 and was axed in favor of a total reboot instead of a refresh and XWing moving up into dominance.
ICV2's data is largely worthless though given that 60% of GW's sales are direct, it only has data for North America and it misses lots of sources (such as Ebay).
Incomplete, but far from worthless.
It is still the best insight to the industry we have and to dismiss it is to say 'we don't know 100% of how this works therefore it might as well be magic'.
The other problem with ICV2 is it's extrapolated data and can be wildly inaccurate. I mentioned this in a thread a while back....
"I noticed in their 2014 sales report (the one that came out most recently) they had to revise one of their estimates from 2013 from $75M to $100M.... that's a 33% "correction" If they can't even get within $25M/33% on one of their estimates I'm not sure I trust any of them."
I think ICV2 is dodgy enough to say: "well, this is probably true, but I'm not going to stake my reputation on it".
So, flat miniature sales in the US with GW raising prices just to maintain modest losses in revenue.
Except that GW's Independent NA sales grew 7.5% in that annual report. They weren't flat. GW store sales grew 4% in NA, but that supposedly isn't part of the ICV2 calculations.
Talys wrote: I'd buy the ratio thing about modelling hobbyists vs gamers if it were adjusted a little to say, 80% of GW's sales are to customers who are primarily interested in modelling and painting miniatures.
I don't think so, I think it's more like...
80% of GW's sales are to customers who spend more time modelling and painting miniatures than gaming
That's be a more accurate representation of what I've seen. People who WANT to play the game but never get past the army building stage, I know plenty of them. Or people who enjoy gaming more than modelling but the modelling aspect consumes all their time so they don't get to play many games.
Wargaming can be a very deceptive hobby in that many people don't realise the time and effort required to put together an army before they start. Even if they are told the number of hours possibly involved, but the time they've finished Guardsman number 30 or Marine number 10 they are no longer enjoying the modelling aspect.
I reckon those sorts of people make up more of GW's sales than actual enthusiasts like you or me.
@Crablezworth: why is pretentious to be a collector???
i love the worlds created by companies like GW, PP, CB, and others for settings like 40K, Warmahordes, Infinity, Helldorado, and so many more...
it is awesome that i can have 3-D representations of the inhabitants of these worlds, and build them and paint them to a standard that is worthy of being considered a work of art, and have them displayed as such...
i have never been a gamer, and have no interest in playing a game, because that takes away from my painting time...
i don't mind being considered a consumer, but i don't see why it is pretentious to be purely a collector of these beautiful little sculptures...
I don't know where GW gets its 80%/20% numbers when they don't do market research. I think it has to be coming from a flawed rationale. In their mind everyone who buys their models are going to collect and build an army... of those it is only a subset who play. That is sound, but the disconnect is their failure to understand "why" people buy the models. In GW's mind because everyone collects and builds they're all "collectors" and "hobbyists," and I can only imagine this 80/20 ratio comes from the fact that you have to spend so much time buying and painting before you can play and ultimately spend more time in a week hobby-ing than gaming.
aka_mythos wrote: If this is truly how they see their business why aren't they producing miniatures for Star Wars like they did for LotR; why aren't they licensing other IP's?
Because in general, the return from licensed product isn't anywhere near as good as the return on your own, unique product, as you have to pay licencing fees and royalties.
GW said on several occasions after taking on LotR that as a general rule they had no interest whatsoever in taking on licenses... they only took LotR on because LotR is special.
Star Wars isn't special? -GW has the sort of market position that other IP's would love if they approached them for a license. FFG with their X-wing Miniature game has doubled their revenue by virtue of that game. That was a missed opportunity for GW to have the large rebound after the loss due to declined LotR interest.
I know IP's are expensive, my question was a leading question. In my head this is the more important part... "-Even if we accept the notion that they are purely a miniature company producing models for collectors they've failed to capitalize on that approach." Yes its pricier, but the consequence of not selling licensed miniatures, is a failure to expand on who is collecting and it is a failure to maintain market share. My point is that GW's assertion is insincere because what they are doing fails to follow their stated rationale to it ultimate logical conclusion. They may have higher margin, but their volumes are growing weaker. I'm scrutinizing GW's inconsistent rational that is funneling them from being a dominant presence into being a niche within a niche.
LoTR is special to GW because Tolkein is a Brit, and LoTR is the inspiration for a lot of fantasy worlds, including Warhammer Fantasy. Star Wars, as awesome as it is, just doesn't hold the same place in their hearts, I suspect.
Sure. But it's not LotR, which is the one IP that GW considered special enough to invest in.
My point is that GW's assertion is insincere because what they are doing fails to follow their stated rationale to it ultimate logical conclusion.
Well, yes, that was my point earlier in the thread as well.
I just disagree that not taking on licenced properties is proof of that. Taking on licences is expensive and risky, and to a certain extent rather limiting, since you're constrained by both the licence and the universe you're going into as to what you can produce for it.
It's entirely possible that a company could want to set themselves up as a purveyor of high-quality collectible figurines without ever even considering the possibility of taking on licenced properties.
The bigger giveaway that GW aren't sincere about setting themselves up as a purveyor of high-quality collectible figurines is the lack of any high-quality collectible figurines in their product range.
It was special to them because it was a cash cow for them but they didn't handle it well (milking it with a new ruleset each movie rather than sticking with their system, which was by most accounts quite good).
Most people don't paint most of their models - it's fantastic to see otherwise but that's the case. Without games to build towards people will buy less. Jah's painting one beautiful space marine a month doesn't make up for the gamer who buys 6 wave serpents (or a dozen drop pods) because they're playing the game and want to equip their army the most effective way.
RiTides wrote: It was special to them because it was a cash cow for them but they didn't handle it well (milking it with a new ruleset each movie rather than sticking with their system, which was by most accounts quite good).
There wasn't really a problem with the ruleset. The existing 40k and WHFB rulesets weren't well suited to the heroic style needed to portray the movie scenes. It also wouldn't surprise me if they had licensing constraints to not use their existing systems.
I think a lot of people don't like that LOTR came out in a different scale and different rules to 40k and WHFB, but that's the way it needed to be and IMO it was for the best.
If GW made any mistakes it was probably being foolish and not realising it would drop off after the end of the last LOTR movie and expecting The Hobbit game to do as well as LOTR when the boxed set was much more expensive. There's no reason LOTR couldn't continue on as a main game with the proper support from GW, but any fool could tell you it was going to have to declinewith the movies. The goal wasn't to stop it declining, it was to let it decline to a sustainable level.
jah-joshua wrote: @Crablezworth: why is pretentious to be a collector???
The word collector I find pretentious, collecting is fine, but it more often resembles hoarding. I know more people who collect than people who build and paint and display. It's all hoarding to me at the end of the day.
But ya, this is what I picture when someone tells me they're a collector:
Kimchi Gamer wrote: I've never understood their insistance that most of their customes are collectors and hobbyists. I have only anecdotal evidence to go by but we see the bulk of our GW sales being the powerful in game miniatures and they are bought in multiples by the same customers. Perhaps if they would just ASK their retailers for that kind of information instead of coming up with their numbers?
I imagine it's a pretty hard thing to quantify. I'd imagine very few people who buy products from a store actually play games at that store for the owner to know if they're gamers. And even if they are people who never game, they might still know the rules and might still build armies for gaming even though they never play games. I know several people like that, and indeed I myself have a couple of armies that have never seen the table (both from GW and from other companies).
Short of asking every customer how many games they play per month and doing that in a lot of different regions, it would be a very difficult thing to gauge.
I could totally believe that most purchases go to people who collect and don't game much or at all.... I could also believe most sales go to gamers. I know a bunch of people from both camps but I'd have no idea on a global scale which group is larger.
You can tell quite easily actually. Because Collectors and Gamers will have very different buying habits.
A collector will only want to collect something. Meaning he'll be satisfied with only one of something.
A gamer on the other hand, due to how GW writes rules, will be buying in more bulk. He'll buy 3 tactical squads instead of the 1 which the collector will do. He may buy 2-3 of the new "shiny" release model because that is what is competitive, the collector will only want one for his collection.
Grey Templar wrote: A collector will only want to collect something. Meaning he'll be satisfied with only one of something. .
Not necessarily. For some collectors, it's about collecting as much as possible, not just one of everything. Others will collect armies or army-like collections, without having any intention of gaming with them.
A collector will only want to collect something. Meaning he'll be satisfied with only one of something.
A gamer on the other hand, due to how GW writes rules, will be buying in more bulk. He'll buy 3 tactical squads instead of the 1 which the collector will do. He may buy 2-3 of the new "shiny" release model because that is what is competitive, the collector will only want one for his collection.
This is a misconception.
I pretty much only play Dark Eldar, Blood Angels (sometimes as Vanilla marines), Eldar and Grey Knights.
However, I collect Necron, Orks, Space Wolves, Tau, and Imperial Guard, and have TONS of each, with lots of multiples of many kits. It's because there are collector/modelers, especially in the 40k world, whose idea of a collection isn't "one of everything", but rather "a full army of something". Really, no space marine army will be complete unless I have the full chapter, and that probably isn't ever going to happen -- but boy would it be glorious. And if I ever did it? I'd just start another chapter
Now, I'm not saying that as a gamer for one faction, I won't buy more models for them -- I probably do, because after all, I wouldn't have bought a half dozen more new razorbacks if not for Gladius. But if I decide to build Dark Angels (which I've thought of many times), for example, even if I don't game them, I'll probably build a full company to start, and then go from there to have the models to match various cool formations, even if I don't intend to ever game with them -- basically much like the Decurion I'm building (I'm never, ever going to play them, because, with the exception of Dark Eldar, I only like to play "the good guys"... whatever that means in 40k).
Even for WMH, which I don't build armies for, I buy multiples of models I really like, such as Victoria Haley 1 (I have like 6 of her painted different ways). Same with Infinity: I have many duplicates of various panoceania (infinity) models. No game purpose at all, since I don't even play it.
Kimchi Gamer wrote: I've never understood their insistance that most of their customes are collectors and hobbyists. I have only anecdotal evidence to go by but we see the bulk of our GW sales being the powerful in game miniatures and they are bought in multiples by the same customers. Perhaps if they would just ASK their retailers for that kind of information instead of coming up with their numbers?
I imagine it's a pretty hard thing to quantify. I'd imagine very few people who buy products from a store actually play games at that store for the owner to know if they're gamers. And even if they are people who never game, they might still know the rules and might still build armies for gaming even though they never play games. I know several people like that, and indeed I myself have a couple of armies that have never seen the table (both from GW and from other companies).
Short of asking every customer how many games they play per month and doing that in a lot of different regions, it would be a very difficult thing to gauge.
I could totally believe that most purchases go to people who collect and don't game much or at all.... I could also believe most sales go to gamers. I know a bunch of people from both camps but I'd have no idea on a global scale which group is larger.
You can tell quite easily actually. Because Collectors and Gamers will have very different buying habits.
A collector will only want to collect something. Meaning he'll be satisfied with only one of something.
A gamer on the other hand, due to how GW writes rules, will be buying in more bulk. He'll buy 3 tactical squads instead of the 1 which the collector will do. He may buy 2-3 of the new "shiny" release model because that is what is competitive, the collector will only want one for his collection.
Thats not true at all. I have multiple spitfire models to make up a squadron even though there are no rules to go with them.
A collector will often buy multiples, to build a diorama, to build an army for display or simply because they enjoy building a specific model and so want to do it multiple times.
In fact I'd say its often the collectors who buy multiples of things even at times when it makes no sense from a gaming perspective (I own more Tiger tank models than I will ever use in an actual game).
If it's really about collecting then why the fuss about look-alike pieces from other companies? Collectors only want the real thing not similar designs from others. Yet GW are very hostile towards other companies producing similar products. It's almost like the public want the miniatures and options for conversion for a purpose beyond merely 'collecting GW'.
I think a lot of the non-gamers would game if they had the time and community. I think lots buy rules and codexes to read the background and with the intention that they can play one day even if they don't get around to it, or they play once a year. But if there were no viable rules available, and it's a game they would never have any intention of playing, would there still be a reason to collect as much?
It is still the best insight to the industry we have and to dismiss it is to say 'we don't know 100% of how this works therefore it might as well be magic'.
Which is why I said largely worthless. Its far too weak a data source to base anything of worth on though.
From my own experience, I would say only 20% of there custermers being gamers is a bit crazy. Unless they have pushed away many of there custermers.
For us we only really have 1 dedicated collector, that still games semi regularly. Everyone other is really inbetween I think.
