Mr. Burning wrote: I half expect GW to abandon Fantasy at some point. In fact I would not be surprised at all should Fantasy head the way of the dodo.
There is hardly anything GW can protect or offer as watertight and wanted IP/Brand within that system.
Hope I am wrong as 3rd ed Fantasy was the first rules book I brought but. with fantasy as one of the most generic tropes out there a litigious and money grabbing GW probably sees slim value in it's second game system.
Which is a shame. That didn't stop them from making one of my favorite armies, Bretonnia, and lifting it straight from Arthurian lore. But instead of making a superior product, they'd rather make a product and try to protect it's sales with IP law. The former is the right way of doing business. The latter, I hope, is not an option some day in the future.
"Marketers are in luck. While the communities that build themselves around specific interests and hobbies are increasingly independent of brands, they also tend to be more engaged, more enthusiastic and more willing to act as brand ambassadors without even being asked."
and
"By cultivating an online community, you’ve just grown a highly engaged audience at scale. The users who make an effort to contribute to these groups are predisposed to share the content they love."
Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.
Let's do some maths with Do I
Say you have 4 players looking to get into a skirmish game, and let's assume they have all the paints and gaming aids they need and lets assume they only need 12 figures max each to build a warband/kill team whatever.
Let's assume they all buy the rulebook which has everything they need to game, and lets assume they don't only buy one copy and photocopy it for everybody else.
So that's 4 x £30 = £120. I'm basing the £30 on the average price for a codex/rulebook on wayland games that various companies offer.
Next the models. I'm basing this price on the days when one box of Empire militia or 10 man dire avenger box was enough to equip a warband. I'm also basing it on prices from 4-5 years ago, which I believe should still be the GW price in this day and age, so that's £20 a box = 4x £20 = £80
Grand total is obviously £200 for four people to get into a skirmish game. At £50 each, that's not a bad start up price.
Even if you went down the route of buying two starter box sets (dropzone for example) it would still come to £130 (average starter box set price for various games on wayland is £65) so for 4 people, that's an average of £32.50 per person to get into that system.
Now, my methodology may be a bit crude, and fair play if you're still reading this post at this stage but compare the skirmish game price to the price if those 4 players were getting into warhammer fantasy or 40k
4 or 5 years ago, I could throw down £100 and roughly get a decent 1000 point chaos force or space marine force to start me off. Obviously those 4 players doing that would be spending £100 each = £400
Even if your players were buying paints and tools to go with their skirmish games, the bigger games still win out and this is where the money is for GW. They not making money because as people have been saying for months, their strategy is a shambles. Skirmish games will not save them. GW's rivals are like China. They're starting from zero so any growth is always going to look good, that's a basic rule of economics. For example, car ownership growth in China is always going to look more impressive than Japan, a country where most people own a car. A crude example but you get my point.
I think I've spent 5 minutes writing a point that could probably have been down in one paragraph!
I tend to agree with the aspect of GW being stuck as the "three-wheeler of minigames". (copywritten jsut now)
Where as other systems specialized in one end of the scale spectrum and expanded towards the middle (warmahordes, infinity, malifaux, starwars, flames of war), GW just plopped themselves right in the middle and figured they would get the best of all worlds.
Now that the other systems are expanding into the middle ground that the GW exodus has opened, GW has no easy territory to expand into. Any direction they go, either larger or smaller, someone has already made a 'better' (Cheaper, Less complex, or more tactical) ruleset. So GW has to add some extra spice (which is usually in the form of codex creep)... they know that if they give the option for something to be stupidpowerful, some WAAC is gonna use it, and then their usual opponents will be forced to escalate (or splinter off into smaller playing groups that have like views, which is equally detrimental to the community).
the problem becomes that although all is fair in love and war, not everything is fair when playing games.
What is everyones least favorite part of baskettball/soccer? flopping.
why? because its a big grey area in the rules that is hard to enforce even for an objective 3rd party.
playing 40k is like playing call your own fouls in basketball, its fine and fun if your opponent has honor, maturity, and a sense of fair play...but it quickly disintegrates when one of the players tries to abuse the grey areas for their own gain.
Additionally, GW always seems to be the johnny-come-lately of progressive ideas.
infinity/starwars have flyers? a year later so does 40k warmahordes add collosal/gargantuans? a year later gw adds titans.
flames of war has early war, mid war, late war: a year later FW has 30k
Howard A Treesong wrote:I find the suggestions of skirmish games using the currently available miniatures, like kill team, to be giving too much of a concession to GW to make it easy for them to make a smaller game. It's just lazy. It's a great suggestion having smaller skirmish games, but just doing 40k with fewer figures is rather dull and easy for GW. I'd be very disappointed in an official release of kill team was made. It's just like 40k but you only need one box of marines.
xxvaderxx wrote:They already have it, its called kill teams, what they need to do is properly support it.
Kill Team is lazy, and very poorly done. But it's not the fact that it uses currently available miniatures that makes it lazy; it's that it's just 40k with fewer models and just as many rules issues. They need to write a real, modern, stand-alone skirmish ruleset, designed specifically for that scale and for campaigns. Then they can use that "game engine" for Necromunda, Gorkamorka, Inquisitor, etc. And using the same models is an advantage the same way the Allies rules is an advantage - it encourages people to start small collections that then blossom into 40k armies.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:With all due respect to my fellow dakka members, the idea that a skirmish game is going to save GW, is pretty ridiculous.
Necromunda/Mordheim etc as good as they are, didn't exactly set the world on fire when GW took them seriously. They're too niche, too small scale to make any decent boost to profits.
Who said anything about specialist games existing solely to boost profits? You're on GW's board, aren't you? No, no one is saying specialist games alone will fix the bottom line or be a huge money maker. They can certainly be profitable (or else GW's competitors wouldn't be doing so well with analogous games), but it's the secondary benefits that GW needs to go after. GW desperately needs feeder games to bring new players into their ecosystem (what's left of their withered ecosystem), and side games to retain the interest of veterans or encourage them to start new collections. And in my opinion they need a way to channel their creative output and still generate buzz with new products that doesn't result in yet another bloated addition to 40k or Fantasy.
infinity/starwars have flyers? a year later so does 40k
Where are these Infinity flyers? I've seen one prototype model in the entire game. Star Wars is all flyers. Not sure where you are going with the flyer thing.
warmahordes add collosal/gargantuans? a year later gw adds titans
.
GW had titans before Privateer Press was a company. I have an old Armorcast Eldar titan to prove my point. Apocalypse 1.0 was published in 2007, well before PP colossals and gargantuans.
flames of war has early war, mid war, late war: a year later FW has 30k
Histoical games have lists broken up by time period. I don't believe GW as trying for 'early-war' with the Heresy models.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.
Let's do some maths with Do I
Say you have 4 players looking to get into a skirmish game, and let's assume they have all the paints and gaming aids they need and lets assume they only need 12 figures max each to build a warband/kill team whatever.
Let's assume they all buy the rulebook which has everything they need to game, and lets assume they don't only buy one copy and photocopy it for everybody else.
So that's 4 x £30 = £120. I'm basing the £30 on the average price for a codex/rulebook on wayland games that various companies offer.
Next the models. I'm basing this price on the days when one box of Empire militia or 10 man dire avenger box was enough to equip a warband. I'm also basing it on prices from 4-5 years ago, which I believe should still be the GW price in this day and age, so that's £20 a box = 4x £20 = £80
Grand total is obviously £200 for four people to get into a skirmish game. At £50 each, that's not a bad start up price.
Even if you went down the route of buying two starter box sets (dropzone for example) it would still come to £130 (average starter box set price for various games on wayland is £65) so for 4 people, that's an average of £32.50 per person to get into that system.
Now, my methodology may be a bit crude, and fair play if you're still reading this post at this stage but compare the skirmish game price to the price if those 4 players were getting into warhammer fantasy or 40k
4 or 5 years ago, I could throw down £100 and roughly get a decent 1000 point chaos force or space marine force to start me off. Obviously those 4 players doing that would be spending £100 each = £400
Even if your players were buying paints and tools to go with their skirmish games, the bigger games still win out and this is where the money is for GW. They not making money because as people have been saying for months, their strategy is a shambles. Skirmish games will not save them. GW's rivals are like China. They're starting from zero so any growth is always going to look good, that's a basic rule of economics. For example, car ownership growth in China is always going to look more impressive than Japan, a country where most people own a car. A crude example but you get my point.
I think I've spent 5 minutes writing a point that could probably have been down in one paragraph!
Tell that to the companies making millions a year on Skirmish games. If you know what your doing, you make money. GW doesn't know what they are doing. Any companies with any smarts wouldn't dismiss a sorce of cash flow just becouse it brings in less profit then their big games.
I have 3 1000+pts Infinity factions, and just started my 4th while still buying for my other 3 forces. That is just one of the Skirmish games I play.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.
The point of a skirmish game is not that it would be more profitable than 40k. The point is that a) they're completely missing anyone who only wants to play a skirmish game right now, so any expansion of their total available market is a Good Thing; and b) skirmish games can serve as a gateway into the core systems, so long as the models are at least vaguely compatible (skirmish heroes become sergeants & etc.).
I don't recommend 40k to new players any more, because it will usually cost >$700 before they have anything like a usable army at "normal" point levels. If Mordheim was still supported, though, I would happily be teaching people that (instead of Malifaux).
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Now, my methodology may be a bit crude, and fair play if you're still reading this post at this stage but compare the skirmish game price to the price if those 4 players were getting into warhammer fantasy or 40k
4 or 5 years ago, I could throw down £100 and roughly get a decent 1000 point chaos force or space marine force to start me off. Obviously those 4 players doing that would be spending £100 each = £400
Um....
Why are you comparing the entry cost of a skirmish game today to the entry cost for 40K from 4-5 years ago? Prices are dramatically higher today.
But, since you don't seem to get the obvious, I feel obligated to point it out to you.
Because of the barrier of entry that pricing poses, far more players would be interested in starting a game where you only need to put down $75 to start playing, as opposed to the $300+ you have to pay to start 40K. You make up in volume of customers what you lose in the size of each individual purchase.
And, as others have said, the main reason GW needs something like a skirmish game is to encourage players to get into GW products in the first place.
infinity/starwars have flyers? a year later so does 40k
Where are these Infinity flyers? I've seen one prototype model in the entire game. Star Wars is all flyers. Not sure where you are going with the flyer thing.
warmahordes add collosal/gargantuans? a year later gw adds titans
.
GW had titans before Privateer Press was a company. I have an old Armorcast Eldar titan to prove my point. Apocalypse 1.0 was published in 2007, well before PP colossals and gargantuans.
flames of war has early war, mid war, late war: a year later FW has 30k
Histoical games have lists broken up by time period. I don't believe GW as trying for 'early-war' with the Heresy models.
DOH: i meant to type Dust has flyers.
Armorcast was a 3rd party that GW allowed to make mini's, if im not mistaken... they have long since abandoned that route. And im not too sure that they ever had official titan rules outside of epic. although i could be wrong
GW is exaclty trying for early war with 30k... they have vastly differnt rules, abilities, and units that arnt designed to be used against the other set. with the only realy common ground being the name of the faction.
infinity/starwars have flyers? a year later so does 40k
Where are these Infinity flyers? I've seen one prototype model in the entire game. Star Wars is all flyers. Not sure where you are going with the flyer thing.
warmahordes add collosal/gargantuans? a year later gw adds titans
.
GW had titans before Privateer Press was a company. I have an old Armorcast Eldar titan to prove my point. Apocalypse 1.0 was published in 2007, well before PP colossals and gargantuans.
flames of war has early war, mid war, late war: a year later FW has 30k
Histoical games have lists broken up by time period. I don't believe GW as trying for 'early-war' with the Heresy models.
DOH: i meant to type Dust has flyers.
Armorcast was a 3rd party that GW allowed to make mini's, if im not mistaken... they have long since abandoned that route. And im not too sure that they ever had official titan rules outside of epic. although i could be wrong
GW is exaclty trying for early war with 30k... they have vastly differnt rules, abilities, and units that arnt designed to be used against the other set. with the only realy common ground being the name of the faction.
Forge world took over where armour cast left off. And rules have been around for years. They also had flyers for years. The hover rules covered allot of flyers, and FW had flyers.
Your making an strange comparison with 30k and other games. I don't think that had anything to do with other companies and everything to do with years of players asking FW to do it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.
Let's do some maths with Do I
Say you have 4 players looking to get into a skirmish game, and let's assume they have all the paints and gaming aids they need and lets assume they only need 12 figures max each to build a warband/kill team whatever.
Let's assume they all buy the rulebook which has everything they need to game, and lets assume they don't only buy one copy and photocopy it for everybody else.
So that's 4 x £30 = £120. I'm basing the £30 on the average price for a codex/rulebook on wayland games that various companies offer.
Next the models. I'm basing this price on the days when one box of Empire militia or 10 man dire avenger box was enough to equip a warband. I'm also basing it on prices from 4-5 years ago, which I believe should still be the GW price in this day and age, so that's £20 a box = 4x £20 = £80
Grand total is obviously £200 for four people to get into a skirmish game. At £50 each, that's not a bad start up price.
Even if you went down the route of buying two starter box sets (dropzone for example) it would still come to £130 (average starter box set price for various games on wayland is £65) so for 4 people, that's an average of £32.50 per person to get into that system.
Now, my methodology may be a bit crude, and fair play if you're still reading this post at this stage but compare the skirmish game price to the price if those 4 players were getting into warhammer fantasy or 40k
4 or 5 years ago, I could throw down £100 and roughly get a decent 1000 point chaos force or space marine force to start me off. Obviously those 4 players doing that would be spending £100 each = £400
Even if your players were buying paints and tools to go with their skirmish games, the bigger games still win out and this is where the money is for GW. They not making money because as people have been saying for months, their strategy is a shambles. Skirmish games will not save them. GW's rivals are like China. They're starting from zero so any growth is always going to look good, that's a basic rule of economics. For example, car ownership growth in China is always going to look more impressive than Japan, a country where most people own a car. A crude example but you get my point.
I think I've spent 5 minutes writing a point that could probably have been down in one paragraph!
Your whole post makes no sense. This is basic supply and demand stuff. If it costs more to buy something, fewer people will buy it. So in your example, it's far more likely that of the four people who would spend £32.50 to start playing a skirmish game, not all four will spend £100 to start 40k (and even that is a ridiculous number to throw about - that's getting you a codex and maybe two units, not a 1000 point army). So it's probably more like £150 to start an army, and now 3 out of 4 of your hypothetical players have balked and the 4th guy decides not to buy because no one will play with him.
Profit is profit - margins are probably thinner on a skirmish game, but if you're making a profit you're making money. And the network effect is crucial for gaming. Like above, if you can't find enough people to play against, you won't buy the game. A good 28mm skirmish game might only marginally increase their sales volume, but the potential to snag new players at a lower price point is critical right now when their player base is dwindling.
1) I think it is seriously doubtful if GW retains the game design talent to produce a competitive Skirmish game. They may get a cool game, because the WH40K IP is brilliant for multi-level gaming. But a good game? Highly unlikely.
Which means that the first stage in GW's renaissance is realizing that it is a game company in a competitive marketplace. GW leadership proudly proclaims that it is a miniatures company in a collecting GW miniature marketplace. Absent changing this fundamental GW leadership precept, the good Skirmish game cannot happen.
2) A Skirmish game(s) offers two advantages to GW:
- A low cost entry into the WH40K universe with heavy emphasis on Heroic action. Self explanatory, really.
- A second source of development. I agree with the idea that WH40K has been over exploited in terms of additional rules and units. There aren't obvious additions to the rules, so GW has to force new units and concepts into an overly bloated game. Skirmish games offer the game developers a chance to experiment with new ideas in a smaller setting. Now, not all GW skirmish games need be in WH40K. GW could produce a modern warfare skirmish game, using a different set of rules, or, in time for the WW1 anniversary, a WW1 skirmish game.
The idea here is periodic new games, centered around a particular gameplay idea. (In WW1 case, squad action moving against Machinegun Nests and Artillery) Limited unit product and depth and almost entirely self contained, but supported through a GWFLGS/Store marketing network. If a particular game does well, GW can allocate more resources to continuing it. Otherwise, produce the gem, get the money, and move on. (And kill off competition.)
About LoTR: Were GW competent, they could have leveraged their LoTR experience to push for the rights to publish an LoTR style game for Game of Thrones. Same non-heroic scale 28mm mass skirmish, similar rules without magic and with greater emphasis on campaigns. The additional IP isn't an either/or, it is a continuing secondary line of business. However, that would require that GW accept that it needs to be a professionally run corporation. (Again, a limitation of the current management.)
If GW is going to do a skirmish game, it needs to get its arse into gear and release one within the next year or so. And even if they did that, I'm not quite sure they are the panacea that a lot of people seem to think they will be.
Games like Deadzone are gaining ground all the time and getting more and more players, as are the likes of Infinity and Malifaux. Firestorm Armada and X-Wing have got space combat covered. You have to think that if GW does release such a game, using their current mindset, it's probably going to be over-priced compared to its competitors.
So the rulesets, prices, miniature quality are going to be directly compared to products already on the market with an established demographic. The evocative IP is going to count for a lot, but GW can't just rely on big shoulder pads to see off the games that they are directly competing against.
(Not that I think this will actually happen, the next year we're probably just likely to see a flood of more space marines and a token 'new WFB! Look!' release that will rapidly disappear from the front pages.
i understand that theoretically titans, flyers, and the heresy existed before those that i mentioned.... but they didnt make it into the common game of 40k until a different gaming company had already introduced them.
yeah i saw a pair of scratchbuilt thunderhawks, a stompa, and a homemake titan in 3rd edition.... but to say taht they were a part of the game is a VAST overstatement
infinity/starwars have flyers? a year later so does 40k
Where are these Infinity flyers? I've seen one prototype model in the entire game. Star Wars is all flyers. Not sure where you are going with the flyer thing.
warmahordes add collosal/gargantuans? a year later gw adds titans
.
GW had titans before Privateer Press was a company. I have an old Armorcast Eldar titan to prove my point. Apocalypse 1.0 was published in 2007, well before PP colossals and gargantuans.
flames of war has early war, mid war, late war: a year later FW has 30k
Histoical games have lists broken up by time period. I don't believe GW as trying for 'early-war' with the Heresy models.
Yeah, but GW totally ripped off Warcraft and Starcraft.
I think it would be too risky right now for them to do a different IP skirmish game. They would want to tie it into their main game in some form or another, because that's how they roll.
WHFB could easily leverage LOTR or The Hobbit (not sure of how those rules actually are) for a skirmish type of game, which if received well could branch out into an entirely new version of WHFB from the ground up.
40k is trickier but I maintain that a 28mm Inquisitor style game would work well within the parameters of what a skirmish game should entail. It could have a small number of models (no more than 20 say, slightly more than Infinity) with a similar but not the same rules set to 40k. The thing here is that I don't think they can do anything really radical as they don't have time to do it; it would have to use the same figures but be a different game.
DOH: i meant to type Dust has flyers.
Armorcast was a 3rd party that GW allowed to make mini's, if im not mistaken... they have long since abandoned that route. And im not too sure that they ever had official titan rules outside of epic. although i could be wrong
Uh, I really doubt that GW folks sat down some evening and decided "omg DUST is kicking our asses...we better add flyers into game like they!".
Even GW proper had models like Stompa and Baneblade before PP had Colossals.
infinity/starwars have flyers? a year later so does 40k
Where are these Infinity flyers? I've seen one prototype model in the entire game. Star Wars is all flyers. Not sure where you are going with the flyer thing.
warmahordes add collosal/gargantuans? a year later gw adds titans
.
GW had titans before Privateer Press was a company. I have an old Armorcast Eldar titan to prove my point. Apocalypse 1.0 was published in 2007, well before PP colossals and gargantuans.
flames of war has early war, mid war, late war: a year later FW has 30k
Histoical games have lists broken up by time period. I don't believe GW as trying for 'early-war' with the Heresy models.
DOH: i meant to type Dust has flyers.
Armorcast was a 3rd party that GW allowed to make mini's, if im not mistaken... they have long since abandoned that route. And im not too sure that they ever had official titan rules outside of epic. although i could be wrong
GW is exaclty trying for early war with 30k... they have vastly differnt rules, abilities, and units that arnt designed to be used against the other set. with the only realy common ground being the name of the faction.
I'm not a fan of GW's current business strategy, but you have to give credit where credit is due.
I believe the earliest rules for titans, superheavies and flyers in 40K were in Imperial Armour 1 & 2 (2000 and 2001). These rules beat PP to colossals and gargantuans by at least 10 years. I would argue that PP noticed the success GW had selling $100+ large kits and wanted in on the action.
You can't compare the Horus Heresy line with FoW Blitzkrieg. All historicals have army lists and rules variations based on time periods. I don't think this is a case of GW trying to copy Blitzkrieg. In FoW there is nothing stopping you from mixing late war and early war. I'd be happy to field my Tigers or Jumbo Shermans against your Char B1.
Pacific wrote: If GW is going to do a skirmish game, it needs to get its arse into gear and release one within the next year or so. And even if they did that, I'm not quite sure they are the panacea that a lot of people seem to think they will be.
I don't think they are either. And not because GW will somehow screw it up.
Skirmish isn't a bad thing to have in the product portfolio, and I think a 40k skirmish game done right could be a great product. But note how these other companies being mentioned start at a skirmish level but almost without fail soon begin pushing larger games, larger units/models/etc, more factions, additional settings, etc. Bloat is where the money is.
Personally, I think the Stormclaw approach addresses a number of the points being talked about and seems to be a win all around. We get cheaper models and some great campaign support, GW gets to push more 'starter armies.' I'm really very positive about it and think it's one of the best things GW's done in a while.
Pacific wrote: If GW is going to do a skirmish game, it needs to get its arse into gear and release one within the next year or so. And even if they did that, I'm not quite sure they are the panacea that a lot of people seem to think they will be.
Games like Deadzone are gaining ground all the time and getting more and more players, as are the likes of Infinity and Malifaux. Firestorm Armada and X-Wing have got space combat covered. You have to think that if GW does release such a game, using their current mindset, it's probably going to be over-priced compared to its competitors.
So the rulesets, prices, miniature quality are going to be directly compared to products already on the market with an established demographic. The evocative IP is going to count for a lot, but GW can't just rely on big shoulder pads to see off the games that they are directly competing against.
(Not that I think this will actually happen, the next year we're probably just likely to see a flood of more space marines and a token 'new WFB! Look!' release that will rapidly disappear from the front pages.
This is absolutely true. I won't say it's impossible, but given GW's current leadership and design team, I don't think they have the knowledge to get a skirmish game right, or the knowledge to know what needs to be made in the first place. And if they do get something like that out the door, it could be too little too late - an overpriced and poorly written attempt that will go head to head against other games that will only have gained ground between now and then. It's potentially risky.
However, just because those games exist, doesn't mean GW couldn't compete against them, or shouldn't try. Firestorm Armada and X-Wing are good games, but Battlefleet Gothic was a good game too - revise the rules, make new starter fleets, and re-release it, and I think you'd see it gain a decent foothold again. Even if they can't compete on being a superior game, they still have very strong and recognizable lore to attract fresh players, and a large "veteran" player base from their main games that could cross over. Those both count for a lot.
MWHistorian wrote: I do think a Skirmish game would work, I just don't think GW has the creative ability to pull it off successfully.
Aside from a skirmish game, what could they do for another original main game like 40k or fantasy? Is that even feasible?
One way they could do skirmish would be to simply reuse the existing plastic box sets. So in the skirmish game you can take a SM tactical squad, which has the options that are on the tac squad sprue. They'd probably want to do some repackaging to make it clear which boxes work for both systems, but it'd probably be preferable to adding a bunch more SKUs and trying to figure out where to fit it all in the one-man stores.
gorgon wrote: Skirmish isn't a bad thing to have in the product portfolio, and I think a 40k skirmish game done right could be a great product. But note how these other companies being mentioned start at a skirmish level but almost without fail soon begin pushing larger games, larger units/models/etc, more factions, additional settings, etc. Bloat is where the money is.
That's silly. Just because some other companies eventually expand to compete with GW's bloated rules, GW should completely cede a large and growing market for small/skirmish/casual games to their competitors? No, they should be trying to crowd them out at all levels, capturing more of the gaming market by bringing in players with a variety of games at a lower price point, all of which should tie into their main offerings.
gorgon wrote: Skirmish isn't a bad thing to have in the product portfolio, and I think a 40k skirmish game done right could be a great product. But note how these other companies being mentioned start at a skirmish level but almost without fail soon begin pushing larger games, larger units/models/etc, more factions, additional settings, etc. Bloat is where the money is.
That's silly. Just because some other companies eventually expand to compete with GW's bloated rules, GW should completely cede a large and growing market for small/skirmish/casual games to their competitors? No, they should be trying to crowd them out at all levels, capturing more of the gaming market by bringing in players with a variety of games at a lower price point, all of which should tie into their main offerings.
True this. GW gave up large sections of its market to companies that gladly stepped in and took their place. Blood Bowl, BFG, Necromunda. That's money that isn't going to GW and going to competitors.
I think we have a fundamentally different idea of what it means to be included in the basic framework of a game.
Yall seem to be of the opinion that any existence of rules or minis, even if explicitly stated as being experimental and/or requiring your opponents consent and/or banned from 'sanctioned GW games' constitutes inclusion.
my opinion is that inclusion is only truly established when the rules becomes integrated into the common rule set.
thats fine, but i stand by the statement because i feel that it is more accurate to say its an official part of the game if your opponent cant veto it as "not being an official part of the game"
id say the same for special characters, sure they had rules in 3rd edition...but the rules also explicitly stated that you needed your opponents consent to play with them, which forced them out of tournament play (back when they had official tournament play)
similarly, jsut because the unit has rules in apocalypse or imperial armor, doesnt mean that it was green lit for standard 40k play. A good rule of thumb would be, "Think back to a previous edition, would you have allowed someone to field a superheavy/homemade flyer at a tournament you were participating in?
Correlation does not imply causation, but it is highly suspect that all these ideas floating out there just happened to manifest into the mainstream game only after something analogous was introduced into a different systems core rules.
also the jumbo/charB is the exact issue that im trying to point out.... sure you CAN use them, because they have the same basical game skeleton, but they arnt DESIGNED to be played that way due to obvious power scaling differences.
The box sets aren't about being a major revenue earner, they are about keeping gamers interested, introducing new gamers to the world of 40k or even getting money out of gamers who aren't really that fussed about 40k but like that box set. It's extra revenue and a good way to test the water.
I think they missed a trick with Aeronautica Imperialis. If they'd done models at sensible prices it could of picked up more players, but they didn't and it died a death.
