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.

 Talys wrote:
I think a lot of people want them to operate like the small company they once were, but they just aren't anymore. Perhaps some people philosophically are opposed to large corporate entities, and consider them "soulless" or whatever.

Personally, I think it's much ado about nothing. I buy gas from Chevron, crops that have been modified by Monsanto, phones by Nokia, consoles by Sony, tablets by Microsoft, books by George Martin, Blu-Ray discs from HBO, and video games from Blizzard. None of those entities give a damn about what I think. They just make something, if I like it I buy it, if I don't, I don't. They might pretend to be customer-friendly, and all that, but at the end of the day, they just want my money, same as anyone else. If they make a good product, I'll be happy to give them my money.

Frankly, my expectation is that management at any company with more than 100 employees won't care about me personally, and will pretty much just do its own thing. Whether it performs market research or not -- that's for their benefit, not mine. Whether they flounder or flourish isn't really my problem; just whether I like their products or not.

I'm a true blue capitalist, I've got no problem with large corporations. I think there's an argument for a more ethical approach in some cases, but that's not pertinent to this discussion.

My chief bone of contention with GW is that producing a product that people are dissatisfied with and having no mechanism in place to detect and fix it, under exploiting your resources, taking activities (eg advertising) that are well established as positive impacted on a business and then doing the opposite, spending millions on pointless litigation when there are multiple ways to resolve the situation that cost less or even make money and rather than diversifying, actively closing down alternate product lines, while your competition are making money in the void you've left is just a really fething stupid way of running a business.

@Az - I totally agree with you that Games Workshop doesn't take the route of maximizing profits.

However, I go to the same thing that I've said many times -- I think that GW wants to do the "Warhammer World" thing, and cater to a group of people who are into that, to the exclusion of others. "Extreme hobbyists" if you want to call it that, or at least, gamers that are way past the point of "casual", and certainly not the gamers who only want to game at the exclusion of modelling miniatures.

It's kind of like the sports gear company that only wants to market to the higher end crowd, and while they're happy if they scoop up some of the other people, they don't really care if they leave or not.

I think their pulse on the group of "extreme 40k'ers" is actually probably pretty good. I think it actually represents a high percentage of their revenue and profits, but a low percentage of actual gamers (and a higher percentage of modelling hobbyists who may or may not game). I mean, this is a group (like ours) who would probably happily scoop up a new rule book for their faction every year if there were some perceptible improvement, and who don't mind (who LIKE) rejiggering their armies quite often, and mostly own multiple armies with so many models that they can't get screwed by nerfs/buffs, because it all comes around in a circle in the end.

That's probably not most gamers, which pisses a lot of people off, or at least puts them off.

To which I would say, there is probably a different game/hobby that is better for them.

By the way, I'm one of the people who, on a scale of 1-10 on the satisfaction level of the game, would rate 40k at about 8.5. I have tons of fun with it, but it could be better. I fully realize this may be a minority opinion on this forum, but I'd also point out that the people who would rank 40k at a 4.5 or lower are much more vocal than the people who play it and are happy with it.

If I had to express my largest dissatisfaction, it's that whatever faction I'm working on, the number of new releases for that faction are actually pretty slim. You gotta wait about 2-3 years for your turn, and most often, you get a lousy 1-3 of new kits. If there were half as many factions, I could get 1-3 new kits every year, and that would be better But what can I say, I'm a model piggy when it comes to whatever faction I happen to like at the moment.

This is actually probably the single biggest reason I have so many freakin' 40k armies -- I run out of new stuff to add onto whatever faction I really like. Last year, after I finished off my Menoth for WMH, I actually decided to do a complete reboot of my Blood Angels; something like 250+ models, but the painting quality and even the way they're done up is pretty inconsistent, because I built and painted them over so many years a little bit at a time.

Gw just doesn't care about their customers s d they're losing money and community because of it. Talys claims that this is some design of theirs. How would the shareholders like hearing that the new direction is to minamize profits? Either its extreme arrogance or incompetence. Probably both.