With my own, I am a collector as GW puts it. But I am also a gamer, I find as I mature and as GW seems to push there games focus into more of a Neiche. I have lost a lot more desire to collect there minis.
For me the world and the game go hand in hand with my desire to collect, and to have a grand army become far less desirable as there game become less thoughtful in design. And with it I think the story's and the universe has become far more bland trying to twist its game world to suit there miniature design.
I collect minis I like first, but I get miniatures I want to play with.
I will get a game based on Its minis before the rules, but as I get into it more. The world and the rules need to support that more, as both motivates me to do something more with it.
( I am not short of things to display, and my own skills as a painter are hindered to make it far less worth. I think a lot of my comunity would be)
In the end I think GW as a company is kinda daft, pushing away lots of custermers for silly reasons.
I take there hobby as a whole, and find as a whole it's beginning to lack.
The 'models company, not a games company' shtick is baffling to me.
Sure, they might consider themselves to be primarily a models company.
But they still produce all the bits and pieces that a games company would. They do rulebooks and dice and tokens and templates and supplements. And when you're already doing all of that... why not spend the minuscule amount of effort required to make it better?
It's largely anecdotal but with a wide distribution but ICV2 runs a survey several times per year of stores that seems to mirror what we see in GW's financial reports, that WHFB fell out of the top 5 and was axed in favor of a total reboot instead of a refresh and XWing moving up into dominance.
ICV2's data is largely worthless though given that 60% of GW's sales are direct, it only has data for North America and it misses lots of sources (such as Ebay).
Incomplete, but far from worthless.
It is still the best insight to the industry we have and to dismiss it is to say 'we don't know 100% of how this works therefore it might as well be magic'.
The other problem with ICV2 is it's extrapolated data and can be wildly inaccurate. I mentioned this in a thread a while back....
"I noticed in their 2014 sales report (the one that came out most recently) they had to revise one of their estimates from 2013 from $75M to $100M.... that's a 33% "correction" If they can't even get within $25M/33% on one of their estimates I'm not sure I trust any of them."
I think ICV2 is dodgy enough to say: "well, this is probably true, but I'm not going to stake my reputation on it".
That's true but the ICV2 information tallies up with all the other indicators, such as the increase in board game meet-ups, increase in Kickstarters, increase in game forum traffic, to form a picture that shows the games market as a whole growing, while GW's own financial reports show their sales falling.
From an investment viewpoint, GW is profitable and throws off large amounts of cash dividends. The worry is whether they can stem the tide of falling sales before it gets to the point of making them unprofitable.
Mymearan wrote: I think it's strange that GW claims they are a model company, yet they always present their models in the context of a game, they sell the models in boxes with options and model amounts optimized for a game, the always make sure that all the models they release are usable in one of their games, they have heavily accelerated their game-related releases lately, the list goes on... If they were a model company, why go to all this trouble? They obviously consider their games to be extremely important to their success (otherwise they wouldn't go to all this trouble), yet they still make statements like this... It all seems contradictory. They used to be a model company, back in the 80s, before Warhamer and before Rogue Trader... The current GW is nothing like that.
That's a rather good point, especially when you look at the other, real, model companies out there like Reaper, Scale 75, Nocturna, etc.
If GW were a true model company and not a game company I'd be able to buy a space marine bust in metal or resin at a 50 or 75 mm scale dammit!
Not to mention they wouldn't make figures in the grotesque 28mm "heroic" scale, but in a scale with proper proportions like 1:72 or 1:35.
Mymearan wrote: I think it's strange that GW claims they are a model company, yet they always present their models in the context of a game, they sell the models in boxes with options and model amounts optimized for a game, the always make sure that all the models they release are usable in one of their games, they have heavily accelerated their game-related releases lately, the list goes on... If they were a model company, why go to all this trouble? They obviously consider their games to be extremely important to their success (otherwise they wouldn't go to all this trouble), yet they still make statements like this... It all seems contradictory. They used to be a model company, back in the 80s, before Warhamer and before Rogue Trader... The current GW is nothing like that.
That's a rather good point, especially when you look at the other, real, model companies out there like Reaper, Scale 75, Nocturna, etc.
If GW were a true model company and not a game company I'd be able to buy a space marine bust in metal or resin at a 50 or 75 mm scale dammit!
Not to mention they wouldn't make figures in the grotesque 28mm "heroic" scale, but in a scale with proper proportions like 1:72 or 1:35.
You can have properly proportioned 28mm models. Which is what we'd call non heroic 28mm, it's not limited to just the 1:** scales.
Infinity miniatures are 'true' 28mm as far as I am aware. They look tiny compared to GW models with itty bitty sticks for arms and tiny hands, but they look like real people, not cartoons or apes.
jonolikespie wrote: Infinity miniatures are 'true' 28mm as far as I am aware. They look tiny compared to GW models with itty bitty sticks for arms and tiny hands, but they look like real people, not cartoons or apes.
Lord of the Rings models are realistic scale 28mm models I believe.
When you get to realistic scale, you often want a slightly larger scale just so the head looks a bit more detailed.
jonolikespie wrote: Infinity miniatures are 'true' 28mm as far as I am aware. They look tiny compared to GW models with itty bitty sticks for arms and tiny hands, but they look like real people, not cartoons or apes.
Lord of the Rings models are realistic scale 28mm models I believe.
jonolikespie wrote: Infinity miniatures are 'true' 28mm as far as I am aware. They look tiny compared to GW models with itty bitty sticks for arms and tiny hands, but they look like real people, not cartoons or apes.
Lord of the Rings models are realistic scale 28mm models I believe.
Pretty sure LotR are 25mm.
I just measured some of my models. Rohan infantry looks to be 26-27mm tall to the eye, 28-29mm overall height (not including base or helmet). My Boromir model is bang on 28mm to the eyes and 30mm tall overall (not including base).
jonolikespie wrote: Infinity miniatures are 'true' 28mm as far as I am aware. They look tiny compared to GW models with itty bitty sticks for arms and tiny hands, but they look like real people, not cartoons or apes.
Lord of the Rings models are realistic scale 28mm models I believe.
Pretty sure LotR are 25mm.
I just measured some of my models. Rohan infantry looks to be 26-27mm tall to the eye, 28-29mm overall height (not including base or helmet). My Boromir model is bang on 28mm to the eyes and 30mm tall overall (not including base).
My recollection is from White Dwarf articles rather than measuring, also IIRC we (I was a red shirt at the time) were told that the license didn't allow them to make them in the same size as WHF to further prevent cross-system "contamination".
LotR stuff was specifically meant to be in a different scale to the rest of GW's products to prevent "cross-contamination", where people might want to buy a Rohan army to field as Bretonnians and vice versa.
Baragash wrote: My recollection is from White Dwarf articles rather than measuring, also IIRC we (I was a red shirt at the time) were told that the license didn't allow them to make them in the same size as WHF to further prevent cross-system "contamination".
IIRC millimetre scales (20mm, 28mm, 54mm, etc) are measured as average height to the model's eyes. So if they're 25mm, they're wrong Unless they're measuring to the shoulder or the chin or something.
I was told something similar by a red shirt, but I think the REAL reason is because LotR is based on real actors, so if they'd made them the typical WHFB hero scale they would have looked extremely derpy. I think it had less to do with cross contamination and more to do with New Line, PJ or whoever organised the license wanting a more realistic scale.
LotR was also done (again, if IIRC) by the Perry twins, I think the Perry twins prefer more realistic scales as all their models outside of 40k/WHFB are done in more realistic scales. The Perry's also did the original Bretonnians in 4th or 5th edition which were more realistically scaled than the current Bretonnians.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: A collector will often buy multiples, to build a diorama, to build an army for display or simply because they enjoy building a specific model and so want to do it multiple times.
I think that those are more traits of a modeler than a collector.
Modelers may also be collectors - but the building and the painting for the pure joy of it, that is modeling.
When I really enjoy painting a mini, I may do another of the same figure - but one of them is going to be given away or sold. (Unless it is part of an army - but that is the gamer aspect, not collecting or modeling.)
The fact is that none of that is an either or - and the result is more of a Venn diagram than a list.
And that is what GW may be confusing - that because somebody collects that somehow means that that person isn't also a gamer.
The Auld Grump - if it weren't for gaming, I likely would have started model railroading....
"Collector" is a broad enough term that in the context of wargaming it can be synonymous with "modeller".
The aspect of modelling that is independent of collecting (in a Venn diagram) is so small and obscure I'd say it almost doesn't exist.
But it's all just a semantic argument on terminology that can have very broad meanings. When I said "collector" I obviously just meant someone who purchases models without the express intention of gaming with them.
I haven't met the person who collects wargame miniatures simply to have them independently of modelling or gaming.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: "Collector" is a broad enough term that in the context of wargaming it can be synonymous with "modeller".
The aspect of modelling that is independent of collecting (in a Venn diagram) is so small and obscure I'd say it almost doesn't exist.
But it's all just a semantic argument on terminology that can have very broad meanings. When I said "collector" I obviously just meant someone who purchases models without the express intention of gaming with them.
I haven't met the person who collects wargame miniatures simply to have them independently of modelling or gaming.
I have - but it was prepainted minis. (Clix and D&DM....)
*EDIT* Met such a collector, I mean - I very much dislike most prepainted minis, though some can be salvaged with decent paint jobs....
I think GW have been very successful in spoting the shift in customer from gamer to collector. I would say this has been a gradual shift as their customer base got older. Yes it leaves a rump of unhappy gamers but as anyone who is on here with their eyes open they will know that gamers are rather difficult to please! GWs very healthy margins show how good they have been at capturing the collector or infrequent gamer who collects outside his regular armies. Pretentious or not I love collecting and I collect outside GW too! Military swords, vanity fair cartoons and old bibles. I hope that GW continue to produce higher and higher quality books and models that are of interest to a collecting audience. And I might, if I get any time, play a game the odd time too!
AllSeeingSkink wrote: "Collector" is a broad enough term that in the context of wargaming it can be synonymous with "modeller".
The aspect of modelling that is independent of collecting (in a Venn diagram) is so small and obscure I'd say it almost doesn't exist.
But it's all just a semantic argument on terminology that can have very broad meanings. When I said "collector" I obviously just meant someone who purchases models without the express intention of gaming with them.
I haven't met the person who collects wargame miniatures simply to have them independently of modelling or gaming.
I have - but it was prepainted minis. (Clix and D&DM....)
*EDIT* Met such a collector, I mean - I very much dislike most prepainted minis, though some can be salvaged with decent paint jobs....
The Auld Grump
I can imagine such a person in the context of prepainted minis (or commission painted I guess), I do know a few people who collect non-wargaming pre painted models. But for typical wargaming models it seems like an oddity to have someone who just buys a Space Marine then puts it on their shelf, then an Ork, then a Necron, etc. I guess it's not inconceivable but I don't think that's really what we're talking about when we are discussing "collector" in the wargaming context.
Remembering that in general a "collector" is simply someone who collects stuff.... so really we're all collectors whether we game with them or not It's pretty much impossible to be a wargamer without first being a collector by the general definition of the word. We're just assigning the specific definition to the word "collector" to mean "not a gamer".
Knockagh wrote: I think GW have been very successful in spoting the shift in customer from gamer to collector. I would say this has been a gradual shift as their customer base got older. Yes it leaves a rump of unhappy gamers but as anyone who is on here with their eyes open they will know that gamers are rather difficult to please! GWs very healthy margins show how good they have been at capturing the collector or infrequent gamer who collects outside his regular armies. Pretentious or not I love collecting and I collect outside GW too! Military swords, vanity fair cartoons and old bibles. I hope that GW continue to produce higher and higher quality books and models that are of interest to a collecting audience. And I might, if I get any time, play a game the odd time too!
As opposed to higher quality rules?
Sorry, but given the stagnation that GW is suffering from, I think that 'very successful' is a wild exaggeration. (My actual thought is less printable.)
If sales were growing in the face of a shrinking industry, then the argument might have some merit.
Stagnation in a growing industry?
Not much merit to be had.
The Auld Grump
*EDIT* Because of an amazing disappearing quote....
AllSeeingSkink wrote: "Collector" is a broad enough term that in the context of wargaming it can be synonymous with "modeller".
The aspect of modelling that is independent of collecting (in a Venn diagram) is so small and obscure I'd say it almost doesn't exist.
But it's all just a semantic argument on terminology that can have very broad meanings. When I said "collector" I obviously just meant someone who purchases models without the express intention of gaming with them.
I haven't met the person who collects wargame miniatures simply to have them independently of modelling or gaming.
I have - but it was prepainted minis. (Clix and D&DM....)
