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.

Makumba wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So, what does that have to with the game being balanced at all?
Balance does not mean all game pieces are the same.

if both people spend the same amount of money for two different armies and have the same chance to win. I have no problem getting steam rolled with my draft deck facing a 300$ deck. I see a problem when to get a good army one is super limited and in some cases some of them can't build a winning army, and that is not counting eldar as the normal tier of good.

Armies for the same codex are not all the same. A huge amount of it is down to good list-building, and that's where a lot of the skill on the game goes.
Also, match-ups make a bug difference.
So, Eldar may have more ways to build a good list, and may have fewer 'bad' unit choices than others.
And Eldar have a different playstyle to most armies and a TAC list is less likely to do well against them. A couple of other codexes fall into this category, too.
But, surely a well-built list from any codex will be able to take them down, if the right units appear at the right place during the game.

Basically, every codex has a way to run a low-model-count or cheap list which can go up against any other codex.
It might need to be tailored, but can be done.

If what you said was true you wouldn't have eldar dominating the tournaments edition after edition.

And by well build you mean tailored right? And tailored to what? you technicly could carry with you a list tailored against each eldar build, but I struggle to see how, for any army, this would come at the same cost as one eldar army. So you would be spending double or triple the money to get a tailored list, and what if the codex wouldn't be able to tailor one codex or another ,what then . buy a second army and tailored with those. To transport the models you would need a car or something.

A list that is cheap, but is bad is not playable imo . Who cares if one can build a cheap chaos list with Vengance, if the units in it make a bad list. Buying a list that loses at half the price is still wasting half the money spend on a normal list.
What should be, is what other systems have. A 500$ list from any codex should be able to play against 500$ list. That is not the case for most editions, unless you play eldar.

I think 500pts is ok occasionally, but it's certainly not the sort of point level I'd want to play at regularly.

I had seen 500pts played in a store in 5th ed, the store is no longer there , it was run by a guy who came from UK and had their odd views on how the game is suppose to be played. He invited some people start the game and was shocked that all armies were made out of jetbikes, crissis suits, drop pods and deathstars. Worse he was supprised that people that were 13-14y old made those list and weren't interested in the painting cathegory or theme lists that were suppose to give extra points.

But, surely a well-built list from any codex will be able to take them down, if the right units appear at the right place during the game.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

You mean like centurians vs a nemesis dread knight? Both are space marines, in power armor, in yet bigger sets of power armor.

Not to go too off topic, but I'm curious what they consider to be a profit loss. I see that they claim to have a loss in profit this year but what are GW marjins? They must be huge. 600% at least. They probably have a ratio of pennies to a hundred dollars on materials. So even though, yes there might be loss in profit, it seems cloudy and muddled to see if they're actually going towards shutdown or if they're just getting a healthy reminder that the prices they're asking for is a tad too much.

@Vigilant .
GW plc publish financial reports every year.
And Tom Kirby GW Chairman also publishes a 'preamble', which let you know his thoughts on the position of the company , the customer base and the world in general.

These will give you all the facts you need to make your mind up.

(Actual drop in profits after GW have rushed out their most popular sellers, new 40k rules and SM codex, is not' good news'.And the last preamble does not show Tom Kirby in the best light.I thought it was a spoof when I first read it! )

 Vigilant wrote:
Not to go too off topic, but I'm curious what they consider to be a profit loss. I see that they claim to have a loss in profit this year but what are GW marjins? They must be huge. 600% at least. They probably have a ratio of pennies to a hundred dollars on materials. So even though, yes there might be loss in profit, it seems cloudy and muddled to see if they're actually going towards shutdown or if they're just getting a healthy reminder that the prices they're asking for is a tad too much.

