frozenwastes wrote: I don't actually believe 40k's rules need to be as supportive of competitive play as say, Warmachine. I just think they need to not produce wildly different levels of power at the same point value. The people who really need balance in a product are not the competitive players. The competitive players will figure out the meta and bring a sub-set of available options to a given event. The casual players on the other hand, might pick what sounds cool to them and then have the game fall apart either for them or their opponent.
Unbound isn't going to make this better. Look at the ideas in the WD about possible army ideas under unbound. Spamming multiple strong units. That's not going to go well in a casual game against someone who didn't latch onto a spam idea and abuse it.
GW has abandoned competitive play, but in doing so, they've actually made their product less appealing to their casual customers. This isn't a good thing for keeping those casual players buying their products.
That's the gist of it. I mean I've played Warmachine. It's a good game but it has a very mechanical/metagamey feel to it. It feels like a game. 40k, for whtaever reason, always felt like something more than a game. The best I can explain it is like this:
Imagine you play D&D with two different groups. The first group approaches things from a pure metagame standpoint. There's minimal roleplaying and it tends to be in third person and the game is very hack-and-slash, with most discussion during combat being dice results e.g. "I attack with my +1 Longsword. I roll an 18, does that hit? Rolling for damage... 12 points.". The second group has a lot more roleplaying, people talk with accents or bring props, and discussion in combat is more immersive e.g. "I lunge forward, deftly dodging the orc's axe, and slash downward with my magic sword, its blue-silver blade flashing. 18 to hit. 12 points of damage as my blade slices into the Orc's shoulder, causing a spray of blood!"
The first is Warmachine. The second is 40k, for all its flaws. That's how it feels to me, at any rate. Something, and i've never been able to pinpoint it, about 40k just feels more immersive than Warmachine. Maybe it's the vastness of the background material, I don't know. I find in Warmachine that I barely care about the backstory of my Warcaster, or what his units are - any choices are entirely metagame based on little more than how they play. In 40k though I like to name my commander, name my squads, invent backstories for them and the like, and I'm much more likely to pick cool/fluffy units over powerful ones if it fits the theme of my army.
Just a quick note, Marmachine's fluff isn't "Bizarre." Most of it is actually grounded in real events from history. The major factions are all based off real countries, with mirrors of real wars and real people. They just add magic steampunk stuff in it for fun.
If you find history, bizarre, then sure. Warmachine's fluff is bizarre.
frozenwastes wrote: I don't actually believe 40k's rules need to be as supportive of competitive play as say, Warmachine. I just think they need to not produce wildly different levels of power at the same point value. The people who really need balance in a product are not the competitive players. The competitive players will figure out the meta and bring a sub-set of available options to a given event. The casual players on the other hand, might pick what sounds cool to them and then have the game fall apart either for them or their opponent.
Unbound isn't going to make this better. Look at the ideas in the WD about possible army ideas under unbound. Spamming multiple strong units. That's not going to go well in a casual game against someone who didn't latch onto a spam idea and abuse it.
GW has abandoned competitive play, but in doing so, they've actually made their product less appealing to their casual customers. This isn't a good thing for keeping those casual players buying their products.
Agreed!
40k didn't start to suck for me when I played in tournaments, it started to suck when my buddy finally got an updated Tau codex and while my other buddy was playing BA. Games started to feel like a complete waste of time where we just felt bad for the guy playing BA, and no one was having any fun.
frozenwastes wrote: I don't actually believe 40k's rules need to be as supportive of competitive play as say, Warmachine. I just think they need to not produce wildly different levels of power at the same point value. The people who really need balance in a product are not the competitive players. The competitive players will figure out the meta and bring a sub-set of available options to a given event. The casual players on the other hand, might pick what sounds cool to them and then have the game fall apart either for them or their opponent.
Unbound isn't going to make this better. Look at the ideas in the WD about possible army ideas under unbound. Spamming multiple strong units. That's not going to go well in a casual game against someone who didn't latch onto a spam idea and abuse it.
GW has abandoned competitive play, but in doing so, they've actually made their product less appealing to their casual customers. This isn't a good thing for keeping those casual players buying their products.
Agreed!
40k didn't start to suck for me when I played in tournaments, it started to suck when my buddy finally got an updated Tau codex and while my other buddy was playing BA. Games started to feel like a complete waste of time where we just felt bad for the guy playing BA, and no one was having any fun.
Very much agreed. I'm a casual player and this lack of balance I find too punishing. I have an army that's fluffy and how I want it, and it has zero chance of beating an Waveserpant spam or riptide spam list. That's an extreme example but my armies were always fighting uphill battles and too often I found that I had no chance of actually winning and though I'm not a competitive player, I want at least the illusion that I can win.
frozenwastes wrote: I don't actually believe 40k's rules need to be as supportive of competitive play as say, Warmachine. I just think they need to not produce wildly different levels of power at the same point value. The people who really need balance in a product are not the competitive players. The competitive players will figure out the meta and bring a sub-set of available options to a given event. The casual players on the other hand, might pick what sounds cool to them and then have the game fall apart either for them or their opponent.
I don't think the distinction even needs to be made. A clear, concise and tight set of rules will support competitive play simply as a by-product of existing. Get the rules right, and the rest takes care of itself. A good set of rules benefits everyone. I know you're not arguing against that, and I agree with what you've saiud above about different power levels at the same points values, but I don't think that the game needs to "support" any sort of play-style. I think play-styles evolve organically from the game, and the better the rule-set the better it will support those differing play-styles.
MWHistorian wrote: Just a quick note, Marmachine's fluff isn't "Bizarre." Most of it is actually grounded in real events from history. The major factions are all based off real countries, with mirrors of real wars and real people. They just add magic steampunk stuff in it for fun.
If you find history, bizarre, then sure. Warmachine's fluff is bizarre.
As a historian I love their fluff!
But it uses steam how bizarre!
RT era 40k was a true skirmish game with D&D elements, lot of the army list was random (it was inquisitor 54mm game played with 28mm miniatures).
I remember 2nd edition being very character heavy, psychic powers being very powerful, Khorne berzerkers being able to charge across the board (12 inch with LR and then charge 12").
And CC was very different (which i liked, it was not complicated!).
I am looking forward to the new GW report, i'll bet there be a lot of "good news".
frozenwastes wrote: I don't actually believe 40k's rules need to be as supportive of competitive play as say, Warmachine. I just think they need to not produce wildly different levels of power at the same point value. The people who really need balance in a product are not the competitive players. The competitive players will figure out the meta and bring a sub-set of available options to a given event. The casual players on the other hand, might pick what sounds cool to them and then have the game fall apart either for them or their opponent.
Unbound isn't going to make this better. Look at the ideas in the WD about possible army ideas under unbound. Spamming multiple strong units. That's not going to go well in a casual game against someone who didn't latch onto a spam idea and abuse it.
GW has abandoned competitive play, but in doing so, they've actually made their product less appealing to their casual customers. This isn't a good thing for keeping those casual players buying their products.
GW's current approach only really works if both players have access to huge collections and it's discussed in advance; A: "I fancy fielding 6 Riptides today, up for it?" B: "Sure, I'll unpack my Wave Serpent fleet."
It fails miserably when people are restricted by what they have and who they play against; if my opponent wanted 6 Riptides I'd either need to lose badly or just decline.
-Loki- wrote: I remember complex assaults chewing up the most time in 2nd edition.
They required basic maths and there were quite a few variables but they really weren't complex. Difference between dice result (modifed for fumbles and criticals)+ weapon skill+any bonuses Vs dice result (modifed for fumbles and criticals)+ weapon skill+any bonuses = number of hits, that probably took 5-10 seconds per combat (including dice rolls). I prefer the 2nd ed system to the flat results that came in with 3rd, it could have done with some streamlining but the system was basically sound.
I don't think the distinction even needs to be made. A clear, concise and tight set of rules will support competitive play simply as a by-product of existing. Get the rules right, and the rest takes care of itself.
Anyway, returning to the future of GW, I don't believe one single game such as Warmachine will replace say 40K but there are several games that are gaining popularity including Warmachine, Infinity and X Wing.
If these and other titles (Dropzone) continue to chip away at 40K, GW may find itself in the position where sales having dropped 10% or more they become loss-making.
At that point things could fall apart quickly as GW's ability to change strategy will be limited while their cost base will still be huge (mainly the retail chain) and difficult to reduce without reducing sales further.
So their half-year report said what it said and they are still paying dividends?!
They've borrowed money in the past to pay dividends. Sometimes when you know you've got a stinker coming a company will pay a dividend to try and take the sting out of the news up front.
Or they could have had a record-breaking 2nd half.
So their half-year report said what it said and they are still paying dividends?!
They've borrowed money in the past to pay dividends. Sometimes when you know you've got a stinker coming a company will pay a dividend to try and take the sting out of the news up front.
Or they could have had a record-breaking 2nd half.
The stock dropped 25% when GW didn't pay its normal mid term dividend. GW has to pay a dividend right now, even if the company has to borrow.
From having played 3 games now with the new tactical objective cards, I think (and my small circle of mates agree) that this does take away the idea of my army has to beat\kill their army,.
If someone takes the 6 Riptide army etc, they may not auto win because if you are getting objectives and they aren't, no matter if they table you, you are still massively up on VP's, it adds a lot more flexibility to winning\losing, its not just kick him till he cant get up any more and people are going to have to learn top play differently. The old eternal war missions were bad for objective holding, but these cards make it dynamic and flexible. games have come out differently when played back to back for example. I for one like the changes so far and hope it brings in more dynamic play and a narrative to games.
It'll be interesting to see how bad the drop is at the end of July.
I'm convinced that the stock price will drop, but it'll be enlightening to see how much of the big drop midterm was down to dividends not being paid and how much to poor performance overall.
So far the only thing GW has put out in the last year that I might consider buying is the Imperial Knight. And I spent that money on X-wing stuff instead. Lots of people in my gaming group in very similar boats.
Kilkrazy wrote: Anyway, returning to the future of GW, I don't believe one single game such as Warmachine will replace say 40K but there are several games that are gaining popularity including Warmachine, Infinity and X Wing.
If these and other titles (Dropzone) continue to chip away at 40K, GW may find itself in the position where sales having dropped 10% or more they become loss-making.
At that point things could fall apart quickly as GW's ability to change strategy will be limited while their cost base will still be huge (mainly the retail chain) and difficult to reduce without reducing sales further.
Warmachine & Hordes, Infinity, Malfaux, Kings of War, Deadzone, X-Wing, Flames of War, Drop Zone Commander, Bolt Action. The future is certainly going to be more diverse than "40k or fantasy?", which used to be the options if you wanted a game.
That's the gist of it. I mean I've played Warmachine. It's a good game but it has a very mechanical/metagamey feel to it. It feels like a game. 40k, for whtaever reason, always felt like something more than a game. The best I can explain it is like this:
Imagine you play D&D with two different groups. The first group approaches things from a pure metagame standpoint. There's minimal roleplaying and it tends to be in third person and the game is very hack-and-slash, with most discussion during combat being dice results e.g. "I attack with my +1 Longsword. I roll an 18, does that hit? Rolling for damage... 12 points.". The second group has a lot more roleplaying, people talk with accents or bring props, and discussion in combat is more immersive e.g. "I lunge forward, deftly dodging the orc's axe, and slash downward with my magic sword, its blue-silver blade flashing. 18 to hit. 12 points of damage as my blade slices into the Orc's shoulder, causing a spray of blood!"
The first is Warmachine. The second is 40k, for all its flaws. That's how it feels to me, at any rate. Something, and i've never been able to pinpoint it, about 40k just feels more immersive than Warmachine. Maybe it's the vastness of the background material, I don't know. I find in Warmachine that I barely care about the backstory of my Warcaster, or what his units are - any choices are entirely metagame based on little more than how they play. In 40k though I like to name my commander, name my squads, invent backstories for them and the like, and I'm much more likely to pick cool/fluffy units over powerful ones if it fits the theme of my army.
Like the dominatrix said, different strokes for different folks. I find a lot of 40K to be immersion-breaking--the idea that armies might build fortifications that are in shooting range of each other, aircraft zooming around over a tiny section of the battlefield, Space Marine chapters routinely losing 5-10% of their total manpower during a small skirmish, Eldar summoning a (bleep)ing Keeper of Secrets, Inquisitors hanging out with Dark Eldar, etc. And the game coming to a screeching halt when the inevitable rules debate came up also broke any immersion quite a bit.
They've borrowed money in the past to pay dividends. Sometimes when you know you've got a stinker coming a company will pay a dividend to try and take the sting out of the news up front.
Or they could have had a record-breaking 2nd half.
I guess that he is another CEO/businessperson type (like Wayshuba) and says roughly the same thing, that GW is nuts and will likely be out of business in a few more years if they continue this trend.
Or you could just read his background (4th paragraph) that specifically says he sits on a trading desk for an investment bank. All he did was say was "GW is losing customers" and flowered it up. There is no actual analysis written in there because if there was, he'd be required to disclose his real name. Assuming of course that he is actually registered with FINRA and the SEC.
You can not give anonymous advise if you are registered with FINRA.
Automatically Appended Next Post: reading more through the thread.. Looks like he works on an institutional trading desk. He's actually been giving advice on that forum so for his sake, I hope he isn't registered with FINRA because those are most certainly violations.
They've borrowed money in the past to pay dividends. Sometimes when you know you've got a stinker coming a company will pay a dividend to try and take the sting out of the news up front.
Or they could have had a record-breaking 2nd half.
I haven't seen or heard of a debt offering.
They've done it before, and it seems likely they'd try to shore up the stock price with a dividend even if the report was bad.
I guess that he is another CEO/businessperson type (like Wayshuba) and says roughly the same thing, that GW is nuts and will likely be out of business in a few more years if they continue this trend.
Or you could just read his background (4th paragraph) that specifically says he sits on a trading desk for an investment bank. All he did was say was "GW is losing customers" and flowered it up. There is no actual analysis written in there because if there was, he'd be required to disclose his real name. Assuming of course that he is actually registered with FINRA and the SEC.
You can not give anonymous advise if you are registered with FINRA.
Automatically Appended Next Post: reading more through the thread.. Looks like he works on an institutional trading desk. He's actually been giving advice on that forum so for his sake, I hope he isn't registered with FINRA because those are most certainly violations.
He hasn't been giving any stock advice, he explicitly says as much. He's offering an opinion on what he thinks his happening whilst trying to be neutral.
He even says this:
I would caveat that all of this is my personal opinion, I am in no way representing any firm, and that none of this is intended as investment advice (I own no GW stock)
So you're either mis-reading it or being deliberately obtuse.
Kilkrazy wrote: Anyway, returning to the future of GW, I don't believe one single game such as Warmachine will replace say 40K but there are several games that are gaining popularity including Warmachine, Infinity and X Wing.
If these and other titles (Dropzone) continue to chip away at 40K, GW may find itself in the position where sales having dropped 10% or more they become loss-making.
At that point things could fall apart quickly as GW's ability to change strategy will be limited while their cost base will still be huge (mainly the retail chain) and difficult to reduce without reducing sales further.
Good points. I have always believed GW won't fall to another GW (in size) but rather a series of companies (say in the $20M-$40M range) that collectively will eat up GW and their market share.
Interesting point about their restrictions in channels. As they have alienated the FLGS base with continuing draconian restrictions and moved more than 1,100 products to direct only, they really are relying on their stores to pull the weight. As you pointed out, however, at that point in cutting costs, each one also will cut revenue further and further. A true death spiral in the making.
Baragash wrote: I didn't say GW are borrowing money, I was just observing that poor performance is not in itself a barrier to dividend payment.
Which is appropriate because my back of a cigarette packet calculations would show that a 7.7M half yearly profit (if you did it again in this 6 months) would be entirely consistent with a dividend of 20p on the volume of shares that GW have in circulation.
GW's profits halved, they didn't completely disapeer.
I didn't ask where you got the idea they announced a dividend. Specifically, I was asking what the problem was with their last report that would preclude them from paying a dividend following a strong period.
Herzlos wrote: They've done it before, and it seems likely they'd try to shore up the stock price with a dividend even if the report was bad.
I think you have an axe to grind.. It's possible they are about to release a good report despite all the hate mongering of the interwebs.
I would caveat that all of this is my personal opinion, I am in no way representing any firm, and that none of this is intended as investment advice (I own no GW stock)
So you're either mis-reading it or being deliberately obtuse.
If he is registered with finra, he can't legally claim to be an analyst and provide analysis anonymously. Especially for a publicly traded company.
dereksatkinson wrote: If he is registered with finra, he can't legally claim to be an analyst and provide analysis anonymously.
A.) It is his personal analysis based on management experience, not an investment analysis - which he clearly states as such. FINRA regulations apply to brokers giving investment advise. Of which he is NOT doing.
B.) He is NOT selling GW securities. FINRA regs apply when pushing securities or providing analysis of those securities. He is doing neither.
C.) GW is a UK-based company. FINRA is an American organization authorized by Congress.
But here, since you want to throw it out there:
Every investor in America relies on one thing: fair financial markets. That's why FINRA works every day to ensure that:
• every investor receives the basic protections they deserve;
• anyone who sells a securities product has been tested, qualified and licensed;
• every securities product advertisement used is truthful, and not misleading;
• any securities product sold to an investor is suitable for that investor's needs; and
• investors receive complete disclosure about the investment product before purchase
I've no less of an axe to grind than you do. I just see a company that had a terrible half year and drop the dividend to witness a huge drop in stock price announce a higher-than-normal dividend a week after the next half year finished and a month before the report is due out.
Whilst they may have turned it around hugely and had a strong half year, all of the anecdotal evidence points to it being more of the same, so the most likely reason for the dividend is to hold up the stock price.
Do you have anything (anecdotal or not) that'll hold up to any scrutiny and indicate that they've had a strong half year?
Selling out of mission cards doesn't - since the quantities appear to be low. Selling out of LE rulebooks doesn't because it hasn't happened yet. Maybe someone can she light into the number of regular edition 7th books to be sold?
The pre-orders/store orders alone must be a few hundred thousand dollars (my local claims to have ordered 100 copies which would be £3000 at wholesale), and they must have got about £360,000 from the LE's (assuming 1800 out of 2000 sold in the last financial year).
dereksatkinson wrote: I think you have an axe to grind.. It's possible they are about to release a good report despite all the hate mongering of the interwebs.
It is possible. But I guess the largest distributor in Australia must be hatemongering when he say Dystopian Wars is outselling 40k 7 to 1. I guess many of the people commenting (including myself) that their stores haven't even bothered with 40k 7th edition must be hatemongering. I guess it must be hatemongering when many store owners and distributors have commented on having double-digit growth and NONE of it came from GW. I guess it must be hatemongering to say 7th edition was rushed when an $85 premium printed product is missing a significant portion of the cut-and-paste timeline of the Imperium in the book, yet it is found in the electronic version. And finally, I guess GW must be hatemongering on GW themselves, when they still have 154 copies of 7th edition LE left three weeks after pre-order which was a run at 40% total of the 6th edition LE (2,000 copies versus 5,000 copies) which sold out in a matter of hours.
Anecdotal evidence is saying quite the contrary. But, it is true, maybe GW will surprise everyone despite the "hatemongering".
HATEMONGERING - Customers disappointed in being used a meat wallets, being feed half-baked inferior products at a luxury price and expected to shut up and take it. "Thank you sir! May I have another sir!"
dereksatkinson wrote: If he is registered with finra, he can't legally claim to be an analyst and provide analysis anonymously.
A.) It is his personal analysis based on management experience, not an investment analysis - which he clearly states as such. FINRA regulations apply to brokers giving investment advise. Of which he is NOT doing.
