GW expecting The Hobbit to do as well as LotR just goes to show how deluded the company is. LotR was such a success in large part do to crative folks like Rick Priestly, who had to work to convince GW to go for the idea in the first place.
GW allowed The Hobbit to die on the vine. The Hobbit was just more of the same from GW. LotR was, at the time, something fresh and different from GW status quo; a new product with big differences in terms of art, marketing, and price structure.
The Hobbit was just more sad-looking overpriced kits for a lagging game; all hat and no cattle. Customers said, "I don't nedd the Hobbit, and I sure as heck don't want it at those prices. "
If 40K is 2/3rds of GW's business, the company is facing more problems than it seems to be. Another WHFB edition aint gonna change that. 40K 2/3 of the business, losses in the UK, the US market propping up the company that lucked out with a favorable exchange rate? That is not painting a rosy picture of the future, and it magnifies the impact of the Chapterhouse litigation for sure.
LotR was *huge* back when it was released, people were looking forward to it for months...much larger excitement and buzz around it than the hobbit.
Fully agree that it's just not the hot IP right now...GoT would make GW an absolute freaking fortune if they announced it, that IP would translate perfectly to a 25-28mm wargame with around a dozen different factions and Martin himself is a fan of miniatures and therefore highly likely to give the thumbs up.
It would never happen though, source material isn't PG-13.
Best guess for a new IP would probably be the new star wars movie releases... that IP is about as much of a safe bet as you can get.
weeble1000 wrote: GW expecting The Hobbit to do as well as LotR just goes to show how deluded the company is. LotR was such a success in large part do to creative folks like Rick Priestly, who had to work to convince GW to go for the idea in the first place.
I do not agree one bit with this statement, especially the idea that Rick Priestley was somehow so pivotal in getting the game off the ground.
Lord of the Rings did well because of the fact that Lord of the Rings had a huge number of battles spread throughout the movies and the starter boxes were good values for both the Good and Evil sides. They were not focused upon characters but rather a number of troops.
If the starter set had been the Dwarfs trying to retake Moria and given you a number of Dwarf Warriors and Orcs? I think it would have done far better.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The Hobbit seems to have had a lesser impact than LotR which was everywhere, it just was a major event those years. GW has that to deal with but their prices on the Hobbit were absurd, the LotR fever wasn't replicated, partly their fault, partly due to generally less enthusiasm for the franchise.
Hobbit prices might not be entirely GW's fault though: all Hobbit merchandise seems expensive in comparison to other similar licenses.
Word of mouth only gets you so far. Advertising would have really helped. Also a lower price to get fresh blood into the hobby would have been the smart thing to do as well.
Also, espically seeing these one click bundles, do you really want to spend $500 to $1000 to play a game?
How many of you would have started the GW hobby if you knew how much it would really cost you and/or how much money you would be spending.
When I started, $100 to start was acceptable, but now, to just start you need about $300 min and about $500+ to really play.
Who wants to spend that much money when it's cheaper to spend $500 on an new console and get alot more hours of game time and not having to travel and transport minis to do so.
Then again, when you are selling Ferraris you don't go after the Ford Focus crowd.
Backfire wrote:
Really? Well that has been a huge miscalculation then: lots of people have been cynically suggesting that GW is only hanging on to license to stop anyone else getting it. It should have been obvious that it wasn't going to be as big as LotR in any case, though even the cynics probably failed to predict just how badly the movie failed to capture public imagination.
If they had been cynically handing onto the license only, they wouldn't have done the supposed production runs they did. Told there were 10,000+ starter sets alone made.
Howard A Treesong wrote:The Hobbit seems to have had a lesser impact than LotR which was everywhere, it just was a major event those years. GW has that to deal with but their prices on the Hobbit were absurd, the LotR fever wasn't replicated, partly their fault, partly due to generally less enthusiasm for the franchise.
Can attest to that. Remember going to see the opening of the Two Towers at the local mutli-plex. Area around the theater was packed with lines around the building. Had to park a couple blocks away because parking was so bad. Went to same theater for the Hobbit. Parking was no problem and there were no lines. The movie may have done alright financially, but it created zero excitement. People who saw the LotR movies multiple times in the theaters were meh on the Hobbit. Saw it and was done.
Pacific wrote:
Incidentally, I wonder how GW will react to dropping WFB and LoTR sales. Will those games gradually scale back until they disappear, and GW become a company that only sells 40k, or will the company return to what many regard as the 'golden age' of wargaming of the 90's, with scores of different new games being released and both within existing and even new game universes?
Like I said, talk is the head of GW North America is not wanting to let that happen. Two of their three main lines have faltered or failed in the last four years. Relying on one product is one bad release away from ruining the company. Pure speculation but she may be trying to improve the company health so that in a post Kirby environment, she is seen as the heir apparent. Turning things around and turning GW into make you look very popular with shareholders and staff. Take GW into a supposed "Second Golden Age" and then rest on those laurels to retirement like Kirby is doing.
Thing is, the real Ferrari genuinely push a premium brand that is attached to a product that continually attracts rave reviews and pushes the limit of what is possible.
Therefore they have the freedom to act a certain way.
GW are not in an industry that is large enough to allow for a Ferrari, have, at best, a tarnished image amongst the community and continually put out product that is ridiculed on here, and if the last 6 months is any indication, is increasingly not selling to a wider customer base either.
They talk the talk but they walk the walk of an Irishman at 4am on St Paddys day.
I would suspect that presenting it as a whole new game rather than just as supplemental material for the old one might have made a difference, as well. Aside from the new characters, why would you buy into the Hobbit after already buying 3 rulebooks for ever larger games from the previous films?
By that logic you could say why would anyone buy a Version 2.0 or 3.0 of any game system? It is not unique to GW and there are plenty of companies that are doing it.
I would suspect that presenting it as a whole new game rather than just as supplemental material for the old one might have made a difference, as well. Aside from the new characters, why would you buy into the Hobbit after already buying 3 rulebooks for ever larger games from the previous films?
By that logic you could say why would anyone buy a Version 2.0 or 3.0 of any game system? It is not unique to GW and there are plenty of companies that are doing it.
For a Wargame, isn't it more akin to releasing v3.0 of the system, then several years later trying to persuade people to buy the beta test?
Return of the King took $1.44bn in 2012 dollars, the Hobbit took only $1bn. I'd expect the second and third films to take in less too, since the general mood after leaving the cinema was pretty much "that wasn't as good as I expected it to be".
scarletsquig wrote: Fully agree that it's just not the hot IP right now...GoT would make GW an absolute freaking fortune if they announced it, that IP would translate perfectly to a 25-28mm wargame with around a dozen different factions and Martin himself is a fan of miniatures and therefore highly likely to give the thumbs up.
About 2005ish, GRRM had licensed Testors to do a miniatures game. They even had a few test pieces done.
A friend worked there and was showing them to us. They were 54mm, but I think the line was intended to be 28mm.
Something happened internally so they scrapped it and cut the department they hired to create it.
I doubt they still have control of it any more.
Darksword Miniatures has license for Game of Thrones last I checked, but I don't think a game was in the works.
Tom Meier is the main sculptor.
They are creating grunt soldiers along with the main characters, so who knows what is planned.
For a Wargame, isn't it more akin to releasing v3.0 of the system, then several years later trying to persuade people to buy the beta test?
Not following your logic on this. How is the Hobbit a beta test? If that is what you're implying?
I meant, going from a large scale, high model count, multiple faction system to The Hobbit, which while I believe can still support that (don't play) has certainly come across as being marketed as a way of recreating the much smaller scale found in the movie. So while the scale of LotR kept increasing, the Hobbit seems like a step back.
If the starter set had been the Dwarfs trying to retake Moria and given you a number of Dwarf Warriors and Orcs? I think it would have done far better.
Been too long, but wasn't the original LotR box actually units from the opening battle of the FotR movie? Agree, that if the starter box had been the Battle for Moria, that might have generated more sales given the majority of the movie involved the word, "RUN!".
I meant, going from a large scale, high model count, multiple faction system to The Hobbit, which while I believe can still support that (don't play) has certainly come across as being marketed as a way of recreating the much smaller scale found in the movie. So while the scale of LotR kept increasing, the Hobbit seems like a step back.
I still don't see how that is a negative for a new version of the game? In fact that would be a positive for any newer version of a game system as it suddenly makes it more accessible to newcomers. I never played LotR outside a demo and can't comment on the rules otherwise.
I decided to go back and have a look at my old White Dwarf magazines and i was shocked to see how far GW has fallen in Australia.
Now before anyone jumps down my throat, the figures are accurate.
In September 2007 GW had in its Autralian Operations.
28 Bricks and Mortar Stores
206 Independent Stockists.
Now as of July 2013 GW has approximately
33 Bricks and Mortar Stores, an increase of 5 Stores overall
80 Independent Stockists, a decrease of 126 Independent Stockists
For whatever the reason, such as retirements, business sales, bankruptcy and property loss, losing 126 Independent Stockists in 6 years bites on the overall sales of units.
GW Australia has a long way to go to get back to what it had in September 2007, but with prices as they are now, i can't see it.
I meant, going from a large scale, high model count, multiple faction system to The Hobbit, which while I believe can still support that (don't play) has certainly come across as being marketed as a way of recreating the much smaller scale found in the movie. So while the scale of LotR kept increasing, the Hobbit seems like a step back.
I still don't see how that is a negative for a new version of the game? In fact that would be a positive for any newer version of a game system as it suddenly makes it more accessible to newcomers. I never played LotR outside a demo and can't comment on the rules otherwise.
Well, I think, considering its success, the original LOTR game probably reached most of the customers it would have. Excluding those who would have "come of age" in the interim. So to do something smaller scale isn't really going to capture the casual gamer who has fond memories of that game from back in the day, factor in the rather excessive pricing and the total lack of exposure and the percentage retention of that non-gamer market that LOTR so effectively tapped is probably pretty small.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Achaylus72 wrote: I decided to go back and have a look at my old White Dwarf magazines and i was shocked to see how far GW has fallen in Australia.
Now before anyone jumps down my throat, the figures are accurate.
In September 2007 GW had in its Autralian Operations.
28 Bricks and Mortar Stores
206 Independent Stockists.
Now as of July 2013 GW has approximately
33 Bricks and Mortar Stores, an increase of 5 Stores overall
80 Independent Stockists, a decrease of 126 Independent Stockists
For whatever the reason, such as retirements, business sales, bankruptcy and property loss, losing 126 Independent Stockists in 6 years bites on the overall sales of units.
GW Australia has a long way to go to get back to what it had in September 2007, but with prices as they are now, i can't see it.
Don't assume that fall off is all closures, some stores may well have simply dropped GW and be doing just fine, which is probably worst case scenario from a GW standpoint, as every $ they take is definitely not giving them a cut.
Wasn't LotR also sold in book stores and some department stores?
And there was a magazine that had free minis in it to promote LotR as well, though I don't remember the name of that.
Take those 2 things out, add in the lack of battles in the Hobbit, and GW's bizarre pricing and packaging strategy, and you get a flop game.
I meant, going from a large scale, high model count, multiple faction system to The Hobbit, which while I believe can still support that (don't play) has certainly come across as being marketed as a way of recreating the much smaller scale found in the movie. So while the scale of LotR kept increasing, the Hobbit seems like a step back.
I still don't see how that is a negative for a new version of the game? In fact that would be a positive for any newer version of a game system as it suddenly makes it more accessible to newcomers. I never played LotR outside a demo and can't comment on the rules otherwise.
Well, I think, considering its success, the original LOTR game probably reached most of the customers it would have. Excluding those who would have "come of age" in the interim. So to do something smaller scale isn't really going to capture the casual gamer who has fond memories of that game from back in the day, factor in the rather excessive pricing and the total lack of exposure and the percentage retention of that non-gamer market that LOTR so effectively tapped is probably pretty small.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Achaylus72 wrote: I decided to go back and have a look at my old White Dwarf magazines and i was shocked to see how far GW has fallen in Australia.
Now before anyone jumps down my throat, the figures are accurate.
In September 2007 GW had in its Autralian Operations.
28 Bricks and Mortar Stores
206 Independent Stockists.
Now as of July 2013 GW has approximately
33 Bricks and Mortar Stores, an increase of 5 Stores overall
80 Independent Stockists, a decrease of 126 Independent Stockists
For whatever the reason, such as retirements, business sales, bankruptcy and property loss, losing 126 Independent Stockists in 6 years bites on the overall sales of units.
GW Australia has a long way to go to get back to what it had in September 2007, but with prices as they are now, i can't see it.
Don't assume that fall off is all closures, some stores may well have simply dropped GW and be doing just fine, which is probably worst case scenario from a GW standpoint, as every $ they take is definitely not giving them a cut.
That is why i said that for whatever reason, simply put that i agree some stockists decided to get out of the game, and again that is a lot of stockists to lose
skrulnik wrote:Wasn't LotR also sold in book stores and some department stores?
And there was a magazine that had free minis in it to promote LotR as well, though I don't remember the name of that.
Take those 2 things out, add in the lack of battles in the Hobbit, and GW's bizarre pricing and packaging strategy, and you get a flop game.
I recall this, and now they have gone from those shelves, and what i have seen and being told is that LoTR and The Hobbit have flopped, big time, because it is too expensive.
Well, I think, considering its success, the original LOTR game probably reached most of the customers it would have. Excluding those who would have "come of age" in the interim. So to do something smaller scale isn't really going to capture the casual gamer who has fond memories of that game from back in the day, factor in the rather excessive pricing and the total lack of exposure and the percentage retention of that non-gamer market that LOTR so effectively tapped is probably pretty small.
And I still don't see how fewer model count factors into this. You keep shifting the goal posts. To suddenly say "fewer models bad" seems like a fallacy. We spend months complaining how GW is horrible for increasing the model count each edition and then you say, fewer models is bad? If WHFB or 40k were to come out with a new edition where fewer models are required would be greeted with shock and celebration. The whole October Mystery Game thread is filled with people who say GW needs to bring out small skirmish game. And here you say they did and supposedly also supports larger games was a bad thing? Marketing and price may be other factors, but to say needing fewer models is a factor comes across as very wrong. Heck, in the PP vs GW fanboys arguments higher model cost and lower model count is the defense argument the PP side was making for years.
@Achaylus72 how did Australia fair in the global turn down? Those independent store numbers reminds me of the numbers you heard for a longtime in the comic book industry. Closings and failures are pretty common in economic downturns.
The whole October Mystery Game thread is filled with people who say GW needs to bring out small skirmish game. And here you say they did and supposedly also supports larger games was a bad thing? Marketing and price may be other factors, but to say needing fewer models is a factor comes across as very wrong. Heck, in the PP vs GW fanboys arguments higher model cost and lower model count is the defense argument the PP side was making for years.
Games Workshop will never make a skirmish game that will hurt their core products. I believe that they will make a skirmish game (table top) with a separate set of rules that is not compatible with the current rule set and/or different model size all together. I also believe that the possibility of a skirmish type game will be video only.
BryllCream wrote: Return of the King took $1.44bn in 2012 dollars, the Hobbit took only $1bn. I'd expect the second and third films to take in less too, since the general mood after leaving the cinema was pretty much "that wasn't as good as I expected it to be".
I am not sure, like the First LOTR there was lot of exposition (read boring) in the first movie, the action will increase in the next movie until the battle of 5 armies in the third one, so i expect the opposite.
weeble1000 wrote: GW expecting The Hobbit to do as well as LotR just goes to show how deluded the company is. LotR was such a success in large part do to creative folks like Rick Priestly, who had to work to convince GW to go for the idea in the first place.
I do not agree one bit with this statement, especially the idea that Rick Priestley was somehow so pivotal in getting the game off the ground. Lord of the Rings did well because of the fact that Lord of the Rings had a huge number of battles spread throughout the movies and the starter boxes were good values for both the Good and Evil sides. They were not focused upon characters but rather a number of troops.
If the starter set had been the Dwarfs trying to retake Moria and given you a number of Dwarf Warriors and Orcs? I think it would have done far better.
A: Priestly is basically the reason there was a LotR license in the first place. No Rick, no New Line Cinema license. So, yea, pretty important, and you know, as head of the design studio, I think Priestly had a bit of impact on the game and the models.
B: You are pretty much making my point - "the starter boxes were good values for both Good and Evil sides." As I said, LotR was something different from GW in terms of art, marketing, and price structure. LotR had good box sets, at a good value, with well-designed and characterful models, with a-typically broad advertising and distribution channels.
Hell, when I met my wife I was surprised to find that she owned GWLotR models. She's not a wargamer, and she doesn't really collect miniatures. But she had LotR miniatures. Why? Because GW actually pushed LotR products and offered them at reasonable prices. Combined with a hot IP you get a LotR bubble.
You can blame that crap on the movies all you want, but the Hobbit didn't exactly bomb at the box office, there were plenty of LotR box sets that were just about the characters (Attack at Weathertop anyone?) and nothing about the movie prevented GW from making a new, creative game and backing it up with a range of exciting, reasonably priced, army-starting boxed sets. GW didn't do that.
What GW put out was overpriced crap with no anchor, sold principally to the very few people who still maintained an interest in War of the Ring, and those customers probably looked at the prices and said, "go yourself."
Edit: And I think what Azrael is saying is that The Hobbit was always destined to be compared to the extant LotR product range. There was an opportunity to move the ball forward with the extant LotR range by expanding on the mass battle aspect of War of the Ring, which could easily have been done in combination with offering a different type of gaming experience with a character-focused narrative skirmish type game. What GW put out instead was a haphazard set of models that did not offer much to extant LotR customers/players in terms of providing avenues for expanding existing collections or starting new ones, and a bastardized set of expansion(esque) rules that did not really stand on its own.
And GW offered these weird, seemingly half-fleshed out product offerings at historically high prices. When you aren't sure what you are getting or what you are going to do with it, the last thing you want to see is a high price tag. Customers seemed to have been befuddled by the Hobbit release, in the sense of not really knowing what to do with it. That's a terrible place to be, and I think if you compare it to what GW was doing in the heady days of the LotR bubble, you can point to some pretty glaring absences in the GW creativity gene pool.
A: Priestly is basically the reason there was a LotR license in the first place. No Rick, no New Line Cinema license. So, yea, pretty important, and you know, as head of the design studio, I think Priestly had a bit of impact on the game and the models.
Where are you getting the information that Priestly brought the LotR license to GW? I do not recall any interviews where he made that claim and the Kirby quote you listed only stated he made a good rule set.
Edit: And I think what Azrael is saying is that The Hobbit was always destined to be compared to the extant LotR product range. There was an opportunity to move the ball forward with the extant LotR range by expanding on the mass battle aspect of War of the Ring, which could easily have been done in combination with offering a different type of gaming experience with a character-focused narrative skirmish type game. What GW put out instead was a haphazard set of models that did not offer much to extant LotR customers/players in terms of providing avenues for expanding existing collections or starting new ones, and a bastardized set of expansion(esque) rules that did not really stand on its own.
And GW offered these weird, seemingly half-fleshed out product offerings at historically high prices. When you aren't sure what you are getting or what you are going to do with it, the last thing you want to see is a high price tag. Customers seemed to have been befuddled by the Hobbit release, in the sense of not really knowing what to do with it. That's a terrible place to be, and I think if you compare it to what GW was doing in the heady days of the LotR bubble, you can point to some pretty glaring absences in the GW creativity gene pool.
Problem is that the model selection goes back to what was on the screen in the movie. It is a licensed game and GW is not 100% in control of what can be made and not. During the LotR bubble, nothing came out that wasn't on the screen. GW did not have the flexibility in their license to add any additional items. The extra units outside the LotR movie weren't added till after the third movie and was due to a direct contract with the Tolkien estate and not New Line.
Again, it's hard to make an exciting skirmish game with a movie that didn't have any skirmishing. Only running. GW should have realized this and toned their expectations way down. Whoever made the call to produce that much should have realized the conditions were not the same and they did not have the same factors going in that made the first game a success.
*edit* also with price, just with the $85 vs $75 cost for the Hobbit rule book vs the 40K rule book and $125 vs $99 for the Hobbit starter vs 40K/Fantasy starters, you could estimate the supposed higher licensing fees added 10 - 25% to every set.
silent25 wrote: Again, it's hard to make an exciting skirmish game with a movie that didn't have any skirmishing. Only running.
I don't think this is true at all. Licensed products don't necessarily have to be a literal reproduction of the events in the film and only the events in the film, it would be easy to use the ideas of the film (along with the rest of the LOTR IP that everyone is familiar with) and produce an "alternate universe" game where the characters in the movie fight just for the sake of fighting. It's exactly the thing plenty of kids do with their licensed toys as soon as they get them, even if the movie never had that exact fight.
The real problem with the Hobbit game was the complete lack of marketing. If you weren't already a GW customer you never heard of it, and adding a bunch of incredibly overpriced character models (and nothing else) to a game that is already selling poorly isn't going to get existing customers to buy it. And they certainly aren't going to buy it when even GW's own website pretty much drops the game as soon as it is released. Fix these problems and market the game correctly (starter sets in mainstream stores, advertising in places the movie audience is likely to see, etc) and it probably does a lot better.
BryllCream wrote: Return of the King took $1.44bn in 2012 dollars, the Hobbit took only $1bn. I'd expect the second and third films to take in less too, since the general mood after leaving the cinema was pretty much "that wasn't as good as I expected it to be".
I am not sure, like the First LOTR there was lot of exposition (read boring) in the first movie, the action will increase in the next movie until the battle of 5 armies in the third one, so i expect the opposite.
Meanwhile, Raimi could have made the Temeraire license he's sitting on and we could be having "Sharpe's Rifles+giant dragons" RIGHT NOW.
BryllCream wrote: Return of the King took $1.44bn in 2012 dollars, the Hobbit took only $1bn. I'd expect the second and third films to take in less too, since the general mood after leaving the cinema was pretty much "that wasn't as good as I expected it to be".
I am not sure, like the First LOTR there was lot of exposition (read boring) in the first movie, the action will increase in the next movie until the battle of 5 armies in the third one, so i expect the opposite.
It was the action which sucked in 'The Hobbit'. More of it will turn more people off.
If the film took 1 billion dollars at the box office it was a big success -- LoTR was bigger, of course -- but anyway mainstream popularity was not a factor.
Therefore it was bad design and marketing by GW that led to the result.
I don't think this is true at all. Licensed products don't necessarily have to be a literal reproduction of the events in the film and only the events in the film, it would be easy to use the ideas of the film (along with the rest of the LOTR IP that everyone is familiar with) and produce an "alternate universe" game where the characters in the movie fight just for the sake of fighting. It's exactly the thing plenty of kids do with their licensed toys as soon as they get them, even if the movie never had that exact fight.
Except that the license agreement with New Line has been notorious for it's inflexibility with GW. That wasn't an option. That had to put something out that was on the screen. But as we already said, the Battle for Moria would have made a better starter set than Goblin Town.
The real problem with the Hobbit game was the complete lack of marketing. If you weren't already a GW customer you never heard of it, and adding a bunch of incredibly overpriced character models (and nothing else) to a game that is already selling poorly isn't going to get existing customers to buy it. And they certainly aren't going to buy it when even GW's own website pretty much drops the game as soon as it is released. Fix these problems and market the game correctly (starter sets in mainstream stores, advertising in places the movie audience is likely to see, etc) and it probably does a lot better.
That I agree with that. GW should have started back up the advertising contracts they had during the LotR times.
Edit: And I think what Azrael is saying is that The Hobbit was always destined to be compared to the extant LotR product range. There was an opportunity to move the ball forward with the extant LotR range by expanding on the mass battle aspect of War of the Ring, which could easily have been done in combination with offering a different type of gaming experience with a character-focused narrative skirmish type game. What GW put out instead was a haphazard set of models that did not offer much to extant LotR customers/players in terms of providing avenues for expanding existing collections or starting new ones, and a bastardized set of expansion(esque) rules that did not really stand on its own.
And GW offered these weird, seemingly half-fleshed out product offerings at historically high prices. When you aren't sure what you are getting or what you are going to do with it, the last thing you want to see is a high price tag. Customers seemed to have been befuddled by the Hobbit release, in the sense of not really knowing what to do with it. That's a terrible place to be, and I think if you compare it to what GW was doing in the heady days of the LotR bubble, you can point to some pretty glaring absences in the GW creativity gene pool.
Problem is that the model selection goes back to what was on the screen in the movie.It is a licensed game and GW is not 100% in control of what can be made and not.
So we could have had, gandalf the dwarfs,bilbo and an eagle. verses orc warg riders plus white orc and mount.
Instead of what we got.
The real problem with the Hobbit game was the complete lack of marketing. If you weren't already a GW customer you never heard of it, and adding a bunch of incredibly overpriced character models (and nothing else) to a game that is already selling poorly isn't going to get existing customers to buy it. And they certainly aren't going to buy it when even GW's own website pretty much drops the game as soon as it is released. Fix these problems and market the game correctly (starter sets in mainstream stores, advertising in places the movie audience is likely to see, etc) and it probably does a lot better.
That I agree with that. GW should have started back up the advertising contracts they had during the LotR times.
So we could have had, gandalf the dwarfs,bilbo and an eagle. verses orc warg riders plus white orc and mount.
Instead of what we got.
You mean a couple models of trees with dwarfs in them throwing burning pine cones? That wasn't a very impressive scene. And again, we don't know if that kit contents was dictated by New Line or GW. Also given the models that show up in the book that weren't in the movie due to rewrites, GW was likely unaware of the final version of the scene. The Hobbit was a cluster-f for a number of companies that put out licensed products as was clearly shown in other threads.
But this is going off-topic and turning into a general Hobbit rant.
The major success of the LotR tabletop was due to:
1.) Standard aggressive marketing including TV ads.
2.) A reasonably priced introductory product available everywhere
3.) Follow up products that were not too expensive either, not even for full size battles.
And yes, 1+2 were made by DeAgostini and their mag+sprue product, with mag developed and sprue produced by GW but distributed by DeAgostini. Most successful GW release, most successfull DeAgostini release -> GW said never again.
So this time no advertising, no general distribution and doubling of prices for starter box and all other products of the line.
And yes, limited edition box still available
Backfire wrote: This is what Kirby said in 2005 report:
Not only was the product much more successful than I ever dreamed it would be
(thank you Rick Priestley for a great game design), it has given us a valuable third product line to support Warhammer
and Warhammer 40,000.
This is what Kirby said October 2010:
Rick Who? Fire that clown!
Kroothawk wrote: The major success of the LotR tabletop was due to:
1.) Standard aggressive marketing including TV ads.
2.) A reasonably priced introductory product available everywhere
3.) Follow up products that were not too expensive either, not even for full size battles.
And yes, 1+2 were made by DeAgostini and their mag+sprue product, with mag developed and sprue produced by GW but distributed by DeAgostini. Most successful GW release, most successfull DeAgostini release -> GW said never again.
So this time no advertising, no general distribution and doubling of prices for starter box and all other products of the line.
And yes, limited edition box still available
Backfire wrote: This is what Kirby said in 2005 report:
Not only was the product much more successful than I ever dreamed it would be
(thank you Rick Priestley for a great game design), it has given us a valuable third product line to support Warhammer
and Warhammer 40,000.
This is what Kirby said October 2010:
Rick Who? Fire that clown!
Look, whether or not you believe that Priestly was instrumental in pushing the idea of a LotR wargame or not, the fact is that the man was at the very least instrumental in the design of the game and, as head of the design studio, had a significant impact on the art direction.
And that's the guy Kirby decides to give the boot to? The guy who was an important part of GW's most successful product lines? And Priestly is only one example. The point is that GW ran off a huge pool of talent that had been responsible for laying the foundation for GW's great successes, and now GW is facing problems. The dismal failure of the Hobbit is simply a very conspicuous example of the long term impact of forcing out talented, creative, energized people who want to do new things.
Games Workshop is stagnating because Kirby did not have the stones to do anything other than push Space Marines. Now, not surprisingly, 40K is growing to be a larger and large part of GW's business, and the company is becoming a one trick pony not unlike Lil' Sebastian. Some folks continue to love everything that the pony does beyond all sense or reason. That's fine, but 'Lil' Space Marine' is not going to live forever.
It's been a huge success for both Warlord and Osprey.
The problem with a niche industry is when you cease to employee talented people they end up being your competition. GW's downsizing of production left no shortage of qualified people for Renedra to snap up.
That said, not everything Rick touches is gold-- remember the failed kickstarter?
--
As to the rumour about 40k, I wonder if it's true that 40k now makes up more than half of GW's sales. Given the Hobbit boxes sitting everywhere and the constant stream of anecdotes about fantasy drying up after 8th edition, I'm inclined to say it's reasonable.
The last few reports from GW haven't contained glowing things about fantasy. I recall Kirby calling 8th an attempt to revitalize an already dropping fantasy sales rate. So if it failed and alienated even more players, that could leave GW with the majority of their sales from 40k.
The problem with a niche industry is when you cease to employee talented people they end up being your competition. GW's downsizing of production left no shortage of qualified people for Renedra to snap up.
That said, not everything Rick touches is gold-- remember the failed kickstarter?
--
As to the rumour about 40k, I wonder if it's true that 40k now makes up more than half of GW's sales. Given the Hobbit boxes sitting everywhere and the constant stream of anecdotes about fantasy drying up after 8th edition, I'm inclined to say it's reasonable.
