Barfolomew wrote: I've played Warmachine and 40K quite a bit. Let's assume the cost between the games is the same because people have debated that enough. Here is the primary reasons I would recommend Warmachine over 40K:
- Takes less models and thus less models to paint and keep up with in the game.
- Switching the warcaster model can cause the army to play very differently. Basically, you can have multiple styles of army with a couple different warcasters. In 40K, you need to usually swap out large sections of the army to get it to play differently.
- The rules are well written. See the "you make the call" forums for Warmachine and 40K and the difference is mind blowing.
- PP interacts with the customers. They actually host forums and are fairly active on them.
Heard lots of good things about warmachine and I was tempted to play it. The only thing barring me is that I don't like the aesthetics of the models. I like the setting and the rules and everything, it's just that I think I'm forever turned off by the heroic scale. Which is funny because before I played 40k I absolutely hated the proportion of GW's models but it kinda grew on me. Now it shrunk back to hate.
Now I'm playing Infinity and historicals. If only Perry would work for Kings of War and remove the fugly figures in Mantic's range. That will be heaven for me.
Silver_skates wrote: I may be one of the few people but I'd be irritated by a move away from large units in Warhammer. I like the feel of bigger battles with lots of men on the battlefied marching into combat. I suppose I could start playing 10,000 point games but if the rules changes what am I going to do with:
40 Dwarf Hammerers
40 Dwarf warriors with two handed weapons
40 Dwarf warriors with shield and hand weapon
40 Empire Halberdiers
Also, when people compare warmahordes with Warhammer although the cost of playing a game is lower, collecting is not. No PP fan complains about paying £50-ish on ten banes but will say that GW are priced too highly when a unit of 10 Dark Elf witches cost £30. I think the scale of the game means that you shouldn't compare.
To be fair though I think that's more because Warmahordes tends to give you everything you need in a box, and you tend to need less boxes in most cases unless you're doubling up on certain units; Warhammer you tend to need at least 2 boxes to make a good unit (as the boxes are 10 and you tend to need at least 20) so right off the bat you're basically paying twice for one unit in Warhammer; in your example you need at least 20 Witch Elves, and from what I've read more like 30 so you're actually paying 60 pounds minimum for the unit to be of any use at all.
Cost per figure might be more, but value per figure is a lot better.
There is a good thread on "What would bring you back to GW games" in the Discussion forum, in case people want to continue the comparisons of different games.
azreal13 wrote: There's a way to go before they hit a 5 year low (disregarding the odd spike) but I'm surprised we haven't seen some more bullish investors picking up some stock and causing the price to rally at least a bit by now.
In the last 10 years they've been as low as ~270p, and IIRC in the late 90s they went down to maybe ~220p. If I was looking to make an investment I'd certainly be looking to see if they go below 400p.
silent25 wrote: There are some good things in this rumor that GW is apparently trying to address the entry level cost issue.
If this is so apparent, why is GW forcing hardcover Codices and Apocalypse units down every customer's throat?
If there are new editions for 40k and Fantasy this year, it is just a desperate measure to force everyone to buy it, not to rebbot or fix the game.
He has been traveling non-stop for new training and meetings, so it was easy to see something was coming down the pipe.
With most staff outside Nottingham HQ fired, the non-stop travelling must have been between first and second storey
BTW here tha share development from today and from tha last few days:
GW is looking to improve the customer experience in their stores and they are hiring someone to do so (see http://careers.games-workshop.com/2014/01/15/customer-experience-interim-2-years-nottingham-uk/). I can certainly say that the excitement level with the GW hobby appears to be down worldwide given their slipping sales numbers last year. I can also definitely see it in my own little corner of the GW universe, excitement level overall and the rate of gaining new hobby recruits is way down from just a few years ago.
Of course, GW could learn a lot about what's wrong free of charge from paying attention to the more cogent remarks they get from their customers through letters and online. Here's my own recent take on the situation at this link:
Until you read the job description and realize it revolves around the experience of buying GW products.
The Job has nothing to do with the game or the hobby (unless you accept Kirby's assertion that our hobby is to buy GW products), all it revolves around is costumer experience between entering the store and paying at the registry...
It's a bit of a weird idea. This guy -- it almost certainly will be a guy -- will "travel the world" for two years seeking wisdom and enlightenment. Then the strategic projects team will take over and put things into action.
Why not just commission a good market research company to do some surveys, then commission a good user experience agency to do some ideas about how to rework the shops? They could get the whole thing wrapped up much quicker.
Until you read the job description and realize it revolves around the experience of buying GW products.
The Job has nothing to do with the game or the hobby (unless you accept Kirby's assertion that our hobby is to buy GW products), all it revolves around is costumer experience between entering the store and paying at the registry...
Games Workshop wrote:
We are looking for someone to spend the next two years turning over every – and we mean every – stone to find opportunities for how we can improve the customer experience in our stores and recommend the ones that will work. We aren’t talking about incremental improvements; we want to completely re-imagine what it is like for people coming into our stores, engaging with and buying our wonderful miniatures.
Emphasis mine.
The temptation is to bash GW blindly, but your statement is objectively untrue. Equally, the "buying GW products" line is nothing to do with Kirby. In order to avoid sounding like a frothing hater, criticism needs to maintain accuracy, else it is no better than those who claim people who criticise the rules are playing the game wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote: But then you might hear that "One Man Shops" are the problem and that doesn't sound anything like "Yes!", so...
Agreed, but if its a two year contract on a two year project, one has demonstrably less to lose by telling Kirby he's a gakker than of one has aspirations of a long term career in the studio or HO.
it revolves around is costumer experience between entering the store and paying at the registry...
I don't see that as a problem, they are a business and that experience in the store has a lot to do with getting people to buy something. The stores exist ultimately to make sales, stores of any kind without sufficient sales close.
One basic of any sales training is that people buy something when they are happy. People do not open their wallets if they are unhappy with their experience talking to a salesperson or with other aspects of a retail establishment. They don't buy and they don't come back. A few years ago the stores in my own area seemed a lot more exciting and sales were better. People were happy to patronize the GW stores because they loved them and loved being in them for hobby and game time with people they liked in a place they really liked. That seems to have dropped off a lot. I'd hate to see all their shops close, too many have closed already. I hope GW finds the solution they are seeking before it's too late for them and their customers. A primary rule of serving your customers is to stay in business so that you have an opportunity to do so. Closed shops serve no one.
The one man store system they use now is terrible. Part time stores with one harried employee do little to generate community excitement or create a fun environment with good support for new customers.
Alpharius wrote: But then you might hear that "One Man Shops" are the problem and that doesn't sound anything like "Yes!", so...
Agreed, but if its a two year contract on a two year project, one has demonstrably less to lose by telling Kirby he's a gakker than of one has aspirations of a long term career in the studio or HO.
That's true, however the wording of the application procedure is the same as the rest of the jobs they put out, wanting people who fit in with the company culture. (feth CVs and skills, tell us why you want the job but it's got to be on our terms in effect.)
This is a role in which fitting the company culture is not what they need. They already have the customer experience that the company culture can develop -- they've spent years on it.
If they really want a fresh look they need someone who will be iconoclastic. (Though they would be best off with an objective report from an external agency.)
"To improve customer experience, we are closing all our HQs outside UK. So if you have any problems, come to us in Nottingham. We speak English only by the way " BTW customer service hours in Germany were reduced to 5 hours per day (1-3 and 4-7 pm, and often not even then)
The signs about the HQ closings have been apparent for a while. For example, GW US executives have been reporting directly to Nottingham since last year. Manufacturing in the huge US HQ in Memphis was discontinued within the past two years and that part of the facility now sits empty. They just keep winding down the business in their non-UKHQs and closing them would seem to be a likely ulterior motive.
That's true, however the wording of the application procedure is the same as the rest of the jobs they put out, wanting people who fit in with the company culture. (feth CVs and skills, tell us why you want the job but it's got to be on our terms in effect.)
This is a role in which fitting the company culture is not what they need. They already have the customer experience that the company culture can develop -- they've spent years on it.
If they really want a fresh look they need someone who will be iconoclastic. (Though they would be best off with an objective report from an external agency.)
It is likely they directed their HR department to place the add and in typical HR fashion, don't know what to put in requirement wise. Having done the job search role recently, there are a lot of adds with people asking for something and not knowing how to express it. This is typical of small companies, not something the size of GW, but again, nothing is typical about GW
Also, when people compare warmahordes with Warhammer although the cost of playing a game is lower, collecting is not. No PP fan complains about paying £50-ish on ten banes but will say that GW are priced too highly when a unit of 10 Dark Elf witches cost £30. I think the scale of the game means that you shouldn't compare.
Well, now its more like $50 for 10 bane thralls compared to $60 for 10 Dark Elf Witches. PP actually dropped the cost when they moved to plastic.
The temptation is to bash GW blindly, but your statement is objectively untrue. Equally, the "buying GW products" line is nothing to do with Kirby. In order to avoid sounding like a frothing hater, criticism needs to maintain accuracy, else it is no better than those who claim people who criticise the rules are playing the game wrong.
Here's the parts of the posting I have issue wtih:
You will need to agree your plans directly with the CEO and provide regular updates on your progress. Your final report to the CEO will need to include workable proposals for how we can transform the customer experience in our stores so that the chosen initiatives can be handed over to our strategic projects team ...
At Games Workshop we are looking for people who will do their best to understand the needs of the company and to put those needs first when they are at work. Because of this we believe that what you are like, hence the attitude you show to work and the way you choose to behave is even more important than your skills or experience.
The person will report directly to the CEO, who will then thumbs up or down the idea and allows the person to try it.
Then we have the statement which is completely counter to just above every company on the face of the planet, needs of the company come first. First of all, it's obvious that a company is in business to make money, but the company should always be customer focused, not internally focused, especially in retail for a luxury.
So..you need to ok what you're doing to justify your salary with your boss, and should put the company first?
Far from being counter to every company on the planet, that's so regulation as to be boiler plate.
Why do you think its good practice to focus on the customer? Simply because it is the most efficient way of getting as much money out of that customer for the company
You're taking issue with perfectly normal stuff purely because it's an ad for a GW job.
I think they're reading into the job to mean that you have to tow the company line no matter what you find; e.g. they can't say "Hey Mr. Kirby we need to cut prices by 50%, people seem to be turned off by the cost" because it wouldn't be listened to, and therefore make the role useless.
That's what I gathered, anyways. The underlying assumption is that the correct answer to this 2-year position is "Everything's fine" instead of actually finding out what's wrong and letting Kirby and co. know how they should fix it.
Yeah, I get that, and I'm not entirely sure they're wrong, but I'm all for balanced criticism, and tearing apart a job ad for using fairly standard job ad language just because it's GW undermines all the perfectly valid and justifiable points levelled at them.
It's absolutely standard job ad language for GW, but not for other companies.
Most employers draw up a job description that includes a required set of skills and experience, plus desirable/advantageous additional skills. There is often also some stuff about following company values such as customer focus, integrity and that kind of stuff.
GW's ad says, "At Games Workshop we are looking for people who will do their best to understand the needs of the company and to put those needs first when they are at work. Because of this we believe that what you are like, hence the attitude you show to work and the way you choose to behave is even more important than your skills or experience."
All that tells us is that GW are looking for some mysterious quality they can't describe themselves.
I reiterate my point against that GW already have spent years designing what their company culture is capable of producing in customer experience.
When they ask for someone to take a look at improving their customer experience, it means either that they need someone completely outside the company culture, or else that they want another "yes" man to validate what they have already done.
I undoubtedly agree that the "skills? We don't need no freakin skills! It's all about the attitude man" is totally bat gak crazy, but a job outlining who you would be responsible to, especially when the nature of the job probably requires lots of juicy travel and accommodation expenses, isn't that unusual, and containing an essentially redundant phrase about putting the needs of the company first isn't grounds for criticism.
I also agree that the odds of this role being any sort of catalyst for change are remote, and probably 5 years late (at least.)
Right now I think the only hope is for the instigators of this stupid, stagnant "yes man" culture to disappear, and I'm still open to the possibility that that begins beneath Kirby, albeit I suspect that's unlikely, but perhaps this job suggests that somebody, somewhere in Lenton has a clue, and perhaps, just perhaps, all hope hasn't died yet.
notprop wrote: I foresee something akin to Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy where after many years
I thought you were going to go with the good Hitchhiker's reference and equate this job to Ford's work on the Earth entry. I.e. this guy ends up doing a bang up job and GW just boils it down to 'Mostly Harmless'.
I'm interested to know why they are specifically targeting their own stores as opposed FLGS or online or just about any other avenue to purchase their product.
Are the margins on the stores that high? Does most of their business now come from their one man stores? I know its how they WANT to get new people into the hobby, but does the company store actually attract those new people?
Do FLGS's really account for so few new players, or continued players? Are the revenues down from them?
Why I'm asking is, why would GW spend a ton of money on reviewing something that, unless I'm wrong, really isn't the problem.
The problem, I believe (for all thats worth), isn't the fact that a customer doesn't enjoy the atmosphere of a GW store, or that a single employee isn't properly conveying the excitement and enjoyment of the hobby. Its the fact that the minis cost an arm and a leg. Its the fact that any online research only reveals a toxic cespool of angry nerds.
Offering fancier stores or new training to the shop owners isn't going to attract new customers that will stay.
So unless I'm missing something huge, this is a massive waste of time and money.
GW want their stores (or better yet, website) to be the primary channel for their product.
It isn't.
They can't be unaware of how their actions have affected their third party accounts, so probably aren't surprised that they've seen a tail off in business from the sector.
What I'd suggest, like yourself, is that right now it hasn't perhaps dawned on the relevant decision makers that the problem is with their product, rather than their retail approach (albeit that is likely compounding the issue) so they're looking to apply the fix in the wrong place (or at least in the wrong order of priority.)
I also agree it is likely a massive waste of time, but two years of wages of a middle management level (at best) employee will be infinitely cheaper than doing it properly.
EDIT
I just had a thought, isn't it remarkable that the phobia of actually talking to your customers seems so deeply ingrained that a simple online survey doesn't seem to have either entered their thinking, or has been rejected in favour of this? Not wanting to expose yourself in a public forum (giggety) like Facebook is one thing, but sending out a simple online survey would be infinitely more manageable and would likely get them the answers they want, assuming they had the sense to ask the right questions, for zero cost in a matter of days/weeks?
Being the paranoid cynic I am, I don't think this customer experience initiative is anything to do with re-evaluating and possibly improving their customer experience.
Having some bloke "wander the earth" for two years is just a gakky way of doing the study. Probably much cheaper than getting a professional agency to do it, though.
It would be most amusing if the report listed the following major issues and recommendations:
There aren’t enough staff. Get rid of one-man stores. Staff are too pushy selling. Tone it down. The shops need more of a community atmosphere. Encourage veterans to nurture recruits, and run more games and competitions. There is serious sticker shock. There isn’t enough variety of stock in the core games and there is nothing for casual browsers. Bring in some boxed games. (Possibly involving space corridors.) Modern people want to engage with the brand online. Build forums and worldwide campaigns for community. Players want to be enthused and excited about forthcoming new releases. Do more advance publicity.
Kilkrazy wrote: It would be most amusing if the report listed the following major issues and recommendations:
Spoiler:
There aren’t enough staff. Get rid of one-man stores.
Staff are too pushy selling. Tone it down.
The shops need more of a community atmosphere. Encourage veterans to nurture recruits, and run more games and competitions.
There is serious sticker shock.
There isn’t enough variety of stock in the core games and there is nothing for casual browsers. Bring in some boxed games. (Possibly involving space corridors.)
Modern people want to engage with the brand online.
Players want to be enthused and excited about forthcoming new releases. Do more advance publicity.
"Thanks for all of your effort. Go ahead and file your report in that bin over there. Did you need a reference?"
I am tempted to apply for the job just to get the chance to write that report, but I don't think I could get through the interviews with a straight face.
Maybe it's just a way to employ Kirby's nephew on a decent salary for a couple of years.
(although sadly studies in other selling fields sadly show this horrific pushy nonsense does bring in more cash to the businesses that operate this way)
Kilkrazy wrote: I am tempted to apply for the job just to get the chance to write that report, but I don't think I could get through the interviews with a straight face.
Maybe it's just a way to employ Kirby's nephew on a decent salary for a couple of years.
I had a similar thought process (aside from being medically unable to work right now) I'd love to have a crack at it, but, with no false humility, I'd probably be too competent and unable to conceal my horror at the GW culture well enough to bluff the interview process.
(although sadly studies in other selling fields sadly show this horrific pushy nonsense does bring in more cash to the businesses that operate this way)
Its a short term measure for growing companies mainly. Back in the old days of mobile retail, when the networks did some crazy things with the commissions they offered independent retailers and the promotions they did to reward sales, Phones4U were utterly horrendous, I mean telling outright lies to close deals, really, really sharp, intimidating practices went on in most stores daily, and if you didn't fit into that culture, you were drummed out pretty quickly.
That all stopped the day a senior executive saw a salesman grab a woman's child in a pushchair off her and wheel it into store to force her to follow.
Salesmen are often characterised as 'hunters' and 'farmers.' Now, male bravado being what it is, most blokes will want to be hunters, the pushy sort you mention, but in reality, the farmers are what you want, the ones who don't necessarily provide instant results, but look after their crop carefully, and consequently reap a harvest year after year.
Once a company is mature, or the market they operate in matures, this generally tends to occur naturally, as customer retention starts to eclipse acquisition as a priority.
I think what is happening with GW is that they haven't have to really mature as a company, having been the only game in town (to all intents and purposes) for so long. I think we are seeing a significant, and rapid, maturation of wargaming just now. Competitors are emerging, and rather than falling away after a few months or years, as they have historically, they are sticking around and continuing to grow and erode GW market share. I don't think GW, as is, is equipped to deal with this. Raise prices/slash costs has run it's course, 'two birthdays/one Christmas' is very much in the pervue of a growing company making a land grab, not a massively dominant encumbent,
A solid product, honestly priced. A dose of humility and the acknowledgment that the consumer has a choice and genuine appreciation if they choose you, would solve so many of the problems. Ironically, they seem to be falling back into patterns that, while still a bit rubbish, would be more understandable from the likes of PP, Mantic, CB et al, while those companies continue to act in a manner far more appropriate to a company of GWs size.
BrassScorpion wrote: The signs about the HQ closings have been apparent for a while. For example, GW US executives have been reporting directly to Nottingham since last year.
Maybe you are really not aware, but all foreign HQs are led by Kirby's strawpuppets, esp. USA and Germany (they had to fly in a Belgian because of his fitting attitude). The whole company is firmly led by Kirby and his group of non-gaming managers. If Kirby hires an inquisitor to tell him personally, what idiot is doing all those stupid decisions, then this is a tough job to do.
To echo the sentiments above, a simple online survey or a focus group discussion will answer all of their questions. This is the only company I know that is very afraid to interact with their customers, and from what I've learned from marketing you always have to listen to customer feedback. Sheesh.
The pushy staff is such a put off for so many people; it's so refreshing when staff are actually approachable without trying to sell you every paint in the building.
Kilkrazy wrote: Having some bloke "wander the earth" for two years is just a gakky way of doing the study. Probably much cheaper than getting a professional agency to do it, though.
It would be most amusing if the report listed the following major issues and recommendations:
Unlucky Bloke wrote:There aren’t enough staff. Get rid of one-man stores.
Staff are too pushy selling. Tone it down.
The shops need more of a community atmosphere. Encourage veterans to nurture recruits, and run more games and competitions.
There is serious sticker shock.
There isn’t enough variety of stock in the core games and there is nothing for casual browsers. Bring in some boxed games. (Possibly involving space corridors.)
Modern people want to engage with the brand online. Build forums and worldwide campaigns for community.
Players want to be enthused and excited about forthcoming new releases. Do more advance publicity.
Kilkrazy wrote: I am tempted to apply for the job just to get the chance to write that report, but I don't think I could get through the interviews with a straight face.
Maybe it's just a way to employ Kirby's nephew on a decent salary for a couple of years.
Why don't you? It is a cover letter and a resume. Worst they fly you out to England and you tour GWHQ. If the pessimists don't apply, all you will get is GW fanboys who will look and see everything is perfect. Given they are advertising it, they may want an outside opinion (highly unlikely). That you lived in Japan (I assume speak Japanese) and you would already have language to cover one of the foreign markets. An evenings work is probably all it will take.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
heartserenade wrote: To echo the sentiments above, a simple online survey or a focus group discussion will answer all of their questions. This is the only company I know that is very afraid to interact with their customers, and from what I've learned from marketing you always have to listen to customer feedback. Sheesh.
Online surveys are notoriously unreliable and prone to distortion. It would be too easy for GW dismiss.
It is one avenue, it doesn't have to be the only one. Focus group discussions are more reliable, and if the findings on an FGD supports the online survey (or better yet, conduct an offline survey! Why can't you do both? It's cheap!), then you'll have multiple evidence. It's what advertising firms do to get to know their consumer.
heartserenade wrote: It is one avenue, it doesn't have to be the only one. Focus group discussions are more reliable, and if the findings on an FGD supports the online survey (or better yet, conduct an offline survey! Why can't you do both? It's cheap!), then you'll have multiple evidence. It's what advertising firms do to get to know their consumer.
True, doing both would either validate the online mood or further convince GW that online opinions are utterly useless.
Separate note, came across a good video from an MBA analyzing the numbers. May have been posted in the previous thread, but it definitely pessimistic. Brought up some points and views that I did not see in any discussions so far.
heartserenade wrote: To echo the sentiments above, a simple online survey or a focus group discussion will answer all of their questions. This is the only company I know that is very afraid to interact with their customers, and from what I've learned from marketing you always have to listen to customer feedback. Sheesh.
Maybe they already know what a survey would get them and they don't want to hear it.
Cool video, goes a lot more in depth than a lot of the people talking about this and really doesn't paint a pretty picture of GWs future if they don't make some radical changes.
The video hits on some good points but still isolates itself to looking at Games Workshop in general.
In a nutshell, when he mentions that they have a statement which shows complete lack of confidence in their plan, that is made worse when one looks at the market.
If I was on GW's board, or in a shareholder meeting, the first question I would have asked is "what did the market do last year?". When you are the market leader and the market has been growing by an estimated 8% CAGR since 2009 (estimates are gaming miniatures market are 9%-12% in 2013 alone) and your sales are declining and expected to continue to decline, that is a clear indicator you are doing the wrong things as a business.
After watching the video is becomes even clearer where GW is heading. In well-done corporate double-speak they basically have said: "We have no idea what we are doing, but know we are fething things up and will continue to do so, but we currently have enough cash on hand to cover for our pathetic management of the business."
Based more on their own responses to the financials, I do not expect things to go well in GW land (and therefore for it's customers) over the coming couple of years.
Wayshuba wrote: The video hits on some good points but still isolates itself to looking at Games Workshop in general.
In a nutshell, when he mentions that they have a statement which shows complete lack of confidence in their plan, that is made worse when one looks at the market.
If I was on GW's board, or in a shareholder meeting, the first question I would have asked is "what did the market do last year?". When you are the market leader and the market has been growing by an estimated 8% CAGR since 2009 (estimates are gaming miniatures market are 9%-12% in 2013 alone) and your sales are declining and expected to continue to decline, that is a clear indicator you are doing the wrong things as a business.
This claim has been around for some time, and just like last time, I flat out state that it isn't true. Miniatures wargames is a mature market and 8 to 10% annual growth is ENORMOUS. I very, very much doubt it's growing anywhere close to that rate - if at all.
Kilkrazy wrote: I am tempted to apply for the job just to get the chance to write that report, but I don't think I could get through the interviews with a straight face.
Maybe it's just a way to employ Kirby's nephew on a decent salary for a couple of years.
The job is a "red herring" job. Basically it is to cover Kirby's behind with the board and shareholders. It enables him to say my strategy is sound but the details need to be adjusted. Just give me two years and I will have some feedback for you. Once the report comes back, they implement some of the changes and it buys Kirby another couple of years because he can then shift the blame to the consultant instead of himself. This job will be "very bad" for one's resume as it is politically motivated and therefore doomed to fail (as this person is being set up to be publicly blamed for these failures).
If GW was truly interested in fixing things and getting back on track for growth, they would hire a market research analyst and market manager to look at the "entire market" and give them feedback and recommendations on what need to be done to turn the ship around.
Wayshuba wrote: The video hits on some good points but still isolates itself to looking at Games Workshop in general.
In a nutshell, when he mentions that they have a statement which shows complete lack of confidence in their plan, that is made worse when one looks at the market.
If I was on GW's board, or in a shareholder meeting, the first question I would have asked is "what did the market do last year?". When you are the market leader and the market has been growing by an estimated 8% CAGR since 2009 (estimates are gaming miniatures market are 9%-12% in 2013 alone) and your sales are declining and expected to continue to decline, that is a clear indicator you are doing the wrong things as a business.
This claim has been around for some time, and just like last time, I flat out state that it isn't true. Miniatures wargames is a mature market and 8 to 10% annual growth is ENORMOUS. I very, very much doubt it's growing anywhere close to that rate - if at all.
Sorry my friend, it is indeed true and miniature wargames in not a mature market. One has only to look at the growth of pre-painted minis to see that. This information is available from various game company sources who study this market. In fact, Hasbro has written about this in presentations given on overall markets last year. Also, many distributors and retailers in the market will tell you their sales grew with miniature wargames last year, but mainly from the collective of various titles (Malifaux, Infinity, Flames of War, Hell Dorado, et. al) filling in the gap. One only has to look at the breakdown on KickStarter to see the number one growth area has been games and that miniature games were a significant portion of that. Heck, Kickstarter alone was $55 million in games last year with almost half of that going to miniatures based games. that alone accounts for 8% growth. Lastly, when you see new companies quickly creating niches (Privateer Press, Battlefront Miniatures, Wyrd Miniatures, Corvus Belli, Mantic, et al.) this is a clear indicator of a growing market. There are too many indicators out there showing consistent market growth, not just one source. So it is pretty safe to say that the market is growing at a steady pace.
Lastly, 8%-10% growth is only enormous relative to the size of the initial market. If you have 8% growth in a $30 billion industry (like online recruiting) then yes, it is enormous. But the miniatures wargame market is in the low to mid-$100s of millions, so a 10% growth is only $35 to $40 million, which isn't really all that big on a global scale.
it revolves around is costumer experience between entering the store and paying at the registry...
I don't see that as a problem, they are a business and that experience in the store has a lot to do with getting people to buy something. The stores exist ultimately to make sales, stores of any kind without sufficient sales close.