Others have discussed this before, but just to sum up:

GW is making money (i.e. it is still profitable) but it showed a drop in revenue (about 10-15% IIRC). They also had a lot of one-time costs associated with moving to the single-man stores and upgrading their web presence. These one time costs depressed GW's profitability for the year. The costs to manufacture its products is probably not that high due to the fact that their primary product is injection-molded plastic, but keep in mind that tooling costs money (possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars per kit), so they have to sell a lot of each kit to make their money back. Once they hit their break-even point, it's basically all gravy from that point on. They of course have costs for rent, personnel, insurance, warehousing inventory, marketing, etc. which also reduces the profitability of the company as a whole, but which cannot be directly attributed to any particular kit. Also keep in mind that certain products are just losers, and they never make their money back (the Tyranid Pyrovore, for example - nice model, but I can't imagine they sold very many). So a well-selling kit may end up subsidizing several losers. All of these factors combine to reduce the company's overall profitability. That being said, as long as the company is profitable (which it is) there is no real chance it is going out of business.

A more likely event would be for the company to get bought out by a private equity firm that sees the potential but believes current management is idiotic. This is going on right now with Darden Restaurants, which owns the Olive Garden chain. If you want to read something really funny, look up the private equity firm whose trying to take over Darden and their "review" of the Olive Garden.

Anyway, the drop in revenue is worrying, but not the end of the world. The company already has a large audience for 40K, so the potential is there to turn it around. The question is whether they have the management in place who are willing to do it. Kirby's retirement should be taken as a positive sign, as the guy is obviously an ass (based on those preambles, which I also thought were a joke until I looked up the actual document) who doesn't mind his customers knowing that he thinks very little of them.

People are making a lot of fuss about their revenues... All's in millions £.









They had a slightly bad year last year. People need to calm down. People were saying this back in the 90's.

On the other hand, I fething love MtG, though this is weird!

People are making a lot of fuss about their revenues... All's in millions £.

Those charts show a sustained decline in revenue, a continuing plummet in sales growth, and a very sharp decline in profits.

The RPI/CPI chart is fairly useless for this argument, as it shows a slowly-decreasing COL and inflationary rate... which *should* correlate to increased consumer spending... which may have happened, but it certainly wasn't at GW stores!

 Psienesis wrote:

People are making a lot of fuss about their revenues... All's in millions £.

Those charts show a sustained decline in revenue, a continuing plummet in sales growth, and a very sharp decline in profits.

The RPI/CPI chart is fairly useless for this argument, as it shows a slowly-decreasing COL and inflationary rate... which *should* correlate to increased consumer spending... which may have happened, but it certainly wasn't at GW stores!

What? The charts don't show a sustained decline in revenue. Compare the profits with the revenue as well; Kirby's done a decent job there. You've also misread the sales growth - they've not "plummeted;" growth in sales was 0.1% less. Profits did decline, but that was partially due to the website. They're in a healthy state overall. Afaik, they also had a few bumper years due to USDGBP.

The RPI/CPI was added more as an afterthought; I don't particularly believe the numbers are correct in overall price increases relevant to people's expenditure, but it was more to remind people this is in nominal GBP. Also, it doesn't show a decreasing cost of living; the foot's still on the pedal, it's just eased up.

Just pointing out that revenue chart doesn't appear to be adjusted for inflation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and that while yes it is in millions so too are GWs expenses keeping their retail arm open.

 ChazSexington wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

People are making a lot of fuss about their revenues... All's in millions £.

Those charts show a sustained decline in revenue, a continuing plummet in sales growth, and a very sharp decline in profits.

The RPI/CPI chart is fairly useless for this argument, as it shows a slowly-decreasing COL and inflationary rate... which *should* correlate to increased consumer spending... which may have happened, but it certainly wasn't at GW stores!

What? The charts don't show a sustained decline in revenue. Compare the profits with the revenue as well; Kirby's done a decent job there. You've also misread the sales growth - they've not "plummeted;" growth in sales was 0.1% less. Profits did decline, but that was partially due to the website. They're in a healthy state overall. Afaik, they also had a few bumper years due to USDGBP.

The RPI/CPI was added more as an afterthought; I don't particularly believe the numbers are correct in overall price increases relevant to people's expenditure, but it was more to remind people this is in nominal GBP. Also, it doesn't show a decreasing cost of living; the foot's still on the pedal, it's just eased up.