The last few reports from GW haven't contained glowing things about fantasy. I recall Kirby calling 8th an attempt to revitalize an already dropping fantasy sales rate. So if it failed and alienated even more players, that could leave GW with the majority of their sales from 40k.
The thing is, the Design Studio has been growing for several years, while getting rid of big name designers. They are pushing out products faster, but the range is "more of the same" -- updates and revisions of stuff dating back to 3rd edition. The last original new thing was Dread Fleet, which basically was a failure because it wasn't good.
The thing is, the Design Studio has been growing for several years, while getting rid of big name designers. They are pushing out products faster, but the range is "more of the same" -- updates and revisions of stuff dating back to 3rd edition. The last original new thing was Dread Fleet, which basically was a failure because it wasn't good.
When Alessio Cavatore left GW and gave a number of interviews, he did openly say there was limited room to grow. Once you head designer of one or two of the systems, there isn't any further promotion possibility. Jervis is head of the design studio and until he leaves you will continue to see most designers leave after they have done an edition of WHFB and 40k. But that is typical of any workplace where a static upper management level prevents younger employees from advancing beyond a certain point. They either stay put in their current position or leave for better opportunities elsewhere.
Sad thing with Dreadfleet was that is was the first completely different thing GW had put out in almost a decade. Everything else has just been a revision of an existing property.
The thing is, the Design Studio has been growing for several years, while getting rid of big name designers. They are pushing out products faster, but the range is "more of the same" -- updates and revisions of stuff dating back to 3rd edition. The last original new thing was Dread Fleet, which basically was a failure because it wasn't good.
When Alessio Cavatore left GW and gave a number of interviews, he did openly say there was limited room to grow. Once you head designer of one or two of the systems, there isn't any further promotion possibility. Jervis is head of the design studio and until he leaves you will continue to see most designers leave after they have done an edition of WHFB and 40k. But that is typical of any workplace where a static upper management level prevents younger employees from advancing beyond a certain point. They either stay put in their current position or leave for better opportunities elsewhere.
Sad thing with Dreadfleet was that is was the first completely different thing GW had put out in almost a decade. Everything else has just been a revision of an existing property.
And sometimes those fail. What we see in GW today is, I believe, happening because GW keeps around people who are just willing to put in their hours and draw a paycheck by regurgitating the same thing; like Jes Goodwin, for example. He has stuck around GW because he is 'GW people'. He is basically a corporate stooge who is comfortable doing whatever his boss tells him to do and nothing more. I don't look at Goodwin and see drive, creativity, or even passion. Those people do not survive at GW because GW is stifling.
The greatest and best example is Mantic Games, which is a smorgasbord of ideas GW balled up and threw in the trash put into profitable practice by the very guys who pitched those ideas to GW. All of the money Mantic is making could have been made by GW, and more. Mantic is not filling holes in GW's universe with tasteless knockoffs, Mantic is blazing forward with product ideas that were too avant garde across the street; ideas like regularly supporting specialist games. The irony is that these are the ideas that GW got fat off of in the first place!
That isn't GW anymore. Today, GW is about treading water with Space Marines and issuing a predictable dividend. That is entirely Kirby's fault.
Now if only Mantic was as good with execution as they are with ideas.
GW is Kirby's cash machine. It's not about games or miniatures, but about sales and dividends. And it's working for Kirby. Even on a year he calls "mixed" he put a million in his own pocket. Even paid out last year's cash reserves.
The extremely high dividend to earnings ratio is troubling from an investment standpoint. It's basically a big sign to investors saying "We couldn't think of any part of our business to invest the money in, so here you go, I guess." Most companies won't pay a dividend greater than what they reinvest. They want to let their stock holders know they can both produce cash and reinvest for growth. GW apparently can't think of anything to do to make more money with the money they have.
And sometimes those fail. What we see in GW today is, I believe, happening because GW keeps around people who are just willing to put in their hours and draw a paycheck by regurgitating the same thing; like Jes Goodwin, for example. He has stuck around GW because he is 'GW people'. He is basically a corporate stooge who is comfortable doing whatever his boss tells him to do and nothing more. I don't look at Goodwin and see drive, creativity, or even passion. Those people do not survive at GW because GW is stifling.
I think the Dark Eldar release from a few years ago would highly disagree with you. So old timers who stay around are stooges but old timers who are booted are victims and martyrs?
silent25 wrote: Except that the license agreement with New Line has been notorious for it's inflexibility with GW. That wasn't an option. That had to put something out that was on the screen. But as we already said, the Battle for Moria would have made a better starter set than Goblin Town.
I'm not saying they need to put out something that isn't on the screen, they just need to remind people that they have an entire generic combat game in the LOTR universe already and all of the Hobbit models can be part of it. If they had done that the lack of battle scenes in the Hobbit movie wouldn't have been a fatal problem, people could have used their Hobbit models against LOTR forces and invented all the battles they want. But instead GW tried to market it as a separate product and failed to exploit their existing material, so all you saw was a mediocre starter set and a lot of overpriced character models. They lost their potential customer's attention long before they would ever take a look at if and how the Hobbit models tie into the LOTR game.
The thing is, the Design Studio has been growing for several years, while getting rid of big name designers. They are pushing out products faster, but the range is "more of the same" -- updates and revisions of stuff dating back to 3rd edition. The last original new thing was Dread Fleet, which basically was a failure because it wasn't good.
When Alessio Cavatore left GW and gave a number of interviews, he did openly say there was limited room to grow. Once you head designer of one or two of the systems, there isn't any further promotion possibility. Jervis is head of the design studio and until he leaves you will continue to see most designers leave after they have done an edition of WHFB and 40k. But that is typical of any workplace where a static upper management level prevents younger employees from advancing beyond a certain point. They either stay put in their current position or leave for better opportunities elsewhere.
Sad thing with Dreadfleet was that is was the first completely different thing GW had put out in almost a decade. Everything else has just been a revision of an existing property.
And sometimes those fail. What we see in GW today is, I believe, happening because GW keeps around people who are just willing to put in their hours and draw a paycheck by regurgitating the same thing; like Jes Goodwin, for example. He has stuck around GW because he is 'GW people'. He is basically a corporate stooge who is comfortable doing whatever his boss tells him to do and nothing more. I don't look at Goodwin and see drive, creativity, or even passion. Those people do not survive at GW because GW is stifling.
The greatest and best example is Mantic Games, which is a smorgasbord of ideas GW balled up and threw in the trash put into profitable practice by the very guys who pitched those ideas to GW. All of the money Mantic is making could have been made by GW, and more. Mantic is not filling holes in GW's universe with tasteless knockoffs, Mantic is blazing forward with product ideas that were too avant garde across the street; ideas like regularly supporting specialist games. The irony is that these are the ideas that GW got fat off of in the first place!
That isn't GW anymore. Today, GW is about treading water with Space Marines and issuing a predictable dividend. That is entirely Kirby's fault.
sorry, weeble1000, but any time spent hanging out with Jes Goodwin will show you that he is very creative, driven, and passionate...
a flick through his books, and seeing the stuff that goes beyond what gets produced, shows he has a great deal of talent, and is no corporate stooge...
he is also responsible for most of the designs that us vets have been fans of for 20 years...
a large amount of his oldest sculpts still hold up well, even today...
is Jes responsible for Kirby's choices???
should he quit his job, and thus lose his ability to design models for the worlds that he had a huge hand in creating over the last 25 years???
every member of the studio that i have hung out with, exchanged emails with, and become friends with over the years, are very passionate about their jobs...
of course, when they are not happy about corporate decisions they don't go online and slag the boss...
they are not at conventions to talk smack about their own products...
they like their jobs, and being able to put food on the table by doing something creative...
should the studio all quit and become accountants???
as for Mantic and Warlord, i won't slam them for trying, but i can say that neither company has produced anything that has made me reach for my wallet...
i don't own a single mini from either company...
this isn't some kind of fanboy rant, as i collect Infinity, Studio McVey LE's, Confrontation, PP, Freebooter, and many more...
yet, Mantic haven't enticed me to spend a dime on their minis, ditto Warlord...
GW still entice me with great art, minis, and stories every year, without fail...
i'm not a fan of the corporate side of the business, but i've got a lot of love for the studio...
maybe one day they will let me down, but it hasn't happened yet...
what GW has done is given me over 25 years of enjoyment, great art, cool books, and great models...
i have watched them push plastics from very static mono-pose minis to the dynamic multi-pose kits we have now...
i have watched them constantly invest in the latest technology for decades...
now, when GW doesn't entice me, they don't get my money...
i don't own any Finecast...
i don't own a Wraithknight, a Riptide, or a Khornemower...
i do still enjoy White Dwarf, Black Library, plastic minis, and Forge World...
those things bring me great pleasure, and that's all i ask...
i'm never disappointed if i don't have expectations...
GW doesn't owe me anything, and i don't owe them anything...
i'm off to paint a Forge World Space Marine (Commander Culln) now, and then read a bit more of Vulkan Lives...
good times...
The thing is, the Design Studio has been growing for several years, while getting rid of big name designers. They are pushing out products faster, but the range is "more of the same" -- updates and revisions of stuff dating back to 3rd edition. The last original new thing was Dread Fleet, which basically was a failure because it wasn't good.
When Alessio Cavatore left GW and gave a number of interviews, he did openly say there was limited room to grow. Once you head designer of one or two of the systems, there isn't any further promotion possibility. Jervis is head of the design studio and until he leaves you will continue to see most designers leave after they have done an edition of WHFB and 40k. But that is typical of any workplace where a static upper management level prevents younger employees from advancing beyond a certain point. They either stay put in their current position or leave for better opportunities elsewhere.
Sad thing with Dreadfleet was that is was the first completely different thing GW had put out in almost a decade. Everything else has just been a revision of an existing property.
And sometimes those fail. What we see in GW today is, I believe, happening because GW keeps around people who are just willing to put in their hours and draw a paycheck by regurgitating the same thing; like Jes Goodwin, for example. He has stuck around GW because he is 'GW people'. He is basically a corporate stooge who is comfortable doing whatever his boss tells him to do and nothing more. I don't look at Goodwin and see drive, creativity, or even passion. Those people do not survive at GW because GW is stifling.
The greatest and best example is Mantic Games, which is a smorgasbord of ideas GW balled up and threw in the trash put into profitable practice by the very guys who pitched those ideas to GW. All of the money Mantic is making could have been made by GW, and more. Mantic is not filling holes in GW's universe with tasteless knockoffs, Mantic is blazing forward with product ideas that were too avant garde across the street; ideas like regularly supporting specialist games. The irony is that these are the ideas that GW got fat off of in the first place!
That isn't GW anymore. Today, GW is about treading water with Space Marines and issuing a predictable dividend. That is entirely Kirby's fault.
Hmmm let's see.
All the talent has left to make imho derivative poorly executed models at Mantic. The awesome creatives are making a poorly executed historical ruleset at Warlord? Jes Goodwin = Stooge?
We get it. You don't like GW but you're pretty much just ranting and grabbing straws at this point chum.
And sometimes those fail. What we see in GW today is, I believe, happening because GW keeps around people who are just willing to put in their hours and draw a paycheck by regurgitating the same thing; like Jes Goodwin, for example. He has stuck around GW because he is 'GW people'. He is basically a corporate stooge who is comfortable doing whatever his boss tells him to do and nothing more. I don't look at Goodwin and see drive, creativity, or even passion. Those people do not survive at GW because GW is stifling.
I think the Dark Eldar release from a few years ago would highly disagree with you. So old timers who stay around are stooges but old timers who are booted are victims and martyrs?
You are missing the point completely. I never called them martyrs. The point is why they left. And they left. Encouraged to leave, discouraged to stick around, maybe, but they left Games Workshop. They left Games Workshop because GW was by and large not interested in doing anything new. The people who stick around for 20 years in a company that does not treat the creative minds behind its products well, does not foster a healthy environment for creativity, and that clearly places a very high value on towing the company line and not making waves are stooges.
Jes Goodwin is a Games Workshop stooge. I've met the man. There's little redeeming about him. He is a company guy through and through who has been drinking the Koolaid (tm) for decades. He has a comfy birth that does not challenge him and he's fine with it, even if he has to compromise his morals to do it.
The problem with Games Workshop, in terms of the health of the company long term, is that it has not managed to hang on to the creative minds behind its products. I see that as a big problem. If the principle designer of one of your most successful product lines leaves because he does not feel stimulated, that's a huge problem. If the guy in charge of your design studio walks out the door, takes with him ideas that you turned down, and starts a successful, directly competing company virtually across the street, that is a huge warning sign.
I'm not boo-hooing for Priestly, Cavatore, The Perry Twins, McVey, or any other former Games Workshop employee. Those guys are engaging in successful, stimulating careers. What I am saying is that Games Workshop pushed out a vast pool of talent and saw its products become stale and unsuccessful. I'm saying that this is not a big surprise. I'm saying Games Workshop should have seen it coming. I'm saying that if Games Workshop continues to stick to its one trick pony, squeeze blood out of a stone attitude, the company is not going to see growth going forward, as it has not in the past 5 years or so. I'm saying that it is no surprise that 40K is propping up the company.
Feel free to twist what I am saying all you want, but I think my point has always been pretty darn clear. Kirby is good at lining his own pockets, there's no doubt about that. But the only future he is looking out for is his own; not his company, not his employees; his own. And that is the single most important reason why Games Workshop has stagnated. And if you think Games Workshop has done anything other than stagnate, the numbers just don't lie.
I appreciate your opinion, and I agree that Jes has done interesting, creative work. I do not mean to belittle that, but I think he is an . I do not like the man. That is neither here nor there, really. But I do think there's a reason why Goodwin stuck around Games Workshop when his mates by and large went on to do their own thing. Most of the folks I have met that have been around Games Workshop as long Goodwin has been are, in my personal experience, awful human beings. I am terribly biased of course, but my personal feelings don't change the situation with GW's business.
I think it is at least fair to say that Tom Kirby likes to have people around that don't ask questions, don't make waves, and stroke his ego. I have not met anyone who has disabused me of that notion, and it seems to me to have been having a detrimental impact on GW's business.
All the talent has left to make imho derivative poorly executed models at Mantic. The awesome creatives are making a poorly executed historical ruleset at Warlord? Jes Goodwin = Stooge?
We get it. You don't like GW but you're pretty much just ranting and grabbing straws at this point chum.
I don't think you get it. It does not matter what you personally think about Mantic's products. I don't like a lot of their sculpts. But that does not matter. I'm not talking about some subjective evaluation of art. I am talking about business. This is a thread about Games Workshop's financial report.
I hope we can agree that Mantic has been a successful business, yes? I daresay that is a fact. It is also a fact that Mantic has been successful doing what Games Workshop has not wanted to do: lower prices, fill gaps in the product line, support specialist games, and so forth. Clearly, customers like that. And those are Games Workshop's customers. If they aren't or weren't, then the hobby is expanding and Games Workshop's share of it aint getting any bigger.
Mantic has been growing. Mantic has been successful. Games Workshop is losing ground in the UK. We are hearing that WHFB is so dead GW is breaking out the defibrillator. Who cares what you think about the quality of Mantic's art. Dreadball, for example, is something Games Workshop would not have done, period.
Do you not think it is a big deal that the former head of GW's design studio is Mantic's CEO, that one of GW's hottest game designers wrote Mantic's games, that the man who sculpted the first Space Marine model has been banging out Mantic products? Do you not find it significant that guys who cut their teeth building Games Workshop's success are now building a directly competing company at a time when GW's foothold on the market is beginning to slip? I mean, you can make a decision about that without even knowing what industry the companies are in, let alone comparing the quality of their respective artwork.
I just read the OP. I like the dig he takes on Pokémon, while not realizing that GW will have to exist for another 20 years before making the profit that Bandai did on Pokémon (if it were to stop existing today that is).
weeble1000 wrote: Do you not think it is a big deal that the former head of GW's design studio is Mantic's CEO, that one of GW's hottest game designers wrote Mantic's games, that the man who sculpted the first Space Marine model has been banging out Mantic products? Do you not find it significant that guys who cut their teeth building Games Workshop's success are now building a directly competing company at a time when GW's foothold on the market is beginning to slip? I mean, you can make a decision about that without even knowing what industry the companies are in, let alone comparing the quality of their respective artwork.
There's also Renedra, chocked full of ex-GW people, making plastic kit tooling available to many, many companies. Mike McVey worked with Privateer Press in the development of the hobby side of their product line. There's also probably more than a couple local store owners who used to work for GW's retail arm but now run their own stores, offering GW's competitor's products. I think Strategies Games in Vancouver is an example of exactly that.
I now see your point about Mantic. Dreadball and Deadzone are exactly the type of things GW was doing when they had their massive period of growth back in the 90s. it is indeed about business and not individual aesthetic preferences. That said, miniature wargaming is a visual hobby and Mantic needs to make more things like the Deadzone sculpts and less things like their elves or mal-proportioned basilians.
Kirby valued a yes-man attitude over skills and now he's got competitors flooded with highly skilled individuals that are looking to do something beyond what GW is interested in offering.
The thing is, the Design Studio has been growing for several years, while getting rid of big name designers. They are pushing out products faster, but the range is "more of the same" -- updates and revisions of stuff dating back to 3rd edition. The last original new thing was Dread Fleet, which basically was a failure because it wasn't good.
When Alessio Cavatore left GW and gave a number of interviews, he did openly say there was limited room to grow. Once you head designer of one or two of the systems, there isn't any further promotion possibility. Jervis is head of the design studio and until he leaves you will continue to see most designers leave after they have done an edition of WHFB and 40k. But that is typical of any workplace where a static upper management level prevents younger employees from advancing beyond a certain point. They either stay put in their current position or leave for better opportunities elsewhere.
Sad thing with Dreadfleet was that is was the first completely different thing GW had put out in almost a decade. Everything else has just been a revision of an existing property.
The studio has "grown" in the sense of adding more headcount. They are up to about 90 people.
Obviously as with any company the ability of junior staff to grow is limited by the company's own growth of size and diversity. GW's diversity has been static, though, which is not a good thing for what is supposedly a creative company.
I think GW have changed from being a company that generates new ideas and IP to a company that coasts on the momentum of its existing products, and just offers minor updates.
weeble1000 wrote: Do you not think it is a big deal that the former head of GW's design studio is Mantic's CEO, that one of GW's hottest game designers wrote Mantic's games, that the man who sculpted the first Space Marine model has been banging out Mantic products? Do you not find it significant that guys who cut their teeth building Games Workshop's success are now building a directly competing company at a time when GW's foothold on the market is beginning to slip? I mean, you can make a decision about that without even knowing what industry the companies are in, let alone comparing the quality of their respective artwork.
The short answer is; no.
I do not think it is a big deal that Mantic is set up and run by ex-GW staff.
Incidentally the same is true of:
Foundry (somewhat larger than Mantic) - indeed this was set up by Bryan Ansell no less!
Battlefront (somewhat larger than Mantic)
Warlord Games (somewhat larger than Mantic)
plus many, many more smaller ones like Studio McVey etc.
The next time you look at a UK games company check to see if it is near Nottingham, its quite the gaming hub. The dearth of companies that have been set up by or have staff that used to work at GW in the UK is huge. It's almost as if it was an Academy for great hobbyists (GW had their pick of the community afterall). So between GW and the internet making such start up more visible there is a huge number of well known ex-staffers doing things that we all know about.
The fact that they left is a fact of life in business, training people for them to leave is an unfortunate by product of trying to make people the best they can be. 5 juniors in to 1 or 2 senior positions doesn't go, so those that feel they are too good to wait (or are not as good as they think they are) will drift off.
As companies grow and shrink the people that work there do. You can not have everyone working as directors or heads of department nor can every idea be realised so people will naturally fall by the wayside.
So when the one big fish in the pool drops people they will naturally enough pick up positions elsewhere or make their own mark. So as I say; no big deal.
Oh and Alessio Cavatore = Hottest games designer? Cheers I needed that.
I think GW have changed from being a company that generates new ideas and IP to a company that coasts on the momentum of its existing products, and just offers minor updates.
I concur, but until they off load the LotR/Hobbit line they are stuck with the 3 systems they have. Its a fine rules system but unless the next films do something the first didn't and GW plan/ for/latch onto whatever that is it will continue to be a millstone.
To be fair I do think they try to be more creative with the existing systems but always fail in that respect as they avoid making complexities. Look at Mighty/Planetary Empires, an awesome system of campaign tiles with rules that were effectively two sides of A4. The original edition was simple enough but had a bit more depth and options and made for a fun standalone game too (although I am aware that this was a regurgitation).
In a few years when the Hobbit licence is done/dead with they might find themselves with a design studio with little to do. A refocus on WHFB for the next edition would have been done by then leaving some slack in the design studio. I'd like to see Epic brought back as the third system or just Specialist Games generally.
All the talent has left to make imho derivative poorly executed models at Mantic. The awesome creatives are making a poorly executed historical ruleset at Warlord? Jes Goodwin = Stooge?
We get it. You don't like GW but you're pretty much just ranting and grabbing straws at this point chum.
Some of the early Mantic models were pretty crude, but the new ones have been much more impressive.
What's the pooly executed historical ruleset from Warlord? From what I'm aware all of them are pretty highly regarded (Black Powder, Pike & Shot, Hail Caesar and Bolt Action), and from what I've read of the ones I own (Hail Caesar and Bolt Action) they are better rulesets than GW is producing.
I presume you mean Beyond the Gates of Antares? Yes the kickstarter failed, but I think it's because they approached the kickstarter wrong, not because the team is incapable or the rules are bad. Most successful kickstarters have a low goal and lots of stretch goals to get to huge funding targets, whereas they were more direct and had a funding goal of £300k which covered everything, instead of rules at £30k and adding mini's packs every £30k. They also didn't treat it as a pre-launch platform.
weeble1000 wrote: Do you not think it is a big deal that the former head of GW's design studio is Mantic's CEO, that one of GW's hottest game designers wrote Mantic's games, that the man who sculpted the first Space Marine model has been banging out Mantic products? Do you not find it significant that guys who cut their teeth building Games Workshop's success are now building a directly competing company at a time when GW's foothold on the market is beginning to slip? I mean, you can make a decision about that without even knowing what industry the companies are in, let alone comparing the quality of their respective artwork.
The short answer is; no.
I do not think it is a big deal that Mantic is set up and run by ex-GW staff.
Incidentally the same is true of:
Foundry (somewhat larger than Mantic) - indeed this was set up by Bryan Ansell no less!
Battlefront (somewhat larger than Mantic)
Warlord Games (somewhat larger than Mantic)
plus many, many more smaller ones like Studio McVey etc.
Even though all of those companies are showing growth (at least in terms of product line; Mantic, Warlord & Battlefront have all launched new games recently, I don't know anything about Foundry) which GW isn't, and the products they are currently producing could have been produced by GW instead of by their competitors.
Almost all of the people responsible for GW's previous success now work for GW's competition, who are getting the benefit of their experience and innovation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote: Yeah I was thinking of Bolt Action rather than the other sets which are all good enough and should have stated that.
What's so bad about Bolt Action? (I'm genuinely curious; I've been reading through it whilst assembling an army, but haven't played yet). I've seen a few complaints about some sniper special rule taking out entire heavy weapon teams as being unrealistic and overpowered, and that vehicle movement isn't great, but I don't see how that translates to poorly executed).
It doesn't matter what Notprop thinks about Bolt Action. It's irrelevant to the point. Warlord is doing great and adding more products and rules all the time. They are making plastic kits thanks to Renedra. All of this is done by ex-GW people. Osprey seems happy enough with the line. They'll be releasing the 8th book later this year.
Notprop's opinion of Bolt Action as a rules set is 100% irrelevant to weeble1000's point. My dislike for most of Mantic's miniatures was as well. Weeble is talking about business, not aesthetics or individual rules preferences.
Is it really any surprise that all of these other companies are full of ex-GW people? Of course they are. GW gave all of these people their start in the industry as the largest employer in the industry.
Additionally, as people have said before in this thread, it's much easier to show growth when you're making $1MM vs. $140MM.
cincydooley wrote: Is it really any surprise that all of these other companies are full of ex-GW people? Of course they are. GW gave all of these people their start in the industry as the largest employer in the industry.
Additionally, as people have said before in this thread, it's much easier to show growth when you're making $1MM vs. $140MM.
Ok, rambling anecdote time!
My dad works for an insurance company, they're fairly small by those standards, but punch well above their weight in their niche. Dad works from home, and manages a surrounding geographical area, he's responsible for all sales and service to the company's customers and is usually their first point of contact. Sales wise, he is the leading guy by a country mile, approaching almost double in terms of annual income of his nearest rival, has been so for 5 years and has been top salesman for probably 25 or so of the 30 years he's worked for them.
A few weeks ago he reached retirement age, but partly because he doesn't like being idle, and partly because he likes his job quite a lot, he wants to keep working. He does want to take it easier though. As a result, his company are allowing him to work part time from later this year, and are taking on someone at their head office to assist in the admin side of the job, which he hates and takes time away from allowing him to do what he enjoys and does best, which is making money for the business.
This is the behaviour of a normal firm, not out of sentimentality, but because it makes sound business sense to go out of your way to retain staff that are an asset to your business.
Any interview with any ex GW "names" that touches on the subject (I'm thinking specifically Juan Diaz, Alessio and RP that I've seen/read myself) doesn't require too deep a reading between the lines to see that it simply doesn't seem to be that way at GW.
This is simply poor practice, but then it doesn't take too much imagination to see creatives as the grist to the GW money mill, and there's no doubt a ready supply of naive, talented amateurs that are capable of doing "good enough."
cincydooley wrote: I was under the impression that many of them wanted to "do their own thing" and used that as a major reason they left GW?
Priestly with Anteres, etc. They wanted to have ownership of their own IP and thus branched out on their own?
I saw an interview with him on Beasts Of War's Turn 8, last year I think it was. Warren touched on 40K and GW and their current state, and the look that crossed his face said volumes. Obviously of no evidential value, as it was a live show and its not something you can quote, but I guarantee you that even if he did leave entirely of his own volition, at the very least he is pained by the current state of the game. I strongly suspect there is far more to it than that though, as one can see in this oft repeated quote
Rick Priestly wrote:
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!
Rick Priestly wrote:
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!
I guess my response to this is, yeah, well, of course. That "modern" GW studio also affords them a measure of stablility that a private studio wouldnt necessarily.
I totally get the desire to go off and do your own thing and be creative. I also totally get the appeal to be your own boss, especially when what you're able to do is becoming more restrictive.
I was just saying that it makes sense that a lot of people would come from GW (as they were 'first' and 'largest') and then branch off to do their own thing.
The studio has always been involved with the manufacturing/sales part of the business. Why is it suddenly a bad thing when he is not there?
I think his assertion is that the studio created in a vacuum, then the company sold what it made. Whereas nowadays it is, as you say, very much a cog in the money machine.
He doesn't qualify what sort of timescale he's referring to though, so he could be harking back to when it was essentially just a bunch of hobbyists sitting around making gak up and shaking their heads incredulously when they were successful.
@cincey
My argument is there doesn't appear to be any signs from GW of trying to persuade them to stay, offer them more creative freedom and the security of a regular wage, it makes it a much harder decision to leave, and just maybe you get the new Space Marines as a nice pay back for the effort.
I freely acknowledge that this could be happening behind closed doors, and people are leaving anyway, but my gut tells me that's not the case.
If you read some early interviews you can see how creative the studio used to be, they seem quite low on ideas now that aren't about selling big monsters to kids. That might be easy money but it's not creative, and that's what is lost in the studio.
No, everything about 40k and the imagery in it has barely changed, everything stands on the work of those early years. The new fluff in codices is often painful, just stories about over powered kewl characters doing silly things. The Grey Knoghts codex stands out here. In the 80s and 90s they produced loads of games and ranges of figures.
Now what? Most of what they make now is either just dull or rubbish for the same three games which are periodically rehashed to start a new codex cycle. Creativity is limited to big units designed to carry a large price tag, big Eldar robot, the Khornemower. Give me strength. GW offer high quality castings on poorly thought out or tedious releases. What happens when sales get mixed in with the studio is that sales dictate the studio - 'more of the same please, space marines, a flier and a big robot/walker for a MC base'. I exaggerate, but there's truth in this.
In the context of a pretty firmly established IP, I wonder how much room there really is for a lot of 'real' creativity. I mean, if you want to make new stuff for the Spesh Muhreens, it has to be within the context and confines of what already exists, right? I mean, you look in that other thread and people are absolutely balking at the idea of the PA marines with the Heavy Weapon suits, or whatever they're gonna be.
We see FW making some REALLY nice models, but they're really all just variances of what already exists, right? There's only so many ways to peel a potato.
Obviously, some of the Xenos races have a lot more room for that creative growth. I like the aesthetic of both of the new aspects GW has recently introduced (Shadow Specters in Mymeara and Crimson Hunters in 8E dex) and they still fit within the confines of the Eldar Race.
I think perhaps more could have been done with Tau, especially since they employ Mercs, but would people have derided it for added more aliens just for aliens sake?