*EDIT* Met such a collector, I mean - I very much dislike most prepainted minis, though some can be salvaged with decent paint jobs....
The Auld Grump
I can imagine such a person in the context of prepainted minis (or commission painted I guess), I do know a few people who collect non-wargaming pre painted models. But for typical wargaming models it seems like an oddity to have someone who just buys a Space Marine then puts it on their shelf, then an Ork, then a Necron, etc. I guess it's not inconceivable but I don't think that's really what we're talking about when we are discussing "collector" in the wargaming context.
Remembering that in general a "collector" is simply someone who collects stuff.... so really we're all collectors whether we game with them or not It's pretty much impossible to be a wargamer without first being a collector by the general definition of the word. We're just assigning the specific definition to the word "collector" to mean "not a gamer".
Which brings us back to my Venn diagram.
The Auld Grump - and I play RPGs... it is amazing the size of a collection you can justify as 'well, I'll use it for something, sometime....'
And as someone who has owned and run businesses and also managed for other people and studied business academically (I can do appeals to authority too) I can assure you it very much depends on your definition of "ok."
Azreal13 wrote: And as someone who has owned and run businesses and also managed for other people and studied business academically (I can do appeals to authority too) I can assure you it very much depends on your definition of "ok."
Howard A Treesong wrote: If it's really about collecting then why the fuss about look-alike pieces from other companies? Collectors only want the real thing not similar designs from others. Yet GW are very hostile towards other companies producing similar products. It's almost like the public want the miniatures and options for conversion for a purpose beyond merely 'collecting GW'.
What GW wants is for people who want to buy parts to buy 'authentic' GW parts, rather than compatible alternatives, because the latter is a slippery slope to *cheaper* alternatives -- in their view.
I think a lot of the non-gamers would game if they had the time and community. I think lots buy rules and codexes to read the background and with the intention that they can play one day even if they don't get around to it, or they play once a year. But if there were no viable rules available, and it's a game they would never have any intention of playing, would there still be a reason to collect as much?
I think you're right: a lot of people just don't have enough time to play. I'm not sure that community is a problem; maybe in some areas, but I don't think in most areas where there are stores that sell stuff and can sell enough stuff to stay in business.
On the other hand, as I said, even for armies that I have no intention of playing, I like collecting (modelling) cohesive battleforces, not single display units. So even if I'll never play Necron, I'll buy and model the Decurion that I imagine would be a fearsome army. Frankly, the armies that I collect and don't play get a lot of add-on units that just look cool; since I'm not really worried about how good they'll be in the game, for instance, the Night Stalker fleet is just as big as I think would be cool (I think I want 5 eventually, and I'd never field that if I were playing the faction, probably would not buy more than 2); whereas for Eldar, I had exactly 1 Fire Prism before 2015 codex, and now have 3 Fire Prisms; sans rules making a bigger formation, I probably won't buy more.
jonolikespie wrote: I think true 32mm works out about the same size as heroic 28, but with the correct proportions.
Even changing that much would be a big step towards being a real 'miniatures' company.
GW has been doing heroic since the time when all 28mm minis were heroic. If they changed now the shitstorm would be the biggest in GW history. In fact such a decision would probably prove the doomsayers right at last.
@Mymearan - they'd certainly lose me. I would stop buying GW miniatures if they were not heroic 28, as I like comic book superhero proportions and have no interest in anything 'real' (hence, total disinterest in historical models). Or, if they stopped producing OTT large models. These this are my biggest draws to the hobby and what gets me excited about modelling OR gaming.
Nomeny wrote: Can we define "OK" as turning a profit?
We can. But that's a rather narrow view. It's kinda like saying a hanged man is OK the second before the executioner pulls the lever. Technically you're correct, but you're not accounting for events which are going to happen in the future.
jah-joshua wrote: @Crablezworth: why is pretentious to be a collector???
i love the worlds created by companies like GW, PP, CB, and others for settings like 40K, Warmahordes, Infinity, Helldorado, and so many more...
it is awesome that i can have 3-D representations of the inhabitants of these worlds, and build them and paint them to a standard that is worthy of being considered a work of art, and have them displayed as such...
i have never been a gamer, and have no interest in playing a game, because that takes away from my painting time...
i don't mind being considered a consumer, but i don't see why it is pretentious to be purely a collector of these beautiful little sculptures...
cheers
jah
I am also a collector. I love to model and convert minis, and I tend to care more about a unique design than fineness of detail or precision of sculpt. So, why do I spend so little on GW products?
1. The Prices. For the cost of a single Sigmarine hero mini, I could buy entire squads of plastic minis with tons of bits to fiddle with, or even a small armada of Revell Star Trek ship models. I need to feel value for my purchases, and GW just isn't delivering it like they used to.
2. They've stripped the intangible value from their minis. By hobbling Black Library, lobotomizing the codices, and killing the Old World, GW has removed all of the peripheral value that used to keep me in their hobby. Add to that the exciting new miniatures other companies keep dropping on is, and I have fewer and fewer reasons to buy any more space marines. If someone finally managed to make some hard plastic aliens to rival the Tyranids, I'd probably check out completely. Well, I say that, but then they'll release some kind of Tzeentch demon kit that will pull me back in until I see the price tag. Then I'll finally decide that the Screamers kit isn't such a bad deal after all... Damn it!
3. The company just doesn't like me (or any of us). I can tell. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but it does.
Trasvi wrote: The 'models company, not a games company' shtick is baffling to me.
Sure, they might consider themselves to be primarily a models company.
But they still produce all the bits and pieces that a games company would. They do rulebooks and dice and tokens and templates and supplements. And when you're already doing all of that... why not spend the minuscule amount of effort required to make it better?
Indeed. Really, if they truly believe they only want to be a model company they should outsource the rules. Like to FFG. Let them make cool models and tell FFG "Make rules for this!" would be pretty easy.
GW has been doing heroic since the time when all 28mm minis were heroic. If they changed now the shitstorm would be the biggest in GW history. In fact such a decision would probably prove the doomsayers right at last.
The doomsayers were never wrong, My. Just... a bit ahead of their time.
With or without a sudden shift in scale and proportion, I can't see many downsides of losing one of the last, biggest carriers of sontaran syndrome, anyway. On top of everything else.
***
Been keeping up with the comments on the original article, too. The poor guy probably had no idea of the kind of hornet's nest he put his foot through. All these people raging about playing games in his investors blog comments, talking about 'oldhammer' and '2250 armies' and 'horus heresies' like it makes all the sense in the world...
BobtheInquisitor wrote: 3. The company just doesn't like me (or any of us). I can tell. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but it does.
Yeah I get that distinct feeling. Something is fundamentally backwards. I ordered bases on their site, had them delivered to the local gw, got guff for not calling the manager and ordering through them so they could get the sales stats... this is a sick company. It's bad enough that stores went from being a place to play to somewhere you have to flip a coin on whether it will even be open when you show up.
If they really believe they're a model company and not a game company, they should stop making rules altogether. Just pull all rulebooks from sale and stop producing new ones. If only 20% of their customers even play the games, why bother selling rules? They could use those resources to make more of the bestest jewel-like models ever!
...except they won't. Because this "We're not a game company" line is hogwash, and they know it.
jah-joshua wrote: @Crablezworth: why is pretentious to be a collector???
i love the worlds created by companies like GW, PP, CB, and others for settings like 40K, Warmahordes, Infinity, Helldorado, and so many more...
it is awesome that i can have 3-D representations of the inhabitants of these worlds, and build them and paint them to a standard that is worthy of being considered a work of art, and have them displayed as such...
i have never been a gamer, and have no interest in playing a game, because that takes away from my painting time...
i don't mind being considered a consumer, but i don't see why it is pretentious to be purely a collector of these beautiful little sculptures...
cheers
jah
I am also a collector. I love to model and convert minis, and I tend to care more about a unique design than fineness of detail or precision of sculpt. So, why do I spend so little on GW products?
1. The Prices. For the cost of a single Sigmarine hero mini, I could buy entire squads of plastic minis with tons of bits to fiddle with, or even a small armada of Revell Star Trek ship models. I need to feel value for my purchases, and GW just isn't delivering it like they used to.
2. They've stripped the intangible value from their minis. By hobbling Black Library, lobotomizing the codices, and killing the Old World, GW has removed all of the peripheral value that used to keep me in their hobby. Add to that the exciting new miniatures other companies keep dropping on is, and I have fewer and fewer reasons to buy any more space marines. If someone finally managed to make some hard plastic aliens to rival the Tyranids, I'd probably check out completely. Well, I say that, but then they'll release some kind of Tzeentch demon kit that will pull me back in until I see the price tag. Then I'll finally decide that the Screamers kit isn't such a bad deal after all... Damn it!
3. The company just doesn't like me (or any of us). I can tell. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but it does.
that all makes sense...
at the end of the day, purchasing comes down to personal preference and value judgement...
personally, price is not a factor in my value judgement...
if i don't want the mini, it doesn't matter how cheap it is...
if i do want the mini, it doesn't matter how much it costs...
i don't share your view that GW have stripped the intangible value of their minis...
i still enjoy reading Black Library's novels, and the move to digital makes buying easier wherever i happen to be in the world...
i don't find the Codices to be lobotomized, and enjoy the move to full color and digital...
the killing of The Old World doesn't bother me, since i have 30 years worth of novels, Army Books, and source books to read...
i do agree that the sheer amount of exciting new minis from other companies does reduce the amount i spend on GW, and it has been that way for 15 years, when i started collecting Rackham...
i think that is the biggest factor hurting GW's bottom line these days...
there is simply a ton of other choices out there now...
you say the company doesn't like us, but that is an oversimplification...
i don't know Kirby, and maybe he does despise the GW customers, but i can't say that for sure...
i don't know what goes on in his crazy mind...
i feel a lot of the angst is from customers projecting, because they don't feel their specific wants are being catered to, or they feel that they have been priced out, but to me Kirby is not the company...
as far as i'm concerned, he may as well not exist...
for me, GW is the design studio...
i know the guys who put in the hard work to actually produce the product, and i have never felt that they dislike me...
from Jes Goodwin and John Blanche, right down through the sculptors, writers, illustrators, and painters, i have had 25 years of great experiences hanging out with many of them...
they are real, talented individuals who have shown appreciation for my hard work, and i am happy to do my bit to contribute to their salaries, and see them earn a living off of their talents...
as long as they continue to produce books and models that i want, i am happy to support them...
3. The company just doesn't like me (or any of us). I can tell. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but it does.
See, I don't feel this at all.
Now, I don't feel that GW loves me any more than any other company loves its customers, but neither does it any less, IMO. I feel that as a guy who likes to build, collect, and play 40k armies, they produce exactly what I want: lots of cool plastic minis at a rate faster than I can model, and a bunch of books with fluff, nice artwork, great photos, and reasonable game rules. Sure, it nobody thinks the minis are cheap (and perhaps relative levels of expensive), but I don't equate cheap or expensive products with a company liking or disliking me. I mean, I'd think Apple hated me, by that metric.
What makes me feel GW likes me, or values me as a customer? They have great customer service (they'll FedEx replacements anything broken, pick up the phone right away, etc), they make tons of stuff I like, and over the years, they've made more stuff that I like and less stuff that I dislike. I like their rate of product releases, I like that they have lots of resources and for modelling/heraldry/etc., and I like their army system. From a gaming perspective, I love the formation and Decurion-style system, and almost every codex release since 2015 has been exactly what I wanted (harlequins was a thin, but still good, and the 2 mechanicus books were great, but could have been 1 big book).
Plus, if you email them about modelling stuff, they'll email you right back and even be pretty chatty about it. Anything from sharing a model to asking how to best use a particular oddball paint. Yeah, I get that it would be nice if they did this for gamers, but you were talking specifically about "us" being collectors. In that regard, really, the only thing I could ask from GW is cheaper prices -- but I could ask this of any company. As a gamer, sure, we could use some 40kFAQs.
Does Kirby or the board love me? Who cares. I'm never going to talk to him anyway. He's free to look at me as nothing more than potential moneybags, if he chooses; I'm sure there are plenty of CEOs from chocolate to furniture to video game companies that do the same thing. It's the people and the company I interact with that matters, not what the CEO or CFO thinks, because their job is to bring shareholders returns.
Now, I get that their art direction is not to everyone's liking. On one end of the spectrum, there's the historic, dirty, grimy regulars; on the other end, there's Wrath of Kings anime. From a size perspective, there are games that are all infantry, some that have a few larger models, and then 40k, which has the possibility of either or a mix. I happen to like where GW dropped its marker, which is somewhere near the superhero or World of Warcraft/Diablo end, but not TOO cartoonish, a la WoK; and from a model size perspective, some (IMO) very cool vehicles and walkers. I like the loadouts of the kits, and how every iteration, they add more equipment options. At the end of the day, they can't make everyone happy, because not everyone wants the same thing.