One thing to remember is that with web stores, you can't that easily quantify the level of sales a single store creates. Because if the store can create good atmosphere and spark the interest in an army, then a person can go home to check things out more and eventually start ordering stuff online. Now those sales are then not marked for the store (there can be a large discussion how orders could be linked to store, but I'll skip that), then that store didn't create profit. When looking at the stores balance sheet, it could show that the store might not produce profit that much. If it is downsized so that it doesn't cause that spark, then sales will eventually dwindle away. Eventually leading to point that closing the store would seem sensible as it merely generates loss.
So similar as you wrote below .
One basic of any sales training is that people buy something when they are happy. People do not open their wallets if they are unhappy with their experience talking to a salesperson or with other aspects of a retail establishment. They don't buy and they don't come back. A few years ago the stores in my own area seemed a lot more exciting and sales were better. People were happy to patronize the GW stores because they loved them and loved being in them for hobby and game time with people they liked in a place they really liked. That seems to have dropped off a lot. I'd hate to see all their shops close, too many have closed already. I hope GW finds the solution they are seeking before it's too late for them and their customers. A primary rule of serving your customers is to stay in business so that you have an opportunity to do so. Closed shops serve no one.
The one man store system they use now is terrible. Part time stores with one harried employee do little to generate community excitement or create a fun environment with good support for new customers.
I see this job as an obvious ploy to keep critics silent for the two years until Kirby retires. It is no coincidence that the report date is the same as Kirby getting 65 years old.
Sorry my friend, it is indeed true and miniature wargames in not a mature market. One has only to look at the growth of pre-painted minis to see that. This information is available from various game company sources who study this market. In fact, Hasbro has written about this in presentations given on overall markets last year. Also, many distributors and retailers in the market will tell you their sales grew with miniature wargames last year, but mainly from the collective of various titles (Malifaux, Infinity, Flames of War, Hell Dorado, et. al) filling in the gap. One only has to look at the breakdown on KickStarter to see the number one growth area has been games and that miniature games were a significant portion of that. Heck, Kickstarter alone was $55 million in games last year with almost half of that going to miniatures based games. that alone accounts for 8% growth. Lastly, when you see new companies quickly creating niches (Privateer Press, Battlefront Miniatures, Wyrd Miniatures, Corvus Belli, Mantic, et al.) this is a clear indicator of a growing market. There are too many indicators out there showing consistent market growth, not just one source. So it is pretty safe to say that the market is growing at a steady pace.
Lastly, 8%-10% growth is only enormous relative to the size of the initial market. If you have 8% growth in a $30 billion industry (like online recruiting) then yes, it is enormous. But the miniatures wargame market is in the low to mid-$100s of millions, so a 10% growth is only $35 to $40 million, which isn't really all that big on a global scale.
8 to 10% growth over single year is not that signifant. 8% growth over many years is. If it was true, miniatures market would have grown close to 50% over last four years. Look around, folks. Are things 50% more active than in 2009? Because I sure as heck ain't seeing that. Other similar hobbies are in clear and obvious decline (model kits, railroads) so it's hard to believe miniature wargames somehow defy the trend.
And people always talk about "new companies rising and filling the void". It's not something new - four years ago there were games like Confrontation, AT-43 etc which were hot cakes. As for Kickstarters, vast majority of them are dead in the water within months.
8 to 10% growth over single year is not that signifant. 8% growth over many years is. If it was true, miniatures market would have grown close to 50% over last four years. Look around, folks. Are things 50% more active than in 2009? Because I sure as heck ain't seeing that. Other similar hobbies are in clear and obvious decline (model kits, railroads) so it's hard to believe miniature wargames somehow defy the trend.
And people always talk about "new companies rising and filling the void". It's not something new - four years ago there were games like Confrontation, AT-43 etc which were hot cakes. As for Kickstarters, vast majority of them are dead in the water within months.
You do realize that there are actual reports that validate the growth claims, both in actual sales, reports from most other major wargaming companies and in KS numbers?
Do you have anything to substantiate your position that these reports are false or is this just another white knight tactic to somehow make GW results appear less bad, because contrary to what is observable and being reported, the miniature wargame hobby isn't actually growing?!
Kroothawk wrote: I see this job as an obvious ploy to keep critics silent for the two years until Kirby retires. It is no coincidence that the report date is the same as Kirby getting 65 years old.
8 to 10% growth over single year is not that signifant. 8% growth over many years is. If it was true, miniatures market would have grown close to 50% over last four years. Look around, folks. Are things 50% more active than in 2009? Because I sure as heck ain't seeing that. Other similar hobbies are in clear and obvious decline (model kits, railroads) so it's hard to believe miniature wargames somehow defy the trend.
And people always talk about "new companies rising and filling the void". It's not something new - four years ago there were games like Confrontation, AT-43 etc which were hot cakes. As for Kickstarters, vast majority of them are dead in the water within months.
You do realize that there are actual reports that validate the growth claims, both in actual sales, reports from most other major wargaming companies and in KS numbers?
No I don't, because I haven't seen such reports. Most wargaming companies are not publicly traded and publish little information about their sales.
The "reports" I have seen and which have been previously cited as support for the claims about this awesome growth of wargaming sector, are wild speculation, based on hearsay and individual tidbits. I've not seen any industry-wide analysis, indeed it would probably be difficult to impossible to even make such an analysis since most of the operators don't disclose their numbers! Now, maybe such reports exist somewhere which show that I'm wrong, but if so, I've yet to see them. What I have observed in my own eyes over last four years seem to point out that the hobby is pretty much stable, or in decline. There are new games, but at the same time old games die out: they just die out with much less fanfare than new games come out, that people don't often notice.
Goresaw wrote: 1) Are the margins on the stores that high?
2) Does most of their business now come from their one man stores?
3) I know its how they WANT to get new people into the hobby, but does the company store actually attract those new people?
4) Do FLGS's really account for so few new players, or continued players?
5) Are the revenues down from them?
1) Manufactures typically sell to a distributor or directly to high volume stores. The manufacture usually gets 40% to 60% of MSRP for their product. GW makes the assumption that if they sell directly to the public, they can make more profit than by going through distributors even though they have to invest in the store fronts and increased logistics cost. For online orders, it is true that GW makes more margin, because the warehousing and shipping are basically equal to them selling to a distributor, with the website and associated staffing costs being small in comparison to the volume served. Basically, GW wants the extra 20%+ margin they get by selling direct.
2) My guess is their business distribution is pretty much the same as its always been. One man stores are bad because they are open limited hours and don't have staffing to deal with a high volume of customers.
3) I will give GW credit for this, they do put the stores in high volume high rent areas, which does increase exposure. I think prior to one man stores, they probably had a reasonable hit rate for getting people interested that came in the store. The main advantage of a GW only store is that they can push only their product and don't have any competition.
4) FLGS can sell any product and will push the products that they are interested in, that the manufactures are supporting and that sell reasonably well. FLGS carry many options and as such, GW has to compete against those other options. My FLGS is currently big on Yugioh, MtG and the Star Trek table top game because Konami, WotC and Wizkids provide excellent support for their products, they sell well and they typically like the games. GW was actually dropped from the store again because they didn't sell (too expensive) and interacting with GW was a pain in the butt.
5) Revenue is down across the board. Reasons have been guessed at throughout the thread.
8 to 10% growth over single year is not that signifant. 8% growth over many years is. If it was true, miniatures market would have grown close to 50% over last four years. Look around, folks. Are things 50% more active than in 2009? Because I sure as heck ain't seeing that. Other similar hobbies are in clear and obvious decline (model kits, railroads) so it's hard to believe miniature wargames somehow defy the trend.
And people always talk about "new companies rising and filling the void". It's not something new - four years ago there were games like Confrontation, AT-43 etc which were hot cakes. As for Kickstarters, vast majority of them are dead in the water within months.
You do realize that there are actual reports that validate the growth claims, both in actual sales, reports from most other major wargaming companies and in KS numbers?
No I don't, because I haven't seen such reports. Most wargaming companies are not publicly traded and publish little information about their sales.
The "reports" I have seen and which have been previously cited as support for the claims about this awesome growth of wargaming sector, are wild speculation, based on hearsay and individual tidbits. I've not seen any industry-wide analysis, indeed it would probably be difficult to impossible to even make such an analysis since most of the operators don't disclose their numbers! Now, maybe such reports exist somewhere which show that I'm wrong, but if so, I've yet to see them. What I have observed in my own eyes over last four years seem to point out that the hobby is pretty much stable, or in decline. There are new games, but at the same time old games die out: they just die out with much less fanfare than new games come out, that people don't often notice.
You get the inherent contradiction?
You dismiss those that say that wargaming is growing as "wild speculation, based on hearsay and individual tidbits" then go on to say you don't believe that because you have "observed it with your own eyes."
No offence, but Finland is hardly the heartland of the wargaming industry, and I'll take the word of a company that offers market analysis as part of it's business or the managing director of the largest Indy wargaming retailer in the UK over your narrow observational platform any time.
In essence you're saying "I see you stood there with the smoking gun, covered in blood. I see the corpse with the gunshot wound at your feet. I heard the gunshot. I heard you confess. But, because I didn't see you shoot this person I don't believe you did it." You might be right, but I think its safe to play the percentages here.
I think there often gets to be a myopia in companies that get top heavy like GW. Their management is filled with salesmen and MBAs who are going to see all problems as sales and MBA problems. "Hey we're not selling enough? Time to just sell better of course!" For all they're concerned they might as well be selling self sealing stem bolts.
It makes sense. You use the tools in your toolbox. I've worked at companies that have been in situations like GW's; there is a very panicky sense that you have to do something. Since they guys who make decisions don't know gak about making a good wargame product, they fall back to what they know. And what they know is cutting costs and consolidating sales.
Backfire wrote: 8 to 10% growth over single year is not that signifant. 8% growth over many years is. If it was true, miniatures market would have grown close to 50% over last four years. Look around, folks. Are things 50% more active than in 2009? Because I sure as heck ain't seeing that. Other similar hobbies are in clear and obvious decline (model kits, railroads) so it's hard to believe miniature wargames somehow defy the trend.
And people always talk about "new companies rising and filling the void". It's not something new - four years ago there were games like Confrontation, AT-43 etc which were hot cakes. As for Kickstarters, vast majority of them are dead in the water within months.
You're assuming that all growth is equal, when it is not. Let's use PP, GW and Wizkids as examples. All numbers are completely made up and do not reflect any actual numbers, but are for example purposes only.
PP shows 10% in growth form 2012 to 2013, going from $10MM to $11MM in revenue. Plus $1MM
Wizkids shows 20% growth from 2012 to 2013, going from $5MM to $6MM in revenue. Plus $1MM
GW shows 2% decline in revenue, from $100MM to $98MM. Minus $2MM
As you can see above, the total money going into the miniatures market is still $115MM, its just how big each person's piece of pie that is changing. It's also 0% growth overall for the miniatures market, even though adding the companies up together would indicate is should be 28% growth, because GWs 2% delince is equal to the others growth, even with big percentages.
As far as model kits and railroads, I think those markets are declining because people want a bit more instant gratification as well as entertainment out of their hobby. Once the railroad or model s put together, you stare at it a bit and it's over. At least with Legos, you can build it, take it apart and build something else.
You dismiss those that say that wargaming is growing as "wild speculation, based on hearsay and individual tidbits" then go on to say you don't believe that because you have "observed it with your own eyes."
Difference is that I don't have any interest in portraying 'my' business as growing: what I've seen and heard everywhere (not just my hometown, or Finland) is that young people are less and less likely pick up a hobby where physical handwork is involved. Go ask any model kit veteran how his hobby is doing. Answer: pretty bad, it's mostly old salts who stay in their beloved hobby, not that many youngsters are coming in, the hobby is disappearing from market shelves, expo attendance is down. I have really hard time believing that wargaming somehow goes against this trend.
Now, I have no problem believing that some individual games are growing. Something like X-wing, a hugely popular franchise with broad appeal, and it's actually good game on top of that: I'm sure it's doing great - at least for now. However, they are individual successes which tells us nothing how the hobby as a whole is doing, across the industry. Some games are probably gaining because they're attracting disgruntled ex-GW players, but again, that's old veteran players switching tit for tat. Once they get disgruntled to their new company, they move to something else, and that 'something else' then reports 'great growth'. Rinse & repeat. People talk about new games - and forget that 5 years ago, there were other games similarly gushed about, which are now dead or dying.
No offence, but Finland is hardly the heartland of the wargaming industry, and I'll take the word of a company that offers market analysis as part of it's business or the managing director of the largest Indy wargaming retailer in the UK over your narrow observational platform any time.
So where is this mythical report? What segments are growing? At what rate, over what time? Because last time this discussion took place, someone came in with numbers which showed that BOARD game sales in US were up 10% or so in 2012 (or 2011). Which is pretty easy to believe given economic upturn after recession and everything. But that actually told us nothing about wargame industry and sales.
As far as model kits and railroads, I think those markets are declining because people want a bit more instant gratification as well as entertainment out of their hobby. Once the railroad or model s put together, you stare at it a bit and it's over. At least with Legos, you can build it, take it apart and build something else.
Also, I would say those industries have focused on the hard core grognards over the entry level. If you look at model rail roads you have really poor entry level product that still manages to cost a a lot, and higher quality expert level stuff that cost an order of magnitude over the beginner stuff. There's no mid tier between the kids set for under the Christmas tree and the full digital basement setup with 90 scale miles of track. A decent tabletop layout is going to run you over $500 for track and train alone. And it's wasted money if you don't have the skill to build it. There's no good cheap product to use to develop your skill.
It's the same problem GW has in a lot of ways. You either start GW games and give it up before really getting into the hobby, or you go all in. There is no room to dabble anymore. To drop $200-$300 on a single army that lets you have fun occasional games. You're doubly hurt by GW's high price point, and a unbalanced game that really punishes bad purchase decisions.
Luckily, that mid tier exists in miniatures games outside of GW. Drop $200 dollars on any other miniature game out there-with little or no knowledge of the meta-and it's much harder to end up with useless models. Which is why gaming is growing, but GW is not,
You dismiss those that say that wargaming is growing as "wild speculation, based on hearsay and individual tidbits" then go on to say you don't believe that because you have "observed it with your own eyes."
Difference is that I don't have any interest in portraying 'my' business as growing: what I've seen and heard everywhere (not just my hometown, or Finland) is that young people are less and less likely pick up a hobby where physical handwork is involved. Go ask any model kit veteran how his hobby is doing. Answer: pretty bad, it's mostly old salts who stay in their beloved hobby, not that many youngsters are coming in, the hobby is disappearing from market shelves, expo attendance is down. I have really hard time believing that wargaming somehow goes against this trend.
Now, I have no problem believing that some individual games are growing. Something like X-wing, a hugely popular franchise with broad appeal, and it's actually good game on top of that: I'm sure it's doing great - at least for now. However, they are individual successes which tells us nothing how the hobby as a whole is doing, across the industry. Some games are probably gaining because they're attracting disgruntled ex-GW players, but again, that's old veteran players switching tit for tat. Once they get disgruntled to their new company, they move to something else, and that 'something else' then reports 'great growth'. Rinse & repeat. People talk about new games - and forget that 5 years ago, there were other games similarly gushed about, which are now dead or dying.
No offence, but Finland is hardly the heartland of the wargaming industry, and I'll take the word of a company that offers market analysis as part of it's business or the managing director of the largest Indy wargaming retailer in the UK over your narrow observational platform any time.
So where is this mythical report? What segments are growing? At what rate, over what time? Because last time this discussion took place, someone came in with numbers which showed that BOARD game sales in US were up 10% or so in 2012 (or 2011). Which is pretty easy to believe given economic upturn after recession and everything. But that actually told us nothing about wargame industry and sales.
I'm not claiming there is incontrovertible proof, I'm saying that there is enough solid information from reasonably reliable sources to make some reasonable assumptions.
Rich from Wayland has stated ITT that they are growing, and that the growth is coming from sources other than GW. I do believe he has also intimated that the growth could be greater if the supply chain issues that smaller companies have been experiencing (and as a keen X Wing player, I know exactly what he means) could be resolved.
There has also been the icv2 report kicking around for some time now which states similar.
I agree that none of this constitutes hard evidence in and of itself, but when all of this information keeps corroborating itself, regardless of source, one has to make the call about whether there is some sort of global conspiracy, or whether we have a proverbial smoking gun.
GW used to sell The HHHobby. You could read about The HHHobby in a White Dwarf you bought at an ordinary newsagent, or learn about it from friends' older cousins and so on (i.e. veterans). You could go to shows and see it.
If you went to the GW shop it was full of happy people having fun playing The HHHobby. They would invite you to play and show you how it all worked. if you bought a model they helped you to paint it.
They invited you back for the regular games evenings and competitions that were part of The HHHobby. They told you about the fantastic world wide campaigns, and the cool new models coming out next month to make The HHHobby even more fantastic.
You could actually buy just about everything needed for The HHHobby right there in the shop. And you could see there was an enthusiastic community around The HHhobby.
For days when you didn't want a full on tabletop game, you could buy smaller complete in a box games that were still embedded in the background of The HHHobby. And there were intermediate games that were sort of collectable and had cool special miniatures.
Nowadays it seems as if The HHHobby consists of handing over your credit card number and waiting for the kits to be delivered.
Nowadays it seems as if The HHHobby consists of handing over your credit card number and waiting for the kits to be delivered.
This, sadly :(
When I was a kid, back in the 90's, I used to be lucky to get £5 given to me each week by my parents. This was enough money for me to go to town, and into the local 3rd party retailer spend a while perusing the shelf of boxes and blister packs. The usualy pick up a blister pack, occasionally I would decide I wanted to wait a week and get something slightly more costly. This was not a FLGS,they were a book shop that put GW stuff in a section at the back. No gaming table space. I didnt actually play the game back then, just build and paint em. I was happy with that at the time. My first paints were gifted to me by my uncle who used to collect paint and play with DnD fig's and I didnt need to go buy a whole set of paints to get going - just add 1 or 2 pots - which would cost me not getting a model that week.
I don't know how much pocket money the average parent gives their kids now, but is it actually viable for a kid to go and spend their pocket money on GW figures?
Now I'm an adult, my hobby purchases are mainly online in relative bulk and not very consistent, I have neither the time nor the inclination to keep going to the GW store thats opened up in town since I was a youngster to pick up a little bit at a time and I generally only do so when I can't wait for a product that I could get from there.
Now that I shop online, I'm a lot more exposed to any alternative or competing product, to the point where I'm considering dropping a few hundred pounds into Kings of War rather than GW purchases this time around.
GW's internet presence is somewhat lacking and confined to the GW website domain when compared to the ways others are supporting their product online with those who buy/play them.
I think that the company could do very well to realise that the people on the internet do more than buy things, and being part of all the other fun stuff actually leads us to buy more things. Whats weird is that they used to do some larger community based stuff, right uptill the point where it wouldve been so much easier because of the internet, then they stopped! lol!
GW today is run like a drug store. No wonder: Wells has been a shampoo manager. And the non-gaming management is totally blind to the specifics of gaming stores, like supporting and organizing the local gaming community. Now that we entered the escalation/desolation phase, they panic and do even more of the same instead of doing it right.
azreal13 wrote:
I'm not claiming there is incontrovertible proof, I'm saying that there is enough solid information from reasonably reliable sources to make some reasonable assumptions.
Rich from Wayland has stated ITT that they are growing, and that the growth is coming from sources other than GW. I do believe he has also intimated that the growth could be greater if the supply chain issues that smaller companies have been experiencing (and as a keen X Wing player, I know exactly what he means) could be resolved.
There has also been the icv2 report kicking around for some time now which states similar.
I agree that none of this constitutes hard evidence in and of itself, but when all of this information keeps corroborating itself, regardless of source, one has to make the call about whether there is some sort of global conspiracy, or whether we have a proverbial smoking gun.
While you have Wayland stating 15% growth overall, you have Mikhala stating things were relatively flat outside GW's drop. Also, the ICV2 reports does not list non-collectable miniatures as being part of the rapid growth being talked about.
Wayshuba wrote:
Sorry my friend, it is indeed true and miniature wargames in not a mature market. One has only to look at the growth of pre-painted minis to see that. This information is available from various game company sources who study this market. In fact, Hasbro has written about this in presentations given on overall markets last year. Also, many distributors and retailers in the market will tell you their sales grew with miniature wargames last year, but mainly from the collective of various titles (Malifaux, Infinity, Flames of War, Hell Dorado, et. al) filling in the gap. One only has to look at the breakdown on KickStarter to see the number one growth area has been games and that miniature games were a significant portion of that. Heck, Kickstarter alone was $55 million in games last year with almost half of that going to miniatures based games. that alone accounts for 8% growth. Lastly, when you see new companies quickly creating niches (Privateer Press, Battlefront Miniatures, Wyrd Miniatures, Corvus Belli, Mantic, et al.) this is a clear indicator of a growing market. There are too many indicators out there showing consistent market growth, not just one source. So it is pretty safe to say that the market is growing at a steady pace.
Lastly, 8%-10% growth is only enormous relative to the size of the initial market. If you have 8% growth in a $30 billion industry (like online recruiting) then yes, it is enormous. But the miniatures wargame market is in the low to mid-$100s of millions, so a 10% growth is only $35 to $40 million, which isn't really all that big on a global scale.
Can you provide this report? The last time people were quoting Hasbro reports at the last annual GW report, I had to go digging, found the reports, and none of the information they claim was in it was there. I have seen general business sections talk about miniature games, but they are including games like Skylanders and Disney's Infinity (beware CB) in it. Those are doing $1B+ sales. Context is key here and there is a bad habit to exclude key bits of information in those reports.
Great vid. Kind of cool to watch someone shoot the breeze about GWs failings in a laid back way, rather than ranting. It comes across more as reasoned argument (albeit the ones we hear all the time).
Also, I would say those industries have focused on the hard core grognards over the entry level. If you look at model rail roads you have really poor entry level product that still manages to cost a a lot, and higher quality expert level stuff that cost an order of magnitude over the beginner stuff. There's no mid tier between the kids set for under the Christmas tree and the full digital basement setup with 90 scale miles of track. A decent tabletop layout is going to run you over $500 for track and train alone. And it's wasted money if you don't have the skill to build it. There's no good cheap product to use to develop your skill.
In case of model kits, it's actually casual and entry level (ie. kids) buyers who make up most of the revenue. The hobby is suffering because not too many kids pick it up anymore, leaving only grognards. Which is sad as nowadays the kits themselves are better than ever. Point might be true about model railroads, which seems to be centered more around loyal grognards, although I'm not terribly familiar with that hobby. What I have observed over last 4 years in wargaming that there are not too many kids playing it anymore. Which many see as positive but the truth is that a hobby without a supply of fresh young entrants is doomed to wither and die.
But lets examine the claim "Wargaming industry is growing whilst GW declines". To see if it has chance of being true, we need to find out how large wargaming industry is overall. Everyone agrees that GW is by far the largest player on the field, but how big share it holds? Estimates seem to be ranging from 20 to 90% market share. All fiction based miniature wargames companies are tiny compared to GW. Fantasy Flight Games is seen as a big player in board game industry, and it's revenue in 2011 was around one-seventh of GW. They may have grown from that somewhat, but even then their miniatures sales must be tiny fraction of GW. I haven't seen any hard number of Privateer Press' annual revenue, but outside estimates seem to place it between 1 and 5 million USD. Other companies appear to be much smaller, probably ranging from 0.1 to 1 million USD in annual revenue. I've read that Rackham was doing well over $10 million revenues at their peak, and they were considered pretty big at their peak, but they're gone now. It seems obvious that GW even today is probably 5 to 10 times bigger than all its direct competitors combined.
But of course there are also historical wargames. It is much more fragmented market which I don't really know lot about. Compared to GW, even larger companies of that segment like Battlefront seem nevertheless seems pretty small fish. OTOH there are lots of companies so when put together, their sales are probably quite large even compared to GW. Anyway, the point of this thought exercise is to demonstrate that it seems extremely improbable that entire wargaming industry is growing at strong rate whilst GW declines, because that would require absolutely stupendous annual growth from other companies. If your revenue is $1 million, then mere $100,000 increase means nice 10% growth, however compared to entire industry which is dominated by GW, it doesn't make much of an impression. You'd need something like 50 to 100% growth rate from non-GW companies to put entire industry to 10% growth if GW declines. I think that most people agree that whilst many companies indeed seem to be growing, it's not anywhere close to that dramatic. Even PP, which icv2 reported as outselling WHFB already 3-4 years ago (in retrospect, seems bit suspect), has clearly not grown at such exponential pace.
But maybe what was meant that non-GW companies have grown annual 8 to 10%? That seems somewhat more plausible, and it's actually well believable over single year. All it takes is one or two successful titles to gain big sales. However, even then it doesn't seem all that likely that such growth is maintained year after year. Over 4 years it would mean around 50% growth. Honestly: has it really appeared that there has been quite so big growth in non-GW games? Lets not forget that many of those titles were available even back then, and there were some which have since gone under.
I don't think it's fair to parse Miniature games from Tabletop games as a whole when talking about the industry. There's too much hybridization going on right now do. Is Zombicide a miniatures game or a board game? Can you really call X-Wing a true miniatures game? Fact is, Tabletop Gaming took in 60 Million through Kick Starter last year, and ICv2 claims that when these games hit general release they sell roughly proportional to the Kickstarter's funding levels.
So maybe the overall growth rate of table top's ins't dramatic, but I don't think that GW's decline means people are abandoning gaming. It probably just means they are taking advantage of a unprecedented number of choices.
Feel free to call me out talking rubbish. As I pretty much am.
One thing I've been noticing in the past couple of years is the concept of 'gamer dads.'
Thanks to GW making tabletop wargaming (relatively) mainstream over the past 35 years, recently I've been seeing more and more people talking about wanting to do tabletop gaming with their kids and despite GW being the one for them when they were young, it's just not feasible anymore, either due to price, or the lack of the aforementioned entry level games.
X Wing has done particularly well out of this gamer dad concept, I imagine.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW used to sell The HHHobby. You could read about The HHHobby in a White Dwarf you bought at an ordinary newsagent, or learn about it from friends' older cousins and so on (i.e. veterans). You could go to shows and see it.
If you went to the GW shop it was full of happy people having fun playing The HHHobby. They would invite you to play and show you how it all worked. if you bought a model they helped you to paint it.
They invited you back for the regular games evenings and competitions that were part of The HHHobby. They told you about the fantastic world wide campaigns, and the cool new models coming out next month to make The HHHobby even more fantastic.
You could actually buy just about everything needed for The HHHobby right there in the shop. And you could see there was an enthusiastic community around The HHhobby.
For days when you didn't want a full on tabletop game, you could buy smaller complete in a box games that were still embedded in the background of The HHHobby. And there were intermediate games that were sort of collectable and had cool special miniatures.
Nowadays it seems as if The HHHobby consists of handing over your credit card number and waiting for the kits to be delivered.