B.) He is NOT selling GW securities. FINRA regs apply when pushing securities or providing analysis of those securities. He is doing neither.
C.) GW is a UK-based company. FINRA is an American organization authorized by Congress.
But here, since you want to throw it out there:
Every investor in America relies on one thing: fair financial markets. That's why FINRA works every day to ensure that:
• every investor receives the basic protections they deserve;
• anyone who sells a securities product has been tested, qualified and licensed;
• every securities product advertisement used is truthful, and not misleading;
• any securities product sold to an investor is suitable for that investor's needs; and
• investors receive complete disclosure about the investment product before purchase
I didn't ask where you got the idea they announced a dividend. Specifically, I was asking what the problem was with their last report that would preclude them from paying a dividend following a strong period.
Their first period report included a re-release of GW's best selling line. Despite this they still had a 10% decline in revenue and a 30% drop in profits.
The second period didn't include any obvious best sellers like the first one did, especially considering all the anecdotal data that we are seeing regarding the sales of the new edition rulebook.
Do you have any shred of evidence that the second period has been better than the first one or are you basing your analysis on the strong performance of Cyprus banking system this quarter?
dereksatkinson wrote: I think you have an axe to grind.. It's possible they are about to release a good report despite all the hate mongering of the interwebs.
Yeah because this...
INTERIM MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
For the period 2 December 2013 to 6 April 2014
Games Workshop Group PLC today issues the following interim management statement for the period 2 December 2013 to 6 April 2014.
In the four months to 6 April 2014 trading has been broadly in line with the board’s expectations.
Is exactly the sort of thing you release when you're in the midst of turning around your decidedly ordinary first half performance two months before your FYE.
Can they even afford to pay dividends at this point? Surely given their falling revenue and sales, giving away their cash reserves doesn't strike me as very wise.
It's also possible for a company to borrow money in order to issue a dividend which GW did several years ago. You do this to ensure stockholder complacency and prevent a run on the stock.
Something that was mentioned in that warseer thread is that if the stock drops low-enough, GW will be in an exposed position for a potential hostile take-over. If you are a company with a genuine fear of losing control, you do everything you can, including borrowing from peter to pay paul, to forestall any negative actions by outside elements.
IMO the key reason for the release of 7th edition two weekends before the end of GW's financial year is that they had good expectations of selling perhaps 100,000 copies straight away, which would be sales revenue of £6 million -- verrrrry useful in making your end of year figures look good.
Just my guess of course. Perhaps they may hope to sell a lot more than 100,000 copies.
agnosto wrote: It's also possible for a company to borrow money in order to issue a dividend which GW did several years ago. You do this to ensure stockholder complacency and prevent a run on the stock.
Something that was mentioned in that warseer thread is that if the stock drops low-enough, GW will be in an exposed position for a potential hostile take-over. If you are a company with a genuine fear of losing control, you do everything you can, including borrowing from peter to pay paul, to forestall any negative actions by outside elements.
Maybe, but if you're CEO and Chairman of said company, as well as one of the single largest entities owning shares, and if you get offered above market value for those shares, or shares in the new parent company with greater value or long term potential returns, and you're only a couple of years off retirement, you might feel differently.
Even if GW isn't totally collapsing, other hobbies are growing more popular than it. For example, my FLGS; as it expands they've added large displays and huge collections of Magic Cards, comic books, and D&D books. But the Warhammer section has never grown.
So maybe I'm seeing the same number of 40k players as I did before, it just seems like less because of the takeoff success of so many other hobbies. When I see 25-50 people playing Magic, several large D&D groups, and four people playing Warhammer it just makes Warhammer seem smaller.
So... maybe GW will never have serious issues or go bankrupt, it'll just become increasingly fringe as other hobbies grow and it stagnates?
Even if GW isn't totally collapsing, other hobbies are growing more popular than it. For example, my FLGS; as it expands they've added large displays and huge collections of Magic Cards, comic books, and D&D books. But the Warhammer section has never grown.
So maybe I'm seeing the same number of 40k players as I did before, it just seems like less because of the takeoff success of so many other hobbies. When I see 25-50 people playing Magic, several large D&D groups, and four people playing Warhammer it just makes Warhammer seem smaller.
So... maybe GW will never have serious issues or go bankrupt, it'll just become increasingly fringe as other hobbies grow and it stagnates?
Both MtG and D&D have always been bigger than 40k and comic books probably dwarf all of them combined! That is not a new development in any way.
Even if GW isn't totally collapsing, other hobbies are growing more popular than it. For example, my FLGS; as it expands they've added large displays and huge collections of Magic Cards, comic books, and D&D books. But the Warhammer section has never grown.
So maybe I'm seeing the same number of 40k players as I did before, it just seems like less because of the takeoff success of so many other hobbies. When I see 25-50 people playing Magic, several large D&D groups, and four people playing Warhammer it just makes Warhammer seem smaller.
So... maybe GW will never have serious issues or go bankrupt, it'll just become increasingly fringe as other hobbies grow and it stagnates?
Both MtG and D&D have always been bigger than 40k and comic books probably dwarf all of them combined! That is not a new development in any way.
This might be unscientific because it's just from observing my local community, but where I live pretty much all other hobbies havegrown impressivelyin the last five-ten years... except 40k and Fantasy. What I'm saying is that if I established a baseline some years ago and worked from there, literally everything has been massively growing in quantity, number of players, etc. with Warhammer being the only exception.
agnosto wrote: It's also possible for a company to borrow money in order to issue a dividend which GW did several years ago. You do this to ensure stockholder complacency and prevent a run on the stock.
Something that was mentioned in that warseer thread is that if the stock drops low-enough, GW will be in an exposed position for a potential hostile take-over. If you are a company with a genuine fear of losing control, you do everything you can, including borrowing from peter to pay paul, to forestall any negative actions by outside elements.
Maybe, but if you're CEO and Chairman of said company, as well as one of the single largest entities owning shares, and if you get offered above market value for those shares, or shares in the new parent company with greater value or long term potential returns, and you're only a couple of years off retirement, you might feel differently.
Perhaps, but if you're that CEO and have been surrounding yourself with yes-men and driving out creative/dissenting thought for the past 20 years, your ego is probably pretty big and you genuinely believe that you're the best person to run the company and it's only a matter of time before your vision becomes successful and things begin to turn around.
agnosto wrote: It's also possible for a company to borrow money in order to issue a dividend which GW did several years ago. You do this to ensure stockholder complacency and prevent a run on the stock.
Something that was mentioned in that warseer thread is that if the stock drops low-enough, GW will be in an exposed position for a potential hostile take-over. If you are a company with a genuine fear of losing control, you do everything you can, including borrowing from peter to pay paul, to forestall any negative actions by outside elements.
Maybe, but if you're CEO and Chairman of said company, as well as one of the single largest entities owning shares, and if you get offered above market value for those shares, or shares in the new parent company with greater value or long term potential returns, and you're only a couple of years off retirement, you might feel differently.
Perhaps, but if you're that CEO and have been surrounding yourself with yes-men and driving out creative/dissenting thought for the past 20 years, your ego is probably pretty big and you genuinely believe that you're the best person to run the company and it's only a matter of time before your vision becomes successful and things begin to turn around.
I don't think he's looking to sell or he wouldn't have hired people recently with experience in fighting off hostile takeover bids...
Both in the sense that Kirby wouldn't be directly responsible, at least not solely for much of the hiring and firing, but wasn't the most recent appointment to the board someone with experience in managing takeovers and mergers, not resisting them?
Both in the sense that Kirby wouldn't be directly responsible, at least not solely for much of the hiring and firing, but wasn't the most recent appointment to the board someone with experience in managing takeovers and mergers, not resisting them?
You could be right there, my memory's spotty. We'll find out soon enough I suppose.
They've done it before, and it seems likely they'd try to shore up the stock price with a dividend even if the report was bad.
As I understand, "taking debt to pay dividend" episode was in the middle of the LOTR crash (or so it is said, I haven't checked so old reports myself). They have decent amount of cash, they can easily afford to pay out some dividend without taking debt (except for operational purposes).
As said, given that they didn't announce any dividend following previous half-year report, 20p dividend now seems well within line of their financial performance. They paid out 63p per share in 2012, and 58p in 2013.
MWHistorian wrote: Just a quick note, Marmachine's fluff isn't "Bizarre." Most of it is actually grounded in real events from history. The major factions are all based off real countries, with mirrors of real wars and real people. They just add magic steampunk stuff in it for fun.
If you find history, bizarre, then sure. Warmachine's fluff is bizarre.
As a historian I love their fluff!
Is that a genuine typo or a reference to Warmachine being a very "marmite" game...?
Both in the sense that Kirby wouldn't be directly responsible, at least not solely for much of the hiring and firing, but wasn't the most recent appointment to the board someone with experience in managing takeovers and mergers, not resisting them?
Poachers make the best gamekeepers, maybe? I don't know anything about this appointment.
Both in the sense that Kirby wouldn't be directly responsible, at least not solely for much of the hiring and firing, but wasn't the most recent appointment to the board someone with experience in managing takeovers and mergers, not resisting them?
Poachers make the best gamekeepers, maybe? I don't know anything about this appointment.
Elaine O’Donnell (age 43). Elaine O’Donnell was appointed to the board on 28 November 2013. A chartered accountant by profession, until recently Elaine was a corporate finance partner with EY.
Kilkrazy wrote: Chartered accountant, corporate finance expert. It sounds like a good person to have on any large company's board.
From a puff piece when she was leaving EY..
The 42-year-old has spent 15 years at the firm's Manchester office, during which time she has advised on deals worth more than £2bn.
Elaine joined E&Y in 1997 as a manager, having trained with PwC and is the only female mergers and acquisitions partner at a big four firm in Manchester.
For the past four years, she has been the lead partner for E&Y’s Entrepreneur of the Year awards.
She said: "If you had told me 15 years ago I would still be working at the same firm, I wouldn’t have believed you. I always had ambitions to be a partner and am very proud of that. It is testament to the culture here that I have stayed so long.
"Reaching the 15-year milestone made me reflect and realise I am still young enough to do something different and that there are lots of opportunities out there, particularly for a female businesswoman.
"I am really excited by the prospect of not just being an adviser to business but being in business. I am considering a number of opportunities with some businesses in the region and some further afield."
Born in Derry, O’Donnell studied at the University of Kent and graduated with a degree in accounting and finance in 1992. She joined E&Y in 1997, was promoted to director in 2002 and became a partner in 2005.
She has worked with clients including tool rental firm Speedy Hire, glass maker Pilkington NSG and specialist insurer Carole Nash.
She also spent nine months on secondment at Caradon Plumbing, Cheshire, having advised on the deal that saw HSBC Private Equity buy it for £496m in 2000.
Elaine is married to Andrew Curwen, partner at Stockport law firm Gorvins, and has sons Niall, nine, and Eoin, seven.
In terms of career highlights, she added: "What I have really loved is the diversity. I have worked with Pilkington NSG doing a large transaction and at the same time will have been running that alongside selling an entrepreneur’s business.
"I have particularly enjoyed being involved with the entrepreneur of the year programme."
I've bolded a couple of key parts, her expertise seems firmly based in mergers and acquisitions, whether this was key to her GW appointment, and which direction (the acquirer or acquiree) we can only speculate on.
A.) It is his personal analysis based on management experience, not an investment analysis - which he clearly states as such. FINRA regulations apply to brokers giving investment advise. Of which he is NOT doing.
“Public appearance” means any participation in a seminar, forum
(including an interactive electronic forum), radio or television interview,
or other public speaking activity in which a research analyst makes a
recommendation or offers an opinion concerning an equity security.
There are two scenarios here..
1) He is a registered member that is "providing his opinion" and has failed to make the proper disclosures (IE his name).
-or-
2) He isn't a registered member.
There isn't a middle ground here or a grey area. I'm required to provide my name for a reason. So people can see my certifications and any marks against my record. There are very clear rules about this.
Any time you provide analysis, you have to make disclosures, period. It doesn't matter if you say "oh it's just my opinion". You lost that right when you registered as a financial adviser. You can't go off the cuff once you've done that.
Report the anonymous forum user who claims to be a stockbroking advisor to the Financial Services Authority if it matters, but let us keep this thread on topic.
A.) It is his personal analysis based on management experience, not an investment analysis - which he clearly states as such. FINRA regulations apply to brokers giving investment advise. Of which he is NOT doing.
“Public appearance” means any participation in a seminar, forum
(including an interactive electronic forum), radio or television interview,
or other public speaking activity in which a research analyst makes a
recommendation or offers an opinion concerning an equity security.
There are two scenarios here..
1) He is a registered member that is "providing his opinion" and has failed to make the proper disclosures (IE his name).
-or-
2) He isn't a registered member.
There isn't a middle ground here or a grey area. I'm required to provide my name for a reason. So people can see my certifications and any marks against my record. There are very clear rules about this.
Any time you provide analysis, you have to make disclosures, period. It doesn't matter if you say "oh it's just my opinion". You lost that right when you registered as a financial adviser. You can't go off the cuff once you've done that.
or 3) He didn't offer an "opinion concerning an equity security". He didn't discuss equities, or securities, or try to sell anything or provide advice. Report him if you believe he has done wrong, but it really doesn't look like it, and I'm pretty sure he'd agree. He really doesn't seem to be the kind of guy to risk his position over a forum post, so I don't believe he's violated anything.
Kilkrazy wrote: Report the anonymous forum user who claims to be a stockbroking advisor to the Financial Services Authority if it matters, but let us keep this thread on topic.
A.) It is his personal analysis based on management experience, not an investment analysis - which he clearly states as such. FINRA regulations apply to brokers giving investment advise. Of which he is NOT doing.
“Public appearance” means any participation in a seminar, forum
(including an interactive electronic forum), radio or television interview,
or other public speaking activity in which a research analyst makes a
recommendation or offers an opinion concerning an equity security.
There are two scenarios here..
1) He is a registered member that is "providing his opinion" and has failed to make the proper disclosures (IE his name).
-or-
2) He isn't a registered member.
There isn't a middle ground here or a grey area. I'm required to provide my name for a reason. So people can see my certifications and any marks against my record. There are very clear rules about this.
Any time you provide analysis, you have to make disclosures, period. It doesn't matter if you say "oh it's just my opinion". You lost that right when you registered as a financial adviser. You can't go off the cuff once you've done that.
Of which is he doing neither. The key word their is SECURITIES. It doesn't preclude talking about a company in general. Offering an opinion about the management and commenting on a companies behavior is NOT the same as offering an opinion on a security. Key words there are to look at the entire definition under part B.
While I am not a registered financial adviser, I do receive a lot of advise from one about what I must disclose, even in private equity settings in regards to my company.
I am done with this conversation. It is pointless and off-topic.
Can they even afford to pay dividends at this point? Surely given their falling revenue and sales, giving away their cash reserves doesn't strike me as very wise.
With the current announcement, GW will be paying out £6.37 million in dividends. At the end of their last period, they had £9.2 million cash on hand. So they are already in a cash positive position to pay the dividends. If they generate a similar amount of cash to the first period (£8.9 million), they have more than enough to pay the dividend (but man do they run really close on their cash reserves should they have a bad downturn).
Mysterious Pants wrote: This might be unscientific because it's just from observing my local community, but where I live pretty much all other hobbies havegrown impressivelyin the last five-ten years... except 40k and Fantasy. What I'm saying is that if I established a baseline some years ago and worked from there, literally everything has been massively growing in quantity, number of players, etc. with Warhammer being the only exception.
That's entirely anecdotal but it lines up with the vast majority of other anecdotals and icv2 was claiming that (within America at least) the hobby has doubled in size of the last few years.
Infinity has had 75% growth two years strait (not sure about this last year but they certainly don't seem to have slowed down).
X wing burst onto the scene and suddenly outsold everything.
Dyst Wars and Firestorm Armada have been huge for Spartan Games with their 2nd editions recently.
There really isn't much in the way of actual, solid, evidence since none of the competition are public but it very much looks like GW are the only one in the market on the backfoot. Your theory about GW just becoming smaller is flawed though since they have so many expenses with their retail chain. If they where to sell it they could go and become one of the smaller parts of the market and sell to people who just want to forge a narrative and all that, but so lond as they have the massive money pit that is their stores they NEED to be the dominant force in the market or die.
Mark Wells left what.. 3 years ago now? He was brought in to reduce waste and when he left he was praised for his efforts in trimming the fat. After he was gone GW then powered ahead cutting costs everywhere, especially with their 1 man store method. That says a lot to me. The guy they brought in to cut costs leaving would, to me, suggest that the fat is gone. GW then slashing costs more and more means they are getting rid of anything they posibly can because they simply can't support the massive retail chain like they used to.
H.B.M.C. wrote:I don't think the distinction even needs to be made. A clear, concise and tight set of rules will support competitive play simply as a by-product of existing.
Definitely.
slowthar wrote:40k didn't start to suck for me when I played in tournaments, it started to suck when my buddy finally got an updated Tau codex and while my other buddy was playing BA. Games started to feel like a complete waste of time where we just felt bad for the guy playing BA, and no one was having any fun.
A consistently negative experience for one player because of army wide balance issues is not good. It's the type of thing that makes people quit.
MWHistorian wrote:I'm a casual player and this lack of balance I find too punishing. I have an army that's fluffy and how I want it, and it has zero chance of beating an Waveserpant spam or riptide spam list. That's an extreme example but my armies were always fighting uphill battles and too often I found that I had no chance of actually winning and though I'm not a competitive player, I want at least the illusion that I can win.
GW is also actively encouraging spam lists that a fluffy balanced list won't have a chance against.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Can they even afford to pay dividends at this point? Surely given their falling revenue and sales, giving away their cash reserves doesn't strike me as very wise.
The dividend is covered by cash reserves, so they can afford it, but it's a strange thing to do compared to finding something to do with the money to return to growth. Some form of marketing. An expansion of retail in a way that works? New product development. Something. Heck, they could start buying out their small competitors. Or buy back their stock.
Either way there's a mismatch in GW's dividend policy with their business model. They have the dividend policy of a stable, large, mature company, but are a niche retailer with an unstable revenue stream and a shrinking product base as brands like LOTR and Warhammer Fantasy bring in less and less revenue.
azreal13 wrote:Both in the sense that Kirby wouldn't be directly responsible, at least not solely for much of the hiring and firing, but wasn't the most recent appointment to the board someone with experience in managing takeovers and mergers, not resisting them?
The new board member is also very skilled in the restructuring that involved when you join two companies together. I imagine she headed up the closing of the regional HQs just as if they were redundant offices when two companies joined.
Taking out a loan to pay dividends... does not seem a wise decision to me.....
We will see what the end of year report has to mumble. The last minute release of 7th ed. WH40Kmay bump up the receipts enough that they will not need to float a loan - at the cost of liquidity.
Mark Wells left what.. 3 years ago now? He was brought in to reduce waste and when he left he was praised for his efforts in trimming the fat. After he was gone GW then powered ahead cutting costs everywhere, especially with their 1 man store method. That says a lot to me. The guy they brought in to cut costs leaving would, to me, suggest that the fat is gone. GW then slashing costs more and more means they are getting rid of anything they posibly can because they simply can't support the massive retail chain like they used to.
It reminds me of that scene in Pirates of the Caribbean when they are trying to outrun the Black Pearl and throw everything overboard only to realize that it wasn't enough and now they have to fight a battle without proper weapons.
azreal13 wrote: Yep, I felt it was more recent than 3 years, Googled to be sure.
Edit
And I meant Jan 2013, not 13/01/14, that would be crazy!