I believe the earliest rules for titans, superheavies and flyers in 40K were in Imperial Armour 1 & 2 (2000 and 2001).
Earliest "official" rules produced by GW/FW perhaps, but Inquisitor mag had a full playable set of rules for Titans and superheavies for Mike Biasi's models from 1992- 1995, even before Armorcast exisited. Titans and superheavies were far more powerful than they are in the current rules, but people were basically playing Apoc style games with them, not trying to integrate them into regular games of 40K.
I would argue that PP noticed the success GW had selling $100+ large kits and wanted in on the action.
Bingo! No doubt about it. Once they had their basic lines up and running, they wanted to expand the game a bit and this was one way to do it.
Re potential new skirmish games, lead time for new plastics and new rulesets would put them well into 2015 at the earliest. If Wayshuba is even remotely close to being correct, it may already be far too late for a skirmish game to help.
I did a little research on the history of the profit margin. GW hasn't had profit margins this low since mid year 2008. That was over five years ago when the company (by it's own statements) had a lot of areas to cut and a bunch of streamlining that could be implemented. The next year is going to be very interesting indeed.
With, pretty much, the company cut down to the bare bones in terms of cost of sales and operating expenses, what exactly are they going to do?
We know that they used to believe that a 5 year run was the maximum for a core rule set, but that has changed and made the predictability of future publishing unpredictable. The same is true for their most popular codices and armies with longer runs for the lower selling armies. (Which makes sense, as they need to reach a certain level of sales in order to justify the expenditures for an update). But, once again that seems to be changed as well.
Rather than shrinking down to 2-3 games, I'd like to see the old GW emerge with a variety of one-off or supplemental systems. Something kill-team like, where they could package existing models in new ways for a smaller ruleset. They could use the smaller aspect games to draw new individuals in, then as those folks model collection grows they could branch out into 40K and the like.
But also, I'd like to see them take a stab at some new IP. Like the days when Space Hulk and Dark Future came out, they were pratically working beyond their established worlds. They've had 40K and the Warhammer world forever, it would probably draw a lot of attention if they created a whole new mythos and threw some support its way. That sort of innovation would help to show they aren't stuck in a creative rut and may attract additional players who aren't interested in their 70's/80's-forged narrative worlds.
gorgon wrote: Skirmish isn't a bad thing to have in the product portfolio, and I think a 40k skirmish game done right could be a great product. But note how these other companies being mentioned start at a skirmish level but almost without fail soon begin pushing larger games, larger units/models/etc, more factions, additional settings, etc. Bloat is where the money is.
That's silly. Just because some other companies eventually expand to compete with GW's bloated rules, GW should completely cede a large and growing market for small/skirmish/casual games to their competitors? No, they should be trying to crowd them out at all levels, capturing more of the gaming market by bringing in players with a variety of games at a lower price point, all of which should tie into their main offerings.
What's silly about my statement?
Privateer DIDN'T introduce Hordes, new factions, Colossals, Unbound, etc?
FFG DIDN'T just introduce capital ships to X-Wing?
Etc.
Bloat IS where the money is. That may not fit into your narrative, but clearly other game companies see that and develop their products accordingly. The lack of a skirmish game in their product portfolio may be hurting them, but I really think that's well down the list of their issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: True this. GW gave up large sections of its market to companies that gladly stepped in and took their place. Blood Bowl, BFG, Necromunda. That's money that isn't going to GW and going to competitors.
Clearly many people play X-Wing, Warmachine, Infinity, etc. because they want to play X-Wing, Warmachine, Infinity, etc. and not because of the absence of an equivalent GW game. GW's competition is putting out more attractive and better products than in the days of Warzone, VOR, etc. That was going to happen eventually.
What probably didn't have to happen is GW's gradual abandonment of various customer communities, including the local FLGSs. By cutting support and promotion, creating unfriendly policies, etc., they lost the ground game to competitors. (Where are the Outriders? I know the Press Gangers are out there.)
Kilkrazy wrote: Bloat isn't working for GW any more, though.
Agreed. IMO this concept of 'bloat' only works if you have a foundation to build on. GW has sacrificed entry level (skirmish) sized games and focused on large end game tech. and anyone who has tried to tech to battlecruisers while you have half a dozen zerglings killing your harvesters knows how futile that can be.
gorgon wrote: Skirmish isn't a bad thing to have in the product portfolio, and I think a 40k skirmish game done right could be a great product. But note how these other companies being mentioned start at a skirmish level but almost without fail soon begin pushing larger games, larger units/models/etc, more factions, additional settings, etc. Bloat is where the money is.
That's silly. Just because some other companies eventually expand to compete with GW's bloated rules, GW should completely cede a large and growing market for small/skirmish/casual games to their competitors? No, they should be trying to crowd them out at all levels, capturing more of the gaming market by bringing in players with a variety of games at a lower price point, all of which should tie into their main offerings.
What's silly about my statement?
Privateer DIDN'T introduce Hordes, new factions, Colossals, Unbound, etc?
FFG DIDN'T just introduce capital ships to X-Wing?
Etc.
Bloat IS where the money is. That may not fit into your narrative, but clearly other game companies see that and develop their products accordingly. The lack of a skirmish game in their product portfolio may be hurting them, but I really think that's well down the list of their issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: True this. GW gave up large sections of its market to companies that gladly stepped in and took their place. Blood Bowl, BFG, Necromunda. That's money that isn't going to GW and going to competitors.
Clearly many people play X-Wing, Warmachine, Infinity, etc. because they want to play X-Wing, Warmachine, Infinity, etc. and not because of the absence of an equivalent GW game. GW's competition is putting out more attractive and better products than in the days of Warzone, VOR, etc. That was going to happen eventually.
What probably didn't have to happen is GW's gradual abandonment of various customer communities, including the local FLGSs. By cutting support and promotion, creating unfriendly policies, etc., they lost the ground game to competitors. (Where are the Outriders? I know the Press Gangers are out there.)
If GW Skrimish game were still supported I wouldn't of gone looking around and found the games I play now. How is that good for GW.
Folks seem to belabor a point of Gargantuan and Colossal models in Warmahordes, but they forget to go the full distance on the argument. These models are not met with the same contention as Lords of War in Warhammer 40k, and many feel like the Gargantuans are underpowered for their points cost. They can also be routinely found on eBay and internet stores for under $100 each. They are also made of metal and resin, more costly materials than HIPS to manufacture, and are generally bulkier than the GW lines and still manage to be cheaper.
If anything, GW saw the success of big models in PP line-up with the Stormwall and Conquest and GW started tooling up the Riptide and Wraithknight. Then came the Imperial Knight. To me, knowing that one Kraken for my Cryx is a significant investment for my army versus knowing a Wraithknight was a much smaller chunk, that made me never buy one.
All the game companies "leverage the market" to steal share ideas. Games Workshop is built upon a conglomerate of shared ideas. The long and short of it is GW's large models feel like broken cash-grabs that are marked up way too high for their inclusion in an army versus something like the models in Warmachine in which one of those models is a significant chunk of your army (40% or greater determining on points level).
Just imagine a consumer walking into a FLGS and checking out Warhammer or Warhammer 40k. He finds a box of models that he thinks looks cool and he checks the price tag. "Hm, $37 for a box of minis is a bit pricey, but surely I can do something with them." Consumer inquires with the clerk about Warhammer 40K and these new fabulous Space Wolves. The clerk informs the consumer that to play, he is probably going to have to invest in the rulebook and a codex to begin with. Then, he may need 2 more or so of those boxes plus a few other models here and there to fill out a small army. The consumer does some quick math in his head, looks again at the box and sets it back down on the shelf. He either browses for another game that looks just as good for a fraction of the price, or he leaves the store without anything.
The same customer could pick up that box and inquire about Warhammer 40K. If GW had some sort of entry skirmish game, the clerk could happily say, "Well, that is just a fraction of a much larger army. In Warhammer 40k, you can field dreadnoughts, wolf-riding marines, large battle tanks and flying gunships! Of course, if you're not ready for something of that scale quite yet, you can pick up that box of Wolf Guard and download the rules for [Enter Skirmish game title here]. Just find a friend to get a box of an opposing faction and you can run through the campaign to get a feel for the game!"
That situation is win-win. GW has just ensnared a customer with a single sale. The barrier to entry has not quite reared its head. Instead, a smaller game has gotten two or more new players involved. They may end up just wanting to play the skirmish game. They may end up wanting to get the expansion and each get a dreadnought or terminators to fill out their armies. Eventually, they may want to get their respective codices and fill out their armies.
The point is that the life and death of GW starts right there, when the customer decides whether or not to set that box back down on the shelf. Sure, there are other things that GW could be doing, but barrier of entry, I would say, is the number one reason why GW is failing. You can't hemorrhage veteran players without replacing them with new blood. You can't replace them with new blood if you don't market your products to your sales demographic. And, of course, you can't market your products if you do no market research.
TheKbob wrote: GW's large models feel like broken cash-grabs that are marked up way too high for their inclusion in an army
This probably has a lot to do with why GW is bleeding customers. High prices on kits, the size of the investment for a 2000 point army - yes those are big obstacles to attracting new customers.
But GW is losing customers that can afford the hobby as well. Manipulating game balance to drive sales is a tough pill to swallow.
It implies GW thinks:
a. We are too stupid to recognize these sales tactics, or
b. We don't care about the integrity of the game
Either way, it suggests they have a very low opinion of us, and care little for how we feel.
They've alienated such a large portion of their customers, and put up do many barriers to new customers. I don't think they have much chance of escaping this hole they've dug themselves into
sand.zzz wrote: Manipulating game balance to drive sales is a tough pill to swallow.
It implies GW thinks:
a. We are too stupid to recognize these sales tactics, or
b. We don't care about the integrity of the game
Agreed. It is underhanded in the first place, but if you're going to do it anyway, don't be so disgustingly obvious about it. I seriously thought that they might have included Allies in 6th Edition to get everyone to buy a half-baked ally force, then turn around and remove Allies from 7th edition in an effort to get customers to think, "Well, I already have this half army. Might as well fill it out!"
Hulksmash wrote: I saw people playing with GW made Titans (FW and Plastic Stompa's) in 2007. When did Collosals & Gargantuans come out again?
Unless the latter was a conversion I highly doubt that as the plastic Stompa was released in 2009.
The Gargossals were released in 2012 but had been in development for much longer. PP originally wanted to release them at the time of Apotheosis in 2005 but their tech had not caught up yet.
Wolfstan wrote: The box sets aren't about being a major revenue earner, they are about keeping gamers interested, introducing new gamers to the world of 40k or even getting money out of gamers who aren't really that fussed about 40k but like that box set. It's extra revenue and a good way to test the water.
I think they missed a trick with Aeronautica Imperialis. If they'd done models at sensible prices it could of picked up more players, but they didn't and it died a death.
Same with Zone Mortalis. A skirmish level, ship boarding Space Hulk style game where I can use my existing models? Yes please! Oh, wait, I have to spend £180 on resin board tiles, and there's no support from GW. Big missed opportunity imo. Zone Mortalis could feed into campaigns, as a side table for a game of 40k etc. etc,
I dunno. I doubt we will see GW turning it around with a skirmish game.
Even if they made a skirmish game, and it was good, and the rules or the starter box weren't priced like 24 carat diamonds, their models are still dramatically overpriced.
And I'm a huge 40K fan. I love the fiction, I love the universe, I play any computer game going set in the world. I owned all the RPG books and ran a campaign. I've got 3 armies for 40K. Current 40K is so terrible I just can't muster any enthusiasm for it at all. They have to fix that, but they missed their shot to fix the problems with the game and get me back on board. Instead, I get to pay through the nose for terrible rules and ridiculous models that have no place in a 28mm game played on a 6' by 4' gaming surface. I'd love to be playing and enjoying 40K in all it's juvenile glory, but they didn't fix it, they made it worse, and now it'll be at least 2 more years before they even have a chance to fix it again. I just don't believe they have the talent or the organisational capacity to repair the damage.
I'm not a cheerleader for GW's downfall, but I will be surprised if they can pull back from the brink. The last bullet in the gun is Fantasy 9th edition. I've got 4 armies ready to go for Fantasy, and it used to be my favourite GW game. But if they want me to play it and pay those prices for it, the rules have to be beyond reproach. Currently they're just on the bad side of mediocre.
The last thing keeping me even remotely interested was the awesome big store in my city, with it's great gaming space and friendly staff. It was easy to pop in there and pick something up, and I continued to make purchases for that reason, with an eye to getting some games in when my german was good enough. Now my german is good enough, and GW closed the store (which was the German HQ), so I have nowhere nearby to purchase GW models bar independent retailers who also sell other products which are cheaper and have better rules.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.
Let's do some maths with Do I
Let's do sell tons of minis easily with Litcheur.
1) Design new bataillon boxes that are just like the old ones, but with a twist: make them have exactly the same point cost from one army to another.
2) Include a (free) leaflet including the core rules of BattleAxe or BattleAxe40k and a (free) tiny leaflet with very basic fluff and the profiles of all of the units in that box.
2b) [optionnal] Put a small (free) sheet with the unit profile in some of the units you'll sell separately. Brand them BattleAxe Compatible 3) Sell Warhammer and Warhammer 40k as BattleAxe, but bigger, badder, with more magic, more flyers, more tanks and more awesomeness. 4) Profit!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 4 or 5 years ago, I could throw down £100 and roughly get a decent 1000 point chaos force or space marine force to start me off. Obviously those 4 players doing that would be spending £100 each = £400
Yeah, sure, if you buy that starter box that has 2 of the 14 available factions, split/share with a friend, start a Draigowing or other shenigans.
I'm tired of hearing these blatant lies I once told. Why? Because, last year, I happend to see what really happens when a mommy spends almost 500€ (£400) and genuinely believes it will make her kids happy with their new hobby. Only to have their dreams crushed when they encounter other players. And I never, EVER want to see that again.
Spoiler:
Rulebook + 2 army books = 136€ (Skavens and High Elves are only two factions, out of fifteen)
1 bataillon for each kid = 210-220€
1 Citadel Basecoat = 13 €
1 Citadel Paint Set + 2 extra colors per kid + 1 extra brush = 55€ (you don't want 1 brush for two kids?)
Glues + Flock + PVA brush = 29€
Mommy has just spent 450€ for what? Two next to useless 600 pts "armies". That's just sad. Sad for her. Sad for the kids.
She could have bought them a PS3 and a 26" TV for less than that.
I repeat: a television AND a DVD/BR player that doubles as a gaming console would cost her less than two über-tiny forces of plastic toy soldiers.
If you want your two kids to play WHFB at a standard size (2500 pts), on average, you have to be willing to spend at least 1200€ (£950). Period.
And that's in the euro zone. I'm not sure I really want to know how much an australian dad would have to spend.
Even if they made a skirmish game, and it was good, and the rules or the starter box weren't priced like 24 carat diamonds, their models are still dramatically overpriced.
No they're not; they're about same price as PP ones, more customisable and (IMHO) way better looking. The problem is that you need gakloads* of them and bunch of expensive books to actually play the game.
PP models are also drastically over priced. They just have a better game to go along with it and an lower model count over all so it doesn't seem as painful.
TheKbob wrote: Folks seem to belabor a point of Gargantuan and Colossal models in Warmahordes, but they forget to go the full distance on the argument. These models are not met with the same contention as Lords of War in Warhammer 40k, and many feel like the Gargantuans are underpowered for their points cost. They can also be routinely found on eBay and internet stores for under $100 each. They are also made of metal and resin, more costly materials than HIPS to manufacture, and are generally bulkier than the GW lines and still manage to be cheaper.
If anything, GW saw the success of big models in PP line-up with the Stormwall and Conquest and GW started tooling up the Riptide and Wraithknight. Then came the Imperial Knight. To me, knowing that one Kraken for my Cryx is a significant investment for my army versus knowing a Wraithknight was a much smaller chunk, that made me never buy one.
Riptide and Wraithknight are simply different takes on large monsters GW had been producing much before PP Colossals. They aren't Lord of Wars either (which I gather aren't that powerful anymore when D weapons were nerfed in 7th).
Really, that PP or GW or any other manufacturer could not come up with the idea with a large, impressive looking model is pretty silly. In GW's case, it goes back all the way to Necron Monolith, followed by Baneblade, Stompa and bunch of FW Titans etc.
Da Boss wrote: PP models are also drastically over priced. They just have a better game to go along with it and an lower model count over all so it doesn't seem as painful.
Right. But GW wants to sell expensive models, so better design a good low model count game then!
Da Boss wrote: PP models are also drastically over priced. They just have a better game to go along with it and an lower model count over all so it doesn't seem as painful.
The bolded is why so many people are hopping over to WarmaHordes. GW has yet to realize that people would be fine with their prices if the game itself was fast and balanced with no confusing rules.
But no, they're a "model company first and foremost"
Da Boss wrote: PP models are also drastically over priced. They just have a better game to go along with it and an lower model count over all so it doesn't seem as painful.
The bolded is why so many people are hopping over to WarmaHordes. GW has yet to realize that people would be fine with their prices if the game itself was fast and balanced with no confusing rules.
But no, they're a "model company first and foremost"
And even the models are not drawing people to the game anymore. There are far more choices out there with far better options.
Perhaps. I'm sceptical that it would draw enough players in. It's definitely a good idea, but I don't think it would be enough for me, personally, without other changes.
Da Boss wrote: PP models are also drastically over priced. They just have a better game to go along with it and an lower model count over all so it doesn't seem as painful.
Most 28mm minis are overpriced.
The manufacturers can get away with it because the biggest player in the field sells obscenely overpriced minis.
Even if they made a skirmish game, and it was good, and the rules or the starter box weren't priced like 24 carat diamonds, their models are still dramatically overpriced.
No they're not; they're about same price as PP ones, more customisable and (IMHO) way better looking. The problem is that you need gakloads* of them and bunch of expensive books to actually play the game.
(And for for Fantasy megacraploads.)
Ever heard of price leadership?
Powerful firm whose prices are likely to be imitated by other firms in the same market. Price leaders usually are also the market leaders.
If wargaming were a mature market, and GW a conventional company, they'd be keeping prices down by exploiting their dominance to try and outcompete their rivals, which would make price leadership a good thing. As it stands, they charge such high prices that there is sufficient headroom for other companies to exploit and still undercut (see also: recasters.) Now, this does have the pleasant side effect of allowing companies that wouldn't necessarily be viable in a more competitive, keenly-priced, marketplace to operate, but the ultimate result is that if the dominant company in a sector is exploitative in it's pricing strategy, it gives all the others licence to act the same way, and still look like the good guys!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.
Corvus Belli produce exactly one game, a skirmish game. The company has been growing ever since its release 9 years ago. In the last few years, they've had explosive growth, the last 2 the company grew about 75% each year.
Skirmish games are fine for long term viability if done right.
Da Boss wrote: The last bullet in the gun is Fantasy 9th edition. I've got 4 armies ready to go for Fantasy, and it used to be my favourite GW game. But if they want me to play it and pay those prices for it, the rules have to be beyond reproach. Currently they're just on the bad side of mediocre.
GW will release WHFB 9th edition not because it's an improvement, but because they want the revenue. And that will probably be the death blow for WHFB.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.
Corvus Belli produce exactly one game, a skirmish game. The company has been growing ever since its release 9 years ago. In the last few years, they've had explosive growth, the last 2 the company grew about 75% each year.
Do you have any evidence of this? In the thread in dakka discussions about google trends, I compared several of gw's competitors to gw in terms of web searches. I.e. a graphic comparison of the number of google searches including the terms "games workshop", "warhammer 40k", "warmachine", etc etc. Well here's Corvus Belli's graph* -
Spoiler:
That's...not great.
*The graph is worldwide because there were not enough searches for data to be available.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.
Corvus Belli produce exactly one game, a skirmish game. The company has been growing ever since its release 9 years ago. In the last few years, they've had explosive growth, the last 2 the company grew about 75% each year.
Do you have any evidence of this? In the thread in dakka discussions about google trends, I compared several of gw's competitors to gw in terms of web searches. I.e. a graphic comparison of the number of google searches including the terms "games workshop", "warhammer 40k", "warmachine", etc etc. Well here's Corvus Belli's graph* -
Spoiler:
That's...not great.
*The graph is worldwide because there were not enough searches for data to be available.
KommissarKarl wrote: Do you have any evidence of this? In the thread in dakka discussions about google trends, I compared several of gw's competitors to gw in terms of web searches. I.e. a graphic comparison of the number of google searches including the terms "games workshop", "warhammer 40k", "warmachine", etc etc. Well here's Corvus Belli's graph* -
Didn't we agree in that thread that whilst interesting, it wasn't really evidence of anything?
KommissarKarl wrote: Do you have any evidence of this? In the thread in dakka discussions about google trends, I compared several of gw's competitors to gw in terms of web searches. I.e. a graphic comparison of the number of google searches including the terms "games workshop", "warhammer 40k", "warmachine", etc etc. Well here's Corvus Belli's graph* -
Didn't we agree in that thread that whilst interesting, it wasn't really evidence of anything?
No, Azreal said that and other people agreed with him. I happen to think that what people are googling is helpful in gauging the level of interest, especially in niche hobby products. You can't claim that profits are soaring 75% when there's empirical data showing that people are searching for them less and less.
KommissarKarl wrote: Do you have any evidence of this? In the thread in dakka discussions about google trends, I compared several of gw's competitors to gw in terms of web searches. I.e. a graphic comparison of the number of google searches including the terms "games workshop", "warhammer 40k", "warmachine", etc etc. Well here's Corvus Belli's graph* -
Didn't we agree in that thread that whilst interesting, it wasn't really evidence of anything?
No, Azreal said that and other people agreed with him. I happen to think that what people are googling is helpful in gauging the level of interest, especially in niche hobby products. You can't claim that profits are soaring 75% when there's empirical data showing that people are searching for them less and less.
KommissarKarl wrote: I happen to think that what people are googling is helpful in gauging the level of interest, especially in niche hobby products. You can't claim that profits are soaring 75% when there's empirical data showing that people are searching for them less and less.
How do you get from 'fewer people are googling a particular company name' to 'fewer people are interested in a particular game that company produces'?
If I was looking for information on Infinity, I wouldn't google 'Corvus Belli'... Half the time I can't even remember that name. But then, whereas 6 months ago I would have been googling 'Infinity game' when I wanted to check up on the current state of the game, now I would just click on the bookmarked website, or check the news thread here on Dakka.
The lack of google searches doesn't automatically correspond to a lack of interest.
KommissarKarl wrote: I happen to think that what people are googling is helpful in gauging the level of interest, especially in niche hobby products. You can't claim that profits are soaring 75% when there's empirical data showing that people are searching for them less and less.
How do you get from 'fewer people are googling a particular company name' to 'fewer people are interested in a particular game that company produces'?
If I was looking for information on Infinity, I wouldn't google 'Corvus Belli'... Half the time I can't even remember that name. But then, whereas 6 months ago I would have been googling 'Infinity game' when I wanted to check up on the current state of the game, now I would just click on the bookmarked website, or check the news thread here on Dakka.
The lack of google searches doesn't automatically correspond to a lack of interest.
The fact that I see it in stores now, all over Facebook and now CB has their own sub forum is all evidence of growth. Or the fact that CB is actually open and tells everyone what they're doing and how they're growing.
KommissarKarl wrote: I happen to think that what people are googling is helpful in gauging the level of interest, especially in niche hobby products. You can't claim that profits are soaring 75% when there's empirical data showing that people are searching for them less and less.
How do you get from 'fewer people are googling a particular company name' to 'fewer people are interested in a particular game that company produces'?
If I was looking for information on Infinity, I wouldn't google 'Corvus Belli'... Half the time I can't even remember that name. But then, whereas 6 months ago I would have been googling 'Infinity game' when I wanted to check up on the current state of the game, now I would just click on the bookmarked website, or check the news thread here on Dakka.
The lack of google searches doesn't automatically correspond to a lack of interest.
Really the issue is Corvus Belli. Although they do produce Infinity - they don't really go out of their way to get people to connect their name with Infinity. If you were to switch the search term in the trends to "Infinity Miniatures" the story is different.
Lack of Google searches can be due to more people being familiar with your company/product and not needing a Google search to find your website. I can't remember ever using Google to find GW stuff but I've spent 4 figures with them just in the last few months.
Corvus Belli started as and still make 15mm historical figures. Obviously Infinity The Game has been a huge success for them, but let's not fool ourselves that one single game involving relatively small and cheap armies could sustain a company the size of Games Workshop.
GW should do a skirmish game as an important component in a well-planned line-up of games set within their fluff background. It would provide a great introduction to the wider line-up.
Well done, Tom. You wanted to make GW the premium model company and you've succeeded. Like any luxury good, you've converted GW products from being affordable, to aspirational. We'd all like to own a Ferrari (insert picture of Porsche Pig here), but few of us can justify the expense of one even if we could afford it, and you know, the Fords, Chevrolets, and Toyotas get the job done just as well. Now Tom, you have to accept that Ferraris and Porsches aren't high volume marques, so I can only surmise that shrinking your market share was your master plan. You're doing a spectacular job of pulling it off! But don't worry; the vast amount of used product being traded at deep discounts over new product will keep us aspirational types going for years!
Kilkrazy wrote: GW should do a skirmish game as an important component in a well-planned line-up of games set within their fluff background. It would provide a great introduction to the wider line-up.
But does anyone have solid numbers concerning the number of Mordheim players that "upgraded" to WHFB players?
I think the important message we are trying to get a cross is a broad range of products has more appeal and market penetration and hold.Than a very limited product range.
A company offering a 'comfortable place to start' , for a wide range of customers, has naturally generated a positive word of mouth marketing with thier product.
Even if only 10% of people expand to the battle game, from 1000 new customers .
Thats 900 people interested in the WH game setting playing skirmish games,(Spending a £100 on average.) And 100 people playing WHFB .(Spending £500 on average.)
90k +50k= 140k revenue.
Without Mordhiem, you just get WHFB sales and that is less 50k revenue.(With out the 'easy in' of a skirmish game , many players would balk at the up front costs of WHFB.)
Now players have to go to other companies to get the 'less profitable games' , and so NONE of them are converting to 40k or WHFB.
This is one of the main reasons why GW plc has lost and is still loosing market share.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW should do a skirmish game as an important component in a well-planned line-up of games set within their fluff background. It would provide a great introduction to the wider line-up.
But does anyone have solid numbers concerning the number of Mordheim players that "upgraded" to WHFB players?
No, and given their attitude to market research, I doubt GW ever did either.
However that is sort of missing the point, the market has moved on since the Moredheim/Necromunda days, not just the market, society.