And this time period was where they saw their biggest growth, at least in my area. WHen the stores in the Atlanta Market closed the FLGS tried to run with it and did for a few years but pricing and GW's collection policy put most out of busisness (of note not all were the most business savy ). THis has pretty much killed the groups in the area and I have seen that around the nation.
GW don't consider themselves part of the hobby, they think they ARE the hobby (and, according to one of the senior staff, who was under oath at the time, our favorite part of the hobby is buying stuff from GW).
There is a distinction between the hobby (miniature wargaming) and The Hobby (GW). Calling it the Hhhhobby or whatever is just a way of making fun of that.
While we're on this subject I'd like to submit to you all that this attitude is exactly whats wrong with GW at the moment.
No matter how big you are no one is a market onto themselves, ignoreing your competition and just trying to keep your customers from finding out about them can not possibly be healthy for a business.
But maybe what was meant that non-GW companies have grown annual 8 to 10%? That seems somewhat more plausible, and it's actually well believable over single year. All it takes is one or two successful titles to gain big sales. However, even then it doesn't seem all that likely that such growth is maintained year after year. Over 4 years it would mean around 50% growth. Honestly: has it really appeared that there has been quite so big growth in non-GW games? Lets not forget that many of those titles were available even back then, and there were some which have since gone under.
Yes, the growth has been that big. In the industry, miniature wargames fall into one of two-classifications - collectible or non-collectible (pre-painted or unpainted doesn't matter). You are looking at GWs game structure and comparing it to similar companies rather than looking at it in terms of consumer dollars spent on collectible miniature games. Collectible miniature games can be those like 40k or those like Deadzone, Dreadball, et al. The collectible miniature board game industry is growing like gangbusters right now and accounts for the majority of that 8% CAGR. But tabletop wargaming is still growing, albeit at a slower pace.
The point is, where are gamers spending their dollars. Whether it is on a traditional tabletop wargame, like Warhammer 40k, or a collectible miniatures game, such as X-Wing or DeadZone, is of no consequence. The dollars are being spent and going somewhere. Unfortunately, GW is not a benefactor in this. While they have made so bad decisions in regards to the internet and channel, the decision to move out of specialist games at a time when this is the fastest growing part of the sector, is probably hurting them more than anything else.
Net effect, is in 2009 x$ were spent on collectible miniature games. In 2013, y$ we spent. 2013 estimates place total expenditures around $400m-$450m. So to your earlier point, GW would be around 45% market share. Which is large. However, their market share is declining in typical fashion as their corporate arrogance and hubris come to rest (Like Kodak did with the advent of the digital camera while they wanted to protect their film margins, or Apple did in the in between Jobs years, or Wang Computer did with the rise of the tiny WordPerfect Corporation - in which a $500m dollar company (WordPerfect) forced a $51 billion dollar company (Wang) out of existence).
And just one small point, PP is probably sitting at the $20m-$40m range based on three observations. The overall sales of WHFB and that PP has surpassed them (you really believe GW would even keep WHFB around if it only did $1m-$5m in sales?), the observed penetration in the market (# of stores stocking, games being played at FLGS and conventions, etc.), and that Rackham was known to be about $10m and Confrontation had no where near the presence that Warmachine does.
I wonder if GW's stock price decline is somehow related to the implosion of emerging markets which is causing world stock and bond markets to be thrust into turmoil...
dereksatkinson wrote: I wonder if GW's stock price decline is somehow related to the implosion of emerging markets which is causing world stock and bond markets to be thrust into turmoil...
Nah.. got to be the one man stores
You're obviously correct, the rising stock price that GW had in the previous years had, after all, been a direct consequence of the increase in demand that China had placed in the worlds reserves of rare earth elements.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nope, no glitch, someone or something is apparently hoovering GW shares today.
Someone sold a half million shares today at 4:00 pm which drove the price down to 520 and then at 4:20 someone bought 1.2 million shares driving it up to 523, whereupon it dropped back to 520.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nope, no glitch, someone or something is apparently hoovering GW shares today.
Someone sold a half million shares today at 4:00 pm which drove the price down to 520 and then at 4:20 someone bought 1.2 million shares driving it up to 523, whereupon it dropped back to 520.
31.85m shares.
http://investor.games-workshop.com/shareholder-statistics/ (Nomad holding 3,131,194 , Investec holding 3,087,765 , Ruffer holding 2,492,260 , and Tom Kirby holding 2,131,394 shares. So todays trades are substantial. There was a suspicious spike yesterday as well, but I haven't checked the volume.
31.85m shares.
http://investor.games-workshop.com/shareholder-statistics/ (Nomad holding 3,131,194 , Investec holding 3,087,765 , Ruffer holding 2,492,260 , and Tom Kirby holding 2,131,394 shares. So todays trades are substantial. There was a suspicious spike yesterday as well, but I haven't checked the volume.
The volume has been sub 100k for a week or more, I'd been keeping a casual eye on it, hence picking up on today's shenanigans.
dereksatkinson wrote: I wonder if GW's stock price decline is somehow related to the implosion of emerging markets which is causing world stock and bond markets to be thrust into turmoil...
Nah.. got to be the one man stores
You're obviously correct, the rising stock price that GW had in the previous years had, after all, been a direct consequence of the increase in demand that China had placed in the worlds reserves of rare earth elements.
No.. It's called leverage. Stock prices are artificially high because interest rates are artificially low. Meaning people can take on debt to buy more securities. As you can see below, stocks have rallied inline with the increase in the Federal reserve's balance sheet. The more securities (bonds) the Fed (and other central banks) buy, the higher stocks move. They are forcing investors away from low risk assets and into the stock market and things like that. It's called chasing yield.
This works up to the point where someone calls bs on it. Emerging market central banks have started to do just that because the bonds they hold in their reserves (US, UK and JPY) are being debased rapidly. So what you are seeing now are places like Turkey, India, Brazil and Russia raising interest rates. This is causing the leveraged players to unwind their positions. The only way stock prices continue to climb is if we get a major ramp up in QE (in the USA, UK and JPY). Even then, it will only blow this bubble bigger and make the coming onslaught that much worse.
btw.. I do find it really amusing reading what you guys are typing. One little suggestion.. Look at the "float" when you are trying to figure out how many shares are able to be actively traded. Everything else isn't able to be traded without there being a regulatory filing. I also recommend reading up on block trades.
But maybe what was meant that non-GW companies have grown annual 8 to 10%? That seems somewhat more plausible, and it's actually well believable over single year. All it takes is one or two successful titles to gain big sales. However, even then it doesn't seem all that likely that such growth is maintained year after year. Over 4 years it would mean around 50% growth. Honestly: has it really appeared that there has been quite so big growth in non-GW games? Lets not forget that many of those titles were available even back then, and there were some which have since gone under.
Yes, the growth has been that big. In the industry, miniature wargames fall into one of two-classifications - collectible or non-collectible (pre-painted or unpainted doesn't matter). You are looking at GWs game structure and comparing it to similar companies rather than looking at it in terms of consumer dollars spent on collectible miniature games. Collectible miniature games can be those like 40k or those like Deadzone, Dreadball, et al. The collectible miniature board game industry is growing like gangbusters right now and accounts for the majority of that 8% CAGR. But tabletop wargaming is still growing, albeit at a slower pace.
The point is, where are gamers spending their dollars. Whether it is on a traditional tabletop wargame, like Warhammer 40k, or a collectible miniatures game, such as X-Wing or DeadZone, is of no consequence. The dollars are being spent and going somewhere. Unfortunately, GW is not a benefactor in this. While they have made so bad decisions in regards to the internet and channel, the decision to move out of specialist games at a time when this is the fastest growing part of the sector, is probably hurting them more than anything else.
Net effect, is in 2009 x$ were spent on collectible miniature games. In 2013, y$ we spent. 2013 estimates place total expenditures around $400m-$450m. So to your earlier point, GW would be around 45% market share. Which is large. However, their market share is declining in typical fashion as their corporate arrogance and hubris come to rest (Like Kodak did with the advent of the digital camera while they wanted to protect their film margins, or Apple did in the in between Jobs years, or Wang Computer did with the rise of the tiny WordPerfect Corporation - in which a $500m dollar company (WordPerfect) forced a $51 billion dollar company (Wang) out of existence).
And just one small point, PP is probably sitting at the $20m-$40m range based on three observations. The overall sales of WHFB and that PP has surpassed them (you really believe GW would even keep WHFB around if it only did $1m-$5m in sales?), the observed penetration in the market (# of stores stocking, games being played at FLGS and conventions, etc.), and that Rackham was known to be about $10m and Confrontation had no where near the presence that Warmachine does.
That you are lumping collectible and non-collectible miniature games together is creating a false premise. Deadzone and X-Wing are not collectible. Heroclicks are collectible and catering to a completely different market. By your logic the collectible miniature market is doing sluggish growth compared to CCG's and Board Games which are seeing 25% annual growth based on ICV2 numbers.
As for PP surpassing WHFB, the ICV2 number are only for independent retailers, it does not include sales through GW store or their website. Independent retailers account for only ~45% of GW's sales. You're tossing around flawed assumptions and comparing apples to oranges.
dereksatkinson wrote: I wonder if GW's stock price decline is somehow related to the implosion of emerging markets which is causing world stock and bond markets to be thrust into turmoil...
Nah.. got to be the one man stores
You're obviously correct, the rising stock price that GW had in the previous years had, after all, been a direct consequence of the increase in demand that China had placed in the worlds reserves of rare earth elements.
No.. It's called leverage. Stock prices are artificially high because interest rates are artificially low. Meaning people can take on debt to buy more securities. As you can see below, stocks have rallied inline with the increase in the Federal reserve's balance sheet. The more securities (bonds) the Fed (and other central banks) buy, the higher stocks move. They are forcing investors away from low risk assets and into the stock market and things like that. It's called chasing yield.
This works up to the point where someone calls bs on it. Emerging market central banks have started to do just that because the bonds they hold in their reserves (US, UK and JPY) are being debased rapidly. So what you are seeing now are places like Turkey, India, Brazil and Russia raising interest rates. This is causing the leveraged players to unwind their positions. The only way stock prices continue to climb is if we get a major ramp up in QE (in the USA, UK and JPY). Even then, it will only blow this bubble bigger and make the coming onslaught that much worse.
btw.. I do find it really amusing reading what you guys are typing. One little suggestion.. Look at the "float" when you are trying to figure out how many shares are able to be actively traded. Everything else isn't able to be traded without there being a regulatory filing. I also recommend reading up on block trades.
That's a macroeconomic problem. So unless a large chunk of the market experienced the same correction at the same time, it has nothing to do with this very specific situation. Otherwise we have to assume that GW's investors have a form a prescience not available to the rest of the investment community.
This is a perfect example of when to apply Occam's Razor. A a single value correction due to company's performance requires fewer moving parts in this case.
silent25 wrote:
That you are lumping collectible and non-collectible miniature games together is creating a false premise. Deadzone and X-Wing are not collectible. Heroclicks are collectible and catering to a completely different market. By your logic the collectible miniature market is doing sluggish growth compared to CCG's and Board Games which are seeing 25% annual growth based on ICV2 numbers.
As for PP surpassing WHFB, the ICV2 number are only for independent retailers, it does not include sales through GW store or their website. Independent retailers account for only ~45% of GW's sales. You're tossing around flawed assumptions and comparing apples to oranges.
It's not fair to pull them apart either. The customer base for CCGs, board games, and miniature games have a healthy amount of overlap. It's rare to find a gamer who hasn't dabbled in at least 2 of the three.
CaulynDarr wrote: That's a macroeconomic problem. So unless a large chunk of the market experienced the same correction at the same time, it has nothing to do with this very specific situation. Otherwise we have to assume that GW's investors have a form a prescience not available to the rest of the investment community.
This is a perfect example of when to apply Occam's Razor. A a single value correction due to company's performance requires fewer moving parts in this case.
I don't need anecdotal evidence to prove that the entire rally since 09 was because of central bank intervention. No one should be surprised to see the real fundamentals come to light now that they are being forced to step back.
The truth is, we are starting to see other retailers come clean on how bad their numbers are. Look at BBY and AAPL blowing up. I don't even have to get into the S, JCP or ANFs of the world. The major indexes are starting to show weakness and we are just starting earnings season. Just because these other companies haven't reported yet doesn't mean they aren't doing equally as poorly. Like I said before.. Retail is a festering pile of dog poo right now. Sure, some companies sprang up and went from zero to existing but that doesn't mean they will survive.
You also don't have to assume that management has a form a prescience. Good management teams understand the business cycle and don't constantly try to grow when the environment is not favorable. All you have to do is look at how many vacancies there are in commercial real estate and the vast amount of store closings to see that the environment is bad.
It's not fair to pull them apart either. The customer base for CCGs, board games, and miniature games have a healthy amount of overlap. It's rare to find a gamer who hasn't dabbled in at least 2 of the three.
Fair has nothing to do with it. They are different products. While they may have some overlap in customer bases, so does breakfast cereal, trash bags, and skateboards.
You will get a far better analysis by separating categories of product, than by lumping them together. This is my opinion bases on both a Masters degree in Statistics and owning game stores for 25 years.
A further comment: I see ICV2 mentioned a lot. Their data isn't anything more than anecdotal. Very much like the rumor roundups on Dakka. Much of their numbers are at best ranked data. They call up and ask someone in a game distribution warehouse to list "the top 5 miniature games" or "10 top selling boardgames". No sales data usually accompanies these numbers, and it may not even have been used in the decision making process. Just go ask 20 people in the game industry what they think and lump it together.
Distributors do not give out their numbers to anyone, its proprietary information. ICV2 takes non-numerical data and sort of reads the entrails to make up their charts. It's very fallible with GW, since so little GW product is distributed through the system where ICV2 tries to get it's numbers. They have no data on what GW sells through it's stores or websites, or what they sell to roughly 1200 FLGS just in NA.
So take ICV2 for what it is, and don't try to over analyze what they say too much.
mikhaila wrote: It's not fair to pull them apart either. The customer base for CCGs, board games, and miniature games have a healthy amount of overlap. It's rare to find a gamer who hasn't dabbled in at least 2 of the three.
Fair has nothing to do with it. They are different products. While they may have some overlap in customer bases, so does breakfast cereal, trash bags, and skateboards.
You will get a far better analysis by separating categories of product, than by lumping them together. This is my opinion bases on both a Masters degree in Statistics and owning game stores for 25 years.
A further comment: I see ICV2 mentioned a lot. Their data isn't anything more than anecdotal. Very much like the rumor roundups on Dakka. Much of their numbers are at best ranked data. They call up and ask someone in a game distribution warehouse to list "the top 5 miniature games" or "10 top selling boardgames". No sales data usually accompanies these numbers, and it may not even have been used in the decision making process. Just go ask 20 people in the game industry what they think and lump it together.
Distributors do not give out their numbers to anyone, its proprietary information. ICV2 takes non-numerical data and sort of reads the entrails to make up their charts. It's very fallible with GW, since so little GW product is distributed through the system where ICV2 tries to get it's numbers. They have no data on what GW sells through it's stores or websites, or what they sell to roughly 1200 FLGS just in NA.
So take ICV2 for what it is, and don't try to over analyze what they say too much.
I have to respectfully disagree (and to clarify, I have been a market research analyst for over 28 years). Trash bags and skateboards are two different segments. Tabletop games, whether board, miniature, or similar, are the same when competing for consumer dollars. A consumer is going to spend $x amount on leisure tabletop games. That may go to tabletop wargames, board games, whatever, but it is still being spent on games and the financials show GW is NOT capturing a good portion of it.
Let me give an example: When Magic: The Gathering came onto the scene there was no market, at the time, for CCGs since it was the true pioneer. But a major market for CCGs grew from that, and where from? Mostly from what consumers were already spending on other products (remember that tabletop RPGs took a huge hit at the same time that MTG took off). There is a classic example of why you can also segment into too narrow a niche as well. We are seeing this same effect with tablets versus tabletop PCs today. Technically different segments, but they serve a similar purpose to the consumer and thus represent a shift in consumer dollars. Same can be said for tabletop mini games, versus board games, versus pre-painted collectable games. They are all competing for the same consumer dollars and thus should be inclusive in the same customer segment.
We can talk about semantics all day long. What truly matters is consumers are spending more money today in tabletop leisure products than they did in 2009 and GW is not capitalizing on that trend and is instead moving in the opposite direction. At one time, GW used to focus on games and thus, in addition to large scale miniature war games, also produced skirmish games (Necromunda and Mordheim), adventure games (Space Hulk and Warhammer Quest) and board games (Talisman and Fury of Dracula). Somewhere in the last few years they decided they were no longer a game company and instead were a miniature company and everything has gone wrong with just that change in attitude. My personal belief is the next half will be even worse than this half, since the half GW reported on is typically the good half for manufacturers and retailers (with Christmas and all).
But maybe what was meant that non-GW companies have grown annual 8 to 10%? That seems somewhat more plausible, and it's actually well believable over single year. All it takes is one or two successful titles to gain big sales. However, even then it doesn't seem all that likely that such growth is maintained year after year. Over 4 years it would mean around 50% growth. Honestly: has it really appeared that there has been quite so big growth in non-GW games? Lets not forget that many of those titles were available even back then, and there were some which have since gone under.
Yes, the growth has been that big. In the industry, miniature wargames fall into one of two-classifications - collectible or non-collectible (pre-painted or unpainted doesn't matter). You are looking at GWs game structure and comparing it to similar companies rather than looking at it in terms of consumer dollars spent on collectible miniature games. Collectible miniature games can be those like 40k or those like Deadzone, Dreadball, et al. The collectible miniature board game industry is growing like gangbusters right now and accounts for the majority of that 8% CAGR. But tabletop wargaming is still growing, albeit at a slower pace.
The point is, where are gamers spending their dollars. Whether it is on a traditional tabletop wargame, like Warhammer 40k, or a collectible miniatures game, such as X-Wing or DeadZone, is of no consequence. The dollars are being spent and going somewhere. Unfortunately, GW is not a benefactor in this. While they have made so bad decisions in regards to the internet and channel, the decision to move out of specialist games at a time when this is the fastest growing part of the sector, is probably hurting them more than anything else.
Net effect, is in 2009 x$ were spent on collectible miniature games. In 2013, y$ we spent. 2013 estimates place total expenditures around $400m-$450m. So to your earlier point, GW would be around 45% market share. Which is large. However, their market share is declining in typical fashion as their corporate arrogance and hubris come to rest (Like Kodak did with the advent of the digital camera while they wanted to protect their film margins, or Apple did in the in between Jobs years, or Wang Computer did with the rise of the tiny WordPerfect Corporation - in which a $500m dollar company (WordPerfect) forced a $51 billion dollar company (Wang) out of existence).
And just one small point, PP is probably sitting at the $20m-$40m range based on three observations. The overall sales of WHFB and that PP has surpassed them (you really believe GW would even keep WHFB around if it only did $1m-$5m in sales?), the observed penetration in the market (# of stores stocking, games being played at FLGS and conventions, etc.), and that Rackham was known to be about $10m and Confrontation had no where near the presence that Warmachine does.
That you are lumping collectible and non-collectible miniature games together is creating a false premise. Deadzone and X-Wing are not collectible. Heroclicks are collectible and catering to a completely different market. By your logic the collectible miniature market is doing sluggish growth compared to CCG's and Board Games which are seeing 25% annual growth based on ICV2 numbers.
As for PP surpassing WHFB, the ICV2 number are only for independent retailers, it does not include sales through GW store or their website. Independent retailers account for only ~45% of GW's sales. You're tossing around flawed assumptions and comparing apples to oranges.
See my post above for further information. And you may also want to have a look at the FFG website where X-Wing is listed on their own site under Catalog-Miniatures (a collection style game). Also, they are not completely different markets, they are all the same market competing for what consumers spend on tabletop leisure products. You are mistakenly considering the product type, rather than the market type when stating your reply. See my example above regarding MTG and tabletop RPGs. Different product types but came from the same consumer dollars and thus the same market segment.
Let me state this another way to better clarify. A customer walks into his or her local FLGS with $100 to spend. In the store is GW products, board games, role playing games, collectible miniature games and CCGs. The consumer decides to spend that $100 on a board game and therefore not on GW. (I've lost count of the number of comments on the internet I have seen that state then went in to get a new GW model to flesh out their army but when they saw an $80 price tag and could get a board game with 20 miniatures and a bunch of other components for the same $80 they went in that direction - lost sale to GW even though it isn't a tabletop wargame). That is $100 GW may have captured that they did not. This is why you have to bring these together as you have to look at how customers spend their dollars and the distribution of product (i.e., the variety of products where they reach the customer) are. This is how Privateer Press first penetrated the GW base, at the existing channels of contact for GW customers. Same can be said for MTG versus stores carrying tabletop roleplaying games.
Just for the record: One buyer bought 522,000 GW shares (worth 2.741m £) at 4.08 pm. That alone is more than a quarter of what Kirby accumulated over a decade. Can't see in the public record who did this and who bought the rest of the 1,201,468 shares today. There is definitely something going on there, maybe the decisive steps for a take-over.
Last big transactions were Schroders plc buying shares on 10th Jannuary (now 5.268%, not listed a year ago, so less than 2.5%), Quantum Partners LP from Cayman Islands selling stock on 10th January (now 3.69%, earlier more than 4%), and Nomad Investment Partnership L.P. , the biggest shareholder, selling almost half its shares on 3rd December (now 9.8% down from 18.7% a year ago).
So by your expertise, a Hello Kitty doll and a GI Joe figure are exactly the same for terms of market analysis just because both are sold in the same toy store? Thus if Hello Kitty doll sales are booming, it is clear GI Joe is doing something wrong because it is not capitalizing on that growth?
So by your expertise, a Hello Kitty doll and a GI Joe figure are exactly the same for terms of market analysis just because both are sold in the same toy store? Thus if Hello Kitty doll sales are booming, it is clear GI Joe is doing something wrong because it is not capitalizing on that growth?
Potentially competing for the same dollar/euro/yen/etc... There could be underlying factors; for example, research show that Hello Kitty is particularly popular with adolescent females, a sharp growth in the population of adolescent females would have an impact on the sale of Hello Kitty dolls. A new Hello Kitty cartoon could account for rapid demand...etc.
In the case of GW you have growth in licensing which would normally generate interest and increased sales, but it didn't. Other tabletop gaming companies are reporting growth (they could be lying!), GW did not. etc.
And just one small point, PP is probably sitting at the $20m-$40m range based on three observations. The overall sales of WHFB and that PP has surpassed them (you really believe GW would even keep WHFB around if it only did $1m-$5m in sales?), the observed penetration in the market (# of stores stocking, games being played at FLGS and conventions, etc.), and that Rackham was known to be about $10m and Confrontation had no where near the presence that Warmachine does.
Warmachine surpassing WHFB in sales was reported by icv2 first time in 2010. You think PP was in $20 to 40 million revenue range in 2010? No, it was not. And I very much doubt it is there today, or even anywhere close, since the company even today barely registers on outside observers. I remind you that FFG is in 20 to 30 million USD revenue range, and it appears to be clearly larger company than PP. Confrontation was pretty big at one time at least in Europe, though I've read that it was mostly people buying their great looking minis, rather than actually playing the game.
Now, as for collectors market, Specialist games and whatnot - I believe that whilst discontinuing SG was a mistake (part of the revenue drop might be because of SG buying surge in spring 2013), the models were largely obsolete and in need of redoing, which they for one reason or another aren't willing to do. Companies who "cut superfluous branches from their business" are usually those on decline . Discontinuing metal was also probably a mistake: whilst Finecast is in fact more popular amongst the player crowds than one would believe reading the forums, those who collect miniatures aren't big on Finecast or plastic. They want metal or well cast resin. Current GW range does not hold much interest for these folks. However, I doubt that movement of collectors away from GW and to other companies is really observable as huge annual growth %.
And just one small point, PP is probably sitting at the $20m-$40m range based on three observations. The overall sales of WHFB and that PP has surpassed them (you really believe GW would even keep WHFB around if it only did $1m-$5m in sales?), the observed penetration in the market (# of stores stocking, games being played at FLGS and conventions, etc.), and that Rackham was known to be about $10m and Confrontation had no where near the presence that Warmachine does.
Warmachine surpassing WHFB in sales was reported by icv2 first time in 2010. You think PP was in $20 to 40 million revenue range in 2010? No, it was not. And I very much doubt it is there today, or even anywhere close, since the company even today barely registers on outside observers. I remind you that FFG is in 20 to 30 million USD revenue range, and it appears to be clearly larger company than PP. Confrontation was pretty big at one time at least in Europe, though I've read that it was mostly people buying their great looking minis, rather than actually playing the game.
Now, as for collectors market, Specialist games and whatnot - I believe that whilst discontinuing SG was a mistake (part of the revenue drop might be because of SG buying surge in spring 2013), the models were largely obsolete and in need of redoing, which they for one reason or another aren't willing to do. Companies who "cut superfluous branches from their business" are usually those on decline . Discontinuing metal was also probably a mistake: whilst Finecast is in fact more popular amongst the player crowds than one would believe reading the forums, those who collect miniatures aren't big on Finecast or plastic. They want metal or well cast resin. Current GW range does not hold much interest for these folks. However, I doubt that movement of collectors away from GW and to other companies is really observable as huge annual growth %.
Do you believe that WHFB does less than $20 million? If so, I highly doubt GW would continue to try and revive something for less than 10% of their business. So, if PP did surpass WHFB in sales as reported than, yes, they would be in that range. Not unheard of for a game that is close to 10 years old now.
As for the company registering on outside observers I will say this, the information on their annual revenue is available (as it is on all private companies who file tax returns) one just has to know where to look.
As for the move away from GW, this has nothing to do with annual growth overall in the market. There are many sources that have quoted double-digit growth, including in this very thread. The fact that there is systemic growth being reported while GW is reporting a heavy decline is further evidence that there is observable market growth overall. This is not growth being achieved because of GWs decline as that double-digit growth is being achieved DESPITE GWs sales decline.
So by your expertise, a Hello Kitty doll and a GI Joe figure are exactly the same for terms of market analysis just because both are sold in the same toy store? Thus if Hello Kitty doll sales are booming, it is clear GI Joe is doing something wrong because it is not capitalizing on that growth?
No, you missed my point entirely. Hello Kitty and GI Joe are separate demographic audiences. You have to segment by demographic and where that demographic spends particular dollars. Thus, gamers who are into tabletop wargames also frequently buy boardgames or other such games (And, by the way, hobby gaming, much like technology products, are generally gender agnostic. Whereas the example you gave is gender driven, which is a completely different comparison). For example, many X-Wing players have also probably bought Games Workshop, or Mantic, or Corvus Belli, or whatever. In other words, GW is competing for more than just the tabletop wargames market when it comes to revenue. They most likely miss this point because the only products they carry in their stores are GW products and they are overly hostile to internet and independent retailers who they only do business with reluctantly. This is why they are struggling because they have forgotten these basic facts. Market research is always, always based on buyer demographics for similar or related products, not on individual product lines themselves.