From Q2 2013 to Q3 2014 GW has done nothing but lose money in both profits and revenues. Yes, that is sustained loss. They have seen a massive dive in sale's growth over the same period, and a 5 million GBP loss in profits over the same year.

growth in sales was 0.1% less

It went from a 0.03% positive rate of growth at the end of Q2 2013 to a -0.08% loss by Q2 2014. That's a loss of a full 1% of sales growth... which is significant for any business that is not in a boom industry, and really terrible to be moving in this direction for a company in an industry that *is* booming. This means its competition is eating its lunch.

Looking at a company over only a 1 year period is probably not the best way to look at it, as it can exaggerate the significance of certain trends. GW has plenty of cash on hand, and thus even if sales growth is slowing, they are still doing fine (from the POV of whether it will be able to continue as a going concern). This is not the same thing as saying there is no room for improvement - there obviously is.

The main thing GW needs to do is find a way to bring in new players. That means addressing the barrier to entry. New boxes like the Sanctus Reach SW/Orks box seem to be an attempt to address that issue. They shouldn't have made that box limited edition, but if their strategy is to do a succession of these boxes, they might be going in the right direction. If they stick with Dark Vengeance only (showcasing two less than desirable armies) then we will have a sign that management does not see what the real problem is.

Kirby will be out by the end of the year. Who replaces him will be a big signal as to which direction GW is going, as well.

Frankly, I would be a lot happier if GW became more like WotC. Wizards of the Coast is a very well-run gaming company that puts out a high quality product, runs great tournaments, and does a good (albeit not perfect) job of FAQing rules problems on an ongoing basis. WotC should be the model (no pun intended) that GW strives to emulate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:


From Q2 2013 to Q3 2014 GW has done nothing but lose money in both profits and revenues. Yes, that is sustained loss. They have seen a massive dive in sale's growth over the same period, and a 5 million GBP loss in profits over the same year.

Also worth noting that GW reported 4.5 million in "extraordinary expenditures" during that same period. So, the decrease (not "loss") in profits is almost entirely attributable to the extraordinary costs that fell within this reporting period.

Those costs included things like lawyers for the Chaptethouse case, which is ongoing. One off doesn't mean they are guaranteed to have that money again next year.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Those costs included things like lawyers for the Chaptethouse case, which is ongoing. One off doesn't mean they are guaranteed to have that money again next year.

Very true. There may be additional costs in the future. It's just important to keep these things in perspective, as it can be kind of misleading to just look at the top line number without digging into the reasons why the top line number is what it is.

Being an attorney, I find it kind of hard to believe that all, or even a large portion of that $4.5MM is legal fees. Probably closer to $1MM USD and the rest is attributable to cutting middle management, the web update (which reportedly cost over a million) and buying out the remaining time on a bunch of leases. And, as I understand it, the Chapterhouse trial is over, so what we are talking about is probably an appeal to the Seventh Circuit (I don't do IP, but I do practice in the Northern District of Illinois, which is where the Chapterhouse case was venued, so I have a good idea of how much these things cost). Appeals are expensive, but they are nothing like the cost of a trial. Probably less than a hundred thousand, at most, to take an appeal.

Given the outcome of that trial, I expect GW's litigious days are over for now, at least. They really got burned, and Kirby's preamble suggests they are still smarting.

Asmodas wrote:
Being an attorney, I find it kind of hard to believe that all, or even a large portion of that $4.5MM is legal fees.

I find it even harder to believe that they spent £4000000 on that crap-looking website.

Looking at a company over only a 1 year period is probably not the best way to look at it, as it can exaggerate the significance of certain trends.

That's how you look at businesses, because that's how businesses are run in the modern age. Few are those concerned with "long-term growth" when they have shareholders to answer to *this* quarter.

 ChazSexington wrote:
People are making a lot of fuss about their revenues... All's in millions £.

