Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm not convinced the current toy market in the US would be willing to accept an unbuilt, unpainted board game at this point in time. I'm not sure stores like toys R us even sell anything beyond the standard licensed and Milton Bradley board games these days. They don't sell some of the basic "boutique" family games like TTR and Zooloretto that even my local Meijer or target does (though they keep getting clearanced out....not a great sign)

You'd think they'd be able to capture some of the older Lego crowd at least.

In the US, Target sells games like FFG X-Wing and Smallworld.

I cant see how they would be, their prices raise nearly every year :(

 Peregrine wrote:

It would take you a minute to find it if you had a reason to look. Yes, a lot of people have heard of 40k, but that's not enough. You advertise in places that potential customers might be found because you want to get them thinking about your game and coming back to the idea. For example, consider MTG, which does lots of online advertising despite the fact that most of the people seeing the ads have probably heard of it at least once. Why? Because there are people who heard about it once, weren't interested at the time, and forgot about it. Because there are people who heard about it 10 years ago when some people at their school played, and might be curious and take a look if they saw a hint of how cool the game is. Because there are people who used to play and might play again if they see ads that bring back happy memories of the game. Etc.

This.

I got HeroQuest from Argos (a UK catalog based store chain, there's one in most major towns with a retail presence) as something to paint and play with (aged about 8), and a few years later (aged about 10) I got 2nd ed 40K from the same place which I played with for years before discovering that they had a bigger range and dedicated shops in a dedicated shop in another shopping centre we visited occasionally (where I could go whilst my parents did grocery shopping).

Had it not been for the high street presence I've no idea if I'd have stumbled across GW at all. That doesn't exist now so really the only way to get into it is if someone you know introduces you or you happen to live where you can pass a store (which I'd never have encountered until I was about 14 and allowed to travel into the city on my own).

I've easily spent thousands on gaming products in the 15 years since, as have the friends I'd introduced to it, so the approach certainly worked for them.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:


Yep, thats fair enough - they didn't up the price as much as I remembered.

Might wanna drop the snide attitude though mate, its not pleasant and not gonna win you many admirers.

My apologies if you thought I was snide; I thought I was merely correcting a fact - and a kind of group think , where demonstrably wrong statistics go unchallenged.

I could have said something like "pull your head out of the dirt," or said the statistics were "demonstrable nonsense" , or " you're not paying attention" - perhaps that is a more acceptable attitude? Does that win your admiration?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:


Yep, thats fair enough - they didn't up the price as much as I remembered.

Might wanna drop the snide attitude though mate, its not pleasant and not gonna win you many admirers.

My apologies if you thought I was snide; I thought I was merely correcting a fact - and a kind of group think , where demonstrably wrong statistics go unchallenged.

I could have said something like "pull your head out of the dirt," or said the statistics were "demonstrable nonsense" , or " you're not paying attention" - perhaps that is a more acceptable attitude? Does that win your admiration?

Ooh, splendid! Well done on toning down the snide.

You do realise that if you keep posting in this manner nobody is going to actually listen to you? Your username will become synonymous with a poor attitude, and people will either put you on ignore or simply disregard anything you say.

Now, I can see the "why should I care what people on the Internet think of me?" response hoving into view, but if you care enough to register and post, I assume you care enough about making a valid contribution.

I like how you apologize for being snide with a snide comment. SNIDECEPTION.

 azreal13 wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:


Yep, thats fair enough - they didn't up the price as much as I remembered.

Might wanna drop the snide attitude though mate, its not pleasant and not gonna win you many admirers.

My apologies if you thought I was snide; I thought I was merely correcting a fact - and a kind of group think , where demonstrably wrong statistics go unchallenged.

I could have said something like "pull your head out of the dirt," or said the statistics were "demonstrable nonsense" , or " you're not paying attention" - perhaps that is a more acceptable attitude? Does that win your admiration?

Ooh, splendid! Well done on toning down the snide.

You do realise that if you keep posting in this manner nobody is going to actually listen to you? Your username will become synonymous with a poor attitude, and people will either put you on ignore or simply disregard anything you say.

Now, I can see the "why should I care what people on the Internet think of me?" response hoving into view, but if you care enough to register and post, I assume you care enough about making a valid contribution.

I can like people who disagree with me - that's part of the art of discussion, isn't it?.