People have less time today. The fastest growing games in the wargaming sector are all fast play games, with the fastest of all not even requiring assembly or painting of models.
That is what people are clamouring for, and quick to play games are where all the growth is. Corvus Belli and Mantic are expanding through games that take a couple of hours at most to play, indeed the new Infinity rules seem designed to make a game move a long at a faster pace, the recent video showing them playing a full 200 point game with the new starter box (about two thirds of a regular tournament sized force) in about three quarters of an hour start to finish.
Whilst all that market growth is happening, what do GW do? Release a new version of their game that takes even longer to play.
A company cannot dictate what the market wants, it must adapt to the market. GW need that fast paced game to attract people. A clever company would leverage the vast background IP and their own in house production to produce a game far superior and cheaper than everyone elses, and tie it into their main games to offer an easy route into the more time consuming versions of the game later.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW should do a skirmish game as an important component in a well-planned line-up of games set within their fluff background. It would provide a great introduction to the wider line-up.
But does anyone have solid numbers concerning the number of Mordheim players that "upgraded" to WHFB players?
Why? The intention is to produce a product that is standalone. If people like the background they may decide to invest in the bigger version. If not, then you had a £50 sale that you wouldn't of had anyway. It may even become a long term bigger sale if they stay with the game and buy more factions.
KommissarKarl wrote: I happen to think that what people are googling is helpful in gauging the level of interest, especially in niche hobby products. You can't claim that profits are soaring 75% when there's empirical data showing that people are searching for them less and less.
How do you get from 'fewer people are googling a particular company name' to 'fewer people are interested in a particular game that company produces'?
If I was looking for information on Infinity, I wouldn't google 'Corvus Belli'... Half the time I can't even remember that name. But then, whereas 6 months ago I would have been googling 'Infinity game' when I wanted to check up on the current state of the game, now I would just click on the bookmarked website, or check the news thread here on Dakka.
The lack of google searches doesn't automatically correspond to a lack of interest.
You could say a similar thing about Games Workshop, yet that has held up rather better over the years. The lack of searches doesn't mean there's little interest, but it does mean there's little *new* interest. What is anyone who's new to anything's first port of call in this day and age? Yup, google. No google searches = no newbies.
And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!
Kilkrazy wrote: Corvus Belli started as and still make 15mm historical figures. Obviously Infinity The Game has been a huge success for them, but let's not fool ourselves that one single game involving relatively small and cheap armies could sustain a company the size of Games Workshop.
GW should do a skirmish game as an important component in a well-planned line-up of games set within their fluff background. It would provide a great introduction to the wider line-up.
Yes, exactly!
I still remember how excited people were when we thought we might be getting a 28mm Inquisitor skirmished based game...
Tears in rain now, of course, but oh, the potential!
Alpharius wrote: And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!
Google trends *is* real world data. Regardless of what a company says about its profits, if there are so few people searching for it that google can't even display the results...I can safely say that they are not very popular. They also aren't big enough to show up on alexia either, for what it's worth.
Alpharius wrote: And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!
Google trends *is* real world data. Regardless of what a company says about its profits, if there are so few people searching for it that google can't even display the results...I can safely say that they are not very popular. They also aren't big enough to show up on alexia either, for what it's worth.
No, you can't. What you can say is that X number of people have goggled it over Y amount of time.
That means nothing in the face of an actual announcement of massive growth from the company themselves. If you want to argue that CB where lying when they brought out that graph go ahead and make a case, but stop trying to pretend that what people are googling is empirical data of how well a game is growing.
Alpharius wrote: It is odd that he keeps banging that 'can't see the forest for the trees' drum, but, OK, whatever.
GW is in trouble - are they going to shut down tomorrow?
No.
Are they in trouble?
Yes.
The other interesting thing is is that new people are always still coming into the Warhammer hobby. Look at the introductions to the forums and you see a lot of the traffic flowing in is new Warhammer players.
Trouble they may be in, but they can still attract business.
Alpharius wrote: And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!
Google trends *is* real world data. Regardless of what a company says about its profits, if there are so few people searching for it that google can't even display the results...I can safely say that they are not very popular. They also aren't big enough to show up on alexia either, for what it's worth.
No, you can't. What you can say is that X number of people have goggled it over Y amount of time.
That means nothing in the face of an actual announcement of massive growth from the company themselves. If you want to argue that CB where lying when they brought out that graph go ahead and make a case, but stop trying to pretend that what people are googling is empirical data of how well a game is growing.
I'm not saying they're lying, I'm pointing out that the hard data we *do* have access to contradicts what they say - unless they are so small that 75% growth is insignificant.
If you think the internet is irrelevent that's great for you...unfortunately we are in the 21st century now. The data behind what people search for is so important that some companies will pay millions of pounds in tracking and monitoring it. Of course it is dismissed by you because it contradicts your narrative that other games are growing while 40k is dying (the data seems to suggest that 40k is declining, but their competitors are failing to attract the lost interest, though that obviously doesn't mean that they aren't getting custom from gw, it just means there's not as much interest).
I'm not saying they're lying, I'm pointing out that the hard data we *do* have access to contradicts what they say - unless they are so small that 75% growth is insignificant.
If you think the internet is irrelevent that's great for you...unfortunately we are in the 21st century now. The data behind what people search for is so important that some companies will pay millions of pounds in tracking and monitoring it. Of course it is dismissed by you because it contradicts your narrative that other games are growing while 40k is dying (the data seems to suggest that 40k is declining, but their competitors are failing to attract the lost interest, though that obviously doesn't mean that they aren't getting custom from gw, it just means there's not as much interest).
Apart from the fact you are discussing searches for Corvus Belli and transposing them as data on a game called Infinity of course.
Besides, if you want empirical data, how about sales data from the biggest retailers in Europe, who just posted this about the Infinity starter box.
I'm not saying they're lying, I'm pointing out that the hard data we *do* have access to contradicts what they say - unless they are so small that 75% growth is insignificant.
If you think the internet is irrelevent that's great for you...unfortunately we are in the 21st century now. The data behind what people search for is so important that some companies will pay millions of pounds in tracking and monitoring it. Of course it is dismissed by you because it contradicts your narrative that other games are growing while 40k is dying (the data seems to suggest that 40k is declining, but their competitors are failing to attract the lost interest, though that obviously doesn't mean that they aren't getting custom from gw, it just means there's not as much interest).
Apart from the fact you are discussing searches for Corvus Belli and transposing them as data on a game called Infinity of course.
Besides, if you want empirical data, how about sales data from the biggest retailers in Europe, who just posted this about the Infinity starter box.
We are not a distro of Infinity. At the moment Ice storm is outselling 7th edition in its first few days.
Uh, that's not empirical data, that's anecdotal. Has he published sale numbers? How many stores does he sell to?
Infinity the game on google trends is about a third as popular as Warmachine. It has grown significantly over the past two/three years though I'll concede that. It's still microscopic though.
Alpharius wrote: And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!
Google trends *is* real world data. Regardless of what a company says about its profits, if there are so few people searching for it that google can't even display the results...I can safely say that they are not very popular. They also aren't big enough to show up on alexia either, for what it's worth.
Just want to add something here since I own an internet business.
Those search term rankings mean diddly when the customers come from other sources, including directly to your website. Our UMV and engagement numbers on my company are far beyond the "search term rankings". In addition, multiple search terms can lead to a site. So for Corvus Belli, for instance, it can be Corvus Belli, Infinity, Infinity the Game, Infinity miniatures game, etc.
When most people buy a product from Corvus Belli (or any manufacturer) you can get the site right off the product and go directly to the site. No Google search terms needed in between. All search term rankings do is determine how many are "searching" for your site and does not account for other methods of hitting the site, including directly entering it in the browser.
As far as Alexia and Compete, I have given up on those personally because on our site, they have been so far from the reality it isn't even funny. I've talked with quite a few other CEOs at conferences who own internet companies as well and they have experienced the same thing with these rankings (so has Techcrunch which dropped Alexia rankings from the standard information display on companies as well).
TL;DR Search rankings have very little to do with the reality of any business today as it is only ONE way to get to a business.
So there is not much interest in Corvus Belli, but Infinity (what is the google interest in the actual game?) Is growing and catching up with the big boys. 75% growth rate every year is nothing to ignore. How soon till they equal PP at that rate?
Alpharius wrote: And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!
Google trends *is* real world data. Regardless of what a company says about its profits, if there are so few people searching for it that google can't even display the results...I can safely say that they are not very popular. They also aren't big enough to show up on alexia either, for what it's worth.
Just want to add something here since I own an internet business.
Those search term rankings mean diddly when the customers come from other sources, including directly to your website. Our UMV and engagement numbers on my company are far beyond the "search term rankings". In addition, multiple search terms can lead to a site. So for Corvus Belli, for instance, it can be Corvus Belli, Infinity, Infinity the Game, Infinity miniatures game, etc.
When most people buy a product from Corvus Belli (or any manufacturer) you can get the site right off the product and go directly to the site. No Google search terms needed in between. All search term rankings do is determine how many are "searching" for your site and does not account for other methods of hitting the site, including directly entering it in the browser.
As far as Alexia and Compete, I have given up on those personally because on our site, they have been so far from the reality it isn't even funny. I've talked with quite a few other CEOs at conferences who own internet companies as well and they have experienced the same thing with these rankings (so has Techcrunch which dropped Alexia rankings from the standard information display on companies as well).
TL;DR Search rankings have very little to do with the reality of any business today as it is only ONE way to get to a business.
Okay I will clarify my point then - clearly google trends does not correlate directly with a business's revenue, *but* it is a very handy way of gauging how much new/fresh interest there is in your product. I can't think of anything that would skyrocket in popularity without a corresponding increase in google data. There is a clear correlation between sales in a company and interest in a company, a correlation that exists in video games, movies, web stores...even GW's own performance roughly corresponds to google trends data. And yet apparently none of their competitors do?
So far that's two online retailers who have told you exactly that. I'd tend to believe people with first hand experience over people speculating on the popularity of a search on google.
Hell, I never use google to go to my regular sites. Bookmarks are on all my devices, and I only ever search for them once, if at all. I usually find them via links on sites like dakka etc. I'm sure I'm not the only person on the internet that knows how to work bookmarks.
Alpharius wrote: And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!
Google trends *is* real world data. Regardless of what a company says about its profits, if there are so few people searching for it that google can't even display the results...I can safely say that they are not very popular. They also aren't big enough to show up on alexia either, for what it's worth.
Just want to add something here since I own an internet business.
Those search term rankings mean diddly when the customers come from other sources, including directly to your website. Our UMV and engagement numbers on my company are far beyond the "search term rankings". In addition, multiple search terms can lead to a site. So for Corvus Belli, for instance, it can be Corvus Belli, Infinity, Infinity the Game, Infinity miniatures game, etc.
When most people buy a product from Corvus Belli (or any manufacturer) you can get the site right off the product and go directly to the site. No Google search terms needed in between. All search term rankings do is determine how many are "searching" for your site and does not account for other methods of hitting the site, including directly entering it in the browser.
As far as Alexia and Compete, I have given up on those personally because on our site, they have been so far from the reality it isn't even funny. I've talked with quite a few other CEOs at conferences who own internet companies as well and they have experienced the same thing with these rankings (so has Techcrunch which dropped Alexia rankings from the standard information display on companies as well).
TL;DR Search rankings have very little to do with the reality of any business today as it is only ONE way to get to a business.
Okay I will clarify my point then - clearly google trends does not correlate directly with a business's revenue, *but* it is a very handy way of gauging how much new/fresh interest there is in your product. I can't think of anything that would skyrocket in popularity without a corresponding increase in google data. There is a clear correlation between sales in a company and interest in a company, a correlation that exists in video games, movies, web stores...even GW's own performance roughly corresponds to google trends data. And yet apparently none of their competitors do?
Except, as people have stated, (using your Infinity example) when I want to get to Infinity website (which is a seperate one from the Corvus Belli website, FYI) I search 'Infinity'. Not 'Corvus Belli'. As I imagine most people do (not that I have any proof, just the fact is there's lots of different ways to get to any website so one search term doesn't prove anything).
Add to that things like bookmarks, links from other places, etc, Google Trends is hardly 'proper' data is it. Especially when CB have graphs and have stated their customer base has increased %75 the last 2 years... Unless are you saying that's lies from CB?
Uh, that's not empirical data, that's anecdotal. Has he published sale numbers? How many stores does he sell to?.
Yes he has published sales numbers. they are saying over 200 start boxes sold in the initial prelaunch They dont sell to stores, they are the biggest retail store in Europe.
You are still not addressing the salient point about this all powerful search data. It relates to Corvus Belli, and you are applying it to a game called Infinity, and I can tell you, as I several of them infront of me, the boxes for infinity only mention Corvus Belli twice, both in very small letters regarding copyright. The brand is Infinity, the website is infinitythegame,com. Applying searches for Corvus Belli for that product is patently ridiculous.
Apply the same search data investigation to Panoceania, Operation Icestorm or 'Infinity the game' and you will get a different story. Which is precisely why you ignore that point.
Has anyone compared the terms operation ice storm and Sanctus reach? Haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if it's already been done and I missed it.
Where are you seeing that? Note 9 and the balance sheet show £17,550,000. Per their income statement, they didn't declare dividends in FY14 either. They match their dividends to the period they were declared they were paid in FY14 but declared as part of FY13. If you're having trouble following their cash outflows, look at the statement of cash flow and note 8 (operating activities for the statement of cash flows).
The cash accounts are based off prior years.
Page 2 says no dividend declared in FY2014.
The chart on page 6 shows a dividend.
Page 8 confirms the dividend paid of 16 pence per share (several months back it was stated as well on the investors site...forget the month).
Page 11 gives the information on the 20 pence dividend being paid out after the balance sheet date.
Page 36 enumerates the dividends paid in FY 2014 - only the 16 pence dividend shows up.
Page 39 notes what you have said (in terms of dividends being counted in the year they are declared...).
Page 47 Further confirms page 36 and 11.
Just saying...it looks a bit off to me. Things don't add up, when you add them up.
First of all, you're in the MD&A. while its not the financial statements, its discussion of what happened during the year through the reporting date (7/29/14). these are not audited but in the US, they are reviewed by the auditors and are questioned because they accompany the financial statements. Most of the MD&A is tested and reviewed in conjunction with the statements. Sometimes there is forward looking information in them as well, this cannot be audited because you can't test something that hasn't occurred. The Company paid dividends in FY14 related to FY13. The dividends were already recognized in their retained earnings and the liability was relieved when they cut the check. The 20pence dividend was declared and paid in FY15 prior to the reporting date (7/29/14) hence why they disclosed it. It is a subsequent event. Page 47 clarifies that. The UK doesn't appear to require a subsequent event footnote (usually the last or one of the last footnotes) summarizing all significant events that an investor would want to know since year end.
Note 13 (p 47):
"After the balance sheet date, a dividend of 20 pence per share, amounting to a total dividend of £6,372,000 was declared and it was paid on 4 July 2014."
*my dates are in the US format mm/dd/yy. Just so nobody complains they don't know what the 29th month of the year is
Also, I am not being combative - I read a lot of stuff that people post and I can't figure out where or how they calculate it. I'm an accountant and I have a lot of SEC experience. In my experience, review the statement of cash flows. That will show you the health of the company. Whether they are staying alive due to loans, investments from owners, and shows you how it is being spent.
Where are you seeing that? Note 9 and the balance sheet show £17,550,000. Per their income statement, they didn't declare dividends in FY14 either. They match their dividends to the period they were declared they were paid in FY14 but declared as part of FY13. If you're having trouble following their cash outflows, look at the statement of cash flow and note 8 (operating activities for the statement of cash flows).
The cash accounts are based off prior years.
Page 2 says no dividend declared in FY2014.
The chart on page 6 shows a dividend.
Page 8 confirms the dividend paid of 16 pence per share (several months back it was stated as well on the investors site...forget the month).
Page 11 gives the information on the 20 pence dividend being paid out after the balance sheet date.
Page 36 enumerates the dividends paid in FY 2014 - only the 16 pence dividend shows up.
Page 39 notes what you have said (in terms of dividends being counted in the year they are declared...).
Page 47 Further confirms page 36 and 11.
Just saying...it looks a bit off to me. Things don't add up, when you add them up.
the latest dividend wasn't issued until after the end of the fiscal year and wouldn't appear on the annual report. It will appear on the next one.
Which is what I said (more or less). The cash on hand of 17 million got reduced by 6 million right after they closed the books for FY2014. It is a bit odd though that they say none was paid though (when one was paid) and later say one was paid. Prior years have actually recorded the dividend owing on the balance sheet when one gets declared but is not paid before the time of the report. This year they did not. Goes to make the books look a bit better.
Next year, they might restate the numbers to move the dividend back into FY2014 and lower the cash on hand in order to make the FY2015 cash on hand look better (all legal - if a bit creative book keeping practices as far as I know).
That is illegal. It would be financial statement fraud. In the US, this is punishable by prison time. I would imagine the same thing in the UK. What you describe is not a restatement based on a change in accounting principle. It is directly misleading to an investor. Besides, the declaration date was subsequent to year end. Usually when things are bad and you don't meet expectations, you may as well take the hit and impair any assets on the edge. If its a bad year, make sure it doesn't bleed into the next year.
WarOne wrote: The other interesting thing is is that new people are always still coming into the Warhammer hobby. Look at the introductions to the forums and you see a lot of the traffic flowing in is new Warhammer players.
With respect, I think new members on Dakka are as meaningful to 40K sales as Google's Corvus Belli trends are to Infinity sales.
WarOne wrote: The other interesting thing is is that new people are always still coming into the Warhammer hobby. Look at the introductions to the forums and you see a lot of the traffic flowing in is new Warhammer players.
With respect, I think new members on Dakka are as meaningful to 40K sales as Google's Corvus Belli trends are to Infinity sales.
Dakka is not a 40k forum, how do you know which games the people joining dakka play, if any?
xxvaderxx wrote: I think that the key line people are missing is:
Pre-tax profit £12.4m down from £21.4m
Combined with this
Revenue £123.5m down from £134.6m
That is almost 50% profitability lost, and sales changed from flat lining to decline.
Both put together = deep gak.
Yeah who wants to make 10 Million more dollars eh?
They explained that stating they had ~£4.5 million in exceptional costs. Would have been a decline of ~£4.5 million in pre tax ~25% rather than 50%. Not great but not quite as bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I am a fan of the audit opinion from P-Dubs. I didn't realize they publish their ML. I liked how they identified the audit risks and discussed how they addressed these risks. It would be interesting to see that approach in the US.
Alpharius wrote: And yet 'real world' data/evidence says otherwise!
Google trends *is* real world data. Regardless of what a company says about its profits, if there are so few people searching for it that google can't even display the results...I can safely say that they are not very popular. They also aren't big enough to show up on alexia either, for what it's worth.
Just want to add something here since I own an internet business.
Those search term rankings mean diddly when the customers come from other sources, including directly to your website. Our UMV and engagement numbers on my company are far beyond the "search term rankings". In addition, multiple search terms can lead to a site. So for Corvus Belli, for instance, it can be Corvus Belli, Infinity, Infinity the Game, Infinity miniatures game, etc.
When most people buy a product from Corvus Belli (or any manufacturer) you can get the site right off the product and go directly to the site. No Google search terms needed in between. All search term rankings do is determine how many are "searching" for your site and does not account for other methods of hitting the site, including directly entering it in the browser.
As far as Alexia and Compete, I have given up on those personally because on our site, they have been so far from the reality it isn't even funny. I've talked with quite a few other CEOs at conferences who own internet companies as well and they have experienced the same thing with these rankings (so has Techcrunch which dropped Alexia rankings from the standard information display on companies as well).
TL;DR Search rankings have very little to do with the reality of any business today as it is only ONE way to get to a business.
Okay I will clarify my point then - clearly google trends does not correlate directly with a business's revenue, *but* it is a very handy way of gauging how much new/fresh interest there is in your product. I can't think of anything that would skyrocket in popularity without a corresponding increase in google data. There is a clear correlation between sales in a company and interest in a company, a correlation that exists in video games, movies, web stores...even GW's own performance roughly corresponds to google trends data. And yet apparently none of their competitors do?
Perhaps you could also explain how "Corvus Belli" is a product in any way?
What you're essentially arguing is the iPhone is less popular because people aren't Googling "Apple." It's nonsense, as it was in the previous thread. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that in the case of Infinity, there's even a percentage of the player base who might not know, or be only dimly aware, that CB are the company that makes it, because of the way the game is presented there is very little Corvus Belli branding and it is generally presented to the public as "Infinity: The Game."
Let me restate once again, in the recent past I've Googled multiple things I'm interested in but have not spent a penny on any of them, conversely I've probably spent more money with Tesco this year, in terms of fuel and groceries, than any other body, yet not Googled them once to my recollection.
While Google trends makes an interesting talking point, the argument you're trying to construct has no real substance and very little merit.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW should do a skirmish game as an important component in a well-planned line-up of games set within their fluff background. It would provide a great introduction to the wider line-up.
But does anyone have solid numbers concerning the number of Mordheim players that "upgraded" to WHFB players?
Me.
Spoiler:
That's a pretty big deal too, as I had to do it without giving GW a dollar, so it took more than a modicum of effort on my part. Then of course I learned that Fantasy is not my cup of tea and I've got a wonderfully huge legion of Mantic undead sitting on the shelf, though folks tell me I should try Kings of War.
From a broader perspective, between two young kids and a demanding day job, skirmish games are much easier for me to do.
Well, we had a discussion in our gaming group.
The outcome was that Fantasy is basically dead with almost nobody buying models or even playing.
In 40k, nobody is currently building up a new army, but players are supplementing armies with current releases.
WarmaHordes is on the rise as will be Infinity with the new starter box coming out soon.
Dakka is not a 40k forum, how do you know which games the people joining dakka play, if any?
Well, that's not really my point. The fact is that 'a lot of new members on Dakka are new Warhammer players' is not as indicative of GW's sales or successes as a financial report. (Although I appreciate that probably wasn't WarOne's point, either) Also, I assume WarOne knows these are the games new members are playing, if he's been looking and they've been, y'know, saying what games they play.
Also: seven individual boards focused on 40K. Six for WHFB. Warmachine four, Infinity three, a handful of others get one each, and the rest are lumped into two or three generic boards. The wide range of historical gaming, barring FoW, is given 7x fewer boards than 40K - one game. I've been lurking on the painting & modelling board, that being one of my main interests in this hobby, and it's almost overwhelmingly dominated by 40K. Even WHFB barely gets a look-in there. Even the name of the forum, I assume, is derived from something orks say in 40K.
I'm not saying that Dakka is wrong to be like that. It is what it is. But when you compare it to something like the LAF, TMP or Frothers, you could make the argument that what it is, is primarily a 40K forum, and win many an argument that it's primarily a GW forum.
Time to move on from Corvus Belli; in-depth discussion of Google trends and how they do (or don't) relate to the growth of another manufacturer's game is off-topic.
I don't think anyone's arguing that GW still isn't top dog. What people are saying is that they won't hold that spot for much longer IF things continue as they are.
MWHistorian wrote: I don't think anyone's arguing that GW still isn't top dog. What people are saying is that they won't hold that spot for much longer IF things continue as they are.
Well, I guess things will continue as they are for a while. Let's wait for the next half-year report.
Someone used the term "ecosystem" earlier, and that, I think, is a good example of GW's problems. GW has a complete ecosystem for their product: their own stores, models, rules, tools, supplies, paints, terrain, and even a game board. Everything you could want to play GW games is sold by GW. Apple is also similar, in that you can get everything you want from Apple as well (they have stores, media players, phones, computers, for all your personal electronic and media consumption needs). But there is a big difference between Apple and GW. Apple has an entry point. With iTunes, you can get your foot into the door at a low pricepoint (at just the cost of one song or ebook), and get absorbed into the ecosystem from there. GW, on the other hand, provides no real low cost entry point to rope you in with.
Having your own ecosystem can be a great way to sell your product, but it doesn't help when you put up a sign by the door saying "you must have this much money to enter," and that amount is higher than anybody else's.
MWHistorian wrote: I don't think anyone's arguing that GW still isn't top dog. What people are saying is that they won't hold that spot for much longer IF things continue as they are.
Well, I guess things will continue as they are for a while. Let's wait for the next half-year report.
I doubt we'll need that long.
Despite last year's report being better, there was a significant downturn in the 6 months to Dec, and it is highly unlikely that somebody, somewhere "flicked a switch," so it is reasonable to assume that the writing has been on the wall for a year at least, likely longer.
Given that, if GW are going to change anything we should start to see evidence of that in the release schedule and behaviour in the next few months, as that should have been sufficient lead time for the first reactions to falling income to be developed and made ready for sale.
If it is yet more "increase volume of releases, jack up prices, feth quality" then we can infer they haven't learned anything. If there is a change in approach, then maybe they've finally got the message.
Either way, you're right in that we'll need to wait til January to find out if it works.
My thanks to those who took the time to read and reply to my long rant about maths and GW
Anyway, back OT.
There seems to be an assumption on this thread that if GW were a bit nicer to the customers and had an entry level skirmish game, then all would be well in their world. But this overlooks many important facts. To my knowledge (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) none of GW's competitors have to worry about the overheads of bricks and mortar stores, so the growth of rival companies is always going to look impressive.
Some of these rival companies only make rules or only make miniatures. Obviously if you're only focused on one aspect, you don't have to worry about making other stuff like paints.
If my sole concern is rulebooks, I can say just use a rival's minis, and not be bogged down by manufacturing costs. Again, my growth looks better than GW's.
For me, GW is an 'elite' company and its rivals are not. To use an analogy, GW makes luxury cars, and everybody else is making family cars. Yeah, Company X can say we sold 10 cars, and GW only sold 1 car, but if GW is selling that 1 car at £100,000 and the 10 other cars are selling at £10,000 each, then well, do the maths
Point is, there is nothing wrong with focusing on premier games. I think most people's problems with Fantasy and 40k are the prohibitive costs and the unpopular rules. If GW got the situation back to where it was 10-15 years ago, I think they could turn it around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: I don't think anyone's arguing that GW still isn't top dog. What people are saying is that they won't hold that spot for much longer IF things continue as they are.
Passed a GW store earlier, and it was packed. Sure it's a Saturday and it was full of kids and mums, but it didn't look like it was closing down anytime soon. Ok, that's just one example in the UK, but I think they can last a few more years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Someone used the term "ecosystem" earlier, and that, I think, is a good example of GW's problems. GW has a complete ecosystem for their product: their own stores, models, rules, tools, supplies, paints, terrain, and even a game board. Everything you could want to play GW games is sold by GW. Apple is also similar, in that you can get everything you want from Apple as well (they have stores, media players, phones, computers, for all your personal electronic and media consumption needs). But there is a big difference between Apple and GW. Apple has an entry point. With iTunes, you can get your foot into the door at a low pricepoint (at just the cost of one song or ebook), and get absorbed into the ecosystem from there. GW, on the other hand, provides no real low cost entry point to rope you in with.