Working within all those confines set by the very successful IP has to be pretty stifling for everyone involved, and I wonder if it isn't sort of the nature of the beast.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm not a huge fan of Choas, so the Khornemower doesn't do it for me, but I don't understand all the vitriol toward the poor Wraithknight. It's a great model, is decently priced for it's size (based on pricing of the competitions similarly sized products) and has a really solid backstory that makes it fit rather well within the Eldar aesthetic.
Howard A Treesong wrote: No, everything about 40k and the imagery in it has barely changed, everything stands on the work of those early years. The new fluff in codices is often painful, just stories about over powered kewl characters doing silly things. The Grey Knoghts codex stands out here. In the 80s and 90s they produced loads of games and ranges of figures.
And of course you would bring up the Grey Knights codex as a 'stand out', as though it proves some kind of point.
How about Space Wolves? Orks? Tyranids? Dark Eldar?
Every book has something over the top in it. It was not even limited to now that such was the case.
Now what? Most of what they make now is either just dull or rubbish for the same three games which are periodically rehashed to start a new codex cycle. Creativity is limited to big units designed to carry a large price tag, big Eldar robot, the Khornemower. Give me strength. GW offer high quality castings on poorly thought out or tedious releases. What happens when sales get mixed in with the studio is that sales dictate the studio - 'more of the same please, space marines, a flier and a big robot/walker for a MC base'. I exaggerate, but there's truth in this.
You most definitely are exaggerating the level of 'truth' in that statement.
Of course there is going to be creativity in a larger kit. There is more room for it.
How creative can you get with a new infantry unit? Or a tank?
Of course there is going to be creativity in a larger kit. There is more room for it.
How creative can you get with a new infantry unit? Or a tank?
That's one of the daftest questions I've seen apparently asked with a straight face on this board!
I think you're confusing "creativity" and "space"
I am not. I will admit that my wording could have been a bit better, but I am not referring to the physical space of the model but rather the 'room' for how you go about designing the kit itself.
With a larger kit there is more room for creativity in how the kit is designed, what the kit's design aesthetic will be, etc.
Infantry or tanks have to fit in with an established design aesthetic for the most part.
To give a good example? Look at the "Sisters of Avelorn" models for the High Elves.
The Sisters of Avelorn are a good example of a lack of creativity, not an example of creativity being limited by scale, which is a ludicrous assertion.
Kirby valued a yes-man attitude over skills and now he's got competitors flooded with highly skilled individuals that are looking to do something beyond what GW is interested in offering.
Brevity is not my strong suit. You have summed up my point perfectly.
azreal13 wrote: The Sisters of Avelorn are a good example of a lack of creativity, not an example of creativity being limited by scale, which is a ludicrous assertion.
If the company has come depend on 40K, and 40K cannot be creative, and creative new ideas are needed, they have painted themselves into a corner. Anything that puts a dent into 40K sales will be a problem.
I don't it's as bad as that, though, and I don't buy the idea that GW should stagnate because that's easier for big companies to do.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the company has come depend on 40K, and 40K cannot be creative, and creative new ideas are needed, they have painted themselves into a corner. Anything that puts a dent into 40K sales will be a problem.
Do they need to be THAT creative with 40k models though? I mean, there's plenty of creativity with 40k in the Black Library world. In regards to 40k, all they need to do is release a new tactical squad with options and upgrades like the Sanguinary Guard and they'd be fine.
I don't it's as bad as that, though, and I don't buy the idea that GW should stagnate because that's easier for big companies to do.
I think I mispoke. I didn't mean stagnation, I meant that it's simply harder to show large growth the larger you get without significant increases in volume. Again, it's much easier to show a 3% increase on $1MM than on $140MM.
azreal13 wrote: The Sisters of Avelorn are a good example of a lack of creativity, not an example of creativity being limited by scale, which is a ludicrous assertion.
How is it a ludicrous assertion?
Please. Enlighten me.
Because creativity is an abstract, it is a catch all term for an individuals ability to think of new things and develop new ideas. To somehow try and suggest that it is somehow possible to be less creative because you're trying to think of something small is just silly.
If I may attempt to put words in your mouth, do you perhaps mean that it is harder to express ideas on smaller models, because of a lack of space, limitations of scale and technology?
That I would agree with, but to say you can't be as creative on smaller models just isn't right.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the company has come depend on 40K, and 40K cannot be creative, and creative new ideas are needed, they have painted themselves into a corner. Anything that puts a dent into 40K sales will be a problem.
Do they need to be THAT creative with 40k models though? I mean, there's plenty of creativity with 40k in the Black Library world. In regards to 40k, all they need to do is release a new tactical squad with options and upgrades like the Sanguinary Guard and they'd be fine.
I don't it's as bad as that, though, and I don't buy the idea that GW should stagnate because that's easier for big companies to do.
I think I mispoke. I didn't mean stagnation, I meant that it's simply harder to show large growth the larger you get without significant increases in volume. Again, it's much easier to show a 3% increase on $1MM than on $140MM.
That's true in one sense, however bigger firms have more resources to invest in new products.
I don't think GW can be very creative with core 40K but they could certainly produce other new games like they used to. These could be based in the 40K universe, or standalone titles, or completely new IP.
azreal13 wrote: The Sisters of Avelorn are a good example of a lack of creativity, not an example of creativity being limited by scale, which is a ludicrous assertion.
How is it a ludicrous assertion?
Please. Enlighten me.
Because creativity is an abstract, it is a catch all term for an individuals ability to think of new things and develop new ideas. To somehow try and suggest that it is somehow possible to be less creative because you're trying to think of something small is just silly.
If I may attempt to put words in your mouth, do you perhaps mean that it is harder to express ideas on smaller models, because of a lack of space, limitations of scale and technology?
No. I do not mean that at all.
That I would agree with, but to say you can't be as creative on smaller models just isn't right.
And yet you made my case for me with the example of the Sisters of Avelorn.
How creative can you be when limited to creating a new type of infantry for an established army?
I don't think GW can be very creative with core 40K but they could certainly produce other new games like they used to. These could be based in the 40K universe, or standalone titles, or completely new IP.
I don't disagree at all. But they seem to be choosing to do that via the licensing to FFG and these one off games.
And sadly, I think the poor reception of Dreadfleet is going to make more "original games" even more unlikely.
azreal13 wrote: The Sisters of Avelorn are a good example of a lack of creativity, not an example of creativity being limited by scale, which is a ludicrous assertion.
How is it a ludicrous assertion?
Please. Enlighten me.
Because creativity is an abstract, it is a catch all term for an individuals ability to think of new things and develop new ideas. To somehow try and suggest that it is somehow possible to be less creative because you're trying to think of something small is just silly.
If I may attempt to put words in your mouth, do you perhaps mean that it is harder to express ideas on smaller models, because of a lack of space, limitations of scale and technology?
No. I do not mean that at all.
That I would agree with, but to say you can't be as creative on smaller models just isn't right.
And yet you made my case for me with the example of the Sisters of Avelorn.
How creative can you be when limited to creating a new type of infantry for an established army?
Infinitely, that's the point of imagination.
Why does that only apply to infantry when all armies have an established aesthetic?
See again Sisters of Avelorn, Demigryphon Cavalry, Deathmarks, or any number of infantry types introduced within the past few years.
Hell you can look at the reaction that the supposed "Centurions" for the new Space Marines codex are getting right now for a good example of this. Something which was considered "cool" when the concept sketches first showed up in 2004 is now being decried as "stupid" or "silly" without anyone actually having seen the execution.
It certainly does not apply to infantry alone, but infantry are the most affected by it. Creating new types of infantry or new types of weapons for infantry have a very obvious reaction from the fanbase that new vehicles and things larger than vehicles/monsters do not receive.
Admittedly new vehicles/monsters get a similar reaction but the division between reactions is seemingly more polarized.
If they've run out of innovative things to do with existing armies, then there's nothing stopping them adding in new races, either entirely or via mercenaries. Since I've started they've introduced Grey Knights, Necrons and Tau. I'm sure there are entirely new races they can manage to fit in.
Not that they should be running out of design steam entirely, there should be almost infinite scope of new Orc clans (going back to the old days with Bad Moonz and Red Sunz and the like) or Imperial Guard regiments (there must be plenty in the fluff that aren't currently covered. They could certainly rehash the Vostroyans, Tallarns, Valhallans), which would boost their range without having to contradict the existing fluff.
It seems that they're taking the cynical approach by giving everyone a giant walker kit. But there's no reason they should be at all limited in terms of creativity, since they are working in such an expansive universe, with dozens of books of existing inspiration and plenty of opportunity to introduce almost anything they want.
Not to mention the fact there's nothing stopping them expanding into new genres entirely. Creating new games, new universes, etc.
See again Sisters of Avelorn, Demigryphon Cavalry, Deathmarks, or any number of infantry types introduced within the past few years.
Hell you can look at the reaction that the supposed "Centurions" for the new Space Marines codex are getting right now for a good example of this. Something which was considered "cool" when the concept sketches first showed up in 2004 is now being decried as "stupid" or "silly" without anyone actually having seen the execution.
It certainly does not apply to infantry alone, but infantry are the most affected by it. Creating new types of infantry or new types of weapons for infantry have a very obvious reaction from the fanbase that new vehicles and things larger than vehicles/monsters do not receive.
Admittedly new vehicles/monsters get a similar reaction but the division between reactions is seemingly more polarized.
Its squeeky wheel syndrome. People who don't like something are more likely to say something than people who do like something. Same goes for GW's financials - the haters are going to hate. Don't believe me, check back at last year's thread about the same topic, better yet check back on the last 5 or 6 years. You'll see that GW was predicted to die in the early 2000's by 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and again in 2013. For some reason its just not dying and appears to be doing fine. Personally, I try and practice what I was taught in preschool and K - "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". I'm not going to say I abide by it 100% but I sure as heck try to.
I implore the Dakka users that if they want to actually make an impact on how GW is run, buy some stock. If 25,000 people bought a hundred shares you could have the Dakka representative sitting on their board. With that number of shares, you would be pretty close to equal with Kirby in terms of support by the number of shares. I will kick my votes into this group if you can get it going. If not, I will continue to vote to let Kirby pay me some dividends which I in turn use to buy more stock.
boyd wrote: If 25,000 people bought a hundred shares you could have the Dakka representative sitting on their board. With that number of shares, you would be pretty close to equal with Kirby in terms of support by the number of shares. I will kick my votes into this group if you can get it going. If not, I will continue to vote to let Kirby pay me some dividends which I in turn use to buy more stock.
So if we can get 1/3rd of all registered users (not current users, everyone that's ever registered) to invest 789 Pounds (so a bit over 1000USD) into GW, well, yeah... we could certainly do a lot of things. That's some pretty serious wish-listing though.
I think I mispoke. I didn't mean stagnation, I meant that it's simply harder to show large growth the larger you get without significant increases in volume. Again, it's much easier to show a 3% increase on $1MM than on $140MM.
That's true in one sense, however bigger firms have more resources to invest in new products.
And here's the crux of the issue. I've bolded the important part.
GW has their in house tooling and in house production and studio and they're working at something near capacity. GW had loads of cash to invest into new products. But they didn't. Instead, they paid it all out to shareholders as dividends and then also went into the previous years cash reserves and paid that out as well.
You can grow a big company just fine (and GW is not a big company) but you have to reinvest. What Cincy is saying about it being easier for the little guys to grow is true only so far as the larger company does not reinvest. An established company has distribution channels, an existing customer base and a variety of other factors that would make an effort to grow easier, not harder. Being the little guy trying to break into the industry is way harder than leveraging your existing position to grow your business.
GW won't spend a dime to do it. Not a single part of their operation is apparently worth the reinvestment. Instead, it's slash costs more and more and pay out an overly large dividend.
Its squeeky wheel syndrome. People who don't like something are more likely to say something than people who do like something.
This is also why GW's reliance on word of mouth and their disregard for customer retention is a really bad idea. GW now has an army of ex-customers poo-poo-ing what they do. And they created this anti-marketing force they now have to struggle against.
I think the "painted themselves into a corner" metaphor is really apropos for the state of the company. They have actively limited themselves to three core game lines, a hobby line, a publishing line and a boutique line. Two of these core game lines and arguably the third are in sales decline. While they are innovating at FW and BL, the company is not innovating as an aggregate. They have 30K, but there is no real innovation that will grow the company in the foreseeable future. (Anecdotally, my friends aren't buying 40k they are buying 30k only and FW goodies.) My guess is that 30k is a 40k cannibal.
This is where I would be concerned as a shareholder and a GW fan. There is nothing in the pipe that says, "We want to grow." Be as creative as you want in a given product line, but you need truly new products. Why Games Workshop didn't reboot Specialist Games with some new IP board games or whatnot is beyond me. The number of independent designers and artists who are doing cool new things is legion. Buy Plaidhat Games or CoolMIniorNot or something, anything! They have the cash to buy a smaller designer and the physical presence in brick and mortar to actually get games into people's hands, and the infrastructure to publish games. How about some new board games that aren't core IP related? How about getting people excited about something that isn't 40k? The tragedy is that a company that has historically had so much creativity currently has so little imagination. A game company with no apparent desire to make exciting new games is silly. White Dwarf hyperbole can't convince me otherwise. What a waste...
Actually buying up the competition might actually be a better investment of their money than using it in house. Clearly there is nothing upper management feels is worth the reinvestment in house, so maybe they should look outside.
Except I have a feeling most of the competition is not for sale. Remember, even a publicly traded company isn't automatically available to buy entirely and most of these companies are neither publicly traded nor in financial trouble (at all, even).
So no, that's not on the table even if GW management would feel like it.
Besides, even if they did, buying these companies wouldn't just remove the problem: the market is there, there's demand for certain lines at certain price points and if one provider in that niche is taken out, the next one will simply get some slots with decent sculptors, set up a KS and go.
Remember, most production facilities are either garage-level (metal and resin casting, by and large) or outsourced to companies probably several times bigger than GW (the plastics, both styrene and pvc) so that would be such a temporary respite it wouldn't come close to being worth the cost to just to buy those.
Buy those companies and continue their business practices unchanged? GW would be better off setting up similar lines themselves but since that would involve way cheaper models and skirmish games using not nearly as many models as their business model would call for, none of this would ever, ever happen.
You'd be surprised what's for sale when you make an offer. Big companies have a long, long history of buying out smaller ones, whether there's a stock market involved or not. You go meet with the owner and talk.
My only point was that GW seems to have nothing to do with the money they are making. It's great to distribute some money as dividends so the owners get paid, but never at the expense of capital reinvestment.
And there in lies the problem. Concentrating one's business model to the degree that GW has is a long-term value problem.
As for companies not being for sale? Every company is for sale...every company. The reason you start a company may be passion and all of that other stuff, but in the end a company exists to make money. Selling a company you successfully build for more than it's worth can be one of the great moments of being an entrepreneur. And if you have faith in yourself and your ideas, a great entrepreneur can do it again.
Bringing smaller studios under your roof is a strategy that software companies have used forever. You are buying talent. This is what was so irking about Kirby's statement. He stated the following:
"Risks
People
Our biggest risk is the people we employ.
The potential damage to the Group is enormous.
We mitigate this risk through internal recruitment and using our Academy to educate and train and ensure we recruit well."
Creativity is limited only by one's willingness to be creative. As this quote implies, GW doesn't want to be creative. Purchasing a smaller studio and taking a creative risk could do wonders for this company. This reports says effectively, "We don't need to be creative." For a game company that is a real problem.
Funny, I've seen (and heard of) enough guys refuse ridiculously high offers because the company was earning more than enough for them to live comfortably (and then some) and they loved doing what they did there.
Might be an issue of different continents, though, But no, certainly not every company is for sale. There's a surprisingly large group of folks who don't give a damn about more money once they have enough of it
Bolognesus wrote: But no, certainly not every company is for sale. There's a surprisingly large group of folks who don't give a damn about more money once they have enough of it
Every public company is for sale. Once you go public, you are for sale.
YakManDoo wrote: Bringing smaller studios under your roof is a strategy that software companies have used forever. You are buying talent.
Exactly. And established talent with a track record at that.
Kirby wrote:Our biggest risk is the people we employ. The potential damage to the Group is enormous."
I can't imagine working at a company where I was seen as the enemy. Where those above me are afraid of what I might do to the point that they claim it is the biggest risk their business has.
What a nightmare.
No wonder there is no room for creativity. That would be potentially damaging to the Group!
YakManDoo wrote: Creativity is limited only by one's willingness to be creative. As this quote implies, GW doesn't want to be creative. Purchasing a smaller studio and taking a creative risk could do wonders for this company. This reports says effectively, "We don't need to be creative." For a game company that is a real problem.
No creativity, no reinvestment into their own business. I guess that leaves doubling down on the yes-man culture, raising prices on new releases and cutting costs wherever and whenever possible. And then paying out every ounce of cash as dividends to keep the investors happy and to fund Kirby's retirement.
Given Kirby's wealth and how the current arrangement benefits him so much, things won't change from that plan until he's retired. And then the ingrained yes-man culture might make change really, really hard even after he's gone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bolognesus wrote: Might be an issue of different continents, though, But no, certainly not every company is for sale. There's a surprisingly large group of folks who don't give a damn about more money once they have enough of it
That's why you talk with them and find out. You approach the owner and express interest and attempt to start negotiations. If they say no, then it's exactly the same as if you never approached them at all: no loss. And it actually can be beneficial once word gets out that you are looking to acquire talent, even if many people are not interested. You might get contacted by an owner who you thought would never sell. The general market participants would see your company as expanding and acquiring new divisions. You can become a growth story on the stock market again.
Bolognesus wrote: Funny, I've seen (and heard of) enough guys refuse ridiculously high offers because the company was earning more than enough for them to live comfortably (and then some) and they loved doing what they did there.
Might be an issue of different continents, though, But no, certainly not every company is for sale. There's a surprisingly large group of folks who don't give a damn about more money once they have enough of it
This is a great point! Sorry, I get so American capitalist in these conversations. Most of the folks I've met who build businesses build them and when the offer is right they sell, then they go off to do it again. Entrepreneurial addiction maybe?
It's true that not every company is for sale. Just as its true that there are no absolutes. The price could be totally right, but the terms of the sale might not be worthwhile. Such as not entering the market for 5 years or firing a portion of the staff as they are redundant. I know I've turned down a couple offers on my company this past year for similar reasons. Although, given the "right" offer I would sell.
That said, I think the worst thing GW could do right now is buy up the competition. Competition is a healthy thing. GW essentially had very little of that for too long, now that its here expect them to lose a bit of market share then rethink their strategy. That's just the way I works. Market dominators always grow complacent until the little guys innovate and make headway. The dominator then begins to innovate themselves by changing price models and products.
So I'm glad GW's financials are "ok". I'm equally glad the competition is making at least some headway. Because in the end we, as gamers, will win.
clively wrote: That said, I think the worst thing GW could do right now is buy up the competition. Competition is a healthy thing. GW essentially had very little of that for too long, now that its here expect them to lose a bit of market share then rethink their strategy. That's just the way I works. Market dominators always grow complacent until the little guys innovate and make headway. The dominator then begins to innovate themselves by changing price models and products.
So I'm glad GW's financials are "ok". I'm equally glad the competition is making at least some headway. Because in the end we, as gamers, will win.
I think there are a couple of things here with regards to the annual report that are important to consider.
1. GW buying up a competitor/small independent studio would be good for them potentially, but maybe not for us the consumer.
2. Competition is a healthy thing unless you are the one with whom they are competing.
3. Dominators don't necessarily ever innovate.
1. We might lament this, but bringing in a fresh creative direction for a creative industry might be really good for GW. However, Kirby has said that won't be happen, because in a nutshell, "We are GW. No one in the industry is as big as us, therefore we are the only ones who know how to do miniatures at this scale of production." He may have a point, but this kind of closed-mindedness at the top of management is something that kills companies. Never poo-poo the locals, but never assume you have all of the knowledge in the world to do what you do. There's always a different way that can be good for you.
2. Competition...some companies (Microsoft being chief in my mind.) keeps chugging along while trying to deal with competition. Their internal culture won't let them compete and whenever it does, it just reinforces their awful culture. They make plenty of money that Ballmer seems to never be in danger of being unseated, and yet they fail to innovate and grow new product lines. Arguably this is because their culture won't let them. (I think this annual report is indicative of an analog culture of stagnation.)
3. See 2. Some companies are incapable of innovation even as they are the biggest movers in a given industry.
This annual report isn't so much a "death knell" as it is for me a "head scratch." I can't understand an upper management team this lazy. I've seen it before, but it always confounds me. You live in an adversarial relationship with your employees? You settle for inflation-matching grow? Your brick-and-mortar presence is stagnant and you blame the rent prices? (Rent prices in commercial real estate are high when an area commands a certain price. That means that if the rent is high it's because the retail market generally determines the space better for retail (traffic patterns of both feet, cars and public.) If your customer is middle class, then you need to be in commercial areas they frequent. Sitting next to a Gap in the new outdoor mall in the yuppie part of town costs money, but your principal consumer spends GW money!!! JEepers...)
There is so much off in this report... GW isn't going anywhere, but who would want to work for such a passion-less management team?
GW is Kirby's personal cash machine. Everything GW does makes so much more sense when you understand that the company is run for his benefit and not for the hobbyist or customer. Usually companies have a very strong value proposition for their customers, whereas GW is all about getting as much money from each customer as possible before they quit and are replaced by the next one recruited through the demo sales process or by a well meaning friend telling them about 40k.
Kirby even sees his own staff as a threat to his designs. In fact, he calls them the greatest risk to the company. The company isn't being run for the benefit of the hobbyist. Certainly not the employees who depend on it for their livelyhood. It's being run for the benefit of one man. To maximize every bit of money he can extract, even to the point of borrowing money to pay dividends like he has in the past, or this year, dipping into previous year's cash reserves.
Achaylus72 wrote: Kirby and his ilk don't realise the most fundamental precept in Business. Without customers buying product the company goes bust, it is that simple.
That's wildly inaccurate. Of course they realise this, I'm fairly sure I could outline the basic principles to my dog and she'd understand it.
The issue here is they aren't concerned with retention of business. Their whole model is based on inducting new customers, getting the initial purchase from them and then anything else is a bonus. The irritating thing is that seems to have worked for some time, but the data could suggest that we're over the hump on that particular approach.
If they have indeed made their hay, and now the skies are clouding over, if they really know their stuff, we may see a shift in focus to a different approach in the next year or two.
azreal13 wrote: Their whole model is based on inducting new customers, getting the initial purchase from them and then anything else is a bonus.
Are we talking about the same GW with no advertising at all and a 125$ Hobbit starter box?
This doubling of prices strategy will only work another 2-3 years, until Kirby leaves the company. Coincidence?
Kanluwen wrote: Of course there is going to be creativity in a larger kit. There is more room for it.
How creative can you get with a new infantry unit? Or a tank?
I see no logical reason why creating a human sized model does not need creativity. Or less than creating a tank.
Even GW showed it with the Dark Eldar revamp.
If you are out of creativity, it doesn't matter whether you sculpt a mutilator or a Bulldozer of Hell.
azreal13 wrote: Their whole model is based on inducting new customers, getting the initial purchase from them and then anything else is a bonus.
Are we talking about the same GW with no advertising at all and a 125$ Hobbit starter box?
This doubling of prices strategy will only work another 2-3 years, until Kirby leaves the company. Coincidence?
No, saying "no advertising" is a misnomer. Their high street shops are their advertising, which are a perfect fit as they can pounce on unwary shops that wander in.
It's not good advertising, but it isn't no advertising.
azreal13 wrote: No, saying "no advertising" is a misnomer. Their high street shops are their advertising, which are a perfect fit as they can pounce on unwary shops that wander in.
It's not good advertising, but it isn't no advertising.
Ever been to USA or "the continent", trying to find a high street presence of GW there?
China has 2 shops currently
azreal13 wrote: Their whole model is based on inducting new customers, getting the initial purchase from them and then anything else is a bonus.
Are we talking about the same GW with no advertising at all and a 125$ Hobbit starter box?
This doubling of prices strategy will only work another 2-3 years, until Kirby leaves the company. Coincidence?
No, saying "no advertising" is a misnomer. Their high street shops are their advertising, which are a perfect fit as they can pounce on unwary shops that wander in.
It's not good advertising, but it isn't no advertising.
azreal13 wrote: Their whole model is based on inducting new customers, getting the initial purchase from them and then anything else is a bonus.
Are we talking about the same GW with no advertising at all and a 125$ Hobbit starter box?
This doubling of prices strategy will only work another 2-3 years, until Kirby leaves the company. Coincidence?
No, saying "no advertising" is a misnomer. Their high street shops are their advertising, which are a perfect fit as they can pounce on unwary shops that wander in.
It's not good advertising, but it isn't no advertising.
azreal13 wrote: No, saying "no advertising" is a misnomer. Their high street shops are their advertising, which are a perfect fit as they can pounce on unwary shops that wander in.
It's not good advertising, but it isn't no advertising.
Ever been to USA or "the continent", trying to find a high street presence of GW there?
China has 2 shops currently
They're a UK company, they are apparently decidedly UK focused, look at RoW pricing!
azreal13 wrote: They're a UK company, they are apparently decidedly UK focused, look at RoW pricing!
And this is why GW's management are incompetent idiots. If you're getting huge percentages of your sales from other countries you don't just blindly assume that the same strategy works everywhere, you find someone who understands each different market and run them independently. But apparently GW would rather keep pushing ahead with empty retail stores in the middle of nowhere as their only 'advertising' because that's what works in the UK.
frozenwastes wrote:GW is Kirby's personal cash machine. Everything GW does makes so much more sense when you understand that the company is run for his benefit and not for the hobbyist or customer. Usually companies have a very strong value proposition for their customers, whereas GW is all about getting as much money from each customer as possible before they quit and are replaced by the next one recruited through the demo sales process or by a well meaning friend telling them about 40k.
azreal13 wrote:
The issue here is they aren't concerned with retention of business. Their whole model is based on inducting new customers, getting the initial purchase from them and then anything else is a bonus.
Peregrine wrote:
And this is why GW's management are incompetent idiots.
...to me it really looks more like the idiots are the ones who are supporting this flawed business model - the customers. Is the IP really that addictive?! Because there are far better designed and playtested rulesets out there, there are better and cheaper models out there, and there are more player friendly companies out there - so that only leaves the IP.
Certainly, anyone who criticises GW's behaviour while continuing to chuck money their way is hypocritical to some extent. Personally, I've never boycotted them, why should I when I still enjoy a game? But I do make very different buying decisions now on where I buy a much larger percentage of my models and paint, and have branched out into non GW games.
All I can speculate is there are still enough people plugged into their particular Matrix who aren't aware of what choice is available these days, or others who simply don't care/have enough impulse control to put their money where their mouth is.
I will buy the new SM book, I will buy some of the new kits (from a discounter) if I like them, and I honestly don't see me spending any more cash with GW until 7th hits.
Another thing is that GW's soft styrene plastic kits are fun to put together. While other companies like Dreamforge, Perry, Warlord, Fireforge (and many others) also offer kits in that material, not everyone knows about them. And other than Dreamforge and maybe Mantic, there's not a lot of sci-fi stuff available in a soft, easy to work with styrene.
And by soft, I mean compared to the hard styrene you'll find in a lot of injection moulded historical model kits or perhaps gundam kits.
God, I love Perry Plastic kits. I don't even play historical wargames, but Perry kits are just top notch. Perfect for conversions, excellent prices, good selection of bits and options...anyway, yes, I agree about the material.
However, use of that material is democratizing quickly. The world is changing! Of course, if I was making more than a million dollars in dividend payments every year, would I want to rock the boat, especially if that boat was full of sycophantic yes men and my position was unalterably secure?
...to me it really looks more like the idiots are the ones who are supporting this flawed business model - the customers.
Careful there...
... Is the IP really that addictive?! Because there are far better designed and playtested rulesets out there, there are better and cheaper models out there, and there are more player friendly companies out there - so that only leaves the IP.
Yep, pretty much. That's what happens when you have 25 years of history and an incredibly productive publishing arm.
As much as it pains me to have to be the one to point it out, the threads hit the limit I think (all we're missing is the ward references in terms of the same old arguments). Like it or not, whether or not you think "They'll go out of business soon" or "kirby will spend another year or two lining is pockets and then gut the place", well those same sentiments crop up every 6 months, and they're around to say. Complain about "lack of growth" or not if you want, but the bottom line is they can sell their product in sufficient numbers to scrape by, and likely will do till we're all teaching our kids/grandkids to roll dice. Carrying onthe same old arguments like that is like saying "this next government will be 100% more trustworthy than the current one once they get ran out."
azreal13 wrote: They're a UK company, they are apparently decidedly UK focused, look at RoW pricing!
And this is why GW's management are incompetent idiots. If you're getting huge percentages of your sales from other countries you don't just blindly assume that the same strategy works everywhere, you find someone who understands each different market and run them independently. But apparently GW would rather keep pushing ahead with empty retail stores in the middle of nowhere as their only 'advertising' because that's what works in the UK.
Strange it seems to be working in the US though. They are increasing sales in the US and the number of stores year on year.
This follows GWs change of tack in the US a few years ago.
It seem they have a plan for the US that works.
So be a dear and keep buying the Exchequer needs a new Rolex.
My sense where this annual report is different is in the "employees as risk" language. Whatever guesses the community was making regarding the secret lives of Kirby, this report most explicitly describes the GW culture as many have imagined it: an inflexible and myopic executive team of "smartest men in the room."