Like I said, a fething stupid way to run a business.

Especially when there is nothing inherent to your product that justifies your attempts to aim at the sector you're shooting for, and your production method is counter productive to this aim.

But the proof of the pudding is in the FYE statement. While they remain closed off and labour under the misapprehension of where their money comes from, the decline will likely continue, unless they get another LotR get out of jail card by random chance.

 Talys wrote:


By the way, I'm one of the people who, on a scale of 1-10 on the satisfaction level of the game, would rate 40k at about 8.5. I have tons of fun with it, but it could be better. I fully realize this may be a minority opinion on this forum, but I'd also point out that the people who would rank 40k at a 4.5 or lower are much more vocal than the people who play it and are happy with it.

They have a pulse on an incredibly limited amount of people. basically them selves and anyone that goes to the dubs.

I think im siting at about 5 to 6 on the meh o meter since they closed my only store in my area but injection of new things that didnt require me to buy 20 new boxes for SM pleases me.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Gw just doesn't care about their customers s d they're losing money and community because of it. Talys claims that this is some design of theirs. How would the shareholders like hearing that the new direction is to minamize profits? Either its extreme arrogance or incompetence. Probably both.

As I've said before, what shareholders want don't matter unless they can muster 51% of the votes and kick out the board.

I don't claim that this is so, by the way. It's my unproven hypothesis that GW is catering to the customers that are like-minded to them (and probably their most profitable customers), to the exclusion of customers who aren't like-minded.

It's not arrogance or incompetence, if they make money; it's just doing what you want to do. In my line of work, I could make 3 times as much money if I chose to engage with customers I don't like, but I walk away from a lot of business because I choose to, and I don't need their business, and I don't want bad customers. It doesn't make me arrogant or incompetent -- it just makes me a guy who doesn't do stuff that doesn't make him happy.

I mean, for all the pouring over of financial statements, all these supposed internet experts never look at GW's statement of cashflows, which is actually really healthy. They can *afford* to do what they want to, and so long as they can, I think they should. If that doesn't intersect with what I want? I'll just find something else to do. If it doesn't intersect with a large enough population of their customer base, then they need to re-evaluate, and perhaps, like many people must, suck it up and do stuff that they don't like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

They have a pulse on an incredibly limited amount of people. basically them selves and anyone that goes to the dubs.

And on top of that, probably only the people at their very largest stores, like in the UK, too. I mean, we have a nice enough store here, but I think the input of the operator here counts for not much of anything at all, frankly

I'm sure they read forums and all that, too. JamesY mentioned that people at GW do so actively Also, remember, they have dedicated sales reps that talk to FLGS every week (the orders are still taken by telephone, in person).

By the way, if it were me, and I rated a game 6 / 10, it wouldn't even get 30 minutes of my time a week There are so many things that I do enjoy in life that are 8+ that there just aren't enough hours in the day to do stuff that I barely enjoy. My favorite pastime at the moment is sitting on the patio, scraping off mold lines from bits and models while I watch raccoons play in the back yard, and hummingbirds zip in and out of flowers On the satisfaction scale, that hits the high 9's for me.

 Talys wrote:
I think their pulse on the group of "extreme 40k'ers" is actually probably pretty good. I think it actually represents a high percentage of their revenue and profits, but a low percentage of actual gamers (and a higher percentage of modelling hobbyists who may or may not game). I mean, this is a group (like ours) who would probably happily scoop up a new rule book for their faction every year if there were some perceptible improvement, and who don't mind (who LIKE) rejiggering their armies quite often, and mostly own multiple armies with so many models that they can't get screwed by nerfs/buffs, because it all comes around in a circle in the end.

Do you really not see the contradiction here? The "extreme 40k'ers" are a low percentage of gamers and may or may not play at all, but they'll happily buy the same old recycled fluff (in ever-decreasing amounts) just because it contains new rules to play the game?