I'd start buying GW miniatures and models if they'd start making miniatures with realistic proportions.
I used to dream about collecting Citadel miniatures for a long time but when I was finally able to afford them, buying the first box was a horrible disappointment because of the crudeness and bad proportion.
IIRC millimetre scales (20mm, 28mm, 54mm, etc) are measured as average height to the model's eyes.
It varies. Some companies measure to the eye, some measure to the top of the head.
Most of them don't bother to tell you which version they use, though, which makes it all sorts of fun to mix ranges from different companies sometimes...
I was told something similar by a red shirt, but I think the REAL reason is because LotR is based on real actors, so if they'd made them the typical WHFB hero scale they would have looked extremely derpy. I think it had less to do with cross contamination and more to do with New Line, PJ or whoever organised the license wanting a more realistic scale.
Nope, it was very specifically to do with not diluting the IP. The same reason that for a time there was a specific rule in GW's WHFB and 40K tournament packs specifically forbidding any LotR models or parts from being used (a rule which was later relaxed to 'OK, you can use them, but we won't publish photos of your army if you do...')
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nomeny wrote: Can we define "OK" as turning a profit?
No, we really can't.
GW have been cutting costs left, right and centre in an effort to become more profitable, and even with an accelerated release schedule and increased prices have managed to drop their overall sales volume over the last few years. The fact that they're still turning a profit isn't a sign of health, any more than the fact that my car is still running is a sign that my fuel tank is full... The fuel is running out, and sooner or later the car will stop if something isn't done about it.
jonolikespie wrote: I think true 32mm works out about the same size as heroic 28, but with the correct proportions.
Even changing that much would be a big step towards being a real 'miniatures' company.
GW has been doing heroic since the time when all 28mm minis were heroic. If they changed now the shitstorm would be the biggest in GW history. In fact such a decision would probably prove the doomsayers right at last.
GW have always been doing "heroic" models, but IMO they used to be much better proportioned. The more recent GW models (past 10 years or so) have, to me, gone full slow with OTT scaling. 5th edition Bretonnians were heroic scale, but were far less bobble headed than the current ones. Likewise if you look at the old IG regiments from back when they were mostly metal they were far more reasonably scaled than the giant derpy Cadians and Catachans we currently have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: @Mymearan - they'd certainly lose me. I would stop buying GW miniatures if they were not heroic 28, as I like comic book superhero proportions and have no interest in anything 'real' (hence, total disinterest in historical models). Or, if they stopped producing OTT large models. These this are my biggest draws to the hobby and what gets me excited about modelling OR gaming.
While you can certainly like anything you want, I think a lot of (most?) people prefer Forge World's more realistically proportioned take on Imperial Guard to GW's bobble head take on humans in general.
And GW are hardly consistent with their scales. The old Bretonnians were more realistically (but still heroic) scale than the current ones. But the old Skeletons (which I believe go back to a similar era) were more bobble headed than the current ones.
Even things that aren't humans. I'd say, subjectively, a large part of the reason Night Goblins look better than Common Goblins is that Night Goblins have a smaller head/hands/legs relative to their torso. Or Wood Elves that should look svelte but don't because of the cartoonish proportions actually making them look closer to regular human proportions than the elvish proportions they should have.
The Over-the-Top everything that seems common to the current run of GW these days is one of the things that made me pick up the Mantic undead. (Which led to my picking up Kings of War.)
Gods, I hate the plastic Emperor riding on a thunder-chicken.... (Karl-Franz, that is... not the one on the Golden Throne....)
GW have always been doing "heroic" models, but IMO they used to be much better proportioned. The more recent GW models (past 10 years or so) have, to me, gone full slow with OTT scaling. 5th edition Bretonnians were heroic scale, but were far less bobble headed than the current ones. Likewise if you look at the old IG regiments from back when they were mostly metal they were far more reasonably scaled than the giant derpy Cadians and Catachans we currently have.
I recently repainted some Undead for the early 90's. Their hands were bigger than their heads and an apparently one handed axe was about 2-3 times the size of a 'truescale' great axe. Similarly the metal Catachans, while reasonably proportioned, still suffer from huge hand syndrome.
GW hasn't really even attempted to make realistic models since the 80's with the odd exception like the first multipart Empire infantry box..
Talys wrote: @Mymearan - they'd certainly lose me. I would stop buying GW miniatures if they were not heroic 28, as I like comic book superhero proportions and have no interest in anything 'real' (hence, total disinterest in historical models). Or, if they stopped producing OTT large models. These this are my biggest draws to the hobby and what gets me excited about modelling OR gaming.
While you can certainly like anything you want, I think a lot of (most?) people prefer Forge World's more realistically proportioned take on Imperial Guard to GW's bobble head take on humans in general.
And GW are hardly consistent with their scales. The old Bretonnians were more realistically (but still heroic) scale than the current ones. But the old Skeletons (which I believe go back to a similar era) were more bobble headed than the current ones.
Even things that aren't humans. I'd say, subjectively, a large part of the reason Night Goblins look better than Common Goblins is that Night Goblins have a smaller head/hands/legs relative to their torso. Or Wood Elves that should look svelte but don't because of the cartoonish proportions actually making them look closer to regular human proportions than the elvish proportions they should have.
Indeed, but look how well the Bretonnians sold.
I think that for Guard (or a "regular human"), this is a perfect example of a scale and style that's appealing to me:
Spoiler:
Incidentally, I'm not sure how the scale is wildly different from some of the FW models:
Spoiler:
Though DKOK heads are a little smaller:
For non-humans, well, nothing is really "over the top", because I mean, what's normal for something that doesn't exist? But either way, a scale like this appeals to me greatly:
Spoiler:
In terms of stuff I can't stand, Eldar Guardian non-helmet heads top that list, I think But basically, all the stuff in the current generation (2009+) I *generally* like a lot more than the stuff preceding it.
The article in the OP has a tracker for it, I believe, and I think it's doing well still. The article says he's holding his stock but might not have jumped in at this point if he didn't already have the stock.
I am interested to see what happens with the employee pay freezes if sales volumes don't increase this calendar year (since the CEO linked them to that).
RiTides wrote: The article in the OP has a tracker for it, I believe, but I'm terrible about stocks. I am interested to see what happens with the employee pay freezes if sales volumes don't increase this calendar year (since the CEO linked them to that).
I thought they were paying a whole bunch of them minimum wage? Can't really pay less than that :X
I think that the cost of labor is actually a pretty significant issue in operating small retail stores, and GW is right in saying that recruiting is tough. Maybe a franchise model would have been better for GW -- even if it's like an owner-operator of a gas station -- though I suspect they'd never allow for the loss of control.
I wonder how much someone at a *successful* GW retail store makes.
Incidentally, I never quite understood this in the original article:
The move to one-man stores has reduced the number of customers, sometimes by 30%, but the stores are profitable now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: I'm not sure of the wages, but I don't think decreasing was on the table - just no increases until the freeze is lifted.
And yeah, you're right. That's what it said in the last GW report, IIRC. I think some kind of profit share (or commission) would go a long ways, and if they could order FW to the store... well, that would be a huge boost to store sales. If FW could be ordered to the store with no shipping costs, I'd be going to the GW store a TON more.
Talys wrote: Incidentally, I never quite understood this in the original article:
The move to one-man stores has reduced the number of customers, sometimes by 30%, but the stores are profitable now.
What are you not understanding?
One man stores are cheaper to run, not least because they have also mostly been moved to lower rent locations... And supposedly, this cost reduction has more than offset the drop in sales as a result of fewer people walking in the door due to the poorer location and dodgier store.
One man stores are cheaper to run, not least because they have also mostly been moved to lower rent locations... And supposedly, this cost reduction has more than offset the drop in sales as a result of fewer people walking in the door due to the poorer location and dodgier store.
Oh, I didn't realize they actually moved to poorer locations (this did not happen in my area). What didn't make sense was: either there aren't enough customers to support more staff, or there are. A 30% drop in sales is because of less staff is huge, and doesn't make sense to me (just hire another person...). But relocating to cheaper rent is totally different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheAuldGrump wrote: Mind you, it is a great indicator of just how much of a millstone the brick and mortar stores are for GW....
An interesting hypothetical has always been, if GW shuts down a store that's only marginally profitable (or isn't profitable at all), how much of that business would shuffle over to another GW store, or to GW goods in a non-GW store -- versus how much would be lost either in less hobby spending or non-GW hobby spending.
Given that they have been moving their stores to lower profile locations... I suspect that business would move to online retailers and to local gaming stores.
A local game store has one major advantage over a GW store - they do not rely on a single company's products.
I actually think that GW stores could turn a much better profit if they opened their shelves to products by compatible companies.
I remember, back in the 'nineties, that GW told the local store that they were to 'discourage' people buying GW miniatures to use in other games....
So, short sightedness in regards to supporting businesses is nothing new for GW.
The Auld Grump - the store in question didn't pay much attention to that request... a sale is a sale.
One man stores are cheaper to run, not least because they have also mostly been moved to lower rent locations... And supposedly, this cost reduction has more than offset the drop in sales as a result of fewer people walking in the door due to the poorer location and dodgier store.
Oh, I didn't realize they actually moved to poorer locations (this did not happen in my area). What didn't make sense was: either there aren't enough customers to support more staff, or there are. A 30% drop in sales is because of less staff is huge, and doesn't make sense to me (just hire another person...). But relocating to cheaper rent is totally different.
You're not grasping the fact that staff are expensive. They will constitute a larger percentage of a store's overhead than the other running costs combined. It isn't just wages, it's all the other associated costs such as sick pay, holiday, pensions etc, plus the associated admin needed to process it all. It is perfectly feasible that cutting a staff member will reduce overhead by more than the income drops, especially as for every one high flying money maker you have there's just as likely a bunch who just about make enough to cover their own salary and a few who don't even do that.
An interesting hypothetical has always been, if GW shuts down a store that's only marginally profitable (or isn't profitable at all), how much of that business would shuffle over to another GW store, or to GW goods in a non-GW store -- versus how much would be lost either in less hobby spending or non-GW hobby spending.
Well, speaking from experience... both of the GW stores near me closed. The next nearest are both 45min to an hour from where I live, and in areas that are... not the nicest. As a result, once they closed I stopped going to GW stores. Any business I still give to GW has now transitioned to extremely limited online purchases (like extra flying bases for my BFG models, and such) and the rest of that potential was lost to non-hobby spending.
You're not grasping the fact that staff are expensive. They will constitute a larger percentage of a store's overhead than the other running costs combined. It isn't just wages, it's all the other associated costs such as sick pay, holiday, pensions etc, plus the associated admin needed to process it all. It is perfectly feasible that cutting a staff member will reduce overhead by more than the income drops, especially as for every one high flying money maker you have there's just as likely a bunch who just about make enough to cover their own salary and a few who don't even do that.
I guess maybe it's a matter of where you live.
For argument's sake, in my area (west coast Canada), the minimum wage is $10.45 / hour. Call it a 40 hour week, 52 weeks a year, that's $22k. Be really generous with benefits, at 50% (it won't even be close to that), and you're still only at $33k. Let's be generous, and say that this guy is really good, so they pay him, with benefits in and all, $44k (double minimum wage). That's as much as a many skilled professional make.
There is no way on God's green Earth that rent in the location that GW is in here is $4,000 per month. The hobby shop I normally go to pays 3 times that in rent, and GW is in a way higher profile location (though much smaller store); it's gotta be at least $10k a month in rent. Insurance, hydro, shrinkage (theft) and other overheads, keeping furniture and fixtures in repair, IT costs all weigh in too. So yeah, maybe in some regions where minimum wage is very high and rents are very low, your scenario is plausible, but no way out here, unless GW moved somewhere really remote.
I guess it's worth mentioning that GW at one point (decades ago?) had a location right in a triple-A shopping center, and moved from there. But that was a terrible location; the shopping center's rent is humongous, and they want a cut of every sale (and not a small percentage, either). Plus, it was 10 minutes walking distance from a hobby shop that carries (literally) a hundred times more inventory, and sold GW stuff at a discount.
I think that it makes sense to move a store from a really upscale location to another one that's "dodgier", as long as it's still accessible and isn't TOO dodgy. But I don't think it makes any sense to let people go if that causes a significant drop in sales (like 30%) due to poor customer service. There is nothing more irritating than walking into a store, not being able to find anyone to help you, or having to wait forever to make your purchase.