Another piece I've found interesting is how weak the brick and mortar side of their business really seems to be along with their inability to find a formula that works in their physical stores.
I don't think they are going to die anytime soon, but I'm curious to see how "loose lips" Kirby starts getting in these reports. It's just a fascinating spectator sport. I'd love to see an MBA case study on this company.
I also found the open bashing of GW employees ("we hire them for attitude, not for skills") and 40kRPG licensees ("who heard about RPGs ... FFG is good at card and board games") surprisingly honest and dumb at the same time. But Kirby is in a position where he can insult his minions without any negative consequences.
doc1234 wrote: As much as it pains me to have to be the one to point it out, the threads hit the limit I think (all we're missing is the ward references in terms of the same old arguments). Like it or not, whether or not you think "They'll go out of business soon" or "kirby will spend another year or two lining is pockets and then gut the place", well those same sentiments crop up every 6 months...
Stop making caricatures of people's positions. No one is saying they'll go out of business soon or that Kirby will only continue with what he's doing for another couple years.
And it doesn't matter if you don't find the discussion interesting. That the beauty of Dakka Dakka-- not everyone has to participate in every thread if they're not interested. Some of us are interested in an ongoing discussion and have had our opinions changed dramatically year-in-year-out. The near total lack of predictions of GW's demise should be a pretty clear sign of this.
I think I mispoke. I didn't mean stagnation, I meant that it's simply harder to show large growth the larger you get without significant increases in volume. Again, it's much easier to show a 3% increase on $1MM than on $140MM.
That's true in one sense, however bigger firms have more resources to invest in new products.
And here's the crux of the issue. I've bolded the important part.
GW has their in house tooling and in house production and studio and they're working at something near capacity. GW had loads of cash to invest into new products. But they didn't. Instead, they paid it all out to shareholders as dividends and then also went into the previous years cash reserves and paid that out as well.
You can grow a big company just fine (and GW is not a big company) but you have to reinvest. What Cincy is saying about it being easier for the little guys to grow is true only so far as the larger company does not reinvest. An established company has distribution channels, an existing customer base and a variety of other factors that would make an effort to grow easier, not harder. Being the little guy trying to break into the industry is way harder than leveraging your existing position to grow your business.
GW won't spend a dime to do it. Not a single part of their operation is apparently worth the reinvestment. Instead, it's slash costs more and more and pay out an overly large dividend.
Its squeeky wheel syndrome. People who don't like something are more likely to say something than people who do like something.
This is also why GW's reliance on word of mouth and their disregard for customer retention is a really bad idea. GW now has an army of ex-customers poo-poo-ing what they do. And they created this anti-marketing force they now have to struggle against.
Customer retention and good will is so important.
First, just because they are larger doesn't mean they have more to invest. Most companies want to reinvest in their facilities. Better facilities usually means better models. GW is already on top when it comes to facilities. That is what separates them from PP and the rest. PP has some good models but they are in no way able to match the customization GW provides. When PP gets to that point where you can easily conver their models without hacking them to pieces and green stuffing the model they will be on par in terms of making models. That is GW's major strength compared to the other miniature companies. You as a customer can make your little toy soldier look different from everyone elses. Heck you can even buy other models and kit bash your own to make them even more unique. You can even go out and buy bits from FW to further that effort.
Also most small businesses tend to pay their owners heavily. Whether you're a sole proprietor or small public company, unless you've got something specific to invest in paying your owners typically is what they are looking for. Kirby is one of the largest investors but he couldn't make them pay dividends if the other investors didn't want them too. So if he gets $1MM in dividends, where did the other $19MM in dividends go? He only own 4-5% of the Company and cannot get the company to pay dividends single handedly. Besides the Company is not a growth stock. If thats what you're looking for you're a poor investor as this Company steadily pays dividends and pretty high dividends as well. Thats what you're buying, not that the potential share price will take off.
As far as an "army of ex-customers" if you're that jaded with the hobby, why haven't you moved on to a new one? I used to play M:TG back in middle school some 17 years ago - I have no desire to bash that game. I had fun but grew up and moved on. It was fun while it lasted and that was it. I wouldn't say anything positive or negative about it because I don't care. Why would you carry such a grudge? I would move on to greener pastures and not give it another thought. Good reviews and bad reviews are always news - I would be more worried if there were no reviews. Nobody caring would speak louder than the nay sayers.
First, just because they are larger doesn't mean they have more to invest. Most companies want to reinvest in their facilities. Better facilities usually means better models. GW is already on top when it comes to facilities. That is what separates them from PP and the rest. PP has some good models but they are in no way able to match the customization GW provides. When PP gets to that point where you can easily conver their models without hacking them to pieces and green stuffing the model they will be on par in terms of making models. That is GW's major strength compared to the other miniature companies. You as a customer can make your little toy soldier look different from everyone elses. Heck you can even buy other models and kit bash your own to make them even more unique. You can even go out and buy bits from FW to further that effort.
They used cash reserves to enhance their dividend. They literally had money lying around doing nothing. At the recent "meet the studio" event it was alluded to that the reasons SoB had been so long delayed is the GW doesn't have the gear to produce the plastics as designed. The studio wants that gear, but has as yet not got their way.
Also most small businesses tend to pay their owners heavily. Whether you're a sole proprietor or small public company, unless you've got something specific to invest in paying your owners typically is what they are looking for.
No they don't, as a small business owner, you're last on the food chain, after your suppliers, services, staff, taxes etc. at least if you want to survive that's how it's done. Yes, ultimately they can yield great personal reward, but that's a long way down the road, and many don't make it. There's no such thing as a "small" PLC, just some are less big than others.
Kirby is one of the largest investors but he couldn't make them pay dividends if the other investors didn't want them to.
Yeah, because we all know how responsible the investment sector is when it comes to earning money.
Besides the Company is not a growth stock. If thats what you're looking for you're a poor investor as this Company steadily pays dividends and pretty high dividends as well. Thats what you're buying, not that the potential share price will take off.
Actually, those defending GW often quote that their share price has been out performing the share market, so they probably are a good medium term bet for growth. They're obviously not penny shares, and they're not really blue chip either, but historically they are pretty sound bet, the issue of sustainability is the most important here for any potential investor.
As far as an "army of ex-customers" if you're that jaded with the hobby, why haven't you moved on to a new one? I used to play M:TG back in middle school some 17 years ago - I have no desire to bash that game. I had fun but grew up and moved on. It was fun while it lasted and that was it. I wouldn't say anything positive or negative about it because I don't care. Why would you carry such a grudge? I would move on to greener pastures and not give it another thought. Good reviews and bad reviews are always news - I would be more worried if there were no reviews. Nobody caring would speak louder than the nay sayers.
Well, you're clearly not a "jaded" Ex Magic customer then are you? You left for your own reasons. People have said they've left GW behind because they felt forced to, either because of price, or frustration with poor gameplay. It's this sort of feeling forced away that breeds the resentment. Many of these players have moved on, because GW isn't tabletop wargaming, and now play other systems. Hence so many other companies seem to be growing exponentially.
First, just because they are larger doesn't mean they have more to invest.
£18.4 million. That's $28.51 million USD. Can you name me another miniatures company with that much surplus cash in the last year?
Most companies want to reinvest in their facilities. Better facilities usually means better models. GW is already on top when it comes to facilities.
Tau shortages and a slashed production staff lead me to believe that they are operating with as low of production costs as possible. They can always invest in another tooling machine and another injection moulding machine, a few employees and a designer and start adding new kits to their offerings. There is always something to invest in if you think you can make money doing so. Apparently GW does not think they can, or they would.
Besides the Company is not a growth stock. If thats what you're looking for you're a poor investor as this Company steadily pays dividends and pretty high dividends as well. Thats what you're buying, not that the potential share price will take off.
You need to go back and read previous year's reports touting the future growth of GW. Maybe Kirby has wised up and realized that you are right, but maybe he still thinks GW is a growth story.
And what's with the "you are a poor investor" crap? Don't be rude.
As far as an "army of ex-customers" if you're that jaded with the hobby, why haven't you moved on to a new one?
And now I'm jaded as well. And the usual "if you don't like it you should quit!" nonsense.
Could it be possible that I see something enjoyable and valuable in the 40k universe? That I wish GW would offer a miniatures game set in that universe that I'd like to play? That I do play the 40kRPGs?
You don't know me, so you should probably raise the level of your discourse a bit and stop being rude.
cincydooley wrote: To be fair, GW has been reinvesting in the company by hiring quite a few more folks to the design team lately.
Yes. That is true. I'm not saying it's no reinvesment, but shockingly little compared to the dividend payout rate. Dividends are a priority for GW over reinvestment.
"With capital investment we normally assume we will spend next year roughly what we spent last year. This year we spent £8.8 million and
next year we think it may be £9.3 million. Take this number with a pinch of salt and remember that, as von Moltke said, ‘No plan survives
contact with the enemy’. We do not see a big increase in that number in the next few years. If something crops up, we’ll tell you.
With overheads we try to have them not grow at all. Easy to say. Hard to do.
We do not set sales targets. We do want real sales growth (defined as an increase after our price rises, if any), the more the better, but we
do not predict it. We follow the plan: more stores run by the right people and great products in them should yield sales growth. Our staff
are rewarded if they achieve real growth.
In our own stores, after sales, we look at the average transaction value and the transaction count in each store. We use them to see where
the problem lies if sales are not growing. We do not publish them and we do not use them in our forward planning.
So...yes, I'm picking out pieces of the report, but again in the name of watching this mess...
1. When is capital investment not capital investment? When it's an inflation adjusted number. I'm not sure it's investment Tom, I think what you got there is the cost of doing business buddy. Many will disagree but...I find that number and the idea intriguing. In my world, capital investment isn't stable. It's the result of a plan that sees increases when we want to grow the business along a set of strategic objectives or introduce a new product line. Some years it's high as we invest in an initiative and then it fades until the next strategic push.
2. Overhead always grows Tom...you can't stop overhead if your employees like to be warm at work or enjoy using flush toilets. Candles might be a good way of keeping this in check Ebenezer.
3. And my mack daddy Annual Report pick of the day, "We do not set sales targets." WTF. They want real sales growth, but they don't predict it? MEaning...there is none. How can a retail business not or worse not want to try to predict sales growth? I'm way out of my professional expertise here, so someone help, but holy heck Batman!
We do not set sales targets. We do want real sales growth (defined as an increase after our price rises, if any), the more the better, but we
do not predict it.
Yeah, that's...pretty unbelievable.
I've never worked at a company that didn't predict sales, growth, have a forecast etc.
I do like the bit about maybe there wouldn't be a price rise... ha!
GW can easily afford to invest in the design studio putting out new concepts. Obviously it costs a lot of money to turn an idea into a boxed product on hundreds of shelves, but they do that with Space Marines, etc, only saving the initial cost of thinking it up. I reckon they would do better to make some new games rather than just recycling old ideas, and it would be a lot more interesting for players.
If you guys have time, you have to read the "Corporate Governance Report" on page 13.
So GW is actively in violation of UK Corporate Governance Code 2010 of their own admission. Kirby can't be chair and CEO at the same time according to the code. In addition to the top level governance there are two independent directors that sort through these matters with kirby and the Board. They both have 9 year term limits that the Board is ignoring in violation of either the UK Code 2010 or their own internal governance. The report then only names one of them as a CJ Myatt.
Interesting read. There really does appear to be a completely isolated leadership team among Kirby and these other two guys...fascinating.
3. And my mack daddy Annual Report pick of the day, "We do not set sales targets." WTF. They want real sales growth, but they don't predict it? MEaning...there is none. How can a retail business not or worse not want to try to predict sales growth? I'm way out of my professional expertise here, so someone help, but holy heck Batman!
Don't they (GW) routinely let store managers go if they don't achieve a certain level of sales every month?
notprop wrote: Strange it seems to be working in the US though. They are increasing sales in the US and the number of stores year on year.
Sales are up but only by small amounts, after significant price increases. And increasing the number of stores doesn't mean things are improving, it just means there are more stores. Consider my area (Raleigh/Durham NC), where a store opened about a year ago. Before there weren't any GW stores at all in NC, but plenty of independent stores selling GW products. No matter where you live in the area there's at least one independent store within a 15-30 minute drive. Now GW opens a store, but in a random strip mall in the middle of nowhere instead of one of the major high-traffic malls within a 30 minute drive. Is this store getting any meaningful traffic from new customers? Of course not, unless you happen to live nearby and use the grocery store in that strip mall you're never going to know that GW exists. So what they're really doing is drawing some existing customers who used to go to the independent stores over to the GW store. Sure, this means slightly higher profits because they get full retail price for those sales, but it's not doing anything to increase their customer base.
Consider instead what would have happened if GW opened a store in one of the major malls. Now instead of only giving existing customers another place to play they've got huge amounts of traffic taking a look at the hobby and maybe getting interested. The only plausible reason I can see for not doing this is if the decision on store location is made by someone in the UK with no understanding of the local market who just picks the lowest rent in a 50-mile radius.
So increase in Design, Development and Administration. Decrease in Production, Selling and Distribution plus totals
porkuslime wrote: Don't they (GW) routinely let store managers go if they don't achieve a certain level of sales every month?
sounds like sales targets to me..
AFAIK yes. In one of the last annual reports, Kirby was proud to announce that most GW store managers already have a named successor waiting for him to get sacked.
YakManDoo wrote: If you guys have time, you have to read the "Corporate Governance Report" on page 13.
So GW is actively in violation of UK Corporate Governance Code 2010 of their own admission. Kirby can't be chair and CEO at the same time according to the code. In addition to the top level governance there are two independent directors that sort through these matters with kirby and the Board. They both have 9 year term limits that the Board is ignoring in violation of either the UK Code 2010 or their own internal governance. The report then only names one of them as a CJ Myatt.
Interesting read. There really does appear to be a completely isolated leadership team among Kirby and these other two guys...fascinating.
I know the US has the SEC and SOX that dictates who can serve as a board member, defines independence, and notes the penalty of noncompliance. Also before you can publish anything to EDGARS you have to make sure you've filled out the 200+ page disclosure checklist of which most are statutory requirements (US GAAP) telling you how data should be presented so someone who doesn't have a financial background understands the report.
So increase in Design, Development and Administration. Decrease in Production, Selling and Distribution plus totals
Not counting the benefit package in savings from the decrease of employees, I would estimate that the employee savings is well over $1 million savings over last year.
Again you have to read the 50+ pages of the report and do the forensic accounting (and the double speak) to really get a feeling on what is happening with the company.
Posters like yourself, Weeble, Sean, and others who have taken the time to post logical comments and in many cases have data to back it up. Thanks.
First, just because they are larger doesn't mean they have more to invest. Most companies want to reinvest in their facilities. Better facilities usually means better models. GW is already on top when it comes to facilities. That is what separates them from PP and the rest. PP has some good models but they are in no way able to match the customization GW provides. When PP gets to that point where you can easily conver their models without hacking them to pieces and green stuffing the model they will be on par in terms of making models. That is GW's major strength compared to the other miniature companies. You as a customer can make your little toy soldier look different from everyone elses. Heck you can even buy other models and kit bash your own to make them even more unique. You can even go out and buy bits from FW to further that effort.
They used cash reserves to enhance their dividend. They literally had money lying around doing nothing. At the recent "meet the studio" event it was alluded to that the reasons SoB had been so long delayed is the GW doesn't have the gear to produce the plastics as designed. The studio wants that gear, but has as yet not got their way.
Also most small businesses tend to pay their owners heavily. Whether you're a sole proprietor or small public company, unless you've got something specific to invest in paying your owners typically is what they are looking for.
No they don't, as a small business owner, you're last on the food chain, after your suppliers, services, staff, taxes etc. at least if you want to survive that's how it's done. Yes, ultimately they can yield great personal reward, but that's a long way down the road, and many don't make it. There's no such thing as a "small" PLC, just some are less big than others.
Kirby is one of the largest investors but he couldn't make them pay dividends if the other investors didn't want them to.
Yeah, because we all know how responsible the investment sector is when it comes to earning money.
Besides the Company is not a growth stock. If thats what you're looking for you're a poor investor as this Company steadily pays dividends and pretty high dividends as well. Thats what you're buying, not that the potential share price will take off.
Actually, those defending GW often quote that their share price has been out performing the share market, so they probably are a good medium term bet for growth. They're obviously not penny shares, and they're not really blue chip either, but historically they are pretty sound bet, the issue of sustainability is the most important here for any potential investor.
As far as an "army of ex-customers" if you're that jaded with the hobby, why haven't you moved on to a new one? I used to play M:TG back in middle school some 17 years ago - I have no desire to bash that game. I had fun but grew up and moved on. It was fun while it lasted and that was it. I wouldn't say anything positive or negative about it because I don't care. Why would you carry such a grudge? I would move on to greener pastures and not give it another thought. Good reviews and bad reviews are always news - I would be more worried if there were no reviews. Nobody caring would speak louder than the nay sayers.
Well, you're clearly not a "jaded" Ex Magic customer then are you? You left for your own reasons. People have said they've left GW behind because they felt forced to, either because of price, or frustration with poor gameplay. It's this sort of feeling forced away that breeds the resentment. Many of these players have moved on, because GW isn't tabletop wargaming, and now play other systems. Hence so many other companies seem to be growing exponentially.
I have no problem with GW paying out dividends to the owners. That's what GW stock is for, the stock price remains relatively flat and the earnings are in dividends. If GW were not to pay dividends I would view that as a potential issue. You're buying the income stream with this stock. Yes, GW did pay their owners after they paid their other bills so what seems to be the problem? Yes GW is considered small, they are a small cap public company. Sure go ahead and argue semantics though. They are giants in TTWG but they are by definition to the rest of the world a small public company.
Lastly, why would you concern yourself with something that causes you grief? I won't leave GW unless I decide to get a new hobby. It's a large investment. The price increases don't affect me because I don't buy as much. I buy a new codex and maybe 1 or two units a year. I don't switch armies often and haven't had the desire to play a new army. I will say this hobby is still cheaper than most intramural sports.
Lastly, why would you concern yourself with something that causes you grief? I won't leave GW unless I decide to get a new hobby. It's a large investment. The price increases don't affect me because I don't buy as much. I buy a new codex and maybe 1 or two units a year. I don't switch armies often and haven't had the desire to play a new army. I will say this hobby is still cheaper than most intramural sports.
It causes you grief because you are concerned with it. People like Games Workshop's fictional universes, and many long-term customers became heavily involved with Games Workshop through years of positive interaction and good support. It is perfectly natural for individuals to react negatively when they feel let down, betrayed, used, and so forth. You can argue whether or not those feelings are justified, but they are typically rooted in a history of far more positive interactions.
If you went to the same coffee shop every week to play board games with your friends, it becomes part of your routine; something you enjoy doing. It probably became so important because the owner of the shop was friendly and allowed you to come on Friday nights and hang around for a few hours. Maybe the owner even kept the same table clear for you, knew what you usually ordered, and chatted with you; i.e. you had a relationship with the coffee shop as much as with your friends and the act of playing board games.
Given that relationship, if the owner walked up to you one day and asked you to leave, it could cause surprise and confusion. If the owner stopped keeping your table clear, didn't say hello to you anymore, and raised prices considerably, it might make you feel hurt or betrayed. Sure, you can go somewhere else to play your games, but even if you did, there would probably still be some negative feelings because of the length and depth of the extant relationship.
It is rather flippant to just say, 'well stop playing 40K if it makes you so upset.' It was really easy for me to do because I had only been a GW customer for something like 5 years when I gave the company the finger and started playing other games. But even so, I am still connected to Games Workshop for a long list of reasons, not the least of which is that many of my friends still play the games, the products are on the shelves of the FLGS, and so forth. Games Workshop is also an industry leader in an industry that I am very interested in.
Games Workshop sells products that by and large require one to engage in social interaction. That component of the products causes problems when one wants to deny the company custom and still enjoy the products. There's another big reason for feelings of resentment. Maybe the 40K league at the FLGS requires that I have the up to date rules. Maybe it is hard to organize a game using older edition rules. Maybe one feels awkward not being up to date with the latest releases.
Games Workshop's products are about building a community, establishing relationships, and investing creativity and intellectual effort. Those aspects are hard to walk away from, which gives the company strong momentum and staying power, but it also means that abusing that relationship causes a great swell of negativity. It is baffling how Games Workshop doesn't understand that.
Remember what Alan Merrett said on the stand? Games Workshop's customers' favorite hobby is buying things from Games Workshop. That is a horribly derisive statement coming from a man whose company very much relies on the HHHoby. Games Workshop's management does not respect its customers, which is the heart of the problem. They see the customers as mewling fanbois goobering over the products and buying, buying, buying. There's a legacy of lingo about the HHHoby that these guys fall back on in the few public appearances they make, but when the cards are on the table, they don't give a about you.
For people who felt that they did care, and felt that way for a long time (and perhaps the company did care at one point), coming to the realization that they are seen as an idiot who will open his wallet like a zombie is harsh. So what is the answer? Just say 'screw you guys, I'm going home' and start playing intramural sports? That's one way to react, but not the only one, and certainly not the most mature. I'm not saying it is better to complain and keep buying the products, however, I think you should try to step into someone else's shoes and think about the things that make it hard to just walk away. A little empathy goes a long way.
I have no problem with GW paying out dividends to the owners. That's what GW stock is for, the stock price remains relatively flat and the earnings are in dividends.
Blatantly untrue
If GW were not to pay dividends I would view that as a potential issue. You're buying the income stream with this stock. Yes, GW did pay their owners after they paid their other bills so what seems to be the problem?
As I've demonstrated, you are not only buying the income stream. Regardless of our opinions of the company, GW does an extraordinarily good job of maintaining its image on the financial market, and that is key to share price success. My issue isn't that they paid dividends, its that they used money that they didn't make this year to pay them. GW has, apparently, earned more money than it knows what to do with
Yes GW is considered small, they are a small cap public company. Sure go ahead and argue semantics though. They are giants in TTWG but they are by definition to the rest of the world a small public company.
Don't ask me where the lines are, as it's a long time ago, but I seem to remember from my A level in Business Studies that there actually are definitions of what constitutes small, medium and large businesses, it isn't merely a question of semantics.
Lastly, why would you concern yourself with something that causes you grief? I won't leave GW unless I decide to get a new hobby. It's a large investment. The price increases don't affect me because I don't buy as much. I buy a new codex and maybe 1 or two units a year. I don't switch armies often and haven't had the desire to play a new army. I will say this hobby is still cheaper than most intramural sports.
Weeble has already given a very full and clear explanation in this, I have nothing to add.
If you went to the same coffee shop every week to play board games with your friends, it becomes part of your routine; something you enjoy doing. It probably became so important because the owner of the shop was friendly and allowed you to come on Friday nights and hang around for a few hours. Maybe the owner even kept the same table clear for you, knew what you usually ordered, and chatted with you; i.e. you had a relationship with the coffee shop as much as with your friends and the act of playing board games.
Given that relationship, if the owner walked up to you one day and asked you to leave, it could cause surprise and confusion. If the owner stopped keeping your table clear, didn't say hello to you anymore, and raised prices considerably, it might make you feel hurt or betrayed. Sure, you can go somewhere else to play your games, but even if you did, there would probably still be some negative feelings because of the length and depth of the extant relationship.
.
But the relationship you describe here isn't like the relationship most people, if anyone, have with GW.
azreal13 wrote: It is if you played at a GW store that has stopped open gaming, which I believe is what he was alluding to.
Must have been too subtle for you.
And this is where the culture difference between the US and the UK is really prevalent. In the US, you can still open game at GW. In the US, most people are probably gaming at home or at an LGS anyway.
But still, just because you game at the LGS doesn't mean you have a personal relationship with GW like the one weeble described.
I guess I just don't get the whole "feeling betrayed by a corporation" thing.
azreal13 wrote: It is if you played at a GW store that has stopped open gaming, which I believe is what he was alluding to.
Must have been too subtle for you.
And this is where the culture difference between the US and the UK is really prevalent. In the US, you can still open game at GW. In the US, most people are probably gaming at home or at an LGS anyway.
But still, just because you game at the LGS doesn't mean you have a personal relationship with GW like the one weeble described.
I guess I just don't get the whole "feeling betrayed by a corporation" thing.
I don't know your timeline, but I can certainly remember a time when GW weren't a corporation, in the vernacular sense, and I suspect many of the most outspoken critics do too.
If you do game at a local FGS and don't at least recognise some of the elements that Weeble described, I'm afraid either your FLGS sucks or they don't like you.
Privateer is smaller and "friendlier" but they're still a business. I don't take offense to them doing things I don't like.
Again, I guess I'm not one to develop a personal relationship with a business, not really, and especially not one that is a multinational business.
I can certainly see someone becoming attached to a local business. There's a TON of that where I live with local restaurants and stores. But when it comes to developing any kind of personal relationship with the business itself, I've never felt inclined to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As to the LGS: I go there to hang out with my dudes and put money back into the local economy. I put the money into the store because I don't want it to close because then I'd have to find another place to hang out with my friends. If they started charging a premium on product....I'd still go there to hang out with my friends, and I'd still purchase from them because I didn't want them to close. That, or if all my friends didn't want to pay more, we'd just find another place to hang out.
Again, I just don't 'get' the whole "relationship" with a business. But thats on me. I don't think any amount of "explaining" would change that.
Ok, we'll simply take the idea of one party being a business in the relationship out of the equation, as its frankly irrelevant.
It boils down to this, how would you feel about "an entity" that, through it's actions, whatever they may be, put you in a position where you couldn't, or felt you couldn't in good conscience, do something you still really enjoyed doing?
azreal13 wrote: Ok, we'll simply take the idea of one party being a business in the relationship out of the equation, as its frankly irrelevant.
It boils down to this, how would you feel about "an entity" that, through it's actions, whatever they may be, put you in a position where you couldn't, or felt you couldn't in good conscience, do something you still really enjoyed doing?
Well, with the previous analogy, I'd find another coffee shop.
I honestly dont know how to respond. I've been sitting here for 5 minutes thinking about it, and I just don't know. I guess I don't adhere to any real sense of brand loyalty enough to allow myself to "develop a personal relationship" with a company. I'll try to elaborate through some examples, I guess.
Most of my handheld electronics are iProducts. This is mostly because I like the OS and because all my gak is already on iTunes. Plus, their format is one I'm familiar with and I know it has legs. I actually like the Windows Phone OS more than than iOS, but ended up getting an iPhone 5 instead of a Windows Phone because I didn't want the hassle of having to reorganize all my crap. If I could run iTunes on a Windows Phone, I'd have a Windows phone.
All of my jeans are from Lucky. This has nothing to do with Lucky beyond the fact that they were the first place that made a pair of jeans that fit me well. I can walk into the store (or online) order the size and style I know fit me, and not worry about the rest. It doesn't actually have anything to do with Lucky as a company; they simply make jeans that fit me well. It's possible that another company makes ones I'd like more, and if I found them, they'd get my denim dollars. I quite frankly havent looked, though.
I mean, the biggest complaints we see leveled at GW is that they're too expensive and they don't care about their customers. I guess, for me, I don't give a gak if they "care" about me. They don't need to. They need to make a product I want to buy. Thats where the pricing issue, for me, enters the equation. If a product I want is in a price range I'm willing to pay, I'll buy it. But of course, that all goes to that mythical, highly subjective, valuation of 'worth.'
This has turned into a bit of a rant, but I think it boils down to this: I don't care if companies care about me. It's not their responsibility to.
EDIT:
Actually, the whole serial novel thing is a good example here. I buy pretty much all the HH stuff. I don't mind the serialization of Scars. I do think the price is way too high based on their other product. When the serial is complete, it'll be $36 as opposed to the $16 I paid for Vulkan Lives. I agree that it's a pretty blantant price grab, but it doesn't "hurt my feelings" or personally affect me, not really.
If you went to the same coffee shop every week to play board games with your friends, it becomes part of your routine; something you enjoy doing. It probably became so important because the owner of the shop was friendly and allowed you to come on Friday nights and hang around for a few hours. Maybe the owner even kept the same table clear for you, knew what you usually ordered, and chatted with you; i.e. you had a relationship with the coffee shop as much as with your friends and the act of playing board games.
Given that relationship, if the owner walked up to you one day and asked you to leave, it could cause surprise and confusion. If the owner stopped keeping your table clear, didn't say hello to you anymore, and raised prices considerably, it might make you feel hurt or betrayed. Sure, you can go somewhere else to play your games, but even if you did, there would probably still be some negative feelings because of the length and depth of the extant relationship.
.
But the relationship you describe here isn't like the relationship most people, if anyone, have with GW.
That was an absolutely cracking post by Weeble and I think sums up my feelings quite well, although to continue the metaphor I have long since given up with being snubbed by said Coffee Shop and have moved on to more welcoming locales.
What cincydooley is missing the boat on a bit is that I was not talking about him and his personal experience or boyd and his personal experience, or even myself and my personal experience. I was talking about taking the time to consider where the types of feelings and opinions that have clearly been exhibited may come from. The point is to encourage one to temper condemnation with empathy.
I n' hate GWHQ. I started boycotting GW three years ago when they sued Curse. I told them why I was boycotting and I haven't broken my boycott but once, and that was for a GW tape measure at the FLGS because the one I had on me at the time did not have centimeters, and I was playing Freebooter's Fate that night.