Look, the point is that GW sales are down when there are multiple observable sources showing overall market growth. We can argue semantics all day long on demographics and segmentation. It does not change the fact that GW is declining rapidly in sales when many other companies are growing. They have a slew of competition now like they have never had before. But because they only look at their stores, which carry only GW products, they only see the world with blinders on - and it is obviously having a major impact on them. GW is pricing themselves as the Ferrari of the tabletop gaming market. But you know what, far more gamers by Chevys or Fords compared to Ferraris, so they will get what they are targeting - a much smaller audience at a higher price point. Unfortunately, their business is not built for this and the current numbers (and I bet future ones as well), will show that there are not enough Ferrari buying gamers to support a large business like GW is today.
At this point, I would be willing to bet that the sales decline over the next six months will be even bigger than the current six month period just based on the statements made by management in the current financials. They really do not understand what is going wrong and their current stance is to just do more of the same, keep their fingers crossed, and hope gamers will continue with their hobby of "buying" GW models.
So by your expertise, a Hello Kitty doll and a GI Joe figure are exactly the same for terms of market analysis just because both are sold in the same toy store? Thus if Hello Kitty doll sales are booming, it is clear GI Joe is doing something wrong because it is not capitalizing on that growth?
Your missing the point entirely.
GI Joes and Hello Kitty dolls are not actually targeting the same 'consumer dollars' - forgive the sexsism here lol, but GI Joes are aimed at males and Hello Kitty at females. Distinct difference in target audience.
Wheras with the games; table top, collectible cards, miniatures, roleplay, wargames etc etc... are all competing for the money of out the same pockets.
UInless ofcourse we're talking about mummy and daddies pockets then the GI joe's, hello kittys and also games workshop (and the rest) are infact all targeting the same people - parents with children to buy for.
So either include all toys and games together, Or be realistic about which products are sharing a market - and thus compete for the same share of your money.
This may or may not be relevant to the "GW losing ground in the market discussion" but there is a plastic warlord games burned farmhouse model in the background of a tyranid picture on the daily WD. Granted this was fan submitted, but nevertheless...Bolt action models on the GW website!
Strombones wrote: This may or may not be relevant to the "GW losing ground in the market discussion" but there is a plastic warlord games burned farmhouse model in the background of a tyranid picture on the daily WD. Granted this was fan submitted, but evertheless...Bolt action models on the GW website!
That's happened a few times, it's always accidental and the image is removed the instant someone points it out to them.
Strombones wrote: This may or may not be relevant to the "GW losing ground in the market discussion" but there is a plastic warlord games burned farmhouse model in the background of a tyranid picture on the daily WD. Granted this was fan submitted, but evertheless...Bolt action models on the GW website!
That's happened a few times, it's always accidental and the image is removed the instant someone points it out to them.
Yeah I figured it couldn't have been the first time something like that happened. But it certainly seems to legitimize the rise of bolt action popularity and hamper any argument that 40k players are unlikely to migrate to historical games. I'll be interested to see if they take it down.
Strombones wrote: This may or may not be relevant to the "GW losing ground in the market discussion" but there is a plastic warlord games burned farmhouse model in the background of a tyranid picture on the daily WD. Granted this was fan submitted, but evertheless...Bolt action models on the GW website!
That's happened a few times, it's always accidental and the image is removed the instant someone points it out to them.
Yeah I figured it couldn't have been the first time something like that happened. But it certainly seems to legitimize the rise of bolt action popularity and hamper any argument that 40k players are unlikely to migrate to historical games. I'll be interested to see if they take it down.
Were things reversed and Bolt Action had posted an image containing a GW building in the background..... Well.. I'm not even gonna say it lol...
GW will likely take it down sharpish to avoid the c&d and any legal hassle that they would probably be doing if it were the other way.
Kroothawk wrote: Just for the record: One buyer bought 522,000 GW shares (worth 2.741m £) at 4.08 pm. That alone is more than a quarter of what Kirby accumulated over a decade. Can't see in the public record who did this and who bought the rest of the 1,201,468 shares today. There is definitely something going on there, maybe the decisive steps for a take-over.
Last big transactions were Schroders plc buying shares on 10th Jannuary (now 5.268%, not listed a year ago, so less than 2.5%), Quantum Partners LP from Cayman Islands selling stock on 10th January (now 3.69%, earlier more than 4%), and Nomad Investment Partnership L.P. , the biggest shareholder, selling almost half its shares on 3rd December (now 9.8% down from 18.7% a year ago).
Quoting for interest---that seems like a lot of shares!
And just one small point, PP is probably sitting at the $20m-$40m range based on three observations. The overall sales of WHFB and that PP has surpassed them (you really believe GW would even keep WHFB around if it only did $1m-$5m in sales?), the observed penetration in the market (# of stores stocking, games being played at FLGS and conventions, etc.), and that Rackham was known to be about $10m and Confrontation had no where near the presence that Warmachine does.
Warmachine surpassing WHFB in sales was reported by icv2 first time in 2010. You think PP was in $20 to 40 million revenue range in 2010? No, it was not. And I very much doubt it is there today, or even anywhere close, since the company even today barely registers on outside observers. I remind you that FFG is in 20 to 30 million USD revenue range, and it appears to be clearly larger company than PP. Confrontation was pretty big at one time at least in Europe, though I've read that it was mostly people buying their great looking minis, rather than actually playing the game.
Now, as for collectors market, Specialist games and whatnot - I believe that whilst discontinuing SG was a mistake (part of the revenue drop might be because of SG buying surge in spring 2013), the models were largely obsolete and in need of redoing, which they for one reason or another aren't willing to do. Companies who "cut superfluous branches from their business" are usually those on decline . Discontinuing metal was also probably a mistake: whilst Finecast is in fact more popular amongst the player crowds than one would believe reading the forums, those who collect miniatures aren't big on Finecast or plastic. They want metal or well cast resin. Current GW range does not hold much interest for these folks. However, I doubt that movement of collectors away from GW and to other companies is really observable as huge annual growth %.
Do you believe that WHFB does less than $20 million? If so, I highly doubt GW would continue to try and revive something for less than 10% of their business. So, if PP did surpass WHFB in sales as reported than, yes, they would be in that range. Not unheard of for a game that is close to 10 years old now.
Do realise that GW most likely sells only small part of their models through ICV2 (I don't even pretend to know what is the case with PP). Thus you cannot directly assume that sales in ICV2 are good way to measure the which of the two games sell more overall. Never mind making quesses about the size of PP based on that.
The thing about ICV2 reporting that Warmachine outsold WFB......
ICV2 isn't taking into account sales of GW products from the GW website, stores, or NA trade sales. My stores did over 50,000 in sales of WFB in the year 2010. ICV2 doesn't count it.In fact, ICV2 doesn't 'Count' anything. They don't adjust their data by sales volume, they usually just have distributors rate games "Give us the top 5 selling tabletop games." So while ICV2 can let you make statements like "Based on the opinions of the 5 US distributors we talked to, Warmachine sold better than WFB, from the 5 distributors the talked to.
It is equally valid to ask GW to rate the sales of the top 5 games based on their data.
ICV2 will be highly weighted by the sales numbers of Diamond Comics and Alliance Games Distributors. Very few retailers that carry a lot of GW order any GW product from them. It carries a 35% discount, not 45%. And from Diamond will incur shipping charges at well. Stock on hand is limited. You won't get product as fast. you will not recieve the free racking and product support that GW offers retailers. It's just a far worse deal to go through them for GW vs going direct.
Compare that to Privateer, that goes 100% through distribution, does not sell off their own website, or sell direct to stores. ICV2 will count ALL of my Privateer sales, and none of my GW sales.
It's just not good data for trying to analyze GW sales in comparison to other companies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As a point of information:
ICV2 = Internal Correspondance Volume 2. This was a newletter put out by Capital City Comics, a comic book distributor that was #2 behind diamond comics in the days before Marvel Comics caused such chaos in the industry that all but Diamond Comics Distributing were driven out of business. Diamond assumed some of the properties of Cap City and of course got all their accounts when they went under. (One distributor left, got to use them.)
ICV2 came along with that, and they kept it going. It's just an old newletter. They gather some data, ask opinions, write articles. I laugh at many of their "Top 5 XXXXX" each month. They do not have access to any hard numbers other than possibly Diamond Comics, and maybe Alliance Games Distributors. (Who bought Alliance.)
Strombones wrote: This may or may not be relevant to the "GW losing ground in the market discussion" but there is a plastic warlord games burned farmhouse model in the background of a tyranid picture on the daily WD. Granted this was fan submitted, but evertheless...Bolt action models on the GW website!
That's happened a few times, it's always accidental and the image is removed the instant someone points it out to them.
Yeah I figured it couldn't have been the first time something like that happened. But it certainly seems to legitimize the rise of bolt action popularity and hamper any argument that 40k players are unlikely to migrate to historical games. I'll be interested to see if they take it down.
Were things reversed and Bolt Action had posted an image containing a GW building in the background..... Well.. I'm not even gonna say it lol...
GW will likely take it down sharpish to avoid the c&d and any legal hassle that they would probably be doing if it were the other way.
Warlord Games is run by John Stollard, who was at GW almost at the beginning, and for the next 20 or so years. Held a very high position in the company at one time. There wouldn't be a cease and desist, more likely John calling up to laugh at them and making someone buy him a beer. GW will take it down just because it doesn't have enough skulls on it!!!
Do you believe that WHFB does less than $20 million? If so, I highly doubt GW would continue to try and revive something for less than 10% of their business. So, if PP did surpass WHFB in sales as reported than, yes, they would be in that range. Not unheard of for a game that is close to 10 years old now.
As for the company registering on outside observers I will say this, the information on their annual revenue is available (as it is on all private companies who file tax returns) one just has to know where to look.
And where would this wonderful information be available? Especially given private company revenue is not meant to be available to the public. Financial analyst sites list PP as only having 1 - 10 employees and $1.25M in revenue, which we know is incorrect.
Well, in the UK at least, a limited liability company above a certain size (I forget the threshold, but it is relatively low, I'd expect all the bigger names to exceed it) is obliged to submit its accounts to a third party (Companies House.)
While these records aren't freely available, as with a PLC such as GW, they can be purchased by anyone with the desire to do so.
I can only assume something similar exists in the US.
Warmachine surpassing WHFB in sales was reported by icv2 first time in 2010. You think PP was in $20 to 40 million revenue range in 2010? No, it was not. And I very much doubt it is there today, or even anywhere close, since the company even today barely registers on outside observers. I remind you that FFG is in 20 to 30 million USD revenue range, and it appears to be clearly larger company than PP. Confrontation was pretty big at one time at least in Europe, though I've read that it was mostly people buying their great looking minis, rather than actually playing the game.
.
Do you believe that WHFB does less than $20 million? If so, I highly doubt GW would continue to try and revive something for less than 10% of their business. So, if PP did surpass WHFB in sales as reported than, yes, they would be in that range. Not unheard of for a game that is close to 10 years old now.
As for the company registering on outside observers I will say this, the information on their annual revenue is available (as it is on all private companies who file tax returns) one just has to know where to look.
No I don't believe WHFB sales are less than 20 million USD. I believe it's much more likely icv2's numbers are in error, or apply only to some regions. I can well believe PP is bigger than WHFB locally in some places (especially in USA), but globally? Unlikely.
As of PP's size, I don't know where to look. Outside estimates I've seen place annual revenue between $100k and $5 million. Now, that is possibly too low (lower range numbers certainly are), but what it does tell us is that the company is too small to get attention from business people.
Other wargaming companies reporting growth - I'm sure many are. But remember the scale: when you run a wargaming company of say $1 million annual revenue (not too shabby), and your sales have increased by 100k /year, of course you're happy to report 10% growth, it's pretty damn good! But it would take over 1000 years to catch GW at that rate.
Let me state this another way to better clarify. A customer walks into his or her local FLGS with $100 to spend. In the store is GW products, board games, role playing games, collectible miniature games and CCGs. The consumer decides to spend that $100 on a board game and therefore not on GW. (I've lost count of the number of comments on the internet I have seen that state then went in to get a new GW model to flesh out their army but when they saw an $80 price tag and could get a board game with 20 miniatures and a bunch of other components for the same $80 they went in that direction - lost sale to GW even though it isn't a tabletop wargame). That is $100 GW may have captured that they did not. This is why you have to bring these together as you have to look at how customers spend their dollars and the distribution of product (i.e., the variety of products where they reach the customer) are. This is how Privateer Press first penetrated the GW base, at the existing channels of contact for GW customers. Same can be said for MTG versus stores carrying tabletop roleplaying games.
This is the more likely scenario. We bought into X-Wing because the fully playable starter was less than a 40K tank. We then use the justification of new ships in that they cost less than GW characters and they come with all the cards and tokens required. Those sales are money that would have normally gone straight to GW. We've also done the same with board games. So board games, collector mini games and tabletop games are definitely competing for the same hobby money.
Warmachine surpassing WHFB in sales was reported by icv2 first time in 2010. You think PP was in $20 to 40 million revenue range in 2010? No, it was not. And I very much doubt it is there today, or even anywhere close, since the company even today barely registers on outside observers. I remind you that FFG is in 20 to 30 million USD revenue range, and it appears to be clearly larger company than PP. Confrontation was pretty big at one time at least in Europe, though I've read that it was mostly people buying their great looking minis, rather than actually playing the game.
.
Do you believe that WHFB does less than $20 million? If so, I highly doubt GW would continue to try and revive something for less than 10% of their business. So, if PP did surpass WHFB in sales as reported than, yes, they would be in that range. Not unheard of for a game that is close to 10 years old now.
As for the company registering on outside observers I will say this, the information on their annual revenue is available (as it is on all private companies who file tax returns) one just has to know where to look.
No I don't believe WHFB sales are less than 20 million USD. I believe it's much more likely icv2's numbers are in error, or apply only to some regions. I can well believe PP is bigger than WHFB locally in some places (especially in USA), but globally? Unlikely.
As of PP's size, I don't know where to look. Outside estimates I've seen place annual revenue between $100k and $5 million. Now, that is possibly too low (lower range numbers certainly are), but what it does tell us is that the company is too small to get attention from business people.
Other wargaming companies reporting growth - I'm sure many are. But remember the scale: when you run a wargaming company of say $1 million annual revenue (not too shabby), and your sales have increased by 100k /year, of course you're happy to report 10% growth, it's pretty damn good! But it would take over 1000 years to catch GW at that rate.
I'm done discussing market semantics here. The simple point was that the market is growing overall as evidenced by many different sources of observations while GW is declining. This growth is coming despite the decline of GW sales. It's pretty simple really, GW is shrinking in a growing market. That is not good - for any company.
The sad part is, GW has no one to blame but themselves and it will continue. As of this month alone, they are STILL continuing to raise prices by double-digits. Just in November of last year, a Tyranid Warrior Brood was $47 US. Now, in January it is $51. Almost a 10% increase. They have not, and will not learn their lesson under the current management, it is that simple. Whether it has permanent effect or temporary depends on how quickly the board wakes up and cleans house on the senior management.
As for outside revenue estimates, like Hoovers, et al., these are never, ever even close to the size of companies for revenues. As a rule of thumb used early in market research projects, whatever Hoover's has, multiple it by 10 and you are probably getting closer. As an example, I just looked up the company I recently worked for. Hoovers has their revenue at $20 million when they did $212 million in revenue last year. You can see how accurate those "outside sources" are. There are far better ways to get revenue performance on private companies. While they do not have to publicly report their revenue, the still have to file tax returns and thus the data becomes available if one knows where to go.
I'm curious about the transfer of stocks that went on yesterday. Any more news on that front? How many shares exactly were bought/sold, and what could it indicate? I don't know much about the stock market, let alone in the UK, so I don't really know what it means or could mean.
On the subject of FLGS, I went into the NY GW early last year. The salesperson I was trying to buy from left me so angry (guy treated me like I was 7) I decided I would never set foot their again. At my FLGS they treat me like a human being and are generally pretty awesome to their regulars, so I feel obliged to buy from them.
mikhaila wrote: The thing about ICV2 reporting that Warmachine outsold WFB......
May I ask what the ranking would be in your store concerning tabletops? Did Warmachine outsell Warhammer Fantasy?
1. 40k 2. Warmahordes
3. Flames of War
4. WFB
40k was 3x the sales of Warmahordes/FOW which were pretty much equal. WFB was down at about 1/2 of FOW.
WFB is suffering in this area. GW cut so much out of the line this year and last that it's tough to sell new armies. Brets have one kit. Dwarves up til now had Warriors and a cannon. The new armies get a couple of good kits,a couple unusable ones, and a lack of characters. Dark elves were probably the most complete army. Add that to the general Malaise affecting WFB because of the rules, and we don't have a lot of people looking to start new armies. Sales have been primarily the newer product . There's just far less to sell of WFB than there used to be.
I pray daily that Khorne reaps Kirby's skull for his pile, and sanity returns.
I pray daily that Khorne reaps Kirby's skull for his pile, and sanity returns.
I think many pray with you. He's going to be gone in a couple of years, one way or another. The question in my mind is how much the corporate culture has been stained by his input and how deeply. It may take a while to cut out the cancer Kirby leaves.
That assumes it has not affected the company in a terminal way.
For the GW we know now to become the GW it was way back when it was Games Workshop, it needs such a drastic reshape that it will not be the same entity it was the last 20ish years.
I pray daily that Khorne reaps Kirby's skull for his pile, and sanity returns.
I think many pray with you. He's going to be gone in a couple of years, one way or another. The question in my mind is how much the corporate culture has been stained by his input and how deeply. It may take a while to cut out the cancer Kirby leaves.
Sorry, but while I wouldn't expect him to keep working longer in a job which appears to be nothing more than a cash dispenser for him, nothing under UK employment law will compel him to retire when he hits 65.
Circumstances might force him, he may choose to, but he doesn't have to. The thought of him doing the job because of the love of it in light of all the goings on, is too horrible to contemplate.
In other news, shares down another penny today, and after yesterday's intriguing movements, less than 15000 volume traded today, which is barely 10% of average.
I'm beginning to suspect an investment fund had been eyeing an acquisition and decided yesterday was the day to buy, as the price had found its nadir for now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PsychoticStorm wrote: That assumes it has not affected the company in a terminal way.
For the GW we know now to become the GW it was way back when it was Games Workshop, it needs such a drastic reshape that it will not be the same entity it was the last 20ish years.
While I agree with the general statement, I don't think a return to old GW is the answer either, for all the criticism levelled at Kirby, old GW nearly failed. GWdoes need to go forward, it just needs to be doing it differently.
Pre-history (late 70s)
Starting from a flat, Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone rode the wave of popularity of early RPGs by importing D&D and later on licensing other games like RuneQuest, and started Citadel Miniatures to make figures for them. A magazine called White Dwarf -- combining fantasy and SF elements -- was launched.
The Games Workshop Years (1980s)
During which they began to create a national presence and produced some of the wide range of games we still know and love today, like Judge Dredd, Talisman and so on.
The Rise of the Space Mariens (1990s)
In which 40K began to exceed all other titles for popularity and many spin off games like Necromunda, BFG and Epic were produced to exploit the background.
The Dark Lord Returns (early 2000s)
The LoTR licence produced massive growth for several years which was used to expand the retail chain. Unfortunately it all went wrong when the bubble burst.
After the Deluge (2005 to the present.)
When LoTR plummetted, GW were badly overextended. The Specialist games were gradually de-emphasised and WHFB and 40K became the only products. Although there had been considerable support of veterans, such as tournaments, this was gradually withdrawn until we arrive at the GW of today.
When I say the old GW and was thinking on expanding it, I did not mean the way GW was in the mid 80's to mid 90's but the spirit in which it worked.
Present GW is driven by numbers and has forgot the principles of operation and takes too many things for granted, there is no innovation, no attempt to greatness, just a rehash and an attempt to force people to buy more models that they already have to drive the sales forward.
I would rather like to see the company when it was not a rival with its fans (and game stores), when they did pioneer the wargaming scene when they had variety and senses, these are not incompatible with them making profit, they see it that way.
Problem with GW is that they act like a huge corporation which they're really not. Company like Apple or Microsoft can afford acting like "!#"!#¤% because for everyone who ragequits their products, there are dozens or hundreds of drones to mindlessly obey them. Medium sized company working in a niche industry like GW can't really go around like that because word gets around fast in much smaller customer base.
Talking about WHFB, funnily enough one tournament host here said that Fantasy tournaments have doubled their attendance and lots of WHFB veterans who used to revile 8th edition have come around and actually prefer 8th edition now that more armybooks have been updated. However, it's almost entirely old veterans playing their old armies: there is a distinct lack of new blood. The game is still played a lot, but doesn't sell much.
Harriticus wrote: GW not hating/at war with their own veteran fanbase is the first step to recovery.
Quite.
If anyone from GW with even a modicum of authority is reading, please know that the majority of even your harshest critics would love the opportunity to help if you'd let us.
Harriticus wrote: GW not hating/at war with their own veteran fanbase is the first step to recovery.
First step not hating or being at war with the people who buy your product.
Second being not hating and being at war with the people who sell your product.
I pray daily that Khorne reaps Kirby's skull for his pile, and sanity returns.
I think many pray with you. He's going to be gone in a couple of years, one way or another. The question in my mind is how much the corporate culture has been stained by his input and how deeply. It may take a while to cut out the cancer Kirby leaves.
Too bad, Kirby is protected by Papa Nurgle, because the latter has a crush for decaying companies
Doesn't this timeline have a nice symmetry with the lore of the Imperium of Man in 40k? Started off struggling, then eventually conquered all, were strong, and then fell into decline? Where we are now - beset on all sides.
Perhaps the next game setting should be Games Workshop: 2015.
At the very least I smell a Kid Kyoto signature image in here somewhere.
Doesn't this timeline have a nice symmetry with the lore of the Imperium of Man in 40k? Started off struggling, then eventually conquered all, were strong, and then fell into decline? Where we are now - beset on all sides.
Perhaps the next game setting should be Games Workshop: 2015.
Oh the possibilities! Moving your unit of Unsuspecting Gamers through the desolate land of abandoned GW stores and the empty shell of LFGSs left in their wake only to find them ambushed by Sales Reps on Turn 2 and eventually Management entering from the Store Edge. That is a bleak situation since Management models have the 'Price Hike' USR and can make Finecast copies of themselves.
Archibald_TK wrote:Hey guys, I know I'm dropping in the middle of conversations I didn't even read, but I found something interesting while writing a post on the WD thread that may interest some of you.
GW France apparently has to make their results public. It's interesting since they are a big market. I calculated, assuming an average pound at 1.2€ for that year, that mid 2012 they represented slightly below 28% of all European revenues. Of course since it's me calculating something I may have messed up so feel free to toy with the numbers yourself (if you manage to understand anything :p)
Anyway here is the interesting part, those are GW France revenues in € (not in £ as I brainlessly assumed first) from June to June each year, the second number is the profit:
As you can see, revenues were in constant fall since 2004 (with 2011 being the mystery year for obscure reasons), that country did not see any reprieve or rebound at least until 2013.
On January 16th, Games Workshop announced that its profit dropped by £3.4 million compared to the same period last year. Once that arcane utterance hit the internet, the Eye of Terror opened. Fell things came forth to pick the company's corpse. Heretics spread rumors and uttered blasphemies about price hikes. Games Workshop's empire, the headlines said, was burning.
Except that's not really true. Games Workshop is far from dead - though it will have to confront many structural problems in the grim darkness of the near future.
GAMES WORKSHOP ISN'T DEAD - BUT IT DID TAKE A WOUND
Though it took a glancing hit, the venerable dreadnaught GW lumbers on. While it's true that a dip in profits is worrying, making a £7.7 million profit - rather than an £11.1 million one - isn't the same thing as running at a loss. A stock selloff precipitated by a poor earnings report isn't a good thing by any measure, but it's not the apocalypse. Games Workshop's stock price, even after the drop, is around £5.50 a share - that's £3.50 more than it was in 2009. Also note that this was only a half-year report, so while GW isn't expected to make its £22.5 million full-year forecast, they'll certainly make more than £7.7 million in 2013-2014. Its specialty miniature company Forge World and fiction imprint The Black Library are both doing fine. The company's financially solvent, with £9 million worth of cash in their bank account and zero debts. So while it's true GW's profits aren't as big as they've been in the past, let's not get dramatic - this is hardly a company that's burning to the waterline.
That's not to say, however, that GW doesn't have challenges it needs to face down. There are many structural problems that the company will face in the years ahead, from pricing, to an aging customer base and even new manufacturing techniques.
MINIATURES SHOULDN'T COST AS MUCH AS A REAL-LIFE BANEBLADE
If I walked into a GW store today and bought a ten-man Space Marine squad, a Rhino and five Citadel Paints to gussie them up, I'd pay about $100 after tax.
One. Hundred. US. Dollars. That's $40 for the marines, $37.25 for the Rhino, and $20 for five paint pots.
One hundred dollars. For single troops choice and a dedicated transport.
That's insane. Like Astropath-pulling-too-much-overtime insane. Citadel Miniatures have never been a cheap product, but during the ten years I played I watched the price per-mini skyrocket. In 2003 I remember paying $30 a box for 20 plastic Cadian Shock Troopers, now it's $29 for half as many models. Meanwhile, the points cost to field a basic trooper went down, meaning Imperial Guard players needed more of the models that had doubled in price. And that's not even mentioning the new hardcover army Codexes, which go for $50 a pop.
What happened was this: Games Workshop decided that their miniatures, already expensive, should become a premium product. Around the time of the price hikes, GW informational literature to investors and independent retailers started referring to their product as "The Best Toy Soldiers In the World." While they have a point - Citadel makes excellent miniatures - I feel that perspective convinced GW management that they could take on a premium-pricing model. Their market dominance meant that they had few competitors, and increasing profits could fund retail expansion, please shareholders and make up for the recession. Furthermore, price hikes (and occasional new units) were a way to increase profits from existing customers who only bought a few units a year. But here's the problem: Every time they used price hikes to squeeze existing customers who'd already bought into the game, they raised entry cost for new players. That makes it harder to recruit the 13 and 14 year-olds who're critical in sustaining the hobby the long term. After all, why would teens pay $500 to create an army when they can get their strategy fix from League of Legends? This is why Forge World - a luxury brand that targets older players with more money - is doing fine, while the core game suffers.
And as the premium-pricing model weeds out the younger players, you run into a bigger problem from the other end.
THE LONG FANGS CAN'T MAKE TIME
When I was in college, I never thought twice about taking 5-6 hours out of my Monday to play 40k. Leaving school at 4:15 PM for a 5:00 PM game wasn't unthinkable; neither was sitting in a diner afterwards talking about Necrons past midnight. Not so much once I started an 8:30-5:30 office job, and definitely not since I've gotten married. I've got less time now, it's the downside of being an adult.