Feels like a long time because the new Edition of 40k, as odd as that seems to be. I guess the state of a core game is tied to the company more than we know? However, I might have had too much conspiracy juice today.
TheAuldGrump wrote: The last minute release of 7th ed. WH40Kmay bump up the receipts enough that they will not need to float a loan - at the cost of liquidity.
I think that, at the very least, the rushed 7th Ed will cause an improvement in the full-year report. Thing is though, we'll all know that that was the reason. And they'll know that that was the reason.
TheAuldGrump wrote: The last minute release of 7th ed. WH40Kmay bump up the receipts enough that they will not need to float a loan - at the cost of liquidity.
I think that, at the very least, the rushed 7th Ed will cause an improvement in the full-year report. Thing is though, we'll all know that that was the reason. And they'll know that that was the reason.
So, yeah, 8th Ed, coming 14/12/14?
I would certainly expect something "big" from GW to entice people to throw money at them this year. Plastic Thunderhawk, maybe? (that's a Dakka Bingo for someone). Seriously, though, I would expect some sort of big, and possibly limited, release from GW to raise money. Maybe they will rerelease one of the Specialist Games or something.
Oh yes, I'm indecently interested to see the next FYE report. I honestly thought my atrocious Business lecturer had managed to kill any interest I had in the wider machinations of the business world years ago, turns out all I needed was the ongoing validity of my collection of toy soldiers to be connected to it and I'm right into it again!
Just got an email from Jaroslaw (Buypainted / Wargamingzone / Forgeplanet). GW stopped him from selling their products because "he sold too many". GW... /facepalm
Relevant excerpt from the email:
The last thing I have to mention is my absence in Fabruary and March. I had to close my miniature store after 12 years, because Games Workshop refused to sell me their products, because I was selling "too much". This is the most sophisticated selling policy I've ever heard, but OK. Let see their annual report in next upcoming weeks. I have a bad feeling about this . I didn't comment the Games Workshop policy in past, because I was their retailer and generally it wasn't a good idea. But now my company is not tied with them in any way and I will tell you a little about my vision on gaming market and GW policy. Anyway - I wasn't able to focus on tutorials. As a compensation all subscrbtions active from February 1st to March 31st. were prolonged by 60 days. For example - if someone bought a 1 year subscription on July 1st, it has an expiry date on September 1st. Sorry for inconvenience.
Yonan wrote: Just got an email from Jaroslaw (Buypainted / Wargamingzone / Forgeplanet). GW stopped him from selling their products because "he sold too many". GW... /facepalm
Relevant excerpt from the email:
The last thing I have to mention is my absence in Fabruary and March. I had to close my miniature store after 12 years, because Games Workshop refused to sell me their products, because I was selling "too much". This is the most sophisticated selling policy I've ever heard, but OK. Let see their annual report in next upcoming weeks. I have a bad feeling about this . I didn't comment the Games Workshop policy in past, because I was their retailer and generally it wasn't a good idea. But now my company is not tied with them in any way and I will tell you a little about my vision on gaming market and GW policy. Anyway - I wasn't able to focus on tutorials. As a compensation all subscrbtions active from February 1st to March 31st. were prolonged by 60 days. For example - if someone bought a 1 year subscription on July 1st, it has an expiry date on September 1st. Sorry for inconvenience.
Yonan wrote: Just got an email from Jaroslaw (Buypainted / Wargamingzone / Forgeplanet). GW stopped him from selling their products because "he sold too many". GW... /facepalm
Relevant excerpt from the email:
The last thing I have to mention is my absence in Fabruary and March. I had to close my miniature store after 12 years, because Games Workshop refused to sell me their products, because I was selling "too much". This is the most sophisticated selling policy I've ever heard, but OK. Let see their annual report in next upcoming weeks. I have a bad feeling about this . I didn't comment the Games Workshop policy in past, because I was their retailer and generally it wasn't a good idea. But now my company is not tied with them in any way and I will tell you a little about my vision on gaming market and GW policy. Anyway - I wasn't able to focus on tutorials. As a compensation all subscrbtions active from February 1st to March 31st. were prolonged by 60 days. For example - if someone bought a 1 year subscription on July 1st, it has an expiry date on September 1st. Sorry for inconvenience.
I have a great many words in my vocabulary that have been used to describe GW's idiocy in the past but this.. this is a new level.
slowthar wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see them go direct sale only in the next couple years.
Maximize profit margins, minimize sales!
To be honest I'm surprised they didn't do that when they first put the kibosh on online retailers, given that they have to know that online retailers still sell at a discount just you have to ask for a price list now and have to call/email them.
I could see GW finally "get" the internet... by thinking that it means they can cut out retailers (other than GW shops, of course) entirely. You can only buy GW products from GW stores or via the GW website, no place else. Since naturally that will divert sales there, I mean it's not like there's any competition to GW...
Seriously though, the above doesn't sound all that insane anymore... more and more things are already direct only, and it seems t be increasing all the time.
The sad thing is, I'm usually happy to buy direct from the manufacturer to cut out middlemen. You can bet 100% that there will be no sharing of the margin saved with the customers due to going direct only though.
On reflection, I honestly don't give a gak if they go 100% Direct Only.
My backlog is MASSIVE for all three games I play (40K, Lord of the Rings, SAGA) and I have more or less everything I want for all my armies. I'm stocking up on old LOTR figures using Ebay to build up my backlog and provide me with plenty of projects for the future.
What little of GW's recent releases (last year or two) that I wanted, I already have (SM Codex, Storm Talon, plastic Vanguard and Sternguard Veterans, Tauriel, Mirkwood Rangers, Rivindell Knights).
The ONLY thing I need now is a 7th Ed rulebook, and since I don't want that overpriced 3 book monstrosity, I'm going to wait till they release the rules in a stand alone book like with 6th Ed.
As a business, GW really isn't doing a good job at making things that I want at prices I'm willing to pay.
If GW goes direct only, I'm pretty confident it'll spark a huge increase in piracy of their books and recasting of their miniatures. As it is I still buy legit GW models where they're reasonable value - Dark Vengeance, SM Strike Force, SM Strike Force Ultra from a US discounter for example. Cut out that discount, not to mention forcing regional pricing and yeah... ni hao GW. Ni hao ; p
I'd be really surprised if they went Direct Only. It'd be a pretty terrible decision!
I can't see it happening. I'm sure they'd like to be the only online store, but I can't imagine they'd close down the sales through independents. That's complete madness.
I'm out of the loop, but I gotta say. When GW dusseldorf was there, I used to pop in once every few months and pick up some paints or the odd box of minis. Now it's closed, that's not going to happen at all any more. I've no reason to keep paying attention to GW because the independent store in town stocks plenty of other games that I am interested in that are better value for money.
I'm not an angry hater or anything, but I'm a long time fan of the setting and the miniatures, and I can't be arsed with these shenanigans any more.
Dead curious to see what happens though. My money is on a mediocre but not disastrous financial report this year (the sheer volume of sales will have had a positive impact, not to mention all the folks buying the new edition) followed by a very poor showing next year due to people dropping out of the game due to disgust over the 7th edition rules change- whether it be due to the new background-ignoring rules, or the fact that a new version was released so soon after the last version, with so little in terms of actual difference or improvement.
Da Boss wrote: I'd be really surprised if they went Direct Only. It'd be a pretty terrible decision!
I can't see it happening. I'm sure they'd like to be the only online store, but I can't imagine they'd close down the sales through independents. That's complete madness.
Exactly why I could see it happening.. this is GW we're talking about. The company that pulled all its social media and communication networks because people weren't showering them with praise. The company that has zero marketing and PR beyond their magazines and stores and keeps everything under wraps as long as possible. The company that thinks it owns the words "Space Marine" and had the gall to try and sue an independent author writing a book for a charity when said book had feth all to do with anything remotely like 40k but used the word "Space Marine" in the title.
They make terrible decisions because they think that their "hobbyists" will buy anything they sell no matter what. Doing something like that would be right up their alley.
agnosto wrote: Where do they think people will play if they cut out brick and mortar retailers? It's not like you can actually play at a GW.
GW doesn't care where you play, or if you play at all. After all, they're a collectible miniatures company, not a game company. They want you to pay; play is irrelevant.
Da Boss wrote: I'd be really surprised if they went Direct Only. It'd be a pretty terrible decision!
I would not be surprised. Look at how much of their product is already Direct Only. Their website is just a storefront now.
Da Boss wrote: Dead curious to see what happens though. My money is on a mediocre but not disastrous financial report this year (the sheer volume of sales will have had a positive impact, not to mention all the folks buying the new edition) followed by a very poor showing next year due to people dropping out of the game due to disgust over the 7th edition rules change- whether it be due to the new background-ignoring rules, or the fact that a new version was released so soon after the last version, with so little in terms of actual difference or improvement.
In looking at the trends of the last six months, I will actually be surprised if the results are even as good as being mediocre. GW seems to be acting in panic mode lately trying everything under the sun to "up the numbers". The quality of the books since the beginning of the year has gone down the drain (very little crunch for lots of money). Both the IK and MT codexes were a complete and utter joke for $50. Then we have the shenanigans of the Imperial Guard release with the MT coming out before the AM codex - just so they could push the new Scion models. Speaking of the Scion models, to see a 70% price increase in one go over the previous stormtroopers is another sign they have really lost it. Then, we have the dataslates geared at selling expensive kits (reclusiam), fixing half-baked codexes (tyranids), and painting books for $4 each that used to be free in White Dwarf. Speaking of which, we had WD go weekly so they could conveniently double the price. Lastly, we have a complete rush job of 7th edition, that at $85, they couldn't even get the cut-and-paste right on the Imperium book - missing a massive section of the timeline and rules that were CLEARLY designed to throw all semblance of game integrity out the window (Daemon Summoning and Unbound) so that GW could hopefully push more model kits.
Of course, all of that is topped by moving 1,100 products direct, absolving themselves completely from the internet except for their webstore, and cutting off retailers left and right.
Add further is that sales of 40k 7th edition don't really seem to be that strong. 7th LE still is available after more than three weeks from ordering even though it was only 40% of the run of 6th edition LE and the 6th edition sold out in a matter of hours. It appears the GW pricing, and half-baked products have finally reached a tipping point with most gamers. Is it any wonder we are hearing things like Dystopian Wars (of all things) outselling 40k 7th edition by a factor of 7 to 1.
I personally believe the next period financials are actually going to be pretty bad. This is why we saw the rushed 7th edition release and higher than normal dividend (20 pence per share versus 16 pence normal) being announced prior to the financial period reporting. My bet is GW has crossed the threshold at this point and you are going to see more of this panicked behavior as they try to stem the inevitable mass exodus of customers.
Even if they do manage to pull it off so it isn't so bad, what is going to save them next period? Over priced Orks or Necrons? A new $85 three-book edition of WHFB? Bretonnians? Or are their really that many little Timmys running around who's mums don't mind plopping down $400 for little Timmy to get into a new game?
Release of a new edition is a cash grab that forces players to stump up to continue playing the same game as last week, or get off the GW release carousel. If customers don't buy into the new product in bulk it'll leave GW in a tight spot, lots of unsold stock and a customer base that is less interested in keeping up with the current releases.
Okay. I'm pretty sure I've taught myself how to think like GW management. This is scary but rather fun.
FLGSs/Independent "Stockists" from GW's management's eyes cost them money:
1. They get a cut of the sales.
2. They cost money to cater to and take orders from.
3. Some of them can sell online for a discount, which is directly undercutting us.
4. They provide a gateway/introduction into non-GW modeling supplies and games, so they are a business risk.
5. F' it, we don't need em!
Think about it. Kirby is a 63 year old man. I don't know what that is in UK years, but over here in 'murica that's getting close to "Bats**t Insane Old Man" territory, where you become moderately xenophobic, everything has to be your way, and you completely lose the filter between brain and mouth. It's gonna be his way or the highway, and this is how he thinks, and has always thought. I remember going into the comic book store I bought my first 40k models from in 1994 and seeing the guy running the place on the phone, pissed off at GW for making him stock a bunch of stuff he would have a hard time selling. I have *NEVER* known a FLGS that didn't hate dealing with GW, and it's because GW treats them as competition.
So I think this is it. I think they are marching towards direct sales only, which, to them, is a dream situation. Next step: regional shutdown of second-party retailers.
My only question is, is that legal here in the US? For example, if they put in a GW store in Baltimore, could they then stop selling to all FLGSs in Baltimore? Or are there laws that prevent that as some type of discrimination or monopolistic practice? I honestly have no idea.
I personally believe the next period financials are actually going to be pretty bad. This is why we saw the rushed 7th edition release and higher than normal dividend (20 pence per share versus 16 pence normal) being announced prior to the financial period reporting. My bet is GW has crossed the threshold at this point and you are going to see more of this panicked behavior as they try to stem the inevitable mass exodus of customers.
They could stop selling to FLGs if they didn't sell to anyone else. I wouldn't make sense to do that in a country as large as the USA, they simply do not have the coverage.
I doesn't make allot of sense commercially anyway. Selling to stores and distributors generates imediate bulk cashflow rather than slower cash generation through in house stores. All firms chase cash ASAP. Also by enabling discounters the have enabled a two tiered regular (premium in their eyes?) and budget (10-30% off) scenario to meet the demands of the varied consumer demands that exist. Much like Cereal companies will sell their own products but also make a supermarket own brand product.
notprop wrote: They could stop selling to FLGs if they didn't sell to anyone else. I wouldn't make sense to do that in a country as large as the USA, they simply do not have the coverage.
I doesn't make allot of sense commercially anyway. Selling to stores and distributors generates imediate bulk cashflow rather than slower cash generation through in house stores. All firms chase cash ASAP. Also by enabling discounters the have enabled a two tiered regular (premium in their eyes?) and budget (10-30% off) scenario to meet the demands of the varied consumer demands that exist. Much like Cereal companies will sell their own products but also make a supermarket own brand product.
I agree, I don't think they could/would do it cold turkey. However, I think wherever they can, they'll cut out other online retailers and then target regions to make all sales direct.
7th is outselling 6th, sure, but at what point in 6th's life cycle? Has 7th outsold 6th on launch weekend figures, or last weekend's?
Very easy to make a point without lying and still be massively deceiving, time will tell.
Yeah, it sounds like when Microsoft boasted how Windows Vista was outselling XP release...
Windows Vista did outsell XP because the Federal Gov moved the majority of their systems over to Vista (I was working in the computer industry at the time and found it hilarious).
Howard A Treesong wrote: Release of a new edition is a cash grab that forces players to stump up to continue playing the same game as last week, or get off the GW release carousel. If customers don't buy into the new product in bulk it'll leave GW in a tight spot, lots of unsold stock and a customer base that is less interested in keeping up with the current releases.
Just take the fight to GW.
Their digital dexes are where you can hit them really hard. I have 3 friends iPads on my apple ID, dexes cost me $15 now. One apple ID can support up to 10 devices. GW or Apple cant do gak to stop you.
I am thinking of starting up a French army for FoW so I knocked up a 1750 point list (tournament standard) and it came to £140 from Wayland and Forged in Battle. That's for an infantry company with 11 platoons in total (including 3 full infantry and 2 tank platoons), or in other words a horde army. Yes its 15mm and yes there are less individual bases on the table but that's completely irrelevant.
When you can get a full tournament ready army for a fraction of the cost of even a small 40K army its no wonder that people are turning away from 40K. In such a situation the only thing that GW could do is to build a very strong community and have excellent rules. Oops.
slowthar wrote: Okay. I'm pretty sure I've taught myself how to think like GW management. This is scary but rather fun.
FLGSs/Independent "Stockists" from GW's management's eyes cost them money:
1. They get a cut of the sales.
2. They cost money to cater to and take orders from.
3. Some of them can sell online for a discount, which is directly undercutting us.
4. They provide a gateway/introduction into non-GW modeling supplies and games, so they are a business risk.
5. F' it, we don't need em!
I'm pretty sure that's exactly the logic driving this thinking. - See also GW's actions in the various international trade restricitons.
And I'd like to hope that, at the very least, most independent stores are working under the assumption that GW is going to continue trying to pull the rug out underneath them.
Someone theorized earlier that GW is run by Cocaine addicts and this is all to feed their addiction. More and more evidence it starting to support this.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Release of a new edition is a cash grab that forces players to stump up to continue playing the same game as last week, or get off the GW release carousel. If customers don't buy into the new product in bulk it'll leave GW in a tight spot, lots of unsold stock and a customer base that is less interested in keeping up with the current releases.
Just take the fight to GW.
Their digital dexes are where you can hit them really hard. I have 3 friends iPads on my apple ID, dexes cost me $15 now. One apple ID can support up to 10 devices. GW or Apple cant do gak to stop you.
I'm sure they're crying rivers of blood over the fact that you bought their Codex.
Mymearan wrote:I'm sure they're crying rivers of blood over the fact that you bought their Codex.
The funny thing is they probably really are, because they're not raking in as much as they could be from Ravenous (I get the feeling that he's sharing books among friends and not paying full RRP for them either). That's the entire reason why they're trying to cut out independent retailers, after all: it isn't good enough to buy their product, it has to be direct from them and at full retail so they get to pocket all of it. If they make one penny less they get sore.
7th is outselling 6th, sure, but at what point in 6th's life cycle? Has 7th outsold 6th on launch weekend figures, or last weekend's?
Very easy to make a point without lying and still be massively deceiving, time will tell.
Yeah, it sounds like when Microsoft boasted how Windows Vista was outselling XP release...
Windows Vista did outsell XP because the Federal Gov moved the majority of their systems over to Vista (I was working in the computer industry at the time and found it hilarious).
Closer to a parity than a majority - the IRS was among the government departments that decided to give Vista a pass.
A fair number of Naval shipyards were also among those that skipped it (their computers tend to run a few generations behind - they were lucky that they could run XP...).
In the case of the government those groups that did not 'upgrade' had more to do with how antiquated their equipment was than the merits (or lack thereof) of Vista. It costs a lot of money to upgrade that many computers....
For what it is worth, the IRS agent that was talking about how old their computers were forever changed my mental image of the IRS...short, chubby, balding, incredibly happy, wearing a Hawaiian print shirt and cutoff shorts - in the office. I am glad as heck to have met the fellow - sometimes the shattering of a stereotype is a wonderful thing. (And, my, how he went on about the need to enter a ten character code into a space for eight characters - he had to enter part of the sequence, save, then call up another program to modify the sequence.... complaining about all of it in this chirrupy, happy voice. )
Mymearan wrote:I'm sure they're crying rivers of blood over the fact that you bought their Codex.
The funny thing is they probably really are, because they're not raking in as much as they could be from Ravenous (I get the feeling that he's sharing books among friends and not paying full RRP for them either). That's the entire reason why they're trying to cut out independent retailers, after all: it isn't good enough to buy their product, it has to be direct from them and at full retail so they get to pocket all of it. If they make one penny less they get sore.
Yeah, I commend it. Ravenous is obviously still interested in playing 40k, but is unhappy with what GW is doing with the game (price or otherwise) and is doing something about it. I mean, it has to start somewhere, and if people want GW to change they're going to have to hit them where it counts.
Slight side-note: Windows 8 with "Classic Shell" is basically Windows 7 (the best since XP which is now sadly dated imo) with the improvements from 8 but none of the downsides. It also has some nice general tweaks. No metro screen, improved start menu and so on.
This is why I'm in favour of a well supported, community developed patch for 40k. It can greatly improve the base product. Not everyone needs to use it, but it gives the option for people to adopt.
Slight side-note: Windows 8 with "Classic Shell" is basically Windows 7 (the best since XP which is now sadly dated imo) with the improvements from 8 but none of the downsides. It also has some nice general tweaks. No metro screen, improved start menu and so on.