Lets say the store doesn't move but goes from 2-man to 1-man.
Lets say you're working somewhere that the stores are open 9am-9pm, 7 days a week, and you have labor laws saying you only work 8 hour days, 6 days a week, 50 weeks a year. Lets also say that 1 person can comfortably handle the workload of a GW store.
A 3-man store can be open 84 out of 84 retail hours every week for 100% availability. A 2-man store can be open 80 out of 84 available retail hours for 48 weeks a year, and 48 hours a week for 4 weeks a year (assuming holidays don't overlap), for 92% availability A 1-man store can be open 48 hours a week 50 weeks a year for 55% availability.
GW is asking themselves: if we increase our opening hours from 55% to 92%, is that going to bring in more or less extra profit than hiring this one extra person?
Now obviously the answer varies based on a number of factors (and one or all of the assumptions I made about the worker's hours are off by a bit) but you can boil this down to a yes/no question. It might be irritating to go to the 1-man store that is closed 45% of retail hours, if all GW is caring about is profitability of that individual store, then being closed some (or all) of the time might be the correct answer.
Personally, I think its the wrong question. The question should be how does the store affect the business as a whole, rather than looking at it as something that MUST make money.
The store COULD be considered a form of advertising - none of my non-gamer colleagues/relatives/friends have heard of Mantic or Infinity, but most of them have walked past the Games Workshop store in the city center. It COULD be considered a loss leader - entice new people in with the big shiny store and show them the models and they come back to the store a few times, before making their way to independents/online retailers. And I think those are better ways of looking at the GW stores: the individual store might be making a loss, but GW's profit is going up because that store is adverting and attracting people to the hobby, regardless of where they buy from. And crucially, the store can't do this if it is closed 45% of the time.
I think that the cost of labor is actually a pretty significant issue in operating small retail stores, and GW is right in saying that recruiting is tough. Maybe a franchise model would have been better for GW -- even if it's like an owner-operator of a gas station -- though I suspect they'd never allow for the loss of control.
They are struggling to recruit and retain regular staff for their stores, they'd have no chance recruiting and retaining franchises. Who in their right mind, after doing any research, would want to buy a GW franchise when they could open up an indy store and sell a broader variety of stuff?
I agree with the idea of them expanding their store range though - FW, FFG, code cards for the mobile games, hobby stuff they don't produce themselves. There's no reason, for instance, that they couldn't sell 3rd party resin bases. Beyond control.
As someone who has owned a franchise 1) I'd always advise anyone to not own a franchise period anyway b) I'd double-down on how heavily I'd make that recommendation for a company managed by the sort of people that manage GW. Be quicker and less painful just to set fire to your house.
The retail chain is one of GW's key pillars of marketing, the others being White Dwarf/Visions, and the third being word of mouth from veterans. They also used to outreach, such as club support, but they stopped it some years ago because it cost money.
The reasons why these activities are important is that they can catch the attention of people who aren't already specifically looking for Games Workshop. From that angle, moving the shops from high footfall locations to cheaper, low footfall locations may be counter-productive even though it makes the shops individually more profitable in the short term.
Note that GW's sales have been dropping significantly for several years as their one-man-store strategy rolled out, although their profitability has been sustained.
IMO it is the reduction of word of mouth support that has convinced GW to re-introduce an outreach campaign for AoS, in the form of their after school league system.
To me, retail chain is the main pillar to GW's marketing. This is where the passion is truly ignited, and where "true believers" can hear what they want to hear (and be reassured as well). Giving that job to clubs and players alone is dangerous, because it is easy to hear something very different from people playing something else.
It is only inside of GW's World that everything is fine for them, after all. If they were alone like they felt they were in the past, there wouldn't be any problems; people would have to buy from them to enjoy their true Hobby. Now, this is not true anymore - but they must not say that to their customers, obviously.
Funny enough, I don't really wish GW's demise anymore. In fact, GW is a great entry door to the world of games with miniatures you love to build and paint. Their shops do a nice job initiating the beginners, and when they are dropped because "they aren't true believers anymore", then they are ready to open their eyes to the huge variety we have now in this Golden Age for Miniature Market.
Otherwise, I agree with the statement of GW not being a game company anymore. I always said they should change their name to "Warhammer Collectors" so that it becomes clear to everyone, but then indeed they wouldn't be able to trick new players in thinking they really make game systems. That is fine; sooner or later, illusions break and a new gamer will be born, for other games, for other companies.
Indeed, the market will certainly be hurt if GW would suddenly disappear. Of course, the miniature market will not die, it will just need to adapt - but losing such an entry door as GW would still be bothersome, IMHO.
I'm not convinced the whole market will suffer if GW disappears.
I think that would have been true 15+ years ago, but GW have been declining for a good five or so years while the rest of the market has been flourishing.
Companies that exist to sell supplements to GW games, of course would be in great difficulty.
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm not convinced the whole market will suffer if GW disappears.
That's why I'm talking about adaptation. Most miniature wargame companies don't really use such an entry door like GW - and a lot of their players usually have a past with or at least have heard of GW.
It's true GW's influence isn't now what it used to be in the past, but I believe it's still there. It's just my opinion, but I expect there would be some chaos and trouble in the beginning before the market adapts itself to the loss of GW, should it be happening.
But we're talking about a "what if" situation, of course.
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm not convinced the whole market will suffer if GW disappears.
I think that would have been true 15+ years ago, but GW have been declining for a good five or so years while the rest of the market has been flourishing.
Companies that exist to sell supplements to GW games, of course would be in great difficulty.
I think it's hard to say what the overall effect on the market might be, I think for enthusiast wargamers it would have little to no effect, for more casual gamers or gamers who rely on the expansive community that GW offers would be hurt the most.
Given how quickly Mantic jumped on the death of Fantasy and used it to drive the popularity of KoW I'm not convinced that GW sinking tomorrow would hurt anyone that didn't rely solely on their product.
Chapterhouse would suffer but places like Scibor that make actual whole models would be fine.
jonolikespie wrote: I'm not convinced that GW sinking tomorrow would hurt anyone that didn't rely solely on their product.
Well I think there's a decent number of people who rely solely on GW products for gaming. For years even though I collected models for other games, GW ones were the only ones I could actually find an opponent to play against.
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm not convinced the whole market will suffer if GW disappears.
I think that would have been true 15+ years ago, but GW have been declining for a good five or so years while the rest of the market has been flourishing.
Companies that exist to sell supplements to GW games, of course would be in great difficulty.
This is only my experience, of course, but I can agree with this opinion.
At the FLGS I most often visit, there are entire swathes of players who have never played any GW games, and another large group of people who have entirely quit playing or only very rarely play GW games who used to play quite often. It is not uncommon to go into the store (which has 16 dedicated tabletop wargame tables, and more than that many boards to drop on top of card tables to make more space) and see literally not one table with a GW game on it, while 50-75% of them have games of Warmachine/Hordes, Infiniti, Bolt Action, Flames of War, Dark Age, or any number of other wargame systems that I don't necessarily recognize immediately. This store is one of the top GW retail locations in the USA (the owner was invited by GW a year or so ago to speak to a group of new GW store managers about how to sell the game), but even with that considered, the percentage of stock space dedicated to GW products has dropped over the past 3-5 years, with the space being replaced by a variety of other game systems. I'm sure GW is still the largest single seller (just based on shelf space; the owner wouldn't keep that much in stock if it weren't selling. He's too business savvy), it's clear to see that other game systems are growing in popularity.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think you are right but they are people who only play GW games and are not helping the expansion of the rest of the market.
But they are still a significant chunk of "the market" and should be considered when considering the effect on the whole market.
If you mean "the market excluding GW", then sure, GW's death wouldn't hurt the market that excludes them (other than possibly reducing the number of people who start other wargames via GW games).
I think when you consider how many wargamers there are in the world and how many people are playing globally, there's a good chance 40k and WHFB/AOS dying would adversely affect that.
I also think a lot of players don't just believe there are really other good games/miniatures outside of GW. They just don't think about this possibility; they're too used to GW and have fond memories with GW, so why wanting something else? Don't underestime the power of nostalgia.
I have a friend who recently was really fed up with AoS (he was a great fan of the "old fluff" and was completely lost when the Old World exploded and WFB rules were throwed outside the window). Until now, he was a "GW miniatures only" collector. He just couldn't bring himself to have other miniatures than those from GW, because he growed up with them and their universes. That was also the reason he never played any other game than those from GW (at least wargames ).
Now he still wants to collect miniatures but just can't follow GW's politic anymore. He isn't a "true believer" anymore. And he discovered there were plenty of other companies/games with awesome miniatures - last time I checked, he was buying a lot of old Rackham miniatures out of E-Bay, just because he fell in love with their design.
I don't think it's an isolated case. May be an "extreme" one, but when someone has a very specific passion, it's easy to only see what you love to see. The Hobby as GW sees it is something similar, I believe.
Sarouan wrote: I also think a lot of players don't just believe there are really other good games/miniatures outside of GW. They just don't think about this possibility; they're too used to GW and have fond memories with GW, so why wanting something else? Don't underestime the power of nostalgia.
I simply think a lot of people are simply in to "40k" more than they're in to "wargaming". Their interest might have been piqued because of the expansive community (which would be far less if GW died) and they got in to the fluff, the universe, and the game is a way to immerse themselves in that.
I know for me personally a game is worthless to me without a universe to back it. I almost exclusively collect WW2, WHFB and 40k models because those are the universes that interest me (WW2 isn't a universe but you get what I mean). I started collecting models when I was 7, I'm now late 20's (scarily close to 30, I'm getting old ) and I struggle to get interested in new universes now and without that background I can't really get interested in an associated game regardless of how technically good it might be.
Even WW2 stuff I've only really recently become interested in gaming because I've only recently become more interested in the ground wars (loved WW2 aircraft since forever, it was only when I started becoming interested in the tanks and soldiers that I also got interested in wargaming WW2).
Honestly I think the "GW only" crowd bring nothing to the wider hobby as that includes the 14 year olds why buy a starter, a codex and a couple of other boxes then forget about it 6 months later.
The 'churn and burn' has been a GW sales tactic for a while now and while there seems to be less emphasis on it now it seemed to be a staple for a while.
That policy drove a lot of potential life long hobbyist away from the wider hobby imo and thus hurt the larger industry.
jonolikespie wrote: Honestly I think the "GW only" crowd bring nothing to the wider hobby as that includes the 14 year olds why buy a starter, a codex and a couple of other boxes then forget about it 6 months later.
The 'churn and burn' has been a GW sales tactic for a while now and while there seems to be less emphasis on it now it seemed to be a staple for a while.
That policy drove a lot of potential life long hobbyist away from the wider hobby imo and thus hurt the larger industry.
I dunno, I don't really think I agree with that. GW introduced a lot of people to wargaming who probably never would have otherwise, people who might not have fit the typical mould of a wargamer. Even if they are only in the hobby for a couple of years, they're still adding to the pool of gamers which IMO is a good thing.
Not everyone needs to be a die-hard-life-long-gamer-collecting-every-game-that-comes-along sort of gamer.
I mean of course you can say "bring nothing to the wider hobby" because then you're excluding GW's rather large chunk of "the hobby". You might as well say "X-Wing only players bring nothing to the wider hobby" or "Warmahordes-only players bring nothing to the wider hobby", it's a self fulfilling statement
I know it's annoying when people consider GW to be "the hobby", but you also can't really exclude them from "the hobby" either
Kilkrazy wrote: I think you are right but they are people who only play GW games and are not helping the expansion of the rest of the market.
But they are still a significant chunk of "the market" and should be considered when considering the effect on the whole market.
If you mean "the market excluding GW", then sure, GW's death wouldn't hurt the market that excludes them (other than possibly reducing the number of people who start other wargames via GW games).
I think when you consider how many wargamers there are in the world and how many people are playing globally, there's a good chance 40k and WHFB/AOS dying would adversely affect that.
True, there is hobby games market that includes GW, however GW themselves prefer to pretend it does not exist and I think there are significant numbers of people who are in the hobby games market but only the GW part of it and do not realise the rest of it exists or partake in non-GW games.
Furthermore, while GW probably play a big role in building up various aspects of the hobby games in former decades, I don't think this is treu any more but it does not matter because the non-GW part of the market has reached critical mass.
Thus if you are not interested in GW games, if they vanished, all the other games won't vanish too.