Also, you seem to be confusing "GW's stupid actions don't hurt this group quite as much" with "GW is doing the right thing for this group". GW isn't supporting this group at all, they're just stubborn enough to keep playing despite that lack of support. At best GW has realized that rabid fanboys who will keep buying no matter what are an easy cash cow to milk, so it's not worth investing time and money into developing a superior product if the cash cow can keep GW profitable for a few more years and let the CEO cash his retirement check.

 Talys wrote:

By the way, if it were me, and I rated a game 6 / 10, it wouldn't even get 30 minutes of my time a week There are so many things that I do enjoy in life that are 8+ that there just aren't enough hours in the day to do stuff that I barely enjoy. My favorite pastime at the moment is sitting on the patio, scraping off mold lines from bits and models while I watch raccoons play in the back yard, and hummingbirds zip in and out of flowers On the satisfaction scale, that hits the high 9's for me.

Like i said. it dropped heavily since the stores closed.

New one is popping up soon and all the spartan stuff seems to be the rage now.

Tons of fun to.

 Talys wrote:
Personally, I think it's much ado about nothing. I buy gas from Chevron, crops that have been modified by Monsanto, phones by Nokia, consoles by Sony, tablets by Microsoft, books by George Martin, Blu-Ray discs from HBO, and video games from Blizzard. None of those entities give a damn about what I think. They just make something, if I like it I buy it, if I don't, I don't. They might pretend to be customer-friendly, and all that, but at the end of the day, they just want my money, same as anyone else. If they make a good product, I'll be happy to give them my money..

The difference between most of those things and gaming is that gaming is an ongoing purchase experience, that is constantly changing. It's also a substantial investment by the customer. Buying into 40K isn't just a one-off purchase, and then you play until you get bored and move on to something else. You buy models and rules, they change the rules or models so you buy more models and rules, and it becomes a never-ending cycle. So customers very quickly become invested in the progress of that investment. Once you've put a few thousand dollars and however many countless hours into the game, you don't want to just dump it and move to a different game when 40K starts to become something you don't like as much as you liked the original product you bought... you want the company to continue to evolve the product in a way that suits you, so that you can continue to enjoy your investment.


I fully accept that may not be the case for everyone, and you personally may find it easier to just chuck it all in a box and walk away. For me, 40K is something that I have been pouring money, time, and creativity into for over half of my life. So yes, what GW does with it matters to me.

They are preparing for an offer from Hasbro
Then you will have an official FB page, the production will move to China and the prices will drop.

(I', just joking thou)

 DalinCriid wrote:
They are preparing for an offer from Hasbro
Then you will have an official FB page, the production will move to China and the prices will drop.

(I', just joking thou)

I have a horrible, internal, cynic that believes that they were preparing for a Hasbro takeover...

But were unprepared when Hasbro decided 'no'.

The Auld Grump - does anyone think that Kirby would not be happy to trade GW stock for Hasbro stock?

I think Hasbro are handling D&D and Transformers quite well. While Transformers are really kids oriented but If they did well with Dungeons and Dragons I think they can do well with 40K as well.

OP, Netsurfer, you truly did open a can of worms on a contentiousness that is frankly one of the things that slowly drove me away from forums such as these. But I wanted to comment because while my thoughts may echo what many others have already said, I think I can offer my opinion from a uniquely objective standpoint. Relatively, anyway.

I will place a TL;DR marker at the section where I get to my point for those uninterested in the preamble.

As you've already seen, there is a lot of emotion over this issue and people have already picked sides and established entrenched positions that they feel the need to defend. I have no dog in this fight. While I like GW's IP and models, I only play Epic these days. I haven't played 40k or Fantasy in years. I'm not resentful or mad in any way and have no emotional investment in my opinion. No axe to grind. I didn't make a conscious "screw GW!" decision to quit 40k or Fantasy. Simply lost interest and faded away over time.

What I think it boils down to is mismanagement by Tom Kirby. Or, it may be more accurate to say that Kirby misjudged Games Workshop's value proposition, its role in the market, and its core customer base. Saying this with no rancor at all, I do think Kirby was grossly out of touch with his customers due to this misjudgment and what I perceived to be a strange kind of personal disdain for GW's customers.