Scheduling a match wouldn't feel so insurmountable, except that 40k keeps taking longer to play. Individual 40k games have more units these days. Lower points values per unit. More models per game. Apocalypse formations and flyers. I suspect GW wanted to create a contrast between 40k and smaller-scale skirmish games like Warmachine - or coax players into buying more plastic.
Either way, that has a consequence in terms of time. Play a troop-heavy army like infantry-based Guard or swarming Tyranids and it's not unthinkable to take a 45-minute turn. Finishing a game in four hours feels like an accomplishment.. Add in painting time and you've got a rules set that's untenable for many adults - i.e. the people able to afford premium-priced miniatures. This is anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but among my old gaming group, everyone who used to play 40k has moved onto quick-playing skirmish games like Malifaux and Warmachine. Not to mention the folks that transitioned to video games instead, since they're easier to play thirty minutes at a time.
What's sad about this is that Games Workshop has published several excellent skirmish games in the past - Necromunda and Mordheim in particular - that provided a lower-cost, faster-playing alternative that also served as an entry point to the hobby. If they wanted to walk that road again, it wouldn't fix things in the long term, but it'd be a start.
THE TERRIFYING NECRON MENACE OF 3D PRINTING
One day soon, 3D printing is going to wipe Games Workshop off the map. In that golden future, we'll print ready-made miniatures at home, copy Space Marines ad infinitum, babies will weep only diamonds and no one will ever fail an armor save.
At least that's what some disgruntled fans say.
I don't buy it. Look guys, GW execs don't have cotton balls stuffed in their ears. They know all about 3D printing and the Hero Forge Kickstarter. They realize 3D printing could be a business threat. But here's the thing - they could easily launch their own web UI that lets you design and print a custom Space Marine Captain. It wouldn't surprise me if GW's experimenting with it right now, and because they're GW, they'll buy the best printers and find out how to make the best 3D printed models in the business. Say what you will about their policies, but GW has been making high-quality miniatures for three decades and has continually improved their methods and technology. There's no way they'll let a cheaper, more versatile production method undercut their product.
GAMES WORKSHOP STORES: NOT WORTH THE POINTS COST
Games Workshop lives and dies by its brick-and-mortar stores. That network allows the company to control its product's price structure to an impressive degree and is central in promoting the brand and attracting repeat customers. They're not just stores, they're monetized community centers. However, recently GW has rolled out a new plan to cut stores down to one employee and limit stock so that each location becomes more profitable. According to GW's acting chief executive Tom Kirby, the profit dip in the last report was entirely due to this restructuring. However, I can't see how reducing store hours (you can only ask one man to work so many days a week) and floor space is going to work in the long term, particularly since less space to play means a reduced community scene around the shop. Then again, I've read some arguments that GW stores are the problem, with rent and employee fees necessitating that GW as a whole sell more product and at higher prices. If true, it essentially means that we, the customers, are essentially paying a surcharge to shop at Games Workshop stores. That's an especially ugly thought if you shop at an independent retailer a thousand miles from the nearest Games Workshop, as I did.
But no matter where it derives from, GW needs to ease off on their infamous price control. To stock GW products as an independent retailer, for example, you have to order a minimum amount and dedicate a certain amount of shelf space to it - and of course, GW sets the prices. But it gets wilder than that. Last April the company announced that they'd cut ties with any independent retailers that sold GW products over the internet to Australia, since gamers there were ordering from overseas to avoid the the 60-90% markup in local GW stores. In other words, rather than price its products competitively, GW opted to region lock a physical product. This weird ethos even carries over to The Black Library, which doesn't offer ebooks on the Kindle store. Instead, they're on the Black Library website, presumably so they can sell them one dollar under the paperback price.
Look, I'm not a business analyst. Nor I have I worked retail. I don't pretend any special insight, but I doubt such a selfish strategy can last. There are three parties in this equation - GW, retailers and customers - and the current system only benefits one of them. At some point, the other two will choose to go play a different game.
There are people that would love to see Games Workshop burn. Jaded fans. Competitors. Downtrodden retailers. I don't share that view. Games Workshop isn't some unchanging emperor, kept alive via life support as his realm decays. The company is, if anything, a portly middle-aged man with a cigarette habit - he'll be dead in ten years if he does nothing, but if he kicks the smokes and drops a few pounds, who knows?
In the grim darkness of the far future, Games Workshop may be with us after all.
I thought that was generally a good article but the 3d printing part was kind of a off-topic tangent.
Also, it's kind of funny how little actual content was in that article when you look at Red's quote vs spreading it over 3 pages and tarting it up with images, huh? Very apropo for a Games Workshop thread, shades of WD.
Yeah, also like everyone else that shouts "but they still made a big profit!!!" he didn't mention that their cash position declined by approx. a third somehow despite mentioning their current cash position.
If the rumours about scrapping all their metal stocks are true then it's a pretty bad sign, back of envelope figures show that they are selling the metal off for under about 2.5% of the potential value as minis.
Though I can see why they are doing it just before the end of the tax year; it'll prop up their bottom line by maybe as much as £200k whilst dropping about £8million in unsold product and a significant amount of warehousing space.
But it feels very short-termist and shows a complete reluctance to engage with or seem to offer deals to the customer base, both of which approaches would have earned them much more money in the same term.
I understand why GWS (and some other luxury brands, for that matter) think destroying their stock to preserve their status is a good decision, but I don't especially agree with it, personally. .
Harriticus wrote: GW not hating/at war with their own veteran fanbase is the first step to recovery.
First step not hating or being at war with the people who buy your product.
Second being not hating and being at war with the people who sell your product.
Third not hating and being at war with the people that promote your products.
Also a good point in the article GW's current pricing scheme of "premium products" is directly competing with Forgeworld their own brand...
Harriticus wrote: GW not hating/at war with their own veteran fanbase is the first step to recovery.
First step not hating or being at war with the people who buy your product.
Second being not hating and being at war with the people who sell your product.
Third not hating and being at war with the people that promote your products.
Very true.
"You seem to be helping to promote our products and getting the gaming public more intrested in our releases and game, how fething dare you."
Herzlos wrote: Though I can see why they are doing it just before the end of the tax year
The "tax year" doesn't apply to companies in the same way it applies to employees. GW's tax year ends at the end of May (so they're pretty much doing it in the middle of the year).
Herzlos wrote: If the rumours about scrapping all their metal stocks are true then it's a pretty bad sign, back of envelope figures show that they are selling the metal off for under about 2.5% of the potential value as minis.
Key point: potential value. If this is stuff that's just collecting dust in a warehouse somewhere because hardly anyone is buying it then that potential value might as well not exist. Worse, it actually costs money to keep it, so GW is actually getting less than 0% of the "value". And in that case it's better to get 2.5% of the theoretical retail price and clear out the inventory space than to keep it forever in the desperate hope that someone will buy it.
Consider an analogy: I can believe that I'm an awesome painter and put a model on ebay for $1 million, but I'd be pretty stupid to refuse an offer of $25,000 just because it's only 2.5% of my arbitrarily-assigned sale price.
But it feels very short-termist and shows a complete reluctance to engage with or seem to offer deals to the customer base, both of which approaches would have earned them much more money in the same term.
But you're looking at that too narrowly. Let's say GW offers you a $15 character model for $5 instead of selling it for $1 for scrap metal. You might think that GW just earned $4 more by offering you a discount, but what if buying that character model means that you don't buy the $15 plastic character model that has a similar role in your army? GW earned $4 more for their scrap metal, but it probably cost them more than $4 from the lost sale of the plastic kit. And, worse, they've potentially set up the expectation of more discounts in the future, which might make you hesitate to spend money right now if you think you might get a better deal in the future. So it's quite possible that they've analyzed the situation and decided that it's in their best interest to just destroy the obsolete stock and sell it for scrap metal.
Also, remember that this is stuff that isn't selling very well enough to convert to finecast or plastic, and TBH a lot of it is pretty bad models that wouldn't get any attention if it wasn't a "last chance to buy" situation. I don't think it's very realistic to expect significant increases in sales just because GW does a little marketing work.
"You seem to be helping to promote our products and getting the gaming public more intrested in our releases and game, how fething dare you."
Unfortunately their point of view is even worse.
They dread anybody mentioning their products and not been them, they want their products to be mentioned in the vacuum and only under strict corporate propaganda, leaving others mentioning their products leaves them uncomfortable, so they rather not have anybody mention their products than them, than people actively speak for their products, unregulated.
Their "inability to understand the Internet", their aggressive whichunt of fans and funsites, their strict and questionable regulations for retailers or their adhesiveness to their own stores is at least in some part related with that and it should infer their confidence of their product.
Herzlos wrote: If the rumours about scrapping all their metal stocks are true then it's a pretty bad sign, back of envelope figures show that they are selling the metal off for under about 2.5% of the potential value as minis.
Key point: potential value. If this is stuff that's just collecting dust in a warehouse somewhere because hardly anyone is buying it then that potential value might as well not exist. Worse, it actually costs money to keep it, so GW is actually getting less than 0% of the "value". And in that case it's better to get 2.5% of the theoretical retail price and clear out the inventory space than to keep it forever in the desperate hope that someone will buy it.
Consider an analogy: I can believe that I'm an awesome painter and put a model on ebay for $1 million, but I'd be pretty stupid to refuse an offer of $25,000 just because it's only 2.5% of my arbitrarily-assigned sale price.
Yes, potential value, and if the stuff isn't shifting it's because the market thinks the value is too high. There's going to be an optimal sales point between the current RRP and the scrap value where all of the stock will be sold off whilst giving GW more money, that they don't even seem interested in testing for that point, rather than just dumping the lot as scrap, is what I find odd. I'd expect any company that's posted the drop in revenue that they have, to be doing everything possible to increase the money they take in rather than going for the easiest option.
But it feels very short-termist and shows a complete reluctance to engage with or seem to offer deals to the customer base, both of which approaches would have earned them much more money in the same term.
But you're looking at that too narrowly. Let's say GW offers you a $15 character model for $5 instead of selling it for $1 for scrap metal. You might think that GW just earned $4 more by offering you a discount, but what if buying that character model means that you don't buy the $15 plastic character model that has a similar role in your army? GW earned $4 more for their scrap metal, but it probably cost them more than $4 from the lost sale of the plastic kit. And, worse, they've potentially set up the expectation of more discounts in the future, which might make you hesitate to spend money right now if you think you might get a better deal in the future. So it's quite possible that they've analyzed the situation and decided that it's in their best interest to just destroy the obsolete stock and sell it for scrap metal.
That's assuming people would buy the new thing at the new price, when they already won't buy the equivalent thing at the old price (and none of the plastic/FC replacements have been cheaper than the metals, from what I can gather).
I also don't see how offering a discount on end of line stuff generates an expectation of discounts in the way that, say, a January sale would. Stuff may be reduced but once it's gone there's nothing else to discount.
Also, remember that this is stuff that isn't selling very well enough to convert to finecast or plastic, and TBH a lot of it is pretty bad models that wouldn't get any attention if it wasn't a "last chance to buy" situation. I don't think it's very realistic to expect significant increases in sales just because GW does a little marketing work.
Marketing work, like having someone spend 30 seconds knocking out an email to the mailing list saying that all the metal stocks in the webstore are going to 50% off until they are gone? The cost to the company would be recovered with a couple of small sales.
As in the other thread, and I know that it's anecdotal, but if GW did that today, I'd spend enough with them alone for the admin work to be worthwhile for them.
azreal13 wrote: If anyone from GW with even a modicum of authority is reading, please know that the majority of even your harshest critics would love the opportunity to help if you'd let us.
Based on the ideas i've seen expressed in this forum, the veteran gamer community is financially illiterate and would bankrupt the company in short order.
I agree about finding a way to sell off the old metal stock. There's also the potential to recover valuable goodwill. GW loses goodwill by destroying miniatures that will never exist again. It just does. Whatever the financial reasons, it further tarnishes GW's brand.
GW could possibly have boosted the luxury status of its brand by selling off "old" and "obsolete" models at fire sale prices, perhaps in grab bag bundles. Get people buying from the GW webstore again, get people saying something GOOD about GW for once, bring a little money in the door. And who is going to nostalgically buy a decade old miniature? Your veteran customers, possibly those that have stopped purchasing from GW entirely. "Last Chance to Buy" would be a strong motivator to make sales, especially if that carrot was followed by the stick of having a set date to destroy the stock and sell it for scrap. 'We're clearing out all metal stock to make room for more new, modern, professionally designed miniatures from all of the ranges we don't seem like we are supporting right now. This stuff is going to go to the scrap yard by X date, but until then you can buy it!'
Pair that with WD weekly mags that reprint old articles! Get some use out of them. Reprint articles about those models. Reprint the old marketing photos. Reprint old bat reps with those models. Reprint articles about using those models for conversions. Write NEW articles about chopping up those old models to make sweet conversions with your NEW models! Revise the Necromunda and Mordheim rules into a trim little version and PUT THEM IN WD WEEKLY along with adds for bundles that let you buy 5 whole gangs/warbands for $50. Get people excited about GW, even if it is them being excited about the OLD GW. Reuse old material, make fans HAPPY for once.
Hell, GW could have gone whole hog and done a week or two week long GW Retro campaign. Put a new skin on the webstore, do some interviews about the old days with employees and former employees that still like you for some reason, push all of that old metal stock hard, time it with some sort of anniversary (you can find one - Hell, use Jes Goodwins birthday if you have to). Do it for two weeks and let everyone know that at the end of that two week party, GW is putting all of those old models into the smelter and selling them for scrap, never to be seen again.
Missed. Opportunity.
Instead GW gets more ho-humming about its myopic and fan-unfriendly policies.
azreal13 wrote: If anyone from GW with even a modicum of authority is reading, please know that the majority of even your harshest critics would love the opportunity to help if you'd let us.
Based on the ideas i've seen expressed in this forum, the veteran gamer community is financially illiterate and would bankrupt the company in short order.
Well, I've seen you base your arguments on the economic performance of only one territory GW operate in, dismiss evidence out of hand because "the man" lies, and try and link a direct reaction in share price to a poor set of results to broader economic trends in China, so unless you're including yourself in that, I'd put those stones down chap, or you'll damage your house.
azreal13 wrote: If anyone from GW with even a modicum of authority is reading, please know that the majority of even your harshest critics would love the opportunity to help if you'd let us.
Based on the ideas i've seen expressed in this forum, the veteran gamer community is financially illiterate and would bankrupt the company in short order.
Financially Illiterate? Surely you can find a better mishmash of words to toss around to express your disdain for everyone else
azreal13 wrote: If anyone from GW with even a modicum of authority is reading, please know that the majority of even your harshest critics would love the opportunity to help if you'd let us.
Based on the ideas i've seen expressed in this forum, the veteran gamer community is financially illiterate and would bankrupt the company in short order.
Well, I've seen you base your arguments on the economic performance of only one territory GW operate in, dismiss evidence out of hand because "the man" lies, and try and link a direct reaction in share price to a poor set of results to broader economic trends in China, so unless you're including yourself in that, I'd put those stones down chap, or you'll damage your house.
I said, the economy is rolling over was the reason why revenues were down and we should continue to see that trend in retail. Amazon, Walmart and Google all had crap earnings released since I made those statements.
Management needs to continue cutting costs and weather the storm. Companies go under because they don't know which way the wind blows and where we are in the cycle. Markets are stretched to the upside at the moment and emerging markets are starting to show signs of trouble.
mikhaila wrote: Financially Illiterate? Surely you can find a better mishmash of words to toss around to express your disdain for everyone else
Disdain? Nah.. I just think it's painfully obvious that no one here has an accounting or portfolio management background yet they are speaking as if they are experts. I've worked for global macro funds, ETFs and Hedgefunds for over a decade and seeing my expertise dismissed in the manner it has been is humorous. Since the markets are starting to give up the ghost, this discussion is becoming increasingly more silly.
I think the reason your 'expertise' is being dismissed, as you put it, and incidentally, this is the first time I've seen you offer any sort of indication as to your credentials, from your previous posts and 'that' thread in discussions I'd assumed you were some sort of economics student, is because you're arguing very broad trends, but simultaneously failing to address the micro economic factors that specifically affect GW and the sector they're operating in.
GW themselves claim to be a recession proof business. Despite the somewhat questionable accuracy of the sources, I've not seen one person in a position to have a decent idea claim that the tabletop hobby is in decline, and many claiming the contrary.
To paraphrase something i said earlier, "if everyone is struggling, it's the economy, if you're the only one, it's you"
How do you reconcile the generally bullish attitude towards tabletop gaming right now, the solid, albeit anecdotal, evidence that people are still spending money on products at least at the same levels as a year ago, and the fall in revenue that is apparently only confined to GW?
azreal13 wrote: If anyone from GW with even a modicum of authority is reading, please know that the majority of even your harshest critics would love the opportunity to help if you'd let us.
Based on the ideas i've seen expressed in this forum, the veteran gamer community is financially illiterate and would bankrupt the company in short order.
Well, I've seen you base your arguments on the economic performance of only one territory GW operate in, dismiss evidence out of hand because "the man" lies, and try and link a direct reaction in share price to a poor set of results to broader economic trends in China, so unless you're including yourself in that, I'd put those stones down chap, or you'll damage your house.
I said, the economy is rolling over was the reason why revenues were down and we should continue to see that trend in retail. Amazon, Walmart and Google all had crap earnings released since I made those statements.
Now I'm not an economist, but I see 3 things from that report that don't seem to agree with you.
1. Those markets are down under 1%, so GW's drop of 24% is well out of the median.
2. It puts a lot of that down to people dropping investments in risky currencies like the "Turkish lira, South African rand, Russian ruble", none of which would affect GW stock.
3. It says that consumer spending rose:
Elsewhere, the Commerce Department reports consumer spending rose 0.4% in December, slightly above expectations of 0.2%, while personal income remained unchanged from November. Economists expected personal income to rise 0.2%.
None of those things make the concerns from GW's report (sales are down, profit is down, they don't have a plan) look like a theme across the markets, and show the markets (and retail) to be in a better position than GW reports, so their problems must come from somewhere else.
One of the things that makes GW difficult to compare to other wargame and table top game companies is that most such companies are not stupid enough to offer public stock.
I believe that none of the myriad companies started by ex-GW folk have gone public.
And there is a reason for this.
Opening a public offering gives an influx of the ready, at a crippling loss of control.
So, most tabletop game companies prefer taking the slow route.
They do not get that rush of cash, and grow more slowly - but do not need to answer to stockholders, and do not have to worry about how the public stock is moving around.
And because the shares are closely held it is easy enough to get rid of a Kirby before he does too much damage.
Hell even offering the a random metal miniature free every order over a set price lets say 50 or 100 on the website would have been a bonus to them. Would have got a few people who are going to buy say 90 worth of stuff adding a little extra to their order.
Or they could have offered certain miniature saveable to be added to your basket at 50% off when you spend over x amount. There are so many things they could do with their metal stock to gain some money from it and gain some good will.
azreal13 wrote: I think the reason your 'expertise' is being dismissed, as you put it, and incidentally, this is the first time I've seen you offer any sort of indication as to your credentials, from your previous posts and 'that' thread in discussions I'd assumed you were some sort of economics student, is because you're arguing very broad trends, but simultaneously failing to address the micro economic factors that specifically affect GW and the sector they're operating in.
The macro trends take precedent over all else. I don't want to miss the forest for the trees so to speak. Back in 2007-2008, should have shown everyone quite clearly that economic downturns impact everyone. People who put money to work in 2007 wish they had waited till 2009 where they could have had more favorable terms. IMO.. they would be better suited waiting till 2016 to being doing any sort of expansion.
azreal13 wrote: GW themselves claim to be a recession proof business. Despite the somewhat questionable accuracy of the sources, I've not seen one person in a position to have a decent idea claim that the tabletop hobby is in decline, and many claiming the contrary.
I never said table top gaming was in decline but that doesn't mean that you can't have a cyclical bear market that wipes out quite a few companies.
azreal13 wrote: How do you reconcile the generally bullish attitude towards tabletop gaming right now, the solid, albeit anecdotal, evidence that people are still spending money on products at least at the same levels as a year ago, and the fall in revenue that is apparently only confined to GW?
Sentiment is too bullish and the consensus is usually wrong. Consensus wasn't right for internet stocks in 2000 and housing in 2007 either. Once everyone agrees, it's likely a good time to disagree.
You say that not all retailers are doing poorly based on numbers you are seeing reported in your country but retailers like AMZN, WMT, BBY and numerous others are showing real problems. It's NOT just a GW specific problem and these retailers aren't recession proof. I previously pointed out that GW's stock price has a very similar pattern of boom/bust as the S&P but usually leads the SPY because it is much more sensitive to the consumer tightening their belts. When a consumer is having money trouble, they cut back on eating out and leisure 1st. They don't sell their home.
I also would caution on just looking at top line revenue because that can be misleading. You need a trained eye to read financial reports. Companies play games with their numbers (recognize revenue early etc) in order to meet their quarterly numbers. I'd recommend reading "what's behind the numbers?" by John Del Vecchio to get an idea of how to look at the game corporations play. It's a short read but it shows exactly how to read a quarterly report like a forensic account would. If you plan on ever being involved in the stock market, i highly recommend it. It was a McGraw Hill best seller last year.
Now I'm not an economist, but I see 3 things from that report that don't seem to agree with you.
1. Those markets are down under 1%, so GW's drop of 24% is well out of the median.
2. It puts a lot of that down to people dropping investments in risky currencies like the "Turkish lira, South African rand, Russian ruble", none of which would affect GW stock.
3. It says that consumer spending rose:
Elsewhere, the Commerce Department reports consumer spending rose 0.4% in December, slightly above expectations of 0.2%, while personal income remained unchanged from November. Economists expected personal income to rise 0.2%.
None of those things make the concerns from GW's report (sales are down, profit is down, they don't have a plan) look like a theme across the markets, and show the markets (and retail) to be in a better position than GW reports, so their problems must come from somewhere else.
1. I was pointing to the retailers blowing up.. BBY has been cut in half since thanksgiving.. AMZN is down 10% on their earnings today. GW is just a canary in the coal mine as far as i'm concerned. We are going to have a 20% correction in the general market at some point here soon. It's necessary and unavoidable. It's how markets operate.
2. Margin debt makes it so it does impact the stock price of all securities. Right now we are at an extreme..What we saw in 2000 and 2007 was forced selling due to too much leverage in the system. If anything goes wrong, you will see that again. IMHO.. 4 sigma moves in currencies can and will cause ripples into other markets that can force people to unwind positions without regard to price.
3. The economic numbers you are looking at are "seasonally" adjusted by the BLS. They aren't economists btw..
azreal13 wrote: I think the reason your 'expertise' is being dismissed, as you put it, and incidentally, this is the first time I've seen you offer any sort of indication as to your credentials, from your previous posts and 'that' thread in discussions I'd assumed you were some sort of economics student, is because you're arguing very broad trends, but simultaneously failing to address the micro economic factors that specifically affect GW and the sector they're operating in.
The macro trends take precedent over all else. I don't want to miss the forest for the trees so to speak. Back in 2007-2008, should have shown everyone quite clearly that economic downturns impact everyone. People who put money to work in 2007 wish they had waited till 2009 where they could have had more favorable terms. IMO.. they would be better suited waiting till 2016 to being doing any sort of expansion.
azreal13 wrote: GW themselves claim to be a recession proof business. Despite the somewhat questionable accuracy of the sources, I've not seen one person in a position to have a decent idea claim that the tabletop hobby is in decline, and many claiming the contrary.
I never said table top gaming was in decline but that doesn't mean that you can't have a cyclical bear market that wipes out quite a few companies.
azreal13 wrote: How do you reconcile the generally bullish attitude towards tabletop gaming right now, the solid, albeit anecdotal, evidence that people are still spending money on products at least at the same levels as a year ago, and the fall in revenue that is apparently only confined to GW?
Sentiment is too bullish and the consensus is usually wrong. Consensus wasn't right for internet stocks in 2000 and housing in 2007 either. Once everyone agrees, it's likely a good time to disagree.
You say that not all retailers are doing poorly based on numbers you are seeing reported in your country but retailers like AMZN, WMT, BBY and numerous others are showing real problems. It's NOT just a GW specific problem and these retailers aren't recession proof. I previously pointed out that GW's stock price has a very similar pattern of boom/bust as the S&P but usually leads the SPY because it is much more sensitive to the consumer tightening their belts. When a consumer is having money trouble, they cut back on eating out and leisure 1st. They don't sell their home.
I also would caution on just looking at top line revenue because that can be misleading. You need a trained eye to read financial reports. Companies play games with their numbers (recognize revenue early etc) in order to meet their quarterly numbers. I'd recommend reading "what's behind the numbers?" by John Del Vecchio to get an idea of how to look at the game corporations play. It's a short read but it shows exactly how to read a quarterly report like a forensic account would. If you plan on ever being involved in the stock market, i highly recommend it. It was a McGraw Hill best seller last year.
Now I'm not an economist, but I see 3 things from that report that don't seem to agree with you.
1. Those markets are down under 1%, so GW's drop of 24% is well out of the median.
2. It puts a lot of that down to people dropping investments in risky currencies like the "Turkish lira, South African rand, Russian ruble", none of which would affect GW stock.
3. It says that consumer spending rose:
Elsewhere, the Commerce Department reports consumer spending rose 0.4% in December, slightly above expectations of 0.2%, while personal income remained unchanged from November. Economists expected personal income to rise 0.2%.
None of those things make the concerns from GW's report (sales are down, profit is down, they don't have a plan) look like a theme across the markets, and show the markets (and retail) to be in a better position than GW reports, so their problems must come from somewhere else.
1. I was pointing to the retailers blowing up.. BBY has been cut in half since thanksgiving.. AMZN is down 10% on their earnings today. GW is just a canary in the coal mine as far as i'm concerned. We are going to have a 20% correction in the general market at some point here soon. It's necessary and unavoidable. It's how markets operate.
2. Margin debt makes it so it does impact the stock price of all securities. Right now we are at an extreme..What we saw in 2000 and 2007 was forced selling due to too much leverage in the system. If anything goes wrong, you will see that again. IMHO.. 4 sigma moves in currencies can and will cause ripples into other markets that can force people to unwind positions without regard to price.
3. The economic numbers you are looking at are "seasonally" adjusted by the BLS. They aren't economists btw..
An interesting, and very plausible, take on the situation.
I'd still take issue with the fact you are using examples of very different companies who, with the exception of Amazon, operate very heavily in the North American economy and will be subject to very different market forces than GW, who claim to be global, but, let's face it, are a UK company with some foreign satellites.
I also still cannot see past the fact that there is so much indication, both in my own spending, other hobbyists I know, people posting here and other sources suggesting people are still spending the same on the hobby, just not with GW, to discount that as a major component either, but I guess another financial report or two will give us a clearer picture.