@Kilkrazy - Speaking for my part of the world only, GW vanishing would be a huge hit on at least 3 FLGS stores (I don't really visit the others, so I can't say). Whatever the decline in their sales, it remains a very significant part of revenue for them, with by far the most shelf space, revenue, prominence, etc. Many of the GW customers don't have any interest in non-GW games or models -- and even within GW offerings are interested, really, in 40k.
Talys wrote: Many of the GW customers don't have any interest in non-GW games or models -- and even within GW offerings are interested, really, in 40k.
Hence GW's tactic of further narrowing their niche to target the most profitable customers to the exclusion of all else. One of these days, the line will be crossed even for those "golden" customers and GW will have to take a long look at either slowly retreating over that scorched-earth wasteland of ill-will they've sown among their abused/discarded customers and stockists. The only other option at that point will be death. Kirby will fly away in his golden parachute regardless. I don't hate GW. I'd rather it return to the glory days of the early 2000's. In my neck of the woods, instead of having a critical mass of players driving new customers towards the hobby, they have a critical mass of players driving new customers AWAY from their hobby. Outside of a few strongholds (GW's own stores, a handfull of FLGS) - GW has been driven into the figurative backwoods in terms of prominence in most of my local game stores. Ask any of the players enjoying Malifaux, X-Wing, Warmahordes, Infinity, Armada, Krossmaster etc. if they own any GW product - it'd be a safe bet almost all of them do - many of them multiple full armies. Its telling that none of them still buy or play however.
I feel GW has gone down their path of maximizing profits / sale too far to easily mend relations with disaffected fans - hence, management has clearly decided that it's not even worth their time/money to try. The problem is that the more they narrow their focus, the more people they are going to forcibly shove out of the hobby - the more voices will arrayed against them. Word of mouth is a powerful tool. GW ignores it at their own peril.
Funny how that varies from region to region. Of the three FLGS's (all 20 miles, I'd say local enough ) I know enough about one has actually flat-out dropped all GW product: owner was pretty much just tired of putting up with their gak and didn't sell that much GW product anymore, anyway; one still has a fair amount but from what I understand could get by even if the revenue just all vanished tomorrow, and basically has players fleeing the GW nest in terror in favour of other systems just about every week, and the third one is very new and still struggling for market share, but even they seem rather lukewarm when it comes to GW product (owners having been mostly WHFB players who are now rather disillusioned might have something to do with that).
In short, GW could vanish and take both its stores and its player base with it and I'd likely still have three healthy FLGSs within a 20 mile radius (plus a fourth one which I don't really frequent, so not sure how they'd do).
If GW vanished over night the stores in my area would be alright. Magic the Gathering is what keeps the lights on in many of these shops. Miniature guys in my area don't spend half the money the magic group does.
Agreed with Kilkrazy. I agree that GW was and probably still is the biggest intro to the hobby, but I think that time's passing. I've heard anecdotes like Saldiven's before, and ones about kids in FLGSs bypassing the GW shelves just because of the prices stick in my head. The local Forbidden Planet started stocking miniature games alongside boardgames, CCGs, and RPGs, but stocked X-Wing and Star Trek: Attack Wing long before they got a (very small) GW rack. The culling of Specialist Games and everything besides the big two (or, since AoS, the big one) not only allowed all those replacements to spring up, as we all know, but by getting rid of even the idea of alternate (better) rules in their own repertoire, they've also arguably further cut off diehard GW fans and store gamers from the rest of the hobby. They're part of the wargaming hobby, but increasingly irrelevant to the 'rest of the market'. Barring all those who made the exodus to KoW.
With that and all the other big and little mismanagements of latter years, steadily driving more gamers away, I'd say it's less providing an intro to the rest of the hobby, and more preparing the hobby for it's eventual demise. The market will be smaller if GW leaves it, but I don't think that'll directly correlate to impoverishment. I think there'll still be a bit of a drop-off in recruitment, for some time, but also a loss of diehards who wouldn't engage with the rest of the hobby anyway. Which would be neither here nor there to the market. There's a term for that on the tip of my tongue, can't quite remember it. Anyway: it'd be like taking the big fish out of the small pond - of course the water level's going to fall, but that's because the big fish was taking up so much space and displacing so much of it. To torture that metaphor even more, there'll be less food thrown into the pond, but the small fish will get it all.
Chute82 wrote: If GW vanished over night the stores in my area would be alright. Magic the Gathering is what keeps the lights on in many of these shops. Miniature guys in my area don't spend half the money the magic group does.
Yeah, there is no question at all that MtG is king if the hill where it comes to recenue and keeping the lights on. Or being a relentless profit machine
If GW were to pack up its tents tonight, then the closest store to where I live would also close its doors.
The next closest, and much larger and more profitable, would shrug and shake their heads, then continue on with little to no change.
That smaller, more local, store specialized specifically because the larger store is more general.
But their chosen tactic leg shackles them to a capricious company that also has slimmer margins for the local retailer - making them very vulnerable to shifts within Games Workshop.
The preponderance of Direct Only items has already cut into their profits - I do not expect to see them last more than two more years.
I am speaking from a UK viewpoint where the club culture has always been stronger than the store culture.
That said, there were independent games shops before GW (in fact GW started as an independent games shop and only became a Warhammer shop in the past five years). The rise of GW was one reason for the decline of the indy game shop, but some of them managed to survive and in the past few years there have been some come-backs.
However the loss of Warhammer would no doubt be a blow to some FLGS, such as Dark Sphere, but not others such as Orc's Nest, who don't stock any GW stuff at all.
But, the Internet is another reason why the consumer side of the market is not so dependent on retail as it was 20 years ago. We can get info and products very easily compared to the old days.
To put the point differently, why would Perry Miniatures and the other 28mm historical figure companies collapse because GW folded? Why would Osprey, Sam Mustafa, FFG, all the 15mm and 6mm companies, and so on feel the loss of GW?
TheAuldGrump wrote:
The preponderance of Direct Only items has already cut into their profits - I do not expect to see them last more than two more years.
There are actually only a TINY number of items that are Direct Only (a number that almost approaches zero). There are a much larger number that are "web only", which means every indy store can buy the stuff, at the same trade discounts (at least in Canada), but they only get 1 free shipping order per month. Then they pay for P&S, which makes it much more expensive.
So what my store does is, if you want it and can wait for their next regular order (at the beginning of each month), you can get whatever discount you normally get (anywhere from 10% - 30%, depending on how much stuff you generally buy from them). But if you want it NOW, you just get a 10% discount, and they'll order it right away. It arrives via UPS in like, 3 business days from the UK. Seems to work for them and the customers both.
Kilkrazy wrote:But, the Internet is another reason why the consumer side of the market is not so dependent on retail as it was 20 years ago. We can get info and products very easily compared to the old days.
To put the point differently, why would Perry Miniatures and the other 28mm historical figure companies collapse because GW folded? Why would Osprey, Sam Mustafa, FFG, all the 15mm and 6mm companies, and so on feel the loss of GW?
On the Internet, I think there's less impulse buying than in brick & mortar stores. I can't even count the number of times I've bought stuff I neither needed nor was looking for, simply because it was on the new item shelf (this accounts for like, 90% of my PP collection, lol). Plus, the shipping fees really kill it for small purchases - like one pot of paint, one miniature, etc. If you have a good discounter, the price is usually better, too, and I'm not talking about GW stuff.
I think that other miniature companies would greatly benefit from a GW collapse, because no doubt some customers would satisfy their itch with other products. Take me for example; even though my total spending might be less, my spending to one or two other companies would undoubtedly be more.
However, it would be tough on *some* brick and mortar stores. Maybe it wouldn't shut them down, but they might have to lay some people off, or make adjustments (like moving). One thing that B&M stores love about GW products (or so store owners/managers have told me) is that they're very profitable. The price tag is pretty high, meaning even with a commonplace 10%-15% discount, the actual profit on a box of miniatures or a book is good. Also, GW absorbs *all* the costs of defective product. With P3 or Vallejo paint, for instance, if there's a problem, my B&M store gets stuck with the cost of returning it to *the manufacturer*. Not even the local distributor. What that means is that since it's not worth the trouble (and shipping, as international shipping out of Canada is stupidly expensive), the store just tosses the product and absorbs the loss. With GW, they just send a replacement, no questions asked. Plus, GW lets them return for credit any unsold/unopened printed materials (like Visions, White Dwarf, Codex, etc.), and up to a certain amount of other stuff, once a year. What that means is, they don't worry about stocking a shelves full of books that don't sell.
TheAuldGrump wrote:
The preponderance of Direct Only items has already cut into their profits - I do not expect to see them last more than two more years.
There are actually only a TINY number of items that are Direct Only (a number that almost approaches zero). There are a much larger number that are "web only", which means every indy store can buy the stuff, at the same trade discounts (at least in Canada), but they only get 1 free shipping order per month. Then they pay for P&S, which makes it much more expensive.
So what my store does is, if you want it and can wait for their next regular order (at the beginning of each month), you can get whatever discount you normally get (anywhere from 10% - 30%, depending on how much stuff you generally buy from them). But if you want it NOW, you just get a 10% discount, and they'll order it right away. It arrives via UPS in like, 3 business days from the UK. Seems to work for them and the customers both.
In other words 'not worth it, don't bother'.
Because the thing about special orders is that folks want them quickly, and not have to wait a month until you put in your order.
Mind you - what I am hearing is second hand - because 'not worth it, not gonna bother' sums up my relationship with GW products over the last three years. (And counting.)
So it could just be that they tell their customers that they don't do it - but given that all they have is GW, and I don't buy GW, you can guess how much I have bought from them.
Making it harder for stores to carry your products makes it less likely that they will bother to carry your products.
I dunno how you get, 'Not worth it'. If a store decides to stock something, they get it the same price as they always did. So if it was worth stocking before, nothing has really changed.
For a special order, GW stores don't carry stock and the goods are shipped internationally. So with the exception of the UK, an item will arrive faster and cost less getting it from an Indy store. They buy it on the website, on their account, so it's not like there's any great work.
I asked recently for my store to inquire about reavers (de jetties), and why they went web-only; the reply my store got was that GW just didn't have enough inventory to stock them at regional distribution centers, or that they don't have printed boxes at the moment, and that they would likely go back to regular local stock at some time in the future. I duuno, doesn't really sound that unreasonable to me.
For the vast majority of web only items, they are low, low volume sellers (like finecast characters that nobody buys). For a few more popular items like skyshield or whirlwinds or reavers, the FLGS is always order and stock them, and make up to their usual 40%, less whatever discounts they offer.
I dunno how you get, 'Not worth it'. If a store decides to stock something, they get it the same price as they always did. So if it was worth stocking before, nothing has really changed.
Most game stores do a significant chunk of their business on special orders. They won't stock everything as that is too expensive, they'll stock the basics and anything else can be special ordered and sent in their next regular shipment which comes in every 1-2 weeks.
Games Workshop is basically saying you can't do that. You have to have everything come in in only one order a month or we're gonna charge you extra on top of the already slim margins you are making. This means customers will be waiting to get their stuff from the local game store, which will drive them away and to other sources(GW directly). Or at least thats what GW wants to have happen. They're viewing their own distributors as competitors.
Grey Templar wrote: Games Workshop is basically saying you can't do that. You have to have everything come in in only one order a month or we're gonna charge you extra on top of the already slim margins you are making. This means customers will be waiting to get their stuff from the local game store, which will drive them away and to other sources(GW directly). Or at least thats what GW wants to have happen. They're viewing their own distributors as competitors.
I agree that on weird stuff, most hobby shops don't keep most items. Like who's gonna go out of their way to stock Wyrdvane Psykers, right? On the other hand, most people ordering the really weird stuff don't expect it super quick. It's really stuff like Vypers and Falcons -- normal, popular units -- that most customers would like rapid availability of. For these, actually stocking the popular stuff makes sense. If for no other reason, you can't impulse buy something if it's not on the shelf
But for special orders, look at it another way.
Talys wants to buy a Shrine of the Aquilla. He can either pay:
- $41.25 + S&H to Games Workshop and get shipped out in 24 hours and delivered in 2-9 working days. - $41.25 + Insane S&H to Games Workshop and get it in about 2 (working) days. - $41.25 + S&H to The Hobby Shop and get it in about 2-3 working days. Hobby shop makes 40%, which is NOT a slim margin.
Or if he has a helpful Hobby Shop, or is a part of some hobby club, or something of a discount:
- $41.25 with no S&H to the Hobby Shop and get it in half a week or so. - Less than $41.25 (anywhere from 10%-25% discount) to the Hobby Shop and get it when they make their monthly order.