This is why I'm in favour of a well supported, community developed patch for 40k. It can greatly improve the base product. Not everyone needs to use it, but it gives the option for people to adopt.
Myself well..... "LET THE GALAXY BURN!!!!"
The GW financials... well they are going to be awesome too!!!!
Wait, if GW goes to direct sale on their webstore only, and independent stores don't sell GW, will that mean that they won't have 40k played in their stores because generally they don't allow games they don't sell, so will that mean a near death sentence to the 40k community outside of clique-ish clubs?
MWHistorian wrote: Wait, if GW goes to direct sale on their webstore only, and independent stores don't sell GW, will that mean that they won't have 40k played in their stores because generally they don't allow games they don't sell, so will that mean a near death sentence to the 40k community outside of clique-ish clubs?
Maybe, but probably not quite a death sentence. It'll depend on FLGSs and if they choose to let people still play games in their store even though they don't carry the product. It certainly won't help, and will open the door even more for other games.
MWHistorian wrote: Wait, if GW goes to direct sale on their webstore only, and independent stores don't sell GW, will that mean that they won't have 40k played in their stores because generally they don't allow games they don't sell, so will that mean a near death sentence to the 40k community outside of clique-ish clubs?
Yeah but short term profits yo! It's all about them short term profits!
MWHistorian wrote: Wait, if GW goes to direct sale on their webstore only, and independent stores don't sell GW, will that mean that they won't have 40k played in their stores because generally they don't allow games they don't sell, so will that mean a near death sentence to the 40k community outside of clique-ish clubs?
Maybe, but probably not quite a death sentence. It'll depend on FLGSs and if they choose to let people still play games in their store even though they don't carry the product. It certainly won't help, and will open the door even more for other games.
If the games store sells kromlech or maxi-mini why not, they can still sell product for the game.
Mymearan wrote:I'm sure they're crying rivers of blood over the fact that you bought their Codex.
The funny thing is they probably really are, because they're not raking in as much as they could be from Ravenous (I get the feeling that he's sharing books among friends and not paying full RRP for them either). That's the entire reason why they're trying to cut out independent retailers, after all: it isn't good enough to buy their product, it has to be direct from them and at full retail so they get to pocket all of it. If they make one penny less they get sore.
That's right.
And iTunes cards go on sale all the time from 20 to 50% , so the amount of money I put into codices is beyond reasonable, I pay less then GW employees do. If I get a few more friends on I'll spend $4 or less.
Mymearan wrote:I'm sure they're crying rivers of blood over the fact that you bought their Codex.
The funny thing is they probably really are, because they're not raking in as much as they could be from Ravenous (I get the feeling that he's sharing books among friends and not paying full RRP for them either). That's the entire reason why they're trying to cut out independent retailers, after all: it isn't good enough to buy their product, it has to be direct from them and at full retail so they get to pocket all of it. If they make one penny less they get sore.
Yeah, I commend it. Ravenous is obviously still interested in playing 40k, but is unhappy with what GW is doing with the game (price or otherwise) and is doing something about it. I mean, it has to start somewhere, and if people want GW to change they're going to have to hit them where it counts.
Exactly. Piracy and the like exists only when the company or group make the environment for it a necessity. With a book every 2 months that's $360+ tax a year, with Apple ID sharing its $18 (with 50% off iTunes card deals and 10 people) to $180 (with only 2 people).
I view the relationship with GW falls in 2 groups.
1) Blissfully and willfully ignorant
2) Make the hobby work for you by any means necessary.
You can make this hobby cheap as hell, or you can keep validating GWs terrible behaviour. What you allow is what will continue, and GW is only sinking to new depths of desperation.
2) Make the hobby work for you by any means necessary.
You can make this hobby cheap as hell, or you can keep validating GWs terrible behaviour. What you allow is what will continue, and GW is only sinking to new depths of desperation.
Alright, so switching to something more constructive, I do wonder how Forgeworld will get on in the upcoming years. While I certainly don't see GW biting the bullet anytime too soon, I do see a continuous drifting off of customers which could result in a catastrophic collapse similar to what Wayshubba has described.
However, my understanding of Forgeworld is that it continued to thrive over these last few years. And in the event of, let's say, a year or two of actual losses for GW, I wonder if FW will simply be told to shut down or if it will continue to push its 30k stuff. It seems sometimes that Forgeworld has become more and more autonomous; the rumored website merger did not come to pass and FW has its own independent public relations. The two groups act like completely different companies (which is odd considering they are, in fact, *one* company).
It seems to me that GW looks at Forgeworld like some older brother who has been more successful. If I remember correctly the newest edition of 40k doesn't even mention Forgeworld, and with pricing on a number of GW releases now outpacing the cost of FW, I feel like GW is suffering from a case of "anything he can do, I can do better!" Yet, they can't go out and stymie FW, they bring in considerable revenue to an ailing company. I just wonder if in the long-term GW continues to pull out of the market and trend downward, if FW will be further distanced to not be saddled with the problems GW is facing.
(I say this will little true understanding of markets; it's more of a comparison between some business events in my own life and what is going on with GW.)
To be fair though Forgeworld was always the "luxury" part of 40k in years past, and generally was also considered unofficial - cool for diorama and awesome pieces, but not something you bought to actually use in a game. Although I think some of that stems from FW's precursor, Armorcast, since in 2nd edition Armorcast was insanely overpowered in games and Armorcast *was* unofficial to my knowledge, so the idea that anything other than GW/Citadel isn't official, even when FW is a subsidiary of GW.
Of course that stigma has diminished lately, but I think the idea that Forgeworld is okay to be expensive because it was always finely-detailed resin kits and generally optional made it okay, while GW itself is "necessary". I think that's the major distinction between the two.
FW feels more like buying the sports package on a car; looks cool and can cost you a bit, but you don't need it. GW on the other hand is selling you a Daewoo for a hundred grand and trying to convince you that it's a Ferrari, and they already let the air out of your old car's tires.
GW is learning slowly, they try to sell to what the "market can bear".
The iTunes ID sharing is a great legal (grayish) means of reducing cost.
They are past the point software gaming companies got to when pirating games became rampant due to extreme pricing. Steam and GOG show now that as reasonable prices are introduced, piracy decreases.
I still do not understand why they keep stating the company line that they are a model company when published reading material rakes in so much money, it is probably saving their year end financial report bacon right now.
I had been collecting 40k stuff since just before 3rd edition, other than the occasional new model it is only their rules and codex's they get the most money out of me. 7th was a rather limited change to the 6th, the new army selection and Psi phase of the game are the only real changes to core rules of the game.
The Future of Games Workshop:
When profits are too small to hand out dividends Kirby will leave without looking back while selling his stock ASAP.
Those who remain will frantically try to fix the sinking ship and just may go looking for a buyer or go for a headline grabbing CEO (either way to try to feed their money habit).
You are right about the book costs. The high cost of the rules and codexes is a fairly new thing, though.
Two years ago the 5th rulebook cost £30 and the codexes cost £12 to £18 depending on size. GW have basically doubled the cost in two years.
This much faster than it took them to double the cost of the models, and there was plenty of pissing and moaning about the rapid acceleration of model prices before 2012.
The difference between books and models is that you can play 40K using unofficial models and there are plenty of alternatives out there. You obviously can't play 40K without the 40K rules.
The danger is that the rules become so expensive that people drop the game entirely, or just use old editions, or massively pirate the books they want.
Kilkrazy wrote: The danger is that the rules become so expensive that people drop the game entirely, or just use old editions, or massively pirate the books they want.
That's already happening. I think the major issue is that they went to hardcovers with glossy pages for seemingly no other reason than to raise the cost. You don't get any new content, in fact they might have reduced content (moving the basic painting section to DLC), but you're paying more for visuals alone because they went to a pricier/more luxury format.
I remember the slimmed down 3rd edition codexes that were like $15 a piece, and I loved them - slim but still have information in it, and cheap enough that I recall buying every single one that came out whether I played the army or not. Even the larger ones that were more (Chaos 3.5) was like $25 or maybe $30 I can't recall which, but the larger ones had the same content that we have today.
Now? It's $50 for one book, and that's not counting their utter ridiculousness of charging the same amount for a "supplement" with two pages of rules and 48 pages of garbage, and the dataslates.
Kilkrazy wrote: You are right about the book costs. The high cost of the rules and codexes is a fairly new thing, though.
Two years ago the 5th rulebook cost £30 and the codexes cost £12 to £18 depending on size. GW have basically doubled the cost in two years.
This much faster than it took them to double the cost of the models, and there was plenty of pissing and moaning about the rapid acceleration of model prices before 2012.
The difference between books and models is that you can play 40K using unofficial models and there are plenty of alternatives out there. You obviously can't play 40K without the 40K rules.
The danger is that the rules become so expensive that people drop the game entirely, or just use old editions, or massively pirate the books they want.
I have not yet bought the 7th edition book. I suppose I'm probably waiting for the rules-only edition, but my interest in playing has just gone down a lot. It's not that I disapprove of the new rules; some of them are good and some are bad (although it does seem to have a lot of purchase-encouragement built into the rules themselves).
I just look back at the two-year span that my collector's edition of 6th lasted and 7th sounds like a bad investment. I can afford it easily enough, but I don't want to pay that much for a book that will only last a little while. There are no guarantees that 7th will last four years or two, GW does not explain their motives for things. The idea that 7th is a response to the mess 6th became is just as valid as the idea that 7th exists only as a vehicle to rake in money.
If like me for instance you have substantial Tau and Tyranid armies, then you are looking at £60 for the 6th edition codexes which are likely to be invalidated in a year or two, before you even think about buying and new models like the Riptide.
It is a price level that does not encourage me to "upgrade" to a new edition.
Accolade wrote: The idea that 7th is a response to the mess 6th became is just as valid an idea as 7th exists only to make more money.
If 7th edition fixed the "mess 6th became" that might be reasonable. Instead it just made it worse.
Yeah, I've just seen this argument made in the past which is why I brought it up.
Kilkrazy wrote: If like me for instance you have substantial Tau and Tyranid armies, then you are looking at £60 for the 6th edition codexes which are likely to be invalidated in a year or two, before you even think about buying and new models like the Riptide.
It is a price level that does not encourage me to "upgrade" to a new edition.
Exactly, and you end up buying a couple of books with mostly recycled fluff and art, coupled with rule tweaking and the odd new unit. There's just not much real value there.
7th and soon fantasy 9th in the same year that the stock tanked. Spells it out right there.
Plus I figure this is all that rumblings I was hearing about "paid FAQs" in that instead of changing little things in the rulebook to clean it up, they just feth everyone with another $100 rulebook and dump the catch up FAQ on black library.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talizvar wrote: GW is learning slowly, they try to sell to what the "market can bear".
The iTunes ID sharing is a great legal (grayish) means of reducing cost.
The downside is that each iPad had to use that apple ID to get content. If you try and use a different one it wipes the content. Way around that is you make an Apple ID your friends all know the password to. That's Apples policy, GW cant possibly enforce any action against it.
Kilkrazy wrote: This much faster than it took them to double the cost of the models, and there was plenty of pissing and moaning about the rapid acceleration of model prices before 2012.
The model cost increase was rather... scary.
What raised the shock-and-awe to me is to double the cost and halve the number of models, that was just too much for terms like "brazen" or "evil-sons-of-goats"...
When a friend of mine found out I was going to finally field a full IG/AM army he dug into his collection and pulled out an unopened box of 20 troopers for half the cost of the 10 man box (price tag still on it) with the same sprue they are selling today (MUCH smaller flash, almost non-existent, some old models are GREAT!). Obviously some models have greater return on investment than others...
Back in the late 80s I bought several boxes of the original Beaky plastic marines that were £10 per box of 30 figures.
They were less detailed than the current version, but had more add-on bits and weapon options. They were less "poseable" but easier to pose because the lack of detail made them easier to cut up.
Today's Tactical Box is £25 for 10 figures.
Inflation rate of about 8% per year if it had been constant.
Kilkrazy wrote: Back in the late 80s I bought several boxes of the original Beaky plastic marines that were £10 per box of 30 figures.
They were less detailed than the current version, but had more add-on bits and weapon options. They were less "poseable" but easier to pose because the lack of detail made them easier to cut up.
Today's Tactical Box is £25 for 10 figures.
Inflation rate of about 8% per year if it had been constant.
The longer GW is around and the more dominant it becomes, the more streamlined and efficient its production processes should be. So it should be cheaper for them to produce each individual unit. Most accounts of cost don't factor that in.
Kilkrazy wrote: Back in the late 80s I bought several boxes of the original Beaky plastic marines that were £10 per box of 30 figures.
They were less detailed than the current version, but had more add-on bits and weapon options. They were less "poseable" but easier to pose because the lack of detail made them easier to cut up.
Today's Tactical Box is £25 for 10 figures.
Inflation rate of about 8% per year if it had been constant.
So basically the equivalent price, inclusive of inflation, should be £7.70 today (77 pence a figure instead of 33 pence back in late 80's). Instead you have a price of £2.5 figure - much, much, much higher than the rate of inflation.
Since 1988 to today, inflation has only average about 3% a year (some years less, some more).
Kilkrazy wrote: Back in the late 80s I bought several boxes of the original Beaky plastic marines that were £10 per box of 30 figures.
They were less detailed than the current version, but had more add-on bits and weapon options. They were less "poseable" but easier to pose because the lack of detail made them easier to cut up.
Today's Tactical Box is £25 for 10 figures.
Inflation rate of about 8% per year if it had been constant.
The longer GW is around and the more dominant it becomes, the more streamlined and efficient its production processes should be. So it should be cheaper for them to produce each individual unit. Most accounts of cost don't factor that in.
You're assuming a healthy, competitive market where standard commercial pressures demand ongoing efficiencies, allied with increasing economies of scale.
GW is, or at least historically has been, an encumbent with such market dominance it has essentially been free to be as lazy as it wanted, and there's been no "second place" to keep them lean or honest. A Catfish company if you will. There only motivation to decrease costs would have been to Increase margin, and why bother spending time and effort doing that when you can just jack up prices for the same, or possibly greater, effect?
No, it is only recently, where there are a number of viable alternatives for gamers to turn to, and therefore divert there money from GW, where they have been under anything like a normal amount of pressure to economise, because they've bumped up against, or got very close to, their price threshold, hence the rather artless thrashing about we are witnessing with regard to store closures/changes, closure of regional admin centres etc.. They know they should be doing something about costs, but nobody really seems to have a good plan as to what!
We know their average production cost is ~23% of RRP, I which isn't horrible, and would indicate that their manufacturing isn't terribly inefficient, it is the huge cost millstone of the retail chain that is one of GW's strongest assets and greatest liabilities.
Kilkrazy wrote: Inflation rate of about 8% per year if it had been constant.
Well.. it doesn't take an abacus to figure out we have had substantial inflation over the past decade. Much more than 3%. As I've mentioned in other threads, all inflation numbers are give hedonic adjustments which cause the inflation rate to be understated. They pretty much do this in every country as a way to reduce the real value of their unfunded debt obligations since so many different benefits and contracts are tied to that economic measure.
Kilkrazy wrote:Back in the late 80s I bought several boxes of the original Beaky plastic marines that were £10 per box of 30 figures.
They were less detailed than the current version, but had more add-on bits and weapon options. They were less "poseable" but easier to pose because the lack of detail made them easier to cut up.
Today's Tactical Box is £25 for 10 figures.
Inflation rate of about 8% per year if it had been constant.
Brent crude was $18.75 per barrel at the end of 1989, it's $110 per barrel last week. 23% per annum.
Inflation on products, particularly ones that primarily have petroleum as their main constituent will not necessarily track general inflation.
I couldn't afford RTB01 Space Marines until I'd saved for a good 6 months in '88. £9.99 is allot when you're on £1 per week.
loki old fart wrote: 5 pounds difference in price.
Ok Derek, now tie that back into something about GW and we're getting somewhere.
As usual, while the factual content of your posts is, I'm sure, spot in, the relevance is a little spotty.
The actual rate of inflation is debatable, that GW's prices have, in many cases, vastly outpaced even the highest estimates, less so. It really isn't important to the discussion at hand what that rate is.
azreal13 wrote: Just trying to keep the thread on track, if nobody does it, it'll all be about how we should be buying gold instead of toy soldiers within a page.
Also, if you're finding my posts repetitive, either put me on ignore, or consider the reasons why I have to repost very similar stuff.
Maybe we should, the cost might be about the same.
azreal13 wrote: Well, a small home crucible, some basic home casting equipment...
Coat of paint and nobody would ever suspect.....
I can see it now, gamers scouring car boot sales and rubbish dumps for old computer parts and anything with gold. Just to recycle them into warhammer figures, and get their gaming fix.
azreal13 wrote: Well, a small home crucible, some basic home casting equipment...
Coat of paint and nobody would ever suspect.....
I can see it now, gamers scouring car boot sales and rubbish dumps for old computer parts and anything with gold. Just to recycle them into warhammer figures, and get their gaming fix.
*Shrug* I am pretty sure that some of those Finecast models cost the consumer more than their weight in silver....
Heck... during the first Bones Kickstarter Reaper had some of their silver Cav masters up as pledge levels.... (And they went quick, too.)
But Perry miniatures have lots of extras as well. I'm looking at WOTR box set leftover sprues and there's still a lot of leftovers. This box costs 20GBP for 12 cavalry models.
Kilkrazy wrote: Back in the late 80s I bought several boxes of the original Beaky plastic marines that were £10 per box of 30 figures.
.
I had the space ork box, so awesome!
I remember being bitterly disappointed when the 2nd edition boxed sets came out. 2 pieces, same sculpt .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
heartserenade wrote: But Perry miniatures have lots of extras as well. I'm looking at WOTR box set leftover sprues and there's still a lot of leftovers. This box costs 20GBP for 12 cavalry models.
Shush you, I have one thing that will make what you said not matter.
GAMES WORKSHOP! BEST MINIATURES ON THE PLANET.
something , something, stock market.
Not gold. Not plastic. Soon, Games Workshop miniatures will be forged entirely from narrative - a 5-man box costing £70, containing the highest-quality imaginary soldiers in the world. Why have miniatures? Why paint, assemble or convert when you can simply imagine your army?
Spend £200 on a 20-page rulebook with such riveting content as "The Emperor or something" and "Space Marines?", with extensive, concisely-written rules for describing your army to your opponent and then randomly determining the winner by seeing who rolls highest on 600d6 (all purchased from Games Workshop of course, the manufacturer of the finest narratives in the world).
Thanks! I've never thought of this before, but... what does Exalting actually do? You can't even see the number of Exalts a given post has, like on Facepunch or something. What's the point? The only information I can find is from 2013 or earlier, saying things like "they're planning things".
Kilkrazy wrote: Inflation rate of about 8% per year if it had been constant.
Well.. it doesn't take an abacus to figure out we have had substantial inflation over the past decade. Much more than 3%. As I've mentioned in other threads, all inflation numbers are give hedonic adjustments which cause the inflation rate to be understated. They pretty much do this in every country as a way to reduce the real value of their unfunded debt obligations since so many different benefits and contracts are tied to that economic measure.
Yes. Last decade has had more substantial inflation. Where as the 90s had fairly low inflation. Net effect, in the example given, was that it averages about 3% over the time period.
Most inflation calculators, even for Britian, will give this change (33 pence/model in 1988 equivalent to 77 pence/model today).
Fits a bit with a rule of thumb I learned in my college economics class (back in 1985 mind you) - all prices/salaries/costs double every 20 years. While not a tried and true formula by any measure, it was simply a general observation one could use for future trending.