EDIT
I just remembered that Walmart own Asda, one of the largest supermarket chains in the UK, so when the figures are released in a few weeks that will probably provide an interesting and roughly analogous comparison.
Anyway here is the interesting part, those are GW France revenues in € (not in £ as I brainlessly assumed first) from June to June each year, the second number is the profit:
2012: 13.532.200€ / 365.600€
2004: 27.650.000€ / 3.500.000€
So comparing 2004 to 2011, we get sales down by 50% and profits down by nearly 90%.
Something is definitely wrong...
Anyway here is the interesting part, those are GW France revenues in € (not in £ as I brainlessly assumed first) from June to June each year, the second number is the profit:
2012: 13.532.200€ / 365.600€
2004: 27.650.000€ / 3.500.000€
So comparing 2004 to 2011, we get sales down by 50% and profits down by nearly 90%.
Something is definitely wrong...
T
Not necessarily.
One could easily argue that 2004 is artificially inflated by LOTR stuff, and setting an artificially high tide mark, plus when a company is operating across multiple territories, where the money is actually made is rather a fluid concept. For instance, Amazon makes no money in the UK, as it processes it's orders through its Eire offices in order to take advantage of a lower rate of corporation tax. Massive bone of contention here currently, but there's no reason to think that GW couldn't be manipulating the accounts in a similar way.
Anyway here is the interesting part, those are GW France revenues in € (not in £ as I brainlessly assumed first) from June to June each year, the second number is the profit:
2012: 13.532.200€ / 365.600€
2004: 27.650.000€ / 3.500.000€
So comparing 2004 to 2011, we get sales down by 50% and profits down by nearly 90%.
Something is definitely wrong...
T
Not necessarily.
One could easily argue that 2004 is artificially inflated by LOTR stuff, and setting an artificially high tide mark, plus when a company is operating across multiple territories, where the money is actually made is rather a fluid concept. For instance, Amazon makes no money in the UK, as it processes it's orders through its Eire offices in order to take advantage of a lower rate of corporation tax. Massive bone of contention here currently, but there's no reason to think that GW couldn't be manipulating the accounts in a similar way.
LOTR was huge then. I was selling 8 core sets of LOTR per week at the peak. Right now I am quite happy to sell 4 40k starter sets in a month.
dereksatkinson wrote:I've worked for global macro funds, ETFs and Hedgefunds for over a decade and seeing my expertise dismissed in the manner it has been is humorous.
Yeah, who is better qualified to tell us how to run a gaming company than a hedgefond manager? Here have a look, how a competitor was brought down by the same macro economic trends:
WayneTheGame wrote:So did anything else happen with GW shares?
EDIT
I just remembered that Walmart own Asda, one of the largest supermarket chains in the UK, so when the figures are released in a few weeks that will probably provide an interesting and roughly analogous comparison.
EDIT
I just remembered that Walmart own Asda, one of the largest supermarket chains in the UK, so when the figures are released in a few weeks that will probably provide an interesting and roughly analogous comparison.
I meant it will be interesting to compare Asda's results in the UK to see if they, operating in an apparently more rapidly recovering economy, buck the trend to Walmart's overall. We should see some separate figures for Asda when Walmart report theirs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
heartserenade wrote: I know Infinity is growing but I didn't know it was that much!
Without numbers, that chart means nothing.
I can sell 1 of my £1 thing this year, and next year sell 30.
That's growth of 3000%, but still feth all money.
I happen to think this is a positive, and a good indicator of where the money people aren't spending with GW is going, at least in part, but without any sort of turnover/profit figures, it's just a vanity piece.
Here have a look, how a competitor was brought down by the same macro economic trends
You obviously didn't read or understand what I wrote.
azreal13 wrote: I meant it will be interesting to compare Asda's results in the UK to see if they, operating in an apparently more rapidly recovering economy, buck the trend to Walmart's overall. We should see some separate figures for Asda when Walmart report theirs.
Well.. I think it's pretty unlikely that if America, China and the rest of the EU are struggling that the UK will be fine. Here is what some of the world's largest CEOs have to say about the current environment..
P&G [PG] Earnings Call 1/24/13: “We continue to operate in a volatile environment with uncertainty in foreign exchange, some deceleration in market growth rates and a rapidly developing policy environment.”
Apple [AAPL] Earnings Call 1/27/13: “We expect four factors to negatively impact the year-over-year revenue comparison by over $2 billion. These are channel inventory increases in the year-ago quarter that we don’t expect to repeat, lower iPod sales, a stronger U.S. dollar against a number of currencies, particularly the yen and the Australian dollar and the higher per unit deferral for Mac and iOS devices.”
Starbucks [SBUX] Earnings Call 1/23/13: “Over the last month or so, I have heard many traditional brick-and-mortar retailers attribute the downturn in their core business during holiday to factors such as a shortened holiday shopping season, a weakened consumer, the U.S. Government shutdown, and poor weather. Respectfully, those explanations ignore a larger fundamental truth and that truth is that traditional brick-and-mortar retailing is at an inflection point. No longer are many retailers only required to compete with stores on the other side of the street. They are now required to compete with stores on the other side of the country.”
Southwest Airlines [LUV] Earnings Call 1/23/13: “Our outlook right now for the economy is very stable. Hopefully, the uncertainties that we had a year ago, hopefully they won’t return. And that would be, obviously, a real good thing. And then fuel prices have been remarkably stable for now three quarters in a row. And at least our outlook, as it stands today, is for yet another quarter of stability there.”
Ethan Allen Interiors [ETH] Earnings Call 1/23/13: “We had sunshine in sunshine states. We had good businesses in California and Florida. And in fact, what happened was that October, this government shutdown did have a major impact on us. We were down 10.5 percent in October. November was somewhat better. We are up 3.6 percent and then the bad weather affected us in December and we are down 2.6 percent.”
McDonald’s [MCD] Earnings Call 1/23/13: “2013 was a difficult year and we’re keenly aware of our short-term challenges. Future economic predictions are mixed, but most assume some limited global improvement in 2014. However, we don’t expect significant changes in market dynamics, given modest growth projections for the IEO industry. Looking to January, global comparable sales are expected to be relatively flat.”
Caterpillar [CAT] Earnings Call 1/27/13: “In most regions, particularly in North America, economically we think a little better, a little better GDP around the world will help that as well. We’ve also seen actually our sales in China Construction improve as well. And it’s probably worth noting that for Construction, we still had a headwind in the fourth quarter on dealer inventory.”
Stanley Black & Decker [SWK] Earnings Call 1/24/13: “The currency trend versus the U.S. dollar for really the four major currencies that tend to have a significant impact on us. The first three have historically had a large impact on us since the merger; the European euro, the Canadian dollar, and the Brazilian real. The Argentinean peso has become more challenging over the last few years as that country continues to see governmental challenges and economic issues.”
heartserenade wrote: I know Infinity is growing but I didn't know it was that much!
Without numbers, that chart means nothing.
I can sell 1 of my £1 thing this year, and next year sell 30.
That's growth of 3000%, but still feth all money.
I happen to think this is a positive, and a good indicator of where the money people aren't spending with GW is going, at least in part, but without any sort of turnover/profit figures, it's just a vanity piece.
We have a bit of an idea on Infinity...2011 they posted revenues of $888K, 2010 was $502K. The chart doesnt mention if it is growth in sales or growth in units sold (or even growth in number of mice caught by the office cat). I seem to recall it being growth in units sold though based on someone who was at the GenCon presentation.
Even with the 2012 growth figured in, they are down at the 1% or so range of GW for revenue. However, they are growing as opposed to shrinking. Almost all their sales will be through distribution (so although the revenue is lower, they will move more units for that same dollar compared to GW who makes 55-60% of their sales direct). They also dont have to sell as much per person to get a new player up to speed. This helps growth by reducing that cost of entry.
Of course, there will be those who look at that as evidence that GW is just fine. They are only 1% after all. But you also have things like Wyrd, Anima, Warmachine, X Wing, Dust, Dystopion Legions, Mercs, Relic Knights, Spinespur, Warpath...not to mention dozens of other games which have been pushing into areas that GW has long held firm.
GW is playing the part of the oaf standing on the hornets nest too dumb and stubborn to move. They swat wildly at what they think is biting at them (CHS and Spots the Space Marine as two recent high profile examples), all the while missing the competition that will sting them to death.
I can sell 1 of my £1 thing this year, and next year sell 30.
That's growth of 3000%, but still feth all money.
I happen to think this is a positive, and a good indicator of where the money people aren't spending with GW is going, at least in part, but without any sort of turnover/profit figures, it's just a vanity piece.
Agreed.
Isn't Corvus Belli like 1/100th of the size of GW at this point? That's like saying a local coffee shop is growing at a faster pace than starbucks because it has 17 customers instead of 10.. 70% growth bitches!
Of course, there will be those who look at that as evidence that GW is just fine. They are only 1% after all. But you also have things like Wyrd, Anima, Warmachine, X Wing, Dust, Dystopion Legions, Mercs, Relic Knights, Spinespur, Warpath...not to mention dozens of other games which have been pushing into areas that GW has long held firm.
there are next to no barriers to entry. The fact that these gaming companies exist really doesn't matter. They need to survive a downturn which they might not have the capital to do. Especially if they are choosing now to expand.
You can spin it as you like to make GW seem invincible without any problems and the competition as ephemeral whispers that will vanish in the wind.
The hard fact is this is not the case, the competition exists and from the ones I know and the ones I had the pleasure of talking with, they are quite reasonable in their moves and quite cautious on not overextending themselves.
The wargaming hobby as a market is expanding and GWs hold of it is shrinking, you can summon whatever numbers you feel free to justify your point of view, they will seem impressive I guess, however they will not reflect reality, more or less the same as the assumptions of GW's HQ.
Now since you brought CB in, they have happily expanded to 28 employs while Spain is in the state they are in, they have no debts and experience growth, when I was at GenCon I heard quite a few game store owners who commented on cutting their GW wall and bringing Infinity in its position.
This illustrates what GW has already reported, their stance with independents makes them the first choice to cut, none mentioned PP or wyrd or somebody else all mentioned GW, I am sure if 40k most and the other two systems in a more secondary way were not as widespread and established in their era of isolation GWs state especially with their attitude towards everybody would be quite worse.
Isn't Corvus Belli like 1/100th of the size of GW at this point? That's like saying a local coffee shop is growing at a faster pace than starbucks because it has 17 customers instead of 10.. 70% growth bitches!
I think they have more than 17 customers, bud! On a global scale, the player base is small, but growing. It's got that 'word of mouth' thing going for it.
Size wise, it's a small company. I remember an interview with its owner on a forum as to how they'd come up with the game, and he mentioned they went from pretty much nothing to iirc 27 people working. Don't know if that number is 'right', or if it is, if it includes part timers or external contractors on the books. Gw have a few thousand employees.
They're minnows, but they seem to be punching above their weight. Just goes to show though, you don't need to be a huge company to be successful.
azreal13 wrote:I also still cannot see past the fact that there is so much indication, both in my own spending, other hobbyists I know, people posting here and other sources suggesting people are still spending the same on the hobby, just not with GW, to discount that as a major component either, but I guess another financial report or two will give us a clearer picture.
For what it's worth, since you're gathering anecdotal evidence, as a tournament player who knows dozens of active players, I don't currently know anyone who has replaced their GW spending with other model spending. People that I know are simply not buying new armies at all, and in many cases have stopped playing with the existing ones too in favour of spending their free time with video games like Hearthstone etc. Certainly is noone spending their GW money to buy models from other companies. The wargaming in my neck of the woods is quite strictly about GW.
I expect that this graph has already been posted and discussed but it bears repeating:
This says to me that money being spent on wargaming is by no means slowing down and that wargaming in general is increasing in size as a market. It also tallies with other anecdotal evidence from ICV2 and store owners that the wargaming market is healthy. If GW sales are down in the context of these results, then that most definitely does suggest to me that people are taking their $ elsewhere.
filbert wrote: I expect that this graph has already been posted and discussed but it bears repeating:
Hey look how the tabletop market is struggling And 60 Mio $ is local coffee shop peanuts.
But listen what this CEO from Caterpillar has to say about the tabletop gaming market
Well it does of course hinge on what is termed a 'tabletop game' but even in the loosest definition, it doesn't really point to a shrinking or static market.
Without strictly defining TTG surely we can agree that there is a logical overlap between GW, other miniature game, board games, RPG games, and video games. In the sense that they all would go into the same Venn diagram.
Economists can, apparently, act just like Statisticians!
Now, I'm not sure what dereksatkinson is up too, or what his true motivation is, but it probably is a good time to remind everyone that, before anything gets too heated or out of hand, Dakka Dakka has an excellent "Ignore" feature.
Kilkrazy wrote: Without strictly defining TTG surely we can agree that there is a logical overlap between GW, other miniature game, board games, RPG games, and video games. In the sense that they all would go into the same Venn diagram.
Yep, they will share many a venn diagram. From my perspective, selling them for a few decades:
GW used to have no competition, and now does from other games. They broke open the market, and trained a whole lot of ex-gw employees to go open up competing companies. Competition isn't just for dollars. Time is a much larger consideration in some ways. Only so much spare time to paint and play. Other tabletop games are now competition for them. And gaining ground.
Board Games, RPG's are slightly more likely to be played by GW customers than non gamers. Slightly. They aren't really in competition, and playing one doesn't really lead to the other. Possibly some help from shopping at a store that carries both, as you can have encounters with both people that play the other game and the game itself.
Video Games: HUGE competition for everything. Dollars, Time, social experience, organized play, online play at home where you don't need a group/other person.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote: Economists can, apparently, act just like Statisticians!
Now, I'm not sure what dereksatkinson is up too, or what his true motivation is, but it probably is a good time to remind everyone that, before anything gets too heated or out of hand, Dakka Dakka has an excellent "Ignore" feature.
And it works! I tested it on...someone...just yesterday
filbert wrote: I expect that this graph has already been posted and discussed but it bears repeating:
Spoiler:
This says to me that money being spent on wargaming is by no means slowing down and that wargaming in general is increasing in size as a market. It also tallies with other anecdotal evidence from ICV2 and store owners that the wargaming market is healthy. If GW sales are down in the context of these results, then that most definitely does suggest to me that people are taking their $ elsewhere.
Is that all games or just Tabletop Games? If it is all games, it is heavily skewed by computer games. Also, despite what some people are saying, the board game market and miniature market appeal to very different crowds. While miniature gamers may buy into board games, there are many board gamers that will not buy into a miniature game.
Holding CB up as typical of the market is also misleading due to its size. As pointed out, smaller companies can produce massive growth percentage wise, but only be small dollar numbers.
And since Sean is now in the thread, any word on how FFG's X-Wing sales have been for the second half of the year? Up? Down? Steady?
Video Games: HUGE competition for everything. Dollars, Time, social experience, organized play, online play at home where you don't need a group/other person.
And don't forget the whole app game market. Traditional video games are losing out them with younger people. Paying a few bucks for a week of entertainment beats the $300+ console plus $60 a game cost. My niece and nephew's faces are always buried in their iPad/iPhone all the time.
Video Games: HUGE competition for everything. Dollars, Time, social experience, organized play, online play at home where you don't need a group/other person.
As an adult with young kids I had to prioritize, and Video Games lost to Wargaming. Before my sons were around I could kill a Saturday playing Fallout and then play table top games on Sunday. Now I've got to sneak in hobby time wherever I can, and playing a video game just reminds me of all the building, painting, and whatnot that I am not doing during that time. It feels very unproductive.
As an adult with young kids I had to prioritize, and Video Games lost to Wargaming. Before my sons were around I could kill a Saturday playing Fallout and then play table top games on Sunday. Now I've got to sneak in hobby time wherever I can, and playing a video game just reminds me of all the building, painting, and whatnot that I am not doing during that time. It feels very unproductive.
That's like reading my own inner thoughts. I think it also makes me a bit crankier when I go to tournaments--and run into TFG. The entire time I'm thinking, this is time away from my children/wife--and I have to deal with this?
As an adult with young kids I had to prioritize, and Video Games lost to Wargaming. Before my sons were around I could kill a Saturday playing Fallout and then play table top games on Sunday. Now I've got to sneak in hobby time wherever I can, and playing a video game just reminds me of all the building, painting, and whatnot that I am not doing during that time. It feels very unproductive.
That's like reading my own inner thoughts. I think it also makes me a bit crankier when I go to tournaments--and run into TFG. The entire time I'm thinking, this is time away from my children/wife--and I have to deal with this?
Most of my hobby time now is actually spent on running a monthly game at my house where I write the rules, run the game, build and paint all of the models, make all of the terrain, and cook on top of that . Consequently I really appreciate X-Wing. That way I can play the occasional pickup game with the guys without taking time away from painting cowboys and building rocky bluffs. There is no time sunk in getting your models ready to play, lol. Perfectly tailored for busy wargamers because it doesn't feel like a cheap, pre-painted half arsed miniatures game. The models could be better, but they aren't embarrassing, and the game is both refreshing and offers plenty of depth.
filbert wrote: I expect that this graph has already been posted and discussed but it bears repeating:
Spoiler:
This says to me that money being spent on wargaming is by no means slowing down and that wargaming in general is increasing in size as a market. It also tallies with other anecdotal evidence from ICV2 and store owners that the wargaming market is healthy. If GW sales are down in the context of these results, then that most definitely does suggest to me that people are taking their $ elsewhere.
Is that all games or just Tabletop Games? If it is all games, it is heavily skewed by computer games. Also, despite what some people are saying, the board game market and miniature market appeal to very different crowds. While miniature gamers may buy into board games, there are many board gamers that will not buy into a miniature game.
Its colour coded showing which is video games and which are tabletop.
Herzlos wrote: If the rumours about scrapping all their metal stocks are true then it's a pretty bad sign, back of envelope figures show that they are selling the metal off for under about 2.5% of the potential value as minis.
Key point: potential value. If this is stuff that's just collecting dust in a warehouse somewhere because hardly anyone is buying it then that potential value might as well not exist. Worse, it actually costs money to keep it, so GW is actually getting less than 0% of the "value". And in that case it's better to get 2.5% of the theoretical retail price and clear out the inventory space than to keep it forever in the desperate hope that someone will buy it.
Consider an analogy: I can believe that I'm an awesome painter and put a model on ebay for $1 million, but I'd be pretty stupid to refuse an offer of $25,000 just because it's only 2.5% of my arbitrarily-assigned sale price.
But it feels very short-termist and shows a complete reluctance to engage with or seem to offer deals to the customer base, both of which approaches would have earned them much more money in the same term.
But you're looking at that too narrowly. Let's say GW offers you a $15 character model for $5 instead of selling it for $1 for scrap metal. You might think that GW just earned $4 more by offering you a discount, but what if buying that character model means that you don't buy the $15 plastic character model that has a similar role in your army? GW earned $4 more for their scrap metal, but it probably cost them more than $4 from the lost sale of the plastic kit. And, worse, they've potentially set up the expectation of more discounts in the future, which might make you hesitate to spend money right now if you think you might get a better deal in the future. So it's quite possible that they've analyzed the situation and decided that it's in their best interest to just destroy the obsolete stock and sell it for scrap metal.
Also, remember that this is stuff that isn't selling very well enough to convert to finecast or plastic, and TBH a lot of it is pretty bad models that wouldn't get any attention if it wasn't a "last chance to buy" situation. I don't think it's very realistic to expect significant increases in sales just because GW does a little marketing work.
One of the very few things you and I see eye to eye on is the GW portion of hobbying. This makes an absolute ton of sense-suggesting that (with your numbers) they made $16 ($15 for plastic, $1 for scrap) instead of a single $5 sale...yeah, I can see it. You know I hate agreeing with you, right?
Its colour coded showing which is video games and which are tabletop.
<blink> <blink>
Damn my lying eyes!
Still with these kickstarter numbers, how many of the products launched with KS funds would have made that amount if they had gone through normal distribution? Having been burned by the Sedition Wars KS, I doubt the game would have made the nearly $1M it did through KS.
One of the very few things you and I see eye to eye on is the GW portion of hobbying. This makes an absolute ton of sense-suggesting that (with your numbers) they made $16 ($15 for plastic, $1 for scrap) instead of a single $5 sale...yeah, I can see it. You know I hate agreeing with you, right?
Was pointed out over on Warseer that GW likely wrote off all the metal figures as a loss and claimed it on their taxes. No expert at tax law, but can't you claim ~1/3 the loss value on your taxes? They might have been able to get more by declaring the entire bundle as loss than selling at a discount where the products would move. And given the number of figs still available in metal on the site. The things that might have been melted were things like old Dogs of War units and such. Figures that don't have any use in the current games and might have had a small number of collectors grab some figs, but not the entire inventory.
And since Sean is now in the thread, any word on how FFG's X-Wing sales have been for the second half of the year? Up? Down? Steady?
I'd imagine down, way way way down... For the majority of the second half of last year, it seems, they haven't had any models produced to be sold!
Which, is probably a good place to be. First half of last year, X-Wing sales would have likely been... "All of it."
Even here in Nottingham x-wing is doing superbly well. Demand far outstrips supply and I can't get my grubby mitts on tie interceptors for love nor money.
And since Sean is now in the thread, any word on how FFG's X-Wing sales have been for the second half of the year? Up? Down? Steady?
I'd imagine down, way way way down... For the majority of the second half of last year, it seems, they haven't had any models produced to be sold!
Which, is probably a good place to be. First half of last year, X-Wing sales would have likely been... "All of it."
Even here in Nottingham x-wing is doing superbly well. Demand far outstrips supply and I can't get my grubby mitts on tie interceptors for love nor money.
Tell me about it. At least Imperial Aces comes with two!
And since Sean is now in the thread, any word on how FFG's X-Wing sales have been for the second half of the year? Up? Down? Steady?
I'd imagine down, way way way down... For the majority of the second half of last year, it seems, they haven't had any models produced to be sold!
Which, is probably a good place to be. First half of last year, X-Wing sales would have likely been... "All of it."
Even here in Nottingham x-wing is doing superbly well. Demand far outstrips supply and I can't get my grubby mitts on tie interceptors for love nor money.
Though X-Wing's star seems to be waning a tiny bit as well.
A good question is how much of the drop in sales is due to supply issues? Pretty much everywhere I know that gets xwing stuff in is picked clean within a week, tops.
Kilkrazy wrote: OT but how many models do you need for a good game of X Wing?
2 Rebel vs. ~ 3-4 Imperial bare minimum, I'd say.
~ 4 Rebels vs. ~5+ Imperial being a solid level to game.
The contents of the starter box by themselves don't tend to make very engaging games, as a lot of the strategy is added to the game once you try to get your opponent in the cross-hairs of multiple ships. The starter-box 1 X-Wing vs. 2 Tie-Fighter often devolves into a game of lucky dice, chipping off hull-points and shield until the first person goes down.
That said, you can play it with just the starter box to get a feeling for what the rules do, etc..
Kilkrazy wrote: OT but how many models do you need for a good game of X Wing?
IIRC the cheapest possible horde spam model variant for Imperials is the TiE fighter at 12pts and A-wing at 17pts for rebels with the "standard" game that takes 1-1.5 hours being 100pts, which is the "feel" of a 1500pt 40k game (enough to field some variety but on the smallish side). A $100 MSRP buy in (starter set plus 4 regular boosters) gets you a decent sized force for one side with a model or two to trade another starting player to boost it even further (the starter comes with both imperials and a rebel fighter)
Generally speaking, one of the best ways to get into X Wing is going for 2 Starters sets, at which point you're not far off a typical wargame cost wise. But after that, rebs need maybe 1 more ship, and the imperials a couple more as a minimum.
On the other hand, that's pretty much it. <£100 all told, job done. The problem is, stopping yourself from buying 1 of everything.
Games Workshop is certainly in a difficult situation - falling revenue and profit.
1. There is more legitimate competition for the gamer's attention - Warmachine, Infinity and Flames of War are all professional operations with a constant flow of new product. I don't think the same thing could be said about the minis industry twenty years ago (and back then I was an employee at one of mikhaila's stores).
2. Video games in general are another massive source of distraction. Now it's not just PC, console and handheld - there's mobile and tablet.
3. Games Workshop has a HUGE barrier of entry. Even starter armies cost hundreds of dollars (if not more). Even worse, it's a massive time sink to assemble and paint those miniatures. And building an army isn't a simple matter; it takes a pretty good knowledge of the rules. There's not a lot of easy ways for a beginner to learn (other than to ask a friend, so what should I get?).
4. Kickstarter also allows smaller, boutique games to get some limelight from the enthusiast crowd. These games aren't likely to be big hits, but they do attract some of extreme minis enthusiasts.
5. A large part of their business depends upon operation of retail stores, which in general is extremely difficult in the internet age. More and more sales are being made online. Retail stores are expensive to operate.
In the short term, GW will want to address profit...and the only way to do that is to sell more units or to raise prices again. Unfortunately, they appear to be in high production mode; they're kicking out codices at a pace that's astonishing. And there's no Lord of the Rings type IP that can attract new players into the hobby (btw, it's rather astonishing that those players brought in by LOTR didn't convert into long term hobbyists...or perhaps it was just the same customers buying up the LOTR stuff?). That pretty much only leaves raising prices even more.
And in my perspective, it's not the cost that turns me off to 40K these days. It's the time. I simply can't take 3 hours out of my week to play a game, let alone paint & assemble. I've turned to other games, that don't have as much preparation and don't take as long to play. I've got plenty of other possible sources of entertainment. 40K just doesn't offer an experience that's so unique that I'll make the time.
Yes we voted with our wallets. Yes Games Workshop your customer base. The customer base that you took for granted. The distributor base that you took for granted. Yes I know your game plan Kirby and have been watching how it has been played out for years. Strong corporations survive recessions with little or no loss in profits by making decisions that not damaging to corporation as a whole. Games Workshop has declined to a point of them being far less of an influence to the hobby now than back at 2006.
GW is in my region a non issue. The vacuum in its place has been easily filled by what is now popular. GW stores are closing and not being replaced. Your scorch earth policy can only go so far.
You destroyed WHFB with 8th ED. You destroyed your cash cow with 6th ED. You lost a lot of loyal customer base, not Timmy 10 year old, but those people, the so called Vets who had the money to spend.
Because many of them ain't going to take your crap anymore.
Instead of promoting the hobby of modeling you (GW management) did something else.
Vertical integration. Revenue streamlining. Words Just words to keep/increase your profits But that can only go so far.
Here's a few more words/phrases.
Decline. Decay. Loss of revenue. Loss of customer base. Loss of your independent distributors. What works in England as a business model will work in the US?
Hardly.
I'll end with this Games Workshop is now at the mercy of their customer base than ever before. The same customer base that they pissed off really badly over the last four years.
