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.

 Gert wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Works well for brand slaves who don't really care what they're buying as long as it's GW, they will forget the frustration of not being able to buy this release the moment next week's preview drops and they fixate on that.

Or, and hear me out, some people understand the concept of patience and don't need immediate gratification like a five-year-old.

This.
●There's a few things on my LI shopping list. I can wait until they release in thier own boxes/come back in stock to pick up vs paying premiums on Ebay etc.
It's not like I lack games to play, minis to assemble/paint....
●For WHFB 9th (oops, i meant to say ToW)?
Beyond the new books/cards? I'm set. I've got WFB armies. I don't need to spend a dime.
Though when the TK bone-crocodile-dragon releases as a single kit I'll eventually pick that up.

 Gert wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Works well for brand slaves who don't really care what they're buying as long as it's GW, they will forget the frustration of not being able to buy this release the moment next week's preview drops and they fixate on that.

Or, and hear me out, some people understand the concept of patience and don't need immediate gratification like a five-year-old.

Or some of us have such large piles of shame that it doesn't make much difference

Regardless of if they naturally died or were outright murdered, both WHFB and Epic still died.

Also LI isn't really Epic, way too many changes.

I think it makes a big difference. There's a huge line between

"people stopped buying and it fizzled out"
to
"we openly shut down production and sales"

As I recall wasn't Epic 40K only about 6 months old when they killed it the first time? And bringing it back under mail order Forgeworld only in those days was a very niche market audience.


Also I recall, esp in the Kirby days, a lot of GW's marketing very much limited and restricted. If the game wasn't getting a huge release or the new-hotness it wasn't getting mentioned and that has a huge impact on sales.

Heck I think its one reason GW does a lot of these solo-hero releases for AoS and 40K; because it gives hteir marketing department an excuse to talk about a faction that GW might not be revisiting lore or in a big model way for ages if not years.

Not when you are using "As I recall" as part of your argument, because that means there is a temporal distance that has destroyed whatever community and interest remained in the original.

I thought Epic was around for about a decade in various iterations before it was gak canned and turned into a forgeworld mail order line?

I came in just around the time that happened, so I was never around for what I am told was epics heyday, but I've heard some wax poetic about how some iteration of Epic had in its prime become so popular that it was almost as common to see people playing Epic in GW stores as it was to see them playing 40k or Fantasy, etc. and that it was "big" enough to possibly even be considered as a third "main game" prior to the rise of MESBG and its antecedents.

 Tyran wrote:
Regardless of if they naturally died or were outright murdered, both WHFB and Epic still died.

Also LI isn't really Epic, way too many changes.

Maybe LI is not Epic (sadly), but it is 95% Space Marine.

SU-152 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Regardless of if they naturally died or were outright murdered, both WHFB and Epic still died.

Also LI isn't really Epic, way too many changes.

Maybe LI is not Epic (sadly), but it is 95% Space Marine.

Yes exactly - you can see it has come directly some Epic Space Marine 2nd edition. I still play a fair bit of SM2 and I have had a very easy time learning the rules; turn structure, order phases, melee etc are all pretty much identical. Even a lot of the unit profiles are fairly similar, they have just added an extra layer or two of crunch.

Legions Imperialis says "epic" on the box possibly more than some previous editions. The 2nd edition boxes (space marine and titan legions) never had epic as part of their name, just a small logo in the same way the legion imperialis box does.

 Tyran wrote:
Also LI isn't really Epic, way too many changes.

There's been less changes between Epic and LI than there has been in several of 40k's edition changes. Or WHFB for that matter. I think even AoS has had bigger edition changes than Epic -> LI, but not really sure on that one as I have never taken AoS seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
I think it makes a big difference. There's a huge line between

"people stopped buying and it fizzled out"
to
"we openly shut down production and sales"

As I recall wasn't Epic 40K only about 6 months old when they killed it the first time? And bringing it back under mail order Forgeworld only in those days was a very niche market audience.


