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.

 Flippa wrote:
I thought they had when they said 40k isn't a balanced game for tournies, it's a beer n pretzels game with your friends! Although as a British company I'm sure they said Cuppa and Rich Tea!

The problem is, it isn't balanced for pick up games either.

I cant watch vids at work.. is there a summary or is it just the same old "consumers are sheeple and will buy whatever we make" thing?

 MWHistorian wrote:
If you've read most of it, why are you still asking why people are leaving?

I´m not. I´m asking about a different thing, as I stated in my post.

Well I don't see massive balance issues in WFB but maybe I'm playing the wrong people. 40k on the other hand well.. I have Dark Angels so that should say a lot, but seeing as I don't have a bad win/loss ratio, but I agree there are some overly powerful armies out there but I've never been one to army hop. I still have my orcs n gobbos and nurgle for WFP and 40K and my Dark Angels, Howling Griffons and Imperial Guard for 40k

Pacific, excellent counter points and a solid argument. No rebuttal from me!

WayneTheGame wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW's ignoring criticism is only making the situation worse. Even if they don't fix the problems, letting people know that they're aware of them would still go a long way.

Exactly. Instead they act as though there are no problems at all, and their rabid fans decry anyone hinting there are problems as "haters"

This is my biggest issue with the people (rabid fans) who are satisfied with everything GW does. I don't have any problem with them loving and supporting the company. What I do take issue with is, they all seem to actually ignore valid criticisms, instead of showing concern. They should want GW to listen to the unsatisfied customers, before they become non customers.The recent numbers suggest more people are leaving than entering the GW part of the hobby. Bleeding customers isn't going to help the long term stability of the company.

 Flippa wrote:
I thought they had when they said 40k isn't a balanced game for tournies, it's a beer n pretzels game with your friends! Although as a British company I'm sure they said Cuppa and Rich Tea!

That's not addressing problems, that's handwaving them and saying "Go away"

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Flippa wrote:
I thought they had when they said 40k isn't a balanced game for tournies, it's a beer n pretzels game with your friends! Although as a British company I'm sure they said Cuppa and Rich Tea!

That's not addressing problems, that's handwaving them and saying "Go away"

I'm inclined to believe you, however I don't think GW do or indeed care. The only time they will take note is if people stop buying their models, and I don't see that happening any time soon :(.

 Flippa wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Flippa wrote:
I thought they had when they said 40k isn't a balanced game for tournies, it's a beer n pretzels game with your friends! Although as a British company I'm sure they said Cuppa and Rich Tea!

That's not addressing problems, that's handwaving them and saying "Go away"

I'm inclined to believe you, however I don't think GW do or indeed care. The only time they will take note is if people stop buying their models, and I don't see that happening any time soon :(.

Well, their sales are declining and therefore so is profit, so all it will take is a few more years of that before they start to get worried, but by then it will likely be too late.

 Flippa wrote:
I thought they had when they said 40k isn't a balanced game for tournies, it's a beer n pretzels game with your friends! Although as a British company I'm sure they said Cuppa and Rich Tea!

'Bombers over the Sulfa River' was a 'beer & pretzels game'.

'Brewhouse Bash' was a 'beer and pretzels game'.

WHFB and Warhammer 40K? With gazillion-page-rulebooks, a boatload of separate books for each army, and countless hordes of individual supplements and 'dataslates' and the like?

Not so much.


A Beer & Pretzels game is one that can be played with little mental effort or concentration, potentially to allow the players to socialise and imbibe said beer and pretzels while playing.

Writing a million rules and not proof-reading them before publication, and then also refusing to fix them after publication does not make a Beer & Pretzels game. Just a badly-written one.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Flippa wrote:
I thought they had when they said 40k isn't a balanced game for tournies, it's a beer n pretzels game with your friends! Although as a British company I'm sure they said Cuppa and Rich Tea!

That's not addressing problems, that's handwaving them and saying "Go away"

Indeed.

Surely the whole point of a "beer and pretzels" game is that it can be played casually, and the tighter and less ambiguous the rules, the easier that becomes. Not having to repeatedly look up rules or decide things by roll-off...!

 Fezman wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Flippa wrote:
I thought they had when they said 40k isn't a balanced game for tournies, it's a beer n pretzels game with your friends! Although as a British company I'm sure they said Cuppa and Rich Tea!

That's not addressing problems, that's handwaving them and saying "Go away"

Indeed.

Surely the whole point of a "beer and pretzels" game is that it can be played casually, and the tighter and less ambiguous the rules, the easier that becomes. Not having to repeatedly look up rules or decide things by roll-off...!

Or require a few hundred dollars and many hours of time to have a playable force. A beer and pretzels game is supposed to be easy to learn and just bring out to play when you have some friends over for an evening. I guess if you stretch that definition a loooooooong way 40k kinda maybe if you squint really hard fits into that category, if your friends are explicitly coming over to play 40k and bringing their armies.

It would be a Beer and pretzel game is there was actually Beer and pretzels. but they sell nither of those things a GW.