Not a good place to be in if you are running a corporation.
Its colour coded showing which is video games and which are tabletop.
<blink> <blink>
Damn my lying eyes!
Still with these kickstarter numbers, how many of the products launched with KS funds would have made that amount if they had gone through normal distribution? Having been burned by the Sedition Wars KS, I doubt the game would have made the nearly $1M it did through KS.
.
Not sure, many of them probably wouldn't have made it to the market traditionally.
Still I don't think that's thre question we should be asking,mhe question is that if kick starter didn't exist would the. Only spent on these projects still have keen spent in war gaming
A few years ago it was less than 90 people. Now it's 145.
Evidence posted in this thread really does give credence to the theory that Games Workshop is trying to push more into the collectible market than the gaming market, which astounds me. It seems like they are creating products aimed at modellers and collectors (hence their new direction with WD) and the rules have taken a backseat to that. It's sort of like, "Hey, we have tons of amazing miniatures!! Oh, and if you're so inclined, there are rules to play a game with them too!" instead of the other way around.
Cheap shot time: I'm sure Warhammer Visions is just the tonic to get those revenues back up.
Absolutely. Just think of all the "replay" value... you can pick it up after you're done and read it yet again in another language multiple times. It's like 3 magazines in one!... too bad they all apparently suck from the reviews.
Well, I instantly cancelled my subscription... or am attempting to anyways. Who knows what kind of run-around I will get, Itunes store is 'looking into it' as I could not do it automatically because my sub started in Sept, and over 3 months means I have to write in...
You know... I really wonder how many people would buy GW miniatures just to collect if there was no game. I can't imagine that people would buy more than one squad of most things just for collecting purposes; maybe the big monsters but is somebody buying just for collections going to buy 3 Tactical Squads or multiple vehicles?
The reason why you "collect" an army is because you want to fight battles.
Some of the GW models are quite appealing in themselves, though they don't make nearly so much sense outside the game background.
Most of the models are unsuitable for serious display modelling purposes, lacking the scale, proportions, detail and general fine quality you would normally expect for such a piece.
MajorTom11 wrote: Well, I instantly cancelled my subscription... or am attempting to anyways. Who knows what kind of run-around I will get, Itunes store is 'looking into it' as I could not do it automatically because my sub started in Sept, and over 3 months means I have to write in...
I believe another poster somewhere on the internet who had to cancel an iTunes subscription suggested you need to emphasise that this is not the product you subscribed to because of the iStore policy on refunding purchases. I'd quote for you, but I can't remember which forum I read it on (sorry).
I believe another poster somewhere on the internet who had to cancel an iTunes subscription suggested you need to emphasise that this is not the product you subscribed to because of the iStore policy on refunding purchases. I'd quote for you, but I can't remember which forum I read it on (sorry).
Yessir definitely took that track, emphasizing the subscription was transferred over to a completely different product without my permission, and that this was not in any way related to the magazine I had made my subscription to. Thanks for the advice though!
WayneTheGame wrote: You know... I really wonder how many people would buy GW miniatures just to collect if there was no game. I can't imagine that people would buy more than one squad of most things just for collecting purposes; maybe the big monsters but is somebody buying just for collections going to buy 3 Tactical Squads or multiple vehicles?
I did. I do. I've played three games of 40k in my life, and those were all in the last 2 years... before that I was purely collecting, there is something impressive about the whole army together, and part of the motivation is to 'finish your set' pokemon type obsessiveness about it once you have invested a certain amount of time. In the back of your head you have the game in mind as a 'possibility' but really the pleasure of building an army is there for the hobbyist too I think. Eggroll over in painting and modelling has a prodigious BA army and has never played a game for example too.
For me this hobby was always about relaxing and spending a little downtime, I enjoy concentrating and focusing on details so minis were a good fit for that. If you aren't a golden demon painter an army is also appealing in that you can make a collection look more impressive as you see them from far as a whole, rather than doing display pieces which are individually scrutinized.
On top of that, there is no limit or reason we buy anything besides it looking cool too. We may indeed buy 3-4 tac squads... FW models... stuff that you can't actually take in an army list. Buy multiple models that are not good on the table or more than you can take in an FOC just because you like the look and nothing more. Using myself and Eggroll as an example again, I have a ridiculous amount of stuff that I could never field... tons of FW duplicates of units I already had generic GW of simply because it looks different. Untethered from the game or 'needing' anything for play, you may actually be more susceptible to impulse buys and multiples if you are just a collector/hobbyist.
Not sure how normal people like me are or aren't really but there are definitely people out there that come in firmly from the hobby side and may or may not get into the game.
If all else fails, contact your bank of credit card company and put a stop payment on the particular purchase. Then, let Apple/GW sort it out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MajorTom11 wrote: I did. I do. I've played three games of 40k in my life, and those were all in the last 2 years... before that I was purely collecting, there is something impressive about the whole army together, and part of the motivation is to 'finish your set' pokemon type obsessiveness about it once you have invested a certain amount of time. In the back of your head you have the game in mind as a 'possibility' but really the pleasure of building an army is there for the hobbyist too I think. Eggroll over in painting and modelling has a prodigious BA army and has never played a game for example too.
For me this hobby was always about relaxing and spending a little downtime, I enjoy concentrating and focusing on details so minis were a good fit for that. If you aren't a golden demon painter an army is also appealing in that you can make a collection look more impressive as you see them from far as a whole, rather than doing display pieces which are individually scrutinized.
Not sure how normal people like me are or aren't really but there are definitely people out there that come in firmly from the hobby side and may or may not get into the game.
Which is understandable, but that seems like the demographic that GW is trying to focus on, which doesn't make sense to me. Without the rules, there would be no need for the miniatures. I mean, Jes said it himself when his copy-paste response noted that the new WD is not for gamers. So, they are actively seeking the collectible/modeling demographic.
Sad thing is, even though you are their target demographic, they missed you too.
GW havent a leg to stand on with regard to refunding subscriptions as its entirely obvious Visions is not the product subscibed to
To my mind GW should have written / contacted every subsciber with an opt in or out or at least published the change in the last old style WD and given details of how to opt in or out
Yup, they did. I have not bought a mini from GW in over 2 years now... Partly out of being bored with their products and tactics, partly out of not having time having 2 kids in that period, and part because I can no longer justify buying anything when I have an insurmountable pile of minis already sitting on the shelf. Lots of reasons... I think I would be more motivated to continue hobbying had I less stuff staring at me unfinished all the time to be honest. The swarm purchasing they want to happen is a bad thing IMO, as well as the size of the games... it makes the investment in time and money pretty incredible, and unfeasable for the majority I would imagine at this point.
From the perspective of a 40k player (I stopped around 2003) who just recently got back into the game, mostly to paint, I have about 2000pts worth of models that I have bought either through Ebay or local classified ads. Not one single penny has been given to GW. Why? Ridiculous prices, of course. Does it make me giddy that the company whose product I'm buying isn't profiting from my purchases? Not at all, but my guilt isn't so great that I'm willing to throw double or even triple the amount I've spent on my army away on a greedy corporation. If GW was willing to cut prices by 30-40%, then yes, I would be much more motivated to buy directly from them, and most likely multiple armies. Will it ever happen? Hah!
Dynamix wrote: GW havent a leg to stand on with regard to refunding subscriptions as its entirely obvious Visions is not the product subscibed to
To my mind GW should have written / contacted every subsciber with an opt in or out or at least published the change in the last old style WD and given details of how to opt in or out
Yep that was also part of my complaint to apple, I find what GW did extremely unsavoury as I had no say in it, and as a result I am the one who has to spend my time chasing down a cancellation. That is not customer service, in fact, it is the opposite. I pointed out to Apple that this company was using their service to enact underhanded sales tactics at the expense of the customer, and they should make sure this kind of shenanigan cannot take place...
Hey look how the tabletop market is struggling And 60 Mio $ is local coffee shop peanuts.
But listen what this CEO from Caterpillar has to say about the tabletop gaming market
When the economy slows people lose their jobs which has a ripple effect through the economy. Under that kind of scenario people are left with less disposable income and wont have a choice but to spend less. We saw the same thing in 2001 and 2008.. Recessions are cyclical and do impact companies like GW.
Alpharius wrote: Economists can, apparently, act just like Statisticians!
Now, I'm not sure what dereksatkinson is up too, or what his true motivation is
I am trying to raise the level of the discussion above what you'd find on the comments section of a youtube video. Ah yes.. my nefarious plan has been foiled.
The question being raised was whether the problems in GW's financial reports were something specific to GW. My contention is that it's a problem for retail in general and the more we see retailers report, the more obvious it will be. If you go back to my intial posts about this, it was at the highs of the stock market and the Dow Jones industrial average has sold off 1000 points since. Maybe, just maybe I was onto something..
Dynamix wrote: GW havent a leg to stand on with regard to refunding subscriptions as its entirely obvious Visions is not the product subscibed to
To my mind GW should have written / contacted every subsciber with an opt in or out or at least published the change in the last old style WD and given details of how to opt in or out
Yep that was also part of my complaint to apple, I find what GW did extremely unsavoury as I had no say in it, and as a result I am the one who has to spend my time chasing down a cancellation. That is not customer service, in fact, it is the opposite. I pointed out to Apple that this company was using their service to enact underhanded sales tactics at the expense of the customer, and they should make sure this kind of shenanigan cannot take place...
Uh.. you are trying to cancel your subscription through a 3rd party vendor. If you sign up for your cell phone provider (let's say T-mobile) at best buy, do you honestly expect you'll need to contact best buy to cancel your subscription 3 months later? Ofcourse not. you shouldn't be expecting that.
The question being raised was whether the problems in GW's financial reports were something specific to GW. My contention is that it's a problem for retail in general
Unless that retail in general are other miniature war gaming companies (or Kickstarter), in which case you are very fast in dismissing their reports of growth.
But like Kroothawk said, you must be obviously right in your analysis, because a Decorating Company's director said so!
And people wonder why Wall Street crashed in 2008, with such sharp analysis like the one that you are displaying here!
dereksatkinson wrote: Uh.. you are trying to cancel your subscription through a 3rd party vendor. If you sign up for your cell phone provider (let's say T-mobile) at best buy, do you honestly expect you'll need to contact best buy to cancel your subscription 3 months later? Ofcourse not. you shouldn't be expecting that.
Yes, if Best Buy is handling the billing, which Apple is. The phone analogy is bad because Best Buy doesn't handle the billing once the phone goes out the door; it is handled by the service provider, via their software and websites, not Best Buys.
PhantomViper wrote: And people wonder why Wall Street crashed in 2008, with such sharp analysis like the one that you are displaying here!
Umm.. Wall Street didn't crash, the stock market did. Wall Street is actually primarily the bond market, which did ridiculously well (rates went much lower) and the debt market is about 10 times the size of the stock market.. When people talk about "Wall Street", it is because that is the primary place companies go to get financing to grow their business.. And this is why I have a problem with the stuff you guys are saying. You don't really know the basics.
Also.. The stock market crashes quite frequently because the public gets involved, acts irrationally and creates a bubble. People get emotional and throw their entire life savings into something to the point of "irrational exuberance" at which point we have a crash. Dot com companies in 2000-01 and housing in 2007-08.. In case you didn't quite get what I was saying earlier, I am saying we are seeing the same situation unfolding again.
If GW were to drop all rules and simply just produce miniatures then I would be done (maybe the odd FW purchase). That just goes to show you that their main plastic lines really aren't all that impressive. It was mentioned a few posts earlier, but there are other companies out there that make fantastic figures.
I would definitely like to see GW release an official format that focuses on the 750-1250 pt ranges. I've had a blast playing at the 1000 pt level and it would be even better with a few FoC restrictions and some customized deployment options. It would also be fantastic for new players as their cost of entry is cut in half and they would actually have some opponents willing to play at that level. Not to mention it is less overwhelming for a new player to only focus on an HQ, 2-3 squads and maybe a vehicle or 2 as opposed to 2000 pts worth staring them in the face.
dereksatkinson wrote: Uh.. you are trying to cancel your subscription through a 3rd party vendor. If you sign up for your cell phone provider (let's say T-mobile) at best buy, do you honestly expect you'll need to contact best buy to cancel your subscription 3 months later? Ofcourse not. you shouldn't be expecting that.
Yes, if Best Buy is handling the billing, which Apple is. The phone analogy is bad because Best Buy doesn't handle the billing once the phone goes out the door; it is handled by the service provider, via their software and websites, not Best Buys.
3rd party vendors usually don't handle things after 30 days for most retailers. Unless you are talking costco which pretty much bends over for their customers when doing returns, I usually expect to have to go to the manufacturer.
dereksatkinson wrote: Uh.. you are trying to cancel your subscription through a 3rd party vendor. If you sign up for your cell phone provider (let's say T-mobile) at best buy, do you honestly expect you'll need to contact best buy to cancel your subscription 3 months later? Ofcourse not. you shouldn't be expecting that.
Yes, if Best Buy is handling the billing, which Apple is. The phone analogy is bad because Best Buy doesn't handle the billing once the phone goes out the door; it is handled by the service provider, via their software and websites, not Best Buys.
3rd party vendors usually don't handle things after 30 days for most retailers. Unless you are talking costco which pretty much bends over for their customers when doing returns, I usually expect to have to go to the manufacturer.
I repeat Derek, GW itself specifically directs you to deal with Apple in regards to digital products cancellations. This is not up for debate or conjecture, that is how it works.
PhantomViper wrote: And people wonder why Wall Street crashed in 2008, with such sharp analysis like the one that you are displaying here!
Umm.. Wall Street didn't crash, the stock market did. Wall Street is actually primarily the bond market, which did ridiculously well (rates went much lower) and the debt market is about 10 times the size of the stock market.. When people talk about "Wall Street", it is because that is the primary place companies go to get financing to grow their business.. And this is why I have a problem with the stuff you guys are saying. You don't really know the basics.
Also.. The stock market crashes quite frequently because the public gets involved, acts irrationally and creates a bubble. People get emotional and throw their entire life savings into something to the point of "irrational exuberance" at which point we have a crash. Dot com companies in 2000-01 and housing in 2007-08.. In case you didn't quite get what I was saying earlier, I am saying we are seeing the same situation unfolding again.
Yeah, sorry pal, the moment you try blaming the various financial crises on the general public, you lose any shreds of credibility you might otherwise have had.
Hmmm, some investor bought shares for £157.35k today. Other than that mostly automated buys and sells.
dereksatkinson wrote: I am trying to raise the level of the discussion above what you'd find on the comments section of a youtube video.
We were already aware how high you value your own opinion and how much you despise the opinion of us mere mortals here on Dakka Doesn't make your arguments more logical though.
Kroothawk wrote: Hmmm, some investor bought shares for £157.35k today.
Or a market maker took down those shares.. or a short seller covered their position.. You can draw no conclusions from a single print.
Kroothawk wrote: We were already aware how high you value your own opinion and how much you despise the opinion of us mere mortals here on Dakka Doesn't make your arguments more logical though.
The fact that's i'm actually using something other than anecdotal evidence to support my claim makes it much more logical.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yodhrin wrote: Yeah, sorry pal, the moment you try blaming the various financial crises on the general public, you lose any shreds of credibility you might otherwise have had.
Ah.. so all those people flipping houses were doing it at the behest of certified financial planners? Please.. People were trying to get rich without working. It's the bubble mentality.
Alpharius wrote: Economists can, apparently, act just like Statisticians!
Now, I'm not sure what dereksatkinson is up too, or what his true motivation is
I am trying to raise the level of the discussion above what you'd find on the comments section of a youtube video. Ah yes.. my nefarious plan has been foiled.
That's certainly one way of looking it at.
Unfortunately, you came out of the gate, and continue to post, as if your home address might have 'Underbridge" in it somewhere.
Kroothawk wrote: We were already aware how high you value your own opinion and how much you despise the opinion of us mere mortals here on Dakka Doesn't make your arguments more logical though.
The fact that's i'm actually using something other than anecdotal evidence to support my claim makes it much more logical.
But your evidence is from companies from a completely different part of the global economy (and in several cases very tightly focused within that par to the world) operating in a completely different market sector, in a completely different scale, and subject to very different forces.
I've said before, I can't fault your logic, I just take issue with how a large portion of what you're talking about relates to what is, in the grand scheme, a tiny company catering to a small market.
This state of affairs has been predicted by many people for several years now, and it appears to be happening almost exactly as those people suggested it would.
To argue that something that has been expected to occur for some time has actually happened because of totally unconnected reasons is going to strain some people's credulity somewhat, to do so with a, deliberate or not, dismissive and patronising air is going to get even more people's back's up.
gossipmeng wrote: If GW were to drop all rules and simply just produce miniatures then I would be done (maybe the odd FW purchase). That just goes to show you that their main plastic lines really aren't all that impressive. It was mentioned a few posts earlier, but there are other companies out there that make fantastic figures.
I would definitely like to see GW release an official format that focuses on the 750-1250 pt ranges. I've had a blast playing at the 1000 pt level and it would be even better with a few FoC restrictions and some customized deployment options. It would also be fantastic for new players as their cost of entry is cut in half and they would actually have some opponents willing to play at that level. Not to mention it is less overwhelming for a new player to only focus on an HQ, 2-3 squads and maybe a vehicle or 2 as opposed to 2000 pts worth staring them in the face.
Releasing rule sets like this would be huge. I will never build a full army of skaven, not at today's prices, but I probably have around 750 points or more. If GW made a rule set that allowed me to play with the small collection that I have, I'd pony up for it. I might even expand into other small forces, or buy enough lizardmen to finish out a small army, instead of selling them secondhand. It's getting tougher and tougher to afford or justify buying a full army at the point value that GW wants us to play at.
azreal13 wrote: But your evidence is from companies from a completely different part of the global economy (and in several cases very tightly focused within that par to the world) operating in a completely different market sector, in a completely different scale, and subject to very different forces.
I've said before, I can't fault your logic, I just take issue with how a large portion of what you're talking about relates to what is, in the grand scheme, a tiny company catering to a small market.
This state of affairs has been predicted by many people for several years now, and it appears to be happening almost exactly as those people suggested it would.
To argue that something that has been expected to occur for some time has actually happened because of totally unconnected reasons is going to strain some people's credulity somewhat, to do so with a, deliberate or not, dismissive and patronising air is going to get even more people's back's up.
My analysis was intended to show that there are factors outside of the specific company that could majorly impact their revenue. Remember.. I specifically said I wouldn't buy the stock but for reasons that are much different than what everyone else is saying.
There is an old saying.. don't miss the forest for the tree. GW is a single tree and if there is a forest fire annihilating the whole forest, it's worth noting the cause. Some trees get hit 1st and others follow. Some trees will live on, and others will die off.
IMO.. You should expect retail to be hit 1st simply because that is the 1st place a weakening consumer shows up. That is my argument and we are seeing retailers report horrible numbers. Dell (recently went private) and news just came out a couple hours ago that they are laying off 15,000 workers. Those are 15,000 high paying jobs. These kinds of things don't happen when things are going well in the retail sector and it's not isolated.
I realize there are company specific issues that could impact their profitability going forward but i don't think it's as important as the overall economy.
Think of it this way... Someone has a gun pointed right at your head.. Are you really worried about that HIV positive test?
As for all these things people have been saying for years about "what's going to happen to GW", I've heard that for the past 23 years of gaming. The companies that are run like businesses will survive. The ones that don't probably wont.
To be fair to derekatkinson, a lot of people are highly focussed on the share price when it is actually the balance sheet, the cash statement and the P&L that matter.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair to derekatkinson, a lot of people are highly focussed on the share price when it is actually the balance sheet, the cash statement and the P&L that matter.
Now if only derekatkinson could be fair to everyone else...
15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.
Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.
Shotgun wrote: 15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.
Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.
No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.
Shotgun wrote: 15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.
Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.
No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.
And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.
Shotgun wrote: 15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.
Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.
No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.
And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.
I think this is the most telling thing. From what I'm understanding, other miniatures/games companies have been seeing increased profit, whilst GW is the only one to have had a significant decline.
I dont really want to get into the minutae of this , but Dell isnt a great example of a general downturn in an economy , I would hazard a guess Dell are suffering from the general downturn in the specific Laptop / Desktop PC market due to the rise in the sales of Tablets , so using Dell isnt a good example to make whatever point is being made .
Shotgun wrote: 15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.
Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.
No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.
And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.
We are still near the top. Give it some time. In 2007, we were in decline for about 11 months on the S&P before the real pain started and then it didn't bottom till march of 09. We are very early on in this process.
Shotgun wrote: 15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.
Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.
No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.
And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.
I can see where dereksatkinson is coming from. But when you can't afford the expensive models, you may buy cheaper alternatives.
Rather than giving up altogether. That being why GW is losing market share, and others are growing. So technically both sides of this discussion are correct.
Perhaps rather than their winning record, posters could keep a tally of how many times they've canceled their White Dwarf subscription in their signatures.
I'm pretty sure for some people it is once per White Dwarf bashing thread.
FWIW I think Warhammer Visions is gak and that while White Dwarf Weekly could have promise the executiion of the first issue doesn't raise my hopes.
As for Financials - the turnover figures should be a concern especially in a period with an accelerated book release and encompassing the codex release of two heavyweights - Space Marines and Eldar. No amount of White Knighting can disguise that GW must be disappointed with the sales.
One area that hasn't been covered in these discussions is GW's figure quality in comparison to itself. If I purchased an army in 1993 and it received an update in 2003 chances are the figure quality in comparison was light years better. Therefore I updated my army.
however if I purchased an army in 2003 and it was updated in 2013, figure quality was only incrementally better. I possibly only bought new unit choices.
Shotgun wrote: 15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.
Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.
No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.
And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.
I can see where dereksatkinson is coming from. But when you can't afford the expensive models, you may buy cheaper alternatives.
Rather than giving up altogether. That being why GW is losing market share, and others are growing. So technically both sides of this discussion are correct.
People are spending money on other more expensive models too, so I think to say it's just recession = cheaper models is a little too simplistic.
Shotgun wrote: 15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.
Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.
No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.
And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.
This here.
Their may be some macro pressure, but the fact gw is shrinking, profits and sales falling, and coast cutting measures in full swing. All this well other companies are growing is alot more telling.
I think it's not so much the individual figures cost as the whole cost. Sure, it's BS to pay $50 for 10 models, but it's a lot worse when you need 20 or even 30 of those models to field them in a meaningful way.
I balk at their prices and the cost nowadays has almost singlehandedly made me swear off Warhammer, but it wasn't so much as the individual price as that I'd have to multiply the individual price several times over. $40 for 10 Space Marines isn't that bad, but when I need to spend it three or four times for an army, that adds up very quickly, because somebody looking to get started isn't going to buy a squad here and a squad there and go weeks/months without playing a game until they have enough built up, they are going to want to get games in as early as possible and that's just not really feasible in most cases nowadays barring things like Kill Team which many places don't do or do very infrequently.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair to derekatkinson, a lot of people are highly focussed on the share price when it is actually the balance sheet, the cash statement and the P&L that matter.
Now if only derekatkinson could be fair to everyone else...
To be honest, the points he is making are arguably more "thematic" and look to identify reasons on a wider macroeconomic basis rather than just the specfic industry issues that GW is facing and may/ may not be responding to as well as their direct competitors. For example, pricing mis-steps in a downward trend economy, with higher unemployment in the under 25's, can magnify problems and cause a greater downward pressure on sales than one would normal expect especially if the rest of the gaming segment is growing - more so if people see cheaper alternatives or even better cheaper substitutes than never really existed before the appearance of Mantic.
It certainly isn't "disingenuous" as someone tried to point out and it is something that is all part of the equation.
There is a huge difference between looking at a one or two bal/sht,/ P&l and a couple of historic trends etc in isolation and actual analysis of a company. The first takes 15mins tops, the 2nd would take me at least a minimum of a week.
Shotgun wrote: 15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.
Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.
No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.
And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.
I can see where dereksatkinson is coming from. But when you can't afford the expensive models, you may buy cheaper alternatives.
Rather than giving up altogether. That being why GW is losing market share, and others are growing. So technically both sides of this discussion are correct.
People are spending money on other more expensive models too, so I think to say it's just recession = cheaper models is a little too simplistic.
For every person buying a more expensive model, there's probably 5-6 people looking to save money.
Shotgun wrote: 15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.
Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.
No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.
And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.
I can see where dereksatkinson is coming from. But when you can't afford the expensive models, you may buy cheaper alternatives.
Rather than giving up altogether. That being why GW is losing market share, and others are growing. So technically both sides of this discussion are correct.
People are spending money on other more expensive models too, so I think to say it's just recession = cheaper models is a little too simplistic.
That would take us back to the topic of if these other games are inferior goods in the minature market.... ALL the other games.
And would lead to another argument as to the definition of an 'inferior' game.
In this case I think that the changeover is being fueled by GW exceeding an unseen price barrier.
They are now more expensive than many 'superior' and boutique models, let alone 'inferior' games.
I have a harder time excusing a purchase of a plastic miniature from GW for $25 than purchasing a $50 resin miniature from Ultraforge.
*EDIT* As for WH40K and WHFB, at $75 for the book alone... Kings of War is a better game than WHFB, and the rules are a bit more than half the cost - less than half the cost if you add in the price of any army book for WHFB. The army lists are included in that single $45 purchase.
TheAuldGrump wrote: And would lead to another argument as to the definition of an 'inferior' game.
In this case I think that the changeover is being fueled by GW exceeding an unseen price barrier.
They are now more expensive than many 'superior' and boutique models, let alone ine 'inferior'.
I have a harder time excusing a purchase of a plastic miniature from GW for $25 than purchasing a $50 resin miniature from Ultraforge.
The Auld Grump
Inferior goods do not means quality of product per say, but a product that increases in demand as consumer income decreases. The opposite of normal goods.
Implying that all other games are inferior goods means that gw's games are the only "normal goods".
When people want value for their money and see another product as a better choice in that area, that does not necessarily mean that the reason they are switching is a decline in income. There's simply no way that all other miniature companies are "inferior goods" and GW's are the "normal goods."
My opinion is that GW's price increases are simply causing people to take a really hard look at the actual product and what they get for their money. There's not necessarily a shift away from normal economic goods to inferior economic goods, but a shift away from one provider who's pricing their product high enough to create demand destruction.
WayneTheGame wrote: You know... I really wonder how many people would buy GW miniatures just to collect if there was no game. I can't imagine that people would buy more than one squad of most things just for collecting purposes; maybe the big monsters but is somebody buying just for collections going to buy 3 Tactical Squads or multiple vehicles?
I have played no more than a handful of games, also my last game was over 5 years ago, at the time i had a 3,000 point Ork army, that was about it, now i am a pure collector, i have my 30,000 point Chaos Legion (less than 1/3rd complete), my Ork army has grown to 10,000 points, i have been able to get examples of many of the Fantasy and 40K armies (i refuse to get LoTR and Hobbit), hopefully i will collect all the aries available and finish off (if that is possible) my Chaos Legion.