I mean, I just think out of all those alternatives, the two one suck the most for Talys
In my area, the least helpful hobby shop will do web orders; they just won't discount it at all. But it comes really quickly, and you don't have to pay S&H. Plus, you're not even committed to taking it. They'll just stick it on the shelf if you change your mind.
The "best" hobby shop in terms of helpfulness gives customers the choice of ordering it when they next place their free shipping order, and offer a good discount, OR ordering it right away, and giving a small discount (no S&H). There is a third hobby shop which kind of wings it and orders it whenever they feel like, but offers the same discounts as everything else in the store (depends on the size of your purchase). And these are offered to is to anyone who just asks. You can call in out of nowhere, and be buying like, one Vulkan He'stan model.
Maybe I am just blessed to live in an area with helpful hobby shops
But getting back to this from the OP's POV: I do agree that if GW wants to be as helpful as possible to "the GW customers", reducing or removing things like shipping and making Forge World more accessible by having fewer added costs -- that would go a really long ways. As loyal as any customer may be to GW (based on liking the product), they'll still hate paying things like shipping, or dealing with unrealistically high minimum order charges to avoid shipping.
Maybe I am just blessed to live in an area with helpful hobby shops
It really depends of the seller and the relationship you have with him.
In my region, I can ask for something a bit "special" to my usual shop because he knows I'm a "big" customer who always pays everything at once, sometimes even in advance. So he knows that if I order something, I will take it no matter what. And it's usually big orders.
So he's willing to help me from time to time, even if it's not that interesting for him to do so. He's doing a favor to a regular customer.
On the other hand, he knows he doesn't earn much from that. It's more to please people than anything - because GW clearly doesn't help him. These times, I don't know why, he tends to have his commands late. I didn't even have everything I wanted the last time I did - he just receives half he asked.
So I totally understand sellers who say "not worth it" in that case. It's not such a rare situation in miniature wargaming - they simply don't sell that much in comparison to other games like MtG.
They still sell quite a lot through independants and in some countries like the USA rely on them for providing a retail presence in areas they can't cover themselves.
There will be a cost/benefit curve for sales of GW stuff against the nuisance and difficulty of stocking it under GW's apparently onerous terms of trade.
As sales decline overall, at some point it is no longer worth the hassle, and another FLGS decides to can GW games. It is unlikely that all the lost sales will simply transfer to GW directly, though given their better margin, they may be more profitable from keeping say 75% of the lost sales. But there may be a knock-on of losing some more network effect of having lots of players.
Talys wrote: One thing that B&M stores love about GW products (or so store owners/managers have told me) is that they're very profitable. The price tag is pretty high, meaning even with a commonplace 10%-15% discount, the actual profit on a box of miniatures or a book is good. Also, GW absorbs *all* the costs of defective product.
Things must have changed a bit then. I remember GW direct accounts to sell at around 55% MSRP, which was a pretty bad margin and no better (and often worse) than other lines through a distributor. The only thing worse was buying GW through a distributor! And GW had high stocking requirements to get and maintain the account. Back when they did blistered metals, you could only order quantities in sleeves of 2 blisters. Add that to a lack of event support and it was a pretty raw deal.
Yeah, Talys has let his naivety slip again and we can all see it. Top level discount is, IIRC, 40%. If you're then discounting on top, you're a long way from a normal size retail mark up.
Plus nearly every supplier absorbs the cost of defective product, that's just normal.
No, 40% is not a top level discount, and I am not being naïve. I've seen the trade order booklets; they're they same for every distributor who agrees to carry minimum GW stock in North America. The price is almost exactly 40% of MSRP on every item. There's a Canadian and US dollar column for each item. So on a $100 item, their cost is $60. I have also seen *many* Games Workshop invoices; happens when I'm buying something that isn't in their system, and they have to look it up, or if it's a new item. It's 40%.
I'll take a snapshot of one next time if ya don't believe me One of the shops here just leaves the booklet out for anyone to see. And any of the stores (around here) will simply tell you their cost on stuff if you're familiar with them. I mean, 40% margin is not exactly super spectacular or embarrassingly high; it's pretty normal retail margins. Everyone's gotta eat.
A couple of the stores that I buy stuff from are pretty happy with 10%-15% markup (which will be less profit than 10%-15% *margin*). Hence, 25%-30% discount. The best discount I can get here on GW product is 33%, which leaves the store approximately a 10% markup (on a $60 cost product, $100MSRP, they're selling it to me for $67) -- but I can't get this on everything, all the time; they're essentially being nice to me, possibly because there's a sale going on anyway, or I'm getting a lot of stuff.
Re: defective product -- when I get a defective Vallejo paint, I must now actually contact Vallejo. My store will do nothing for me because their distributor won't take it back. Which means, it goes into the trash. Started about two months ago. No joke!
@jmurph - yes, GW has minimum stocking requirements for what they consider core products. There's a list of stuff and you have to have so much of it on hand total. All "best seller" type stuff, though. I do not believe that you can buy GW stuff through distribution anymore, though. When you sign a trade agreement from them, you specifically agree that you won't sell it to anyone that you know will resell it. Maybe you can get GW stuff through GW with a discount as a reseller, *without* agreeing to minimum stocking levels; I'm not sure.
Actually, here you go (from last year). I lied: they get a slightly better than 40% discount. I guess my mental arithmetic isn't that good.
So anyways, what can I say. There are two well-stocked shops here that are happy with 15%, as long as they're getting the volume, which they get plenty of, because people go, "OMG great prices, BUY MOAR.". And a third shop discounts grudgingly discounts their stuff reasonably well (around 17-20%) simply to stay competitive. Anyone who tries to sell hobby stuff at 100% markup over cost (other than the GW store) goes out of business around here, because it's just too competitive.
Either way, if youre going to shift the goalposts to include volume then it changes the character of the conversation WRTGW, but in general it still means $100 spent on product with a better markup than GW I'd preferable for the retailer.
Those prices are not inclusive of tax. In US and Canada, taxes are added separately. Because we are arcane and crazy, every freakin' jurisdiction has its own tax here. In the USA, every *city* can have a different tax rate.
No goalposts, bud. Irrespective of the margin (which is > 40%) I'm just saying, our stores are happy here because volumes are high, and therefore willing to discount a lot (and more than when the volumes were lower). The big amount of markup and the big sale sticker gives people the illusion they're getting a great price, which leaves everyone with a smile. They're happy to discount GW stuff by all the way up to 25%-30% (or even a touch higher) because the total dollar value of the GW sales are such a big number. I mean, as a retailer, you're happier making $300 profit than $100 profit; what do you care what the actual sale is, right? It's only what you keep at the end of the day.
Not totally true because there *is* a cost of inventory, but on the bright side, it's not like any of this is getting any cheaper. Unlike, say computer parts
Of course there's goalposts, the current point was "GW don't offer good value to third party retailers" and then you turn around and say "actually, if you're a global mega corporation with a reach that extends to millions, you'd be quite happy with 0.02 on the dollar."
It's what you always do, subtly alter the criteria to try and make it look like that's what you meant all along.
As for the RRP?
Well, I'm not as familiar with North American taxes as I am UK, but what I do have is the address of friends who live in KS, and sufficient interest to run a mock sale through their site, and the RRP on offer on the site does include the tax (the price drops when you add it to cart, then goes back to the original once you give the delivery details.) So, as far as I can tell, those RRPs in the picture you linked do include tax, which would make the discount much closer to the 40% I believed was the maximum, and as you're the only person I've seen claim a higher level I'd say I've probably got the right of it.
GW trade prices are between 65-55% of retail price (35-45% discount) depending on what level partner you are.
GW stuff makes a decentish margin, but isn't great for FLGS to sell because it requires enormous amounts of space to have anything approaching a viable volume where you can reliably make on-the-spot sales. Though this is a problem for most of the large established wargames - too many SKUs in big boxes. A retailer needs to factor in the amount of space a product line will take in to the margins that product is really making for them. Compare to M:TG, where you can make a thousand dollars of sales a day in the same space required for a single Dark Vengeance box.
The problem with so many special-order only stuff is that (personally), if I can't make an impulse purchase at my FLGS or GW, I'm not going to order it in through the FLGS: I'm going to buy it online, at a bigger discount, and get it delivered to my door. I'll pay the inconvenience cost of travelling to the FLGS once, but if the item isn't there then I'm not going to wait 2 weeks or a month and then make the trip again.
Trasvi wrote: The problem with so many special-order only stuff is that (personally), if I can't make an impulse purchase at my FLGS or GW, I'm not going to order it in through the FLGS: I'm going to buy it online, at a bigger discount, and get it delivered to my door. I'll pay the inconvenience cost of travelling to the FLGS once, but if the item isn't there then I'm not going to wait 2 weeks or a month and then make the trip again.
Exactly. Unless you're in the habit of making regular trips to your local store anyway, there is absolutely no incentive to order through them rather than just doing it yourself.
'Not having what your customer wants on the shelf when they want it is bad' is, and always has been, one of the absolute rules of retail. A business that relies on being able to order what customers ask for is losing sales... because a lot of potential customers just won't ask.
Azreal13 wrote: Of course there's goalposts, the current point was "GW don't offer good value to third party retailers" and then you turn around and say "actually, if you're a global mega corporation with a reach that extends to millions, you'd be quite happy with 0.02 on the dollar."
It's what you always do, subtly alter the criteria to try and make it look like that's what you meant all along.
The original conversation had nothing to do with that. I asked: I don't understand why a GW independent store would feel that it was not worthwhile to make a web order for a customer. There aren't any "goal posts", because I wasn't trying to debate or prove anything. I laid out a web-only perspective of several options to me (as a customer) and in every case, it's preferable to the customer to buy from the independent. You get it quicker, and maybe you get it cheaper. And the store gets to make some more money, for something that takes a few mouse clicks.
We got sidetracked into a separate conversation from there about why anyone would want to carry GW, or some such. And then I was called out for overestimating profit margins on GW products (by you, too, for being naïve, LOL). So I gave you a photo of a trade pricing book to prove GW margins. I'm really not nuts; those are the prices. They make more than 40% if they choose to sell product undiscounted.
Because GW products have a very high selling price, **in my area** the high selling price has resulted in those stores giving decent discounts; it's possible because stores care more about the bottom line (dollars earned) than margin percentages. I know that Frontline Gaming and DarkSphere also discount 25%, too -- for their own reasons, which I don't know.
Take it or leave it; everything there is factual, so there aren't any "goalposts" to move. I don't need to "prove" anything, because there really isn't anything to debate.
Well, I'm not as familiar with North American taxes as I am UK, but what I do have is the address of friends who live in KS, and sufficient interest to run a mock sale through their site, and the RRP on offer on the site does include the tax (the price drops when you add it to cart, then goes back to the original once you give the delivery details.) So, as far as I can tell, those RRPs in the picture you linked do include tax, which would make the discount much closer to the 40% I believed was the maximum, and as you're the only person I've seen claim a higher level I'd say I've probably got the right of it.
In North America, with a small number of exceptions, taxes are added to all advertised prices at the point of sale. Just go to Forgeworld or GW, pick a region, add it to the cart, check out, and you'll see. As you change the province they're shipping to, the tax changes. For some taxes, retailers are charged by distributors the tax, the distributors charge customers the tax, and the distributors remit the difference. For other taxes, retailers are NOT charged by the distributor, but collect it from the customer, and remit it to the government. Sometimes, the retailer may even collect a commission for collecting the tax (and it can add up to thousands of dollars a year)!
In Canada, some jurisdictions use a single tax, while others have a regional and a federal tax. In the United States, there is the possibility of state taxes as well as city taxes. So within the state of Oregon, for example, there is no state tax, and if you live in Portland, you pay zero sales tax; but in another city, you might pay some sales tax.
In addition, in North America, many online retailers don't have to collect or remit taxes (if they don't sell enough stuff, for example, less than $50,000 in a jurisdiction per year). For this reason, many Canadians will buy things online, have it sent to a neighbouring state, and pick it up. They pay no tax, and upon declaration crossing the border, Canada doesn't care enough to get you to fill out the paperwork to collect a tiny bit of tax. As a real example, if you buy a F.A.T. mat and a box of Sigmarites from FLG and send it to Blaine, Washington, you could then drive 15 minutes across the border from Canada, pick it up, declare it legally (show the border the guy the receipt), and pay zero tax.
There is an entire industry of companies that receive goods for people to take advantage of this mechanic, for everything from Warhammer miniatures to computers to patio sets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trasvi wrote: GW stuff makes a decentish margin, but isn't great for FLGS to sell because it requires enormous amounts of space to have anything approaching a viable volume where you can reliably make on-the-spot sales. Though this is a problem for most of the large established wargames - too many SKUs in big boxes. A retailer needs to factor in the amount of space a product line will take in to the margins that product is really making for them. Compare to M:TG, where you can make a thousand dollars of sales a day in the same space required for a single Dark Vengeance box.