The first one is a warpig on a 50mm base, on a sprue approximately twice the size of a standard plastic GW character sprue and about 15 pieces. Great detail, blissful to assemble and almost no flash. Made by a small US company and imported.
The 2nd one is a minor character in a 25mm base with 9 pieces, made by the largest manufacturer in the industry and not imported.
So why does the first have an RRP £1.50 less than the 2nd?
Kilkrazy wrote: Let us compare the cost of GW plastic figures with another company's.
GW original Beaky 1989 = £10 / 30 = 33p each.
GW modern non-Beaky 2014 = £25 / 10 = £2.50 each.
Perry Bros modern ACW 2014 = £20 / 36 = 55p each.
Those Perry models do not count because they are not a part of "the hobby"
Using SF models; wargames factory shock troopers are $21.95 for 18 figures =$1.22 each about in English currency £13.1/18= 73p each.
We can even go with the high end - a company making plastic minis with the all the "options". DreamForge Eisenkern Stormtroopers $35.00 for 20 figures=$1.75 figure each or £1.04 each.
So we have Perry at 55p a figure (355% less than GW), Eisenkern Stormtroopers at £1.75 a figure (43% less than GW) and good ol' GW at £2.50 figure (for Space Marines). Add something newer like Scions at £4 a figure (for better comparison to the Eisenkern Stormtroopers, even though the Eisenkorn kit is superior in quality to GW in every way) and you have GW at 128% more for Scions than Stormtroopers for a LESSER quality item.
Here is the difference in the above that is most strikingly in contrast with GWs miss-guided beliefs. In the 90s and very early 2000s you would not have had this comparison to make as the previous two did not exist. This is why GW could get away with charging what they did because there weren't many alternatives for gamers. Now we have options and it is getting even harder for GW to justify their insane pricing versus others on the market. So it is not that gamers "will pay whatever for the best quality" - it is that gamers did not have a choice in the past (or a rather very limited one) and now they do.
Wayshuba wrote: Yes. Last decade has had more substantial inflation. Where as the 90s had fairly low inflation. Net effect, in the example given, was that it averages about 3% over the time period.
Most inflation calculators, even for Britian, will give this change (33 pence/model in 1988 equivalent to 77 pence/model today).
Fits a bit with a rule of thumb I learned in my college economics class (back in 1985 mind you) - all prices/salaries/costs double every 20 years. While not a tried and true formula by any measure, it was simply a general observation one could use for future trending.
Sorry.. I just don't think that you are looking at the right numbers. Officially we only had an average of 2.37% inflation over that period and a 60% cumulative inflation rate. Yet wages doubled. So everyone should be richer right? Not when you take into account the loss of purchasing power. Since the year 2000, Food and energy prices have easily doubled (in most cases tripled). Insurance has more than doubled. Real estate has doubled.
The CPI is constructed based on..
All items
Food
Food at home
Food away from home
Energy
Energy commodities
Gasoline (all types)
Fuel oil
Energy services
Electricity
Utility (piped) gas service
All items less food and energy
Commodities less food and energy
commodities
New vehicles
Used cars and trucks
Apparel
Medical care commodities
Services less energy services
Shelter
Transportation services
Medical care services
I find it insane that anyone would argue that we only had 3% inflation over the past 20 years. The proof is in the pudding as they say..
When your food, energy, insurance and shelter (cost of living) has more than doubled and your income hasn't kept pace, it sucks. People can argue the causes for this, but it's silly not to acknowledge it exists and impacts our decisions. So when GW does price increases, I see it as a way for them to maintain their margins. I don't see it as a way for them to get every last penny out of the consumer and they are being consistent with what i'm seeing happen in the rest of the global economy. Whether or not I can afford their product isn't as much a function of their prices, but just another way to measure the loss of my purchasing power.
There are plenty of areas where GW can improve their relations with the community but I don't think that is essentially for their survival at this time because I don't see real competition out there yet.
Here is the difference in the above that is most strikingly in contrast with GWs miss-guided beliefs. In the 90s and very early 2000s you would not have had this comparison to make as the previous two did not exist. This is why GW could get away with charging what they did because there weren't many alternatives for gamers. Now we have options and it is getting even harder for GW to justify their insane pricing versus others on the market. So it is not that gamers "will pay whatever for the best quality" - it is that gamers did not have a choice in the past (or a rather very limited one) and now they do.
Funnily enough, lots of people remember early '2000s as an era when GW minis were at most affordable. They were cranking out lots of plastic, then came starter sets which were very cheap and contained large bunch of minis (Skull Pass was what, $60 for 100+ minis and loads of other stuff).
IIRC it was around 2008-2009 when they began reboxing their infantry to smaller boxes (which resulted to big price hike per mini).
Here is the difference in the above that is most strikingly in contrast with GWs miss-guided beliefs. In the 90s and very early 2000s you would not have had this comparison to make as the previous two did not exist. This is why GW could get away with charging what they did because there weren't many alternatives for gamers. Now we have options and it is getting even harder for GW to justify their insane pricing versus others on the market. So it is not that gamers "will pay whatever for the best quality" - it is that gamers did not have a choice in the past (or a rather very limited one) and now they do.
Funnily enough, lots of people remember early '2000s as an era when GW minis were at most affordable. They were cranking out lots of plastic, then came starter sets which were very cheap and contained large bunch of minis (Skull Pass was what, $60 for 100+ minis and loads of other stuff).
IIRC it was around 2008-2009 when they began reboxing their infantry to smaller boxes (which resulted to big price hike per mini).
One thing GW did that never made sense to me was this: I get and fully support making your normal infantry guys in plastic, because they are mass produced and mass purchased. I never got why they changed *everything* to plastic, including single character models. Those were fine as metal, or hell I could have seen them in resin (but then again, Finecrap...). Going all plastic for everything just seemed, and still seems, silly. Like what was their actual intent with it? To better position themselves as a toy company, since to my knowledge no toy company has metal pieces? The decision to go all plastic just seems weird.
It should have been like plastic regiments at a reasonable price (about $30ish seems right to me, comparable with other companies) with command options and the like, one box = one unit not this crap you have now where for WHFB it's 2-3 boxes per unit, and then metal or resin (real FW style resin) for things like character models, some vehicle kits (think like the variants. Plastic main body with resin additions) and the like.
Here is the difference in the above that is most strikingly in contrast with GWs miss-guided beliefs. In the 90s and very early 2000s you would not have had this comparison to make as the previous two did not exist. This is why GW could get away with charging what they did because there weren't many alternatives for gamers. Now we have options and it is getting even harder for GW to justify their insane pricing versus others on the market. So it is not that gamers "will pay whatever for the best quality" - it is that gamers did not have a choice in the past (or a rather very limited one) and now they do.
Funnily enough, lots of people remember early '2000s as an era when GW minis were at most affordable. They were cranking out lots of plastic, then came starter sets which were very cheap and contained large bunch of minis (Skull Pass was what, $60 for 100+ minis and loads of other stuff).
IIRC it was around 2008-2009 when they began reboxing their infantry to smaller boxes (which resulted to big price hike per mini).
One thing GW did that never made sense to me was this: I get and fully support making your normal infantry guys in plastic, because they are mass produced and mass purchased. I never got why they changed *everything* to plastic, including single character models. Those were fine as metal, or hell I could have seen them in resin (but then again, Finecrap...). Going all plastic for everything just seemed, and still seems, silly. Like what was their actual intent with it? To better position themselves as a toy company, since to my knowledge no toy company has metal pieces? The decision to go all plastic just seems weird.
It should have been like plastic regiments at a reasonable price (about $30ish seems right to me, comparable with other companies) with command options and the like, one box = one unit not this crap you have now where for WHFB it's 2-3 boxes per unit, and then metal or resin (real FW style resin) for things like character models, some vehicle kits (think like the variants. Plastic main body with resin additions) and the like.
Material Costs in Metal represent a much more significant proportion of the costs than for plastic. Price volatility in metals mean that the costs were highly variable.
I guess they think that in long term, plastic characters make sense since they are so much more production-efficient than metal or resin. So in short term it is uneconomical, but when the model is in production for 15 years or more, it makes a saving compared to metal/resin.
Also, there are lot of people in the hobby who dislike metal and might skip a model entirely if it's metal. By contrast, only very few grognards would pass a model simply because it's plastic and not metal (although more people might do that because of the price). So a plastic mini has a wider appeal, if the sculpt is equal quality (admittably, they aren't always).
It's really curious what they are going to do with characters, though. I can't believe they ever plan to have every named character in plastic, that'd be insane, but they clearly aren't going back to metal, and Finecast seems to be slowly on its way out too...
Maybe at one point they just transfer all low-scale production sculpts to ForgeWorld and GW proper concentrates on mass producing plastic.
One thing I notice that seems to make me dislike models:
All plastic models fall over, bounce and blow around: I like them heavy.
If it is metal, all is well.
If it is plastic with the round base I glue / epoxy a fender washer into the bottom.
If it is plastic and uses a "slotta" base I HATE them.
There are few good ways to get a hunk of metal to fit in that 1/3 to 2/3 split unless you get bolt cutters or a disk cutter to cut up a fender washer to fit.
I have tried "lead shot" but do not like using the stuff.
On the difficulty of getting characters out, I think sending to Forgeworld to do their magic and re-release in resin would be the way to go as the "short term fix".
If I remember correctly, the reason for the switch from metal to plastic wasn't driven so much by the "high" price of metal base materials, but by the volatility of the metals market. Prices bounced all over the place over relatively short time periods, making it difficult to plan for production.
Saldiven wrote: If I remember correctly, the reason for the switch from metal to plastic wasn't driven so much by the "high" price of metal base materials, but by the volatility of the metals market. Prices bounced all over the place over relatively short time periods, making it difficult to plan for production.
Given that plastic is made from oil, materials prices are not that stable anyway.
Talizvar wrote: One thing I notice that seems to make me dislike models:
All plastic models fall over, bounce and blow around: I like them heavy.
If it is metal, all is well.
If it is plastic with the round base I glue / epoxy a fender washer into the bottom.
If it is plastic and uses a "slotta" base I HATE them.
There are few good ways to get a hunk of metal to fit in that 1/3 to 2/3 split unless you get bolt cutters or a disk cutter to cut up a fender washer to fit.
I have tried "lead shot" but do not like using the stuff.
On the difficulty of getting characters out, I think sending to Forgeworld to do their magic and re-release in resin would be the way to go as the "short term fix".
I tend to fill the void with Greenstuff. It isn't terribly economical, but I usually have lots of greenstuff hanging around and I don't sculpt whole miniatures, so it doesn't get used up very quickly. The greenstuff gives a decent amount of heft to an otherwise featherweight model. I greenstuff the excess void in a slotta base anyway, so all I do is mix up a larger batch, fill the underside, push in the slotta tab with some glue on it, clean it all up and call it done.
Saldiven wrote: If I remember correctly, the reason for the switch from metal to plastic wasn't driven so much by the "high" price of metal base materials, but by the volatility of the metals market. Prices bounced all over the place over relatively short time periods, making it difficult to plan for production.
Given that plastic is made from oil, materials prices are not that stable anyway.
Well.. plastics in general aren't too volatile. The main area where they get hit is on transportation and hiring/retention costs. The costs of hiring a person on full time is pretty insane here in the states and usually costs almost double to amount of their salary. Given that the UK is even more liberal, I am sure it impacts their costs the same way. Now that obamacare is starting to get implemented, we are seeing costs to employers get even more ridiculous because now they are being required to pay for insurance where they weren't required to before.
The result is this..
Lots of low paying jobs and very few middle class jobs. Employers hiring multiple people to work part time and fewer people to work full time where ever they can. This is severely decreasing how many people can really afford the hobby.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Backfire wrote: I guess they think that in long term, plastic characters make sense since they are so much more production-efficient than metal or resin. So in short term it is uneconomical, but when the model is in production for 15 years or more, it makes a saving compared to metal/resin.
Hey, as a separate side note, I noticed that the Munitorum Edition of 7th is still available! We're getting closer to the two month mark since the release of the new rules too.
Though they no longer list how many are available.
Personnel will always be expensive, and I haven't had to hire or employ anyone in almost three years, but wages have remained flat(ish) and there have been a variety of government incentives to encourage job growth, such as the National Insurance relief scheme (for those unfamiliar, NI is a working persons contribution to things such as benefits and the NHS, which is removed at source alongside income tax for those employed) so I wouldn't be surprised of the cost of staff has remained relatively flat in the last few years.
Part time jobs and zero hour contracts are a potential issue, but pressure is growing to address that, and unemployment figures continue to fall slowly but surely.
The UK recovery has progressed far enough that people are beginning to feel it on the ground (wages now matching or outpacing inflation etc) but the fact remains that GW claim to not be affected by recession, and certainly would fall quite solidly in the "small luxury" category, where, while undoubtedly overpriced, still remains in a price range that is relatively affordable for many working people.
The fact also remains that Kirby had the opportunity to blame wider economic factors for the recent decline, and chose not to, instead citing the change to one man stores and the ensuing disruption as the root cause.
One could easily make a strong case for this to be the case (indeed, that's essentially the ONLY thing Derek has been arguing since about January) but the fact that it wasn't suggests either
- It isn't
- It is, but GW management remain convinced it isn't
- It is, but for some reason GW management are desperate not to admit to it.
Citing what seems to be a very tenuous underlying cause, when a much more solid and believable reason is available, regardless of the actual facts, seems to suggest an agenda. Not entirely sure what....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Accolade wrote: Hey, as a separate side note, I noticed that the Munitorum Edition of 7th is still available! We're getting closer to the two month mark since the release of the new rules too.
Though they no longer list how many are available.
I uploaded a couple of painted mini pics last week for gaks and giggles to their Flickr pool, some 6 days on, they still seem very near the top, not sure what sort order they're applying, but it certainly doesn't seem to be a very active group, considering.
Saldiven wrote: If I remember correctly, the reason for the switch from metal to plastic wasn't driven so much by the "high" price of metal base materials, but by the volatility of the metals market. Prices bounced all over the place over relatively short time periods, making it difficult to plan for production.
Given that plastic is made from oil, materials prices are not that stable anyway.
Well.. plastics in general aren't too volatile. The main area where they get hit is on transportation and hiring/retention costs. The costs of hiring a person on full time is pretty insane here in the states and usually costs almost double to amount of their salary. Given that the UK is even more liberal, I am sure it impacts their costs the same way. Now that obamacare is starting to get implemented, we are seeing costs to employers get even more ridiculous because now they are being required to pay for insurance where they weren't required to before.
The result is this..
Lots of low paying jobs and very few middle class jobs. Employers hiring multiple people to work part time and fewer people to work full time where ever they can. This is severely decreasing how many people can really afford the hobby.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Backfire wrote: I guess they think that in long term, plastic characters make sense since they are so much more production-efficient than metal or resin. So in short term it is uneconomical, but when the model is in production for 15 years or more, it makes a saving compared to metal/resin.
cheaper to ship... cheaper to mass produce..
Well plastic prices are relatively low ATM, due to reduced demand.
Sorry.. I just don't think that you are looking at the right numbers. Officially we only had an average of 2.37% inflation over that period and a 60% cumulative inflation rate. Yet wages doubled. So everyone should be richer right? Not when you take into account the loss of purchasing power. Since the year 2000, Food and energy prices have easily doubled (in most cases tripled). Insurance has more than doubled. Real estate has doubled.
Um... you just repeated what I said. 3% inflation average per year - you gave exact at 2.37%. I never said 3% over the period. Secondly, the quote of mine you took said about wages doubling and you said the same thing.
And since I own a bit of real estate, I will say this. It hasn't in any way, shape or form doubled over the last ten years. Most of my real estate holdings are sitting at about a 30%-50% gain, but not double. 2008-2010 erased A LOT of the gains from the last decade.
All important info, but not relevant to the point. This is a result of a severe recession, an incompetent and uncaring government, and not enough decent paying jobs. Not just inflation. GWs target is still people with disposable income. Considering their niche, there is still enough. But the point is a good one.
dereksatkinson wrote: So when GW does price increases, I see it as a way for them to maintain their margins. I don't see it as a way for them to get every last penny out of the consumer and they are being consistent with what i'm seeing happen in the rest of the global economy. Whether or not I can afford their product isn't as much a function of their prices, but just another way to measure the loss of my purchasing power.
There are plenty of areas where GW can improve their relations with the community but I don't think that is essentially for their survival at this time because I don't see real competition out there yet.
This is the point I 100% disagree with you on. The gaming market has grown by double-digits for five straight years averaging 15% growth a year and 20% growth last year. Everyone EXCEPT GW, seems to be growing by leaps and bounds. As you say, "the proof is in the pudding". You can debate stock prices, economics, inflation, and best burger in America votes all day long but they have NOTHING to do with the proof in the gaming market which is going completely opposite of everything you say it should be doing. Simply put, the market is growing by double digits, much of GWs competitors are growing by double digits, and GW is declining by double digits. Sounds an awful lot like idiotic business planning to me.
GWs ridiculous price rises have NOTHING to do with surviving a recession - they are much too incompetent for something so basic. It has everything to do with producing sub-par product in a market increasing being nabbed by competition, producing better products at better prices, eating away at the dinosaur. It has happened time and time again in many markets when the big boy becomes to complacent or arrogant. Which is exactly what GW has become. Their competitors (PP, Corvus Belli, FFG, Wyrd, Warlord, Hawk, et al.) are going to keep eating away at GW until the current revenue GW has is eventually split over dozens of companies and GW exists no more.
You keep giving GW management much more credit than they deserve. They have consistently shown to make p***poor business decisions and have become their own worst enemy.
Let's just save this debate for later in July when the financials are published shall we. I think we are all going to be in for a surprise as I predict they are going to be pretty bad.
This is the point I 100% disagree with you on. The gaming market has grown by double-digits for five straight years averaging 15% growth a year and 20% growth last year. Everyone EXCEPT GW, seems to be growing by leaps and bounds.
Oh man, this debate again
So, what about Hasbro, whose gaming division has done worse than GW over last 5 years?
So, what about Hasbro, whose gaming division has done worse than GW over last 5 years?
I start a gaming business in my garage... 1st year it nets $1,000.. 2nd year it next $5,000... 3rd year it nets $10,000.. GW better be on notice because i'm growing so fast.. Even if you add 3 zeros, i'd be insignificant.
Wayshuba wrote: Um... you just repeated what I said. 3% inflation average per year - you gave exact at 2.37%. I never said 3% over the period. Secondly, the quote of mine you took said about wages doubling and you said the same thing.
The official numbers are 2.37%. That is unrealistic. 3% is also unrealistic.
The point I was making was that while wages may have doubled, people are getting poorer. Somehow, I doubt that the loss of middle class jobs is the fault of GW. So something else has to be going on to cause that. I think it's important to acknowledge that demographics of their customers has changed substantially over the past 14 years simply because there are fewer jobs where people can actually afford the hobby.
I also understand that your home might not have doubled in price but you are definitely in the minority. Even if it's in the 50% range (which is not the case in the USA for sure) that doesn't counter the price changes in every other sector that makes up the CPI. I mean dude... Crude oil was at $14 a barrel back in 1994. It's at $104 today.. Over 600% in 20 years and it's one of the primary components to CPI.. What is counterbalancing that?
Wayshuba wrote: This is the point I 100% disagree with you on. The gaming market has grown by double-digits for five straight years averaging 15% growth a year and 20% growth last year. Everyone EXCEPT GW, seems to be growing by leaps and bounds. As you say, "the proof is in the pudding". You can debate stock prices, economics, inflation, and best burger in America votes all day long but they have NOTHING to do with the proof in the gaming market which is going completely opposite of everything you say it should be doing. Simply put, the market is growing by double digits, much of GWs competitors are growing by double digits, and GW is declining by double digits. Sounds an awful lot like idiotic business planning to me.