They had a slightly bad year last year. People need to calm down. People were saying this back in the 90's.

On the other hand, I fething love MtG, though this is weird!

Except most the doom callers are looking beyond the surface figures that you've shown there. Just off the top of my head.

Revenue remains constant, but:
- GW have been raising prices, even if the past couple of years they haven't had storewide price rises, new releases have still been more expensive and we know new release products is where a lot of the money lies**.
- They have been releasing products at a faster rate, so should be making more money since new release products make more money**.
- They have been moving more product to direct only, instead of selling to the FLGS they should be making more money selling direct to the customer.
- The table top scene has been growing, more people are playing and buying table top games, so GW revenue has remained constant in the face of growing competition.

All those point to GW both losing customers and failing to catch new customers that are coming in to wargaming.

Profits have been rising, but:
- Products have been getting more expensive.
- Stores are being cut down to 1 man, so can't remain open 9-5 for 7 days a week.
- They've started to do limited releases for more guaranteed cash injections rather than having stock on the shelves (which might cost them money but also grows the business like they have in years gone by).

The doom sayers have long been saying that, yes, of course GW's outward numbers have been stable, because they've been cutting to the bone to keep their numbers looking good on the surface and milking fewer customers for more money.

You can't look at only 1 years data to make an assumption that the end is near for GW... but people who are claiming that are NOT looking at 1 years data, they are looking at the past 15 years and then looking at the past 1 year and saying GW are finally failing to hold up the house that is falling down.

Now I tend to think GW still have a long way to fall before I'm going to say the ship is sunk, but I do think things aren't looking great for GW.




**We know, like many products, GW makes the most money close to the release of products because they showed some limited sales data during the CH lawsuit. So GW's faster release rate and higher prices make the drop in revenue look even worse.

 vipoid wrote:

Asmodas wrote:
Being an attorney, I find it kind of hard to believe that all, or even a large portion of that $4.5MM is legal fees.

I find it even harder to believe that they spent £4000000 on that crap-looking website.

The money is going somewhere. Something tells me that a fat slob is probably drinking a martini somewhere laughing at GW customers as he burns that money away.

 Vigilant wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Asmodas wrote:
Being an attorney, I find it kind of hard to believe that all, or even a large portion of that $4.5MM is legal fees.

I find it even harder to believe that they spent £4000000 on that crap-looking website.

The money is going somewhere. Something tells me that a fat slob is probably drinking a martini somewhere laughing at GW customers as he burns that money away.

I can't remember where but I heard Ms. Kirby was head of the project.

Everyone!

Please attempt to stay on topic here - thanks!

Yeah, we got a little off topic.

Back on topic: the biggest difference between the 40K/Fantasy and MTG is the barrier to entry. You can get enough cards to build a starter deck for $30-40. It won't be very good, but you can actually play the game. Get a friend, have him do the same thing, and then trade with each other for the cards you can't use/don't want, and you can be off to a great start playing games with each other, and at a similar power level. Or you can just draft, which is an awesome system in itself. It's very easy to get into Magic. It gets expensive, sure, but the "gateway drug" of those first few packs is cheap.

The revenue decline is linked to more players leaving and fewer players starting - there really is no other good explanation. As Psienesis noted, that is not a good sign for the long-term health of the company, and they are going to have to pay attention to it because the market is paying attention. The company's demise is nowhere near imminent, but they are going to have to do something if they want to bring in new players.

Promoting Kill Team (as they've been doing here) is a good start. But, they really need good two army/mini-rulebook combos on a regular basis. I would like to see something like Blood Angels/Dark Eldar or AG/Nids. They don't even need to manufacture anything, just use the existing spues, like they did with the Ork/SW box, maybe throw in a special character (for example, a Winged Tyranid Prime would be awesome, and you could bring Marbo back). That would be of interest to not only new players, but existing ones as well. If they did one of these bundles per quarter, with a different army each time, they could stimulate a lot of interest. Dark Vengeance is pretty tired - it's time for something new.

Asmodas wrote:
Yeah, we got a little off topic.