The philosophy that he expressed repeatedly and explicitly was that GW was in the collectibles business. He believed that most GW customers purchased GW models primarily as collectors and not as gamers. He believed because of this status as "collectibles", the quality of GW products, and its standing in the marketplace, that GW products were essentially borderline Veblen goods with very little price elasticity. He further operated under the assumption that the games did very little in the way of driving sales.

I more-or-less agree with his assessment of GW's products being pseudo-Veblen goods for which people are willing to pay a sort of "status" premium. However, declining sales numbers demonstrated time and time again that either the product wasn't nearly as price inelastic as he thought or that he was wrong in his assumptions regarding GW's value proposition and core customer. Consistently declining sales figures should have been quantifiable clues that his philosophy was flawed. Why he was never brought to task on this by shareholders or the board of directors, I am not sure.

TL;DR Where I believe Kirby completely missed the mark and where the answer to your question lies was his belief that there was very little connection between the models and the games as sales drivers. Not in the sense that people will buy more of a model perceived to be "powerful" in the game. I believe that influences sales a lot less than people here think. I mean more in the sense that the gaming experience and the social aspects surrounding it are hugely powerful and inexpensive marketing tools for the product that he entirely failed to leverage. People continue to play with physical toy soldiers in spite of having millions of virtual options that they can pursue at home because, in general, people like being around other people, especially people who have a shared interest. The big GW stores with lots of cool tables brought people together. The Games Days and the Golden Demons and all that brought people together. What happens when people with a shared interest get together? They talk about the interest. They reinforce each others' commitment to that interest. They organically buy more product having to do with that interest. They bring their friends along who then feel the urge to become involved with the community and buy product.

That is the reason GW has become so closed off. Because Tom Kirby (incorrectly, IMO) believed that social events and company interaction with its customer were a waste of money that didn't lead to increased sales. He believed this due to his misjudgment of GW products as collectibles.

The good news? Tom Kirby is no longer CEO and the new CEO seems to be quietly correcting a lot of Kirby's stupid mistakes. I like the general direction and hope that he is able to turn things around.

NOTE: Edited for typos

You get that the new CEO is one of Kirby's longest standing colleagues, and that Kirby is still chairman?

I'm sorry I'm seeing no real change nor any real cause to look for it, but if you've got any examples I'd be interested to hear.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You get that the new CEO is one of Kirby's longest standing colleagues, and that Kirby is still chairman?

I'm sorry I'm seeing no real change nor any real cause to look for it, but if you've got any examples I'd be interested to hear.

Sure. I get that they have a long-time association with each other and that Kirby is still on the board. That doesn't mean he can't disagree with Kirby. It also doesn't mean that he isn't vulnerable to being fired for poor performance. I could be wrong, but because he is new, I am assuming that he has every incentive to perform well at the moment as I am sure his every move will be carefully watched by shareholders.

Where I think his relationship with Kirby could muddy things a bit is good old fashioned politicking. He may be reluctant to reverse too many of Kirby's stupid policies too quickly for fear of offending him and / or jeopardizing his standing with him. Remember, it took decades after his death for the Communist Party to finally admit that Mao may have only been 70% correct

I can't cite any concrete examples for you right now. I'm sure if I thought about it I could, but I'm not really so invested in this discussion. All I can say is that I know I've seen a couple of things over the past few months that made me think "oh, that's pretty cool", and seemed like reversals of Kirby's aloof policies.

I think robin dews explained the problem very succinctly in his mba circa 2007, where gw had adopted a monolithic management approach when it needed a flexible and adaptive one. The whole thing was a good read, but seems to have disappeared in the last year or two behind paywalls. Can't find the original link but here's another: http://www.scribd.com/doc/232765008/Culture-Structure-Strategy-and-Power-MBA-Management-Project-2007-Robin-Dews

I have it saved on my comp, can try to figure out a way to post it if anyone is interested.