GW's competition is so small and are basically coming up from zero. It's not a good comparison to make. Growth rates for companies that are just starting out are naturally going to be higher than established businesses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Saldiven wrote: As measured by a percentage of revenue, entrepreneurial endeavors should always perform "better" than more well established companies.
Wayshuba wrote: Um... you just repeated what I said. 3% inflation average per year - you gave exact at 2.37%. I never said 3% over the period. Secondly, the quote of mine you took said about wages doubling and you said the same thing.
The official numbers are 2.37%. That is unrealistic. 3% is also unrealistic.
The point I was making was that while wages may have doubled, people are getting poorer. Somehow, I doubt that the loss of middle class jobs is the fault of GW. So something else has to be going on to cause that. I think it's important to acknowledge that demographics of their customers has changed substantially over the past 14 years simply because there are fewer jobs where people can actually afford the hobby.
Actually, the evidence seems to be people are affording "the hobby" just fine, but struggling with the price of "the HHHobby"
Wayshuba wrote: This is the point I 100% disagree with you on. The gaming market has grown by double-digits for five straight years averaging 15% growth a year and 20% growth last year. Everyone EXCEPT GW, seems to be growing by leaps and bounds. As you say, "the proof is in the pudding". You can debate stock prices, economics, inflation, and best burger in America votes all day long but they have NOTHING to do with the proof in the gaming market which is going completely opposite of everything you say it should be doing. Simply put, the market is growing by double digits, much of GWs competitors are growing by double digits, and GW is declining by double digits. Sounds an awful lot like idiotic business planning to me.
GW's competition is so small and are basically coming up from zero. It's not a good comparison to make. Growth rates for companies that are just starting out are naturally going to be higher than established businesses.
There's plenty of businesses that have been around long enough to be considered established, and all those "small" businesses appear to collectively attracting a fairly decent amount of money. Just because the individual components that constitute the competition are diverse, it doesn't mean that the power they have in the market place can be ignored, that's the sort of thinking that gets incumbents in trouble.
This is the point I 100% disagree with you on. The gaming market has grown by double-digits for five straight years averaging 15% growth a year and 20% growth last year. Everyone EXCEPT GW, seems to be growing by leaps and bounds.
Oh man, this debate again
So, what about Hasbro, whose gaming division has done worse than GW over last 5 years?
Hasbro isn't having to prop up its own retail chain and produces a lot more than just games. It can easily absorb less than stellar performance in games with its toy sales.
If we accept the argument that GW prices have only increased at the rate of "real" inflation, how do we account for the prices of other wargame companies that haven't?
Is it because increasingly only the shrinking number of well-off people are buying GW stuff?
GW's competition is so small and are basically coming up from zero. It's not a good comparison to make. Growth rates for companies that are just starting out are naturally going to be higher than established businesses.
The market grew by 20% last year and 15% average over the last five years. That is M-A-R-K-E-T of which GW is a small part of.
You are correct about smaller companies. However, when you have hundreds, if not thousands of them, those small numbers add up very fast.
I am most certain Fantasy Flight, Privateer Press, Corvus Belli, Hawk Wargaming, Warlord Games, Wyrd Miniatures, Manic, and quite a few others are not $1,000 companies.
You might want to do a bit of reading on Kodak, Digital Equipment Corporation, Wang Computer Corporation, TSR, Lehman Brothers, and quite a few other business cases like this. The story is always about a series of smaller players picking apart the bigger complacent player until they collapse or become insignificant, and then from the ashes one of the smaller players starts to become the bigger player.
Like I said. Let's wait for the July numbers, then we can see which way the crow is flying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dereksatkinson wrote: I also understand that your home might not have doubled in price but you are definitely in the minority. Even if it's in the 50% range (which is not the case in the USA for sure) that doesn't counter the price changes in every other sector that makes up the CPI.
First, I live in the mid-West of the USA.
Second, I own seven properties.
Third, best is at 50% gain over last decade, worst gain is at 30% and one is even at a complete flat rate.
Fourth, two are in New England, three here in the mid-west, one in florida, and one in Aruba.
jonolikespie wrote: Whoever has the most exalts is the secret king of dakka.
Deep in a chamber far below the surface on Holy Terra, a creaking noise fills the air. A heavy gilded obsidian door slowly swings open, carved with intricate javascript code. A shadowy figure steps slowly towards the center of the room, towards the throne: 80 feet tall, dominating, intimidating. The muted glints of light reveal it's architecture: countless skulls, human skulls of the banned and damned, clad in bronze, re-purposed for data storage. Filled with unknowable secrets, they stared balefully at the visitor.
There was a stirring atop to throne. A dark face, hooded in grandmaster's robes - granite shaded, trimmed in orange - beheld he emissary.
The visitor kneeled in reverence.
"My lord, it is Jonolikespie. He knows too much."
Long moments passed in that room, a heavy silence, as dust motes flitted in the cold air.
Finally, Legoburner spoke. A quiet, rasping whisper said:
"It is good you bring me this news, Alpharius. I have considered this matter. No one can know he dread secrets we protect. You know what must be done."
Alpharius nodded, and tightened his grip on his hammer. Spattered with the blood and gore of a thousand spammer and trolls, the very surface of it roiled with the damned souls it claimed.
In the face of a global community of 40k players citing specific reasons why they no longer play or buy GW, many of such reasons being exactly the same, I feel there really is no need for a macroeconomics explanation of a declining GW.
7th edition seems to be a very specific reason. It seems to be taking away the structure of the old editions list making and turning the product into pay to win. Yep, you heard it first here a subscription based product ( rule books) has a pay to win mentality.
I think this grates with people as well as having a new edition that seems worse to the old ones. I think this is the first edition I have seen come out that isn't greeted by RAGE but greeted by disappointment and apathy.
Hasbro isn't having to prop up its own retail chain and produces a lot more than just games. It can easily absorb less than stellar performance in games with its toy sales.
True. However that doesn't change the fact that their gaming division has seen about zero growth over the last 5 years - in fact even GW has grown more over that period! (not 'declined in double digits')
So if GW is doing terribly because they are "not seeing double digit growth whilst rest of the gaming market is" then Hasbro is doing even worse than GW. Maybe they're even bigger idiots?
That is of course possible, however more likely answer is that largest players of the market see less relative growth than small players, to whom even small absolute growth can mean enormous relative growth. GW is something like ten times bigger than its next biggest competitor, and as I recall, Hasbro's gaming division is 5-6 times bigger than GW.
This is not to say that GW are doing particularly great (they aren't), just that it's a folly to compare growth % of companies which are so disparate in size.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: If we accept the argument that GW prices have only increased at the rate of "real" inflation, how do we account for the prices of other wargame companies that haven't?
Have they not? I don't play WM/H, but browsing through PP catalogue, their minis do not seem to be signifantly cheaper than GW minis. Maybe their single character models are slightly cheaper, but basic infantry, war machines etc. seem to be about same price, in some cases even more expensive.
So if GW is doing terribly because they are "not seeing double digit growth whilst rest of the gaming market is" then Hasbro is doing even worse than GW. Maybe they're even bigger idiots?
No, GW is going backwards while the rest of the industry is experiencing double digit growth, at least based on current info.
It is very difficult for a dominant incumbent to achieve significant growth, but maintenance is really a must.
Kilkrazy wrote: If we accept the argument that GW prices have only increased at the rate of "real" inflation, how do we account for the prices of other wargame companies that haven't?
Have they not? I don't play WM/H, but browsing through PP catalogue, their minis do not seem to be signifantly cheaper than GW minis. Maybe their single character models are slightly cheaper, but basic infantry, war machines etc. seem to be about same price, in some cases even more expensive.
Not when you factor in game value in, no, they haven't. This is old ground, but if two companies charge price A for a model, and company X's game requires the purchase of 10 of those models for a typical game, and company Z's game requires 30, then Company X's game is cheaper, even though the models cost the same!
Seriously, this gets brought up time and again, is it really that hard of a concept for people to grasp?!
One of my favourite examples that helps with this is Fantasy Flight and X-Wing.
Q: "How well has X-Wing been selling?"
A:
Spoiler:
People have been buying all of it. Games Workshop has been declining recently. Fantasy flight and X-Wing literally can not make enough models quickly enough to match the demand.
So if GW is doing terribly because they are "not seeing double digit growth whilst rest of the gaming market is" then Hasbro is doing even worse than GW. Maybe they're even bigger idiots?
No, GW is going backwards while the rest of the industry is experiencing double digit growth, at least based on current info.
Well, we don't know yet if they're going backwards, they had growth until around mid-2013 after which their sales have declined. We do not know yet if the decline has continued.
And once again, if entire industry is experiencing double digit growth, why is Hasbro not part of it either?
Have they not? I don't play WM/H, but browsing through PP catalogue, their minis do not seem to be signifantly cheaper than GW minis. Maybe their single character models are slightly cheaper, but basic infantry, war machines etc. seem to be about same price, in some cases even more expensive.
Not when you factor in game value in, no, they haven't. This is old ground, but if two companies charge price A for a model, and company X's game requires the purchase of 10 of those models for a typical game, and company Z's game requires 30, then Company X's game is cheaper, even though the models cost the same!
Seriously, this gets brought up time and again, is it really that hard of a concept for people to grasp?!
Seriously, how hard it is to grasp that the point was about MINIATURES, not gaming systems as a whole. The fact that PP games may require less minis to play is completely irrelevant to this point.
So if GW is doing terribly because they are "not seeing double digit growth whilst rest of the gaming market is" then Hasbro is doing even worse than GW. Maybe they're even bigger idiots?
No, GW is going backwards while the rest of the industry is experiencing double digit growth, at least based on current info.
Well, we don't know yet if they're going backwards, they had growth until around mid-2013 after which their sales have declined. We do not know yet if the decline has continued.
And once again, if entire industry is experiencing double digit growth, why is Hasbro not part of it either?
We do know they're going backwards, based on their last financial statement. What we don't know of that was a blip or a trend.
Have they not? I don't play WM/H, but browsing through PP catalogue, their minis do not seem to be signifantly cheaper than GW minis. Maybe their single character models are slightly cheaper, but basic infantry, war machines etc. seem to be about same price, in some cases even more expensive.
Not when you factor in game value in, no, they haven't. This is old ground, but if two companies charge price A for a model, and company X's game requires the purchase of 10 of those models for a typical game, and company Z's game requires 30, then Company X's game is cheaper, even though the models cost the same!
Seriously, this gets brought up time and again, is it really that hard of a concept for people to grasp?!
Seriously, how hard it is to grasp that the point was about MINIATURES, not gaming systems as a whole. The fact that PP games may require less minis to play is completely irrelevant to this point.
Price per miniature is irrelevant when you're talking about a game
I'd have no problem with £30 a mini if I only needed one of two to play a game that was a lot of fun. If price per mini was truly important, GW would have less of an issue, price per mini x number required to experience the game properly is what is causing issues.
Plus, read up on something called "Price Leadership" GW could very well be making you hobby more expensive even if you don't buy anything from them.
So if GW is doing terribly because they are "not seeing double digit growth whilst rest of the gaming market is" then Hasbro is doing even worse than GW. Maybe they're even bigger idiots?
No, GW is going backwards while the rest of the industry is experiencing double digit growth, at least based on current info.
Well, we don't know yet if they're going backwards, they had growth until around mid-2013 after which their sales have declined. We do not know yet if the decline has continued. And once again, if entire industry is experiencing double digit growth, why is Hasbro not part of it either?
Have they not? I don't play WM/H, but browsing through PP catalogue, their minis do not seem to be signifantly cheaper than GW minis. Maybe their single character models are slightly cheaper, but basic infantry, war machines etc. seem to be about same price, in some cases even more expensive.
Not when you factor in game value in, no, they haven't. This is old ground, but if two companies charge price A for a model, and company X's game requires the purchase of 10 of those models for a typical game, and company Z's game requires 30, then Company X's game is cheaper, even though the models cost the same!
Seriously, this gets brought up time and again, is it really that hard of a concept for people to grasp?!
Seriously, how hard it is to grasp that the point was about MINIATURES, not gaming systems as a whole. The fact that PP games may require less minis to play is completely irrelevant to this point.
Never mind. You changed what you said, making my counter argument irrelevant.
I'd have no problem with £30 a mini if I only needed one of two to play a game that was a lot of fun. If price per mini was truly important, GW would have less of an issue, price per mini x number required to experience the game properly is what is causing issues.
Just £30? Why not £150? After all, even then it would be cheaper than PP or GW army. Surely that would be acceptable, right?
I'd have no problem with £30 a mini if I only needed one of two to play a game that was a lot of fun. If price per mini was truly important, GW would have less of an issue, price per mini x number required to experience the game properly is what is causing issues.
Just £30? Why not £150? After all, even then it would be cheaper than PP or GW army. Surely that would be acceptable, right?
Plus, read up on something called "Price Leadership" GW could very well be making you hobby more expensive even if you don't buy anything from them.
So...if the other companies are price gouging, that too is GW's fault?
Essentially, yes. GW sets the prices, and that allows other companies to follow suit. PP couldn't charge £30 for 10 minis if the accepted price point for 10 minis was £20 without good reason. As the dominant player for literally decades, GW has established pricing conventions which other companies follow.
EDIT
There is a flip side to that, which is that because there is so much meat in the pricing, smaller companies, with less efficiencies, can establish themselves, undercut GW and still make a living. Ironically, it is thanks to GW that we have such a diverse range of companies making so many valid alternatives to GW games and models.
I want to say that this thread should be help up as the epitome of folks saying Dakka is "nothing but a cesspool of bile and hatred with not a rational thought in sight".
I've read this article in full over a period of time and cannot help but to see what I felt was gut intuition to a product losing value while increasing in price come to light from folks more skilled in the monetary mindset than I.
I look forward to the discussions held when July does hit from the folks are contributing in a meaningful way. Just wanted to say thanks for a great read.
Also, it was mentioned that the ebooks and print versions differed greatly as the fluff in the print version was lacking a swath of stuff. Is there a discussion or proof of that elsewhere? I haven't seemed to track that factoid down.
For derek and backfire's white knighthoods finally coming through!
I know six 40K players. Two have bought the rules. One has torrented the rules. No one seems interested in playing that game anymore.
We are too busy building terrain for Infinity.
Finally?
I see GW like the car makers in N-America when Japan chipped away with their reasonably priced cars that outperformed the American cars in many ways,
The same arrogance is at GW ignoring the market and their customers.
GW is like the Titanic heading towards the iceberg stating this ship is unsinkable!
I don't know how much Warmachine models cost because I have never been interested in the game.
I compared GW's SM and Tau infantry with Perry Bros' ACW models because they are fairly similar in terms of size and complexity, and because Perry Bros is in my mind the most prominent manufacturer of 28mm plastic figures.
Even if PP models cost the same as GW models the question of why Perry models defy the laws of inflation is not invalidated.
The basic point I am making is that the price of GW models apparently is not accounted for by economic reasons. That may well apply to PP to.
Compel wrote: One of my favourite examples that helps with this is Fantasy Flight and X-Wing.
Q: "How well has X-Wing been selling?"
A:
Spoiler:
People have been buying all of it. Games Workshop has been declining recently. Fantasy flight and X-Wing literally can not make enough models quickly enough to match the demand.
Isn't X-Wing really expensive? It looks expensive to me, £10-12 for a small pack with a single X-Wing and rules. I don't think the outright cost is all that's stopping GW, it's that people just don't want to buy what they're selling. It's the huge sudden leaps in price that make people pause for thought and the way they push low quality product like Finecast at premium prices.
But they've done a poor job of selling their product and managing a customer base. They take customers for granted, their head of IP described our favourite hobby as being the buying of more GW miniatures. They claim not to advertise and rely on word of mouth, which means the Internet is swamped with criticism that they don't respond to because they've closed their Facebook and Twitter, reduced their website to an online store, their few communications with the gaming community come in the form of legal threats to fan sites. Their hobby magazine would pull people in if it weren't a mere picture book, their stores are small without gaming space and run by a single salesman rather than a hobby shop run by a gamer. Independent game stores are often very successful because they manage the long term and foster a customer community, GW as in other ways look as the short term and heap large sales demands on their employees leading to the unpleasant hard sell on everyone coming through the door.
My reasons for not buying GW are not primarily to do with price, although I do think some of their pricing is just silly so there is a value for money aspect. It's because their product is poor (Finecast), they offer little variety in product (only a couple of mass battle games), a worthless monthly magazine that isn't any fun, horrible shops where half the stuff is direct-only anyway, and lastly I don't want to give money to a company that IP bullies it's competitors, because I value diversity in my hobby.
There are some reasons why PP minis cost so much. Part of it probably has to do with their capabilities and that a lot of models use a thick, heroic style that requires more materials. They are also a larger scale than 40k. Many of the metals are cheaper than a similar sized finecast. I have several "large" metal minis that run about $12~$20, usually casters being more pricey. Nothing like the GW Fantasy Ogres that are out of this world priced. When PP goes from a traditionally metal kit to their resin, you see a significant price decrease. My Bane Thralls went from $85~ish a box to $60~ish a box.
Yes, PP resin has mold lines like it's going out of style, sadly, but it's usually on the smaller bits I've found. Their metals are very clean.
Infinity is probably the worst cost per model wise, to be honest. You have tiny, truescale 28mm minis that are $15+. But some armies only need about 10. To play a tournament, you might go up to $20. There are box sets that help offset this cost, but that's putting you back about $300 for 600~pts (2x tournament lists for maximum options). And the rules are free. So there's that...
Isn't X-Wing really expensive? It looks expensive to me, £10-12 for a small pack with a single X-Wing and rules. I don't think the outright cost is all that's stopping GW, it's that people just don't want to buy what they're selling. It's the huge sudden leaps in price that make people pause for thought and the way they push low quality product like Finecast at premium prices.
It comes back again to how much you need for a game. Anything over 4 ships in a standard game is considered a swarm/horde army and the absolute most you could possibly fit in a standard 100 point squadron is 8 ships. It will generally cost you around £150 to build full size squadrons for both factions with plenty of extras to swap in/out between games, including all the rules.
I'm not sure I agree with PP being just-as expensive as GW. Metal PP infantry vs GWs plastic infantry? Yeah GW wins hands down but otherwise prices are less than GW.
Faction starters contain generally contain 2-3 dreadnought sized models, a hero and quickstart rules for £35. You don't get much change from £35 for a single dreadnought model from GW. Most plastic PP Warjacks run at £20 so cheaper than GW's £28. Full metal jacks go for £20, and huge metal with about twice the bulk as a GW dreadnought goes for £30.
Single human sized infantry warcasters go for between £6-£13, depending on bulk. The £6-£8 ones are on par with the crop of plastic characters coming out from GW which go for £15-£18 each, and the £13 ones are probably broadly similar in bulk to the Daemon Prince sized models from GW which run from £15-£23.50.
Infantry, yes GW generally wins hands down. Unless you start comparing like for like. PP Cryx Black Ogruns are £23 for 3 and are on par size wise with GW Ogryns which are £28.50 for 3. Plastic Bane Thralls are a similar size to Terminators. 10 Bane Thralls for £35 vs 5 terminators for £28. No contest. Even the metal bane knights run £50 for 10 which just beats out the GW Terminators.
The only real outliers that GW wins on are rank and file 28mm man-sized infantry. PP models generally run £35 for 10 which GW obviously beats with their rank and file boxes. However, compare them to the newer boxes such as Sternguard or the Scions and suddenly PP is winning hands down again.