It didn't cause me any grief to stop playing GW games or buying GW products. I still play on occasion because my friends do, but I play with other companies products and I get a little help with keeping up to date on the current rules. I don't dislike GW because I think they screwed me or betrayed any sort of relationship. I think Kirby and Co. are predatory IP bullies with no respect for the rights or feelings of others, including their customers, competitors, and employees.
But, I think I understand where some of the negativity expressed by others comes from. I think it is understandable and rather natural. Now, what one chooses to do about it is something else, but I think ya'll are condemning an understandable emotional reaction rather than merely discussing a difference of opinion about how one should act on those feelings.
I do not think it is very fair to tell someone that they shouldn't feel a certain way because it is somehow wrong to feel that way. That can be very belittling. I think that people who are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs over at GWHQ should stop buying GW products, but I temper such opinions with a bit of empathy. Therefore I don't go around saying things like, "If you don't like it stop doing it, problem solved." Not only do such statements demonstrate a lack of respect for another's feelings, they also signify the target as an Other. One might as well say, "You are not a real fan of GW. You do not belong in the GW hobby." It is a hurtful and unproductive way to stifle discussion by imposing a binary relationship that does not respect reality.
As an aside, Alan Merrett said as much about Mr. Villacci at the Chapterhouse trial. He said that Mr. Villacci was not a real fan of the game and attacked him personally. Bull like that is why I harbor an extreme dislike for GW management. They are mean, hateful, unscrupulous, dishonest, and self-centered people.
azreal13 wrote: Ok, we'll simply take the idea of one party being a business in the relationship out of the equation, as its frankly irrelevant.
It boils down to this, how would you feel about "an entity" that, through it's actions, whatever they may be, put you in a position where you couldn't, or felt you couldn't in good conscience, do something you still really enjoyed doing?
Well, with the previous analogy, I'd find another coffee shop.
I honestly dont know how to respond. I've been sitting here for 5 minutes thinking about it, and I just don't know. I guess I don't adhere to any real sense of brand loyalty enough to allow myself to "develop a personal relationship" with a company. I'll try to elaborate through some examples, I guess.
Most of my handheld electronics are iProducts. This is mostly because I like the OS and because all my gak is already on iTunes. Plus, their format is one I'm familiar with and I know it has legs. I actually like the Windows Phone OS more than than iOS, but ended up getting an iPhone 5 instead of a Windows Phone because I didn't want the hassle of having to reorganize all my crap. If I could run iTunes on a Windows Phone, I'd have a Windows phone.
All of my jeans are from Lucky. This has nothing to do with Lucky beyond the fact that they were the first place that made a pair of jeans that fit me well. I can walk into the store (or online) order the size and style I know fit me, and not worry about the rest. It doesn't actually have anything to do with Lucky as a company; they simply make jeans that fit me well. It's possible that another company makes ones I'd like more, and if I found them, they'd get my denim dollars. I quite frankly havent looked, though.
I mean, the biggest complaints we see leveled at GW is that they're too expensive and they don't care about their customers. I guess, for me, I don't give a gak if they "care" about me. They don't need to. They need to make a product I want to buy. Thats where the pricing issue, for me, enters the equation. If a product I want is in a price range I'm willing to pay, I'll buy it. But of course, that all goes to that mythical, highly subjective, valuation of 'worth.'
This has turned into a bit of a rant, but I think it boils down to this: I don't care if companies care about me. It's not their responsibility to.
EDIT:
Actually, the whole serial novel thing is a good example here. I buy pretty much all the HH stuff. I don't mind the serialization of Scars. I do think the price is way too high based on their other product. When the serial is complete, it'll be $36 as opposed to the $16 I paid for Vulkan Lives. I agree that it's a pretty blantant price grab, but it doesn't "hurt my feelings" or personally affect me, not really.
Frankly, I don't believe you. I don't believe that a person can like a thing, invest heavily in a thing both financially and emotionally(and don't try and claim you've not invested emotionally in your hobbies), and then have that thing change in front of your eyes into something that not only doesn't appeal to you, but is being pushed by a company that now views you as something between an annoying parasite and a completely gullible ambulatory wallet with zero impulse control, and you would simply shrug your shoulders, mumble "welp, dems da breaks", and walk away with no ill feeling, no regret at what the hobby you enjoyed has become, no animosity of any kind.
Frankly, I don't believe you. I don't believe that a person can like a thing, invest heavily in a thing both financially and emotionally(and don't try and claim you've not invested emotionally in your hobbies), and then have that thing change in front of your eyes into something that not only doesn't appeal to you, but is being pushed by a company that now views you as something between an annoying parasite and a completely gullible ambulatory wallet with zero impulse control, and you would simply shrug your shoulders, mumble "welp, dems da breaks", and walk away with no ill feeling, no regret at what the hobby you enjoyed has become, no animosity of any kind.
I collected comics from 2001-2011. 10 years of some pretty serious collecting. I had around 25 long boxes full of comics. Thats around 6000 comics. I was tired of them just sitting around, and I'd simply stopped purchasing the books because I didnt want to make room for them anymore. Then I sold them to my local comic shop for around 40 bucks a box, far less than what I had invested in them. It was hard until the minute I sold them. Now I feel liberated. Did the same thing with all my Black Library MMPBs. Just sold around 100 of them on eBay. Liberating. Its pretty fantastic to get rid of any emotional attachments to things. IMO, the only thing you should have emotional attachments to is people and pets.
But the hobby hasn't changed for me. At all. I couldn't care less how they feel about me. I recognize that, to them I am nothing more than a wallet. And that's okay. I don't play the game with a single person from GWHQ. I don't play the game with a single person from GWHQ Middle Management. GW has NOTHING to do with my impulse control. In fact, their raising of prices has made my impulse control that much easier to manage. At $50-$60 bucks, I'd already have one of the Carnosaur kits. I'd buy that, without having an army, due to the "I want to build and paint that" factor. Because it's $85, I thought twice yesterday when I had it in my hand. IF I buy one, it's going to end up being a planned purchase.
I don't have any feeling toward GW, ill or otherwise. They make gak my friends and I like to play with. If all of my buddies played Privateer Press stuff, I'd buy more of that. But they don't.
How GW handles their business has no -- ZERO -- impact on my enjoyment of the wargaming hobby. It simply impacts how much I buy from them.
cincydooley wrote: How GW handles their business has no -- ZERO -- impact on my enjoyment of the wargaming hobby. It simply impacts how much I buy from them.
Frankly, I don't believe you. I don't believe that a person can like a thing, invest heavily in a thing both financially and emotionally(and don't try and claim you've not invested emotionally in your hobbies), and then have that thing change in front of your eyes into something that not only doesn't appeal to you, but is being pushed by a company that now views you as something between an annoying parasite and a completely gullible ambulatory wallet with zero impulse control, and you would simply shrug your shoulders, mumble "welp, dems da breaks", and walk away with no ill feeling, no regret at what the hobby you enjoyed has become, no animosity of any kind.
I collected comics from 2001-2011. 10 years of some pretty serious collecting. I had around 25 long boxes full of comics. Thats around 6000 comics. I was tired of them just sitting around, and I'd simply stopped purchasing the books because I didnt want to make room for them anymore. Then I sold them to my local comic shop for around 40 bucks a box, far less than what I had invested in them. It was hard until the minute I sold them. Now I feel liberated. Did the same thing with all my Black Library MMPBs. Just sold around 100 of them on eBay. Liberating. Its pretty fantastic to get rid of any emotional attachments to things. IMO, the only thing you should have emotional attachments to is people and pets.
But the hobby hasn't changed for me. At all. I couldn't care less how they feel about me. I recognize that, to them I am nothing more than a wallet. And that's okay. I don't play the game with a single person from GWHQ. I don't play the game with a single person from GWHQ Middle Management. GW has NOTHING to do with my impulse control. In fact, their raising of prices has made my impulse control that much easier to manage. At $50-$60 bucks, I'd already have one of the Carnosaur kits. I'd buy that, without having an army, due to the "I want to build and paint that" factor. Because it's $85, I thought twice yesterday when I had it in my hand. IF I buy one, it's going to end up being a planned purchase.
I don't have any feeling toward GW, ill or otherwise. They make gak my friends and I like to play with. If all of my buddies played Privateer Press stuff, I'd buy more of that. But they don't.
How GW handles their business has no -- ZERO -- impact on my enjoyment of the wargaming hobby. It simply impacts how much I buy from them.
Cannot agree more, how long are most GW critics going to feel betrayed? I've been playing since Rogue Trader myself and I have yet to ever feel any of these aweful feelings shared by most critics. We made an RPG out of Rogue Trader in highschool and have been belting out 40k, Fantasy, Epic, et al since I can remember. From time to time other games and other hobbies intrude and I've yet to care. We played Battlesystem, VOR, Void, Warzone, Mechwarrior, ect. Again time and time again none of it matters if the companies involved went away, my friends didnt. The hobby never was, and certainly now is not expensive. I have spent more in other miniature systems, far more in DnD books and and more again with various video games. I have (now discarded) boxes of VHS tapes, neglected DVDs, all of this changes, all of it not worth one bit of upsetness over.
Dungeons and Dragons have made much worse of their own brand than anything GW has ever done, or pretty much ever will. Ive been DMing games for almost 30 years and without regret switched to Pathfinder on the outset of 4th edtition, out over $200 dollars in new books to boot. I wish everyone involved well but frankly who cares, what was (and very much is) important is what my friends do, our memories. The time I broke a Blood Bowl dice in half, the time a friend of mine decapitated a miniature after fumbling on his attack roll playing DnD. The innumerable, improbable dice rolls, the time Deathmaster Snitch died to 5 Bretonian Bowmen, The time my Doom Scythe got the shot of a lifetime and soloed an opposing army effectively in one shot.
Again there is always something else, yes these people dont seem to have your best interest at heart, how long will you let them equally have the power over your emotional states?
I must say I'm going with cincydooley on this. I've been doing this for closely to 25 years now, and yes, I might be emotionally invested in what I do in my free time. But that just means that if I don't enjoy it, I'll stop. Whatever GW does hat no impact on that at all, though. They offer me stuff, and I'm free to take it or leave it. Most of the time it's 'leave it' anyway, because I don't need what they offer or think it's too expensive anyway. When I don't buy their stuff, it's not because I feel the burning need to send a signal and show it to The Man who's betrayed me.
Everybody here is constantly going on about how GW isn't "the Hhhobby", but as soon as the company acts crappy or produces ugly kits, it's GW that suddenly spoils the hobby you once loved? Seriously, "the hobby" isn't GW, it's none of the other companies on the market; it's those who practise it, however corny that may sound. Playing against a TFG or having a bad experience at a tournament tends to kill my enjoyment much more than *anything* a company could do - that's why I prefer to play with my mates anyway. Sometimes it's 40k, sometimes it's something else, whatever strikes our fancy. Should the 40k rules turn into total crap with a future edition (and I enjoy 6th more than any edition since 2nd) I might convert or adapt some other system to use with the models I have. Should GW get even more expensive I might only buy one model a year, instead of maybe two units, or none at all. Should more models turn out like the Centurions I might look for nice alternatives and convert them. But I wouldn't be personally offended, betrayed or hurt by anything GW can do.
azreal13 wrote: Ok, we'll simply take the idea of one party being a business in the relationship out of the equation, as its frankly irrelevant.
It boils down to this, how would you feel about "an entity" that, through it's actions, whatever they may be, put you in a position where you couldn't, or felt you couldn't in good conscience, do something you still really enjoyed doing?
Well, with the previous analogy, I'd find another coffee shop.
I honestly dont know how to respond. I've been sitting here for 5 minutes thinking about it, and I just don't know. I guess I don't adhere to any real sense of brand loyalty enough to allow myself to "develop a personal relationship" with a company. I'll try to elaborate through some examples, I guess.
Most of my handheld electronics are iProducts. This is mostly because I like the OS and because all my gak is already on iTunes. Plus, their format is one I'm familiar with and I know it has legs. I actually like the Windows Phone OS more than than iOS, but ended up getting an iPhone 5 instead of a Windows Phone because I didn't want the hassle of having to reorganize all my crap. If I could run iTunes on a Windows Phone, I'd have a Windows phone.
All of my jeans are from Lucky. This has nothing to do with Lucky beyond the fact that they were the first place that made a pair of jeans that fit me well. I can walk into the store (or online) order the size and style I know fit me, and not worry about the rest. It doesn't actually have anything to do with Lucky as a company; they simply make jeans that fit me well. It's possible that another company makes ones I'd like more, and if I found them, they'd get my denim dollars. I quite frankly havent looked, though.
I mean, the biggest complaints we see leveled at GW is that they're too expensive and they don't care about their customers. I guess, for me, I don't give a gak if they "care" about me. They don't need to. They need to make a product I want to buy. Thats where the pricing issue, for me, enters the equation. If a product I want is in a price range I'm willing to pay, I'll buy it. But of course, that all goes to that mythical, highly subjective, valuation of 'worth.'
This has turned into a bit of a rant, but I think it boils down to this: I don't care if companies care about me. It's not their responsibility to.
EDIT:
Actually, the whole serial novel thing is a good example here. I buy pretty much all the HH stuff. I don't mind the serialization of Scars. I do think the price is way too high based on their other product. When the serial is complete, it'll be $36 as opposed to the $16 I paid for Vulkan Lives. I agree that it's a pretty blantant price grab, but it doesn't "hurt my feelings" or personally affect me, not really.
Frankly, I don't believe you. I don't believe that a person can like a thing, invest heavily in a thing both financially and emotionally(and don't try and claim you've not invested emotionally in your hobbies), and then have that thing change in front of your eyes into something that not only doesn't appeal to you, but is being pushed by a company that now views you as something between an annoying parasite and a completely gullible ambulatory wallet with zero impulse control, and you would simply shrug your shoulders, mumble "welp, dems da breaks", and walk away with no ill feeling, no regret at what the hobby you enjoyed has become, no animosity of any kind.
I love golf. I used to play golf everyday because I grew up next to a golf course. In High School I played on the golf team. It meant I could play at any local course for $10 after 4pm. I had a decent set of clubs ($500 irons, a $300 putter, and a decent set of drivers 3 totaling $600) that I shared with my brother. Plus the gear needed to play like shoes a glove, a bag and a bunch of balls. In total, it was about $2,000 worth of gear. Once I graduated from HS and was no longer living at home with my folks, if I wanted to get a round of golf in, I had to pay the normal rate of about $80 a round. Not being able to afford it, I went less and less and less until I found something else to fill in that void (women, beer, and toy soldiers). My handicap in HS was between 4 and 6, now I'm happy if I break 100. I get asked why I play with vintage irons and drivers. Am I upset that it costs me more and more to play something I truly love and enjoy? No. I just don't get to do it as often. Am I upset that GW raised their prices? No, I just don't buy as much. Besides, I have most of what I need anyways. The only things I have to buy are the new models if I decide I really really want them. I've dropped TTWG from my hobbies before without bashing anyone online. I played one game of 40k during 4th edition, I hated the rules. I thought that was so much worse than 3rd edition. I just found other ways to pass my time. I played softball with my buddies, UCF rugby, did a lot of fishing, hunted gators, went lobstering, learned how to scuba, and many other things. If you thought this hobby is expensive... I think rugby is the cheapest hobby I had because all it cost me were cleats, a thick long sleeve shirt, some shorts, and if you don't count the beer, multiple broken noses, stitches, and bandages it really was cheap.
I don't know why your GW doesn't allow open gaming but the one in Orlando/Altamonte does and its the only place where you can find a pick up game of fantasy. The other local shops in Orlando only push 40k and Warmachine. The place that did push all of the other skirmish games shut down so finding anyone for infinity or that wyrd game with the deck of cards is a bust.
To say that "most GW critics feel betrayed" is a straw man argument.
It is clear that some people do feel betrayed by GW, and this leads them to criticise the firm.
If you personally cannot understand that feeling by your empathy, you need to accept it intellectually or you will be unable to participate fully in the debate, because you will be ignoring a real factor.
However it is true also that many critics have unemotional reasons for their position, and these should not be ignored either.
I "Quit" GW several years back. The whole Australian embargo thing shot me straight out, and prevented me from buying more.
I still have my GW, shelved, and have moved on to greener pastures.
However, I still want GW to not be crap. And those projects are there for me to resume anytime I don't feel like they are gouging me based on my geolocation.
And so I have a stake, however small in these things.
And so it should be, games and communities become terrible echo chambers if all the detractors leave.
If your community is shrunk down until its just the people who love you, you can become worse than GW. You can become Catalyst Game Labs.
Some people are more vocal than others, and some do feel betrayed.
Here are two posts I made in another thread. Seem just as relevant here.
The problem is for many, they've been having a love affair with games Workshop. And she's turned round and said "Your not what I'm looking for, I'm seeing someone else".
"Some one said why can't they just quit. Why do they come on dakka, and tell everybody."
Well when you've just split up in a long time relationship, you tend to tell your m8s.
When the love affair with GW ends, you tell dakka.
For some the dakka community is the closest thing to friends they have.
Some people have had a longer relationship with GW, than their wife/girlfriend.
So you can be supportive or take the P*ss.
I could be wrong but for someone not "emotionally" attached cincy does spend a lot of time charging around dakka telling people they are wrong about GW and that they should feel another way about GW etc.
I mean really you could look at him as the mirror opposite of the people he complains about, do we really need him posting about how great GW is all the time when he could just be playing the game.
notprop wrote: Yeah, I don't get the whole personal relationship with a company thing.
You enjoy the games or you don't enjoy the games. Simple as really.
I liked cincydooley's last post, you earned an Exalt for that one mate.
Righto, so you chaps are just being willfully obtuse now, right? Because I can't think of any other reason how you can fail to grasp that having a relationship with the product and the experiences you gain through it is not the same bloody thing as treating the corporation that makes that product as some kind of surrogate lover
Hell, maybe I'm just a loon, but when someone or something comes between me and the things I enjoy and have spent a long time invested in, I tend to find that annoying, and can easily come to resent that interference if it is sustained and ongoing. And apparently unlike you lot, I don't suddenly lose that impulse when the thing coming between me and my enjoyment is a corporate entity, perhaps because I don't buy into this neo-liberal nonsense that corporations are totally a-moral entities with no responsibilities to anyone.
notprop wrote: Yeah, I don't get the whole personal relationship with a company thing.
You enjoy the games or you don't enjoy the games. Simple as really.
I liked cincydooley's last post, you earned an Exalt for that one mate.
Righto, so you chaps are just being willfully obtuse now, right? Because I can't think of any other reason how you can fail to grasp that having a relationship with the product and the experiences you gain through it is not the same bloody thing as treating the corporation that makes that product as some kind of surrogate lover
Hell, maybe I'm just a loon, but when someone or something comes between me and the things I enjoy and have spent a long time invested in, I tend to find that annoying, and can easily come to resent that interference if it is sustained and ongoing. And apparently unlike you lot, I don't suddenly lose that impulse when the thing coming between me and my enjoyment is a corporate entity, perhaps because I don't buy into this neo-liberal nonsense that corporations are totally a-moral entities with no responsibilities to anyone.
You're not by yourself! While I'm a long way from frothing at the mouth, tossing and turning at night unable to sleep and walking the streets muttering oaths of revenge, I do hold GW accountable for interfering with my enjoyment of their product, if they approached things differently (yes, the way I would do things, my opinion, entitled to it) then we'd both be happier, as I'd be enjoying the GW aspect of my hobby more, and they'd have more of my money.
That said, I couldn't be too 'mad' at them, as the net result of their ham-fisted mis-management of me as a customer has driven me to discover other games and model manufacturers that has enriched my hobby further. So, GW, ultimately, I, and your competitors, owe you a debt of gratitude!
Kilkrazy wrote: To say that "most GW critics feel betrayed" is a straw man argument.
It is clear that some people do feel betrayed by GW, and this leads them to criticise the firm.
If you personally cannot understand that feeling by your empathy, you need to accept it intellectually or you will be unable to participate fully in the debate, because you will be ignoring a real factor.
However it is true also that many critics have unemotional reasons for their position, and these should not be ignored either.
First, I appreciate the bravery in some of you for agreeing with me; I know it's akin to cannibalism or satanism, so thanks!
I think that I may not quite understand "straw men arguments" as the phrase is often used here (despite googling it multiple times) but, based on my understanding of the phrase, I don't think it's wholly innaccurate to say that many people that criticize people do so from a place that appears to stem from that feeling of hurt/betrayal.
That's not to say that there aren't a ton of reasonable, rational reasons to be critical of GW; there absolutely are, and I weeble and Azrael are two of the best folks on here at articulating that. As such, I really enjoy reading their posts (even when we disagree--which is often ) and always thoughtfully consider what they have to say.
@Yodhrin - I'm not trying to be obtuse, my man, I'm just saying that I don't care enough about any corporation to remain unequivocally loyal to them; I recognize that they exist to sell me stuff. As a result, GW has no bearing on my enjoyment of the hobby; their business decisions simply dictate how much I buy from them. If I like something enough and think the price is appropriate, I buy it. If not, I don't. But I do think you make a good point about ethical business practices, and weebly made a great point about that earlier. I can completely see where one would have a problem with the manner in which GW throws around it's corporate weight and effectively 'bullies' smaller companies. I simply don't have a problem with that, which is, honestly, a simple matter of us having different ethical thresholds. And that's okay.
In the end, I think it would be better if people divorced themselves from these companies on a personal level more as a whole.
loki old fart wrote: Some people are more vocal than others, and some do feel betrayed.
Here are two posts I made in another thread. Seem just as relevant here.
The problem is for many, they've been having a love affair with games Workshop. And she's turned round and said "Your not what I'm looking for, I'm seeing someone else".
"Some one said why can't they just quit. Why do they come on dakka, and tell everybody."
Well when you've just split up in a long time relationship, you tend to tell your m8s.
When the love affair with GW ends, you tell dakka.
For some the dakka community is the closest thing to friends they have.
Some people have had a longer relationship with GW, than their wife/girlfriend.
So you can be supportive or take the P*ss.
And when my mates continue to complain about that same relationship, long after it supposedly ended, or they keep going back time after time, then they need some professional help, or need to move on.
I've been in the game since the tail end of 2nd edition, and have about 6 or 7 40k armies, not counting the specialist games, fantasy, FW stuff, etc. i've played in every edition and found them enjoyable. Do I buy every new release? Nope. Do I build 'cheese of the moment beatstick lists"? Nope. Does my army work in every edition and with ever codex for that army? Yup.
By the same token, there are lulls. And with recent prices, a serious hesitation to plunk down money. I consider it, get excited to buy X Y or Z, then don't. No skin off my teeth, no need to come on forums and complain about it. I just find those things in the hobby (or any hobby) that make it fun for me. Simples.
However, this all does make great theatre. I don't need cable, I can find comedy, drama, bad reality TV, heroes, villains, white knights, informed opinions, uninformed opinions, face palms, etc., all right here on Dakka. Don't ever change.
cincydooley wrote: First, I appreciate the bravery in some of you for agreeing with me; I know it's akin to cannibalism or satanism, so thanks!
I think that I may not quite understand "straw men arguments" as the phrase is often used here (despite googling it multiple times) but, based on my understanding of the phrase, I don't think it's wholly innaccurate to say that many people that criticize people do so from a place that appears to stem from that feeling of hurt/betrayal.
That's not to say that there aren't a ton of reasonable, rational reasons to be critical of GW; there absolutely are, and I weeble and Azrael are two of the best folks on here at articulating that. As such, I really enjoy reading their posts (even when we disagree--which is often ) and always thoughtfully consider what they have to say.
@Yodhrin - I'm not trying to be obtuse, my man, I'm just saying that I don't care enough about any corporation to remain unequivocally loyal to them; I recognize that they exist to sell me stuff. As a result, GW has no bearing on my enjoyment of the hobby; their business decisions simply dictate how much I buy from them. If I like something enough and think the price is appropriate, I buy it. If not, I don't. But I do think you make a good point about ethical business practices, and weebly made a great point about that earlier. I can completely see where one would have a problem with the manner in which GW throws around it's corporate weight and effectively 'bullies' smaller companies. I simply don't have a problem with that, which is, honestly, a simple matter of us having different ethical thresholds. And that's okay.
In the end, I think it would be better if people divorced themselves from these companies on a personal level more as a whole.
Pictures of cincydooley located!
PR Shot:
Candid taken while yelling at lackeys/minions about how inconceivable this whole subject is, along with how silly it is for anyone to read a book in MMPB format:
cincydooley wrote: In the end, I think it would be better if people divorced themselves from these companies on a personal level more as a whole.
Depends on what is important to the person.
You just want "stuff" to game, no care at all how it gets to you (right?).
Some people want to "save the world" and everything they buy is an ethical decision.
When a movie star, musician or company operate contrary to a given consumer's ethics or morals some just buy their stuff because they like it, others do not want to sponsor "bad behavior".
Kirby is rather refreshingly clear on his views, so some will not buy GW product based on those views, the product sold may have little bearing.
Turning to the forum topic:
I read that financial report a couple times:
I dislike how they fluff up "intangible assets" to increase their net worth which no-one can really lock horns with them on this and then take a big chunk out of their cash for dividends.
Summing up everything and including inflation = "they are holding their own".
It really looks like they are positioned to be a nice dividend machine with no other goals.
I had reviewed the document a little more thoroughly here (I should say rant): http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/544931.page#5929362
I just have to post this Kirby quote and my comments... I still am shaking my head:
He says this: "Within the business our number one and overwhelmingly important KPI (Key Performance Indicators) is sales. ‘Sales’ is all the money we take in and we quantify it by counting it." - which has no bearing on profit margin, then he says this:
"Earlier I said our most important measure was return on capital." - Which is minus the money spent to get product to customer to buy, plus the money we got from the sale = profit! like what the heck guy...
He is no politician so I can appreciate his honesty but yes, I "cannot handle the truth".
notprop wrote: Yeah, I don't get the whole personal relationship with a company thing.
You enjoy the games or you don't enjoy the games. Simple as really.
But you can understand how other people might feel differently?
At the very least I think it's possible to articulate a feeling of disappointment, similar to seeing someone you know waste their life on drugs or booze, a band that you once liked turn to prog rock, or a car you owned for years and then sold to someone only to see it covered in dents a short while later. I think the capacity is within us to (sometimes inadvertently) develop attachments and nostalgia for inanimate things.
Although having written that I guess it equates to where you think GW is right now! I would go with the prog rock analogy
loki old fart wrote: Some people are more vocal than others, and some do feel betrayed. For some the dakka community is the closest thing to friends they have.
If thats true, then they need to get out more. This game is a beer and pretzels game. You should spend your time having fun - when its over, go out and grab a beer (or soda if you're underage) and burger with the other people there. If GW doesn't float your boat take those good memories and find something else that will give you good memories. Life is too short to sit around and complain about things you can't control.
If you're a shut in, I really pray for you because that is a hard life to live. If you've got social anxiety, you can get help for that. Talk to a therapist, try the medication, do something other than shut the rest of the world out. Thats really the worst thing you can do. Life is like baseball - some of the greatest players only got on base 30% of the time and they were legends. Go out there and strike out from time to time. After a while, you won't remember the strike outs but just the hits. You won't have a chance to redo anything. Live with no regrets. Something isn't making you happy, get rid of it - notable exceptions to this rule are children and some pets (Florida does not want your python even though you think the Everglades National Park would make a great place for it to live out the rest of its life).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote: Although having written that I guess it equates to where you think GW is right now! I would go with the prog rock analogy
Privateer Press is to GW as Megadeth is to Metallica?
Candid taken while yelling at lackeys/minions about how inconceivable this whole subject is, along with how silly it is for anyone to read a book in MMPB format:
Has no idea whether to be offended or not.
Based on source, guessing not.
Oi Vey to MMPB
I'm really working hard on being open minded and congenial here!
I can well understand those who have feelings of betrayal or whatnot, however my comment stands, how long?
How long do you keep going on for months and years when its been plain for well over a decade this company has a different agenda than you or I?
Just enjoy yourself, enjoy the memories, enjoy your friends. I most certainly have attachments to inanimate objects and I most certainly can be disappointed in items or actions however there is another day.
This site is for gaming, by gamers who support games, it is wearisome to see people so abjectly, constantly negative towards what should be a positive environment. The hobbies that have inured me for the last time (like TSR/Wizards/Hasbro) no longer get my money, they also no longer get my involvement. I wish the current supporters well but I don't go and probably never will go back to their sites to see what they are up to.
Again how long are people going to act out a Shakespearean melodrama about this, move on to happier things...
Again how long are people going to act out a Shakespearean melodrama about this, move on to happier things...
Well said.
Can you, as a customer, shape the way this company behaves? Only buy refusing to buy their product, or by purchasing a majority of shares.
That's all you can do.
They can't stop you playing the game, all they can do is stop releasing new stuff for it. If your enjoyment of the game depends on this, then shut up and hand over your money.
azreal13 wrote: So, in essence, you're saying people don't have the right to be outraged by things that are outrageous, if it doesn't impact on them personally.
You remove that mechanism from human nature you have a very different world. Far fewer charities for a start.
If I'm reading it correctly, I think the real attitude is one you find in Steven Covey:
Don't worry about the things outside your sphere of control or influence.