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
Where I think his relationship with Kirby could muddy things a bit is good old fashioned politicking. He may be reluctant to reverse too many of Kirby's stupid policies too quickly for fear of offending him and / or jeopardizing his standing with him. Remember, it took decades after his death for the Communist Party to finally admit that Mao may have only been 70% correct

Actually, the 70/30 thing, is from a quote by Deng Xiaoping in 1978, two years after Mao died. And during the '80s many Mao statues were removed, and his importance downplayed, before finally in February '89 an op-ed by one of the top CCP officials flat out called Mao a disaster. The view of Mao by the CCP is like state-owned companies and services in the UK in the post-war era; Tories privatize; lose power, Labour nationalize, lose power; rinse, repeat. While a one-party state, the CCP functions like multiple parties (where everyone's Frank Underwood), where there's a left and a right wing. Deng was right-wing, and was replaced by leftism in the 90s, when Mao's image was restored, and then it gets a bit muddled after that with the super-Underwoods of the noughties, and Xi, who kinda just rolled with it. At least until he got rid of Bo. If the next one is like Xi, and the US pivots a bit back from Asia (nothing like a mythical helmsman to stir up support through revisionism and nationalism), there are chances of Mao getting some harsh words in the People's Daily.

TL;DR: Rountree will call Kirbz 30% incompetent in 2017.

"Become" so closed off?

Their whole goal from the beginning was to establish a closed gaming ecosystem.

MB

From the customers, not the rest of the industry.

It's one thing pretending the competition doesn't exist, it's quite another ignoring your customers.

 Thud wrote:

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
Where I think his relationship with Kirby could muddy things a bit is good old fashioned politicking. He may be reluctant to reverse too many of Kirby's stupid policies too quickly for fear of offending him and / or jeopardizing his standing with him. Remember, it took decades after his death for the Communist Party to finally admit that Mao may have only been 70% correct

Actually, the 70/30 thing, is from a quote by Deng Xiaoping in 1978, two years after Mao died. And during the '80s many Mao statues were removed, and his importance downplayed, before finally in February '89 an op-ed by one of the top CCP officials flat out called Mao a disaster. The view of Mao by the CCP is like state-owned companies and services in the UK in the post-war era; Tories privatize; lose power, Labour nationalize, lose power; rinse, repeat. While a one-party state, the CCP functions like multiple parties (where everyone's Frank Underwood), where there's a left and a right wing. Deng was right-wing, and was replaced by leftism in the 90s, when Mao's image was restored, and then it gets a bit muddled after that with the super-Underwoods of the noughties, and Xi, who kinda just rolled with it. At least until he got rid of Bo. If the next one is like Xi, and the US pivots a bit back from Asia (nothing like a mythical helmsman to stir up support through revisionism and nationalism), there are chances of Mao getting some harsh words in the People's Daily.

TL;DR: Rountree will call Kirbz 30% incompetent in 2017.

I stand corrected. The exact length of time was not substantially material to the point I was trying to make about Kirby's successor so I didn't bother to "spell check" my memory of it, so to speak. I think my point about stepping on the toes of the old guard came across regardless. As it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I suspect your history lesson for us there was largely a self-satisfying demonstration of your detailed knowledge of the subject. But I thank you for the correction nevertheless. It sounds like you are pretty interested in the topic. If you have not already done so, Henry Kissinger's book On China offers interesting first-hand anecdotes about CCCP leadership spanning three or four decades. I recommend it. I, too, am watching events unfold in that part of the world with keen interest, but.... completely off topic for this thread.

Anyway, hopefully GW does turn things around a little bit. I do miss that sense of community and interaction. Even though I knew I was being sold to at them, the old Games Days were pretty fun.

The doom of GW had been foretold often.
For many of us when it happens we would have already moved on.

insaniak wrote:The difference between most of those things and gaming is that gaming is an ongoing purchase experience, that is constantly changing. It's also a substantial investment by the customer. Buying into 40K isn't just a one-off purchase, and then you play until you get bored and move on to something else. You buy models and rules, they change the rules or models so you buy more models and rules, and it becomes a never-ending cycle. So customers very quickly become invested in the progress of that investment. Once you've put a few thousand dollars and however many countless hours into the game, you don't want to just dump it and move to a different game when 40K starts to become something you don't like as much as you liked the original product you bought... you want the company to continue to evolve the product in a way that suits you, so that you can continue to enjoy your investment.