Back on topic: the biggest difference between the 40K/Fantasy and MTG is the barrier to entry. You can get enough cards to build a starter deck for $30-40. It won't be very good, but you can actually play the game. Get a friend, have him do the same thing, and then trade with each other for the cards you can't use/don't want, and you can be off to a great start playing games with each other, and at a similar power level. Or you can just draft, which is an awesome system in itself. It's very easy to get into Magic. It gets expensive, sure, but the "gateway drug" of those first few packs is cheap.

$30? Maybe 15 years ago, before they had pre-constructed decks.

http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Gathering-2014-SPEED-CUNNING/dp/B00MU2MXEC/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1411139464&sr=8-5&keywords=magic+the+gathering+pre-constructed

Spend $16, and you've got not just one deck, but two decks which need no more but shuffling to be ready to go. The decks are even balanced against each other, so two friends starting would be able to have a couple of fun games before spending a single additional dollar.

http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Gathering-Shards-Alara-Tournament/dp/B001BR8K26/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=8-1&keywords=magic+the+gathering+tournament+pack

Spend $23 and you get a competitive deck which can already hold its own at FNM tournaments.

Not to mention that every magic player is probably dragging two or three decks around he could borrow to a new player, not going to happen with WH40k armies.

 Jidmah wrote:

Asmodas wrote:
Yeah, we got a little off topic.

Back on topic: the biggest difference between the 40K/Fantasy and MTG is the barrier to entry. You can get enough cards to build a starter deck for $30-40. It won't be very good, but you can actually play the game. Get a friend, have him do the same thing, and then trade with each other for the cards you can't use/don't want, and you can be off to a great start playing games with each other, and at a similar power level. Or you can just draft, which is an awesome system in itself. It's very easy to get into Magic. It gets expensive, sure, but the "gateway drug" of those first few packs is cheap.

$30? Maybe 15 years ago, before they had pre-constructed decks.

http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Gathering-2014-SPEED-CUNNING/dp/B00MU2MXEC/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1411139464&sr=8-5&keywords=magic+the+gathering+pre-constructed

Spend $16, and you've got not just one deck, but two decks which need no more but shuffling to be ready to go. The decks are even balanced against each other, so two friends starting would be able to have a couple of fun games before spending a single additional dollar.

http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Gathering-Shards-Alara-Tournament/dp/B001BR8K26/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=8-1&keywords=magic+the+gathering+tournament+pack

Spend $23 and you get a competitive deck which can already hold its own at FNM tournaments.

Not to mention that every magic player is probably dragging two or three decks around he could borrow to a new player, not going to happen with WH40k armies.

Or what, $30 for a deckbuilder? $120 could probably get me five decks that are decent, what could that get me in 40K? (Talking about NIB, not including eBay)

 ChazSexington wrote:


On the other hand, I fething love MtG, though this is weird!

Spoiler:

Thank you for telling me that this is a thing. I think I'm going back into standard now.

The lack of an entry product is a huge barrier for GW's growth. No one wants to throw down $500+ to play a game, and the only reason I play it is one of my mate's had two armies, so i borrowed one of his while I slowly built my own.

Now, $120 can get you a reasonable pile of models to build and paint, but nothing resembling an army, and for many factions, not even reaching 500 points. The inherent price differential between factions hurts the game a great deal, and one reason there's limited faction diversity; marines are simply cheaper to play, something Magic and most other tabletop games take steps to avoid (just about any 1000 point Bolt Action army will cost the same, and Warmachine is pretty constant on army prices as well, unless you do something really wacky) .

What could help GW bring players into their market easier would be a better, supported Kill Team ruleset. The current one is lazy and obnoxiously expensive for what is a pdf which used to be free (and can still be downloaded for free) . The Heralds of Ruin Killteam set, however, is a fully functional game in of itself, able to stand on its own and entertain a whole club of gamers without stepping into full 40k armies whatsoever (and a natural fit for someone who already has a fully army). If GW were to get over the fact that their customers MUST spend several hundred dollars just to start playing, they could actually get new people into the game.