Having your own ecosystem can be a great way to sell your product, but it doesn't help when you put up a sign by the door saying "you must have this much money to enter," and that amount is higher than anybody else's.
Like I said above and before in other posts, I think it's more complicated than a cheap entry level game solving GW's problems.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: My thanks to those who took the time to read and reply to my long rant about maths and GW
Anyway, back OT.
There seems to be an assumption on this thread that if GW were a bit nicer to the customers and had an entry level skirmish game, then all would be well in their world. But this overlooks many important facts. To my knowledge (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) none of GW's competitors have to worry about the overheads of bricks and mortar stores, so the growth of rival companies is always going to look impressive.
GW's overhead isn't the customers' problem, doubly so in areas where there are no GW stores and customers never use them. If the main reason they charge the prices they do is the stores, then they need to abandon the stores.
For me, GW is an 'elite' company and its rivals are not. To use an analogy, GW makes luxury cars, and everybody else is making family cars. Yeah, Company X can say we sold 10 cars, and GW only sold 1 car, but if GW is selling that 1 car at £100,000 and the 10 other cars are selling at £10,000 each, then well, do the maths
Except they're not elite. They make excellent plastic kits but they don't make the highest quality models in the world (see the Finecast launch) and the quality of sculpts is subjective. While GW does make many excellent sculpts, there are companies that make better sculpts, and not all of GW's models are the best. Admittedly this is subjective, but look at some of the stuff from Dark Age, Malifaux, Infinity, and the smaller boutique miniature companies like Mierce, Creature Caster, etc.
Point is, there is nothing wrong with focusing on premier games. I think most people's problems with Fantasy and 40k are the prohibitive costs and the unpopular rules. If GW got the situation back to where it was 10-15 years ago, I think they could turn it around.
Amazingly enough, 10-15 years ago GW produced and sold entry level games and other boxed games that were far more affordable to play than their "premier" games.
Ultimately, it seems you're proceeding from the same false assumption GW is making: that someone who buys their skirmish game would have bought their main game instead if the skirmish game was unavailable, thus, why invest in selling the skirmish game? This wonderful thing called Market Research™ would tell them that there are people who would ONLY buy the skirmish game, thus, they are lost customers and lost profit if no such game exists (hence the aforementioned growth of GW's competitors selling the game genres GW no longer makes a game for). GW needs to diversify their offerings, and that diversification cannot simply consist of adding models to the preexisting games.
EDIT: Now, I'm not saying that such games would be the miracle cure for all of GW's ills, but it would be a major part of helping them to turn around their image. GW has a host of other problems with their current games that need resolving as well. But GW simply cannot succeed longterm by tripling down on 40K (they're already way past the doubling down point).
RatBot wrote: Except they're not elite. They make excellent plastic kits but they don't make the highest quality models in the world (see the Finecast launch) and the quality of sculpts is subjective. While GW does make many excellent sculpts, there are companies that make better sculpts, and not all of GW's models are the best. Admittedly this is subjective, but look at some of the stuff from Dark Age, Malifaux, Infinity, and the smaller boutique miniature companies like Mierce, Creature Caster, etc.
Exactly, and GW is falling behind in their plastic production as well. Just look at the plastics coming from Wargames Factory (Malifeaux, Kingdom Death, Dreamforge Games). While aesthetics are subjective, on an engineering level, WGF is objectively blowing GW away.
It's interesting to note that another site disparages us when we talk about finances here because we apparently don't have any CEO's on the forum. We do have a plethora of small business owners investors, and management grads like myself, but we obviously don't know jack about finance. (Just like the opinions of the veterans here on combat are meaningless; where are the career politicians?! But I digress...)
Those of us who follow such things might be interested in this; Google stock analytic tools have digested the the new GW report, and put the likelihood of them going bankrupt in the next 2 years at 71%
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/GAW.L--Probability_Of_Bankruptcy (For comparison, the site lists a good risk at about 15%.) Also recommended as a strong SELL on google and other stock sites.
Yeah, just a lot of armchair speculation from those professional investors...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: My thanks to those who took the time to read and reply to my long rant about maths and GW
Anyway, back OT.
There seems to be an assumption on this thread that if GW were a bit nicer to the customers and had an entry level skirmish game, then all would be well in their world. But this overlooks many important facts. To my knowledge (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) none of GW's competitors have to worry about the overheads of bricks and mortar stores, so the growth of rival companies is always going to look impressive.
GW's overhead isn't the customers' problem, doubly so in areas where there are no GW stores and customers never use them. If the main reason they charge the prices they do is the stores, then they need to abandon the stores.
Yeah, I don't get this mentality. GW decided that rather than continuing to invest in the FLGS (which is what they *used* to do), they would instead open up all these minimally supported stores. And now that they've sunk money into what many consider a foolish project, we have to foot the bill in miniatures cost?
Boggy Man wrote: It's interesting to note that another site disparages us when we talk about finances here because we apparently don't have any CEO's on the forum. We do have a plethora of small business owners investors, and management grads like myself, but we obviously don't know jack about finance. (Just like the opinions of the veterans here on combat are meaningless; where are the career politicians?! But I digress...)
Those of us who follow such things might be interested in this; Google stock analytic tools have digested the the new GW report, and put the likelihood of them going bankrupt in the next 2 years at 71%
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/GAW.L--Probability_Of_Bankruptcy (For comparison, the site lists a good risk at about 15%.) Also recommended as a strong SELL on google and other stock sites.
Yeah, just a lot of armchair speculation from those professional investors...
Fascinating link. Yet another source adding to the weight to the argument that GW is in deep trouble, which is really unassailable at this point. The only question is how bad the situation actually is, and whether or not they can pull it around. My gut says no.
Boggy Man wrote: It's interesting to note that another site disparages us when we talk about finances here because we apparently don't have any CEO's on the forum. We do have a plethora of small business owners investors, and management grads like myself, but we obviously don't know jack about finance. (Just like the opinions of the veterans here on combat are meaningless; where are the career politicians?! But I digress...)
Those of us who follow such things might be interested in this; Google stock analytic tools have digested the the new GW report, and put the likelihood of them going bankrupt in the next 2 years at 71%
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/GAW.L--Probability_Of_Bankruptcy (For comparison, the site lists a good risk at about 15%.) Also recommended as a strong SELL on google and other stock sites.
Yeah, just a lot of armchair speculation from those professional investors...
Fascinating link. Yet another source adding to the weight to the argument that GW is in deep trouble, which is really unassailable at this point. The only question is how bad the situation actually is, and whether or not they can pull it around. My gut says no.
Based on latest financial disclosure Games Workshop Group plc has Probability Of Bankruptcy of 71%. This is 91.82% higher than that of the Consumer Goods sector, and 63.3% higher than that of Recreational Goods, Other industry, The Probability Of Bankruptcy for all stocks is 79.88% lower than the firm.
Boggy Man wrote: It's interesting to note that another site disparages us when we talk about finances here because we apparently don't have any CEO's on the forum. We do have a plethora of small business owners investors, and management grads like myself, but we obviously don't know jack about finance. (Just like the opinions of the veterans here on combat are meaningless; where are the career politicians?! But I digress...)
Those of us who follow such things might be interested in this; Google stock analytic tools have digested the the new GW report, and put the likelihood of them going bankrupt in the next 2 years at 71%
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/GAW.L--Probability_Of_Bankruptcy (For comparison, the site lists a good risk at about 15%.) Also recommended as a strong SELL on google and other stock sites.
Yeah, just a lot of armchair speculation from those professional investors...
Good link. However, some of us are CEOs, like myself, and if you read my posting regarding the latest financials, I gave GW 24-30 months. This link just reinforces the factors I saw based on a lot of common historical analytics.
Where are the idio-I mean, um, believers in white armor coming to tell us there is nothing wrong and that facts are unimportant because GW doesn't believe in them? Or make up stuff they want to believe are facts? Can Kirby be sacked, Monty Python style? And his kronies (does he really call them that, spelled that way?).
As much as I disagree with nearly all of the arguments presented by people who support GW and spin everything in a positive fashion, I don't think calling them idiots is going to help.
Boggy Man wrote: It's interesting to note that another site disparages us when we talk about finances here because we apparently don't have any CEO's on the forum. We do have a plethora of small business owners investors, and management grads like myself, but we obviously don't know jack about finance. (Just like the opinions of the veterans here on combat are meaningless; where are the career politicians?! But I digress...)
Those of us who follow such things might be interested in this; Google stock analytic tools have digested the the new GW report, and put the likelihood of them going bankrupt in the next 2 years at 71%
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/GAW.L--Probability_Of_Bankruptcy (For comparison, the site lists a good risk at about 15%.) Also recommended as a strong SELL on google and other stock sites.
Yeah, just a lot of armchair speculation from those professional investors...
Good link. However, some of us are CEOs, like myself, and if you read my posting regarding the latest financials, I gave GW 24-30 months. This link just reinforces the factors I saw based on a lot of common historical analytics.
*raises hand*
Former company director (currently unable to work for health reasons, not former due to incompetence!) and holder of business related qualifications here.
Not that it means I'm an expert, or even right, or that I think a layperson isn't entitled to an opinion, just to counter the assertion that somehow Dakka posters aren't qualified or informed.
I've worked for an ad agency and fairly knowledgeable with marketing and advertising (hence why I mostly comment on how GW engages their customers and how they present themselves). And GW is definitely not doing what they should be doing as a company in terms of advertising and marketing.
I'm a hod carrier for lego and a former Airfix test pilot.
Does anyone really see a turnaround becoming possible with the current business structure - Not just Kirby and the board.
I mean. It has taken cash to get them to this point and will take cash to turn around.
There are lots of calls for price reductions and or better value within boxes etc, but as it stands such a strategy would stress the current company even more.
Divesting it's stores would offer a gain but takes cash up front to manage.
Going back to fully staffed stores would take money in training wages admin etc.
There is always a danger that a modern GW - and its products - would be unpalatable.
I'm an engineer. While your Mysterious Money Maths™ may befuddle my general sensibilities at time, I can see numbers and trends like the rest. I can also see a disconnect from someone offering solutions not based upon a well defined or addressed problem statement (e.g. the lack of market research).
I also write technical documentation for scoping and defining work, sometimes in the millions of dollars range, and can tell you that their authors lack any sensibilities in this sort of thing. And that's killing any fun of the game. Make the rules clinical to the 'T', but make the how and why those things happening interesting with your fluff. Most customers care about the color of paint and how it looks in the end, but the smart engineer knows that too many issues and problems are usually hidden behind this knowledge of priority of colors of paints and finishes. A lot of GWs problems are falling under that category and Forge the Narrative is about as "color picking" as it can get.
Blacksails wrote: As much as I disagree with nearly all of the arguments presented by people who support GW and spin everything in a positive fashion, I don't think calling them idiots is going to help.
Agreed. Please remember rule #1 (be polite) and make your points without name-calling / insults.
Actually about the only reason I said it was because nobody had come forward: I think everyone realizes this report is showing that GW is in dire straights. I'm sure most of us who left GW would LOVE to go back. I certainly would. When they make it reasonable to go back with prices similar to what things cost in 6th edition WHFB, I'll return. If prices don't go down, I won't go back. Pretty simple. In the meantime, other companies get my business. Oh, and the rules have to be improved as well. In fact, here's what is do:
-8th edition 40k=pancake edition. Rules cost $10 with the return of a 7th edition rulebook (can't give the rules away, but make em inexpensive for those who bought the turd that is 7th)
-25% price slash on everything
-Kill off the GW stores completely
-Open up the forums and have two staff members whose only job is to moderate forums and answer questions
-Show upcoming models/greens on big releases (nothing wrong with occasional hidden gems)
-paid rule testers who look for broken combos
-tournament support
-Gamesday with returned free model or t-shirt (pick when you buy ticket, other item can be purchased).
Get them back in touch with the community, really, and lower price. Hell, I'd say keeping GW stores would even be okay, if they went back to the 90s/2005 setup.
There have been a lot of good ideas in this thread for how things go turn around for GW.
Most of it likely won't happen, but its fun to dream.
I also think that even if GW took some positive steps back into the light that many people who left wouldn't be inclined to come back, having found greener pastures. GW would have to rival the buy in costs, rules quality, overall cost of playing the game, and engage with the customer base at least on par with the rest of the industry, which is a very tall order indeed for them.
-25% price slash on everything -Kill off the GW stores completely
If you take a look at the financial report by channel, you'll see just how much of GW's revenues comes from their stores. And many stores are obviously still profitable.
Furthermore, we don't know if a pricing cut would actually drive sales at all. We do know it'll reduce revenue. It's possible that the customers they lost due to pricing simply won't come back. We also know from the report that GW has fixed costs of good sold that didn't shrink with declining volume.
If they ended their revenue from their own stores and then also reduced prices by 25% they'd be gone and out of business in a single quarter.
An eventual transition to using traditional distribution channels and a gradual transition to offering better value for the money would likely be good things to implement. But they can't "kill off" a major sales channel and "slash" prices like that without imploding.
I'm not even sure how they could implement a price cut- if they cut prices on their stuff, what happens to distributors who bought it at the pre-price cut rates? Do they have to suck it up to compete, or would they get a partial refund? How would that work?
I'd love their prices to drop by 40% too, but I don't think it's going to happen for those reasons. A price freeze is likely as much as they can manage, but it probably won't be enough. They've got to focus on adding value rather than reducing prices, I think. Not that I think they will- I think they definitely won't.
The intrinsic value of a kit is tiny once developed. Put an extra sprue/set of sprues in a Terminator box, you raise the value 100%, but don't significantly impact in the money you make from the sale of 1 box.
The decisions hinges on whether you would sell more "one box purchases" if you did that compared to how many "two box purchases" people are buying now. If GW were to sell, say, 65% (arbitrary figure from yours truly that feels about right) of the number of units because of the increased value encouraging people back into buying, then it would likely offset the increased costs sufficiently to make more money.
Every box should stay at the same price, but just make them "complete" boxes.
Land Raider = all variants. Done.
Terminators? 10 Models, both types.
Dire Avengers? 10 Man box.
Guardsmen? 20 man box, special weapons sprue.
None of the prices have to change, you just have to make it so you're selling a complete product. Some of the vehicles are a bit high and should be knee capped. Anything that's not an Apoc unit better be solidly under $100. And get everything that was in Apoc out of standard 40k.
The GW Annual Report came out a few days ago, and having an above average interest in finance and economics (and WH40K) I decided to have a look for myself and see what I could deduce from the health of GW from their annual report.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial analyst. I just find it interesting.
Now, let's make things clear - GW are making money. They made less money than last year, which was their strongest year to date, but they still made a profit. Their royalties are lower than before due to THQ going bankrupt. Now bear in mind, as this article points out, they spent a total of 8.5 million GBP on getting rid of management and upgrading the website (you can argue whether the 4 million spent on the website was money well spent), which are costs that won't occur every year and hit their profits.
So in reality, what's their problem? Let's look at some very exciting charts! Or as I'd say Norwegian, "sykt spennende figurer!"
2014 Annual Report wrote:
Reported sales fell by 8.2% to £123.5 million for the year. On a constant currency basis, sales were down by 6.5% from £134.6 million to £125.9 million; progress was achieved in Other sales businesses (+20.9%) and Export (+2.7%) while sales in UK (-7.1%), Continental Europe (-10.6%), North America (-7.5%), Australia (-9.4%) and Asia (-3.3%) were in decline.
Sales have dropped after previously strong showings. The question is why. Bear in mind their numbers are in no way devastating, or as Reinholt points out.
The punch line? They have, in terms of actual sales to actual customers, about the same revenue as 2006 if we correct for currency valuation. If we don't, they are just below 2009 levels. I wouldn't call this picture good, but I also wouldn't call it bad. Whatever complaints one may have with GW, they aren't currently bleeding revenue everywhere, and are flat over 8 years. Many companies have done worse.
Sales increase in percentage. This is very important to read properly.
Can you spot where they started getting rid of middle-managed and start cost-cutting? While their revenues have remained fairly stable, their profits have changed considerably as they have become a much better business. Their profits (even one year of losing money) were much lower (single digits) pre-2009, and if this was 2009 it would've been said to have been a fantastic year. However, you can clearly see their profits have taken a hit this year. To me, it appears cost-cutting turned the company around in 2009, but it appears more cutting is damaging sales. Let's now have a quick look at price increases in other sectors.
*2014 numbers were until June rather than July.
Now I personally believe these numbers are hilariously low compared to what they should be and real price increases are MUCH higher outside the ivory tower of the academics. I'm abstaining from using the word "inflation," as inflation more correctly describes the increase in monetary supply of which rising prices is a symptom. Regardless of my misgivings I'll use these numbers. So for argument's sake think of a 100£ boxed set in 2010. This, if GW followed CPI would cost 112.2£ in 2014, and for those of you not solid at maths this signifies a 12.2% net price increase. Most of their price increases are within reason, so stop whining about it - either they lower their workers' real wages and/or fire people, their profits take the hit or they raise prices. However, this can also be applied to their revenue and their profits, making them smaller than they otherwise would be in CPI-adjusted GBP.
What needs to be done is explore why sales dropped. Market saturation, market expansion and competition (they're all intertwined) is what strikes me as the core concepts here. The market is gradually going to be saturated with plastic crack, because let's be honest, even if many people are plastic addicts you can only paint so much before you decrease the rate of new plastic crack. Once you've got a 5000pt Eldar army, 8000pt Ork army and 6000pt IG you're not likely to buy at the same pace anymore.
This leads on to my second point, market expansion. I was in GW a few days ago and there were 3 people working, so I'm guessing my store hasn't been dropped to one guy yet. My brother, who doesn't play any GW game, was surprised at how nice the guys working there were, however, he also noticed the general smell of sweat and Cheetos. I seem to be in the minority (at least a vocal minority), but I tend to find the GW guys very nice, though I can see how certain things would rub people the wrong way, like them bringing up politics and flinging faux-intellectual conservative-bashing statements without knowing anything about my political views, or their quite frankly, hilarious sales techniques. Now I see the problem of only having a single guy working there; at busy hours there are loads of people in there - who's gonna be there to rope in the few people willing to brave the very unique smell of a GW store? Similar to Texan border patrol, they can't catch everyone and loads of people slip right through their paint-stained fingers. From a business point of view, if you've got a company that doesn't advertise, you better not let anyone who wanders into your store go unhelped, especially when there's a merica (plural for fat people, like a murder is for ravens) of neckbeard-sporting hambeasts tipping their fedoras at people and going "m'lady" while stinking up the place with their questionable hygiene.
Now I think 5 people to run a store is too many, but 1 is too few, and it would seem the numbers suggest this. Running campaigns, inventory, helping customers, helping people get their first plastic injection etc. takes time. A compromise of say 2-3 (without going deeper into their numbers) would greatly improve the experience, because regardless of how good their web store might be, they are 100% reliant on FLGSs, their own stores and word-of-mouth to addict a new generation of plastic junkies.
Reinholt over at Warseer underlines another point about GW's store strategy, but I'll give a quick summary here. GW's weak US numbers are essentially down to a complete lack of market research with regards to US demographics. Britain, and most of Europe, is well suited to placing GW stores, whereas due to the US' population spread out nature, it's nowhere near as profitable and they should restrain themselves to larger cities like NYC, Boston, SF, Dallas etc. Additionally, the edge they had over FLGSs is diminished due to this.
One thing in particular that mauled their NA numbers, as Reinholt pointed out, was what seems to be a complete lack of market research. Making an official GW forum with things like a monthly painting competition (50£ web store voucher and a picture in WD or something) would provide a invaluable source for market research and feedback at negligible cost. They can do polls on what models people would prefer to see and what they'd like to buy (this mean more money) and tailor upcoming releases and miniatures to what the customers want.
This leads me to my last point: competition from FLGSs. Competition from FLGSs is different from region to region, but if they have better customer service and a nicer atmosphere (and gaming tables...) customers'll go there instead. However, working against them on a sales level has also hurt profits. On a miniature level, competition from Privateer Press, Mantic Games and the like will also draw people away from GW products, though GW are masters at release schedules for codices and miniatures. This year in Warhammer 40kGW launched 7th edition WH40K, the Imperial Knights (apparently a financial success), a truly awful (IMHO) looking SW flyer (see picture below), new Imperial Guard (not too shabby), new Orks and a few other things. However, their miniatures must look awesome and their game needs to be best, as the price difference between GW and its competitors is significant.
The new Space Wolf flyer.
With regards to competition from other companies and keeping people hooked, let's have a look at what Rick Priestly has said.
Rick Priestly wrote:
But when we were in Enfield Chambers (prior to 91) the studio was a very easy going creative environment to put it mildly. We were left to our own devices for much of the time, and Bryan Ansell (owner and boss) pretty much kept the creative part of the business separate from the manufacturing and sales part. Bryan was a very creative and ideas driven man – I don’t think he’d mind me saying that – he always wanted to make great games with interesting mechanics and stimulating ideas – and he didn’t mind investing in creative staff. He was a real patron of the studio and took a real interest in all the models and artwork. Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! The modern studio isn’t a studio in the same way; it isn’t a collection of artists and creatives sharing ideas and driving each other on. It’s become the promotions department of a toy company – things move on!
Annual Report wrote:
Because no one seems able to grasp the essential simplicity of what we do there has always been the search for the Achilles heel, the one thing that Kirby and his cronies have overlooked. These are legion. I run through the list from time to time when someone says that computer games will be the death of us – they are so much more realistic now! – again. This year it is 3-D printing. Pretty soon everyone will be printing their own miniatures and where will we be then, eh? We know quite a lot about 3-D printers, having been at the forefront of the technology for many years. We know of what we speak. One day 3-D printers will be affordable (agreed), they are now, they will be able to produce fantastic detail (the affordable ones won't) and they will do it faster than one miniature per day (no, they won't, look it up). So we may get to the time when someone can make a poorly detailed miniature at home and have enough for an army in less than a year. That pre-supposes that 3-D scanning technology will be affordable and good enough (don't bet the mortgage on that one) and that everyone will be happy to have nothing but copies of old miniatures.
All of our great new miniatures come from Citadel. It is possible that one day we will sell them direct via 3-D printers to grateful hobbyists around the world.That will not happen in the next few years (or, in City-speak, 'forever') but if and when it does it will just mean that we can cut yet more cost out of the supply chain and be making good margins selling Citadel 3-D printers. At the heart of the delusion is the notion that designing and making miniatures is easy. It isn't.
The part in bold is what I'd particularly want to address. Making good models is really important and some changes might be required. I left Warhammer and WH40K a decade ago and came back 6 months ago to a lot of really poor plastic models cast using metal casts. That needs to go. However, not all GW miniatures are awful and after going through a rough patch (read: Finecast) they seem to be back on track (with the exception of Mutts Cutts). Now to keep people hooked, GW should immediately allow for use of their IP with regards to miniatures rather than sue people who make things to complement their stuff. This could be allowed for free, similar to what WotC did for D&D 3rd edition, a game blessed with considerably longer lifespan than 4th edition. Allowing other companies to make models GW can't be bothered doing, like Praetorians or Black Dragon Space Marines, and they will add an extra dimension to their game. FW is a small step in the right direction, but it's not happening fast enough.
With regards to 3D printers, nobody will be dumb enough to buy Citadel 3D printers at a hefty mark up (look at their measuring tapes) and it also rides on people wanting to buy Citadel miniatures. All you need is the plans for it - someone else will make cheaper alternatives and Hell, even make their own model plans for people to freely download. What they can do when the time comes however is set up a Steam-like program where you can download the blueprints for a particular squad or model and then pay a nominal fee each time you use it. However, this is far into the future.
Competition from other companies is also getting stiffer, be it Mantic Games or Privateer Press, though neither is likely to overtake them as the market leader any time soon. Here they need to make sure their rules are as concise, effective and enjoyable as possible. And for God's sake, learn the singular of dice and plural of codex, it looks incredibly unprofessional not knowing basic English grammar. GW is not run by people who speak Colonial Pidgin English so they have no excuse.
I hope my analysis is of value to some people here
If we drill down to the heart of things, the core issue for GW is the same as it has been for years: poor management.
Their senior management and board seems to have a tin ear; they are blinded by arrogance and don't understand that their current approach is burning as many bridges as it builds, and their customer retention numbers are growing increasingly ugly. It's not a sustainable long-term trend.
The reality is that there are many ways to turn this around, I just don't believe their management is aware of what the real problem is. This is similar to hearing someone complain about how they don't love their tires and maybe their cat needs to finally have that rear view mirror that cracked replaced while the cat itself is on fire in their driveway. There is a far greater and more urgent issue, and they are completely ignorant of it while spending time on things that are not real issues.
This is why I think the real outlook for GW is ultimately that the current management crashes the ship into an iceberg, and after they sink / while they are sinking, someone else summarily executes the management (by which I mean they suffer either a hostile takeover or a buyout via receivership/bankruptcy acquisition) and puts the cargo (the IP and games) onto a new ship.
Anyway, I'm looking at those graphs and seeing a lot of downward trends recently. Can't see them going up without a radical change in the company.
Also, Kirby's claims as to 3D printing tech is hilarious. How the feth did he get a job?
I'm guessing that is a political statement more than anything else. I seriously doubt, GW is not planning for 3d printing, and i don't mean just raving like this speech, but seriously planing.
Dude in back: "What about Chinese recasters or your growing competition?"
Kirby: "Is it 3D printing?"
Dude: "Well,... erm, no, no exa"
Kirby: "Then it's not a problem. Nothing's a problem unless I routinely dismiss it before it ever becomes a problem. That's how it works, 'cause I'm the boss."
MWHistorian wrote: I don't think anyone's arguing that GW still isn't top dog. What people are saying is that they won't hold that spot for much longer IF things continue as they are.
And that it is quite possible to go from #1 to bankrupt without ever slipping from the #1 position.
TSR is a great bad example....
GW is not yet in danger of bankruptcy, at least the fiscal kind, but....
The Auld Grump, creative bankruptcy, on the other hand....
You gotta say the full name... Murderfang the Curseborn™ who satiates Murderlust™ with Murderclaws™.
If I was investing in Games Workshop, my first investment would be a thesaurus. Then again, knowing the competence we've seen lately, they probably think that'd be a great release for Lizardmen.