I fully accept that may not be the case for everyone, and you personally may find it easier to just chuck it all in a box and walk away. For me, 40K is something that I have been pouring money, time, and creativity into for over half of my life. So yes, what GW does with it matters to me.

I think you misunderstand me. I care about what GW does to the product, but I don't care about whether management seems 'closed off' or whether they are wonderful people or terrible people, because as I've said before, I don't hold other vendors of any size to this standard. I don't really get 'communication' (not in a meaningful way) out of much anything else I enjoy in life either, including things that I spend lots of money and devote lots of time on.

But of course, I my wish for 40k is hobby that is generally accessible (at least from a first-world nation perspective) and a game that makes lots of people happy and has lots of people happily playing.

Peregrine wrote:Do you really not see the contradiction here? The "extreme 40k'ers" are a low percentage of gamers and may or may not play at all, but they'll happily buy the same old recycled fluff (in ever-decreasing amounts) just because it contains new rules to play the game?

Also, you seem to be confusing "GW's stupid actions don't hurt this group quite as much" with "GW is doing the right thing for this group". GW isn't supporting this group at all, they're just stubborn enough to keep playing despite that lack of support. At best GW has realized that rabid fanboys who will keep buying no matter what are an easy cash cow to milk, so it's not worth investing time and money into developing a superior product if the cash cow can keep GW profitable for a few more years and let the CEO cash his retirement check.

Well, there are two different things to address here, Peregrine.

Your assumptions aren't necessarily correct. You assume that extreme 40k'ers are basically sheep who walk out like zombies and just buy GW stuff. On the contrary, if you check the other similarly-themed thread, there are some people who have tried many other products and come back to GW games and models out of actual, informed preference. Believe it or not, as imperfect as the 40k rules are, it's my favorite game, I have TONS of fun with it, and not for lack of trying other games. Likewise, 40k models are the ones that give me the most joy to model and paint, again not for lack of purchasing other models. I don't ask anyone else to share my viewpoint, but I know that I'm hardly unique.

Secondly, I didn't say, "GW's stupid actions don't hurt this group quite as much". I said that GW is trying to please this group to the exclusion of other groups, and I also said this may be detrimental to the hobby and ecosystem as a whole.

For example: people who are "extreme 40k'ers" don't mind a codex every two years. I'd happily buy a Sapce Marine Codex as an annual event, every June 1 on the dot. Of course, I'd want them to add new stuff in there every year. I don't feel at all that the 7e SM codex is a regurgitation of the 6e book, and I honestly don't think that anyone who's bought feels that it's just a reprint money grab. The store I picked it up had like 20+ preorders, so it's not like I'm alone here. But bring it on baby -- I don't want to wait 3 years for a refresh to may favorite faction. Core-command-auxiliary changes? AWESOME. If it means shelling out $50 for a book, take my money please. I get that for someone who doesn't play much or to whom hobby is just a passing interest may think replacing a rulebook in a year is obtuse, and having to retool their army every couple years, maybe before they even finish painting it in the first place, might seem crazy.

As another example, "extreme 40k'ers" will happily pay more money for a box set that has small, incremental improvements. I see posable legs on ASM or an eviscerator or scenic bases, and I go, "HOLY CRAP, MUST HAVE!". A casual player might just want a game piece and not care. Obviously, they don't hold the same value for all people. For example, I traded 20 old ASM pieces for bits for 10 new ones because I wanted more posable legs and both me and the other fella were very happy.

GW seems hell bent on putting out stuff that makes the former group happy, even if it angers the latter, who feel that game pieces are just game pieces, and the 2005 Devastator legs aren't all that different from the 2015 Devastator legs -- and more importantly, aren't willing to pay for the newer, "better" piece. I put better in quotes, because it's way better to some people, and others are totally indifferent.