Also I recall, esp in the Kirby days, a lot of GW's marketing very much limited and restricted. If the game wasn't getting a huge release or the new-hotness it wasn't getting mentioned and that has a huge impact on sales.

Heck I think its one reason GW does a lot of these solo-hero releases for AoS and 40K; because it gives hteir marketing department an excuse to talk about a faction that GW might not be revisiting lore or in a big model way for ages if not years.

Epic 40k didn't release as strong as they hoped, and it was the era that if a game didn't launch well, GW didn't try to figure out why. It lived on for many years though because the writers of the game loved it enough to keep releasing the magazines for it.

Still my favourite version of the game though. No other edition of the game can you learn the rules in the space of a couple of hours and go on to play genuinely huge battles that only take a few hours to play. Didn't land well with the fans of the earlier editions though due to the simplifications. I liked the simplification because to me, I could put "flavour" into how I built my armies, but when it came to actually playing the game the focus zoomed out and the flavour became less important (which it should in a game that simultaneously has Gretchin and also Imperator Titans...).

There was an interesting video I saw with Andy Chambers recently and he spoke about the way GW cut down on everything and headed towards just the two main games (or three with LoTR). It was quite obvious from his tone what he thought of that decision, and there was certainly a period of time that 'Games Workshop' was something of an ironic reminder of the company's past.

Very glad that GW is branching out a hell of a lot more these days. I know people (rightly) about lack of availability or support for some of them, before the alternative before was 40k, WHFB, LoTR or the highway.

I think it also reflects in what GW makes as well. You can really tell that AoS is getting the creative teams fired up because they make some just utterly awesome stuff. Having the option for more creative outlets can be important for the staff just as it can be for the fans too.

Esp when games like 40K have a lot of already established designs where even updated models might not let a creative person be as free to create original ideas.

 Pacific wrote:
There was an interesting video I saw with Andy Chambers recently and he spoke about the way GW cut down on everything and headed towards just the two main games (or three with LoTR). It was quite obvious from his tone what he thought of that decision, and there was certainly a period of time that 'Games Workshop' was something of an ironic reminder of the company's past.

Very glad that GW is branching out a hell of a lot more these days. I know people (rightly) about lack of availability or support for some of them, before the alternative before was 40k, WHFB, LoTR or the highway.

Watching interviews with several of the old guard from GW, it seems the guys who made GW what it was by the mid 90's didn't like where the company went in the following period.

I think Rick Priestly talked about how he'd just always be inventing new games with the guys, they'd not play any one game for a long time before inventing a new one.

Yeah, because it stopped being about a group of pals who were making a living by pursuing passion projects designing games and miniatures for fun, and became a real business that was concerned about efficiency, profitability, and corporate bureaucracy.

Also have a look at Spartan Games for an example of what can happen when you just keep creating more and more games beyond your capacity. Even years before they collapsed they had issues just keeping up with each of their games leading to long spells where only one game would be getting releases and news only to suddenly drop it like a lead weight and focus on either a new game or another game. Resulting in lots of "X is coming soon" only for X to either take years or never appear or be mentioned again.

They did a LOT, but they also burned bridges, annoyed customers and had loads of stocking issues just keeping up because they made more than their capacity could take.


Heck don't forget in the early days Kirby was a lifesaver for GW's finances. Yes he wasn't good at managing a company from the consumer and game point of view, but you can't deny he balanced the books. In the end if you've a firm that doesn't balance its books you have a firm that's a ticking time bomb for collapse even if you're doing really well and have very little market competition.

GW always had a few feathers in their cap such as the policy of not taking out loans/big investors, but even so they still have to count the coins and balance the books to thrive


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, because it stopped being about a group of pals who were making a living by pursuing passion projects designing games and miniatures for fun, and became a real business that was concerned about efficiency, profitability, and corporate bureaucracy.