Their senior management and board seems to have a tin ear; they are blinded by arrogance and don't understand that their current approach is burning as many bridges as it builds, and their customer retention numbers are growing increasingly ugly. It's not a sustainable long-term trend.
The reality is that there are many ways to turn this around, I just don't believe their management is aware of what the real problem is.
Tom Kirby wrote:
We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.
The reality is that there are many ways to turn this around, I just don't believe their management is aware of what the real problem is. This is similar to hearing someone complain about how they don't love their tires and maybe their cat needs to finally have that rear view mirror that cracked replaced while the cat itself is on fire in their driveway. There is a far greater and more urgent issue, and they are completely ignorant of it while spending time on things that are not real issues.
I now have a mental image of a burning cat with a cracked rearview mirror strapped to its head. The new Nyan cat?
If that fails, then they pull all their own videos from YouTube and issue DCA takedowns for every other video featuring their product so no one on YouTube ever sees anything 40k-related again.
Based on latest financial disclosure Games Workshop Group plc has Probability Of Bankruptcy of 71%. This is 91.82% higher than that of the Consumer Goods sector, and 63.3% higher than that of Recreational Goods, Other industry, The Probability Of Bankruptcy for all stocks is 79.88% lower than the firm.
71% probability of bankruptcy within 2 years?
Ouch.
To be absolutely correct, it is 71% chance of a serious financial crisis possibly leading to bankruptcy.
However, suppose that revenue stays steady for the next year. The £4.5 M of exceptional expenditures does not have to be repeated. The £2 M of cost savings comes into effect. Suddenly, GW's profit is up by £6.5 M on the same revenue of about £122 M. (I am ignoring the effect of their increasing Cost of Sales.)
Everything would be looking pretty good.
The key worry is if Kirby's explanation for the revenue drop -- the difficulty of finding staff for the one man shops -- should be wrong. In that case there might be another 8% drop in sales, or worse. If he is right, though, they ought to be able to staff up and then we might even see an increase in revenue.
My personal view is that the one man shops are only a part of the problem.
Working in hobby shops is a lot of nerds dream job so it's pretty telling about the corporate atmosphere that they have such bad retention and recruitment problems.
Yonan wrote: Working in hobby shops is a lot of nerds dream job so it's pretty telling about the corporate atmosphere that they have such bad retention and recruitment problems.
The dream pales somewhat in the face of unrealistic sales targets, one-man-stores and having to deal with gamers all day...
Yonan wrote: Working in hobby shops is a lot of nerds dream job so it's pretty telling about the corporate atmosphere that they have such bad retention and recruitment problems.
The dream pales somewhat in the face of unrealistic sales targets, one-man-stores and having to deal with gamers all day...
Perhaps GWs target market version of yeah ; p Like most people I considered being a teacher. Then I remembered it involved being around teenagers and came to my senses!
Based on latest financial disclosure Games Workshop Group plc has Probability Of Bankruptcy of 71%. This is 91.82% higher than that of the Consumer Goods sector, and 63.3% higher than that of Recreational Goods, Other industry, The Probability Of Bankruptcy for all stocks is 79.88% lower than the firm.
71% probability of bankruptcy within 2 years?
Ouch.
To be absolutely correct, it is 71% chance of a serious financial crisis possibly leading to bankruptcy.
However, suppose that revenue stays steady for the next year. The £4.5 M of exceptional expenditures does not have to be repeated. The £2 M of cost savings comes into effect. Suddenly, GW's profit is up by £6.5 M on the same revenue of about £122 M. (I am ignoring the effect of their increasing Cost of Sales.)
Everything would be looking pretty good.
The key worry is if Kirby's explanation for the revenue drop -- the difficulty of finding staff for the one man shops -- should be wrong. In that case there might be another 8% drop in sales, or worse. If he is right, though, they ought to be able to staff up and then we might even see an increase in revenue.
My personal view is that the one man shops are only a part of the problem.
The "exceptional costs" in a downward spiral tend to be like temporary taxes... once implemented they go from exceptional to permanent.
Considering GW pulled out all their heavy hitters in the last year and still managed a serious decline, the trends are not working in their favor that they will only decline by another 8%-11%. More than likely, we are going to witness an acceleration of losses from this point forward. When you look at performance just since 2012, GW is down 14% on previous sales growth (going from just over 6% in 2012 to -8% in 2014). Already the last two years are showing this accelerating, and accelerating quickly.
The next year should show the decline continuing even further. At best, I would expect a 16% decline, more likely we'll be looking at 19%-24% decline in gross revenues. If they manage to stay at -16% or above they can still turn a profit, but it is obvious it will be their last year of doing so without dramatic 'into the bone' cuts. If they hit a 19% decline or more, additional "exceptional costs" are going to come into play and they just won't be able to cut fast enough to avoid complete collapse. Of course, this will be the new CEOs fault as he/she will have to manage through this.
GW really cannot cut much further without losing serious cores in their business.
If they axe their stores, reallocate production to cheaper places, hire cheaper people to sculpt and write for them, at the end of the day if they still lose money they will not be in business.
It's kind of sad, really. I've been playing GW games since 1995, almost 20 years. Over half of my life. I have fond memories of playing GW games through the years. I still enjoy playing 40K with my friends. I'm working on an Emperor's Children Legion army for 30K, I plan to start a 30K Mechanicum force as well. And to see the projections that GW may be gone in as soon as two years is, well, rather depressing. It's like when I read the end of the last Wheel of Time book, and realized I just came to the end of a book series that had been with me for over half of my life.
And it is completely within GW's means to prevent this from happening. But, I fear this is exactly what "Kirby and his Kronies" want: to ride the dividend and salary train as long as they can until it all goes under, the golden parachute deploys, and someone buys the stock up for cheap and GW becomes somebody else's problem.
Tannhauser42 wrote: It's kind of sad, really. I've been playing GW games since 1995, almost 20 years. Over half of my life. I have fond memories of playing GW games through the years. I still enjoy playing 40K with my friends. I'm working on an Emperor's Children Legion army for 30K, I plan to start a 30K Mechanicum force as well. And to see the projections that GW may be gone in as soon as two years is, well, rather depressing. It's like when I read the end of the last Wheel of Time book, and realized I just came to the end of a book series that had been with me for over half of my life.
And it is completely within GW's means to prevent this from happening. But, I fear this is exactly what "Kirby and his Kronies" want: to ride the dividend and salary train as long as they can until it all goes under, the golden parachute deploys, and someone buys the stock up for cheap and GW becomes somebody else's problem.
I'm just going to put out a couple of observations on the passing year.
New 40K release.
New Space Marines codex. Like it or not, it's always a big seller for GW.
Alongside those, several other new codexes and expansions.
And GW is still in decline, even after their (arguably) two biggest sellers in the same year.
Of course, there are a thousand other factor's that I'm missing out here, but the fact that even two of GW's biggest sellers couldn't produce a profit for GW really speaks volumes, in my very humble opinion.
Now I'll just wait for someone that knows what they're actually talking about to shoot me down
Yonan wrote: Working in hobby shops is a lot of nerds dream job so it's pretty telling about the corporate atmosphere that they have such bad retention and recruitment problems.
The dream pales somewhat in the face of unrealistic sales targets, one-man-stores and having to deal with gamers all day...
If dakka dakka is representative of the types of people involved, I'd quit too.
Considering GW pulled out all their heavy hitters in the last year and still managed a serious decline, the trends are not working in their favor that they will only decline by another 8%-11%. More than likely, we are going to witness an acceleration of losses from this point forward. When you look at performance just since 2012, GW is down 14% on previous sales growth (going from just over 6% in 2012 to -8% in 2014). Already the last two years are showing this accelerating, and accelerating quickly.
The next year should show the decline continuing even further. At best, I would expect a 16% decline, more likely we'll be looking at 19%-24% decline in gross revenues.
Such a decline would be very extreme. Given that despite everything, their sales have been quite stable over the last decade (sans the LOTR bubble), it would seem unlikely they'd suddenly collapse so dramatically. Also, I disagree with the idea that GW has nothing "big" left to release - for starters, 7th edition 40k sales boost (if such thing happens) will mostly be including in 14-15 financials.
Far more likely is a slow drippling down of sales over the next 5-10 years if nothing dramatic happens (worldwide economic depression, complete makeover of the GW leadership & direction etc).
Such a decline would be very extreme. Given that despite everything, their sales have been quite stable over the last decade (sans the LOTR bubble), it would seem unlikely they'd suddenly collapse so dramatically.
Until recently, I would have thought the same. However, the rapid decline of WHFB into near irrelevance shows a pattern that could be repeated by 40K. Less than wonderful rules, rapidly escalating product prices and increasing army sizes are the probable culprits in the decline of WHFB. This pattern is easily repeatable for 40K. The declining customer base (caused by the above problems) that has been hidden by price increases has apparently reached a failure threshold (minimum number of customers) for WHFB. Given this years sales revenue decline and the fact that 40K is the GW sales driver, we could be approaching the minimum customer threshold that 40K needs to survive at the current level of GW's expenses/cost of operations.
Such a decline would be very extreme. Given that despite everything, their sales have been quite stable over the last decade (sans the LOTR bubble), it would seem unlikely they'd suddenly collapse so dramatically.
Until recently, I would have thought the same. However, the rapid decline of WHFB into near irrelevance shows a pattern that could be repeated by 40K. Less than wonderful rules, rapidly escalating product prices and increasing army sizes are the probable culprits in the decline of WHFB. This pattern is easily repeatable for 40K. The declining customer base (caused by the above problems) that has been hidden by price increases has apparently reached a failure threshold (minimum number of customers) for WHFB. Given this years sales revenue decline and the fact that 40K is the GW sales driver, we could be approaching the minimum customer threshold that 40K needs to survive at the current level of GW's expenses/cost of operations.
Exactly. Wargames live and die by the network effect. GW games' greatest strength isn't their models, or their IP, but their ubiquity. The harder it is to find a game, the faster people will drop out. If/when a collapse occurs, it'll be exponential, not linear.
I agree. One of the key selling points of 40K and WHFB is how widely it is played.
Once that goes into reverse you get a situation where one of the key points is how many people are abandoning it for other games, and persuading potential new recruits to follow suit.
IDK if GW are at that point now, but I believe that they are close.
If we take that statement at face value, GW doesn't recognize the wargaming and community side of the hobby. The network effect may be invisible to the GW management. Doubly so if GW is focused on the UK market where its products would retain a higher market share even as global trends collapse.
Considering GW pulled out all their heavy hitters in the last year and still managed a serious decline, the trends are not working in their favor that they will only decline by another 8%-11%. More than likely, we are going to witness an acceleration of losses from this point forward. When you look at performance just since 2012, GW is down 14% on previous sales growth (going from just over 6% in 2012 to -8% in 2014). Already the last two years are showing this accelerating, and accelerating quickly.
The next year should show the decline continuing even further. At best, I would expect a 16% decline, more likely we'll be looking at 19%-24% decline in gross revenues.
Such a decline would be very extreme. Given that despite everything, their sales have been quite stable over the last decade (sans the LOTR bubble), it would seem unlikely they'd suddenly collapse so dramatically. Also, I disagree with the idea that GW has nothing "big" left to release - for starters, 7th edition 40k sales boost (if such thing happens) will mostly be including in 14-15 financials.
Far more likely is a slow drippling down of sales over the next 5-10 years if nothing dramatic happens (worldwide economic depression, complete makeover of the GW leadership & direction etc).
This is the point I keep bringing up, when the threshold is crossed is rarely is a slow decline spread out over a number of years. It is usually dramatic and quick. Sorry, but GW management is not only of the caliber to not prevent this from happening, but they appear to be doubling down on the strategy which has lead them to this point in the first place. I may be wrong, but unless GW can buck historical trends of companies at this point, the acceleration in revenue decline will happen at this point forward.
Tannhauser42 wrote: It's kind of sad, really. I've been playing GW games since 1995, almost 20 years. Over half of my life. I have fond memories of playing GW games through the years. I still enjoy playing 40K with my friends. I'm working on an Emperor's Children Legion army for 30K, I plan to start a 30K Mechanicum force as well. And to see the projections that GW may be gone in as soon as two years is, well, rather depressing. It's like when I read the end of the last Wheel of Time book, and realized I just came to the end of a book series that had been with me for over half of my life.
And it is completely within GW's means to prevent this from happening. But, I fear this is exactly what "Kirby and his Kronies" want: to ride the dividend and salary train as long as they can until it all goes under, the golden parachute deploys, and someone buys the stock up for cheap and GW becomes somebody else's problem.
Your avatar always makes me smile. And then want to go play Deadly Premonition and get some coffee fortunes.
"Zack, the coffee says "Gee Doubleyou". What could this mean?"
I think I have all the GW minis I want right now and sold off everything relevant. Now we play the waiting game.
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree. One of the key selling points of 40K and WHFB is how widely it is played.
Once that goes into reverse you get a situation where one of the key points is how many people are abandoning it for other games, and persuading potential new recruits to follow suit.
IDK if GW are at that point now, but I believe that they are close.
This should be of huge concern to GW. There are several games that I'd definitely be collecting, if there were a large enough playerbase for me to find a pick up game on my days off. If 40k loses that as a selling point, theyre done.
sand.zzz wrote: There are several games that I'd definitely be collecting, if there were a large enough playerbase for me to find a pick up game on my days off.
Just build a matching pair/triad. When someone wants to play with you, you have all the necessary minis and stuff for both players.
Want to start Bolt Action? Just buy the rulebook, then two boxes of 1/72 infantry and one box of two tanks for each faction. Total cost, about $120, and you should have more than enough minis to run games that are 150% the standard size. The ruleset is quite easy to learn, most beginners "get it" by turn 3.
Wanna start DBA? Just have a look at my sig. Then again, getting the rulebooks plus all the minis for three complete armies (with enough spare units to build a 4th standard-sized force) cost me something like $70. And then again, DBA fits into the "maybe hard to master, but damn easy to learn" sweet spot.
Problem is, you just can't do it for WHFB/40k. Even if you're willing to spend enough cash to build 2 or 3 armies (or already have them), you need to have "insiders" around you if you want to play a pick up game, because the ruleset is not beginner friendly at all.
I honestly think the main thing GW still has going for it is the seeming ignorance of a lot of 40k players that there are no alternatives or finding any and all reason(s) to dismiss a competitor because it's not identical to 40k.
Considering GW pulled out all their heavy hitters in the last year and still managed a serious decline, the trends are not working in their favor that they will only decline by another 8%-11%. More than likely, we are going to witness an acceleration of losses from this point forward. When you look at performance just since 2012, GW is down 14% on previous sales growth (going from just over 6% in 2012 to -8% in 2014). Already the last two years are showing this accelerating, and accelerating quickly.
The next year should show the decline continuing even further. At best, I would expect a 16% decline, more likely we'll be looking at 19%-24% decline in gross revenues.
Such a decline would be very extreme. Given that despite everything, their sales have been quite stable over the last decade (sans the LOTR bubble), it would seem unlikely they'd suddenly collapse so dramatically. Also, I disagree with the idea that GW has nothing "big" left to release - for starters, 7th edition 40k sales boost (if such thing happens) will mostly be including in 14-15 financials.
Far more likely is a slow drippling down of sales over the next 5-10 years if nothing dramatic happens (worldwide economic depression, complete makeover of the GW leadership & direction etc).
This is the point I keep bringing up, when the threshold is crossed is rarely is a slow decline spread out over a number of years. It is usually dramatic and quick. Sorry, but GW management is not only of the caliber to not prevent this from happening, but they appear to be doubling down on the strategy which has lead them to this point in the first place. I may be wrong, but unless GW can buck historical trends of companies at this point, the acceleration in revenue decline will happen at this point forward.
Quite right, if anything the "71% chance of bankruptcy in 2 years prediction" is optimistic, as it is looking at statistics and perhaps a rough rundown. A few things to consider;
*The only reason GW is posting a profit is by ruthlessly cutting operations. They long ago stopped trimming fat and started hitting the muscle.
*They have fired the big guns by flooding the market with new sets, armies, codices, and editions. They still lost sales. They literally have nothing left to try.
*Despite transparency legislations, some of accounting is still fiscal fantasy. Some of this is of course properly needed to operate smoothly. (Such as accounting for depreciation of equipment as if it were a steady monthly expenditure.) But some of it can be pure hocus pocus; shifting losses by one department by creating expenditures in another. (They spent HOW much on the website? Really?)
TLDR/Translation; Profits are probably even Worse than they look on paper.
Therefore, IMO to have even a slim chance at surviving they would have to; phase out physical overhead (Toxic relationships with independent and online retailers makes this troublesome), cut prices and perhaps manufacturing costs, and ADVERTISE, ADVERTISE, ADVERTISE (through traditional means, social campaigns, and leveraging their IP) these are the bare minimum first steps, the steps Kirby makes clear in his preamble they have no intention of even considering.
Some of the comments in this report are downright disgusting - this pig is actually proud of the fact that he ignores and/or doesn't care about what his customers want. How can someone with that attitude attain such a high position of power in a company like that?
Like they all do, right place, right time, right friends.
I think it's fair to say a former taxman probably wouldn't have attained the Chair of a global, listed company on the balance of probability, he did spot the opportunity when GW nearly disappeared previously (yes folks, it almost happened before, no reason it can't happen again in the future) and now he owns the ball, everyone plays his game or he takes it home.
Quite right, if anything the "71% chance of bankruptcy in 2 years prediction" is optimistic, as it is looking at statistics and perhaps a rough rundown.
I'm sorry, it is complete fantasy that GW will go bankrupt in 2 years. There is zero chance for it. Zero. To go bankrupt, they'd have to run a signifant loss for more than a year. Given that they still made a healthy profit this year, it is very unlikely they will make a loss next year. If sales continue to decline, it's plausible they post a loss in 2016, and THAT might start a downward spiral which might bankrupt them in say, 3-4 years.
Who exactly is going to bankrupt them? They have almost no debt. No debt, no debtors. No debtors, no bankruptcy.
Companies that operate at a loss do tend to go out of business rather quickly, especially when share values drop significantly over consecutive years...
Retrogamer0001 wrote: Companies that operate at a loss do tend to go out of business rather quickly, especially when share values drop significantly over consecutive years...
GW does not operate at loss. Share value has no effect on bankruptcy: share value might drop in expectation of a bankruptcy. GW share, despite dropping after poor January report, is still pretty high, roughly at same it was in 2012. This tells us that the investors, while having lost some optimism about company's future financial performance, do not expect it go bankrupt anytime soon.
Even if Wayshuba is correct in his gloomy prediction and GW posts a loss next year, that STILL does not drive the company anywhere close to bankruptcy. Why? Because GW has cash, and even with a loss they still would have money on hand and don't have to take on debt to maintain their operation. A company which has both cash reserves and no debt is not that easy to drive under. Look at Nokia: mismanaged horribly for years, revenue shrank year after year, constantly posting a loss, share price plummeting to tiny fraction of former glory. Yet they were not actually anywhere close to bankruptcy, because the company had built up so strong financial position in its good years.
What COULD happen to GW in 2 years is that their revenue shrinks so bad, that investors lose confidence that the company could be turned around, shares plummet and somebody buys the company (which atm, is much too expensive). However, that is not the same as actual bankruptcy.
Quite right, if anything the "71% chance of bankruptcy in 2 years prediction" is optimistic, as it is looking at statistics and perhaps a rough rundown.
I'm sorry, it is complete fantasy that GW will go bankrupt in 2 years. There is zero chance for it. Zero. To go bankrupt, they'd have to run a signifant loss for more than a year. Given that they still made a healthy profit this year, it is very unlikely they will make a loss next year. If sales continue to decline, it's plausible they post a loss in 2016, and THAT might start a downward spiral which might bankrupt them in say, 3-4 years.
Who exactly is going to bankrupt them? They have almost no debt. No debt, no debtors. No debtors, no bankruptcy.
Debt is a fallacy about bankruptcy. Wang Computer, for example, filed for bankruptcy protection on August 18, 1992 and had zero bank debt when they did so. But, like any business, they still had other obligations. GW has a series of costs required to operate the business - currently sitting at around £108m. If revenue declines much faster than costs can be cut, you can quickly end up in trouble if you cannot cut costs fast enough, nor recognize savings for 30 months after obtaining "exceptional" costs.. In addition, while they may not have bank debt, they have extremely hefty lease obligations with all their stores. How much of the £36m is attributed to that is unknown, but it can be just as crippling as debt.
Now for some quick math to show the point (Cos and Operating Expenses common in all scenarios):
With 12% decline over next year (the same YoY change as previous year): Gross Revenue (GR) £108.68m, Cost of Sales (£36m), Operating Expense (£71.4m), Est. Net Profit £870k
With 16% decline (which I think is best case scenario): GR: £ 103.74m, Net Loss (£3.6m) - Cash on Hand currently £17.5m - remaining £13.9m
With 24% decline GR: £93.86m, Net Loss (£13.5m) - cash on hand remaining £4m (not enough to make it through even next three months and therefore need to file bankruptcy protection)
As it is, GW moved 12 points down from previous years growth. That is with pulling out every heavy hitting product they have. 19%-24% is a VERY likely scenario over the next year and 16% would be a best case. I personally am betting on the former, and thus why I say they are less than two years to complete implosion.
As an aside, I did these exact type of studies for companies I worked with for over 25 years. Worst I ever missed on my predictions was 3%. Not that it is worth anything, but at almost 50 years old, I have seen this case one too many times to count to feel I am that wrong about this.
Quite right, if anything the "71% chance of bankruptcy in 2 years prediction" is optimistic, as it is looking at statistics and perhaps a rough rundown.
I'm sorry, it is complete fantasy that GW will go bankrupt in 2 years. There is zero chance for it. Zero. To go bankrupt, they'd have to run a signifant loss for more than a year. Given that they still made a healthy profit this year, it is very unlikely they will make a loss next year. If sales continue to decline, it's plausible they post a loss in 2016, and THAT might start a downward spiral which might bankrupt them in say, 3-4 years.
Who exactly is going to bankrupt them? They have almost no debt. No debt, no debtors. No debtors, no bankruptcy.
They have no debt but huge operating costs, which will cause them problems if they can't cut costs faster than the decline I revenue. It won't take much more of a drop for them to lose money. 15% would likely do it.
Retrogamer0001 wrote: Companies that operate at a loss do tend to go out of business rather quickly, especially when share values drop significantly over consecutive years...
GW does not operate at loss. Share value has no effect on bankruptcy: share value might drop in expectation of a bankruptcy. GW share, despite dropping after poor January report, is still pretty high, roughly at same it was in 2012. This tells us that the investors, while having lost some optimism about company's future financial performance, do not expect it go bankrupt anytime soon.
Even if Wayshuba is correct in his gloomy prediction and GW posts a loss next year, that STILL does not drive the company anywhere close to bankruptcy. Why? Because GW has cash, and even with a loss they still would have money on hand and don't have to take on debt to maintain their operation. A company which has both cash reserves and no debt is not that easy to drive under. Look at Nokia: mismanaged horribly for years, revenue shrank year after year, constantly posting a loss, share price plummeting to tiny fraction of former glory. Yet they were not actually anywhere close to bankruptcy, because the company had built up so strong financial position in its good years.
What COULD happen to GW in 2 years is that their revenue shrinks so bad, that investors lose confidence that the company could be turned around, shares plummet and somebody buys the company (which atm, is much too expensive). However, that is not the same as actual bankruptcy.
Just FYI, GW does not have a lot of cash on hand for a company with their tenure of existence - only £17.5m. That is absolutely terrible for a thirty year old company. They have chosen to pay out an enormous amount of cash in dividends rather than maintain that cash on hand. See my example above for just how fast that cash can be eaten up. A 20% percent or more decline and all that cash is almost bye-bye and does not even give them enough to survive the twelve months after that. So, the possibility of bankruptcy in two years is actually extremely high following the trending data. Might even be as high as 71%.
Edit: For a quick follow on where I come up with this with the growth numbers. 2012 +6%, 2013+3% (down 3), 2014 -8% (down 11 or 4x), 2015 est. -24% (down 8x last growth year of 2013 and 3x prior year). Trend line continues down similar drop rate, not flat revenue decline. At 24%, GW is filing bankruptcy.
The loss of money isnt as important as the loss of players. (Although i wouldnt surprised at all if the 4mil website designation was so high because they wanted to make and excuse for a drop off in online purchasing)
This is GW's MO really...
Warhammer online: made more than enough money to survive... couldnt keep players in game due to bugs/terrible patches/no improvement of rules. Axed when player pool dwindled to low.
Dawn of war (all of them): made more than enough money to survive... couldnt keep players interested due to bugs/terrible patches/no improvement of rules. Axed when player pool dwindled to low.
Specialist games (BFG, EPIC, necromunda, inquisitor, blood bowl, etc: made more than enough money to survive... couldnt keep players in game due to bugs/terrible patches/no improvement of rules. Axed when player pool dwindled to low.
Hobbit: made more than enough money to survive... couldnt keep players in game due to bugs/terrible patches/no improvement of rules. Axed when player pool dwindled to low.
warhammer fantasy: made more than enough money to survive... couldnt keep players in game due to bugs/terrible patches/no improvement of rules. soon to be axed when player pool dwindles to low.
The plain and simple fact is that whereas for the past 10-20 years the people playing the game were the primary advertisers... now most of us dont even try to sell the game to fresh blood.
this game is like golf without any of the positive stereotypes: expensive, time consuming, most of peoples enjoyment is derived from thinking about it rather than actually experiencing it. Wargaming in general is viewed as childish and archaic, and generally a negative light by most of the modern world, and thats a hard stigma to overcome just to get abused fiscally by the same company that adult society mocks you for enjoying.
EDIT:
1. i know that the vidja games arnt necessarily in GW's control... but they were the owners of the IP. And greenlit the developers who were to blame
2. most of the specialist games were fairly solid, holistically.
Quite right, if anything the "71% chance of bankruptcy in 2 years prediction" is optimistic, as it is looking at statistics and perhaps a rough rundown.
I'm sorry, it is complete fantasy that GW will go bankrupt in 2 years. There is zero chance for it. Zero. ...
They're not my numbers, they're from Google Finance's professional analytical matrix. Professional investors aren't exactly known for their whimsical flights of fancy.
Backfire wrote:
GW does not operate at loss. Share value has no effect on bankruptcy: share value might drop in expectation of a bankruptcy. GW share, despite dropping after poor January report, is still pretty high, roughly at same it was in 2012. This tells us that the investors, while having lost some optimism about company's future financial performance, do not expect it go bankrupt anytime soon...
A closer reading of their balance sheet shows you that they've been inflating their profit margin by cutting operations to the bone despite sales collapsing. Why does that matter?
To put it in layman's terms;
You can pay your mortgage by selling your body for sex. As long as someone's paying for what you're doing you'll be all set.