Read back through these posts, and you'll find gratuitous rudeness to those who challenge the groupthink. Read back, also and you'll see I also pointed out evidence in your favour, like GW's poor P/E ratio. If your argument is strong, surely you can handle people pointing out incorrect assumptions or statistics?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
The tourney/competative growd have never been GW's target audience. I doubt they even consider them when designing rules/models, so anecdotal evidence of tournament go-ers giving up 40k isn't that helpful.

You've brought up this point before and it remains demonstrable nonsense. Tournaments were a big deal back in the 90's. GW used to run all sorts of events, from the actual Grand Tournaments to various roadshows. Jervis hardly ever stopped banging on about them during the days of 2nd Ed.

so I'm wrong and second edition 40k was balanced between the different armies for tournament play? I've played 40k on and off since I was a kid and while tournaments were mentioned in white dwarf, the focus was entirely on silly, fun rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don't bother hivefleet oblivion. I've seen posted an army wide comparison of price increases that were 5- 10% above inflation, but those posters just get flamed until they leave the thread, at which point 'gw are doubling prices' becomes gospel fact.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:


Yep, thats fair enough - they didn't up the price as much as I remembered.

Might wanna drop the snide attitude though mate, its not pleasant and not gonna win you many admirers.

My apologies if you thought I was snide; I thought I was merely correcting a fact - and a kind of group think , where demonstrably wrong statistics go unchallenged.

I could have said something like "pull your head out of the dirt," or said the statistics were "demonstrable nonsense" , or " you're not paying attention" - perhaps that is a more acceptable attitude? Does that win your admiration?

Ooh, splendid! Well done on toning down the snide.

You do realise that if you keep posting in this manner nobody is going to actually listen to you? Your username will become synonymous with a poor attitude, and people will either put you on ignore or simply disregard anything you say.

Now, I can see the "why should I care what people on the Internet think of me?" response hoving into view, but if you care enough to register and post, I assume you care enough about making a valid contribution.

I can like people who disagree with me - that's part of the art of discussion, isn't it?.

Read back through these posts, and you'll find gratuitous rudeness to those who challenge the groupthink. Read back, also and you'll see I also pointed out evidence in your favour, like GW's poor P/E ratio. If your argument is strong, surely you can handle people pointing out incorrect assumptions or statistics?

I'll admit there have been crimes on both sides, but often that's a result of historical interaction between users.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but my overall impression of your posts, which is by no means an accusation about you in general or every post you have written, is they tend to be antagonistic and a little inflammatory, which when you are representing a 'minority' viewpoint, as you rightly say not the general group think, only undermine your argument.

JWhex wrote:
Many people say that GW needs to market more but I am still waiting to hear some good suggestions.

I think it is reasonable to suppose that GW internally has had a lot of discussions on how to market their products. For all we know they may have hired a marketing firm or consultant and did not like the results. Or for that matter they may be following the results of a consultant's study.

The whole clamp down on rumours could be the advice of a marketing company, no one posting here knows one way or the other.

Again its one of those things that you cant really know about unless you are on the inside. Interestingly though GW has built a significant market in the US without any meaningful advertising at all and no dominant position of having GW stores in a high density either.

As far as increasing their presence or doing more marketing on the web, I actually find that kind of funny. The web is practically bursting with information about 40k and fantasy and it would take a 9 year old less than 1 minute to find the GW webstore.

Nope, no marketing company; as an investor I'd be informed and anyone for that matter through the quarterly reports. In recent years GW has turned towards lazy marketing in the form of licensing their IP to 3rd parties.

How would the 9 year old know to look if they're not already into wargames?

Funnily enough, long ago GW used to make a beginner's set with purple snap together gene stealers and blue snap together marines...

 BryllCream wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
The tourney/competative growd have never been GW's target audience. I doubt they even consider them when designing rules/models, so anecdotal evidence of tournament go-ers giving up 40k isn't that helpful.

You've brought up this point before and it remains demonstrable nonsense. Tournaments were a big deal back in the 90's. GW used to run all sorts of events, from the actual Grand Tournaments to various roadshows. Jervis hardly ever stopped banging on about them during the days of 2nd Ed.

so I'm wrong and second edition 40k was balanced between the different armies for tournament play? I've played 40k on and off since I was a kid and while tournaments were mentioned in white dwarf, the focus was entirely on silly, fun rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don't bother hivefleet oblivion. I've seen posted an army wide comparison of price increases that were 5- 10% above inflation, but those posters just get flamed until they leave the thread, at which point 'gw are doubling prices' becomes gospel fact.

Your analysis was flawed at best, cherry picking items that had transitioned from metal to plastic and from blisters to boxed sets and over a specific time from which supported your assertions best. At the very worst, those who claim the doubling of prices are doing exactly the same.