 Flippa wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Flippa wrote:
I thought they had when they said 40k isn't a balanced game for tournies, it's a beer n pretzels game with your friends! Although as a British company I'm sure they said Cuppa and Rich Tea!

That's not addressing problems, that's handwaving them and saying "Go away"

I'm inclined to believe you, however I don't think GW do or indeed care. The only time they will take note is if people stop buying their models, and I don't see that happening any time soon :(.

Calling 40K Beer and Pretzels is akin to saying you're ok with paying £15 for a single game of pool in a pub.

Also, Flippa, people ARE stopping buying GW minis, the reasons are debatable, but the facts are that revenue has fallen in two consecutive reports - that is less money is being given to GW, something that can't be explained away by fancy webstores or any other cost cutting or hand waving measures.

Honestly, your first sentence says "vice" when it should be "versus". I know it seems small, and an easy fix, but if you sent that in with grammatical errors like that or using the wrong wording, it would make it look like you didn't take time to proof read it, so why should they? I'm not trying to be anal or pick on you, I just want you fully aware of what the real-world reaction should be to the document as is. That said, fix up the errors, and I hope you have some luck. Prior experiences are against you though, I'm afraid. Good luck.


And I actually had to go back and proof read my own response, because autocorrect is an asshat that should be defenstrated.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Honestly, your first sentence says "vice" when it should be "versus".

vice, preposition, : in the place of "I will preside, vice the absent chairman"; also: rather than

*defenestrated




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, just signed. Almost 2500? That's more than I expected!

 Azreal13 wrote:


Calling 40K Beer and Pretzels is akin to saying you're ok with paying £15 for a single game of pool in a pub.

Also, Flippa, people ARE stopping buying GW minis, the reasons are debatable, but the facts are that revenue has fallen in two consecutive reports - that is less money is being given to GW, something that can't be explained away by fancy webstores or any other cost cutting or hand waving measures.

You won't get any argument from me about the decline in sales, that's as clear as day, even to White Knighters

Hopefully with Kirby gone/going we can get some normality back to the hobby, just don't expect things to change too much. Codex/Army List creep will still be there, nerfing of some units and buffing of others will still be there.

Like I said in my previous post all it would take for GW to "Fix" the current problem scenario is to create 2 polished skirmish games in WFB & 40k and all their problems will just vanish overnight.

Anybody that wants to see an impartial view on GW need only read through my posting history. When I first joined dakka 4 or 5 years ago I was an ardent supporter of the company and dismissed almost all criticism levelled at the company as childish whinging by neckbeards who take their hobby far too seriously.

Fast forward to the present, and I still think some of the criticism is a bit too much, and many of the haters do take their hobby far too seriously, but I defiantly loathe the company, and find many aspects of their business practices to be mindbogglingly stupid.

Honestly how Kirby has kept his job for so long blows my mind, they make so many trivial errors it defies belief.

 Flippa wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Calling 40K Beer and Pretzels is akin to saying you're ok with paying £15 for a single game of pool in a pub.

Also, Flippa, people ARE stopping buying GW minis, the reasons are debatable, but the facts are that revenue has fallen in two consecutive reports - that is less money is being given to GW, something that can't be explained away by fancy webstores or any other cost cutting or hand waving measures.

You won't get any argument from me about the decline in sales, that's as clear as day, even to White Knighters

Hopefully with Kirby gone/going we can get some normality back to the hobby, just don't expect things to change too much. Codex/Army List creep will still be there, nerfing of some units and buffing of others will still be there.

Like I said in my previous post all it would take for GW to "Fix" the current problem scenario is to create 2 polished skirmish games in WFB & 40k and all their problems will just vanish overnight.

I admire you're sentiments, I really do, and I agree Skirmish level games for the two core products would lower barrier to entry and that would make a tremendous difference, but 40K needs its ruleset thoroughly revised and codexes written with at least a thumbnail sketch of relative checks and balances already decided before even one book is published. FB, as I understand it, suffers more with an image problem than anything else, and maybe a Skirmish game to bridge the gap for beginners and less reliance on massive (expensive) blocks of models may be enough alongside a changed focus. (You know what I'd do with a massive sales force at my beck and call? Offer them more money to sell more WHFB!)

On the Kirby issue, he remains as Chairman, and the skuttlebutt has it that the new CEO is a existing staff member (no doubt hand picked) so don't expect that to change for at least a couple of years until he hits retirement age (assuming he DOES retire.)

Certain actions do suggest that someone, somewhere, is making an effort to try and turn things around, but without a mechanism to communicate with the customer base I fear they'll continue with the "good concept, flawed execution" that has dogged many of their better ideas in the last couple of years.

I signed it, no hope or anything, but I guess signing it is better than nothing.

Is there a target of 2500 signatures or will it simply keep growing?

 mattyrm wrote:
Anybody that wants to see an impartial view on GW need only read through my posting history. When I first joined dakka 4 or 5 years ago I was an ardent supporter of the company and dismissed almost all criticism levelled at the company as childish whinging by neckbeards who take their hobby far too seriously.