Well, you could argue that PP is much worse. It takes up just as much shelf space as 40k -- more for some stores, because of the large number of blisters -- and there's no denying that WMH moves fewer dollars than 40k, generally speaking (ie, some stores of course will sell more PP).
I don't know about you, but for me, part of the magic of going to a hobby shop or gaming store is being able to spend an hour or longer just browsing shelves. It sometimes leads to those impulse buys -- games, models, miniatures that I otherwise may never have considered. Even within collections I already own completely, I usually browse the shelf, and you never know, I may just think, "hey, wouldn't it be cool to have another...". And again, this may simply be regional, but if you live somewhere with a store with DarkSphere/FLG type discounts, it's just cheaper anyhow. Like, no shipping, no minimum order, and you can buy the stuff and take it with you. If they don't have it, usually, they can just order it for you, usually reasonably expeditiously. At a discount! There's just no downside.
But whatever, I get that some people prefer shopping online
IMO, the key to success in a brick and mortar gaming store is to have a lot of stock, even weird stuff that doesn't move quickly, and to know what to discount and what to price high. A lot of things like airbrushes, drill presses, compressors and premium brushes you can jack the price up way high, and people will still buy them. Then, staff with marginal knowledge helps, and all you need past that is a few gaming tables and some trusted people if you're going to allow people to play through the wee hours.
Trasvi wrote: GW stuff makes a decentish margin, but isn't great for FLGS to sell because it requires enormous amounts of space to have anything approaching a viable volume where you can reliably make on-the-spot sales. Though this is a problem for most of the large established wargames - too many SKUs in big boxes. A retailer needs to factor in the amount of space a product line will take in to the margins that product is really making for them. Compare to M:TG, where you can make a thousand dollars of sales a day in the same space required for a single Dark Vengeance box.
Well, you could argue that PP is much worse. It takes up just as much shelf space as 40k -- more for some stores, because of the large number of blisters -- and there's no denying that WMH moves fewer dollars than 40k, generally speaking (ie, some stores of course will sell more PP).
I don't know about you, but for me, part of the magic of going to a hobby shop or gaming store is being able to spend an hour or longer just browsing shelves. It sometimes leads to those impulse buys -- games, models, miniatures that I otherwise may never have considered. Even within collections I already own completely, I usually browse the shelf, and you never know, I may just think, "hey, wouldn't it be cool to have another...". And again, this may simply be regional, but if you live somewhere with a store with DarkSphere/FLG type discounts, it's just cheaper anyhow. Like, no shipping, no minimum order, and you can buy the stuff and take it with you. If they don't have it, usually, they can just order it for you, usually reasonably expeditiously. At a discount! There's just no downside.
But whatever, I get that some people prefer shopping online
IMO, the key to success in a brick and mortar gaming store is to have a lot of stock, even weird stuff that doesn't move quickly, and to know what to discount and what to price high. A lot of things like airbrushes, drill presses, compressors and premium brushes you can jack the price up way high, and people will still buy them. Then, staff with marginal knowledge helps, and all you need past that is a few gaming tables and some trusted people if you're going to allow people to play through the wee hours.
I'm not arguing in favour of any particular Wargame - just that it is a downside of having a product with
a) a very large number of SKUs
b) discerning customers where one SKU isn't able to be substituted for another
c) relatively space consuming
d) different sides of the customer base interested in completely different parts of the product line.
Eg, new customers to a wargame want the basics. The rulebook, the 2-player starter box, the core paint set, the army starter box and the most common troops choice. That kind of thing. Your veteran players want very specific, very diverse things - a character with very specific armament, a particular box of elites - which can't be swapped out for something else: pGrissel and Champions are not eGrissel and Warders, or Shadowsun is not Farsight. Again, thats ALL wargames - GW and PP being the big players, but all the smaller ones suffer the same thing.
The reason GW is getting brought in to this is that their Web Only / Direct Only policies directly inhibit the idea of 'just order it at the store'. It hinders savvy staff from being able to order in what they know will sell well. It increases the turn around time (increasing inconvenience, reducing sales) of being able to order in store. It reduces incentive for staff to order in store (direct-only items have lower margins).
So I will go to my FLGS and look around at all the cool stuff. But if the item isn't in stock that day, I'm not going to see how cool it is and impulse purchase it; and if I was looking specifically for that item, ordering online is easier, quicker and cheaper for me than making another trip down to the store in 3 weeks when my stuff arrives.
To their credit, the huge range of skus is something that GWhave been slowly addressing as more and more boxes move over to being dual (or more) kits. The danger there is that the dual kits have often come with a price increase, making the bozes less attractive as a purchase.
And there's still a long way to go there... There's really no good reason, for example, to have a Rhino available by itself. It should be a dual kit with the Razorback, or better yet just have a single box that includes parts to build any of the various Rhino-chassis vehicles. Likewise with Dreadnoughts and Land Raiders.
Similarly, a lot of the various armies' character options could be catered for with a character box with one or two bodies and a swarm of optional parts, allowing you to just have the one box on the shelf rather than a bunch of blisters.
If it were up to me, I'd be looking at every way possible to combine kits and get that product range as condensed as it can go, to make stocking the whole range more viable for every store.
I think one of the problems for retailers is the boxes that GW decided are 'core' boxes that every store needs to have on their shelf, and how GW decide what goes on that list. I don't think the problem is so bad on the 40k side but for fantasy core troops like High elf archers went direct only, but for Vampire Counts zombies, ghouls, skeletons, wolves, the corpse cart, the morits engine, the terrorgiest and so many other products were made mandatory.
Why? Because the list was updated just as the vampires where updated and they were what was selling.
If GW aren't able to look at that an see where they are going wrong I worry for the people having to stock these mandatory products.
Also just throwing it out there but some of the LotR line was mandatory to carry for a while, as was a lot of the first wave Hobbit stuff before something happened and it disappeared from stores, and even now stores that don't want to carry fantasy have to in order to carry 40k.
I used to feel bad for the indies stocking gw. But at this stage of the game, if they don't know what they're in for then there's something fishy going on. I remember my old (closed now) flgs: the guy was explaining to me how he had to order LotR boxes to maintain his margins. Only, he never sold any of his LotR stuff and it was obvious he never would. It cost money to buy and was dead weight before it even arrived. C'est la vie.
Torga_DW wrote: I used to feel bad for the indies stocking gw. But at this stage of the game, if they don't know what they're in for then there's something fishy going on. I remember my old (closed now) flgs: the guy was explaining to me how he had to order LotR boxes to maintain his margins. Only, he never sold any of his LotR stuff and it was obvious he never would. It cost money to buy and was dead weight before it even arrived. C'est la vie.
But potentially worthwhile if he made enough from the Margins.
I'd heard stories of at least one fairly ruthless reseller buying into an upper discount tier and them dumping the extras on eBay at cost. It really annoyed the small boys. One of the FLGS's up here has pretty regular 50% clearance sales as well for what I suspect is the same reason - keeping the margins up.
Torga_DW wrote: I used to feel bad for the indies stocking gw. But at this stage of the game, if they don't know what they're in for then there's something fishy going on. I remember my old (closed now) flgs: the guy was explaining to me how he had to order LotR boxes to maintain his margins. Only, he never sold any of his LotR stuff and it was obvious he never would. It cost money to buy and was dead weight before it even arrived. C'est la vie.
But potentially worthwhile if he made enough from the Margins.
I'd heard stories of at least one fairly ruthless reseller buying into an upper discount tier and them dumping the extras on eBay at cost. It really annoyed the small boys. One of the FLGS's up here has pretty regular 50% clearance sales as well for what I suspect is the same reason - keeping the margins up.
Mind you; that's what they do with cars as well.
Yeah, but apparently it wasn't. Maybe he should have looked into that ebay thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daddyorchips wrote: there's nothing in this article or any of the comments that changes my mind.
i still think that GW aren't as in the gak as most of you lot think. But they're nowhere near as safe as they think they are.
That's actually where most of us sit. They're headed down but they're not in 'trouble' just yet. Having said that, it's commonsense that if they continuously lose revenue there's a problem. It reminds me of that quote about the how did you lose the business? gradually then quickly thing. I'm waiting to see when the quickly part happens, what decision could be the turning point.
jonolikespie wrote: I think one of the problems for retailers is the boxes that GW decided are 'core' boxes that every store needs to have on their shelf, and how GW decide what goes on that list. I don't think the problem is so bad on the 40k side but for fantasy core troops like High elf archers went direct only, but for Vampire Counts zombies, ghouls, skeletons, wolves, the corpse cart, the morits engine, the terrorgiest and so many other products were made mandatory.
Why? Because the list was updated just as the vampires where updated and they were what was selling.
If GW aren't able to look at that an see where they are going wrong I worry for the people having to stock these mandatory products.
Also just throwing it out there but some of the LotR line was mandatory to carry for a while, as was a lot of the first wave Hobbit stuff before something happened and it disappeared from stores, and even now stores that don't want to carry fantasy have to in order to carry 40k.
I think part it kinda goes to what your talking about but GW has the mindset that a sale to a FLGS is a sale made even if it sits on the shelf forever. The shift to exclusive online sales give GW higher margins; maybe that means some kits that might not sell at high enough volumes can still be profitable but it also promotes moving whatever they know will sell online no matter what to their store.
Personally GWs push to online sales is why I could never find certain Dark Eldar kits and ultimately decided against building an army for them.
@aka_mythos - Dark Eldar are actually pretty well off. Reavers very recently (like 2 months ago?) went Web Only, but there isn't anything else that isn't finecast that's Web Only.
Out of all the finecast models, the only one that's great is Lhamaean -- and like every other finecast hero is web-only, but Lhamaean is easy enough to kitbash yourself one out of wyches.
There's the marginally useful Grotesque, and I say marginally, because although he's great in terms of rules, the model is freaking expensive for $25 single finecast (considering you play them in a unit of 3, too...) and it's not exactly a stellar model. I own 6, and all 6 are terrible casts that required a lot of remediation.
You have a bunch of terrible heroes, but that's really the codex at work... Does anyone actually field Urien Rakkarth or Lelith Hesperax? Incubi and Mandrakes are difficult finecast models to work with and, charitably, aren't very exciting on the field. Medusa is okay, I guess. But again, finecast is not for a good medium for most players/modellers.
I don't know about the timing of Reavers going "Web Only" but I know about a year ago I went to a number of different FLGS and was told the same, that GW wouldn't let them restock them.
I was wondering why I could never find reaver jetbikes at the store anymore. I've been wanting to get another box but they've never had them when I wanted them.
I can't imagine the frustration of owning a store and trying to sell GW product. They won't let you sell what people actually want, and force you to stock a bunch of garbage that they can't even figure out how to get rid of to pay for the privilege.
insaniak wrote: GW's models are nice as game pieces, but are left well behind by miniatures made specifically for display. Their materials are nice (easy to work with, durable, etc) for game pieces, but as more and more of the range shifts to their soft polystyrene mix are left behind by model kits made for display in the right plastic for that use.
Could someone elaborate? What mix, which kits etc. I seem to have missed that, I mean I bought fairly recent kits like Glotkin or IK but those went to the queue and are still unpacked. I mainly buy old whfb kits atm before they're gone. Thanks.
Most model kits use some form of polystyrene, which is cast in an injection mould under high pressure.
The specific plastic mix that is plays a large part in determining the quality of the final cast. A harder mix tends to result in crisper detail, but at the expense of being a little more brittle. A softer mix is a little more durable, but not as good at forming hard edges.
GW has always used a fairly soft mix (although it's changed a bit from time to time, and their current plastics are much softer than what they started out with) as they want the durability - these are game pieces after all, and need to stand up to frequent handling.
But that means that they're never going to have the same crisp detail as a good model kit made in a harder plastic, or that their own metal models had, or that Forgeworld (or anyone else) can achieve with resin.
Thanks, I know most of that but I get what you meant now. I am all for durability up to a point so it's fine with me, for a moment I snapped and thought GW went restic or sth heh. I know you wrote polystyrene but hey I'm drunk and all and you can't get enough of that lovely pvc after you try heh.
) while it's a bit more difficult to approach a discussion objectively.
If they can't even get within $25M/33% on one of their estimates I'm not sure I trust any of them."
But either way, a scale like this appeals to me greatly:
) and I struggle to get interested in new universes now and without that background I can't really get interested in an associated game regardless of how technically good it might be.