As for your point about tourneys, when exactly when were you a kid? I was under the impression I had models older than you?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:


Yep, thats fair enough - they didn't up the price as much as I remembered.

Might wanna drop the snide attitude though mate, its not pleasant and not gonna win you many admirers.

My apologies if you thought I was snide; I thought I was merely correcting a fact - and a kind of group think , where demonstrably wrong statistics go unchallenged.

I could have said something like "pull your head out of the dirt," or said the statistics were "demonstrable nonsense" , or " you're not paying attention" - perhaps that is a more acceptable attitude? Does that win your admiration?

Lol, yea, I was being snide when I wrote "pull your head out of the dirt." But, really, BC was probably demanding the reference to be a D-bag.

 BryllCream wrote:
so I'm wrong and second edition 40k was balanced between the different armies for tournament play? I've played 40k on and off since I was a kid and while tournaments were mentioned in white dwarf, the focus was entirely on silly, fun rules.

Supposedly that was the entire reason for the massive changes in 3rd edition, the "streamlining" of the game and removal of a lot of the wackiness, so that it would be faster to play and better-balanced to accommodate for tournament play, because a lot of people were organizing tournaments regardless (albeit with pages of house rules because of how unbalanced 2nd edition was, if I'm not mistaken) and the fanbase was kinda demanding it. Point costs also dropped across the board because people were playing with bigger armies and GW saw an opportunity to sell more models. They also started hosting official tournaments (the GT's). So by all rights they were, at one point in time at least, interested in supporting that part of their fanbase that wanted a mass battle game that could be played competitively in a reasonable amount of time, and changed the game to accommodate for it.

I wasn't around for all this obviously, I came in around the last days of 4th edition, so this is just what I've heard from various people in the online community. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I've always heard: tournaments were very popular and they essentially gave birth to the rules we're still mostly playing with today, albeit with a lot of the wackiness slowly getting added back in because GW has ceased caring.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
so I'm wrong and second edition 40k was balanced between the different armies for tournament play? I've played 40k on and off since I was a kid and while tournaments were mentioned in white dwarf, the focus was entirely on silly, fun rules.

Supposedly that was the entire reason for the massive changes in 3rd edition, the "streamlining" of the game and removal of a lot of the wackiness, so that it would be faster to play and better-balanced to accommodate for tournament play, because a lot of people were organizing tournaments regardless (albeit with pages of house rules because of how unbalanced 2nd edition was, if I'm not mistaken) and the fanbase was kinda demanding it. Point costs also dropped across the board because people were playing with bigger armies and GW saw an opportunity to sell more models. They also started hosting official tournaments (the GT's). So by all rights they were, at one point in time at least, interested in supporting that part of their fanbase that wanted a mass battle game that could be played competitively in a reasonable amount of time, and changed the game to accommodate for it.

I wasn't around for all this obviously, I came in around the last days of 4th edition, so this is just what I've heard from various people in the online community. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I've always heard: tournaments were very popular and they essentially gave birth to the rules we're still mostly playing with today, albeit with a lot of the wackiness slowly getting added back in because GW has ceased caring.

I can support the streamlining from 2nd to 3rd. I played extensively through 2nd, while I wasn't a 'competitive' player I didn't lose much either. My first game of 3rd saw my Avatar, who in 2nd was a strong character in an edition that was all about uber HQs, gunned down by bolter fire.

I'm not proud, but I rage quit, sold all my models and didn't play another game until mid 5th. With a little more hindsight and maturity though, I appreciate the direction they were trying to go, and have continued to go to an extent, and I think, despite its well discussed flaws, that 40k has become a better game. I am actually enjoying some of the wackiness of 6th for nostalgic reasons, as much has been pinched from second, but I think 5th was probably a better ruleset overall.

weeble1000 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm not convinced the current toy market in the US would be willing to accept an unbuilt, unpainted board game at this point in time. I'm not sure stores like toys R us even sell anything beyond the standard licensed and Milton Bradley board games these days. They don't sell some of the basic "boutique" family games like TTR and Zooloretto that even my local Meijer or target does (though they keep getting clearanced out....not a great sign)

You'd think they'd be able to capture some of the older Lego crowd at least.

In the US, Target sells games like FFG X-Wing and Smallworld.

Yeah...I sorta said that in my post. Perhaps I should have used Small World and FFG X-Wing instead of TTR and Zooloretto?