Ever since I read that book as part of some on-job enrichment, I've really tried to do that. Obviously (as evidenced by Dakka) it doesn't always happen, but the more I find myself letting go of worrying about things I can't change, the lower my stress level becomes.
With GW in particular, there's only so much you can control or influence about how GWHQ does business. What you can control is how much GW you buy or how often you frequent the GW shop. You can potentially increase that sphere by writing (well articulated and focused) letters to GW Corporate. I just don't know how much complaining on Dakka does to help expand either of those spheres, ya know?
If the TTWG community channeled all that worry into spheres we can control, everyone would have painted armies .
notprop wrote: Yeah, I don't get the whole personal relationship with a company thing.
You enjoy the games or you don't enjoy the games. Simple as really.
I liked cincydooley's last post, you earned an Exalt for that one mate.
Righto, so you chaps are just being willfully obtuse now, right? Because I can't think of any other reason how you can fail to grasp that having a relationship with the product and the experiences you gain through it is not the same bloody thing as treating the corporation that makes that product as some kind of surrogate lover
Hell, maybe I'm just a loon, but when someone or something comes between me and the things I enjoy and have spent a long time invested in, I tend to find that annoying, and can easily come to resent that interference if it is sustained and ongoing. And apparently unlike you lot, I don't suddenly lose that impulse when the thing coming between me and my enjoyment is a corporate entity, perhaps because I don't buy into this neo-liberal nonsense that corporations are totally a-moral entities with no responsibilities to anyone.
I grasp your very simple point, i just don't hold it at any value.
Also your inference that there has to be a 'them and us' dynamic is indicative of the whole point I was making. Be it Evil GW vs poor little gamers, a productive company vs. entitled juvenile customers, PP vs. GW or whatever, it's all meaningless. You like what they are selling or you don't, there's no point getting bent out of shape about it and forming sides is pretty juvenile and not worth my time.
Pacific wrote:
notprop wrote: Yeah, I don't get the whole personal relationship with a company thing.
You enjoy the games or you don't enjoy the games. Simple as really.
But you can understand how other people might feel differently?
At the very least I think it's possible to articulate a feeling of disappointment, similar to seeing someone you know waste their life on drugs or booze, a band that you once liked turn to prog rock, or a car you owned for years and then sold to someone only to see it covered in dents a short while later. I think the capacity is within us to (sometimes inadvertently) develop attachments and nostalgia for inanimate things.
Although having written that I guess it equates to where you think GW is right now! I would go with the prog rock analogy
There's a world of difference between negative lifestyle choices and a company making products for a consumer society.
By all means identify and prize inanimate objects (we all do) but do you piss and moan when your loved one breaks it? Rant about it for years.? Strike them? Of course not unless you are (to use Yodrins vernacular) a loon.
And use your.metaphor if GW produces a 32 track double album of Termietubbie Xylophone music it in no way ruins my enjoyment of my 20 year old Red coloured Necromunda Rock vinyl EP from a fresh faced Nottingham beat combo also called GW.
In a possibly vain attempt to tie this back into the topic of the thread (GW's latest financial report), I think that the end result is that GW has created a word of mouth marketing force that is actively trying to tell people not to buy their products. A good example of this is here on Dakka Dakka where the sheer number of alternatives being talked about goes up every day.
As well, news of specific products has never been able to spread faster. While GW's creation of a anti-marketing force means their social media efforts on anything but a local store level will be shouted down by detractors, other companies are free to use them as much as possible. We've never lived in a time when it's easier for a company to communicate directly with their customers, but GW's alienation of past customers has barred them from using this to the fullest extent possible.
frozenwastes wrote: In a possibly vain attempt to tie this back into the topic of the thread (GW's latest financial report), I think that the end result is that GW has created a word of mouth marketing force that is actively trying to tell people not to buy their products. A good example of this is here on Dakka Dakka where the sheer number of alternatives being talked about goes up every day.
As well, news of specific products has never been able to spread faster. While GW's creation of a anti-marketing force means their social media efforts on anything but a local store level will be shouted down by detractors, other companies are free to use them as much as possible. We've never lived in a time when it's easier for a company to communicate directly with their customers, but GW's alienation of past customers has barred them from using this to the fullest extent possible.
I think you really hit the nail on the head, as far as the practical outcome is concerned. I particularly like the idea of an anti-marketing force. Like it or not, there is a large group of hobbyists who actively campaign against GW, which would be troubling to any company. I believe we're beginning to really see the effects of this group in the reports.
I have to say, I'm one of them. I would never proselytize for GW, and if someone asked me about starting either game (and really, they only have two major games) I would have to advise against it. There are so many other companies that respect their customers and offer a better value.
cincydooley wrote: If I'm reading it correctly, I think the real attitude is one you find in Steven Covey:
Don't worry about the things outside your sphere of control or influence.
Ever since I read that book as part of some on-job enrichment, I've really tried to do that. Obviously (as evidenced by Dakka) it doesn't always happen, but the more I find myself letting go of worrying about things I can't change, the lower my stress level becomes.
With GW in particular, there's only so much you can control or influence about how GWHQ does business. What you can control is how much GW you buy or how often you frequent the GW shop. You can potentially increase that sphere by writing (well articulated and focused) letters to GW Corporate. I just don't know how much complaining on Dakka does to help expand either of those spheres, ya know?
If the TTWG community channeled all that worry into spheres we can control, everyone would have painted armies .
It's ok you can't shift someone's paradigm if they don't want it shifted... That horse has turned into a pile of bones now and rattles every time it's kicked.
frozenwastes wrote: In a possibly vain attempt to tie this back into the topic of the thread (GW's latest financial report), I think that the end result is that GW has created a word of mouth marketing force that is actively trying to tell people not to buy their products. A good example of this is here on Dakka Dakka where the sheer number of alternatives being talked about goes up every day.
As well, news of specific products has never been able to spread faster. While GW's creation of a anti-marketing force means their social media efforts on anything but a local store level will be shouted down by detractors, other companies are free to use them as much as possible. We've never lived in a time when it's easier for a company to communicate directly with their customers, but GW's alienation of past customers has barred them from using this to the fullest extent possible.
I think you summed it up best here. There is a dedicated anti-GW force on the internet that has grown out over the years. Heck there are people that are still angry at GW over the format change of White Dwarf to a GW only magazine. That was over 20 years ago!
Though with all the alternative games, some of those companies are making the same mistakes people are holding against GW or sometimes even worse.
On Kirby's comments, a friend who works in the video game industry brought up a interesting point. Kirby's statements were very similar in head slapping and smug tone that Bobby Kotick, the head of Activision, would make in his public statements. Kotick is know to deliberately troll Activision detractors and the competition. He felt Kirby was making some of those statements knowingly they would incite the anti-GW people.
Couple of Kotick's best quotes form a few years ago was, "taking all the fun out of making video games," and encouraging a corporate culture of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear."
Kirby may be sitting back and enjoying all the people eating their livers over his comments.
He may well be, but did this Kotick guy make his comments in public or in the financial report that would be read by investors, many of whom wouldn't have the necessary "in" knowledge to appreciate the joke and would take his comments at face value?
As there's a hell of a difference between throwing out a press release and what Kirby has done.
Either way, it demonstrates his contempt for those who are/were or could be customers again. I'm willing to keep a toe in GW's bath until he retires, if there are the beginnings of an apparent culture change then great, otherwise I'll be done completely.
One now owns one of the biggest entertainment producing companies in the world and the other runs some niche 'army mens' company in order to fund his retirement.
silent25 wrote: ... Kirby's statements were very similar in head slapping and smug tone that Bobby Kotick, the head of Activision, would make in his public statements.
Couple of Kotick's best quotes form a few years ago was, "taking all the fun out of making video games," and encouraging a corporate culture of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear."
.
and yet financial journalists, used to reading chairmen's and CEO's statements, believe his direct, unpretentious approach is admirable. Funny old world, eh?
silent25 wrote: ... Kirby's statements were very similar in head slapping and smug tone that Bobby Kotick, the head of Activision, would make in his public statements.
Couple of Kotick's best quotes form a few years ago was, "taking all the fun out of making video games," and encouraging a corporate culture of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear."
.
and yet financial journalists, used to reading chairmen's and CEO's statements, believe his direct, unpretentious approach is admirable. Funny old world, eh?
Are you referring to the Telegraph article? Because I think you've woefully misread the tone of that article.
If not, care to provide links? I'm always open to reading what would be considered a more objective view.
azreal13 wrote: He may well be, but did this Kotick guy make his comments in public or in the financial report that would be read by investors, many of whom wouldn't have the necessary "in" knowledge to appreciate the joke and would take his comments at face value?
As there's a hell of a difference between throwing out a press release and what Kirby has done.
Either way, it demonstrates his contempt for those who are/were or could be customers again. I'm willing to keep a toe in GW's bath until he retires, if there are the beginnings of an apparent culture change then great, otherwise I'll be done completely.
It was made during a teleconference phone call to high level investors in 2009. Media was invited to listen in on the phone call and report what was said.
silent25 wrote: ... Kirby's statements were very similar in head slapping and smug tone that Bobby Kotick, the head of Activision, would make in his public statements.
Couple of Kotick's best quotes form a few years ago was, "taking all the fun out of making video games," and encouraging a corporate culture of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear."
.
and yet financial journalists, used to reading chairmen's and CEO's statements, believe his direct, unpretentious approach is admirable. Funny old world, eh?
Do you mean what was written in the Telegraph? I though it was more mocking than congratulatory.
Are you referring to the Telegraph article? Because I think you've woefully misread the tone of that article.
If not, care to provide links? I'm always open to reading what would be considered a more objective view.
Well, we are in areas of subjectivity here, but "firmly grounded in reality and disarmingly honest" sounds like a positive description to me. You're welcome to say I'm bringing my own preconceptions, who doesn't? But I think you might be. Perloff, with whom Kirby is compared, is pretty well-regarded. If she'd said Gerald Ratner I would agree with you. I think it's a pretty shallow piece knocked out to a deadline, so her respect for his forthrightness is hardly a ringing endorsement. But I'd say it's a positive piece.
Are you referring to the Telegraph article? Because I think you've woefully misread the tone of that article.
If not, care to provide links? I'm always open to reading what would be considered a more objective view.
Well, we are in areas of subjectivity here, but "firmly grounded in reality and disarmingly honest" sounds like a positive description to me. You're welcome to say I'm bringing my own preconceptions, who doesn't? But I think you might be. Perloff, with whom Kirby is compared, is pretty well-regarded. If she'd said Gerald Ratner I would agree with you. I think it's a pretty shallow piece knocked out to a deadline, so her respect for his forthrightness is hardly a ringing endorsement. But I'd say it's a positive piece.
Well, I think you're probably in the minority from what I remember from when it was first linked, but we all view the world through a lens of our own prejudice, and I'm certainly too knackered to go digging it up and arguing the minutiae of her turn of phrase and choice of language.
The correct thing for GW to do with regard to being a PLC is to make a profit and make themselves attractive to investors. This is what they are doing.
pause
pause
pause
... and this is the problem.
When comments are made about the GW haters and that they will always hate GW, the poster fails to understand why there is so much anger and frustration with GW. The original heart, soul & purpose of GW is no longer there. You see posts about the old "deodorant" scratch built vehicle articles and that highlights the problems precisely.
To the left of me on my desk is a copy of White Dwarf, it's issue 72 and it has Cthulhu image as the front cover. It also lists the three following pieces inside:
SLIEGH WARS
A Chaotic Christmas Boardgame
THE JEWEL IN THE CROWN
Talisman Receives Expansive Coverage
THE NECKLACE OF BRISINGAMEN
High Level Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Adventure
In fact the correct title for this copy is The Role Playing Games Monthly White Dwarf. Just a small point.
On the inside cover is an advert for the board game "Warrior Knights". Opposite is a mail order page showing Judge Dredd, Talisman 2nd edition, Queen Victoria and the Holy Grail & Chill (endorsed by Stephan King, no less). The current editor is a Mr Ian Livingstone. Flicking through, there are game reviews, a scenario for Cthulhu called "Fear of Flying", a page of Thrud, an AD&D scenario, Sleigh Wars free game, Tabletop Heroes, Travellers (comic strip for those who didn't know), probably about 10 pages of ads... from other company's & businesses and a small ads section. Obviously that's not all, but I didn't want to bore you / make you cry as you remember how it was.
Issue 72, was the December 1985 edition and probably around about a year or so before there was mention of games like Warhammer Fantasy and in fact some time after Rogue Trader. It was a time when GW was producing, under license, various games. Games like Judge Dredd, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer, etc. Citadel was producing models for the gamers. Remember getting hold of a Citadel model and painting it up for your roleplaying character.
You got the feeling that the guys behind GW & Citadel were keen gaming geeks, like yourself, and had a passion for different systems. They no doubt, as time went by, had a desire to make their own worlds. These we saw in the birth of Warhammer Fantasy & Rogue Trader. At some point they obviously decide to concentrate on their own range, which makes sense and we have the birth of GW as the maker of it's own systems and models.
In fact I thought at this point to have a look to see if there was a clear history out there. I found a Wiki pages and here is what it says about the beginnings of GW:
Founded in 1975 at 15 Bolingbroke Road, London, by John Peake, Ian Livingstone, and Steve Jackson (not to be confused with US citizen Steve Jackson, also a games designer), Games Workshop was originally a manufacturer of wooden boards for games such as backgammon, mancala, Nine Men's Morris, and Go[3] which later became an importer of the U.S. role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons, and then a publisher of wargames and role-playing games in its own right, expanding from a bedroom mail-order company in the process.
In order to promote their business, postal games, create a games club, and provide an alternative source for games news, the newsletter, Owl and Weasel, was founded in February 1975. This was superseded in June 1977 by White Dwarf.
From the outset, there was a clear stated interest in print regarding "progressive games," including computer gaming[4] which led to the departure of traditionalist Peake in early 1976, and the loss of GW's main source of income.[5] However, having successfully obtained official distribution rights to Dungeons & Dragons and other TSR products in the UK, and maintaining a high profile by running games conventions, the business grew rapidly. It opened its first retail shop in April 1978.
In early 1979, Games Workshop provided the funding to found Citadel Miniatures in Newark-on-Trent. Citadel would produce the metal miniatures used in role-playing and table-top wargames. The Citadel name became synonymous with Games Workshop Miniatures, and continues to be a trademarked brand name used in association with them long after the Citadel company was absorbed into Games Workshop.[6][7] For a time, Gary Gygax promoted the idea of TSR, Inc. merging with Games Workshop, until Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone backed out.[8]
The company's publishing arm also released UK reprints of American RPGs such as Call of Cthulhu, Runequest, Traveller, and Middle-earth Role Playing, which were expensive to import, having previously done so for Dungeons & Dragons from 1977.[9]
In 1984, Games Workshop ceased distributing its products in the USA through Hobby Games Distributors and opened its Games Workshop (US) office. Games Workshop (US), and Games Workshop in general, went through a large growth phase in the late '80s, listing over 250 employees on the payroll by 1990.[10]
Following a management buyout in December 1991, the company refocused on their most lucrative lines, namely their miniature wargames Warhammer Fantasy Battle (WFB) and Warhammer 40,000 (WH40K). The retail chain refocused on a younger, more family-oriented market. The change of direction was a great success and the company enjoyed growing profits, but the move lost the company some of its old fan base. The complaints of old customers led a breakaway group of two GW employees to publish Fantasy Warlord in competition with GW, but this met with little success. Games Workshop expanded in Europe, the USA, Canada, and Australia, opening new branches and organizing events in each new commercial territory. The company was floated on the London Stock Exchange in October 1994.
It's at this point that everything changes. It's the start of a path that leads to where we are today. Yes it's right that a publically listed company makes a profit for it's investors, but it also makes it a bad choice for a games company. As a PLC the sole purpose of the company is to make themselves attractive to investors and to do that they have to be always making more profit than they did the year before.
If you're happy with the knowledge that GW are just out to get your money, then fine, it's your call. Good luck to you and keep enjoying it. However there are a big chunk of us that know exactly what GW are up to and will say something about it, because we remember when it was about gaming, not screwing the customer over.
i liked your post, Wolfstan, but don't share your conclusion...
as a GW customer since 1985, i fail to see how GW is screwing the customer...
the customer chooses to purchase a product, and then receives that product...
done deal...
if the product is faulty, GW replaces it...
end of...
now, i understand why people don't like the current direction of the company, but that is a whole different kettle of fish..
if GW fails to make the customer want their product, then the bottom line suffers...
that is their problem...
they can try out any idea they please...
it will either make money, or not...
as a GW customer, i don't feel that i have ever been screwed by them...
i buy what i like, and don't buy what i don't like...
every month they release at least one product i like, and buy...
they get my money, but neither blindly nor grudgingly...
i enjoy what i buy, and don't see why everything has to be so serious in the land of toy soldiers...
I'm with Wolfstan on this one except for terminology. It isn't so much that GW "screwed" us in my mind, more like abandoned us.
Sure we can vote with our money, but it doesn't change the fact that the product we were originally sold has vastly changed, and in many ways moved far away from the original ideas that we bought into and loved.
The timing listed couldn't be more correct Wolfstan.
Wolfstan wrote: Yes it's right that a publically listed company makes a profit for it's investors, but it also makes it a bad choice for a games company. As a PLC the sole purpose of the company is to make themselves attractive to investors and to do that they have to be always making more profit than they did the year before.
Let's keep in mind that there wasn't a strange mythical light and suddenly GW was a PLC.
It was the decision by Tom Kirby that from now on, GW's sole purpose should be to bring big profits to him and the other big shareholders. Good for him, bad for us. Esp. as the raised money isn't used in the company, you know, for crazy things like making it grow again.
i liked your post, Wolfstan, but don't share your conclusion...
as a GW customer since 1985, i fail to see how GW is screwing the customer...
the customer chooses to purchase a product, and then receives that product...
done deal...
if the product is faulty, GW replaces it...
end of...
I see why you wouldn't think that, but reason I used the term was down to how they see customers now. It's all about "churn". It's about bringing out nice new shiney's for people to buy, but their big thrust is the bulk buyers. The new kids coming into hobby and getting mum & dad to fork out £150 - £200 in one hit. Then perhaps going back for a couple of more £50 hits. Some of those will stay, but their buying will drop bigtime, so they need to get more buyers. The circle of purchasing continues (sorry Disney!). There are no big tournament events any more, the stores are changing to one man stores (don't get me started on their bricks & mortar restriction for indies, a restriction that they now don't seem to be too worried about) or the fact that the rules are average.
Don't forget for a lot of GW gamers out there, this is all they know. They came into the scene when GW had it all to themselves, so these customers invested big time in them. No need to worry about getting a game, just pop down to your local GW store. The thing is, we are now entering another period when it comes to gaming, a period similar to the late 80's, when there were ton's of gaming systems around, albeit that they were rpg's or board games. This gaming period has a wider audience this time due to things like the interweb and kickstarter. Rpg's are going strong. Company's like Fantasy Flight Games are making boardgames that are pretty impressive. There are dozens of tabletop systems out there that most people know of and play, with even more stuff coming on line due to Kickstarter projects.
So when I refer to GW screwing customers it's about the fact that it's not about creating and supporting a gaming community, it's about how much money that they can get out of their customers. Which as I've have said, is the correct approach for a PLC, but not really compatible with the gaming community.
Wolfstan wrote: Yes it's right that a publically listed company makes a profit for it's investors, but it also makes it a bad choice for a games company. As a PLC the sole purpose of the company is to make themselves attractive to investors and to do that they have to be always making more profit than they did the year before.
Let's keep in mind that there wasn't a strange mythical light and suddenly GW was a PLC.
It was the decision by Tom Kirby that from now on, GW's sole purpose should be to bring big profits to him and the other big shareholders. Good for him, bad for us. Esp. as the raised money isn't used in the company, you know, for crazy things like making it grow again.
If you're going to take a anti-GW approach, Wolfstan's is the correct view. It's how a PLC operates. GW are not in the slightest bit unusual - the structure of a PLC is horrible, there to make profits for investors, but even more, for the people who make money moving shares around. You can blame Kirby, but really it's the system that's at fault.
I had an argument with someone here who refused to believe it, but it's widely accepted that the Plc structure is horrible for our business culture and promotes short-termism, and has the effect that the CEO is invariably fixated more on share price than long-term goals. Within those constraints, GW is a pretty good company compared to cynical big brother types like Tesco, insurance companies, or banks, which is all that is left of British industry.
Anyway, I'm sat typing this in Warhammer world, just drank some really good GW espresso, and have met with dozens of really nice, helpful GW staff, so you can take my commetns with as many pinches of salt as you wish. I did, however, manage to resist the same nice staff trying to upsell from £50 worth of Forgeworld to £150...
i liked your post, Wolfstan, but don't share your conclusion...
as a GW customer since 1985, i fail to see how GW is screwing the customer...
the customer chooses to purchase a product, and then receives that product...
done deal...
if the product is faulty, GW replaces it...
end of...
I see why you wouldn't think that, but reason I used the term was down to how they see customers now. It's all about "churn". It's about bringing out nice new shiney's for people to buy, but their big thrust is the bulk buyers. The new kids coming into hobby and getting mum & dad to fork out £150 - £200 in one hit. Then perhaps going back for a couple of more £50 hits. Some of those will stay, but their buying will drop bigtime, so they need to get more buyers. The circle of purchasing continues (sorry Disney!). There are no big tournament events any more, the stores are changing to one man stores (don't get me started on their bricks & mortar restriction for indies, a restriction that they now don't seem to be too worried about) or the fact that the rules are average.
Don't forget for a lot of GW gamers out there, this is all they know. They came into the scene when GW had it all to themselves, so these customers invested big time in them. No need to worry about getting a game, just pop down to your local GW store. The thing is, we are now entering another period when it comes to gaming, a period similar to the late 80's, when there were ton's of gaming systems around, albeit that they were rpg's or board games. This gaming period has a wider audience this time due to things like the interweb and kickstarter. Rpg's are going strong. Company's like Fantasy Flight Games are making boardgames that are pretty impressive. There are dozens of tabletop systems out there that most people know of and play, with even more stuff coming on line due to Kickstarter projects.
So when I refer to GW screwing customers it's about the fact that it's not about creating and supporting a gaming community, it's about how much money that they can get out of their customers. Which as I've have said, is the correct approach for a PLC, but not really compatible with the gaming community.
This! For those of us who bought armies years and years ago it was an investment of our time and seemed a good one because GW was a new and incredible experience: it had a culture, a community it participated in.
It has changed to a "standard" registered stock company.
All the "perks" are gone and the old war gamers feel abandoned or betrayed.
An obvious "non-gamer" is at the helm and demonstrates his lack of understanding or empathy.
He is GREAT for investors as pointed out, all they need is to show the board of directors play a game of apocalypse and they may be forgiven...
i liked your post, Wolfstan, but don't share your conclusion...
as a GW customer since 1985, i fail to see how GW is screwing the customer...
the customer chooses to purchase a product, and then receives that product...
done deal...
if the product is faulty, GW replaces it...
end of...
I see why you wouldn't think that, but reason I used the term was down to how they see customers now. It's all about "churn". It's about bringing out nice new shiney's for people to buy, but their big thrust is the bulk buyers. The new kids coming into hobby and getting mum & dad to fork out £150 - £200 in one hit. Then perhaps going back for a couple of more £50 hits. Some of those will stay, but their buying will drop bigtime, so they need to get more buyers. The circle of purchasing continues (sorry Disney!). There are no big tournament events any more, the stores are changing to one man stores (don't get me started on their bricks & mortar restriction for indies, a restriction that they now don't seem to be too worried about) or the fact that the rules are average.
Don't forget for a lot of GW gamers out there, this is all they know. They came into the scene when GW had it all to themselves, so these customers invested big time in them. No need to worry about getting a game, just pop down to your local GW store. The thing is, we are now entering another period when it comes to gaming, a period similar to the late 80's, when there were ton's of gaming systems around, albeit that they were rpg's or board games. This gaming period has a wider audience this time due to things like the interweb and kickstarter. Rpg's are going strong. Company's like Fantasy Flight Games are making boardgames that are pretty impressive. There are dozens of tabletop systems out there that most people know of and play, with even more stuff coming on line due to Kickstarter projects.
So when I refer to GW screwing customers it's about the fact that it's not about creating and supporting a gaming community, it's about how much money that they can get out of their customers. Which as I've have said, is the correct approach for a PLC, but not really compatible with the gaming community.
This! For those of us who bought armies years and years ago it was an investment of our time and seemed a good one because GW was a new and incredible experience: it had a culture, a community it participated in.
It has changed to a "standard" registered stock company.
All the "perks" are gone and the old war gamers feel abandoned or betrayed.
An obvious "non-gamer" is at the helm and demonstrates his lack of understanding or empathy.
He is GREAT for investors as pointed out, all they need is to show the board of directors play a game of apocalypse and they may be forgiven...
Sorry but I disagree with that - unless you've been playing GW since RT, the Company has been public for most of 2nd Edition with Kirby at the head of it and EVEN BEFORE THAT Kirby was in charge of the Company. To say since it went public is a fallacy as the Company has been public since 1994 and was a highly leveraged company prior to the management buyout. Under Kirby, the Company has expanded its foot print in the world, has virtually no debt, and has added a core game (which hasn't received the same enthusiasm as its core games WH40K and WHFB). To say GW had all of these core games is wrong as well - they were specialist games then and until recently they were still specialist games. These games were not self supportive which is why they got the axe. How often did you buy a Necromunda gang? How many people did you play Necromunda with? Same goes for Epic40K, Blood Bowl, Mordheim, Warmaster, BFG, et al. I loved those games too but rarely could I EVER get a game in. At one point Orlando had Blood Bowl leagues out the wazoo but they dried up long before the Specialist line was closed. Heck with the flop that was their naval battle games, I'm surprised they would even venture to put anything else back out.
What perks are you referring to? As an accountant, I think my definition of perks is very different from what you're thinking. I'm thinking more along the lines of perks for employees. I've been gaming since 94 and the only thing I will complain about is the White Dwarf publication. Other than that, I can look at their financials and can tell that their price increases are primarily driven by increases in cost not because they are sticking it to you.
Well, my lunch break is over. I'm sure someone somewhere on the Internets will be highly offended or think I'm an arse.
Sorry but I disagree with that - unless you've been playing GW since RT, the Company has been public for most of 2nd Edition with Kirby at the head of it and EVEN BEFORE THAT Kirby was in charge of the Company. To say since it went public is a fallacy as the Company has been public since 1994 and was a highly leveraged company prior to the management buyout. Under Kirby, the Company has expanded its foot print in the world, has virtually no debt, and has added a core game (which hasn't received the same enthusiasm as its core games WH40K and WHFB). To say GW had all of these core games is wrong as well - they were specialist games then and until recently they were still specialist games. These games were not self supportive which is why they got the axe. How often did you buy a Necromunda gang? How many people did you play Necromunda with? Same goes for Epic40K, Blood Bowl, Mordheim, Warmaster, BFG, et al. I loved those games too but rarely could I EVER get a game in. At one point Orlando had Blood Bowl leagues out the wazoo but they dried up long before the Specialist line was closed. Heck with the flop that was their naval battle games, I'm surprised they would even venture to put anything else back out.
What perks are you referring to? As an accountant, I think my definition of perks is very different from what you're thinking. I'm thinking more along the lines of perks for employees. I've been gaming since 94 and the only thing I will complain about is the White Dwarf publication. Other than that, I can look at their financials and can tell that their price increases are primarily driven by increases in cost not because they are sticking it to you.
Well, my lunch break is over. I'm sure someone somewhere on the Internets will be highly offended or think I'm an arse.
Just to bring up an additional point about Kirby. He came to GW in 1986 as general manager and was brought in by Bryan Ansell. Prior to that he worked at TSR's British office.
i liked your post, Wolfstan, but don't share your conclusion...
as a GW customer since 1985, i fail to see how GW is screwing the customer...
the customer chooses to purchase a product, and then receives that product...
done deal...
if the product is faulty, GW replaces it...
end of...
I see why you wouldn't think that, but reason I used the term was down to how they see customers now. It's all about "churn". It's about bringing out nice new shiney's for people to buy, but their big thrust is the bulk buyers. The new kids coming into hobby and getting mum & dad to fork out £150 - £200 in one hit. Then perhaps going back for a couple of more £50 hits. Some of those will stay, but their buying will drop bigtime, so they need to get more buyers. The circle of purchasing continues (sorry Disney!). There are no big tournament events any more, the stores are changing to one man stores (don't get me started on their bricks & mortar restriction for indies, a restriction that they now don't seem to be too worried about) or the fact that the rules are average.
Don't forget for a lot of GW gamers out there, this is all they know. They came into the scene when GW had it all to themselves, so these customers invested big time in them. No need to worry about getting a game, just pop down to your local GW store. The thing is, we are now entering another period when it comes to gaming, a period similar to the late 80's, when there were ton's of gaming systems around, albeit that they were rpg's or board games. This gaming period has a wider audience this time due to things like the interweb and kickstarter. Rpg's are going strong. Company's like Fantasy Flight Games are making boardgames that are pretty impressive. There are dozens of tabletop systems out there that most people know of and play, with even more stuff coming on line due to Kickstarter projects.