And also had multiple layers of staff reliant on its payments. Suddenly those few guys in a garage have employees to pay and staff wages and people choosing it as a long term career choice. That can layer on a lot of financial and stability responsibility for some

Agreed. I think Kirby was probably a necessary evil who overstayed his welcome. At some point the business needed to grow in order to keep up with growing interest and demand and not become a victim of scale. Kirby was the guy who transformed it from a small collective of artists and misfits who had struck gold by finding a way to monetize their hobbies into a functional and successful business. Once he had succeeded in establishing that... he should have left and allowed a more customer and brand focused CEO (someone like Rountree) to step in - he did what he needed to do to get GW to the next level, but he didn't have the skillset or mindset needed for GW to grow to the next level beyond that and was possibly actively harmful to GWs growth and success for the last decade of his reign as his policies became counterproductive to the interests of the business.

Agreed and much of the growth GW has enjoyed has been because of what he helped establish.

I'd also say that it wasn't just him but also things like GW's highly compartmentalised management, which I think the LotR licence made worse; which also led to perhaps more internal in-fighting within the management and also the left hand doing things the right hand didn't know about.

GW needed a management change for certain. Kirby even going as far to deny that they needed consumer input I think showed that he was very good at looking at charts and finances and tables, but was heavily lacking in context for a lot of the elements.

Yeah. Its a bit odd to think about, but he basically managed the business as an entity divorced from what the business actually existed. I.E. he was good at managing all the charts, finances, and tables, etc. but it kind of felt like he was doing it for its own sake in a vacuum separated from the product that the business produced or the customers it served. Like he was spinning dials and pulling levers on this kafka-esque machine without actually knowing what they did outside of making certain numbers go up and other numbers go down.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah. Its a bit odd to think about, but he basically managed the business as an entity divorced from what the business actually existed. I.E. he was good at managing all the charts, finances, and tables, etc. but it kind of felt like he was doing it for its own sake in a vacuum separated from the product that the business produced or the customers it served. Like he was spinning dials and pulling levers on this kafka-esque machine without actually knowing what they did outside of making certain numbers go up and other numbers go down.

Yep that's the same impression I got; coupled to him being the CEO and building a staff under him who supported his view and direction whilst also angling for their own internal gains. The result of which is not just him, but the upper management of the firm were blind to the customer side of things. Which is honestly quite a feat in a firm that has a LOT of passionate staff (hired because they are passionate); has their own highstreet stores with direct customer interactions etc.... Basically he should have had vast amounts of customer info with very little effort to get it.

And yet his approach was to pull back from much of it; abandoning the Internet; abandoning competitive play; abandoning event support etc...



Honestly I'm glad he did what he did on the finance side, but its sorely clear that GW needed someone on the consumer side of things. If anything Kirby purely as a finance staffer coupled to a manager like Rowntree could have been a very powerful combo.

Agreed. Perhaps if Rountree were CEO and Kirby CFO or COO the company would be in an even better place today. I think the apparent production and logistics woes that GW is facing is something that Kirby would have seen coming and had a better grip on than Rountree and his staff may have, and the situation would not be as bad as it is today.

I don't know, some of the logistics and other elements are likely legacies from the Kirby days as well. So they might be issues engrained within GW that simply weren't able to fully cope with the sudden massive market expansion that hit them twice.

First when Rowntree took over and started a new series of policies which flocked fans back; and then the Pandmic which did that all over again.

Both huge boons, but also putting stress and strain on a system and highlighting weaknesses whilst at the same time GW is trying to carefully expand.


Heck part o the issue could be that GW doesn't want to invest a huge amount into rapid expansion and find that the Pandemic book is steadily followed by a Cost of Living lull or just a general slowdown of growth.

Plus things like new factories and such are hindered by things like the local power grid which are outside of GW's sphere of control.

For Spartan Games, at least as far as my information goes, what broke them was that they wanted to grow faster because of their success and aimed to get full production in house including HIPS and that was too much

and regarding Kirby being the lifesaver for GWs finances, he was the one putting them in a bad position as well
at least as far as others from GW say he wanted/needed his investment back as fast as possible and therefore chose to increase the number of games with expanding the Specialist Games causing the problem that translations being expansive in combination with selling very differently in different countries and translated boxed games cannot be easily switched (like BFG setting on the shelf in Germany but sold out in England you cannot call it back and sell it there)

and a lot of changes happening after that and how GW handles things today are still lessons learned from that days (like having all languages printed on the box)

Edit: Nevermind.