The Target example worries me, though. The Target's by us have been routinely clearancing out some of the boutique games. X-Wing isn't there yet, nor is Small World, but Zooloretto, all the FFG Silver Line products they've carried, and Munchkin have been clearanced and phased out.

Don't get me wrong, I LOOOOOVE that the stores are starting to carry these games, but the fact that they've been on the clearance pile doesnt speak terribly well for their performance in the stores.

For a GW 'gateway' game to make it Toys R Us, I imagine the price point would have to be pretty low (around $60 and under?) and GW would have to be willing to make the effort to get it in a store, which in the US would probably need to be through partnership. I'd love to see it happen, but that pricepoint and the path they'd need to take doesn't exactly fit the GW modus operandi of late.

 cincydooley wrote:
For a GW 'gateway' game to make it Toys R Us, I imagine the price point would have to be pretty low (around $60 and under?) and GW would have to be willing to make the effort to get it in a store, which in the US would probably need to be through partnership. I'd love to see it happen, but that pricepoint and the path they'd need to take doesn't exactly fit the GW modus operandi of late.

Pretty much.

I don't think they'll do it because:

a) They believe in their own control of distribution being the best choice.
b) Their pricing structure puts starters at $100+ products
c) Miniature gaming is one area they won't partner/license with another company

 Sidstyler wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
so I'm wrong and second edition 40k was balanced between the different armies for tournament play? I've played 40k on and off since I was a kid and while tournaments were mentioned in white dwarf, the focus was entirely on silly, fun rules.

Supposedly that was the entire reason for the massive changes in 3rd edition, the "streamlining" of the game and removal of a lot of the wackiness, so that it would be faster to play and better-balanced to accommodate for tournament play, because a lot of people were organizing tournaments regardless (albeit with pages of house rules because of how unbalanced 2nd edition was, if I'm not mistaken) and the fanbase was kinda demanding it. Point costs also dropped across the board because people were playing with bigger armies and GW saw an opportunity to sell more models. They also started hosting official tournaments (the GT's). So by all rights they were, at one point in time at least, interested in supporting that part of their fanbase that wanted a mass battle game that could be played competitively in a reasonable amount of time, and changed the game to accommodate for it.

I wasn't around for all this obviously, I came in around the last days of 4th edition, so this is just what I've heard from various people in the online community. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I've always heard: tournaments were very popular and they essentially gave birth to the rules we're still mostly playing with today, albeit with a lot of the wackiness slowly getting added back in because GW has ceased caring.

I was around then, also was an beta tester *cough outrider too* for those rules so long ago. I personally liked 3rd over 5th (and I'm meh on 6th because of the time constraints in playing the game). Not so much as the rule set themselves but the wealth and quality of services Games Workshop had back then.

Recruiting people to game played an important back then, because the GW Doctrine, was not as much burn and churn as it is now. They needed veterans to recruit players. A smart Manager used those Vets to generate sales, help created terrain, give painting lessons and so on.

GW stores were open for 55 hours a week. They had interesting things online such a Black Gobbo a free zine. World campaigns. Sanctioned tournaments. Anyone remember Boot camp? When you paid 50 bucks and you learned all of the basic aspects of the game, from painting to making terrain to playing the game. And at the end of 6 weeks you go to pick out your transport case.

These are the things now missing from Games Workshop.

Now again I have said that the next GW financial report will show a profit. It has to, just because of the massive amount of product being produced plus the increase of price of those products to a ever declining customer base.

If GW were to post those profits with all that I have stated previously about quality of services that they used to have then I believe this topic would not exist.

They would be perceived as a healthy and profitable company. We have enough information to show that the corporation is a distressed one. I

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
so I'm wrong and second edition 40k was balanced between the different armies for tournament play? I've played 40k on and off since I was a kid and while tournaments were mentioned in white dwarf, the focus was entirely on silly, fun rules.

Supposedly that was the entire reason for the massive changes in 3rd edition, the "streamlining" of the game and removal of a lot of the wackiness, so that it would be faster to play and better-balanced to accommodate for tournament play, because a lot of people were organizing tournaments regardless (albeit with pages of house rules because of how unbalanced 2nd edition was, if I'm not mistaken) and the fanbase was kinda demanding it. Point costs also dropped across the board because people were playing with bigger armies and GW saw an opportunity to sell more models. They also started hosting official tournaments (the GT's). So by all rights they were, at one point in time at least, interested in supporting that part of their fanbase that wanted a mass battle game that could be played competitively in a reasonable amount of time, and changed the game to accommodate for it.