So when I refer to GW screwing customers it's about the fact that it's not about creating and supporting a gaming community, it's about how much money that they can get out of their customers. Which as I've have said, is the correct approach for a PLC, but not really compatible with the gaming community.
This! For those of us who bought armies years and years ago it was an investment of our time and seemed a good one because GW was a new and incredible experience: it had a culture, a community it participated in.
It has changed to a "standard" registered stock company.
All the "perks" are gone and the old war gamers feel abandoned or betrayed.
An obvious "non-gamer" is at the helm and demonstrates his lack of understanding or empathy.
He is GREAT for investors as pointed out, all they need is to show the board of directors play a game of apocalypse and they may be forgiven...
Sorry but I disagree with that - unless you've been playing GW since RT, the Company has been public for most of 2nd Edition with Kirby at the head of it and EVEN BEFORE THAT Kirby was in charge of the Company. To say since it went public is a fallacy as the Company has been public since 1994 and was a highly leveraged company prior to the management buyout. Under Kirby, the Company has expanded its foot print in the world, has virtually no debt, and has added a core game (which hasn't received the same enthusiasm as its core games WH40K and WHFB). To say GW had all of these core games is wrong as well - they were specialist games then and until recently they were still specialist games. These games were not self supportive which is why they got the axe. How often did you buy a Necromunda gang? How many people did you play Necromunda with? Same goes for Epic40K, Blood Bowl, Mordheim, Warmaster, BFG, et al. I loved those games too but rarely could I EVER get a game in. At one point Orlando had Blood Bowl leagues out the wazoo but they dried up long before the Specialist line was closed. Heck with the flop that was their naval battle games, I'm surprised they would even venture to put anything else back out.
What perks are you referring to? As an accountant, I think my definition of perks is very different from what you're thinking. I'm thinking more along the lines of perks for employees. I've been gaming since 94 and the only thing I will complain about is the White Dwarf publication. Other than that, I can look at their financials and can tell that their price increases are primarily driven by increases in cost not because they are sticking it to you.
Well, my lunch break is over. I'm sure someone somewhere on the Internets will be highly offended or think I'm an arse.
So you are choosing to ignore the fact that GW stores started to cut back on allowing gamers to use their board or sit there and paint, or that the stores were downsized to one man stores, that the tournament scene has all but gone (do they even run any thing any more), that they have cut back on the type of stock they hold in store. I'm not going to even go there about price, that's a personal choice, and been hammered to death a few times.
All this adds up to what a PLC should be doing, but and it's a BIG but, it's not something that works that well with gaming.
When i got into 40k in the 90s there was obviously no GW store anywhere near me, but I read about them in White Dwarf. When I ended up in Europe for a summer I found a local GW Hobby Centre. It was glorious. There were people playing games with only painted models. The hobby tables (yes, more than one) were large and I could try out any of their hobby products. I also arrived at a fortuitous time and the employee announced it was time for their weekly "conversion corner" and for a few dollars I got the parts needed to build a custom Space Marine sergeant. I got taught how to use a pin vise and putty. Three other guys and myself did a group build for the next couple hours and my first conversion was born.
The experience walking into a GW store today is so very different.
While it is true that Kirby was at the helm for GW's massive expansion from the UK into a global company, the previous culture of creativity and fan involvement lasted a solid decade after that. With 3rd edition 40k's release and the callous halving of point values to sell more models (and the same thing for Fantasy in 2000) marked the beginning of the end and the transformation of the customer into a target for cash milking. Andy Chambers did a pretty amazing job of keeping the creative side of things alive through 2004 with the Index Astartes series and the Eye of Terror Campaign.
You'll hear ex-studio people talk about this time of transition is less than favourable terms as well. It really was the end of an era.
If Kirby has helmed the company through its expansion into its current state of graceful decline, perhaps the theory he is running it as his personal pension plan has some legs.
Sorry but I disagree with that - unless you've been playing GW since RT, the Company has been public for most of 2nd Edition with Kirby at the head of it and EVEN BEFORE THAT Kirby was in charge of the Company. To say since it went public is a fallacy as the Company has been public since 1994 and was a highly leveraged company prior to the management buyout. Under Kirby, the Company has expanded its foot print in the world, has virtually no debt, and has added a core game (which hasn't received the same enthusiasm as its core games WH40K and WHFB). To say GW had all of these core games is wrong as well - they were specialist games then and until recently they were still specialist games. These games were not self supportive which is why they got the axe. How often did you buy a Necromunda gang? How many people did you play Necromunda with? Same goes for Epic40K, Blood Bowl, Mordheim, Warmaster, BFG, et al. I loved those games too but rarely could I EVER get a game in. At one point Orlando had Blood Bowl leagues out the wazoo but they dried up long before the Specialist line was closed. Heck with the flop that was their naval battle games, I'm surprised they would even venture to put anything else back out.
What perks are you referring to? As an accountant, I think my definition of perks is very different from what you're thinking. I'm thinking more along the lines of perks for employees. I've been gaming since 94 and the only thing I will complain about is the White Dwarf publication. Other than that, I can look at their financials and can tell that their price increases are primarily driven by increases in cost not because they are sticking it to you.
Well, my lunch break is over. I'm sure someone somewhere on the Internets will be highly offended or think I'm an arse.
Just to bring up an additional point about Kirby. He came to GW in 1986 as general manager and was brought in by Bryan Ansell. Prior to that he worked at TSR's British office.
Under Kirby, the Company has expanded its foot print in the world, has virtually no debt, and has added a core game (which hasn't received the same enthusiasm as its core games WH40K and WHFB). To say GW had all of these core games is wrong as well - they were specialist games then and until recently they were still specialist games. These games were not self supportive which is why they got the axe. How often did you buy a Necromunda gang? How many people did you play Necromunda with? Same goes for Epic40K, Blood Bowl, Mordheim, Warmaster, BFG, et al. I loved those games too but rarely could I EVER get a game in. At one point Orlando had Blood Bowl leagues out the wazoo but they dried up long before the Specialist line was closed. Heck with the flop that was their naval battle games, I'm surprised they would even venture to put anything else back out.
Have you thought it might possibly be a peculiarity to your area that you couldn't get to play the specialist games? I certainly had no trouble at all, and if anything the opposite was true. My time with GW games as a child, a teenager, eventually even working in the store the Specialist game events were always packed. People had to be turned away from Blood Bowl leagues, and the response to a new Necromunda or Mordheim campaign was always manic. GW pumped out a huge variety of games for almost 20 years (the name 'Games Workshop' has since become something of an ironic yoke around the neck of the company), and you have to think that had these games not been profitable the company would have slipped into its narrow, single direction track long before.
No, the reason those games were dropped was because a ) they sated the new customers desire to get involved for far too cheap a price, allowing kids to come into the game, like you say buy a Necromunda gang and leave the hobby, rather than hundreds of £'s of bits as it is now and b ) it was part of a corporate re-structuring that involved refocusing the company on core products. Despite this the 'specialist' games have survived and still have committed fan communities. I had it on a good authority also that Jervis Johnson kept up the upkeep of the Specialist games for years completely off of his own back, and without any extra financial incentive to do so. The alternative was for those games (and the entire model range) to be dropped entirely, which apparently was the 'suits' originally intent. Jervis knows all too well what those games have meant to the wargaming community and so knew it was important that they persisted in some form; this really illustrates the point that Wolfstan and Talizvar have made about GW no longer being run by people who care about games. That despite their massive profits, and huge scale of the company, they were not prepared to take some knock on their profits (or at least, be marginally less efficient), the huge masses of gamers who enjoy those classic games be damned.
Is that a good or a bad thing? Shouldn't the needs of the shareholder come first? And if so at what point do you draw the line? I'm of the opinion that some things, those that involve art and creativity, should sometimes move beyond the kind of hardline capitalist mentality whereby you strip the soul from something to make a few extra % on an already profitable venture.
Regarding Dreadfleet, in a way I think it was something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and its lack of success was down to more than the critical reviews the game generally received. The current fan-base of (especially younger) players had become so narrow in terms of their conception of a wargame (28mm miniatures, based in either one or the other well established fantasy universe) that I think there was an element of Dreadfleet befuddling them. Not only that, but the other games are so bloody expensive that if you collect either 40k or WFB, that doesn't leave a whole lot of money left over for anything else. In the past people would collect most if not all of the skirmish/individual games, a pattern that has been repeated again these days where often people will collect and play Infinity, Star Wars, Malifaux, board games etc. et. ..or just the one force for GW's 'core' (read: only) games.
Anyway, just my thoughts on the topic! I think it's a dreadful shame that GW has become so myopic in its releases of new games and systems, in a time when new technology and communication methods should make it easier than ever to be creative and break new ground. Perhaps they didn't get the $ haul that they do nowadays, but I would love for a return to the mid to late 90's of letting their design guys exercise their creative muscles.
After a period of decline TSR went bust after over investing in a few products that didn't work out. Through the late 80s and early 90s they became characterised by over zealous legal actions that made them a source of ridicule by internet fan sites that they attacked. No real relevance I can see.
i liked your post, Wolfstan, but don't share your conclusion...
as a GW customer since 1985, i fail to see how GW is screwing the customer...
the customer chooses to purchase a product, and then receives that product...
done deal...
if the product is faulty, GW replaces it...
end of...
I see why you wouldn't think that, but reason I used the term was down to how they see customers now. It's all about "churn". It's about bringing out nice new shiney's for people to buy, but their big thrust is the bulk buyers. The new kids coming into hobby and getting mum & dad to fork out £150 - £200 in one hit. Then perhaps going back for a couple of more £50 hits. Some of those will stay, but their buying will drop bigtime, so they need to get more buyers. The circle of purchasing continues (sorry Disney!). There are no big tournament events any more, the stores are changing to one man stores (don't get me started on their bricks & mortar restriction for indies, a restriction that they now don't seem to be too worried about) or the fact that the rules are average.
Don't forget for a lot of GW gamers out there, this is all they know. They came into the scene when GW had it all to themselves, so these customers invested big time in them. No need to worry about getting a game, just pop down to your local GW store. The thing is, we are now entering another period when it comes to gaming, a period similar to the late 80's, when there were ton's of gaming systems around, albeit that they were rpg's or board games. This gaming period has a wider audience this time due to things like the interweb and kickstarter. Rpg's are going strong. Company's like Fantasy Flight Games are making boardgames that are pretty impressive. There are dozens of tabletop systems out there that most people know of and play, with even more stuff coming on line due to Kickstarter projects.
So when I refer to GW screwing customers it's about the fact that it's not about creating and supporting a gaming community, it's about how much money that they can get out of their customers. Which as I've have said, is the correct approach for a PLC, but not really compatible with the gaming community.
This! For those of us who bought armies years and years ago it was an investment of our time and seemed a good one because GW was a new and incredible experience: it had a culture, a community it participated in.
It has changed to a "standard" registered stock company.
All the "perks" are gone and the old war gamers feel abandoned or betrayed.
An obvious "non-gamer" is at the helm and demonstrates his lack of understanding or empathy.
He is GREAT for investors as pointed out, all they need is to show the board of directors play a game of apocalypse and they may be forgiven...
Sorry but I disagree with that - unless you've been playing GW since RT, the Company has been public for most of 2nd Edition with Kirby at the head of it and EVEN BEFORE THAT Kirby was in charge of the Company. To say since it went public is a fallacy as the Company has been public since 1994 and was a highly leveraged company prior to the management buyout. Under Kirby, the Company has expanded its foot print in the world, has virtually no debt, and has added a core game (which hasn't received the same enthusiasm as its core games WH40K and WHFB). To say GW had all of these core games is wrong as well - they were specialist games then and until recently they were still specialist games. These games were not self supportive which is why they got the axe. How often did you buy a Necromunda gang? How many people did you play Necromunda with? Same goes for Epic40K, Blood Bowl, Mordheim, Warmaster, BFG, et al. I loved those games too but rarely could I EVER get a game in. At one point Orlando had Blood Bowl leagues out the wazoo but they dried up long before the Specialist line was closed. Heck with the flop that was their naval battle games, I'm surprised they would even venture to put anything else back out.
What perks are you referring to? As an accountant, I think my definition of perks is very different from what you're thinking. I'm thinking more along the lines of perks for employees. I've been gaming since 94 and the only thing I will complain about is the White Dwarf publication. Other than that, I can look at their financials and can tell that their price increases are primarily driven by increases in cost not because they are sticking it to you.
Well, my lunch break is over. I'm sure someone somewhere on the Internets will be highly offended or think I'm an arse.
So you are choosing to ignore the fact that GW stores started to cut back on allowing gamers to use their board or sit there and paint, or that the stores were downsized to one man stores, that the tournament scene has all but gone (do they even run any thing any more), that they have cut back on the type of stock they hold in store. I'm not going to even go there about price, that's a personal choice, and been hammered to death a few times.
All this adds up to what a PLC should be doing, but and it's a BIG but, it's not something that works that well with gaming.
No just the accountant in me kept conjuring up images of real perks, like company cars, fuel cards, company jets,etc. you know real perks.
Under Kirby, the Company has expanded its foot print in the world, has virtually no debt, and has added a core game (which hasn't received the same enthusiasm as its core games WH40K and WHFB). To say GW had all of these core games is wrong as well - they were specialist games then and until recently they were still specialist games. These games were not self supportive which is why they got the axe. How often did you buy a Necromunda gang? How many people did you play Necromunda with? Same goes for Epic40K, Blood Bowl, Mordheim, Warmaster, BFG, et al. I loved those games too but rarely could I EVER get a game in. At one point Orlando had Blood Bowl leagues out the wazoo but they dried up long before the Specialist line was closed. Heck with the flop that was their naval battle games, I'm surprised they would even venture to put anything else back out.
Have you thought it might possibly be a peculiarity to your area that you couldn't get to play the specialist games? I certainly had no trouble at all, and if anything the opposite was true. My time with GW games as a child, a teenager, eventually even working in the store the Specialist game events were always packed. People had to be turned away from Blood Bowl leagues, and the response to a new Necromunda or Mordheim campaign was always manic. GW pumped out a huge variety of games for almost 20 years (the name 'Games Workshop' has since become something of an ironic yoke around the neck of the company), and you have to think that had these games not been profitable the company would have slipped into its narrow, single direction track long before.
No, the reason those games were dropped was because a ) they sated the new customers desire to get involved for far too cheap a price, allowing kids to come into the game, like you say buy a Necromunda gang and leave the hobby, rather than hundreds of £'s of bits as it is now and b ) it was part of a corporate re-structuring that involved refocusing the company on core products. Despite this the 'specialist' games have survived and still have committed fan communities. I had it on a good authority also that Jervis Johnson kept up the upkeep of the Specialist games for years completely off of his own back, and without any extra financial incentive to do so. The alternative was for those games (and the entire model range) to be dropped entirely, which apparently was the 'suits' originally intent. Jervis knows all too well what those games have meant to the wargaming community and so knew it was important that they persisted in some form; this really illustrates the point that Wolfstan and Talizvar have made about GW no longer being run by people who care about games. That despite their massive profits, and huge scale of the company, they were not prepared to take some knock on their profits (or at least, be marginally less efficient), the huge masses of gamers who enjoy those classic games be damned.
Is that a good or a bad thing? Shouldn't the needs of the shareholder come first? And if so at what point do you draw the line? I'm of the opinion that some things, those that involve art and creativity, should sometimes move beyond the kind of hardline capitalist mentality whereby you strip the soul from something to make a few extra % on an already profitable venture.
Regarding Dreadfleet, in a way I think it was something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and its lack of success was down to more than the critical reviews the game generally received. The current fan-base of (especially younger) players had become so narrow in terms of their conception of a wargame (28mm miniatures, based in either one or the other well established fantasy universe) that I think there was an element of Dreadfleet befuddling them. Not only that, but the other games are so bloody expensive that if you collect either 40k or WFB, that doesn't leave a whole lot of money left over for anything else. In the past people would collect most if not all of the skirmish/individual games, a pattern that has been repeated again these days where often people will collect and play Infinity, Star Wars, Malifaux, board games etc. et. ..or just the one force for GW's 'core' (read: only) games.
Anyway, just my thoughts on the topic! I think it's a dreadful shame that GW has become so myopic in its releases of new games and systems, in a time when new technology and communication methods should make it easier than ever to be creative and break new ground. Perhaps they didn't get the $ haul that they do nowadays, but I would love for a return to the mid to late 90's of letting their design guys exercise their creative muscles.
Back in 98 I didn't have a problem getting in an epic game in. While it was fun, it wasn't making the store owner enough money so his shop ended up closing. Heck we recently had a league with 16 BB players until the shop closed :(. I think it was the same thing. You can't just push the specialist games because they aren't profitable. They are fun though.
Why invest in something that breaks even when you could invest the same money in something you will make money in. I wouldn't invest my time in something that wouldn't pay off, why would I expect GW to do it?
As a point of netiquette, quoted sections shouldn't be so much larger than your own posts except in special circumstances. Trimming quoted posts is an awesome idea.
I think it was the case that GW realized that the smaller games simply cannibalized the sales of their larger lines. They were putting their resources into these games (even if it is just White Dwarf and finding product on the shelves) when those same resources could be spent on their core lines.
i liked your post, Wolfstan, but don't share your conclusion...
as a GW customer since 1985, i fail to see how GW is screwing the customer...
the customer chooses to purchase a product, and then receives that product...
done deal...
if the product is faulty, GW replaces it...
end of...
I see why you wouldn't think that, but reason I used the term was down to how they see customers now. It's all about "churn". It's about bringing out nice new shiney's for people to buy, but their big thrust is the bulk buyers. The new kids coming into hobby and getting mum & dad to fork out £150 - £200 in one hit. Then perhaps going back for a couple of more £50 hits. Some of those will stay, but their buying will drop bigtime, so they need to get more buyers. The circle of purchasing continues (sorry Disney!). There are no big tournament events any more, the stores are changing to one man stores (don't get me started on their bricks & mortar restriction for indies, a restriction that they now don't seem to be too worried about) or the fact that the rules are average.
Don't forget for a lot of GW gamers out there, this is all they know. They came into the scene when GW had it all to themselves, so these customers invested big time in them. No need to worry about getting a game, just pop down to your local GW store. The thing is, we are now entering another period when it comes to gaming, a period similar to the late 80's, when there were ton's of gaming systems around, albeit that they were rpg's or board games. This gaming period has a wider audience this time due to things like the interweb and kickstarter. Rpg's are going strong. Company's like Fantasy Flight Games are making boardgames that are pretty impressive. There are dozens of tabletop systems out there that most people know of and play, with even more stuff coming on line due to Kickstarter projects.
So when I refer to GW screwing customers it's about the fact that it's not about creating and supporting a gaming community, it's about how much money that they can get out of their customers. Which as I've have said, is the correct approach for a PLC, but not really compatible with the gaming community.
This! For those of us who bought armies years and years ago it was an investment of our time and seemed a good one because GW was a new and incredible experience: it had a culture, a community it participated in.
It has changed to a "standard" registered stock company.
All the "perks" are gone and the old war gamers feel abandoned or betrayed.
An obvious "non-gamer" is at the helm and demonstrates his lack of understanding or empathy.
He is GREAT for investors as pointed out, all they need is to show the board of directors play a game of apocalypse and they may be forgiven...
Sorry but I disagree with that - unless you've been playing GW since RT, the Company has been public for most of 2nd Edition with Kirby at the head of it and EVEN BEFORE THAT Kirby was in charge of the Company. To say since it went public is a fallacy as the Company has been public since 1994 and was a highly leveraged company prior to the management buyout. Under Kirby, the Company has expanded its foot print in the world, has virtually no debt, and has added a core game (which hasn't received the same enthusiasm as its core games WH40K and WHFB). To say GW had all of these core games is wrong as well - they were specialist games then and until recently they were still specialist games. These games were not self supportive which is why they got the axe. How often did you buy a Necromunda gang? How many people did you play Necromunda with? Same goes for Epic40K, Blood Bowl, Mordheim, Warmaster, BFG, et al. I loved those games too but rarely could I EVER get a game in. At one point Orlando had Blood Bowl leagues out the wazoo but they dried up long before the Specialist line was closed. Heck with the flop that was their naval battle games, I'm surprised they would even venture to put anything else back out.
What perks are you referring to? As an accountant, I think my definition of perks is very different from what you're thinking. I'm thinking more along the lines of perks for employees. I've been gaming since 94 and the only thing I will complain about is the White Dwarf publication. Other than that, I can look at their financials and can tell that their price increases are primarily driven by increases in cost not because they are sticking it to you.
Well, my lunch break is over. I'm sure someone somewhere on the Internets will be highly offended or think I'm an arse.
So you are choosing to ignore the fact that GW stores started to cut back on allowing gamers to use their board or sit there and paint, or that the stores were downsized to one man stores, that the tournament scene has all but gone (do they even run any thing any more), that they have cut back on the type of stock they hold in store. I'm not going to even go there about price, that's a personal choice, and been hammered to death a few times.
All this adds up to what a PLC should be doing, but and it's a BIG but, it's not something that works that well with gaming.
No just the accountant in me kept conjuring up images of real perks, like company cars, fuel cards, company jets,etc. you know real perks.
Ok, but that is still the benefits of a PLC, which I repeated numerous times, is correct from a purely PLC stance. GW are proving that you can't combine the two from a customer perspective. They have to produce the profits, year in, year out. If it was a private company and they made £5 mil one year, then £3 mil the next, they would obviously be disappointed, but you wouldn't have to worry about shareholders deserting you. In fact as a private company having a loyal customer base would be a goldmine.You know that they would be there for you. Ok you may have quiet periods, but they would be there for the new stuff.. As a PLC GW are now always looking for the next big sale.
Howard A Treesong wrote: After a period of decline TSR went bust after over investing in a few products that didn't work out. Through the late 80s and early 90s they became characterised by over zealous legal actions that made them a source of ridicule by internet fan sites that they attacked. No real relevance I can see.
I've heard enough interviews with people on the ground floor of TSR's demise (like Peter Adkinson who bought them out) to know that TSR's error was fragmenting their customer base into multiple product lines and releasing products too rapidly. In the last few years of TSR, they flooded the market with everything imaginable in the hopes of finding something that sticks.
GW doesn't really fragment their customer base. Warhammer and LOTR are not really pulling their weight compared to 40k and GW is always willing to concentrate on 40k. They seem to have sped up their books and supplements release scedule, but their model kit releases haven't really sped up.
That said, if GW does start releasing products like the rumoured Inquisition game and increases their codexes and supplement pace, they could well find themselves mirroring TSR.
Though it is important to remember that TSR did the flooding in response to drooping sales volume where less units of their core lines were being sold.
boyd wrote: No just the accountant in me kept conjuring up images of real perks, like company cars, fuel cards, company jets,etc. you know real perks.
You can easily be forgiven for thinking like an accountant when I make sweeping statements without specifics.
My definition of "perks" is anything that contributes to the "immersive" experience of GW's 40k product / lore / culture which initially attracted me to it.
- Assembly, painting and most forms of gaming is not offered in their stores anymore.
- They had their own forums which were shut down not that long ago.
- They had hundreds (thousands?) of hobby articles removed from their site.
- They sponsored competitions at local hobby stores which is no longer supported.
- In the first Apocalypse release their version of the "single click deals" truly were a deal, not just a conservation on the number of clicks.
- See the you-tube video of why "Miniwargamer" closed their store, it is of interest.
- The notes in the 2013 financial reports appeared to have some measure of... ridicule for it's customers, most statements I would see from other companies would include management as customers as well (gamers for gamers?).
For some people these "perks" may be of little importance, some I know just want the rules and models and do not want anything else.
If you can find a way to play with the numbers so I can get one of their company cars, let me know.
- Assembly, painting and most forms of gaming is not offered in their stores anymore.
Huh?
We've been to Truro, Peterborough, Cambridge, Bluewater, Oxford Street and Nottingham in the last few weeks and all offered exactly that. You claim that gaming is banned worlwide is an example of desperation.
- They had hundreds (thousands?) of hobby articles removed from their site.
True, but they did all need redoing because of the new paints range, and there is still a lot there.
- They sponsored competitions at local hobby stores which is no longer supported.
Spoke to a guy opening a new store in Newlyn a fortnight ago and he said they were getting support for competitions, and school leagues.
- In the first Apocalypse release their version of the "single click deals" truly were a deal, not just a conservation on the number of clicks.
True, but hardly a heinous crime. Other sets do offer a saving, altho of course we'd all like to see more.
- The notes in the 2013 financial reports appeared to have some measure of... ridicule for it's customers, most statements I would see from other companies would include management as customers as well (gamers for gamers?).
really? THey simply said they saw profit as a key motive which, like it or not, is a given for a Plc. And despite the doom-mongers' negativity, seems the city and financial journos, such as the Telegraph, saw it as a good straight-talking document with less meaningless spiel than many of their competitors.
We were in Nottingham last week, same time i heard adult unemployment there is 50 per cent. I'm glad GW have a big, successful business making things in a 1st word country, rather than outsourcing to China, and I was genuinely surprised by the high level of enthusiasm and skills of the people who work for GW.
Today we heard about more price creeps on rail fares, which you can add to price creep on utilities, petrol, you name it, all the things we have no choice about buying. Personally, I get more angry about those than on discretionary, luxury items, which still afford us a huge amount of entertainment for the money.
great post, Hivefleet, and exactly the reason i speak up against the doom and gloom...
i love minis, all minis, not just GW minis, but still, nothing makes me want to paint as much as a Space Marine does...
i just buy what i want at 25% off from a discount retailer...
GW makes their bit of money, the middleman gets a few bucks, and i save a few...
works for me, and i don't have to stress over toy soldiers...
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I'm glad GW have a big, successful business making things in a 1st word country, rather than outsourcing to China, and I was genuinely surprised by the high level of enthusiasm and skills of the people who work for GW.
GW makes so much money they don't know what to do with it, except firing 100 salespersons that is, to lower unemployment
frozenwastes wrote: I've heard enough interviews with people on the ground floor of TSR's demise (like Peter Adkinson who bought them out) to know that TSR's error was fragmenting their customer base into multiple product lines and releasing products too rapidly. In the last few years of TSR, they flooded the market with everything imaginable in the hopes of finding something that sticks.
GW doesn't really fragment their customer base. Warhammer and LOTR are not really pulling their weight compared to 40k and GW is always willing to concentrate on 40k. They seem to have sped up their books and supplements release scedule, but their model kit releases haven't really sped up.
That said, if GW does start releasing products like the rumoured Inquisition game and increases their codexes and supplement pace, they could well find themselves mirroring TSR.
Though it is important to remember that TSR did the flooding in response to drooping sales volume where less units of their core lines were being sold.
Well, I guess there are some similarities.
You could argue that LotR did dilute sales for WHFB. It split resources among essentially two similar products and split new players between the two systems. I don't see the rumored Inquisitor game as being necessarily a bad thing. It acts as a lower cost entryway for 40k, but shouldn't really be officially supported beyond its initial cycle. You want people who get into that game moving to 40k. Not staying with the smaller one.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I'm glad GW have a big, successful business making things in a 1st word country, rather than outsourcing to China, and I was genuinely surprised by the high level of enthusiasm and skills of the people who work for GW.
GW makes so much money they don't know what to do with it, except firing 100 salespersons that is, to lower unemployment
Oh and guess where the printing is done
We could continue arguing whether the glass is half full or half empty for all eternity. Actually, any big company will always be firing staff in parallel with hiring in a dynamic, changing market.
Yup, boxes are printed in China, so are many of the books, and the cases. But the high-value items are made in the UK, and as other posts here have pointed out, they've bought more pressing machinery, and hired more designers. THey're producing more kits - which a few here will doubtless interpret as an exploitative, cynical move, but then they'd complain if they produced fewer kits, too.
Could they do better, do we want more? Yes. Plenty of criticisms here are well-founded. But the financial report, market sentiment, and objective third parties all agree that the company is doing pretty well.
Hmmm.
I should differentiate from my local (Canada, Ontario, Toronto - London) experience than the GW home turf.
Glad to hear so many positive points of hobby support in the UK.
These positive elements are not being felt here however, the 40k crowd in my area is half of what it was as little as two years ago.
Two local hobby stores in my area stopped carrying GW product in the last couple years as well and the largest store in the area had to threaten GW to get them to ship as promised for the Apocalypse release (GW used to be 2/3 (again, 2yrs) to 1/3 Privateer Press, now 50/50 at this store).
I too have my local experience to go by and it is unfortunately not as positive.
My close friends are still playing 40k and expanding their collection in a thoughtful and moderate rate so that keeps me happy.
From a market viewpoint I cannot find fault: their stock has tripled since 2010, with approximately a 50% increase annually (going by trend not those strange year end drop/jumps).
(Approximate by graph: 2010 - 250, 2011 - 350, 2012 - 450, 2013 - 660)
Comparing my own portfolio: GW is a good performer so I would not expect any changes from them.
ewar over at Warseer wrote:I’ve seen a lot of people talk about the growth in the table top wargame market – the anecdotal evidence that we can all see just by opening up the home page of Wayland or Dark Sphere and the huge range of new TT games.
So I thought it would be interesting to see if there was more publically available information on other war games companies. In a 10 minute search I dug out the last 3 years financial statements of Spartan Games (publisher and manufacturer of what I would consider to be some pretty big games: Dystopian Wars, Firestorm Armada etc), Corvus Belli (publisher of Infinity) and Battlefront Miniatures (publisher of Flames of War).