You can pay your mortgage by selling your body for parts. This works precisely for as long as it takes you to run out of kidneys.
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree. One of the key selling points of 40K and WHFB is how widely it is played.
Once that goes into reverse you get a situation where one of the key points is how many people are abandoning it for other games, and persuading potential new recruits to follow suit.
IDK if GW are at that point now, but I believe that they are close.
I believe they would be at that point much after than previously thought chief.
In a close group of friends were there were 6 die hard fans it took two to become disenchanted with GW,
Out of the other four two were only casual to begin with and the other two found gaming only together tedious and looking for a new group diffuicult.
Anecdotally speaking of course, but the story is repeated on forums and in the different groups that I know personally within the different clubs/ stores, its even happening with my group now.
In short, I've found it only takes about half the group to become disenchanted before the others find it unplayable,
So the decline in the older population at least will become rapid once the player base becomes so-so.
I believe although this point is defined locally, we've begun to see that this last financial year. Both statistically and anecdotally.
Retrogamer0001 wrote: Companies that operate at a loss do tend to go out of business rather quickly, especially when share values drop significantly over consecutive years...
GW does not operate at loss. Share value has no effect on bankruptcy: share value might drop in expectation of a bankruptcy. GW share, despite dropping after poor January report, is still pretty high, roughly at same it was in 2012. This tells us that the investors, while having lost some optimism about company's future financial performance, do not expect it go bankrupt anytime soon.
Even if Wayshuba is correct in his gloomy prediction and GW posts a loss next year, that STILL does not drive the company anywhere close to bankruptcy. Why? Because GW has cash, and even with a loss they still would have money on hand and don't have to take on debt to maintain their operation. A company which has both cash reserves and no debt is not that easy to drive under. Look at Nokia: mismanaged horribly for years, revenue shrank year after year, constantly posting a loss, share price plummeting to tiny fraction of former glory. Yet they were not actually anywhere close to bankruptcy, because the company had built up so strong financial position in its good years.
What COULD happen to GW in 2 years is that their revenue shrinks so bad, that investors lose confidence that the company could be turned around, shares plummet and somebody buys the company (which atm, is much too expensive). However, that is not the same as actual bankruptcy.
Just FYI, GW does not have a lot of cash on hand for a company with their tenure of existence - only £17.5m. That is absolutely terrible for a thirty year old company. They have chosen to pay out an enormous amount of cash in dividends rather than maintain that cash on hand. See my example above for just how fast that cash can be eaten up. A 20% percent or more decline and all that cash is almost bye-bye and does not even give them enough to survive the twelve months after that. So, the possibility of bankruptcy in two years is actually extremely high following the trending data. Might even be as high as 71%.
Edit: For a quick follow on where I come up with this with the growth numbers. 2012 +6%, 2013+3% (down 3), 2014 -8% (down 11 or 4x), 2015 est. -24% (down 8x last growth year of 2013 and 3x prior year). Trend line continues down similar drop rate, not flat revenue decline. At 24%, GW is filing bankruptcy.
Cash on hand doesn't mean you're successful. The fact they don't have any debt is huge is a better indication as to how well they operate. They grew slowly and not through debt. From what I can tell, they seem to be running leaner and have few production issues. Their operations in the second half of the year are trending better than the first half. Who knows, maybe they will show a turn around.
They have a couple of issues with stuff not being available day 1 but it's nothing like the PP issue back in 2010 when you couldn't order half of their model range unless it was a new release.
Cash on hand doesn't mean you're successful. The fact they don't have any debt is huge is a better indication as to how well they operate. They grew slowly and not through debt. From what I can tell, they seem to be running leaner and have few production issues. Nothing like the PP issue back in 2010 when you couldn't order half of their model range unless it was a new release.
A problem which GW (indirectly) caused. Nothing like sending your customers in droves to one of your biggest competitors by dictating where they can buy their products from.
"Sorry guv, you're from Australia. Can't buy our products from Wayland..."
Debt is a fallacy about bankruptcy. Wang Computer, for example, filed for bankruptcy protection on August 18, 1992 and had zero bank debt when they did so. But, like any business, they still had other obligations. GW has a series of costs required to operate the business - currently sitting at around £108m. If revenue declines much faster than costs can be cut, you can quickly end up in trouble if you cannot cut costs fast enough, nor recognize savings for 30 months after obtaining "exceptional" costs.
It's a fallacy to think that GW can not cut costs further if it absolutely requires to. Sure enough, they probably can't cut costs much anymore if they want to maintain their current level of production. However, if the demand drops as dramatically as you suppose, then they can easily simply cut from production. After all, if there is no demand, there is no need to produce that much either. As I recall, Nottingham facility is running in three shifts, so you cut the night shift. Or cut design costs. Give up the plans for Dreadflee...ok, that joke is dead. Say, give up the plans for Mordheim mk2 or whatever they might be drafting up.
Again, there does not seem to be much evidence about such a collapse of sales. Kirby reported that the last quarter was better than the third one (although it better be with the huge website promotion campaign and first weeks of 7th edition), so it does not seem they're in a middle of quick collapse.
Quite right, if anything the "71% chance of bankruptcy in 2 years prediction" is optimistic, as it is looking at statistics and perhaps a rough rundown.
I'm sorry, it is complete fantasy that GW will go bankrupt in 2 years. There is zero chance for it. Zero. ...
They're not my numbers, they're from Google Finance's professional analytical matrix. Professional investors aren't exactly known for their whimsical flights of fancy.
So, you are they more believable than the professional investors who buy and hold GW stock for living and who presumably have acquinted themselves with company's financial shape.
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree. One of the key selling points of 40K and WHFB is how widely it is played.
Once that goes into reverse you get a situation where one of the key points is how many people are abandoning it for other games, and persuading potential new recruits to follow suit.
IDK if GW are at that point now, but I believe that they are close.
I believe they would be at that point much after than previously thought chief.
In a close group of friends were there were 6 die hard fans it took two to become disenchanted with GW,
Out of the other four two were only casual to begin with and the other two found gaming only together tedious and looking for a new group diffuicult.
Anecdotally speaking of course, but the story is repeated on forums and in the different groups that I know personally within the different clubs/ stores, its even happening with my group now.
In short, I've found it only takes about half the group to become disenchanted before the others find it unplayable,
So the decline in the older population at least will become rapid once the player base becomes so-so.
I believe although this point is defined locally, we've begun to see that this last financial year. Both statistically and anecdotally.
Well that's the thing; anecdotes aren't evidence all by their lonesome, but a few hundred make for a damn insightful market study. It's very weird, I got into the game seriously about 2 years ago. We went from 2 players to 6 players to 12 players, to 1 or 2 this past month. The people who got me into the game (and warmed me up to it despite my problems) just abandoned it. 7th came in without much drama, but it seemed to be the final straw for the diehards. (Even people who didn't worry about daemon spawning or titan first strikes told me the shifting objectives killed the whole game for them.)
So, you are they more believable than the professional investors who buy and hold GW stock for living and who presumably have acquinted themselves with company's financial shape.
Am I? Not particularly. Is the opinion of professional analysts more believable than people betting on GW?
Abso-fething-lutely.
Enron had investors right up till the end. As noted previously, most private investors abandoned the stock causing its crash months ago. The current investors are large firms who often divest a small fraction of funds in high risk stock, as the turn around for such often negates and surpasses the funds lost on failed companies. (Junk bonds for example are sort of the instant scratch tickets of the investment world.)
As you are fond of noting, the stock situation really doesn't prove anything. Look at the balance sheet, then read between the lines.
So, you are they more believable than the professional investors who buy and hold GW stock for living and who presumably have acquinted themselves with company's financial shape.
Am I? Not particularly. Is the opinion of professional analysts more believable than people betting on GW?
Abso-fething-lutely.
Enron had investors right up till the end. As noted previously, most private investors abandoned the stock causing its crash months ago. The current investors are large firms who often divest a small fraction of funds in high risk stock, as the turn around for such often negates and surpasses the funds lost on failed companies. (Junk bonds for example are sort of the instant scratch tickets of the investment world.)
As you are fond of noting, the stock situation really doesn't prove anything. Look at the balance sheet, then read between the lines.
Macroaxis prediction doesn't come from "professional analyst": it comes from a formula to where some basic financial data is entered and then it calculates "probability of bankruptcy", often with quite hilariously high results. Last year it predicted that Sony will go bankrupt with 79% chance.
Enron was engaged with various criminal accounting practices (and not only accounting...). Investors believed in it because they were lied about company's financial state. Of course it cannot be completely ruled out with GW, but seems unlikely.
Cash on hand doesn't mean you're successful. The fact they don't have any debt is huge is a better indication as to how well they operate. They grew slowly and not through debt. From what I can tell, they seem to be running leaner and have few production issues. Nothing like the PP issue back in 2010 when you couldn't order half of their model range unless it was a new release.
A problem which GW (indirectly) caused. Nothing like sending your customers in droves to one of your biggest competitors by dictating where they can buy their products from.
"Sorry guv, you're from Australia. Can't buy our products from Wayland..."
Ahh, I don't seem to have the same problem the Australians have. My issue with PP was I got out of GW for a year and stated playing Hordes. After getting into that game, PP had troubles with their supply chain and I couldn't order anything that wasn't a new release from my FLGS or directly from PP's website. As a result, I quit playing the game, cancelled my orders with PP and went back to GW. The only benefit was 10 months later I got my entire order from PP. One max sized beast handler unit. Can't play skorne well without them. With GW, hey seem to be able to back fill their product rather quickly. The most I've waited was an extra 3 days for something and they always sent me an "I'm sorry for the delay gift" that goes with my purchase.
Cash on hand doesn't mean you're successful. The fact they don't have any debt is huge is a better indication as to how well they operate. They grew slowly and not through debt. From what I can tell, they seem to be running leaner and have few production issues. Nothing like the PP issue back in 2010 when you couldn't order half of their model range unless it was a new release.
A problem which GW (indirectly) caused. Nothing like sending your customers in droves to one of your biggest competitors by dictating where they can buy their products from.
"Sorry guv, you're from Australia. Can't buy our products from Wayland..."
Ahh, I don't seem to have the same problem the Australians have. My issue with PP was I got out of GW for a year and stated playing Hordes. After getting into that game, PP had troubles with their supply chain and I couldn't order anything that wasn't a new release from my FLGS or directly from PP's website. As a result, I quit playing the game, cancelled my orders with PP and went back to GW. The only benefit was 10 months later I got my entire order from PP. One max sized beast handler unit. Can't play skorne well without them. With GW, hey seem to be able to back fill their product rather quickly. The most I've waited was an extra 3 days for something and they always sent me an "I'm sorry for the delay gift" that goes with my purchase.
No, you missed his point. He was point out you couldn't get PP product becouse Australians where buying them all at that time. Why becouse GW priced them out then stopped them ordering over sea for cheaper and a bunch went to PP games instead. Buying basical all of PP stock at the time.
It not that they under produced stock, it that they honestly had no idea GW would just hand them so many new player for their games.
Cash on hand doesn't mean you're successful. The fact they don't have any debt is huge is a better indication as to how well they operate. They grew slowly and not through debt. From what I can tell, they seem to be running leaner and have few production issues. Nothing like the PP issue back in 2010 when you couldn't order half of their model range unless it was a new release.
A problem which GW (indirectly) caused. Nothing like sending your customers in droves to one of your biggest competitors by dictating where they can buy their products from.
"Sorry guv, you're from Australia. Can't buy our products from Wayland..."
Ahh, I don't seem to have the same problem the Australians have. My issue with PP was I got out of GW for a year and stated playing Hordes. After getting into that game, PP had troubles with their supply chain and I couldn't order anything that wasn't a new release from my FLGS or directly from PP's website. As a result, I quit playing the game, cancelled my orders with PP and went back to GW. The only benefit was 10 months later I got my entire order from PP. One max sized beast handler unit. Can't play skorne well without them. With GW, hey seem to be able to back fill their product rather quickly. The most I've waited was an extra 3 days for something and they always sent me an "I'm sorry for the delay gift" that goes with my purchase.
No, you missed his point. He was point out you couldn't get PP product becouse Australians where buying them all at that time. Why becouse GW priced them out and a bunch went to PP games at the same time.
Oh, their forums said they were retooling and had machines breaking down. They didn't indicate anything about Australians buying all of their products for 10 months. Heck, the feedback I got from PP reiterated they were in the process of revamping their production which coincided with what their forums said. Then I'm sorry but PP is a much much smaller company than GW because if people from Australia can suck all of their product they make then hey really had no supply chain to begin with. If my order was on back order for 10 months because that's how long it took to cast every order in front of me, they must have very little equipment or it was in horrible shape and nobody was willing to work with them.
Cash on hand doesn't mean you're successful. The fact they don't have any debt is huge is a better indication as to how well they operate. They grew slowly and not through debt. From what I can tell, they seem to be running leaner and have few production issues. Nothing like the PP issue back in 2010 when you couldn't order half of their model range unless it was a new release.
A problem which GW (indirectly) caused. Nothing like sending your customers in droves to one of your biggest competitors by dictating where they can buy their products from.
"Sorry guv, you're from Australia. Can't buy our products from Wayland..."
Ahh, I don't seem to have the same problem the Australians have. My issue with PP was I got out of GW for a year and stated playing Hordes. After getting into that game, PP had troubles with their supply chain and I couldn't order anything that wasn't a new release from my FLGS or directly from PP's website. As a result, I quit playing the game, cancelled my orders with PP and went back to GW. The only benefit was 10 months later I got my entire order from PP. One max sized beast handler unit. Can't play skorne well without them. With GW, hey seem to be able to back fill their product rather quickly. The most I've waited was an extra 3 days for something and they always sent me an "I'm sorry for the delay gift" that goes with my purchase.
No, you missed his point. He was point out you couldn't get PP product becouse Australians where buying them all at that time. Why becouse GW priced them out then stopped them ordering over sea for cheaper and a bunch went to PP games instead. Buying basical all of PP stock at the time.
It not that they under produced stock, it that they honestly had no idea GW would just hand them so many new player for their games.
Finecast played a huge part too. It was all part of GW's "summer of terror" in 2011 IIRC.
You might actually have something interesting and/or informative to say, but I find myself skipping right past your posts.
On the flip side, I find the orange text useful as it allows me to quickly identify a post that is usually worth reading. Otherwise I have to scan for usernames or avatars
You might actually have something interesting and/or informative to say, but I find myself skipping right past your posts.
Reinholt has a good reason for using orange. He used it all the time over at Warseer, it makes his post unique I feel and he always has a good contribution to the discussion.
Nevertheless it is technically breaking forum rules, and is one of my pet hates. I started writing a post similar to Alph's a couple of days ago, but changed my mind as he is a new user with something intelligent to say and I didn't want to risk scaring him off!
Azreal13 wrote: Nevertheless it is technically breaking forum rules, and is one of my pet hates. I started writing a post similar to Alph's a couple of days ago, but changed my mind as he is a new user with something intelligent to say and I didn't want to risk scaring him off!
Az, with the utmost respect I would like to point out to you that it says DCM under your name, not MOD.
You are helpful in your reminders, but it isn't your job.
Azreal13 wrote: Nevertheless it is technically breaking forum rules, and is one of my pet hates. I started writing a post similar to Alph's a couple of days ago, but changed my mind as he is a new user with something intelligent to say and I didn't want to risk scaring him off!
Az, with the utmost respect I would like to point out to you that it says DCM under your name, not MOD.
You are helpful in your reminders, but it isn't your job.
BTW, I got my markups to work right, thanks!
With similar respect, I wasn't moderating, I was merely stating a fact (it's against forum rules) and an opinion (I don't like it, I find it distracting)
EDIT
You mean spoiler tags etc? That's great, although be careful with he IMG tags, I get more red text and post deletes through ,issues of those than anything!
How about a little more life, and a little less enslavement?
This my friends is Reinholt, this is how he does things. He adds value to the discussion and posts in orange for his own reasons, accept it, benefit from it, and move on.
Don't be too impressed by the technicalities of your forum, they are insignificant when compared to the power of the force?
Finecast played a huge part too. It was all part of GW's "summer of terror" in 2011 IIRC.
This was one of the biggest reasons I gave it all up; at least, this is where my separation with GW really started. I know it may seem petty to many, but I was being sold an inferior product at an increased price and, when there were problems, instead of acknowledging them, they tried to sell me patch-up kits for the new model I might have just purchased. Talk about pissing on your leg and telling you it's raining.
They would have won back a lot of my loyalty had they simply acknowledged the fault in their product, told us that they were working toward a plastic solution. Instead, it was more of the "nothing to see here" mentality which made me feel like they couldn't care less about me as a customer. That was the first time in my long history with GW that I felt like nothing more than dollar signs to them.
xraytango wrote: How about a little more life, and a little less enslavement?
This my friends is Reinholt, this is how he does things. He adds value to the discussion and posts in orange for his own reasons, accept it, benefit from it, and move on.
Don't be too impressed by the technicalities of your forum, they are insignificant when compared to the power of the force?
I dare say he could get special dispensation if his reasons are good, he'd probably need to prostrate himself before The Emperor Yakface or one of his cronieshenchmenmoderators though...
Ok guys, let's ease up on the OT stuff. To the thread in general, if you think someone is breaking rules, just hit the triangle and let the mods sort it out, rather than dragging a thread off topic. Thanks.
I think that two years may be too pessimistic - GW can slow the rate of decay, even if they lack the means to halt it.
I agree that GW may not be able to lower the current prices without ticking off the folks that bought despite the prices (mentioned on another thread) - but that they can add value for money without lowering prices. Putting the variants for the tanks into the boxes is a good start - but being GW they would then go and add to the price, which would miss the point!
There are some exceptions - the Dire Avengers at five for the same price as the box of ten.... Dire avengers just aren't that good.... Some prices need to come down.
But at this point they need to do a lot of fence mending. Kirby and the Kronies have ticked off a large percentage of their fanbase, which is a bad idea when the entirety of your advertising is word of mouth from that same fanbase.
They really need to start advertising.
And they really need to work on the cost of entry into the hobby.
Right now Deadzone is doing very well - good rules, and a low entry point into the game.
I know several people that have more than one force each.
Entry is less than 50 quid - whether two people buy and share the starter box or get a faction starter and booster each.
WH40K... has a much higher entry point - and GW needs to lower it if they want to stay competitive.
I think that GWwill stave off the final collapse for more than two years... but I still see that collapse happening.
They need to start thinking about how to mend fences and fix the broken relationship with their customers.
Yeah, i have been saying GW is playing it dumb for a while, but 2 years seems a rather steep curve to me. They do have the money to stave off disaster for a while. Should things not change, i think we are witnessing the beginning of the end, but i am think in terms of a decade, not a couple of years.
2 years seems steep to me too, but to be honest, I thought GW would do way better this half than they did. I was expecting Knights and the new edition and all that DLC to really improve their sales and profits. I thought unbound would spur purchases. And it did stem the trend some what, but not enough, not enough by half.
So I dunno. I Wayshuba's numbers are not outside the bounds of possibility if play communities are collapsing the way I think they are. Perhaps GW can combat it by closing their retail arm in the states or something- but that's going to dip revenue too. The gamble is whether that would save them more money than it lost them.
The flip side of that is all the things they need to do to fix the game and make it more attractive. My worry there is, they had the chance to do that in 7th edition, and they totally fluffed it. It seems like they don't have the vision or the talent any more to pull off a dramatic turn around of the type they need to improve their systems. It's my subjective opinions that recent releases have been bloated trash that I will not pay that money for, and the most recent release (space wolves, with Murderfang of the Murder-rage and Murderclaws) doesn't convince me otherwise.
It's a shame to be labelled as a hater for these opinions. I've been into GW since I was 12, and I'm 29 now. I've got much more disposable income than I ever have in my life, and I'm still a diehard nerd. But GW aren't selling much that I want to buy at the prices they're charging, and my favourite line that they produce (LOTR) has been hit with the steepest and most unsustainable price rises of all. I hope they can turn it around, but I'm not optimistic.
And for any who think we're cheerleading GW's demise- I got 3 cases of GW miniatures and a pile of unassembled gak that will tank in value if the company goes belly up, so I got a really strong reason to want them to succeed. I think they're just incompetent though, and while heckling them for that is satisfying, I'd much rather be praising them.
Hell, if GW would turn their retail arm in the US into a general gaming store chain....
Carry non-GW products, promote gaming, and regularize the supply chain!
Let us look at Paizo (admittedly, just an online retailer) - they produce one of the most popular RPGs around (maybe second to 5e D&D, maybe not) - but they carry everyone, including their largest competitor!
Heck, in one of their adventure path scenarios they even give a plug for a competing product over one of their own!
And as a game publisher they have built their reputation around open playtests and listening to their customers. (Heck, on their forums I have had questions answered by the CEO of the company! (Hi Lisa!))
The net result is brand loyalty that GW has not seen in years.
The odds of this happening... Hell will freeze solid first....
Kiwidru wrote: Dawn of war (all of them): made more than enough money to survive... couldnt keep players interested due to bugs/terrible patches/no improvement of rules. Axed when player pool dwindled to low.
These were very successful games with multiple expansions and are still played to this day. They are not MMOs - they're not designed to continue in perpetuity. There is no "axing" of regular video games like this, the main reason there is no DoW3 atm is due to the publisher going under. We can hope Relic still manages to make it under their new overlords, Sega. You were right about WAR, not about DoW though.
Kiwidru wrote: Dawn of war (all of them): made more than enough money to survive... couldnt keep players interested due to bugs/terrible patches/no improvement of rules. Axed when player pool dwindled to low.
These were very successful games with multiple expansions and are still played to this day. They are not MMOs - they're not designed to continue in perpetuity. There is no "axing" of regular video games like this, the main reason there is no DoW3 atm is due to the publisher going under. We can hope Relic still manages to make it under their new overlords, Sega. You were right about WAR, not about DoW though.
i played all the dow games and expansions. dow 2, chaos rising and the other one were all fairly terrible from a glitch/balance/driving away customers... graphically it looked ok, but it looked WAY worse than Company of Heros, even though they both ran on the same engine and DOW2 was released years later. in terms of squad movements, cover, destructible environments, stat availability, resource management, everything was clunky.
... so basically i stand by my statement. there is no reason it shouldnt have worked, other than blatant mismanagement and ignoring the player base's desires/concerns until they finally gave up on it. Also, im fairly sure that there is no multiplayer of any of the games still going, at least not on the steam top 100 (which means less than a thousand people a day log on worldwide)
Kiwidru wrote: Dawn of war (all of them): made more than enough money to survive... couldnt keep players interested due to bugs/terrible patches/no improvement of rules. Axed when player pool dwindled to low.
These were very successful games with multiple expansions and are still played to this day. They are not MMOs - they're not designed to continue in perpetuity. There is no "axing" of regular video games like this, the main reason there is no DoW3 atm is due to the publisher going under. We can hope Relic still manages to make it under their new overlords, Sega. You were right about WAR, not about DoW though.
i played all the dow games and expansions. dow 2, chaos rising and the other one were all fairly terrible from a glitch/balance/driving away customers... graphically it looked ok, but it looked WAY worse than Company of Heros, even though they both ran on the same engine and DOW2 was released years later. in terms of squad movements, cover, destructible environments, stat availability, resource management, everything was clunky.
... so basically i stand by my statement. there is no reason it shouldnt have worked, other than blatant mismanagement and ignoring the player base's desires/concerns until they finally gave up on it. Also, im fairly sure that there is no multiplayer of any of the games still going, at least not on the steam top 100 (which means less than a thousand people a day log on worldwide)
I'm not saying it's the end all, be all, but all of the Dawn of War releases, save the one done by Iron Lore (I think that was the company?) score an 80 or above on MetaCritic, so they were generally well received and praised. And it was an example of GW doing right by there IP. Those games got me into 40k and I have none of the issues you're stating. Yea, it's not got a crazy following CoH has, but it's the best 40k series to date. I think you're pretty much the first dissenting opinion I've seen here. And it probably received a lesser amount of legs in post release support because, in the grand scheme of gaming, 40k isn't that big. While there is enough fans and lookie-loos to make it a profitable venture in video gaming, it doesn't have the market draw of a Call of Duty to sustain a long multiplayer tail. It's not bad game, thus multiplayer died. Rather it's a case of a company with limited time capabilities and funding to do other titles. Relic was pushed into scramble mode because of the THQ fallout.
Now if you want to see a buggy release, just wait for Warhammer Total War that's supposed to be coming. I love those games, but man are they hot street trash on release.
"Warhammer total war" has so much potential but Creative Assembly have been getting progressively more buggy and more arcadey over time to the point I no longer buy their games.
Seconding DoW getting me into 40k! There's no way DoW "didn't work" as a game given universally high ratings and multiple successful expansions. Multiplayer in 95% of games fades faster than it did in DoW and I still see 5k players online in Dawn of War 2. Definitely need more games like DoW than any other 40k licensed game, though Space Marine had its moments too.
Yonan is still right though: No games were "axed". They're not MMO's and not designed to last forever. The games (with the exception of Soulstorm) were all very popular and big sellers. And even if you want to talk about faults and failures, none of those things are the prerogative nor the responsibility of GW. They were neither the developers nor the publishers of those games, so it was out of their hands.
The Specialist Games were axed because they weren't making enough money.
Personally I have never played any of them except Blood Bowl, but other people did/do. How viable they might be with proper support I don't know.
The computer games just ran out of natural life. When you publish a boxed game, you expect to sell 80% of your lifetime sales in the first month or so. Games are usually taken off the shelves within three months because something new has arrived.
Digital distribution has of course changed this scenario somewhat.
If GW can figure out how to return their license revenue to its former height, that could totally change their future prospects. But that's the same as just saying if they can figure out how to return miniatures revenue to its former levels, then they will be fine. I didn't see any semblance of a plan for anything in their report.
Licensing income is the icing on the cake. There were years in which it made a good contribution to profits, but it never amounted to more than a couple of percent of overall turnover.
The core games business has to be healthy to support licensing.
The computer games just ran out of natural life. When you publish a boxed game, you expect to sell 80% of your lifetime sales in the first month or so. Games are usually taken off the shelves within three months because something new has arrived
I don't think that's true. Mantic has sold 3 times more dreadball since the kickstarter ended and risk has been out for decades. Most products sell more over the long tail if marketed broadly enough.
Backfire wrote: Again, there does not seem to be much evidence about such a collapse of sales. Kirby reported that the last quarter was better than the third one (although it better be with the huge website promotion campaign and first weeks of 7th edition), so it does not seem they're in a middle of quick collapse.