Magic costs less than $50 to start playing, X-Wing costs $50, the new infinity starter has two complete armies for what, $120? The Bolt Action starter has two small armies and some terrain with the full rulebook for 100-something. GW starters include two very small forces of uneven points value in bad combinatons with crappy units which can't be built any other way in a game about choice, and require several hundred dollars to actually start playing "real games."

If GW were to produce Kill Team as its own ruleset, not just a throwaway PDF, and support it as the "gateway drug," and alternative for people on a budget, they could get so many more people into the game. People like skirmish games, and the 40k ruleset basically is a skirmish system bloated beyond recognition in an effort to sell more models; pare it down a little, shift things to work with single models and infantry-centric combat, and bang, you can reach into a whole new market.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
The lack of an entry product is a huge barrier for GW's growth. No one wants to throw down $500+ to play a game, and the only reason I play it is one of my mate's had two armies, so i borrowed one of his while I slowly built my own.

I agree. I wish they sold HALF a Dark Vengeance starter box, with either Chaos or SM. Or just have a $100 starter box that was just one faction. One obvious solution is to find someone who wants to play the other faction of a box set (like DV or Stormclaw) and split 2 boxes.

No matter how it goes, if you get into the painting and modelling aspect of any of the games, you'll blow hundreds of dollars on stuff you "need".

 MajorStoffer wrote:
The lack of an entry product is a huge barrier for GW's growth. No one wants to throw down $500+ to play a game, and the only reason I play it is one of my mate's had two armies, so i borrowed one of his while I slowly built my own.

Now, $120 can get you a reasonable pile of models to build and paint, but nothing resembling an army, and for many factions, not even reaching 500 points. The inherent price differential between factions hurts the game a great deal, and one reason there's limited faction diversity; marines are simply cheaper to play, something Magic and most other tabletop games take steps to avoid (just about any 1000 point Bolt Action army will cost the same, and Warmachine is pretty constant on army prices as well, unless you do something really wacky) .

What could help GW bring players into their market easier would be a better, supported Kill Team ruleset. The current one is lazy and obnoxiously expensive for what is a pdf which used to be free (and can still be downloaded for free) . The Heralds of Ruin Killteam set, however, is a fully functional game in of itself, able to stand on its own and entertain a whole club of gamers without stepping into full 40k armies whatsoever (and a natural fit for someone who already has a fully army). If GW were to get over the fact that their customers MUST spend several hundred dollars just to start playing, they could actually get new people into the game.

Magic costs less than $50 to start playing, X-Wing costs $50, the new infinity starter has two complete armies for what, $120? The Bolt Action starter has two small armies and some terrain with the full rulebook for 100-something. GW starters include two very small forces of uneven points value in bad combinatons with crappy units which can't be built any other way in a game about choice, and require several hundred dollars to actually start playing "real games."

If GW were to produce Kill Team as its own ruleset, not just a throwaway PDF, and support it as the "gateway drug," and alternative for people on a budget, they could get so many more people into the game. People like skirmish games, and the 40k ruleset basically is a skirmish system bloated beyond recognition in an effort to sell more models; pare it down a little, shift things to work with single models and infantry-centric combat, and bang, you can reach into a whole new market.

My buddies and I got stupid amounts of fun out of the Mordheim starter set. Two whole warbands, card-stock terrain, and the ruleset for ~$70 back in the day. Best of all, it was a mostly idiot-proof ruleset. The GW Kill Team ruleset makes so many units completely unusable, makes specialists obscenely powerful, and creates too many rules conflicts.

A re-release of Necromunda or a Kill Team set would be a great way to get people in the door. Fix up some special edition Deathwatch marines, Dire Avengers, and a fancied up copy of the Heralds of Ruin Kill Team rules and now interested folks can buy their way into a fun intro-version of 40k for $80, comparable to the price on lots of board games these days.

MtG has actually sized down in terms of power levels in my opinion.