Unfortunately Privateer Press is based in that 3rd world back water () where private companies don’t have to publish financial information, so I don’t have anything on them.
So if you’re interested this is the latest data I could find:
Corvus Belli
Shows some pretty impressive headline growth numbers since 2010 (the 2012 data isn’t publically available yet, which is a shame as I’d be interested to see it). Overall though you can see immediately the difference in scale between the companies – Corvus Belli revenue is circa 0.5% of GW, also remember these are given in USD not GBP, so need to divide by 1.5 to compare.
Rebel Publishing Ltd (trading as Spartan Games)
As for Spartan, they are a bit trickier as they are able to take the small company exemption in the UK from reporting a P&L. However there is a balance sheet which we can use to make a very crude estimate of their turnover. Their debtors balances in 2011-2013 was: £51k, £63k and £54k. If we assume a 45 day cash cycle and average receivable of £55k this translates to approximately £450k turnover.
When you think that GW made £60k just from the sale of the limited edition cover of the recent Lizardmen book, I think that puts things into perspective a little. I’m actually quite surprised, I would have guessed Spartan to be turning over £1m+. I’m less familiar with Infinity but it seems to be very popular at the moment and again that was smaller than I thought.
Battlefront Miniatures
This one is a bit odd – the only information I could find was for their company registered in Malaysia – they also have a number of companies in the UK and NZ but with limited financial data available. The UK subsidiary had receivables of just £40k and zero net assets when I pulled out their March 2012 financial statements. Still, by looking at the Malaysian data is shows they are at least turning over roughly $2m, even if it did decline 17% in 2012.
I’m not personally going to draw too many conclusions from the above but I think this demonstrates just how difficult it must be for miniature wargame companies to turn the success of their games into consistent revenue. I play Firestorm Armada – brilliant game, but now that I and 4 friends have a large fleet each we probably won’t buy anything more for it. They can’t keep up the same relentless release cycle that GW manages which maintains its YOY turnover.
I think the same will apply for the others. People are attacking GW for not growing in the thread about their most recent financials, but honestly from this information it doesn’t seem like the war game market is exactly exploding. Perhaps this indicates that GWs comparative performance isn’t as bad as some are saying? Maybe, maybe not as there still isn’t enough info. However I think it at least sheds a little more light on how everyone else is doing.
TL;DR Spartan is flat, Infinity has grown significantly, Flames of War has shrunk slightly. All of them are only a tiny fraction of GW showing they really are the whale beached in the middle of the pond. Combined estimated turnover of the other 3 companies is roughly 2% of GW – a much smaller fraction than I was expecting in all honesty.
Also, share value Bloomberg chart (with annotations by Inquisitor Engel over at Warseer):
Wolflord Patrick wrote:I heard a few rumors coming out of a source from Games Day that I believe to be worthy of posting and might shed some light on the thread.
1. WH Fantasy sales in the US are down 40% since the release of 8th edition. (Which is sad IMO, because I think that 8th edition is the best edition GW has ever had.)
(...)
Combined estimated turnover of the other 3 companies is roughly 2% of GW – a much smaller fraction than I was expecting in all honesty.
Blimey! Interesting post that, Kroothawk, cheers!
I'd really love to see how Privateer Press compare, though.
Agreed, while one can draw some conclusions, without PP's details, nothing really conclusive, my gut says they'd be somewhere in the 10-20% range minimum, but I may as well be speculating on the future price of haddock.
Combined estimated turnover of the other 3 companies is roughly 2% of GW – a much smaller fraction than I was expecting in all honesty.
Blimey! Interesting post that, Kroothawk, cheers!
I'd really love to see how Privateer Press compare, though.
Agreed, while one can draw some conclusions, without PP's details, nothing really conclusive, my gut says they'd be somewhere in the 10-20% range minimum, but I may as well be speculating on the future price of haddock.
An ex-PP employee told me that PP's total global sales were equal to 25% of GW's North American sales back in 2011 or about $12,000,000 (based off GW's 2011 number).
Interesting numbers on Battlefront. The game has died for the most part in my area and has been cleared out. Vietnam didn't catch on and there is only so much you can realistically squeeze out of a historical game. The numbers might be a sign they have saturated their target market. Know that some of the people who played it have moved onto Bolt Action.
FYI when it comes to the info about Corvus Bell and Battlefront, that is only the info related to the activity in that country. Unless Corvus bell really is making less than a million. Those are state statutory filings to ensure they are paying the correct amount of tax in the country. US companies will also have something similar in each country they have a subsidiary. Most foreign countries require each company to have their financial statements reviewed by an auditor (a review is VERY different from an audit). The review entails making sure they conform to statutory filings for each country. This ensures the correct amount of tax is calculated and assessed. That's my experience with this information anyway. I've used it for my audits and the company I work for does it that way as well. It all comes down to nexus, everyone wants more tax dollars.
Also, North American privately held companies aren't required to make their revenue public like they apparently are in some places in Europe. It's confidential between the company and the government's taxation arm.
From a market viewpoint I cannot find fault: their stock has tripled since 2010, with approximately a 50% increase annually (going by trend not those strange year end drop/jumps).
(Approximate by graph: 2010 - 250, 2011 - 350, 2012 - 450, 2013 - 660)
Comparing my own portfolio: GW is a good performer so I would not expect any changes from them.
And you should not but let us not get all to giddy about the price of your shares.
One of things I check for is how much stock is traded on a daily basis and its very low IMHO over the years compared to other stocks that I have invested in the past. Market manipulation via a company is a constant concern with myself. I rather see 10's of thousands of stock being traded daily than hundreds shares of stock.
So lets get back to to the underlining issue with GW's financial report. It posted a second half loss during which they increased products being sold. Increase in stores was very small overall. Reduction in staff increased Including the loss of Wells this second half of the financial report. That's 200 grand (half his CEO pay). Still posted a loss.
I know that GW will make a sizable profit in the first half of the 2013-2014. It will come from increase products, price increases and licensing. The CH lawsuit (*I believe) will only be a residual amount for the first half of the report, which means more profit. Profit increase will also come their restructuring of their stores and store policies.
I want to see a strong profit report that beats the first half of the 2012-1013 report given. I will reference them with the past reports AND their accounting practices to make a conclusion. I want to see long term, sustainable health from the company.
From a business stand point that is all I want to see.
(so even if a company was prepared to go for dubious market manipulation low volumes of trades mean they don't need to)
With no agenda, I will mention that substantial blocks of shrares were sold earlier in the year.
I will add that a stable company that pays a consistently high dividend (in excess of the cash they actually generated on this occasion) is not likely to encourage a quick turnover of stocks.
Alkasyn wrote: Regarding the numbers posted earlier, Corvus Belli said at Gen Con that they grew an another 75% last year.
75%? Bah, that's nothing to the solid growth of 2.8% (at 2.8% inflation) that GW shows
Again that 2.8% growth is what 3 or 4 Corvus Bells? I would hope they have more growth because they are still a start up company. I pray they continue to grow and stick around for some time. GW had similar growth in the late 80's when they emerged into new markets, moved from the UK to Europe and the US. The difference again is where they are in their life cycle, one is mature and the other is a start up.
Alkasyn wrote: Regarding the numbers posted earlier, Corvus Belli said at Gen Con that they grew an another 75% last year.
75%? Bah, that's nothing to the solid growth of 2.8% (at 2.8% inflation) that GW shows
Again that 2.8% growth is what 3 or 4 Corvus Bells? I would hope they have more growth because they are still a start up company. I pray they continue to grow and stick around for some time. GW had similar growth in the late 80's when they emerged into new markets, moved from the UK to Europe and the US. The difference again is where they are in their life cycle, one is mature and the other is a start up.
Also, Corvus is entering the hockey stick spike phase of growth. This can make or break them as demand outstrips supply. People can't get their products, lose interest. Hopefully they can ride it out.
Just to put that in perspective, Hasbro's game division only grew 2% last year and Hasbro trumpeted that number. That matches the 2% Zweischneid quoted for growth for licensed games. Seeing people adding WotC had revenue of $139 million last year. So GW is bigger than WotC.
silent25 wrote: Seeing people adding WotC had revenue of $139 million last year. So GW is bigger than WotC.
Source? In 1999 WotC had $237 Mio revenue, but in 2008 less than $100 Mio, doubling it since then.
WotC certainly suffered from almost no new D&D products for a long time, with Magic going up and down in popularity.
Edit: Found the source: A confidental one to Brandir on Warseer.
silent25 wrote: Seeing people adding WotC had revenue of $139 million last year. So GW is bigger than WotC.
Source? In 1999 WotC had $237 Mio revenue, but in 2008 less than $100 Mio, doubling it since then.
WotC certainly suffered from almost no new D&D products for a long time, with Magic going up and down in popularity.
Edit: Found the source: A confidental one to Brandir on Warseer.
Yup. Don't forget back in 1999 WotC also had the Pokemon boom, the Wizards Game Centers, and the Game Keeper chain under their belt providing revenue. And as we were speculating with GW possibly being bought out, that number was likely inflated/padded to increase the buying price by Hasbro. Hasbro shut down the stores. Pokemon was taken back by Nintendo. Sales of D&D are dead these days because of Pathfinder and anticipation of 5th edition. All WotC really has these days is Magic. It's doing great, but it is really all they have right now.
If you read the financials, MtG and WotC are actually carrying the water for Hasbro's game divisions which their traditional board games have largely been displaced by mobile apps which are comparable to the games. While a lot of people think of the 1990s being the hey day of CCGs and MtG in particular, it is now more popular than ever. In 2011, at the shareholders meeting, Hasbro addressed their WotC purchase as a 10 year retrospective.
This past February, Hasbro released another Investors Day slide show which put WotC sales at around $360 million (slide 41 of the HAS Toy Fair Briefing 2013). Slide 111 of the same briefing shows the last 5 years of MtG growth (no numbers on the graph, but units sold has tripled).
If you read the financials, MtG and WotC are actually carrying the water for Hasbro's game divisions which their traditional board games have largely been displaced by mobile apps which are comparable to the games. While a lot of people think of the 1990s being the hey day of CCGs and MtG in particular, it is now more popular than ever. In 2011, at the shareholders meeting, Hasbro addressed their WotC purchase as a 10 year retrospective.
This past February, Hasbro released another Investors Day slide show which put WotC sales at around $360 million (slide 41 of the HAS Toy Fair Briefing 2013). Slide 111 of the same briefing shows the last 5 years of MtG growth (no numbers on the graph, but units sold has tripled).
Where did you find the Investors Daily slide show? Would like to check out those numbers and see what else is in there. Also to disprove Brandir on Warseer.
Yes I did read it and left out the 30% growth rate. Per Black Diamond Games (Kroothawks favorite source for info), is in a horrible bubble phase. This leads to the 15 - 20 % growth rate being quoted by IcV2 as likely being driven only by that. All the game store owners that have chimed in on discussions openly say MtG keeps the lights on and likely make a large part of their sales. With Pokemon likely also seeing a similar growth, most of the game store growth we are hearing about comes from two products. Not everything else except GW like people keep saying.
I knew Magic was bigger than GW. I was wondering where silent25 got the numbers he talked about earlier in the thread. Now we know, he or someone else made them up.
Pretty much every aspect of the hobby gaming industry (non-traditional board games, card games and miniatures) is growing except for GW. The smaller companies all talk about record growth and Hasbro shows tripling of unit sales for MTG. Fantasy Flight just keeps pumping out the product and X-Wing has been a runaway success. GW? They are stagnant.
frozenwastes wrote: I knew Magic was bigger than GW. I was wondering where silent25 got the numbers he talked about earlier in the thread. Now we know, he or someone else made them up.
Pretty much every aspect of the hobby gaming industry (non-traditional board games, card games and miniatures) is growing except for GW. The smaller companies all talk about record growth and Hasbro shows tripling of unit sales for MTG. Fantasy Flight just keeps pumping out the product and X-Wing has been a runaway success. GW? They are stagnant.
I was conveying what Brandir was quoting on Warseer. I do not make up number. Still waiting for Sean to show where he got his numbers. Especially when reading analyst comments on financial sites that state Hasbro doesn't release numbers on the size of WotC. And these are dated after the supposed slide show.
frozenwastes wrote: I knew Magic was bigger than GW. I was wondering where silent25 got the numbers he talked about earlier in the thread. Now we know, he or someone else made them up.
I can confirm that Brandir is usually a good source. Seems his trusted source was wrong this time. silent25 just quoted him.
I have no idea if those breakdowns on Hasbro's internal sales are correct, that if indeed their games are growing so much faster than GW's.
But lest this page becomes an outpost of naysaying, it's worth comparing how the stock market values of Hasbro and GW compare. GW in blue; Hasbro in red.
Doubtless someone will be along soon to tell us how that red line is really higher than the blue one...
You can go to this link and compare GW to whatever other business you like, simply click on the 'compare' button, then enter their name.
GW's stock has been doing great. They have consistent revenue and pay a large dividend. But when it goes up and down, it really goes up and down. Such volatility may not make it appropriate for all portfolios.
So yeah, if you bought GW at the bottom, they tripled for you. Just like many stocks if you happen to have gotten in at a bottom. Hasbro's been more stagnant in terms of both sales and stock price than GW, but they're also much larger, so move less.
Which would I own right now? Neither stock meets my criteria.
Laughing Man wrote: Weird to see their share prices dive every time a new edition comes out...
They're not. You're interpreting the graph wrong. The spike is representing the boost in sales from the new edition being released (which "everyone" needs to buy) and then the dropoff as sales return to a more "normal" level once everyone has the rules.
The 30% is from Hasbros 2012 annual report available on their web page. So I'm sure that number is correct. The $360 million I would like to see along with other stuff that may be in there. Like how much money MLP makes for them..... <_<;
I don't doubt the rough value and was surprised by Brandir's number originally. But then there are analysts that put WotC's numbers from $50 to $400 million. That is quite a range.
Another bit of financial information, the local who got the breakdown of the GW numbers at Games Day also got that FFG revenue is 1 to 2% of GW's revenue.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Tell me again: why do we care? Do Flames of War players research Gale Force 9's annual reports? or Magic players Hasbro?
or os it just anorher facet of the hipster movement to hate GW enough to obsess over every detail of the company?
I hardly think the financial health of an organisation who, like it or not, would damage the wargaming hobby if it collapsed is something that shouldn't be of interest?
But then, this is probably another of your troll posts which you won't follow up, as you essentially have nothing to contribute, so I'll stop typing now.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Tell me again: why do we care? Do Flames of War players research Gale Force 9's annual reports? or Magic players Hasbro?
or os it just anorher facet of the hipster movement to hate GW enough to obsess over every detail of the company?
I hardly think the financial health of an organisation who, like it or not, would damage the wargaming hobby if it collapsed is something that shouldn't be of interest?
But then, this is probably another of your troll posts which you won't follow up, as you essentially have nothing to contribute, so I'll stop typing now.
So are you saying that TSR folded because no one in the RPG hobby was monitoring their finances? Or is it just another way to whine about how much better we all could run GW?
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Tell me again: why do we care? Do Flames of War players research Gale Force 9's annual reports? or Magic players Hasbro?
or os it just anorher facet of the hipster movement to hate GW enough to obsess over every detail of the company?
I hardly think the financial health of an organisation who, like it or not, would damage the wargaming hobby if it collapsed is something that shouldn't be of interest?
But then, this is probably another of your troll posts which you won't follow up, as you essentially have nothing to contribute, so I'll stop typing now.
So are you saying that TSR folded because no one in the RPG hobby was monitoring their finances? Or is it just another way to whine about how much better we all could run GW?
I'm saying nothing that would be considered off topic.
But, if you'd like to contribute to the thread, rather than denigrating those who do, I'll gladly listen to your thoughts, and post my thoughts on what you've said.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Then answer my question: would monitoring TSR's finances have kept them in business?
Do you know, I actually started to play this game, I had most of my reply written out, then I realised that it is totally irrelevant to the topic, so I stopped.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Then answer my question: would monitoring TSR's finances have kept them in business?
Do you know, I actually started to play this game, I had most of my reply written out, then I realised that it is totally irrelevant to the topic, so I stopped.
So, you can't really tell anyone why we are so concerned about how GW is doing? How many other hobby groups do the same? Considering TSR's original market share in the RPG hobby and its position as the founder of the RPG hobby, should we, as RPG players have been worrying and criticizing how TSR was being run?
Since you can't really answer why the annual report is argued and discussed in detail by people, half of which are admitted ex-GW players, must mean that there is something significant that we will learn from it.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Tell me again: why do we care? Do Flames of War players research Gale Force 9's annual reports? or Magic players Hasbro?
or os it just anorher facet of the hipster movement to hate GW enough to obsess over every detail of the company?
notprop wrote:Flames of War and Gale Force 9 are both BattleFront, so no comparison there.
/pedant
PWND !
If the best you have to contribute is a simplistic chat response, it may be best to keep quiet while the adults are talking. Even the posting rules tell you that.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Then answer my question: would monitoring TSR's finances have kept them in business?
Do you know, I actually started to play this game, I had most of my reply written out, then I realised that it is totally irrelevant to the topic, so I stopped.
So, you can't really tell anyone why we are so concerned about how GW is doing? How many other hobby groups do the same? Considering TSR's original market share in the RPG hobby and its position as the founder of the RPG hobby, should we, as RPG players have been worrying and criticizing how TSR was being run?
Since you can't really answer why the annual report is argued and discussed in detail by people, half of which are admitted ex-GW players, must mean that there is something significant that we will learn from it.
So discussing GW financial records just ends up being wannabe CEO/CFOs complaing that they could manage the hobby better and the overall theme of OMGGWISSOOOOSTUPID, right?
I know car enthusiasts who know or care less about their favorite brands than you purport to know about GW. So I guess those Pontiac fans dropped the ball in 2011, having never studied and discussed in detail the financial stupidity of the brand?
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: So discussing GW financial records just ends up being wannabe CEO/CFOs complaing that they could manage the hobby better and the overall theme of OMGGWISSOOOOSTUPID, right?
I know car enthusiasts who know or care less about their favorite brands than you purport to know about GW. So I guess those Pontiac fans dropped the ball in 2011, having never studied and discussed in detail the financial stupidity of the brand?
Probably the lamest waste of time ever is being "discussion police" where you go into threads you don't care about and tell people what they should and should not discuss.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: So discussing GW financial records just ends up being wannabe CEO/CFOs complaing that they could manage the hobby better and the overall theme of OMGGWISSOOOOSTUPID, right?
I know car enthusiasts who know or care less about their favorite brands than you purport to know about GW. So I guess those Pontiac fans dropped the ball in 2011, having never studied and discussed in detail the financial stupidity of the brand?
I'm sorry people aren't discussing things in the way you think they should.
Perhaps you should go and tell those car enthusiasts how to have fun for a bit and let us get on with it?
People like to talk about things that are important to them or interest them. Some wargamers find the financial performance of the biggest player in the game noteworthy and wish to discuss it. Inevitably some people will think some things should be done differently, and will say so, others will then disagree.
RatBot wrote: I'm assuming Solo is being held hostage and forced, at gunpoint, to read and post in threads that discuss things he doesn't care about.
OMG, what if you're right?
Solo, if that's the case, post two, one line, abrasive replies that contribute nothing to the ongoing conversation in threads that you don't then follow up, and we'll send help!
If the best you have to contribute is a simplistic chat response, it may be best to keep quiet while the adults are talking. Even the posting rules tell you that.
What's the average length of your posts? About a sentence and a half usually? Fair play though a good attempt, the reply I was half-way through writing no doubt would have resulted in me getting banned, which was no doubt the desired effect.
@ Everyone: Please take a breather before continuing ITT. Remember, this is just a discussion about toy soldiers. Nothing we can legitimately discuss ITT is worth getting your blood pressure up or insulting other people. Thanks.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I have no idea if those breakdowns on Hasbro's internal sales are correct, that if indeed their games are growing so much faster than GW's.
But lest this page becomes an outpost of naysaying, it's worth comparing how the stock market values of Hasbro and GW compare. GW in blue; Hasbro in red.
Doubtless someone will be along soon to tell us how that red line is really higher than the blue one...
You can go to this link and compare GW to whatever other business you like, simply click on the 'compare' button, then enter their name.
Hmmm... GW stock quote is in pence. Hasbro is in dollars. GW market capitalization is £246m. Hasbro market capitalization is $5.8bn. So, yeah, the red line really *is* higher than the blue one...
frozenwastes wrote: I knew Magic was bigger than GW. I was wondering where silent25 got the numbers he talked about earlier in the thread. Now we know, he or someone else made them up.
Pretty much every aspect of the hobby gaming industry (non-traditional board games, card games and miniatures) is growing except for GW. The smaller companies all talk about record growth and Hasbro shows tripling of unit sales for MTG. Fantasy Flight just keeps pumping out the product and X-Wing has been a runaway success. GW? They are stagnant.
I was conveying what Brandir was quoting on Warseer. I do not make up number. Still waiting for Sean to show where he got his numbers. Especially when reading analyst comments on financial sites that state Hasbro doesn't release numbers on the size of WotC. And these are dated after the supposed slide show.
And besides, GW is growing faster than Hasbro.
I gave the name of the report...should have come out in late February or early March if I recall correctly. I would need to scan it in to do anything more than I have already. I am sure someone on a My Little Pony, Transformers or GI Joe site has already scanned it in...so Google is your friend, otherwise you might find information on the Hasbro site, my copy came from my broker as he knows I have an interest in that sort of thing.
Keep in mind that GW is peanuts compared to real toy companies. Hasbro made $130 million in profit in the same quarter that ended when the slides came out on $1.28 billion in sales. Just one quarter. They are saturated in the 1st world countries and have little room left for growth there, while in developing countries (BRIC in particular) they have seen huge growth figures. Because of the saturation though, most growth is in those as well as less mainstream product lines (MtG for example).
GW on the other hand is really only at a saturation point in the UK. Even on mainland Europe, you have issues with their localization as well as availability of products outside of online sales. While a company like Hasbro is a mature stock that should be maintining slow growth and paying a hefty dividend (already made $1.20 per share this year with a likely 40 or 50 cents more to come) which will bring it to about twice what GW pays out, last year I think we got about $1.70 per share for the year as well.
Regarding comparing Hasbro to GW on the market graph, that is really disnegenuous. As mentioned already, the LSE is pence while the NYSE is whole dollars. Hasbro hasnt been valued at GW level in terms of stock prices since the Regan administration. While GW is dealing with millions, they are dealing in billions...not to mention that if you were to just look at twelve months or so of data, you would see it move more than GW has in the last 20 years. It is a high volume stock traded on a high volume market. Last summer, I think it was around $35 per share, now it is around $45 per share and it was at nearly $50 a month or two ago. So, yes, the little red line is indeed well above the little blue line. Far and away above the little blue line. I wouldnt be surprised to look into it more and see that more shares of Hasbro are traded in a single day GW shares traded in an entire year.
GWs stock price is the equivalent of around $12 (USD).
So for your $12 (price of one share) you would have netted $.72 (per share in dividends last year.
For Hasbro, the shares are $45 each. Last year they paid $1.74 per share.
To compare them multiply the GW dividend by 3.75 which would be: $2.70. So better than Hasbro.
Of course, if you still have GW shares that were purchased back in say 2009 when it was MUCH lower then you are doing very well and the amount paid in dividends isn't what is really driving you... it's the upward price per share. Namely the average of $2.35/share per year increase since then; which is way better than Hasbro's results over the same time period.
clively wrote: GWs stock price is the equivalent of around $1200.
Now consider this, for your $1200 (price of one share) you would have netted $1 (yes, one whole dollar) per share in dividends last year. Woo flipping hoo.
For Hasbro, the shares are $45 each. Last year they paid $1.74 per share.
So, if you had $1200 invested in Hasbro then you would have netted about $46 (forty-six dollars) in gains.... So yes, the red line is MUCH better than the blue one as far as people *investing today* see it. Of course, if you have GW shares from back when it was MUCH lower then you are doing pretty well and the pittance they paid in dividends isn't what is really driving you.
Dude, the GW share price is in pence, so its currently running at about $12.00 a share.
frozenwastes wrote: I just assumed yahoo finance would have compensated for currency differences. Looks like it didn't.
The currency difference doesn't matter. As a matter of fact comparing the stock price of 2 different companies has absolutely nothing to do with comparing the value. You have to look deeper; for example, comparing growth rates. In which case that red line trending up is a very very good thing.
I gave the name of the report...should have come out in late February or early March if I recall correctly. I would need to scan it in to do anything more than I have already. I am sure someone on a My Little Pony, Transformers or GI Joe site has already scanned it in...so Google is your friend, otherwise you might find information on the Hasbro site, my copy came from my broker as he knows I have an interest in that sort of thing.
Yea, tried searching for the report by that name and by others, but no luck. Lots of pictures of figures and such, but no financial section. Not sure if my browsing history is messing that up.
Only picture I could find that was close a numberless growth chart:
Spoiler:
Unfortunately nothing to verify your number.
Though on the HAS vs. GAW:L stock comparison, you can get several GW shares for the price of one Hasbro share. Should really compare say $1,000 worth of GW stock vs $1,000 worth of Hasbro stock. You'll end up with a much larger dividend check from GW. But I still sold min since I was expecting the stock to tank after the Hobbit. Still surprised it hasn't because the annual report was "disappointing".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: The currency difference absolutely matters. Why? During the same time period the GBP lost 25% of it's value against the USD.
Not sure where you are getting that 25% from? The peak GBP/USD during that period was ~1.64 and trough was ~1.49. For a 25% loss, it would have to be near 1.2.
Only picture I could find that was close a numberless growth chart:
Spoiler:
That's pretty impressive to nearly triple revenue in four years. And we're not talking about some small company like Corvus Belli who can have a good year breaking into new markets via the web and have 75% growth. We're talking an established game expanding it's player base even further and doing a great job retaining current customers.
As for the GBP, around 5 years ago, it was worth $2 or so USD. Now it's around 1.5-1.6 depending on the week.
frozenwastes wrote: [
That's pretty impressive to nearly triple revenue in four years. And we're not talking about some small company like Corvus Belli who can have a good year breaking into new markets via the web and have 75% growth. We're talking an established game expanding it's player base even further and doing a great job retaining current customers.
As for the GBP, around 5 years ago, it was worth $2 or so USD. Now it's around 1.5-1.6 depending on the week.
It's peak was 1.8 five years ago and that is still only a 15% drop over it's current value.
As for that growth, remember, Hasbro sells Magic in China. That is a huge market that no tabletop miniature game is currently competing it that I'm aware of.
So it looks like WotC/Hasbro has figured out how to break into China, but GW has not. I know they've been trying, but I'm guessing that without local independent stockists to take the risk in building the initial market, GW doesn't really know what to do to make it happen.
And yep, I didn't notice, but I had my currency thingy on CAD rather the USD.
We should also be honest here about comparing from a bottom to today. It's very, very rare for people to buy at the bottom of a given stock. I know that professionals like fund managers who bought GW in 2008 figured out it was a good buy, but to talk about GW's stock performance as if everyone bought in at the best possible time just isn't realistic as a point for comparison. Someone might have bought just a bit earlier and saw their 400p stock plumet to 200p very quickly. And had the dividend canceled as GW issued a profit warning. Small company's stocks are very volatile (hopefully anyone who bought in at 400p held on and now have doubled their money).
If anyone has bought into GW in the last 5 years, great move! What's your exit plan? Under what conditions would you sell? Buy more?
frozenwastes wrote: So it looks like WotC/Hasbro has figured out how to break into China, but GW has not. I know they've been trying, but I'm guessing that without local independent stockists to take the risk in building the initial market, GW doesn't really know what to do to make it happen.
Well to be fair that what happen with a Marketing Department, if GW would spend the money they have a much better shot.
Regarding comparing Hasbro to GW on the market graph, that is really disnegenuous....
Now, I hold no brief for GW, and am not necessarily defending their management practices, but I am constantly surprised at the attempts to twist the facts to suggest they're doing badly when in fact they're doing well.
GW's share performance is better than that of Hasbro. The price of the share is completely irrelevant as a single criterion - it only matter whether it's rising or falling, and how it relates to earnings per share and of course to market cap. GW's share price has performed far better than Hasbro, who we've heard about recently, and it's an illuminating comparison. GW is generally seen as a model of good corporate governance. People here hate Kelly - but he's doing a decent job, as that feature in the Telegraph - interpreted here as negative, due to extreme selection bias - demonstrates.
Of course the market cap is relevant - Hasbro is indeed a far bigger company. But beyond dividends, which as pointed out are far higher for GW than Hasbro, GW's actual financial performance is far better, if you look at return on equity. Hasbro's is 22.7 per cent - GW's is 34.1 per cent. 34 per cent is a fantastic figure.
Despite all the naysaying here, GW is perceived in the market as a well-run company, and the figures back it up.
The whole corporate strategy is focussed to keep share price up for another 2 years, because the CEO and chair is a major shareholder and gets 1 Mio GBP per year out of this and retires in 2 years. So short term good shareholder value is not astonishing. People here argue that lack of growth, flat revenue, constantly less sales and customers are not good.
yourself."
...
Blimey! Interesting post that, Kroothawk, cheers! 