But you're saying the 4th quarter was only really an improvement due to 2 big hitters - the new edition of their flagship ruleset, and a pair of webstore freebies (2 limited edition Spare Marine Captains). The first is something they can't do much more frequently whilst keeping customers, and the second is something they haven't done in a long time (free stuff*), though they could do that more often. I'm not sure if the webstore promotion generated many sales, or if it just brought them forward.
What are they going to be able to do to keep up that level of spending? A new Fantasy Battles Edition and another few web offers? Maybe a new Apocalypse edition?
*I wonder if the £4m includes the notional cost of all the freebies in the promotion; at £15 each, it'd make a bit of a dent in the headline figure and would mean they didn't get quite so badly shafted on the website. I still can't believe they genuinely paid that much, so I'm sure there's some shenanigans involved.
A new Apoc edition is unlikely, given 6th had one. I think the Space Marine Codex release probably pulled a lot of weight as well, as did the release of Imperial Knights - I doubt they can replicate those again any time soon.
I really don't know what other heavy hitters GW have left to put out. A new fantasy release maybe?
The computer games just ran out of natural life. When you publish a boxed game, you expect to sell 80% of your lifetime sales in the first month or so. Games are usually taken off the shelves within three months because something new has arrived
I don't think that's true. Mantic has sold 3 times more dreadball since the kickstarter ended and risk has been out for decades. Most products sell more over the long tail if marketed broadly enough.
It is for 'computer' games.
You do get evergreen releases but these sales are still never the same as within the initial launch window.
liquidjoshi wrote: A new Apoc edition is unlikely, given 6th had one. I think the Space Marine Codex release probably pulled a lot of weight as well, as did the release of Imperial Knights - I doubt they can replicate those again any time soon.
I really don't know what other heavy hitters GW have left to put out. A new fantasy release maybe?
I think this might be why they are releasing SW, BA, and possibly even GK back to back one after the other, since SM armies sell the most.
It's interesting to note that Warhammer Fantasy was considered a game for serious gamer's at one time. 40k was looked at as light weight. GW then managed to mess up Warhammer Fantasy without bothering to fix 40k.
Although the argument needs no more proof it's just another example of GW just being interested in selling models.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Specialist Games were axed because they weren't making enough money.
Do you know that for a fact? People say that about Squats being squatted, but it's not true. They weren't massive sellers but their reasons for being dropped weren't done to poor sales. Similarly, games like Necromunda were kept around a very long time for something that didn't make enough money to justify itself. It featured in White Dwarf on and off over many years and even had entire new releases of some gangs. Most specialist games only last a year or two anyway because GW know there's a short window of high profitability so cut support.
The problem seems to be the idea that specialist games are some sort of distraction to their core games instead of a supplement. Secondly, poor performance in their specialist games are often due to their poor support which customers quickly pick up on. Sometimes they get a couple if White Dwarf articles before vanishing, as if people are seriously expected to only play a game for 3-6 months. The way specialist games have been handled was always very patchy, Inquisitor was just shocking IMO. There was poor availability of figures with stuff released and rapidly removed from catalogues, most simply wasn't advertised. I appreciate that inquisitor wasn't that popular, but it was strangled be GW.
Wolfstan wrote: It's interesting to note that Warhammer Fantasy was considered a game for serious gamer's at one time. 40k was looked at as light weight. GW then managed to mess up Warhammer Fantasy without bothering to fix 40k.
Ironically, at least here it was 5th edition 40k which helped to put Fantasy under. Before that, WHFB was more popular of the games, and Fantasy players looked down on 40k. Then 5th edition came out with AOBR and objective based missions and people bought AOBR like crazy. Meanwhile, WHFB was suffering from huge meta unbalance as Chaos Daemons were enormously overpowered. People hoped that 8th edition would fix the game, but it did so only by creating new problems, so lots of people simply gave up, or didn't see it worthwhile to return.
liquidjoshi wrote: A new Apoc edition is unlikely, given 6th had one. I think the Space Marine Codex release probably pulled a lot of weight as well, as did the release of Imperial Knights - I doubt they can replicate those again any time soon.
I really don't know what other heavy hitters GW have left to put out. A new fantasy release maybe?
Codex Thousand sons, Codex Emperors children, ETC, ETC.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Specialist Games were axed because they weren't making enough money.
Do you know that for a fact? People say that about Squats being squatted, but it's not true. They weren't massive sellers but their reasons for being dropped weren't done to poor sales. Similarly, games like Necromunda were kept around a very long time for something that didn't make enough money to justify itself. It featured in White Dwarf on and off over many years and even had entire new releases of some gangs.
Kirby mentioned in previous report that their sales decline began in Spring 2013 - exactly when GW discontinued the Specialist games. Coincidence? You decide!
The truth is, most games have limited self-life anyway. It is actually surprising that some Specialist Games were kept along for so long as they did, given that it was obvious that model range was totally obsolete and they probably no longer sold very well. What is a shame, though, that GW appears to have completely given up anything outside the 'core' games, and of those, LOTR/Hobbit seems to be going as well. I am one hundred percent sure that Blood Bowl, some kind of Skirmish game and space combat game still would turn comfortably profitable.
The computer games just ran out of natural life. When you publish a boxed game, you expect to sell 80% of your lifetime sales in the first month or so. Games are usually taken off the shelves within three months because something new has arrived
I don't think that's true. Mantic has sold 3 times more dreadball since the kickstarter ended and risk has been out for decades. Most products sell more over the long tail if marketed broadly enough.
It is for 'computer' games.
You do get evergreen releases but these sales are still never the same as within the initial launch window.
My bad. I was reading on my phone and missed the "computer games" part, thinking "boxed game" referred to board games / starter sets.
Kiwidru wrote: Dawn of war (all of them): made more than enough money to survive... couldnt keep players interested due to bugs/terrible patches/no improvement of rules. Axed when player pool dwindled to low.
These were very successful games with multiple expansions and are still played to this day. They are not MMOs - they're not designed to continue in perpetuity. There is no "axing" of regular video games like this, the main reason there is no DoW3 atm is due to the publisher going under. We can hope Relic still manages to make it under their new overlords, Sega. You were right about WAR, not about DoW though.
That and the way the gaming market is going. At the moment with games (and films) the makers are frightened to take risks. It has happened every time there has been a global financial crisis with films, and now with computer games because they have moved in to the main stream. At the moment a game (or a film) has to either be a huge, instant, sure fire best seller or a small budget inde job that might be a cult hit, but costs almost nothing. Anything in the middle just isn't getting funding, and GW's license is not valuable enough to gat the sales of, say, GTA or Call of Duty. They are also not a tiny developer that can keep making low budget games until something sticks.
Backfire wrote: I am one hundred percent sure that Blood Bowl, some kind of Skirmish game and space combat game still would turn comfortably profitable.
I do find it odd that they haven't re-done blood bowl. Seems like it should be obvious, for a few reasons. First, it is a good way to get people in. Make each of the teams as a plastic box set, with rules, possibly even making the main rules without any teams, just put card tokens in, keep the cost of the rules down, and make it in essence a board game, sell it for £30-£40. Get people in to a crossover between a board game and wargaming. Sell the teams as expansions, with full rules, so they can be sold though GW, hobby/wargames shops, and through board games shops. Secondly, last time I went to warhammer world it was the weekly bloodbowl night, and the bar was packed with players, both staff and public. Its clearly still a very popular game. You would have thought staff would be nagging management and wanting to work on this.
The computer games just ran out of natural life. When you publish a boxed game, you expect to sell 80% of your lifetime sales in the first month or so. Games are usually taken off the shelves within three months because something new has arrived
I don't think that's true. Mantic has sold 3 times more dreadball since the kickstarter ended and risk has been out for decades. Most products sell more over the long tail if marketed broadly enough.
I meant computer games, I should have been more clear.
GW owning their own shops could keep games on the shelves as long as they want, of course.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Specialist Games were axed because they weren't making enough money.
Do you know that for a fact? People say that about Squats being squatted, but it's not true. They weren't massive sellers but their reasons for being dropped weren't done to poor sales. Similarly, games like Necromunda were kept around a very long time for something that didn't make enough money to justify itself. It featured in White Dwarf on and off over many years and even had entire new releases of some gangs. Most specialist games only last a year or two anyway because GW know there's a short window of high profitability so cut support.
The problem seems to be the idea that specialist games are some sort of distraction to their core games instead of a supplement. Secondly, poor performance in their specialist games are often due to their poor support which customers quickly pick up on. Sometimes they get a couple if White Dwarf articles before vanishing, as if people are seriously expected to only play a game for 3-6 months. The way specialist games have been handled was always very patchy, Inquisitor was just shocking IMO. There was poor availability of figures with stuff released and rapidly removed from catalogues, most simply wasn't advertised. I appreciate that inquisitor wasn't that popular, but it was strangled be GW.
I agree with all that you say. All I can offer is that if the Specialist Games were selling like gangbusters, GW would have been happy to continue with them.
But in fact I think GW saw 40K as a more productive option. Remember that Specialist Games went the way of the Bitz service during the Mark Wells era, when an awful lot of apparently peripheral stuff was cut in order to cut costs and return the company to profit. It all may not have been a good idea.
Apocryphal story about accounting.
Spoiler:
This is a story that accounting students get told to illustrate the business limitations of accounting.
A man who runs an electrical supplies store calls in an accountant to help him become more profitable.
After analysing the stock and cash flow, the accountant advises the owner to drop cable ties, since they make zero profit, so he does.
Over the next few months his regular customers begin to go elsewhere for their equipment.
Finally he asks one why he doesn't come to the shop any more. The ex-customer says he used to be able to get all the parts and equipment he needed in one place, including cable ties. So now he goes somewhere else.
Obviously it is not an exact parallel to Specialist Games, Worldwide Campaigns, Tournament and Club support, etc. but I think it has relevance.
Kilkrazy wrote: Specialist Games come within the general area of discussion of GW's product strategy as do FFG's RPGs, peripherally.
By what metric? Specialist Games were the games that came under the Specialist Games banner. Video games were not under that banner. Warhammer Historical was not under that banner. WFRP was not under that banner. The 40KRPG's never fell under that banner.
I, Yonan et. at. were talking about video games being axed (of which the DoW series was not; a multiplayer community dying out isn't the same as a game being axed), not about Specialist Games being axed as a wing of GW.
GW hardly makes any decisions about how a video game does, anyhow. That's a bit of a distraction from the conversation. The company they licensed the rights to get to make those decisions, and I doubt they do much more than notify GW when they make them.
Kilkrazy wrote: Specialist Games come within the general area of discussion of GW's product strategy as do FFG's RPGs, peripherally.
By what metric? Specialist Games were the games that came under the Specialist Games banner. Video games were not under that banner. Warhammer Historical was not under that banner. WFRP was not under that banner. The 40KRPG's never fell under that banner.
I, Yonan et. at. were talking about video games being axed (of which the DoW series was not; a multiplayer community dying out isn't the same as a game being axed), not about Specialist Games being axed as a wing of GW.
The topic of this thread is GW's annual report and the prospects for the company going forwards. As such, past activity by GW including licensed titles and discontinued games that might be re-activated are certainly valid subjects to discuss.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Specialist Games were axed because they weren't making enough money.
Personally I have never played any of them except Blood Bowl, but other people did/do. How viable they might be with proper support I don't know.
The computer games just ran out of natural life. When you publish a boxed game, you expect to sell 80% of your lifetime sales in the first month or so. Games are usually taken off the shelves within three months because something new has arrived.
Digital distribution has of course changed this scenario somewhat.
Not having a go at you Kilkrazy, but this is what I've been railing about these last posts.
Some people are convinced that a specialist game, an 'entry' level game is what GW needs to stop the ship from hitting the iceberg.
Again, I repeat, the idea that people are put off getting into GW's world due to a lack of such game, is ludicrous.
You summed it up nicely: specialist games never made cash. Let's wind the clock back 10-15 years.
White dwarf was packed full of specialist game features and articles. Heck, I'm sitting two yards away from a pile of WD magazines full of necromunda stuff. Mordheim had the town crier. The old citadel journal used to do the same. I'm pretty sure that magazine bombed.
And yet, despite all this support, despite all this plugging, they still didn't sell well. Who can blame GW for ditching that? Not me, as much as I loved those games. A few people on this site may gnash their teeth, but money talks, and the public wanted to hear something else.
The problem seems to be the idea that specialist games are some sort of distraction to their core games instead of a supplement.
I took the time to read the first couple of pages of Gorkamorka Da Rulez today. They say outright that Necromunda and Gorkamorka are skirmish games designed to give an introduction to the 40K universe and game play. Written by Priestley, Chambers, and Thorpe. Those guys got it. Somewhere along the line, the company lost it.
Like I said earlier, they've gone from affordable to aspirational. Until they address that, along with community engagement and everyone's shorter attention spans, they're in trouble.
Necromunda had two editions, Blood Bowl and Space Hulk had three editions, and Epic had four editions, all had supplements for at least one edition. Clearly they didn't sell and make money.
Well, I don't think that a specialist (skirmish) game or a range of them would save GW by itself. But I do think their retail chain is a huge fixed cost that they are making relatively poor use of for promoting the company and their games. Partly because they actually only have two games now, both of which are very big, expensive, complicated so anyone who goes in the shop hasn't got very much welcoming to look at in a broad sense, especially in one man shops.
Adding a few skirmish/specialist games could help in two ways. Firstly by giving new recruits a cheap and easy entree to the wider GW universe, secondly by giving GW a controllable project of limited risk that would net a quick cash reward. This only works of course if they get it right (Space Hulk) and don't balls it up like Dread Fleet.
Not all the old specialist range were financially successful, especially in the long run, though some would argue this was partly due to GW's bad handling of the properties. Some of them were very successful though, at least when they were still fresh.
The problem for GW is whether they can figure out what would make a successful boxed game. They very obviously failed with Dread Fleet, which was their first original idea for at least 10 years.
H.B.M.C. wrote: By what metric? Specialist Games were the games that came under the Specialist Games banner. Video games were not under that banner. Warhammer Historical was not under that banner. WFRP was not under that banner. The 40KRPG's never fell under that banner.
It always struck me as particularly odd that they produced so much stuff that you couldn't get in the stores.
For instance, it was Warhammer Ancient Battles that brought me back into wargaming, after finding Warlord Games (this was before Hail Caesar). I went into 2 GW stores to buy WAB and none of the staff had even heard of it. It wasn't on the website, there was no mention of it. Eventually I found some in an RPG heavy games shop nearby where everyone was telling me how awesome Warmachine was. Because of that it was probably another 6 months before I went near anything GW again (after discussing my 28mm Celt army with a friend, we got back into 40K). If any GW store stocked or could order in Warhammer Ancients, I'd have bought from them on the spot and probably spent more money with them over the years, but as I had no reason to go into a GW store, I didn't spend a penny.
I always thought the entire reason SGs were removed was because GW thought any profit not going to 40k/WHFB was lost profit, and wanted to push everyone into the main game instead of letting them "only" spend say $100 on a Necromunda Gang/Mordheim Warband/Bloodbowl Team.
The bottom line though is that GW needs an entry-level game that doesn't cost hundreds to get started at any decent level. That's the one thing they're lacking right now, with 40k costing $135 just for the rules, another $100+ for the absolute bare minimum that you need to play that nobody else will play against outside of demo games (i.e. 1 HQ, 2 Troops) and likely another $200 or more to bring that up to even a basic small force, and WHFB likely being similar if not more due to the even more insane pricing.
At that point you're looking at entire normal-sized armies, or more ($300+ can get you a pretty nice sized Bolt Action or Kings of War army, for example), from GW's competitors.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Again, I repeat, the idea that people are put off getting into GW's world due to a lack of such game, is ludicrous.
Are you sure? Do you have any kind of source for that? All the anecdotes indicate the opposite.
If it wasn't for HeroQuest & Space Hulk, I (and many of my generation) wouldn't have gotten into GW games.
Skipping over the introduction part, there's the retention part. My gaming buddies main game is 40K, but we rarely have time for it, had Blood Bowl or Space Hulk still been available, they'd be our quick game. They aren't, so we play X-Wing instead, which has pretty much taken over 40K for our big games too. At Claymore last weekend, my die-hard GW fan (who skips over everything non-GW) spent more time looking at X-Wing minis that GW minis. He didn't buy any, because he's got all of the Imperial ones already, but he didn't buy any GW stuff either.
Edit: Also, look at the games that are exploding in popularity. Like Mantics Dreadball and Deadzone, Malifaux, Infinity, Bushido, etc. Games in the small skirmish/boxed game space that GW doesn't compete in anymore. Hell, Mantic are about to launch a HeroQuest competitor on Kickstarter in 40 minutes. Why does this stuff work so well for everyone else, but not GW? Because GW want you to be buying hundreds of mini's instead of tens?
Eggs wrote: Rich, any chance you could give us further info on how much Ice storm is shifting in comparison to 7th ed? Is the difference significant? Would you say 7th Ed was particularly unpopular, Icestorm particularly popular or a combination of the two?
I'd be interested to hear about it.
For us Icestorm has now outsold 7th Edition
7th edition has done about 50% of the numbers 6th edition did in the same period.
I get nervous about their long term viability - and maybe even their short term viability!
liquidjoshi wrote: A new Apoc edition is unlikely, given 6th had one. I think the Space Marine Codex release probably pulled a lot of weight as well, as did the release of Imperial Knights - I doubt they can replicate those again any time soon.
I really don't know what other heavy hitters GW have left to put out. A new fantasy release maybe?
Codex Thousand sons, Codex Emperors children, ETC, ETC.
Oh, of course. I should clarify; I meant heavy hitters GW is likely to release or even consider developing. A decent NLs supplement would net them a pretty penny from me, I know that.
But hey, we know they'll just mass produce SM codex varients until they die. I think that's all they have left at this point.
The problem of GW are not the skirmish games. They were only marginally played. Our gaming group almost never played these games in the last 12 years - bar BFG.
In our gaming group we see an exodus to other game systems like WM/H and Infinity. Fantasy is hardly played. Too expensive and bad rules. 40k players only buy newer stuff to supplement their armies.
Alpharius wrote: I really, really do NOT want GW to "fail" as I love their setting, and I think they bring a lot of good things to the miniature wargmaing hobby.
But when I continue to read this thread, and posts elsewhere like this:
Eggs wrote: Rich, any chance you could give us further info on how much Ice storm is shifting in comparison to 7th ed? Is the difference significant? Would you say 7th Ed was particularly unpopular, Icestorm particularly popular or a combination of the two?
I'd be interested to hear about it.
For us Icestorm has now outsold 7th Edition
7th edition has done about 50% of the numbers 6th edition did in the same period.
I get nervous about their long term viability - and maybe even their short term viability!
Ouch! Especially when you conisder Icestorm isn't due to ship for another 6 weeks, and all the slating it's had for only containing 15 minis, though there seems to be a pre-order bonus mini. I'll probably get it before 7th edition 40K because it looks amazing.
Though I see this sort of thing coming out of GW and I can kind of see why@
Named Murderfang by the Space Wolves, this metal-skinned monster was found roaming the hell world of Omnicide. It clearly is a Dreadnought, yet the true identity of the once-noble hero within its sarcophagus is long lost. In times of great strife, this machine-beast is released from it’s glacial prison and set upon the foe, where it will claw, stamp and bite until nothing is left but ruin.
This multi-part plastic kit makes one Murderfang armed with murderclaws.
Murderfang, armed with murderclaws. Is the design team now being run by one of the work placement kids?
That's before you even consider the fluff; it's a hell world (so it's hot?) called Omnicide (really?), and they found a Wolves dreadnaught so old and defaced they can't identify it, nor presumably ask it, so it's kept in a glacial (so it's cold?) prison and brought out when needed where it presumably mauls everything (except the wolves/allies) with it's Murderclaws. "Murder" claws. Becaues the rest of the dreadnaughts come equipped with vacuum or whisk attachments. Maybe I'm getting too old for GW now, because I never want to have to say "My MurderFang is going to attack your unit with it's Murderclaws" out loud...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Again, I repeat, the idea that people are put off getting into GW's world due to a lack of such game, is ludicrous.
Are you sure? Do you have any kind of source for that? All the anecdotes indicate the opposite.
If it wasn't for HeroQuest & Space Hulk, I (and many of my generation) wouldn't have gotten into GW games.
Skipping over the introduction part, there's the retention part. My gaming buddies main game is 40K, but we rarely have time for it, had Blood Bowl or Space Hulk still been available, they'd be our quick game. They aren't, so we play X-Wing instead, which has pretty much taken over 40K for our big games too. At Claymore last weekend, my die-hard GW fan (who skips over everything non-GW) spent more time looking at X-Wing minis that GW minis. He didn't buy any, because he's got all of the Imperial ones already, but he didn't buy any GW stuff either.
Edit: Also, look at the games that are exploding in popularity. Like Mantics Dreadball and Deadzone, Malifaux, Infinity, Bushido, etc. Games in the small skirmish/boxed game space that GW doesn't compete in anymore. Hell, Mantic are about to launch a HeroQuest competitor on Kickstarter in 40 minutes. Why does this stuff work so well for everyone else, but not GW? Because GW want you to be buying hundreds of mini's instead of tens?
I don't deny the influence of heroquest, but fighting fantasy books were very popular at the time as well, and the fact that the authors were the founders of GW, didn't hurt either.
X-wing is not a good example, because the Star Wars brand is so popular. You could put the Star Wars brand on a tin of prunes, and it would probably sell. I hate prunes
As for mantic, I've had some experience of their stuff, and it's been 50/50. I can't say anything about the other games.
Agree with Kilkrazy that GW's use of its retail arm has been shockingly incompetent, but the problems run deep, deeper than entry level games.
We don't really play X-WIng because of the star wars reference (I recognise like 4 of the ships). It was enough to get us to try it, but it's a genuinely good game.
You summed it up nicely: specialist games never made cash.
They made cash (probably don't have to tell you about epic's reputation as the 3rd core game, and I've heard Inquisitor exceeded it's initial sales target) they just didn't make as much cash as 40K or WHFB. Or, they took too much cash away from 40K...
There were a few other factors: the drastic changes to Epic 40K, the ambivalent nature of Inq, the different scales for some games, etc. On that note, I'm going to wonder if the general, mild xenophobia and infantilisation of the core 2 has had a bit to do with it too. I'm sure you've seen, as I have, plenty of core 2 players who dismiss other games out of hand, at their mere mention, just because they're 'not 40K'. Why play a challenging tactical 6mm game where you control an army, when you can play a game with a platoon or so because the big 30-35mm character dollies look so kewl, their special auto-play rules are so wikkid, and their grimdark conan-the-he-man fluff antics so badazz?
Do_I_Not_Like_That: I mean, I agree with you that a skirmish game isn't going to save GW, but it wouldn't be a bad idea all the same. Not remaking heroquest is also leaving money on the table in my opinion.
40K is currently borked, and I don't know when they're going to have another chance to fix it. Not for 2 years, anyhow. Is that going to be two years of continued falling sales.
Fantasy is suffering really badly from sticker shock when people see how many ten man boxes they need to buy to make an army, and do a price comparison with some of the other providers out there. Maybe they can turn Fantasy around with some sort of awesome new edition, but I am sceptical.
So with that context, skirmish and board games seem to offer design space for GW to expand into while getting their gak together with regard to the core games.
To agree with my stance of course, you have to agree that current GW releases are overpriced garbage.
Herzlos wrote: Hell, Mantic are about to launch a HeroQuest competitor on Kickstarter in 40 minutes.
I know it's poor form to quote myself, but this gives a good illustration of how popular some of the box games were, Mantics Dungeon Saga (providing a gaming experience like HeroQuest) has hit it's target of $50,000 in 4 minutes. Whilst that's an initial spike, to put it into perspective GW made approx $22k/hour over the last financial year. That's what early announcements and hype building does for you.
Here's how I see it. GW claims to be in the market of making models and for some reason, they don't understand that in order to make models, especially ones that have to be painted, people need a reason to buy them. GW IP is not like comics, movies or TV shows where people will buy models to just sit on the self, there has to be a reason at some point.
GW should have multiple games that use the same models. This allows them to lower price of production because the same models are used in multiple games. They also allow people to play with the same model, thus the purchaser feels they are getting more value. I would recommend the games be:
- Board game that takes 30 minutes or less and costs $50 or less. Game should support 1 to 4 players. This could be a scenario game based on a ship where players need to defend, escape or assault the ship. Expansions could include rules for other armies and new scenarios.
- Small skirmish game that takes 1 hour or less with an intro price of $100 total. This would be Necromunda.
- Mid level skirmish game that takes 1 hour with intro price of $200. I would see this at about 750 points of 40K.
- Platoon level game that takes about 2 hours with field army price of around $300. 1500 points of 40k.
- Army level game at 3 hours, $500 and about 3000 points of 40K.
According to Wikipedia, Hero Quest was designed by Milton Bradley, however it was very popular, and there have been a number of other similar boxed games since then, including the fairly recent Super Dungeon Explore, and various titles from FFG and other companies.
The boxed video-game shooter "dungeon" like Doom and successors, is a related and also successful category. Space Hulk can be seen as a progenitor of the Doom style of SF dungeon.
Alpharius wrote: Don't forget that he also suffers from Murderlust.
Murderfang suffers from Murderlust, and murders his foes with his Murderclaws.
Wait, wait, that was actually the official name of the thing, rather than a cute fan nickname?! It's like something Rob Liefeld rejected as being too cheesy for 90's Image comics.
Da Boss wrote: 40K is currently borked, and I don't know when they're going to have another chance to fix it. Not for 2 years, anyhow. Is that going to be two years of continued falling sales.
Why wait two years? GW have already broken the 4-year update cycle for the core rules so why stick to a 2-year cycle all of a sudden? They could release a new 40k edition every year if they wanted, and they probably think we'd all buy it, too.
Personally I could see GW doing a "7.5" release and for every edition thereafter. 7th comes out, 7.5 comes out a year later making minor changes, but juuust enough to make people switch up their army comp again so they have to buy another $400 batch of models to update their army, then 8th comes out, etc.
If they can get model production up to a fast enough rate, I can see that happening. Though if/when that didn't sell, it would simply catalyse their losses.
Alpharius wrote: Don't forget that he also suffers from Murderlust.
Murderfang suffers from Murderlust, and murders his foes with his Murderclaws.
For real.
So, GW is clearly not financially bankrupt, but they might be creatively bankrupt!
However, it's proof positive that they cater to kids. I could see a 12-year old chortling with glee over Murderfang's Murderlust kicking in and murdering things with Murderclaws.
But yeah, that's pretty silly overall. Along with everything else they've done, I'm starting to believe the 2 year prediction of doom.
Blacksails wrote: I'm just amazed they him come from the planet Omnicide.