In the end, I'm not sure you can please both, and GW seems to care a lot about the first, and not much about the second. Perhaps at their own peril.

You also make the assumption that folks like me would just buy the next box of stuff whether or not it was better. That's just not true. However, I genuinely think the new Devastator box is way, way, way better than the last box, and I was happy to buy 2 right away. When I get through painting some of them in the next week or two, I'll buy at least 2 more boxes. What can I say, I like space marines, I think the legs are cool, I love the weapon sculpts, I love the new weapons, new sergeant torso, and so forth.

Plus, as JamesY pointed out, since 2009, they've invested in a better way of tooling the molds, and the plastic is just better. It's smoother, crisper, cleaner, and more detailed. I don't think appreciating that makes me a rabid fanboy.

I buy quite a lot of non-GW stuff, and I appreciate it too. I'm a big fan of Infinity models, for example, but there aren't many to be had. A couple of times a year, I spend a couple of weeks painting them, and then they go in a display case, and maybe I pull them out to play a game with once a year. A few times a year a PP model will demand that I drop everything and paint it. Through the rest of the year, I buy a lot of their models, but none of them really drive me to paint them with any urgency, so they go into a pile until I get in the mood to do add to my Cyngar, Menoth, or Retribution. The last model that I "HAD" to paint was Bradigus, and before that it was one of the Haley models.

On the other hand, there's so much GW stuff that comes out that I'm dying to paint, that I just spend time imagining posing, assembling, and modelling, that it's just nuts. I can't wait to get to AdMech. I can't wait til I have time to put together my Eldar Farseer on a jetbike. I can't wait until I can put together the windriders I bought, or the Knight Warden, or even Druthu from last year, or the Bloodletter from this. Or Nagash. It's like an endless stream of modelling hotness for me.

 Talys wrote:
I think you misunderstand me. I care about what GW does to the product, but I don't care about whether management seems 'closed off' or whether they are wonderful people or terrible people, because as I've said before, I don't hold other vendors of any size to this standard. I don't really get 'communication' (not in a meaningful way) out of much anything else I enjoy in life either, including things that I spend lots of money and devote lots of time on.

The two go hand in hand, though.

A lot of the current discontent with the way GW management are doing things comes from people being unhappy with the direction of the game, but being unable to make that disatisfaction heard.

 Talizvar wrote:
The doom of GW had been foretold often.
For many of us when it happens we would have already moved on.

1. Historian's fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.[39] (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)

2. Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.[80]

3. Chronological snobbery – where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.[85][86]

I could go on, such as the fallacy of assuming that something wasn't true in the past, it must not be true now, but why bother?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I think you misunderstand me. I care about what GW does to the product, but I don't care about whether management seems 'closed off' or whether they are wonderful people or terrible people, because as I've said before, I don't hold other vendors of any size to this standard. I don't really get 'communication' (not in a meaningful way) out of much anything else I enjoy in life either, including things that I spend lots of money and devote lots of time on.

The two go hand in hand, though.

A lot of the current discontent with the way GW management are doing things comes from people being unhappy with the direction of the game, but being unable to make that disatisfaction heard.

This.
GW's silence is not helping them and only fans frustration from the community.

 insaniak wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I think you misunderstand me. I care about what GW does to the product, but I don't care about whether management seems 'closed off' or whether they are wonderful people or terrible people, because as I've said before, I don't hold other vendors of any size to this standard. I don't really get 'communication' (not in a meaningful way) out of much anything else I enjoy in life either, including things that I spend lots of money and devote lots of time on.

The two go hand in hand, though.

A lot of the current discontent with the way GW management are doing things comes from people being unhappy with the direction of the game, but being unable to make that disatisfaction heard.

Yes, I hear that, and I totally appreciate someone quitting 40k because they hate the rules. They absolutely should. I don't get someone quitting 40k because they think that Kirby a tool. Hate the game because you hate the game, you know what I mean?