Factor in, of course, that all of the PP boxes come with the complete rules for the unit and have much, much more in-game value than any of the GW units and it's absolutely no contest.
The models are very nice, and well painted to a playable standard (except the lambda shuttle which is a bit poor). I'd charge between 20 and 40 quid to paint a millenium falcon to the same standard as the FFG on, which is 25, painted, out of the box.
You get a lot in each expansion, and each feels like it changes the base game significantly when you get your first. It's also very immediate gratification - just punch out the card and clip a few bits together.
After that you're looking for the various upgrade cards and just the model really, yes, you could print/proxy the cards for friendly play, but FFG support tourneys very well and that means using official cards. Marketing lessons from other CCGs come in.
Each product feels like it has immediate value, whereas GW products feel like you're paying to work more and more as over complex models make the prep time for a table-ready unit longer and longer.
The models are very nice, and well painted to a playable standard (except the lambda shuttle which is a bit poor). I'd charge between 20 and 40 quid to paint a millenium falcon to the same standard as the FFG on, which is 25, painted, out of the box.
You get a lot in each expansion, and each feels like it changes the base game significantly when you get your first. It's also very immediate gratification - just punch out the card and clip a few bits together.
After that you're looking for the various upgrade cards and just the model really, yes, you could print/proxy the cards for friendly play, but FFG support tourneys very well and that means using official cards. Marketing lessons from other CCGs come in.
Each product feels like it has immediate value, whereas GW products feel like you're paying to work more and more as over complex models make the prep time for a table-ready unit longer and longer.
I like x-wing. A lot.
I don't play X-Wing but although £25 for the Starter set "only" gives you 3 ships, enough of those who do play have said that those models are enough to give you a fun game.
If I looked it purely because of what you physically receive then £12 for one model does seem steep but if that price gives you fun, challenge and longevity then its worth it. That where I look at value as being separate from cost.
I do however own the Tantive IV (£74.99) because:
1. Its a gorgeous model.
2. I'm still a big Star Wars fan.
3.The Blockade Runner is one of my favourite models from the films.
My apologies to any player who hasn't got one because of people like me.
Compel wrote: One of my favourite examples that helps with this is Fantasy Flight and X-Wing.
Q: "How well has X-Wing been selling?"
A:
Spoiler:
People have been buying all of it. Games Workshop has been declining recently. Fantasy flight and X-Wing literally can not make enough models quickly enough to match the demand.
Isn't X-Wing really expensive? It looks expensive to me, £10-12 for a small pack with a single X-Wing and rules. I don't think the outright cost is all that's stopping GW, it's that people just don't want to buy what they're selling. It's the huge sudden leaps in price that make people pause for thought and the way they push low quality product like Finecast at premium prices.
The X-Wing blisters still cost about the same as the bottom end of similar sized GW blisters (the £12.50 characters rather than the £25 characters), except they come pre-painted, have all the rule cards and tokens you need, and make up a significant proportion of a force (i.e probably 25% of a force rather than 2%).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alphaecho wrote: I don't play X-Wing but although £25 for the Starter set "only" gives you 3 ships, enough of those who do play have said that those models are enough to give you a fun game.
You can quite comfortably play games with just the starter set, but it can get a bit dull for the rebel player with only a single ship. What many people (including myself) do is buy a starter set each, giving you both a set of rules, plenty of dice and a 2 X-Wing Vs 4 Tie-Fighter line-up which gives some more options. Since each starter costs the same as a Taurox, it's not a big leap.
You can quite comfortably play games with just the starter set, but it can get a bit dull for the rebel player with only a single ship. What many people (including myself) do is buy a starter set each, giving you both a set of rules, plenty of dice and a 2 X-Wing Vs 4 Tie-Fighter line-up which gives some more options. Since each starter costs the same as a Taurox, it's not a big leap.
I'm trying to avoid branching out into collecting other games I'd rarely have time to play. You're not helping.
Inevitably when discussing GW pricing, comparisons are always made on a miniature by miniature basis, which is really the incorrect way to do it. In business to business sales, and sometimes auto sales, frequently a number used is "total cost of ownership" (or TCO). TCO is frequently used to show how something that may cost you more up front, may cost you less in maintenance over the long run while something cheap up front, may be much more expensive in maintenance, thus truly costing you more.
This same methodology should be applied to the overall game. Sure, some miniatures, on a like for like basis, may cost as much as GW (and these overall truly are very few), but the TCO of owning a complete force for standard level games is DRASTICALLY lower than GW. Honestly, most games can be had for the $200-$400 range for rules and a standard force required for the game.
This is where GW goes "five ways to Sunday" wrong. They have created a game that requires dozens and dozens of models. Yet they price as if their game only requires 10-20 models. In effect, you can quickly spend almost $1,000 building a decent sized, and fairly competitive army.
GW does not have the quality to justify any of their pricing. Aesthetics are not necessarily quality, as that is always personal preference. Quality to me is this simple - if I buy a GW mini and a mini from another manufacturer - will both of them last years on my shelf and give me plenty of years of playing time. In this aspect, GW is no different than any other manufacturer. However, with Finecast, that is even debatable. Finecast can wreck a miniature just sitting in your car on a fairly warm day. No other manufacturer has that problem. GW is charging you a premium for an inferior product. The same can be said for their printed products and the general quality of their rules versus competition.
The funny thing about all of this is, especially when it comes to plastics, that all of GWs competitors us third-parties for their manufacturing of plastic molds and miniatures. Usually Renedra (Perry and Warlord) or Wargames Factory (Privateer Press, Wyrd Miniatures, DreamForge Games, et al.). GWs real strength is their in house capabilities which should give them the capability to effectively crush any competitor in the market in pricing. Instead, they have given the entire market the chance to effectively chip away at them by making pricing so high that other companies can now charge much more than they normally would have and have more cash to market and support their games against GW.
Secondly, on the topic of GW health overall. It is frequently debated that looking at smaller competitors growth in percentage is wrong as double-digits of a smaller number are easier to obtain. The inverse can also be said, that a double-digit decline of a larger company then is a catastrophe. Last period, on their main product lines, GW had a real decline of 13% (UK) to 19% (Asia and Oceania). Only good performance of BL/FW/licensing helped cut this to overall 11% loss.
Sorry to say it, but in my fairly long experience, a double-digit decline of that magnitude is NOT a temporary blip - it is a big red flag of a turning point in a company moving into severe trouble. This last period, GW did nothing to reverse that trend as all they did was "more of the same". In other words, what caused that kind of massive decline in the first place, GW just did more of and at a more intense level. All that ever tends to lead to is an acceleration of the decline, not a reverse. Which is why I have said many times before that these type of actions always tend to have the reverse effects that a company is expecting.
The release of 7th edition is a particularly telling sign. The LEs, run at 40% of the total of 6th edition, are STILL available weeks after release when 6th edition sold out in a matter of hours at a higher quantity. Reports are leaking out that Dystopian Wars, 2nd edition, is outselling 40k 7th edition by a factor of 7 to 1 in some areas. And since the release of 7th, complete collections of armies going for dirt cheap have skyrocketed on ebay. Just prior to 7th edition being known, when I sold three of my 40k armies, the search for "warhammer 40k armies" turned up just under 7,000 results. Today, that same search turns up almost 50,000 results. The spike coincided with the release of 7th edition. In short, there are quite a few signs that 7th edition is NOT performing well at all and is more likely causing a lot of former customers to abandon GW.
The next period financials are going to be less about if GW turned it around and more about how quickly they are going to reach bottom. The signs are already there in the last period that desperation is sinking in (rushing digital releases out like candy; rushed release of 7th edition; 70%-100% price increases on certain new products; moving 1,100 products to direct only; inability to maintain acceptable stock levels on new product releases - Wood Elves; and the biggie, upping the dividend to much more than normal - 20 pence vs. 16 pence normal) and the financials are going to be disappointing.
I don't think the Limited Edition not selling is a sign of fundamental decline. I think it is a sign of GW having priced the LE far higher than the market would bear.
The key thing is how many people buy the standard 7th edition because (A) that gives an immediate boost to the bottom line and (B) anyone who doesn't are likely to drop out of The HHHobby and won't buy any more codexes or models either.
If a lot of vets drop out, then GW need new recruits to make up the numbers.
You can quite comfortably play games with just the starter set, but it can get a bit dull for the rebel player with only a single ship. What many people (including myself) do is buy a starter set each, giving you both a set of rules, plenty of dice and a 2 X-Wing Vs 4 Tie-Fighter line-up which gives some more options. Since each starter costs the same as a Taurox, it's not a big leap.
I'm trying to avoid branching out into collecting other games I'd rarely have time to play. You're not helping.
Without having to paint or assemble them, and with a dozen page rulebook, you can be up and playing your first game in 10 minutes, with small games only taking 20 or 30 minutes.
Come one, join the dark side (literally).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think the Limited Edition not selling is a sign of fundamental decline. I think it is a sign of GW having priced the LE far higher than the market would bear.
The key thing is how many people buy the standard 7th edition because (A) that gives an immediate boost to the bottom line and (B) anyone who doesn't are likely to drop out of The HHHobby and won't buy any more codexes or models either.
If a lot of vets drop out, then GW need new recruits to make up the numbers.
It used to be that anything LE was snapped up, and the price is only about 30% higher than the last one but the reduction of sales is far more than 30%. Now that could be because it's just too high for anyone to want (the percentage of buyers will to pay that much has dropped), or it could be that less people are interested in it in general (the total pool of buyers has dropped, so that percentage is an even smaller amount), or more likely a combination of both.
It's definitely not a sign of the company doing well.
Edit: Sales of the regular edition (in standard, starter and mini formats) will be most telling. However we'll never get any good numbers on that whilst GW's made it fairly clear how many of the LE's have sold.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think the Limited Edition not selling is a sign of fundamental decline. I think it is a sign of GW having priced the LE far higher than the market would bear.
The key thing is how many people buy the standard 7th edition because (A) that gives an immediate boost to the bottom line and (B) anyone who doesn't are likely to drop out of The HHHobby and won't buy any more codexes or models either.
If a lot of vets drop out, then GW need new recruits to make up the numbers.
Not looking at it in isolation, yes. But coupled with all the other factors, it is not looking good at the moment.
As for the LE itself, it may be a matter of it priced to the stratosphere - but it is still a cost to the organization in manufacturing a product that is not moving, and thus taking away from the overall margin of the production.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: It used to be that anything LE was snapped up, and the price is only about 30% higher than the last one but the reduction of sales is far more than 30%. Now that could be because it's just too high for anyone to want (the percentage of buyers will to pay that much has dropped), or it could be that less people are interested in it in general (the total pool of buyers has dropped, so that percentage is an even smaller amount), or more likely a combination of both.
I think GW knew overall sales would be less, thus a total print run of 60% less than 6th edition LE as well. Accounting for both those factors just shows that GW has, without a doubt, reached a tipping point. The question is have they reached it because they have finally crossed the price barrier existing customers are not willing to go to; or crossed it because they have lost a ton of customers over the last year.
Again, next period financials will be really telling.
Wayshuba wrote: And since the release of 7th, complete collections of armies going for dirt cheap have skyrocketed on ebay. Just prior to 7th edition being known, when I sold three of my 40k armies, the search for "warhammer 40k armies" turned up just under 7,000 results. Today, that same search turns up almost 50,000 results. The spike coincided with the release of 7th edition. In short, there are quite a few signs that 7th edition is NOT performing well at all and is more likely causing a lot of former customers to abandon GW.
Wow. That's an astounding observation. Not a good time to sell my GW models then, eh?
I think it will be the interim report at the end of the year that will be telling. I think the year end report now in preparation will look a lot better than expected because it will contain the sales from two weekends of 7th edition rulebooks.
However if the initial momentum cannot be maintained, then the six month report will look poor as it did last December. GW would then need to find another magic bullet for spring of 2015.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think it will be the interim report at the end of the year that will be telling. I think the year end report now in preparation will look a lot better than expected because it will contain the sales from two weekends of 7th edition rulebooks.
However if the initial momentum cannot be maintained, then the six month report will look poor as it did last December. GW would then need to find another magic bullet for spring of 2015.
Presumably the next interim report will have a new 40k starter set which I suspect will be even more of a boost than regular 7th ed books, especially if it's a brand new set and not just Dark Vengeance. Of course if they don't put the full mini-rulebook in the starter set then it could flop as badly as the 7th LE books have. The next interim will also be comparing to the current interim report, so it's hard to believe that it won't be at least small YOY growth due to the tail end of the 7th ed release and new starter set, even if the underlying business is not doing well.
I've seen various rumours pointing to GW taking out a loan to finance a dividend of 20p? Does anyone have a source on those rumours and does anyone know what year it was that GW last did that?
Another of the problems GW have made for themselves is (at least where I live) was to alienate local stores by trying to press strict marketing rules.
The result have been that out of 5 stores that over the years previously sold their product only one sells them now and only in very limited stock, the rest have either closed as their revenue dropped from their sales of GW products or moved on to focusing on selling other games (including a nationwide fairly big chain of stores).
Thus there are no 40k intro games played in my town anymore, however if I want to start Warmachine the local press ganger is more than willing to help set up a test game.
Overall that means less proliferation of 40k while other games is more visible in the local shops leading to other games having a head start on 40k in terms of accessibility, popularity and overall starting.
There are still gaming clubs that plays 40k oc but there are only a handful left compared to when I started playing in the 80's, from more than 30+ active to less than 10 now.
If any of the major competitors makes some kind of commercial agreement (bulk sales discounts etc) with some of the big stores I don't believe 40k will be sellable at all in my area to new players, other than the odd miniature.
At least for the first few items a month, and there's free listing weekends.
Another factor could be that people have been putting off selling stuff until the new edition dropped to try and get more for it. I considered doing the same thing when the new IG codex was coming.
I think the implication is that the other products are inferior.
Nah, can't be, else that would be a wildly unsubstantiated piece of subjective hyperbole.
Coming from GW seems rather... expected.
Seeing Kirby's notes in financial reports all seem to boil down to:
"Darn-it you geeks, just accept the fact we make it, therefore it is the best! Just because! C'mon!, buy them you idiots! Daddy needs a new pair of shoes (so I can walk away in comfort)! Minions! make more of that plastic stuff and write things so they MUST buy! Flying Monkeys! continue to fling poop at those who dare to copy or expand upon our fine original works! BTW independent gaming stores and re-sellers: we hate you."
I think I am getting even more juvenile with these snipes but it is feeling like a more accurate "state of the union" to me somehow.
One thing to remember about this financial report coming up is that not only does it have the potential cash influx of a new edition of their flagship game, but it's also the first period of reporting that will have the full effects of their cost saving closures of regional HQs and the transfer of administration duties to the UK.
In previous reports that showed their employees by department, their admin department was drastically bloated compared to their sales and manufacturing. Now their admin is going to be brought into line with the cuts that have already occurred elsewhere in the company.
I really don't see this report being for a loss making period. I think there will be flat revenue for the last six months (so slightly down for the whole year) and possibly their lowest costs of doing business in a long, long time.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think it will be the interim report at the end of the year that will be telling. I think the year end report now in preparation will look a lot better than expected because it will contain the sales from two weekends of 7th edition rulebooks.
However if the initial momentum cannot be maintained, then the six month report will look poor as it did last December. GW would then need to find another magic bullet for spring of 2015.
Presumably the next interim report will have a new 40k starter set which I suspect will be even more of a boost than regular 7th ed books, especially if it's a brand new set and not just Dark Vengeance. Of course if they don't put the full mini-rulebook in the starter set then it could flop as badly as the 7th LE books have. The next interim will also be comparing to the current interim report, so it's hard to believe that it won't be at least small YOY growth due to the tail end of the 7th ed release and new starter set, even if the underlying business is not doing well.
I've seen various rumours pointing to GW taking out a loan to finance a dividend of 20p? Does anyone have a source on those rumours and does anyone know what year it was that GW last did that?
It was one of the years between 2005 and 2009 ish. There were two or three years they made a loss and in one of them they took a loan to help finance the dividend. It was paid back quite quickly though.
I used to have all this info at hand but my computer at work died and I lost it.
Kilkrazy wrote: If we accept the argument that GW prices have only increased at the rate of "real" inflation, how do we account for the prices of other wargame companies that haven't?
Is it because increasingly only the shrinking number of well-off people are buying GW stuff?
They sell their product for less so people buy it as a replacement good. I've seen people buy competitor products and proxy the models as imperial guard all the time. Sometimes it's because the person doesn't have the money to buy the IG version and sometimes it's because they like the way a specific model looks.
Those companies might do okay right now during a cyclical advance but the real question is how they will do when they aren't selling the same volume during a recession.
Wayshuba wrote: The market grew by 20% last year and 15% average over the last five years. That is M-A-R-K-E-T of which GW is a small part of.
You are correct about smaller companies. However, when you have hundreds, if not thousands of them, those small numbers add up very fast.
I am most certain Fantasy Flight, Privateer Press, Corvus Belli, Hawk Wargaming, Warlord Games, Wyrd Miniatures, Manic, and quite a few others are not $1,000 companies.
You might want to do a bit of reading on Kodak, Digital Equipment Corporation, Wang Computer Corporation, TSR, Lehman Brothers, and quite a few other business cases like this. The story is always about a series of smaller players picking apart the bigger complacent player until they collapse or become insignificant, and then from the ashes one of the smaller players starts to become the bigger player.
Why not mention Enron and Bear Sterns why you are at it. None of those situations are remotely relavent. Especially Lehman.. wtf? Does GW own a bunch of subprime loans we don't know about?
As I mentioned before, we really can't verify sales or accounting methods of private companies. I have no idea how reliable those 20% growth figures for the industry really are. Hell.. I'm not even sure what all is included in that.
First, I live in the mid-West of the USA.
....
So, I am a pretty bad example I guess.
Since 1994 Average home prices in the USA have increased around 120% (based on the 10 city average.. The 20 city average doesn't go back that far). Prior to the 08 blow up, it had increased over 195% over that period. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/us-house-prices
So yeah.. if you were buying property in Detroit or Cleveland you probably aren't too happy. However.. Most people have seen real estate prices go up substantially more than their salary over the same period. Real estate is more expensive relative to the average salary even after the bubble popped.
Point is.. that costs of everything is going up relative to our salaries so everything is relatively more expensive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It was one of the years between 2005 and 2009 ish. There were two or three years they made a loss and in one of them they took a loan to help finance the dividend. It was paid back quite quickly though.
I used to have all this info at hand but my computer at work died and I lost it.
At the same time.. this rumor a work of fiction in this case.. We haven't seen any sort of debt financing from GW.
Kilkrazy wrote: If we accept the argument that GW prices have only increased at the rate of "real" inflation, how do we account for the prices of other wargame companies that haven't?
Is it because increasingly only the shrinking number of well-off people are buying GW stuff?
They sell their product for less so people buy it as a replacement good. I've seen people buy competitor products and proxy the models as imperial guard all the time. Sometimes it's because the person doesn't have the money to buy the IG version and sometimes it's because they like the way a specific model looks.
(emphasis mine)
Or sometimes it's because they have the money but get more value elsewhere, or just view the IG version as too expensive.
Not everything is a replacement either. Economics aside some people just prefer other games (I do).
Notice in the above period they did indeed borrow money to cover a dividend. Had they not issued the dividend, they wouldn't have needed to borrow money as their cash reserves would have covered their capital projects just fine for the period.
There's also a 3.9 million "bank overdraft" entry.
It is for me. It's directly replaced my GW purchases and it's still in the miniature wargaming market. I get the Perry products from a retailer that also used to sell GW (and I can get them from a retailer that currently does sell GW). It's a direct competitor.