I'd say I feel bad for Space Wolves players, but I'd probably just be told to not take it so seriously and minis aren't serious business.
What I find stupider is that they just kind of found him and are like oh he looks like one of ours, but no idea who he is or where he came from, and I guess he can't talk (due to Murderlust?) to say it. So I imagine the conversation went like this:
Murderfang: RAWR! Random Space Wolf: To which great company do you belong, brother? Murderfang: RAWR! MURDERFANG KILL! Random Space Wolf: Yep, sounds like one of ours. Murderfang: RAWR! Random Space Wolf 2: Aww he's so cute and furry and murderous! Can we keep him? Wolf Lord: Well, I don't know... Murderfang: RAWR? Random Space Wolf 2: Aww please? Look how murderous he is with these murderclaws! Random Space Wolf 1: *petting Murderfang* Who's a good Murderfang? You are! Wolf Lord: Oh, okay. We can keep him. Space Wolves: Yay! Praise the Emperor! Murderfang: RAWR! All: For Russ! For the Wolftime! Murderfang: RAWR RAWRRRRRRR!
EDIT: Added more "Praise the Emperor" and "For Russ" for quality GW fluff
Blacksails wrote: I'm just amazed they him come from the planet Omnicide.
I'd say I feel bad for Space Wolves players, but I'd probably just be told to not take it so seriously and minis aren't serious business.
What I find stupider is that they just kind of found him and are like oh he looks like one of ours, but no idea who he is or where he came from, and I guess he can't talk (due to Murderlust?) to say it. So I imagine the conversation went like this:
Murderfang: RAWR!
Random Space Wolf: To which great company do you belong, brother?
Murderfang: RAWR! MURDERFANG KILL!
Random Space Wolf: Yep, sounds like one of ours.
Murderfang: RAWR!
Random Space Wolf 2: Aww he's so cute and furry and murderous! Can we keep him?
Wolf Lord: Well, I don't know...
Murderfang: RAWR?
Random Space Wolf 2: Aww please? Look how murderous he is with these murderclaws!
Random Space Wolf 1: *petting Murderfang* Who's a good Murderfang? You are!
Wolf Lord: Oh, okay. We can keep him.
Space Wolves: Yay!
Murderfang: RAWR!
Alpharius wrote: Don't forget that he also suffers from Murderlust.
Murderfang suffers from Murderlust, and murders his foes with his Murderclaws.
For real.
So, GW is clearly not financially bankrupt, but they might be creatively bankrupt!
You gotta be kidding. You can't be serious...can you? They really went for the triple Murder? :/
If I was a SW player, I'd be very frustrated right now.
But back OT. The Specialist games would help bring people in, but it wouldn't be enough. For GW to increase sales, they'd have to: 1. build a bridge to the gamer community and that would require that they leave their secluded fortress and actually engage the player base. 2. Make better rules for their games. 3. Advertise.
Herzlos wrote: Hell, Mantic are about to launch a HeroQuest competitor on Kickstarter in 40 minutes.
I know it's poor form to quote myself, but this gives a good illustration of how popular some of the box games were, Mantics Dungeon Saga (providing a gaming experience like HeroQuest) has hit it's target of $50,000 in 4 minutes. Whilst that's an initial spike, to put it into perspective GW made approx $22k/hour over the last financial year. That's what early announcements and hype building does for you.
my feelings here are that even with a loss in profits gw will still pull through we are all still buying and playing there game, otherwise we are just blowing smoke here right? anyways a new game comes out and sold 50k, sweet for them how much do you think they will be making a min? or over this month? how many models do they have? more than likely the biggest part of there quarter was/will be that 50k day.
if anything since the release of 7th and how i have felt about what i see as a bystander that doesn't have any true insight into the ideas coming from across the pond, i think gw is starting to pick up on the fact that guys are leaving and have been unhappy. after dominating the market without any real competition for they entirety of my life, they got complacent and lazy, figured they could do what they wanted, but now with release of so many other games (in my opinions of rule changes) they may actually be hearing the loud outrage that most of the world has been doing. gw going under unlikely though, they pull more money a day than my local walmart.
Hmmm... let us see about Specialist Games in my local group.
We have not played WH40K in over a year.
We played Necromunda on Saturday.
We have not played Warhammer Fantasy Battle in two years.
We played Mordheim on Wednesday.
We still play Warhammer Quest. Purely beer and pretzels.
There is a Blood Bowl League - that largely shares players with Dreadball. (Folks are playing both - not one or the other.)
For non-GW games....
Kings of War gets played weekly. (With some of us playing more often.) It has replaced Warhammer Fantasy.
Deadzone gets played (on days I can't play, dammit) but it shares space with Necromunda (and the Deadzone terrain seems to be used a lot in Necromunda).
Lots of Pathfinder gets played. (Which replaced D&D - 4e never gained traction.)
Folks keep talking about Malifaux - but I suspect it won't happen until I set it up. (And I'm not that interested in it - but I have some of the minis for use in other games.)
WARMAHordes gets played... a lot. Almost a separate group at this point. (And a cutthroat bunch they are, too.)
FoW gets played - but shares time with Johnny Reb (another out of print game that sees regular play). I think Over the Top gets played as well, but not on a regular basis. (The game used to be played in the back of a barber shop....)
One person still runs a Behind Enemy Lines game (the Companions version - he used to work with them)., but it takes place in Bath, and I have no car.
There is a completely separate group that still runs and plays BIG games of TSR's Battlesystem at a local pub.
But the Specialist Games remain in play, even as GW's main games are abandoned.
Something is wrong there. (Also, as a group, we like a lot of out of production games.)
Herzlos wrote: Hell, Mantic are about to launch a HeroQuest competitor on Kickstarter in 40 minutes.
I know it's poor form to quote myself, but this gives a good illustration of how popular some of the box games were, Mantics Dungeon Saga (providing a gaming experience like HeroQuest) has hit it's target of $50,000 in 4 minutes. Whilst that's an initial spike, to put it into perspective GW made approx $22k/hour over the last financial year. That's what early announcements and hype building does for you.
my feelings here are that even with a loss in profits gw will still pull through we are all still buying and playing there game
No. No we aren't.
otherwise we are just blowing smoke here right? anyways a new game comes out and sold 50k, sweet for them how much do you think they will be making a min? or over this month? how many models do they have? more than likely the biggest part of there quarter was/will be that 50k day.
if anything since the release of 7th and how i have felt about what i see as a bystander that doesn't have any true insight into the ideas coming from across the pond, i think gw is starting to pick up on the fact that guys are leaving and have been unhappy. after dominating the market without any real competition for they entirety of my life, they got complacent and lazy, figured they could do what they wanted, but now with release of so many other games (in my opinions of rule changes) they may actually be hearing the loud outrage that most of the world has been doing.
There's absolutely no indication whatsoever that they're aware of what they need to do to right the ship.
gw going under unlikely though, they pull more money a day than my local walmart.
A multinational corporation doing "better" than a single branch of another multinational corporation is meaningless.
Did you even look at the report?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
forgotten ghosts wrote: and since i know this is coming next, what about the outrage people have about 7th
to which i respond have you played 7th i absolutely love it
That's cool. And it's also the tiniest possible anecdote and meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
forgotten ghosts wrote: and since i know this is coming next, what about the outrage people have about 7th
to which i respond have you played 7th i absolutely love it
Good for you, a lot of people don't play it and won't play it because they don't like the direction it was taking (same could be said of 6th). And, judging from the dropped sales, we are slowly getting to the point where more people are stopping playing.
heartserenade wrote: I think I'm gonna name the cat I just adopted as Murderfang. He's pure white with golden eyes and fluffy.
And every day you will wake up with dead things left as gifts on your pillow..... (Lesson - do not adopt a barn cat unless you don't mind getting... presents. )
Or you may find yourself dressed in white and threatening Mr. Bond, James Bond... not sure which.
heartserenade wrote: I think I'm gonna name the cat I just adopted as Murderfang. He's pure white with golden eyes and fluffy.
And every day you will wake up with dead things left as gifts on your pillow..... (Lesson - do not adopt a barn cat unless you don't mind getting... presents. )
Or you may find yourself dressed in white and threatening Mr. Bond, James Bond... not sure which.
The Auld Grump
I live near a forest. Our cats usually eat tree frogs whole. They don't give presents, they finish them all up.
Back to the topic, even if 7th plays really well (which I doubt. If there's still a huge imbalance in between codices, vague rulings, and useless units and too much randomness then I won't bother) the pricetag itself is a deterrent for me. If I want bigger armies (and I do!), I'll go to other companies like Perry and Mantic and buy the feth out of their miniatures. If I want better rules... well, almost every game out there would have better rules than what GW is offering... for free.
I just need to find someone to play KoW with, after I finish two armies so I can do intro battles.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Play nice kids - he has found a game that he likes, and more power to him.
To be fair, telling people to play 7e before we judge it is basically telling someone to invest on a codex, a rulebook and an army just to judge something that they may or may not love. It's definitely not endearing to tell people they have to pay up first before they can make an opinion of the game.
to all of that, if you guys dropped the game because of the direction and haven't played the game than how is your opinion worth more than mine, like i said where i play ( 3 stores slightly overlapping groups) 40k 7th everyone loves it one guy refusing to play the new missions.
again when i comes to don't play it wont play... that is your choice and makes your view and opinion of the game slightly skewed as you already choose to not like it. and that is fine i do the same thing with other games, not because of the direction they are going or my predetermined opinion of them (i love star wars!!) but because i am not gonna learn another rule set paint more models, etc.
we all know what they say about opinions we all got one right! mine and some others that i play with truly dont know what the hell everyone is always complaining about. did anyone bother to mention that the entire world has been in a recession for some time now? proven by the billions given in bailouts all across europe and in the states, any one care to take that into account, and how bout the wars going on everywhere, i now a lot of players that are in active service, how often do they get to play paint?
yes there is a shift moving to other games, but again we are looking at a giant company that is noticing its losses. in my opinion gw will fix itself, and ONE of these other games that you guys have gone to will become the target and gw will stay the walmart, i think most of the banter is hoping the one you went to becomes it.
forgotten ghosts wrote: to all of that, if you guys dropped the game because of the direction and haven't played the game than how is your opinion worth more than mine, like i said where i play ( 3 stores slightly overlapping groups) 40k 7th everyone loves it one guy refusing to play the new missions.
again when i comes to don't play it wont play... that is your choice and makes your view and opinion of the game slightly skewed as you already choose to not like it. and that is fine i do the same thing with other games, not because of the direction they are going or my predetermined opinion of them (i love star wars!!) but because i am not gonna learn another rule set paint more models, etc.
we all know what they say about opinions we all got one right! mine and some others that i play with truly dont know what the hell everyone is always complaining about. did anyone bother to mention that the entire world has been in a recession for some time now? proven by the billions given in bailouts all across europe and in the states, any one care to take that into account, and how bout the wars going on everywhere, i now a lot of players that are in active service, how often do they get to play paint?
yes there is a shift moving to other games, but again we are looking at a giant company that is noticing its losses. in my opinion gw will fix itself, and ONE of these other games that you guys have gone to will become the target and gw will stay the walmart, i think most of the banter is hoping the one you went to becomes it.
It's not that the opinion is worth more, it's that:
A) Financial report indicates a slow but steady decline in stales
B) Those of us who no longer play are ex-customers, and in an ideal world GW should want to know why we aren't their customers
Also, although you haven't there seems to be this idea that if you don't play 40k anymore, you can't dislike it.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Play nice kids - he has found a game that he likes, and more power to him.
To be fair, telling people to play 7e before we judge it is basically telling someone to invest on a codex, a rulebook and an army just to judge something that they may or may not love. It's definitely not endearing to tell people they have to pay up first before they can make an opinion of the game.
people do it all the time with computer and video games, if you let gw take you for every penny before you played thats on you. i would go to a store and demo any game before investing in it, we try on shoes before we buy them right? i am forgetting this is an internet forum so who am i kidding
most of the things i have stopped doing are things i didn't like but you don't wanna hear about them. it is hard sometimes when people dropped out 5+ years ago and still rant about it. and if they used to love the game why aren't they not playing that edition you loved no one forced you to buy the new stuff, and if it has been that long since you played maybe its time to go in for another demo rather than just moan about some one else moaning.
Did you read their financial report? They gave no indication that they even know what's wrong, nevermind about them trying to fix it. It reads as if they are just going to keep doing the same and hoping it works out.
You mention the recession, but it's largely over, and pretty much every other gaming company is growing quite well, so the recession isn't to blame here.
forgotten ghosts wrote: to all of that, if you guys dropped the game because of the direction and haven't played the game than how is your opinion worth more than mine, like i said where i play ( 3 stores slightly overlapping groups) 40k 7th everyone loves it one guy refusing to play the new missions.
again when i comes to don't play it wont play... that is your choice and makes your view and opinion of the game slightly skewed as you already choose to not like it. and that is fine i do the same thing with other games, not because of the direction they are going or my predetermined opinion of them (i love star wars!!) but because i am not gonna learn another rule set paint more models, etc.
we all know what they say about opinions we all got one right! mine and some others that i play with truly dont know what the hell everyone is always complaining about. did anyone bother to mention that the entire world has been in a recession for some time now? proven by the billions given in bailouts all across europe and in the states, any one care to take that into account, and how bout the wars going on everywhere, i now a lot of players that are in active service, how often do they get to play paint?
yes there is a shift moving to other games, but again we are looking at a giant company that is noticing its losses. in my opinion gw will fix itself, and ONE of these other games that you guys have gone to will become the target and gw will stay the walmart, i think most of the banter is hoping the one you went to becomes it.
For me, 1. it's the core concept of 7th. It's too soon after 6th and feels like a cynical cash grab. Right there it puts me off. I don't have to buy it to not like that.
2. Unbound. The game is too unbalanced for an unbound type of game play without a lot of pre-negotiation. It's unworkable for pick up games. So, right there, I don't have to play it to know that I (someone who relies on PUG's) isn't going to have fun with that. Also, its another cynical cash grab witch further puts me off of 7th.
3. Pyschic phase/deamon summoning. I play for the fluff, so when I hear that an Ultramarine Librarian can summon deamons, I lose all respect for the game. Also, a whole phase of a billion dice being rolled slows up an already slow game. Also, for armies with no psykers (I used to play SOB) its a whole phase to just sit back and take it like a chump. None of those issues require playing it. Again, its the core concept I disagree with along with it being a cynical cash grab to get everyone to just buy deamon models.
4. Mealstrom. Again, the core concept. It destroys any notion of an over-all strategy and just makes it turn by turn tactics. I like the players to determine strategy, not random cards. This is a furthering of the randomness that many players already didn't like. More of something we don't like isn't going to be better. Again, not something I have to play test to know.
For me, 1. it's the core concept of 7th. It's too soon after 6th and feels like a cynical cash grab. Right there it puts me off. I don't have to buy it to not like that.
2. Unbound. The game is too unbalanced for an unbound type of game play without a lot of pre-negotiation. It's unworkable for pick up games. So, right there, I don't have to play it to know that I (someone who relies on PUG's) isn't going to have fun with that. Also, its another cynical cash grab witch further puts me off of 7th.
3. Pyschic phase/deamon summoning. I play for the fluff, so when I hear that an Ultramarine Librarian can summon deamons, I lose all respect for the game. Also, a whole phase of a billion dice being rolled slows up an already slow game. Also, for armies with no psykers (I used to play SOB) its a whole phase to just sit back and take it like a chump. None of those issues require playing it. Again, its the core concept I disagree with along with it being a cynical cash grab to get everyone to just buy deamon models.
4. Mealstrom. Again, the core concept. It destroys any notion of an over-all strategy and just makes it turn by turn tactics. I like the players to determine strategy, not random cards. This is a furthering of the randomness that many players already didn't like. More of something we don't like isn't going to be better. Again, not something I have to play test to know.
i can respect all of that, in the defense of maelstrom missions i actually feel that randomness of them really balances out some of the overpowered crap you see being done as turn by turn you must build on your strategy and just spamming wave serpents may not actually help you do that
i hate psykers always have thought that was gonna really change things nope used them in a few games my opponents did the same against nids was the only time there were a lot of dice in that phase so far has been largely insignificant outside of the one time those vets got teleported onto that objective they needed
on another note to show the you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, when i was about 12 my mom was making me read books over the summer. i had just finished lord of the flies and when my mom hands me lord of the rings i am like no way woman, had she not told me it was "like the hobbit" i would have never read those books (about 5 times now).
A lot of people have stopped buying the game, for various combinations of reasons to do with price and not liking aspects of the modern rules.
The fact that you like the modern rules does not convince other people they are good. To get those people back, GW are going to have to change the rules and reduce the prices.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Play nice kids - he has found a game that he likes, and more power to him.
To be fair, telling people to play 7e before we judge it is basically telling someone to invest on a codex, a rulebook and an army just to judge something that they may or may not love. It's definitely not endearing to tell people they have to pay up first before they can make an opinion of the game.
people do it all the time with computer and video games, if you let gw take you for every penny before you played thats on you. i would go to a store and demo any game before investing in it, we try on shoes before we buy them right? i am forgetting this is an internet forum so who am i kidding
Really?
If I'm considering buying a video game, I generally go to one of the independent sources I trust, either in print or online and read a review that I can be fairly sure will give me as objective and critical view as is possible with a human in the equation. I might even read several.
Care to point to a source that is similar for wargames? Because I'm not aware of one.
With regard to a demo game, are you seriously suggesting that a pre-defined game, in a GW store, conducted by a GW staff member is going to give me the sort of information I need to make a critical assessment of the game as a whole? Because that will be the overwhelming majority of demo 40K games played around the world I suspect.
Do you credit a GW staffer (a salesman when all is said and done) with the honesty to explain how many of the purchases and decisions I may make, from army choice through to units through to which pieces I choose to glue onto my models could hugely influence how likely I am to be able to win, or even compete, in games? Is it possible, through playing a brief, small scale demo, to appreciate how I could equally make decisions based on models I simply liked to end up with a collection of models that is capable of eliciting negative reactions from other gamers, up to and including a refusal to play me?
All the other items you give as examples are relatively easy to assess, shoes fit or do not, a videogame will likely garner numerous reviews, as will a movie or many other entertainment products. A wargame however, needs an educated eye to assess it's strengths and weaknesses. That requires either investment of time and resources or the consultation of others with more experience. Now, unlike videogames or movies, wargaming isn't large enough to support a whole auxiliary industry of critics, if only there were some place where people with years, in many cases decades, of experience could all come together to share their experiences.....
Ah, that would never work, unless it was all relentlessly positive people would just dismiss it as hatred because they either didn't understand or agree with the arguments.
problem with that is what rules actually changed? the true revamp of the rules happened +/- 10 years ago, since then we have changed overwatch, put in snap firing, flyers and super heavies open topped gets hit by templates, subtract 2 instead dice drop highest, went back and forth on targeting specific floors of buildings, psychic phase hull points did i miss anything? the core rules have maybe been tweaked with in my age of gaming, but not many real changes since we started the 21st other than the whole apoc, and escalation merge into 40k
Kilkrazy wrote: A lot of people have stopped buying the game, for various combinations of reasons to do with price and not liking aspects of the modern rules.
Well I guess that in case of an overproduction of some units or models, GW would rather destroy the overproduced items than selling them cheaper.
Just to keep the price level constant.
There was a big change in 6th, partly to do with Allies and associated stuff like Lords of War and Flyers, etc, that a number of people did not like. Some of these changes were cemented into the rules in 7th. Allies were slightly tweaked, and some other stuff was stuck in (like Maelstrom) that also has been widely unpopular.
There was a huge issue with the price of the codexes doubling between 5th and 6th, and let's remember the rulebook jumped from £30 to £45 and then £50 in 7th.
I don't think 6th/7th are a hell of a lot worse than 3rd/4th/5th but they certainly are no better, and they are a lot more expensive.
If I'm considering buying a video game, I generally go to one of the independent sources I trust, either in print or online and read a review that I can be fairly sure will give me as objective and critical view as is possible with a human in the equation. I might even read several.
Care to point to a source that is similar for wargames? Because I'm not aware of one.
With regard to a demo game, are you seriously suggesting that a pre-defined game, in a GW store, conducted by a GW staff member is going to give me the sort of information I need to make a critical assessment of the game as a whole? Because that will be the overwhelming majority of demo 40K games played around the world I suspect.
Do you credit a GW staffer (a salesman when all is said and done) with the honesty to explain how many of the purchases and decisions I may make, from army choice through to units through to which pieces I choose to glue onto my models could hugely influence how likely I am to be able to win, or even compete, in games? Is it possible, through playing a brief, small scale demo, to appreciate how I could equally make decisions based on models I simply liked to end up with a collection of models that is capable of eliciting negative reactions from other gamers, up to and including a refusal to play me?
All the other items you give as examples are relatively easy to assess, shoes fit or do not, a videogame will likely garner numerous reviews, as will a movie or many other entertainment products. A wargame however, needs an educated eye to assess it's strengths and weaknesses. That requires either investment of time and resources or the consultation of others with more experience. Now, unlike videogames or movies, wargaming isn't large enough to support a whole auxiliary industry of critics, if only there were some place where people with years, in many cases decades, of experience could all come together to share their experiences.....
Ah, that would never work, unless it was all relentlessly positive people would just dismiss it as hatred because they either didn't understand or agree with the arguments.
i haven't seen a gw store in about 10 years, i am talking about players doing there part to support what they love and not always needing some payed staff member to hold there hand
they only thing that will never work is the thing never tried
i got introduced to dakka in 98 by the guys that ran the shop in portsmouth nh, good group that bunch
forgotten ghosts wrote: problem with that is what rules actually changed? the true revamp of the rules happened +/- 10 years ago, since then we have changed overwatch, put in snap firing, flyers and super heavies open topped gets hit by templates, subtract 2 instead dice drop highest, went back and forth on targeting specific floors of buildings, psychic phase hull points did i miss anything? the core rules have maybe been tweaked with in my age of gaming, but not many real changes since we started the 21st other than the whole apoc, and escalation merge into 40k
...
Adding an entire freaking phase isn't a real change? Just...
The problem is both that the rules haven't changed, and the parts that have changed have done so for the worse.
The basis of the game is antiquated by other wargame standards. Rolling three dice to determine if you kill a model is long, tedious, and complicated while adding no depth to the game. Many games do the same thing in one roll, two at the most. While that seems like a minor quibble, multiply that by hundreds of rolls per game and you'll see the difference.
The parts that have changed for the worse are the merging of standard 40k and apoc with escalation and LoW. The game is still a skirmish rule set with many aspects of small level games, but shovels large company level gaming down your throat. The list building mechanics now are a bad joke at best, and a complete absence of rules at the worst.
forgotten ghosts wrote: problem with that is what rules actually changed? the true revamp of the rules happened +/- 10 years ago, since then we have changed overwatch, put in snap firing, flyers and super heavies open topped gets hit by templates, subtract 2 instead dice drop highest, went back and forth on targeting specific floors of buildings, psychic phase hull points did i miss anything? the core rules have maybe been tweaked with in my age of gaming, but not many real changes since we started the 21st other than the whole apoc, and escalation merge into 40k
...
Adding an entire freaking phase isn't a real change? Just...
Nevermind.
They just put the phase back to consolidate the psychic rules that were scattered all over the other phases of the game? Hardly a major change.
Kilkrazy wrote: A lot of people have stopped buying the game, for various combinations of reasons to do with price and not liking aspects of the modern rules.
The fact that you like the modern rules does not convince other people they are good. To get those people back, GW are going to have to change the rules and reduce the prices.
attest stuff
Price alone is not enough to explain the drop in GW sales. I can afford to buy the latest stuff every month, and I'm willing to bet there are a few folk on this site who have well-paid jobs and can equally shell out as well, without breaking sweat, or noticing the effect on their bank balance. Similary, I feel for the students and the poorer folk on this site who have genuine grievances about price hikes, but it's more complicated than prices.
I don't think it's a rules problem either, because if there is one single issue that everybody on dakka agrees 100% with, it's that GW has never produced a good rules set. They've produced ok rules sets, but everybody has at least one quibble with something.
For me, personally, I gave up the GW games because of my age and switched to historicals, because for some strange reason, nobody laughs at tiny, plastic British soldiers, but everybody laughs at tiny, plastic, goblins. Historicals are more respectable.
forgotten ghosts wrote: problem with that is what rules actually changed? the true revamp of the rules happened +/- 10 years ago, since then we have changed overwatch, put in snap firing, flyers and super heavies open topped gets hit by templates, subtract 2 instead dice drop highest, went back and forth on targeting specific floors of buildings, psychic phase hull points did i miss anything? the core rules have maybe been tweaked with in my age of gaming, but not many real changes since we started the 21st other than the whole apoc, and escalation merge into 40k
Random charges, random warlord traits, random psychic powers, random terrain, random mission objectives, allies, flyers, LoWs, fortifications...
Most of those happened with the change from 5th to 6th, hence the steep decline in the player base that happened in 6th and the consequent scramble by GW to get them back with 7th. Only they didn't do anything to actually please the people that left because of those changes...
forgotten ghosts wrote: and since i know this is coming next, what about the outrage people have about 7th
to which i respond have you played 7th i absolutely love it
Good for you, a lot of people don't play it and won't play it because they don't like the direction it was taking (same could be said of 6th). And, judging from the dropped sales, we are slowly getting to the point where more people are stopping playing.
While this is anecdotal, I know of at least 25 people who have stopped playing since 7th edition was announced. Most of this group (which includes me) consists of players who have been with the game off and on since 2nd edition. We don't show up to the FLGS anymore for game nights, many of us have sold off their armies, and many of us have moved onto other gaming systems.
The primary reason this happened is in protest of GW's merchandising. It would be safe to say the concerns that prompted this action break down like this: we don't like the accelerated release schedules for Editions, we don't like the fact you can't buy a Codex and field a useful army with it, we don't like the supplements at all, we don't like the cost to actually start an army, we don't like the push for superheavies / fortifications, and there's a grand sense that the creativity is gone. In general, it feels like GW is just trying to pick our pockets instead of giving us something clever and worth spending time on.
Between the 25 of us, we have probably introduced several thousand people to the hobby over the years. This is not an exaggeration, most of us have been active in the hobby for decades and several of us have run GW shops. We're all very aware of the role mentoring plays in the development of new players, and the fact that people don't generally just find the game and get started with it.
Assuming our experience is not unique, this is what will really kill GW: driving off the people who have really been the ones selling your games.
but compare the skirmish game price to the price if those 4 players were getting into warhammer fantasy or 
No, no one is saying specialist games alone will fix the bottom line or be a huge money maker. They can certainly be profitable (or else 