I wasn't around for all this obviously, I came in around the last days of 4th edition, so this is just what I've heard from various people in the online community. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I've always heard: tournaments were very popular and they essentially gave birth to the rules we're still mostly playing with today, albeit with a lot of the wackiness slowly getting added back in because GW has ceased caring.

I was around then, also was an beta tester *cough outrider too* for those rules so long ago. I personally liked 3rd over 5th (and I'm meh on 6th because of the time constraints in playing the game). Not so much as the rule set themselves but the wealth and quality of services Games Workshop had back then.

Recruiting people to game played an important back then, because the GW Doctrine, was not as much burn and churn as it is now. They needed veterans to recruit players. A smart Manager used those Vets to generate sales, help created terrain, give painting lessons and so on.

GW stores were open for 55 hours a week. They had interesting things online such a Black Gobbo a free zine. World campaigns. Sanctioned tournaments. Anyone remember Boot camp? When you paid 50 bucks and you learned all of the basic aspects of the game, from painting to making terrain to playing the game. And at the end of 6 weeks you go to pick out your transport case.

These are the things now missing from Games Workshop.

Now again I have said that the next GW financial report will show a profit. It has to, just because of the massive amount of product being produced plus the increase of price of those products to a ever declining customer base.

If GW were to post those profits with all that I have stated previously about quality of services that they used to have then I believe this topic would not exist.

They would be perceived as a healthy and profitable company. We have enough information to show that the corporation is a distressed one.

3e remains my favorite version of 40K - and in fact I gave up on the game with 4th edition, and have not bothered with 5th. With 4th the primary concern was rule changes that I disagreed with, and that were kept for 5th. (Blast weapons, as an example.)

By 5th... it no longer seemed worth the prices.

So... no longer a target audience. It is unlikely that I will go back to 40K, barring much more attractive prices and rules that I actually like. And, yes, hard feelings likely are a part of it, but less than just not liking the rules changes and pricing changes.

I do not think that either is likely, but this is a case where being wrong would be much better than being right - and I have been wrong before; Wizards of the Coast, as an example, has admitted that mistakes wre made, GW could do the same.

But as things stand, and as I think they are likely to stand for the future... I am pretty much done with GW's current lines.... And they have announced the end of the Specialist line - last bastion of the GW games that I still play.

The Auld Grump

The last time something like this came up didn't somebody say GW tried to get in with Walmart or something and got laughed out of the boardroom for trying to call the shots. I remeber readying that somewhere?

Insert x doom and gloom wih y new thread of same z

I thought that was pretty funny myself. I can buy it too because GW is arrogant enough to do something like that.

 pities2004 wrote:
Insert x doom and gloom wih y new thread of same z

Don't post? What are you trying to accomplish exactly? Just trolling, then?

 wowsmash wrote:
The last time something like this came up didn't somebody say GW tried to get in with Walmart or something and got laughed out of the boardroom for trying to call the shots. I remeber readying that somewhere?

I don't remember that but the sad part is I would believe it.

Wal-mart is tremendously difficult to work with. I've done presentations at their corporate office in Benton, and even when they are self-admittedly not the subject matter experts, they will still act like the subject matter experts.

Their benchmarks are also largely around beating the lowest imaginable price out of their suppliers, which does not in the least bit mesh with GW's current model.

GW is the biggest player in their pond, but Wal-mart is the biggest player in the ocean of brick-and-mortar retail. If GW attempted to act like a bigger fish, does not surprise me in the least that they got shut down hard.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I thought that was pretty funny myself. I can buy it too because GW is arrogant enough to do something like that.

 pities2004 wrote:
Insert x doom and gloom wih y new thread of same z

Don't post? What are you trying to accomplish exactly? Just trolling, then?

If anyone is trolling it's these pointless threads about doom and gloom of GW that pop up every day talking about the same stuff.

The sky isn't falling yet.

I lean towards not in financial trouble yet, but heading that way. Sales volumes, not revenue, and the history and changes of it, is conveniently missing from all their reports. Elementary school lvl math shows revenue increase is not and has not been congruent with price hikes for a while now. Now some speculate (because that is what it is) that GW is just maximizing profit, well that could be the case, how ever you can only cannibalize your consumer base for so long before revenue starts falling as well. With out sales volumes we simply do not know nor can a trend be discerned. This is very useful investor information, one has to wonder why it is not made public if in theory it supports their current model.

I think after 10 pages of speculation and flaming we're done here.

Fret not though, I'm sure a similar thread will be along soon enough.