There are us out there that are pure collectors, and we are just as legitimate as players of the game.
TheAuldGrump wrote: And would lead to another argument as to the definition of an 'inferior' game.
In this case I think that the changeover is being fueled by GW exceeding an unseen price barrier.
They are now more expensive than many 'superior' and boutique models, let alone 'inferior'.
I have a harder time excusing a purchase of a plastic miniature from GW for $25 than purchasing a $50 resin miniature from Ultraforge.
The Auld Grump
Inferior goods do not means quality of product per say, but a product that increases in demand as consumer income decreases. The opposite of normal goods.
Implying that all other games are inferior goods means that gw's games are the only "normal goods".
Yes - I know. Which is why I brought up the boutique models.
It would not surprise me if Forgeworld models are increasing in sales vs.standard GW.
Same parent company, higher prices - but also better perceived value for money.
The models are more expensive - but also look better.
That the models produced by Mantic are doing better solely because of the ration of price to utility has bearing on them being 'inferior'. Aside from the Undead I think that most of the Mantic miniatures are better value than GW, but not better models. (The undead, on the other hand, are also better models in my opinion. I also quite like the Ogres.)
But GW is also losing ground against models that are more expensive - simply because of the perceived value for money.
The price of the Warhammer rules has actually decreased the perceived value - $75 for an incomplete game, one that cannot be used without further purchases, aside from the needed models.
I suspect that $50 was about as much as they could have charged for the rules, and that pushing to $75 was a bit like shooting themselves in the foot before entering a marathon - it hurts at the start of the race and will continue to hurt as the race continues.
Now the folks at the helm of GW are trying to cut costs and making noise to justify the prices - but not actually doing anything to address the base issues.
Even if GW are the 'normal' products... they are not a good value for money.
And I will eat my hat if Finecast was considered a 'normal' product by any but the whitest of knights. Shoddy material, shoddy casting techniques, shoddy quality assurance, backed up by market speech of how fixing the problems is all a part of the GW HHHobby!
In the short term, GW will want to address profit...and the only way to do that is to sell more units or to raise prices again. Unfortunately, they appear to be in high production mode; they're kicking out codices at a pace that's astonishing. And there's no Lord of the Rings type IP that can attract new players into the hobby (btw, it's rather astonishing that those players brought in by LOTR didn't convert into long term hobbyists...or perhaps it was just the same customers buying up the LOTR stuff?). That pretty much only leaves raising prices even more.
And in my perspective, it's not the cost that turns me off to 40K these days. It's the time. I simply can't take 3 hours out of my week to play a game, let alone paint & assemble. I've turned to other games, that don't have as much preparation and don't take as long to play. I've got plenty of other possible sources of entertainment. 40K just doesn't offer an experience that's so unique that I'll make the time.
It can be argued just as well that raising prices will have a negative impact on profits; sure profit per unit will be up, but total units sold will likely be down; if they have not yet found the link between loosing sales and raising prices... then they deserve to fail tbh. The price level theyre at right now already is costing them sales, from my perspective they need to address making more sales without further pricing themsleves out of the market. Its upto GW's staff to tell figure out where the line is that raising prices again will actually cause a loss rather than an increase in profits. The assumption that I'l buy their models no matter what the price per box (and quantity in the box) simply because GW self proclaim them to be the best in the world is outright false, and I hope that GW know that deep down. Thus eventually they will raise prices passed the point of saleability and potentially collapse.
Alternatively, they could lower the cost; perhaps not the price per box, but maybe increase the contents per box Far too many armies all but need you to buy two of anything to make a decent unit.
What your saying about time could be their biggest problem of all;
GW are charging you through the ass for their models, so basically you need a full time job to buy them.
The GW games take hours and hours, and involve hundred of these obscenely priced models which take even more hours to prepare for a game.
The paints needed to get going cost you another arm and a leg, and GW just doubled the range to try and sell you even more of them. (really funny actually; they doubled the range of paints but lost several colours and now have a more limited pallete and forgot to include any light colours, having to release them seperately as edge paints! The new line of paints was incredibly flawed without the edge ones.)
Soo we need to be working full time to pay for the stuff, but then need to have no job to actually have time to play a game.
Kids have time and cant afford, adults can afford but dont have time. Epic fail on the marketing/design/pricing fronts right there.
Who is actually supposed to have the time AND money to do the GW 'Hobby' - My first thought was 'GW employees' are the ones who have time (at work) and money (from work) to enjoy the hobby... but I know their retail staff arent exactly rolling in the money
Finecast is a failed product. It cant be supiror or normal if their is insuficent demand! You are still missuseing the terms because you have a axe to grind.
My point in thecend is the issue of implying gw's games are the only normal goods in the minature market just dosen't work.
It can be argued just as well that raising prices will have a negative impact on profits; sure profit per unit will be up, but total units sold will likely be down; if they have not yet found the link between loosing sales and raising prices... then they deserve to fail tbh. The price level theyre at right now already is costing them sales, from my perspective they need to address making more sales without further pricing themsleves out of the market. Its upto GW's staff to tell figure out where the line is that raising prices again will actually cause a loss rather than an increase in profits. The assumption that I'l buy their models no matter what the price per box (and quantity in the box) simply because GW self proclaim them to be the best in the world is outright false, and I hope that GW know that deep down. Thus eventually they will raise prices passed the point of saleability and potentially collapse.
It can be argued that they have already surpassed this point and have no choice but to increase box contents, lower price or rewrite the rules to focus on smaller games with larger games being the outliers.
It can be argued that they have already surpassed this point and have no choice but to increase box contents, lower price or rewrite the rules to focus on smaller games with larger games being the outliers.
All of the above please Id throw money at them if they did that!
frozenwastes wrote: When people want value for their money and see another product as a better choice in that area, that does not necessarily mean that the reason they are switching is a decline in income. There's simply no way that all other miniature companies are "inferior goods" and GW's are the "normal goods."
My opinion is that GW's price increases are simply causing people to take a really hard look at the actual product and what they get for their money. There's not necessarily a shift away from normal economic goods to inferior economic goods, but a shift away from one provider who's pricing their product high enough to create demand destruction.
This is true for me. I personally can afford to buy 40k models, however I just don't see the value anymore. When I look at the prices if the new Tyranids I feel dirty. But I'm quite happy handing over what Corvus Belli is charging even for TAGs. I'm considering buying a couple on Malifaux crews even though no friends play it - but I'm willing to make the gamble that they will like it, which is why I want 2 crews. I have no issue with what Hawk Wargames are asking even for their resin DZC sets.
GW have simply crossed that line where even when I can comfortably afford their stuff, I just feel dirty paying what they're asking.
frozenwastes wrote: When people want value for their money and see another product as a better choice in that area, that does not necessarily mean that the reason they are switching is a decline in income. There's simply no way that all other miniature companies are "inferior goods" and GW's are the "normal goods."
My opinion is that GW's price increases are simply causing people to take a really hard look at the actual product and what they get for their money. There's not necessarily a shift away from normal economic goods to inferior economic goods, but a shift away from one provider who's pricing their product high enough to create demand destruction.
This is definitely the case for me. I like the new Dwarfs, but I'm also well aware that I bought 40 Soviet infantry for Bolt Action for £2 less than the cost of 10 Longbeards/Hammerers, and quality aside I find it hard to justify the dwarfs especially when I'd need 3 boxes for the unit and those 40 infantry are almost my entire BA army.
Agree with the posts above. I've spent a few hundred quid on models this last 6 months, but gw has had very little - just enough to finish off a couple of gw armies. The majority of my spending went to infinity, x-wing and dust.
IMO.. You should expect retail to be hit 1st simply because that is the 1st place a weakening consumer shows up. That is my argument and we are seeing retailers report horrible numbers. Dell (recently went private) and news just came out a couple hours ago that they are laying off 15,000 workers. Those are 15,000 high paying jobs. These kinds of things don't happen when things are going well in the retail sector and it's not isolated.
I realize there are company specific issues that could impact their profitability going forward but i don't think it's as important as the overall economy.
Think of it this way... Someone has a gun pointed right at your head.. Are you really worried about that HIV positive test?
As for all these things people have been saying for years about "what's going to happen to GW", I've heard that for the past 23 years of gaming. The companies that are run like businesses will survive. The ones that don't probably wont.
Dell is also a terrible example, being that whilst they have a retail arm, the bulk of their trade is to businesses, the majority of whom are reducing their upgrade cycles and reluctant to move onto Windows 8, the PC market as a whole is also down since it's become saturated and replaced by tablets. You'd be better off looking for a similar store like a toy store, or even one of the dozens of FLGSs or wargaming companies that appear to be growing.
With all the earlier talk a few pages ago about value vs cost in regard to the rule books and needing to buy lots of expensive squads and vehicles, the Dark Vengeance box set is one of the best introductory sets that GW has ever released - the value is actually impressive. Why they couldn't do something similar with other models/box sets is a mystery to me. Hell, I bought two copies of Dark Vengeance just because the value was there.
Retrogamer0001 wrote: With all the earlier talk a few pages ago about value vs cost in regard to the rule books and needing to buy lots of expensive squads and vehicles, the Dark Vengeance box set is one of the best introductory sets that GW has ever released - the value is actually impressive. Why they couldn't do something similar with other models/box sets is a mystery to me. Hell, I bought two copies of Dark Vengeance just because the value was there.
This is something I really think they should look at. the DV set has additional things but there's no real reason they couldn't make an Army Box that includes a stripped-down rulebook without the fluff and a decent-sized starter army for every faction, so if you don't want the armies in DV you can still get a good deal by buying the appropriate box and having a "ready to play" force.
If they did nice quality rulebooks and codexes, containing the rules and no fluff or modelling stuff, in a smaller size than the standard A4 but larger than the softback, I for one would buy them.
I don't buy the full size rules or codexes any more.
Some people may like the Gw one better ( i personally don't know anyone that does though).
A lot of the kickstarters i've seen and been part of don't really have rule sets but are more to get new ranges of models out there for painters and general gamers and just as pure alternatives, but many are much higher cost.
In general, GW may also be suffering from the higher end (the pure artist side, who from what I've seen, prefer alot of the super detailed resin models coming out of europe than the gamey models GW has).
Pricing themselves out of the low end customers, but not having interesting enough designs for the higher end consumer...
Retrogamer0001 wrote: With all the earlier talk a few pages ago about value vs cost in regard to the rule books and needing to buy lots of expensive squads and vehicles, the Dark Vengeance box set is one of the best introductory sets that GW has ever released - the value is actually impressive. Why they couldn't do something similar with other models/box sets is a mystery to me. Hell, I bought two copies of Dark Vengeance just because the value was there.
This is something I really think they should look at. the DV set has additional things but there's no real reason they couldn't make an Army Box that includes a stripped-down rulebook without the fluff and a decent-sized starter army for every faction, so if you don't want the armies in DV you can still get a good deal by buying the appropriate box and having a "ready to play" force.
Don't forget the codex..
Just as an example, for an army I don't play, so apologies if I'm a bit off in selections, but it fits the idea best as a recently updated, mostly plastic faction.
1 x Mini soft cover rulebook (no RRP, let's say £20)
1 x Codex Tau Empire £30
1 x Cadre Fireblade £12
2 x Fire Warriors boxes £44
1 x Crisis battlesuits. £40
1 x Starter paint set £36.50
1 x tape measure £3.10
1 x dice £5
1 x templates £8
Total RRP £198.60
Ex vat ~ £160
I cannot honestly think of anything else you'd need to field a fully painted, legal force and play a game, everything else would be down to the individuals choice (spray undercoat, different paint colours, different units etc)
So, as GW's state their cost of sales runs around 20% of their turnover, this lot will cost them around £35 to produce on average.
Box it together, or even just offer it as a 1-click bundle for somewhere in the £130-£150 bracket, perhaps even cheaper, where's the downside to GW or the consumer? (Dismissing GW's greed for every penny out of every customer in advance as an attitude that may well have got them in their current position in the first place)
I think they'd need to go even further than that, but that's a start. Rather than including the dice/templates/paints I'd rather see an actual decent "start a new army" box that includes a legal army instead of the current battleforces.
WayneTheGame wrote: I think they'd need to go even further than that, but that's a start. Rather than including the dice/templates/paints I'd rather see an actual decent "start a new army" box that includes a legal army instead of the current battleforces.
Once again, we are seeing those.
The Warhost of Naggaroth, the Space Marine Strikeforce, and the Tyranid Swarm are all "legal armies". They have Hero/HQ choices, 2 Troop choices, and some extra trimming.
WayneTheGame wrote: I think they'd need to go even further than that, but that's a start. Rather than including the dice/templates/paints I'd rather see an actual decent "start a new army" box that includes a legal army instead of the current battleforces.
Agreed, and it was certainly in my thinking as a way to go, but speaking as someone with over a decade in retail sales management under my belt, one of the fastest ways to lose a customer once you've closed them is to start the "you'll need this, this, this and this" dialogue and be adding extra purchases on to the initial commitment (rather than upselling, which the customer still has a choice over.)
While a rules, codex, models box would be good, I think it is perhaps a better offer to those already playing looking to start a new faction, and while that isn't an income that GW could, should or can afford to neglect, it doesn't, I feel, tackle the barrier to entry that we have currently quite as well as what I suggested. GW need new blood, a greater volume of people buying into the game than they do now, as a priority I think.
Medium of Death wrote: If they want people to use their online store they would do well to offer incentives like that.
The only time I have ever bought anything from GW direct was when Apocalypse formations gave a pretty good discount. I think the terminator lord and 3x boxes of terminators was 25% off retail with free shipping.
Who is actually supposed to have the time AND money to do the GW 'Hobby' - My first thought was 'GW employees' are the ones who have time (at work) and money (from work) to enjoy the hobby... but I know their retail staff arent exactly rolling in the money
Speaking to a former employee of their paint/terrain team in Nottingham during the LoTR boom years, GW employees were allowed to purchase miniatures by weight. They could even have the cost of them deducted from their monthly pay cheque. So your deduction isn't far off the mark.
WayneTheGame wrote: I think they'd need to go even further than that, but that's a start. Rather than including the dice/templates/paints I'd rather see an actual decent "start a new army" box that includes a legal army instead of the current battleforces.
Once again, we are seeing those.
The Warhost of Naggaroth, the Space Marine Strikeforce, and the Tyranid Swarm are all "legal armies". They have Hero/HQ choices, 2 Troop choices, and some extra trimming.
True, but you can't play with them. If you want to play with them, you need to pay another $123:
Rulebook: $74.25
Codex: $49.50
Tyranid Swarm: $170. (mind you, they have no Synapse creatures in the box).
Startup cost for Tyranids with a gak army: $293.75. Startup cost. Add another $50 or so if you want a synapse creature so you can actually have a decent game.
WayneTheGame wrote: I think they'd need to go even further than that, but that's a start. Rather than including the dice/templates/paints I'd rather see an actual decent "start a new army" box that includes a legal army instead of the current battleforces.
Once again, we are seeing those.
The Warhost of Naggaroth, the Space Marine Strikeforce, and the Tyranid Swarm are all "legal armies". They have Hero/HQ choices, 2 Troop choices, and some extra trimming.
True, but you can't play with them. If you want to play with them, you need to pay another $123:
Rulebook: $74.25 Codex: $49.50 Tyranid Swarm: $170. (mind you, they have no Synapse creatures in the box).
Startup cost for Tyranids with a gak army: $293.75. Startup cost. Add another $50 or so if you want a synapse creature so you can actually have a decent game.
And that's not including dice, templates, etc.
Right. Although the SM Strikeforce (the only one I have experience with) is at least a somewhat good deal although IMO about $50 too high. It would have been nicer if it had the codex for free, and if the rules were available in the DV small rulebook for like $20 from venues outside of eBay. It's not an amazingly uber army but it has a good mix of units and provides a solid core (although personally I'd have replaced the Drop Pod with say a Predator, and the Command Squad with maybe Terminators).
Actually, that Warhost of Naggaroth looks pretty much perfect for how they should do things (although still throw in the army book/codex). It's reasonably cheap ($170USD) and gives you a solid core army to start with that you can build up from; other than the additional $120 for the rulebooks, that looks like an ideal starting point for a new player choosing Dark Elves or a veteran who wants to start a new army. I'm not sure how good any of those units are as I haven't played Dark Elves since 5th edition, but yes if they gave something like that for every army in the game it'd be a pretty good starting point.
Kilkrazy wrote: If they did nice quality rulebooks and codexes, containing the rules and no fluff or modelling stuff, in a smaller size than the standard A4 but larger than the softback, I for one would buy them.
I don't buy the full size rules or codexes any more.
You must be the only one happy with the first 3rd edition Codices
GWdef needs to adapt or die. My local 40k community discovered yoymart a few months back - and now everyone is fielding FW knock offs, and even GW kits at ~60% off. In my opinion GW's circle the wagons strategy is the exact opposite of what they should be doing.
Its too easy to avoid their gouging prices while still playing the game. and it gets easier every day.
People are on to GW. not including weapon choices in kits in an attempt to force us into buying more kits... odd number troops in kits to force us to buy additional kits... balancing the game to drive sales (poorly selling Tau suddenly the most powerful army).. etc.... etc.... ad nauseum.
There are too many choices for players out there. GW needs us more than we need them. I really hope they wake up and right the ship before major damage is done. Its uncanny how out of touch they are with the reality of the industry/hobby/fanbase/market.
Kilkrazy wrote: If they did nice quality rulebooks and codexes, containing the rules and no fluff or modelling stuff, in a smaller size than the standard A4 but larger than the softback, I for one would buy them.
I don't buy the full size rules or codexes any more.
You must be the only one happy with the first 3rd edition Codices
I thought the 3rd edition codexes were great as far as value (content is another matter *cough* Chaos *cough*) but that's how it should have been kept. They were what, like $15 for a small softcover that had enough information on the army, still had some painting/showcase and the rules.
sand.zzz wrote: GWdef needs to adapt or die. My local 40k community discovered yoymart a few months back - and now everyone is fielding FW knock offs, and even GW kits at ~60% off. In my opinion GW's circle the wagons strategy is the exact opposite of what they should be doing.
Its too easy to avoid their gouging prices while still playing the game. and it gets easier every day.
People are on to GW. not including weapon choices in kits in an attempt to force us into buying more kits... odd number troops in kits to force us to buy additional kits... balancing the game to drive sales (poorly selling Tau suddenly the most powerful army).. etc.... etc.... ad nauseum.
There are too many choices for players out there. GW needs us more than we need them. I really hope they wake up and right the ship before major damage is done. Its uncanny how out of touch they are with the reality of the industry/hobby/fanbase/market.
Looks like that Yoymart is unlicensed recasts. I'd be careful with that if I were you...
sand.zzz wrote: GWdef needs to adapt or die. My local 40k community discovered yoymart a few months back - and now everyone is fielding FW knock offs, and even GW kits at ~60% off. In my opinion GW's circle the wagons strategy is the exact opposite of what they should be doing.
Its too easy to avoid their gouging prices while still playing the game. and it gets easier every day.
People are on to GW. not including weapon choices in kits in an attempt to force us into buying more kits... odd number troops in kits to force us to buy additional kits... balancing the game to drive sales (poorly selling Tau suddenly the most powerful army).. etc.... etc.... ad nauseum.
There are too many choices for players out there. GW needs us more than we need them. I really hope they wake up and right the ship before major damage is done. Its uncanny how out of touch they are with the reality of the industry/hobby/fanbase/market.
Looks like that Yoymart is unlicensed recasts. I'd be careful with that if I were you...
-Loki- wrote:GW have simply crossed that line where even when I can comfortably afford their stuff, I just feel dirty paying what they're asking.
Their new shift of price increases onto new releases rather than doing yearly price adjustments was an interesting choice. On the one hand, those collecting an existing army won't get hit by sticker shock when they come back to do a purchase a few times a year. But on the other, it sends a pretty clear signal to existing customers that if they want to get in on the latest flavour of the month release, they are going to pay. A lot. And with an increased cycle of releases, more armies will get revisited more quickly and the average price will continue to climb for everyone.
Herzlos wrote:This is definitely the case for me. I like the new Dwarfs, but I'm also well aware that I bought 40 Soviet infantry for Bolt Action for £2 less than the cost of 10 Longbeards/Hammerers, and quality aside I find it hard to justify the dwarfs especially when I'd need 3 boxes for the unit and those 40 infantry are almost my entire BA army.
I was actually just looking at the Bolt Action plastic American half tracks with infantry. 30 infantry, 3 plastic transport vehicles, £60. You bring up an interesting point about the army size as well. Longbeards/Hammerers can be pretty expensive points-wise, but 10 of them is never going to be much more than a fraction of a full sized WFB army and not even a full unit itself. GW's rules devalue their own products by making them a small portion of a full army and by driving down their relative gaming utility. Other companies have been piling into the lower model count game business while GW abandons it.
Eggs wrote:Agree with the posts above. I've spent a few hundred quid on models this last 6 months, but gw has had very little - just enough to finish off a couple of gw armies. The majority of my spending went to infinity, x-wing and dust.
I'm actually a proponent of GW continuing to raise the prices. I want more competition in the market and I think GW pricing out existing customers helps create more opportunities for more new miniature makers. I also think a slow decline by GW is far, far better for the industry than some sort of implosion or catastrophic failure. And that's what they are doing. They're protecting their margins with high prices on new releases, they're cutting costs and taking even more direct control of the distribution of their product.
Basically, I like that GW is continuing to help create more people like Eggs that support and play other games. Variety is the spice of life and if GW has to give up its market share and slowly decline into irrelevancy for us to have a vibrant marketplace not dominated by one company, I'm all for it. Locally the new Dwarfs and Dark Elf Witches are $7 a miniature and most 40k 5 man elite boxes are $8 a miniature. For a negligible part of a much, much larger army. It's the perfect recipe to make people be willing to pay $10-15 a miniature for metal miniatures in a game like Infinity that can generally work well with 10 miniatures or less in a full sized game. Or $15-20 per ship for X-Wing in a game where you need 6 or so ships.
sand.zzz wrote: GWdef needs to adapt or die. My local 40k community discovered yoymart a few months back - and now everyone is fielding FW knock offs, and even GW kits at ~60% off. In my opinion GW's circle the wagons strategy is the exact opposite of what they should be doing.
Its too easy to avoid their gouging prices while still playing the game. and it gets easier every day.
People are on to GW. not including weapon choices in kits in an attempt to force us into buying more kits... odd number troops in kits to force us to buy additional kits... balancing the game to drive sales (poorly selling Tau suddenly the most powerful army).. etc.... etc.... ad nauseum.
There are too many choices for players out there. GW needs us more than we need them. I really hope they wake up and right the ship before major damage is done. Its uncanny how out of touch they are with the reality of the industry/hobby/fanbase/market.
Looks like that Yoymart is unlicensed recasts. I'd be careful with that if I were you...
In the context of weekly casual play at my FLGS - it doesn't matter. Which is what 99.9% of all 40k matches are. GW can hang on to that .01% for their official models only. That deathgrip isn't helping business, btw. Everyone but GW already realizes this.
Kilkrazy wrote: If they did nice quality rulebooks and codexes, containing the rules and no fluff or modelling stuff, in a smaller size than the standard A4 but larger than the softback, I for one would buy them.
I don't buy the full size rules or codexes any more.
You must be the only one happy with the first 3rd edition Codices
no.. but there is danger of people realising that the Chinese can out cast, out price, and choose better materials than GW can (particularly with finecast resin models - the counterfeits are preferable 100% of the time).
Please refrain from mentioning recasting sites by name or recommending that people consider breaking the law and purchasing items that have been illegally recast without the copyright holder's consent.
Retrogamer0001 wrote: With all the earlier talk a few pages ago about value vs cost in regard to the rule books and needing to buy lots of expensive squads and vehicles, the Dark Vengeance box set is one of the best introductory sets that GW has ever released - the value is actually impressive. Why they couldn't do something similar with other models/box sets is a mystery to me. Hell, I bought two copies of Dark Vengeance just because the value was there.
Is DV great value in itself, or is it only great value when compared to the overblow retail price of the stuff it normally contains?
I mean, take for example the Bolt Action starter set "Assault on Normandy".
For about the same price (£60 Vs £61.50), you get 40 plastic infantry (20 US, 20 German), a full rule book (£25 RRP) and some scenery (a ruined plastic farmhouse). Essentially everything you need to play pretty balanced games, and the core of what you need going forward. The book contains full army lists (IIRC), but (optional) additional books are £15 each.
Dark Vengeance gets you 48 plastic figures (ok 3 are bikes, 5 terminators, 6 chosen and a Hellbrute, but the material cost difference is negligable), but you only get a mini rulebook, no scenery and 2 pretty unbalanced armies. If you want to expand on that going forward, you then need compulsory army books at £30 each.
no.. but there is danger of people realising that the Chinese can out cast, out price, and choose better materials than GW can (particularly with finecast resin models - the counterfeits are preferable 100% of the time).
Of course when you don't pay from the design and sculpting it's easy to sell for much lower price.
Talking about alternative miniaturemakers is all fine and well, but attitude of some people that Chinese recasters are some sort of heroes fighting GW's extraorbitant pricing is rather puzzling.
Folks, Robin Hood was a cutthroat bandit. He handed out the money to poor people only if you consider tavern keepers and prostitutes amongst the 'poor'.
no.. but there is danger of people realising that the Chinese can out cast, out price, and choose better materials than GW can (particularly with finecast resin models - the counterfeits are preferable 100% of the time).
Of course when you don't pay from the design and sculpting it's easy to sell for much lower price.
Talking about alternative miniaturemakers is all fine and well, but attitude of some people that Chinese recasters are some sort of heroes fighting GW's extraorbitant pricing is rather puzzling.
Folks, Robin Hood was a cutthroat bandit. He handed out the money to poor people only if you consider tavern keepers and prostitutes amongst the 'poor'.
Think you misunderstood; GW chose to slash the cost of materials by going finecast, then instead of passing the saving onto us, they infact gouged us yet again, for frankly piss poor product quality.
GW are at the height of the industry (supposedly) and yet are genuinely being outdone on quality by these Chinese recasters. That in itself speaks volumes. GW technically lost out nothing; I was never going to buy the finecast of anything they produce...so to buy a recast isnt actually loosing money for GW.. if there was no recast in a better resin then I'd not have the figure.
Theyre not heroes, just taking advantage of a gap in the market. The Chinese copies of plastic kits in resin tend to not be priced low enough and the GW ones are still preferable. It wouldnt actually take much for GW to put themselves at the top again. They made it too easy by being too gougey.
FYI Robin Hood is fictional And GW are not the rich people in this world, and their customers are not the poor people in the world either. ( interesting choice of analogy though, Robin Hood legend based in Nottingham just like GW is lol.)
.