I also get that you think that current management is the cause of "poor rules" in the game and whatnot. But I'd respond, the rules now are better than they've ever been, in my opinion. Balance? It's NEVER been perfectly balanced, current management, or previous. It's ALWAYS had quirky "LOL, that game was a waste of time" issues. But for our guys, it's always been fun. It's still the game we have the most fun with, quirks and all.

I get the feeling you might have just barely touched on what could really be happening. I suspect it's less that they're quitting because of Kirby, but they're quitting because of the rules (or the prices, or whatever else that directly impacts them) .... which is itself because of Kirby being a flaming hosebeast or whatever ... (edit)Of course, it's probably easier to say/type "It's Kirby's fault" than enumerate all of your issues ... (/edit)

I would be interested to see a really good, pleasantly done debate on the rules thing though. I've seen people say it both ways, but haven't really seen a good explanation of why it sucks, and why it rocks. Which of course is likely to have a different explanation for everyone, but maybe there are commonalities that could stand to be codified in one place. Normally I'd think that'd dissolve into bile, but this thread so far has been pretty pleasant over all despite the fairly wide gulf of opinions ...

Balance has never been a huge factor for me. I'd certainly not complain if everything was better balanced, but I'm not a competitive enough player (and fairly used to being stomped even by less problematic armies) to care that much about it.

The bigger issues for me are things like the current wound allocation (which I dislike as intensely as a big intense dislikey thing), and the excessive random... but even moreso the complete lack of care in actually writing the rules.

The 'psyker unit' rules should never have made it anywhere near a final publication in their current state, just to mention the most obvious example. Couple that with their current disdain for publishing errata, and you're left with a flawed product, and a company that apparently doesn't care that the product is flawed so long as people buy it.

And that's just downright irritating.

 Beltendu wrote:
I get the feeling you might have just barely touched on what could really be happening. I suspect it's less that they're quitting because of Kirby, but they're quitting because of the rules (or the prices, or whatever else that directly impacts them) .... which is itself because of Kirby being a flaming hosebeast or whatever ... (edit)Of course, it's probably easier to say/type "It's Kirby's fault" than enumerate all of your issues ... (/edit)

I would be interested to see a really good, pleasantly done debate on the rules thing though. I've seen people say it both ways, but haven't really seen a good explanation of why it sucks, and why it rocks. Which of course is likely to have a different explanation for everyone, but maybe there are commonalities that could stand to be codified in one place. Normally I'd think that'd dissolve into bile, but this thread so far has been pretty pleasant over all despite the fairly wide gulf of opinions ...

I know its a bit off topic but I feel it is massively bloated and needs streamlining across the board. Rolling to hit, to wound, to save and potentially to save again is not good game design especially in a mass battle game. It is 3 or 4 rolls to determine the outcome of a model killing a model. Warmachine manages that with a simple to hit then damage vs armour as a single roll, with the rare roll to save (unless you're a troll). Infinity manages it in 2 rolls again with hitting and damage vs armour. Both of those games are much smaller than 40k and yet they understand it is important to speed up gameplay by spending less time rolling pointless dice. Dystopian wars, a real mass battle game, gets it in 1 roll, 2 if you're hitting something with shields. That is how a mass battle needs to play, fast and spending more time directing the battle rather than each tactical marine individually.

Yeah, my bad for teeing up an obvious off-topic. I was just inspired by the civil discussion around GW's behavior and differences of opinion on the state of the game ...

I've been enjoying this thread and the other about the financials though. It's neat to see, if third-hand, some of the maneuverings that I haven't paid as close attention to lately.

The closed-off thing is an interesting topic particularly, since about the only time I get any news is when I come here (or ATT for Tau specific stuff). Which is admittedly kinda feast or famine for me. I hadn't really put it together as a nearly complete cloak of secrecy on GWs part though.

GW doesn't make market research and they said this in their business report last time.

If you look at the homepage, there is a button ''Painting and Modeling''.
This button has replaced the button ''Gaming''.
Its easier to ''forge the narrative'' than producing a consistent rule set

Other companies do it better, like PP. They always have an eye on the customer by their press gangers