Fast forward to the present, and I still think some of the criticism is a bit too much, and many of the haters do take their hobby far too seriously, but I defiantly loathe the company, and find many aspects of their business practices to be mindbogglingly stupid.

Honestly how Kirby has kept his job for so long blows my mind, they make so many trivial errors it defies belief.

Quoted for truth.

Personally though, I still don't think you can accuse too many people of taking the hobby "too seriously", not when we're talking about a hobby that costs thousands of dollars and years of your life. Your armies aren't just some product you mindlessly bought off of a shelf in a pre-assembled, crappily-painted state, each one practically has a part of you in it. And in the case of accidents with certain hobby tools, maybe even literally.

While I don't disagree, Sid, I am currently not working because of health issues, making wargaming, and being online talking about wargaming, one of the major focuses in my life outside of friends/family.

Even taking all that into account, there's probably a large handful of posters I could name in fairly short order who regularly make me think "you need some other thing to focus on in your life!"

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Honestly, your first sentence says "vice" when it should be "versus"..

'Versus' is used when to things are opposed to each other. 'Vice' is used when indicating a substitution... which is what that first sentence is about.

So no, it shouldn't be 'versus' at all.

ALMOST UP TO 2500 SIGNATURES, PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE

 Mr. Burning wrote:
When thinking of GW and communicating with them always consider the following:

Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning
teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are
otiose in a niche.

And this lovely bit:

Directors report: Research and development (pg 14)
"The Group does not undertake research activities. Development activities relate to the development of new product lines. The charge to
the income statement for the year in respect of development activities is detailed in note 9 to the financial statements."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW's ignoring criticism is only making the situation worse. Even if they don't fix the problems, letting people know that they're aware of them would still go a long way.

This is the core reason I wrote the petition. To show, to at least someone, that there are unhappy consumers out there and that they should at least come to mind when making decisions, even if for a moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Additionally this little gem is in the report
In the chairman's preamble he mentions they spent 4 mil on the new webstore "The new web store allows us to sell online more efficiently. It
cost around £4 million."
But under their strategic report is this:
"Mail order
Our new online shop was launched this year and our online sales are broadly in line with the prior year."

Meaning that their fancy smancy webstore failed to do anything meaningfull

People make a big deal about quitting because they've genuinely enjoyed the product and are sad too see it go. they care,like when someone breaks up there upset because they enjoyed it

GW is doing a classic business mistake which has been the downfall of many businesses, and also being somewhat involved in the small business scene myself is the greatest mistake that companies continuously make

doing what they think is right and what they agree with business wise , rather than face the reality of the market and adjust those policies accordingly and doing things which they may hate but ultimately let their business grow

They've become comfortable and are refusing to change

 GothmogLordofBalrogs wrote:

Additionally this little gem is in the report
In the chairman's preamble he mentions they spent 4 mil on the new webstore "The new web store allows us to sell online more efficiently. It
cost around £4 million."
But under their strategic report is this:
"Mail order
Our new online shop was launched this year and our online sales are broadly in line with the prior year."

Meaning that their fancy smancy webstore failed to do anything meaningfull

That's not quite accurate.

He said that the new webstore would let them sell more efficiently, not that it would increase sales.

If they are seeing more or less the same sales volume through the new webstore, for less work, then that's a win.

Whether or not it's £4 million pounds worth of win would depend on the actual cost of sales figures.


And having said that, I still think that £4 million is an insane amount to spend on what looks like a straight-out-of-the-box e-Commerce solution. And not a very good one, at that.

Typically to save on cost of sales you try and find better warehousing and distribution methods.

I find it hard to believe that with the same products, a vastly different layout at 4 million GBP would reduce the costs of sales. Unless their last store took like 200 code monkeys to run and this one take like 2...

They really had the wool pulled down over their new website.
It's nice, fairly flash, but not what they should have up.
They're still working on it though, as I can now unsubscribe without needing an account.

 insaniak wrote:

 GothmogLordofBalrogs wrote:

Additionally this little gem is in the report
In the chairman's preamble he mentions they spent 4 mil on the new webstore "The new web store allows us to sell online more efficiently. It
cost around £4 million."
But under their strategic report is this:
"Mail order
Our new online shop was launched this year and our online sales are broadly in line with the prior year."

Meaning that their fancy smancy webstore failed to do anything meaningfull

That's not quite accurate.

He said that the new webstore would let them sell more efficiently, not that it would increase sales.

If they are seeing more or less the same sales volume through the new webstore, for less work, then that's a win.

Whether or not it's £4 million pounds worth of win would depend on the actual cost of sales figures.


And having said that, I still think that £4 million is an insane amount to spend on what looks like a straight-out-of-the-box e-Commerce solution. And not a very good one, at that.

The report showed that the website actually cost around £1m (which is still far too much) but they counted a lot of one-off payments this year including redundancy into that £4m figure.

Of course it speaks wonders to the credibility of Kirby when he can't even remember what the £4m cost in their finances is for.