 Pacific wrote:
There was an interesting video I saw with Andy Chambers recently and he spoke about the way GW cut down on everything and headed towards just the two main games (or three with LoTR). It was quite obvious from his tone what he thought of that decision, and there was certainly a period of time that 'Games Workshop' was something of an ironic reminder of the company's past.

The interviews with him and Rick Priestly are quite interesting. Kirby is a controversial figure, and even now it's hard to say what his legacy is.

When Kirby first came in, the push was "more more more games" to put GW on the map. At the same time, there was pressure to establish the "GW Brand," and vigorously defend the IP, and we all know how that ended up.

(Fun counterfactual: GW ignores Chapterhouse. No legal precedent, and less attention for the alternatives. Discuss elsewhere.)

Could GW have done worse? Certainly, but looking at the way the consolidations were handled, the LotR bubble and the way it (fatally) undercut what was once their flagship line (WFHB), it's a mixed legacy. As noted elsewhere, GW had a narrow brush with death in part because of Kirby's fixation on self-financing everything which meant they had zero standby credit for short-term loans when they really needed it - and trying to find a partner might have led a fatal stock dump because no one - not even GW - fully understands why it's working. All investors know is the dividend keeps paying, but once that stops, it's still just a toy company, so everyone will race for the exit.

Getting back to the OP, GW is in a very strange place insofar as it has a strong brand, but that cuts both ways. The IP is robust, but ask Hasbro how well Star Wars toy sales are doing these days.

Those of us who have long urged GW to develop enduring, stable, quality rules systems and manage expansion through specialist games have to admit that GW's churn actually seems to work. Maybe someday it won't, but they've had a pretty good run. Actual TSR didn't last 1/3 as long.

At the same time all the big highstreet names who took on big expansion loans have all gone the same way - most are collapsing or have totally collapsed. Whilst self financing hinders rapid growth, it also means that GW are in a robust position where they own/control a vast amount of their infrastructure. If they have to cut costs they can cut them directly. They don't have to sit there making huge repayments on a loan or to powerful investors who will demand repayments.

It certainly cuts both ways in that it means GW doesn't have the emergency fall back on investment, though in theory they should be able to mitigate that by laying on savings during affluent times to create their own buffer for emergencies.

The biggest risk is the share price, however I feel like the current GW admin are taking a more long term view to it than the Kirby era which always felt like it was hyper focused on the next shareholders meeting. GW's stock has gone up and down and yet GW doesn't seem to panic when it dips now. Which suggests a more pragmatic long term view.



As for Hasbro and Starwars I'd argue that they've a few things working against them. First up bad films - no ifs nor buts the most recent Disney films were not well written and didn't rekindle the same level of fanbase fanatic buying that they've enjoyed in the past.
You could even argue that the huge number of shows being made now is also hindering the toys because now there's no clear-cut pathway. You've several competing sub-brands and some will do really well and some won't. Eg I'm fairly sure they can slap a Baby Yoda on anything and sell it.

GW are just a toy company, but they also invested so much into making their toy a hobby in its own right. GW aren't just a brand they are hobby and whilst they are not the only one in the hobby, they do market heavily and have vastly more exposure than any of their competition. In fact I'd argue that if GW died it could mean a short term boon to other companies followed by a long term slump in wargaming. Highstreet stores; animations, lore, artwork, decades of marketing and so forth - GW have a huge amount of market awareness.

Certainly in the UK you can say "Games Workshop - Warhammer - Space Marines" to almost anyone and they will understand at least one or two of those terms and what they meant.
You can't really do that with any other wargame (certainly not in fantasy and sci fi); Starwars might, but they aren't just a wargame and that's a more all encompassing brand.