Herzlos wrote: Or sometimes it's because they have the money but get more value elsewhere, or just view the IG version as too expensive.
Not everything is a replacement either. Economics aside some people just prefer other games (I do).
Not saying that isn't the case. The question is whether or not that crowd is large enough to sustain those companies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: It is for me. It's directly replaced my GW purchases and it's still in the miniature wargaming market. I get the Perry products from a retailer that also used to sell GW (and I can get them from a retailer that currently does sell GW). It's a direct competitor.
historical isn't in direct competiton with 40k or fantasy.. very different groups of people play them. I'm actually looking at it from the business definition. I do understand what you are saying and acknowledge that from both of our perspectives, we are both right.
Really what is your point? First it looked like you didn't believe that GW ever borrowed money to cover a dividend and when I clearly show that they have, you just say that?
You're either playing a game of shifting goal posts or you're doing a terrible job of communicating.
Really what is your point? First it looked like you didn't believe that GW ever borrowed money to cover a dividend and when I clearly show that they have, you just say that?
You're either playing a game of shifting goal posts or you're doing a terrible job of communicating.
Never said that.. I just said that if they did end up borrowing to pay for this dividend, it will be disclosed. I never implied that they haven't done that in the past. The point I was making was that people are assuming that is the case even though they haven't done that for 8 years.
historical isn't in direct competiton with 40k or fantasy.. very different groups of people play them. I'm actually looking at it from the business definition. I do understand what you are saying and acknowledge that from both of our perspectives, we are both right.
And yet all sorts of historicals and sci-fi and fantasy miniatures are all present together at trade shows like GenCon and Salute. Including GW. And Perry.
I think your distinction is imaginary. And it was only made to avoid saying "good point" to someone pointing out that your replacement good theory of cheaper miniatures might not be the case for all products.
In may case, I didn't get Perry miniatures because I couldn't afford GW and they were my lower priced replacement. I got them because they're great miniatures. As products they directly compete for money that might go to GW and they beat GW for me in open competition. Not a cheaper replacement I wish was really GW.
Um yeah. We were talking about the last decade and you show statistics of real estate for the last 20 YEARS. Obviously if my real estate holdings are 30%-50% over the last ten, then 120% over 20 years sounds feasible.
Discussion was about last ten years not twenty.
I'm done with these pointless discussions.
Point is: Market is growing, GW is going the other way. None of the damn statistics of anything else in other markets, oil, or real estate make one iota of difference.
You seem to specialize in stocks, that is fine, I don't. But stocks have NOTHING to do with the reality of companies - especially in the last five years. My specialty happens to have been market analysis specifically for identifying troubled companies and determining if they can be turned around and how. With twenty five years of doing that before starting my own company, I think I have become okay at identifying trends of a troubled company.
We'll see who is eating crow at the end of July when the financials are published.
dereksatkinson wrote: The point I was making was that people are assuming that is the case even though they haven't done that for 8 years.
They aren't assuming it's the case at all. It's right in their financials which you can find with a google search. The reason people are talking about it is because GW has done it. Will GW do this again? Probably. Especially if GW wants to both pay out a dividend and invest in some sort of plan to return to growth. The shortfall in cash flow will need to come from somewhere. They did it the last time their revenue declined. And just who was in charge back then and what was his job?
T H F Kirby Chairman and Chief Executive 6 January 2006
Hmm. I seem to remember you making the case that GW's current management team is new or fresh rather than being entrenched. Looks like Kirby has held both positions at once in the past as well.
Herzlos wrote: Or sometimes it's because they have the money but get more value elsewhere, or just view the IG version as too expensive.
Not everything is a replacement either. Economics aside some people just prefer other games (I do).
Not saying that isn't the case. The question is whether or not that crowd is large enough to sustain those companies.
Going by how the crowd is throwing money at these companies and the huge growth they are seeing over a sustained period, the crowd is large enough to sustain these companies.
You seem to be under the impression that GW's competitors are all garage manufacturers run by an elderly bloke at the weekends, but many of them have been around for decades already and have large staffs / real estate / distribution systems. A lot of them are also being run by some very competent staff (pretty much every named GW personality including studio heads, head designers, editors and high level managers now run these places).
Customers aren't buying stuff from competitors purely because GW is too expensive of them, so there's no reason that if these customers discretionary spending increased that they'd flock back to GW and not just spend the extra money on more competitors.
Also, that "The question is whether or not that crowd is large enough to sustain those companies" is a total shifting of the goal posts. You guys weren't talking about that. You were talking about replacement goods vs competing products being bought on their own merits.
Derek, instead of saying "not saying that isn't the case. but here's something unrelated that I hope might detract from your point anyway" why not just acknowledge the good point?
Why do have to throw in this canard about an alternative not having a sufficient audience to sustain them? it doesn't actually support your initial argument about replacement goods at all.
frozenwastes wrote: You're either playing a game of shifting goal posts or you're doing a terrible job of communicating.
Why not both?
Quite.
I've been criticised for focusing too much on Derek's posts in this and similar threads, but I find his arguments are terrible outside of his particular sphere of knowledge, and consequently the conversation will be dragged back into that sphere at every opportunity if allowed.
I'm not prepared to allow it.
I mean, trying to argue a tabletop wargame isn't a valid comparison for another tabletop wargame? Sheesh!
Um yeah. We were talking about the last decade and you show statistics of real estate for the last 20 YEARS. Obviously if my real estate holdings are 30%-50% over the last ten, then 120% over 20 years sounds feasible.
Discussion was about last ten years not twenty.
I don't remember if it was you or someone else, but we got on the track of pointing out that salaries have doubled over the past 20 years and I made a fair comparison over the same period to show the loss in purchasing power over the same period.. I never quoted 10 years either but used 2000 as a starting point specifically because that is when we started seeing the middle class shrink substantially. So yeah, over time, real estate has outpaced the rate of which our salaries are growing. Same thing can be said of Oil too which was at $14 20 years ago..
Also.. I'm bearish so I wont be eating any crow if GW goes lower in price.
frozenwastes wrote: Why do have to throw in this barb about an alternative not having a sufficient audience to sustain them? it doesn't actually support your initial argument about replacement goods at all.
I've said numerous times throughout this thread that I didn't think that many of these other gaming companies would be around after a cyclical decline and pointed to their margins being too low to be able to deal with a drop in volume. I'm not singling any specific company out, but just saying that in order for these games to continue to be produced and sold to consumers, people are going to have to maintain a rate of purchases that keeps their operating numbers in the black. Same can be said of GW.
I'm interested to see where you got all this information on other companies margins?
Given that GW is the only public company, and therefore the only one obliged to disclose these things.
Given that GW make a healthy 70 odd percent markup, I can't imagine any of the companies charging "almost as much" for an "inferior product" are doing too badly in the margin stakes.
Especially when only GW have the millstone of a chain of stores to support.
azreal13 wrote: I'm interested to see where you got all this information on other companies margins?
Given that GW is the only public company, and therefore the only one obliged to disclose these things.
Given that GW make a healthy 70 odd percent markup, I can't imagine any of the companies charging "almost as much" for an "inferior product" are doing too badly in the margin stakes.
Especially when only GW have the millstone of a chain of stores to support.
and to add...many of these companies have been around since before 2008.. when the real drop from the Great Recession came... and they seemed to survive just fine.
Recessions, historically, have always been good for leisure products and alcohol. Might have to do with people wanting something to take their minds off reality, but who knows.
frozenwastes wrote: And they did.
Really what is your point? First it looked like you didn't believe that GW ever borrowed money to cover a dividend and when I clearly show that they have, you just say that?
You're either playing a game of shifting goal posts or you're doing a terrible job of communicating.
Never said that.. I just said that if they did end up borrowing to pay for this dividend, it will be disclosed. I never implied that they haven't done that in the past. The point I was making was that people are assuming that is the case even though they haven't done that for years.
Look a few posts up and refresh your memory:
"At the same time.. this rumor a work of fiction in this case.. We haven't seen any sort of debt financing from GW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/13 11:16:48"
Your words, if not, you need to change your password... take your lumps and move-on.
Makes it hard for what you say to be taken seriously, can't even blame it on a short memory... sheesh.
What made it particularly maddening when I was not even the target is you claim their statement is a "work of fiction" ...which it was not... and you create a fiction of your own.
azreal13 wrote:
I mean, trying to argue a tabletop wargame isn't a valid comparison for another tabletop wargame? Sheesh!
I actually think the industry is trending towards a state of affairs where Derek becomes correct, but not in the way one might think or the way he even means. I think as GW denies more and more products to independent retailers and concentrates on direct only sales, you'll see GW continue to make itself irrelevant to the larger wargaming hobby and finally succeed in creating an entirely isolated (albeit shrinking and declining) market.
Well, unless there's this thing called the internet that people might use to find out GW isn't the only game in town. Then they'll just recruit customers who will later be customers for their competition and fail in their attempt at market isolation.
Actually now that I give this some thought, maybe this is the situation right now. Maybe GW's sales and revenues are flat while the rest of the industry is booming because they have succeeded in developing an isolated market. The isolated, artificial market that relies on consumer ignorance is shrinking while the larger market flourishes.
Now GW still sells some portion of their products into the wider market. So they are still in direct competition with companies like Warlord, Perry or Victrix. They go to the same trade shows and sell to the same punters. They take up space on store shelves near eachother. They're available at the same online retailers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dereksatkinson wrote: I'm not singling any specific company out, but just saying that in order for these games to continue to be produced and sold to consumers, people are going to have to maintain a rate of purchases that keeps their operating numbers in the black. Same can be said of GW.
So... more of the "everything is explained by the coming economic doom!" argument?
I'm probably more pessimistic than most. I actually think we're heading towards resource wars and a decline of the middle class like we've never seen before. As well as massive currency volatility, inflation, direct money printing by major central banks and skyrocketing inflation. As well as the continued trend of productivity gains not translating into real wage gains.
But I'm not going to pretend that coming hardship retroactively causes GW to have bad sales and that nothing the company actually does could possibly be the cause of their uninspiring results.
This whole "economic doom!" argument of yours seems to amount to claiming that nothing GW does can have a negative impact on their results. It's like a one size fits all excuse.
frozenwastes wrote: This whole "economic doom!" argument of yours seems to amount to claiming that nothing GW does can have a negative impact on their results. It's like a one size fits all excuse.
That's always been the intriguing thing about derek's posts; he basically seems to think that nothing the GW management team does will affect their sales in any way whatsoever. It seems to correctly reflect his industry: everything is determined by the market, nothing by the individual.
As an owner of a small business on the side, I find that notion hilarious. As a capitalist, I find it somewhat offensive.
I could definitely see GW being the outlier company (more than they already are) that just kind of hangs around, but the industry has moved on. So where GW was once the main game, eventually (and I know a lot of markets are like this already) it'll just be something that people remember from years ago, still chugging around but nobody really plays anymore.
The combination of only raising prices, giving the finger to people who want even a nod towards balance (which until as late as 2009, GW at least pretended to care how rules would impact pickup games and tournament play), and constant screwing around just to push more kit is going to ruin them.
Once again, because why not:
Me wrote:(Sung to the tune of "The Rains of Castamere") And who are you, those proud men said, to play our game this way? The game's not meant for tournaments or playing in your way
Just play the game the way we want and then you'll be okay Forget things like a balanced game and pay the price we say
And so they spoke, and so they spoke And kept the game this way But now the rains weep o'er their stores, with no one there to play Yes now the rains weep o'er their stores, and not a soul to play
dereksatkinson wrote: The point I was making was that people are assuming that is the case even though they haven't done that for 8 years.
They aren't assuming it's the case at all. It's right in their financials which you can find with a google search. The reason people are talking about it is because GW has done it.
In fact, people are talking about because they mistakenly assume that it's something GW is doing routinely since the topic always comes up. However, they have been almost debt-free for many years, and their liquidity has easily covered the dividends.
azreal13 wrote: I'm interested to see where you got all this information on other companies margins?
One of the main criticisms i've seen of GW is that they cut into the margins of the independent retailer. That makes their margins larger than their competition. Unless you want to argue that other game companies are doing the same.
Talizvar wrote: "At the same time.. this rumor a work of fiction in this case.. We haven't seen any sort of debt financing from GW.
Your words, if not, you need to change your password... take your lumps and move-on.
Makes it hard for what you say to be taken seriously, can't even blame it on a short memory... sheesh.
What made it particularly maddening when I was not even the target is you claim their statement is a "work of fiction" ...which it was not... and you create a fiction of your own.
It is a work of fiction since you can't actually prove that they took on debt in 2014 to pay out a dividend. If they do, then congrats. Still doesn't change the fact that there is no current evidence to suggest they have added any debt.
slowthar wrote: That's always been the intriguing thing about derek's posts; he basically seems to think that nothing the GW management team does will affect their sales in any way whatsoever. It seems to correctly reflect his industry: everything is determined by the market, nothing by the individual.
As an owner of a small business on the side, I find that notion hilarious. As a capitalist, I find it somewhat offensive.
You are exaggerating my statements and taking them out of context honestly..
How GW operates directly impacts their sales. But we aren't looking at "what if" numbers here, we are looking at what they have reported and trying to project that into the future. If you are doing projections, you look at best case and worst case scenarios and see how it would impact their business and their competitors. I don't care what business you are in, upstarts usually fall to the wayside during recessions. That's kind of the point of why people care if we have one. Larger companies that are established do better during recessions. That's just the way it works. Hence the term "flight to quality".
As a capitalist, you should be able to acknowledge that easy credit can create misallocations of capital. Can no one remember 6+ years ago?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Backfire wrote: In fact, people are talking about because they mistakenly assume that it's something GW is doing routinely since the topic always comes up. However, they have been almost debt-free for many years, and their liquidity has easily covered the dividends.
If they do take out a loan to pay out a dividend this quarter, I'll be the first one to say they are setting themselves up for a problem. Like you said though, there is nothing to suggest they have done that at this time.
TheKbob wrote: There are some reasons why PP minis cost so much. Part of it probably has to do with their capabilities and that a lot of models use a thick, heroic style that requires more materials. They are also a larger scale than 40k. Many of the metals are cheaper than a similar sized finecast. I have several "large" metal minis that run about $12~$20, usually casters being more pricey. Nothing like the GW Fantasy Ogres that are out of this world priced. When PP goes from a traditionally metal kit to their resin, you see a significant price decrease. My Bane Thralls went from $85~ish a box to $60~ish a box.
Umm, are you talking about real resin or 'restic' which is not resin at all? AIUI, most of the PP infantry kits nowadays are PVC plastic?
On PP site, Bane Thralls are listed as $50 per 10 models, material "plastic".
Many GW kits btw also got cheaper when transferred to plastic: Killa Kans used to be €30 apiece (or was it 35) when metal, nowadays they are three for €36.
I think the reason why GW and PP minis are expensive is simply that producing high-end miniatures is expensive, despite what many people believe. Remember that it was partly what did Rackham in, back in the day. Reason why Perry Miniatures can offer so much cheaper plastic than GW or PP is likely also simple: they have limited range (their plastic range has just 25 titles atm), low overhead and the sets themselves are not terribly elaborate. Also I wonder whether they're doing their production in-house, or is it subcontracted to China?
dereksatkinson wrote: The point I was making was that people are assuming that is the case even though they haven't done that for 8 years.
They aren't assuming it's the case at all. It's right in their financials which you can find with a google search. The reason people are talking about it is because GW has done it.
In fact, people are talking about because they mistakenly assume that it's something GW is doing routinely since the topic always comes up. However, they have been almost debt-free for many years, and their liquidity has easily covered the dividends.
Silliness. Why on earth borrow the money and pay interest when you have the liquid assests to pay it in full?
Now I have to go and quote Billy Madison.... I didn't want to have to go there.
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
frozenwastes wrote: But I'm not going to pretend that coming hardship retroactively causes GW to have bad sales and that nothing the company actually does could possibly be the cause of their uninspiring results.
Except i'm actually able to show that we are losing middle class jobs and losing our purchasing power has been going on since 2000. People have been bitching about GW since I started in the hobby and nothing you guys are actually talking about is anything new. It's sort of like me trying to argue that Apple is doomed because it's not compatible with Windows. That's a 14+ year old argument just like all the ones surrounding GW.
frozenwastes wrote: This whole "economic doom!" argument of yours seems to amount to claiming that nothing GW does can have a negative impact on their results. It's like a one size fits all excuse.
Why is a recession considered "economic doom"?
They are the established brand right now and their competitors are the small upstarts. Pointing out that these small companies are much more likely to go under is a valid point to be discussed. It applies to every industry. Ofcourse company specific issues matter, but their positioning for the primary trend matters much more than marketing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
darefsky wrote: Silliness. Why on earth borrow the money and pay interest when you have the liquid assests to pay it in full?
Ask AAPL.. They took out a ton of long term debt and then paid out a dividend even though they had plenty of cash on their balance sheet.
The danger point is that GW is the established brand for 40K and nothing else (OK, a bit of Fantasy). It is their only brand and if it goes sour they are big time arse fethed.
Companies can deliberately take on debt in order to pay interest as a tax dodge.
azreal13 wrote: I'm interested to see where you got all this information on other companies margins?
One of the main criticisms i've seen of GW is that they cut into the margins of the independent retailer. That makes their margins larger than their competition. Unless you want to argue that other game companies are doing the same.
It's adorable when you try and argue things you don't understand.
Nobody is arguing that GW "cut into the margins of indys."
I'm not even sure what that means, or how it would be achieved. If you're referring to their practice of using independent retailers as canaries to suss out where they should open their own stores, and then fething the Indy over with erratic stock availability etc, then ok, that's a thing they are alleged to do.
But it doesn't have anything to do with margins.
The fact is GW should have higher margins because of their greater economies, but then they also have some fairly horrendous overheads too, which I am not aware of any other competitor having to contend with.
Talizvar wrote: "At the same time.. this rumor a work of fiction in this case.. We haven't seen any sort of debt financing from GW.
Your words, if not, you need to change your password... take your lumps and move-on.
Makes it hard for what you say to be taken seriously, can't even blame it on a short memory... sheesh.
What made it particularly maddening when I was not even the target is you claim their statement is a "work of fiction" ...which it was not... and you create a fiction of your own.
It is a work of fiction since you can't actually prove that they took on debt in 2014 to pay out a dividend. If they do, then congrats. Still doesn't change the fact that there is no current evidence to suggest they have added any debt.
Who said anything about 2014?
slowthar wrote: That's always been the intriguing thing about derek's posts; he basically seems to think that nothing the GW management team does will affect their sales in any way whatsoever. It seems to correctly reflect his industry: everything is determined by the market, nothing by the individual.
As an owner of a small business on the side, I find that notion hilarious. As a capitalist, I find it somewhat offensive.
You are exaggerating my statements and taking them out of context honestly..
How GW operates directly impacts their sales. But we aren't looking at "what if" numbers here, we are looking at what they have reported and trying to project that into the future. If you are doing projections, you look at best case and worst case scenarios and see how it would impact their business and their competitors. I don't care what business you are in, upstarts usually fall to the wayside during recessions. That's kind of the point of why people care if we have one. Larger companies that are established do better during recessions. That's just the way it works. Hence the term "flight to quality".
As a capitalist, you should be able to acknowledge that easy credit can create misallocations of capital. Can no one remember 6+ years ago?
Privateer Press are what, 14, years old? Hardly a new business. FFG have been kicking around for a good while too. In fact, all the established players (excepting Corvus Belli? Not sure on them) have been around for definitively longer than that oh so crucial first three years. Not that it matters, a well run business with a sound model and good product will, in all likelihood, survive regardless of age.
Backfire wrote: In fact, people are talking about because they mistakenly assume that it's something GW is doing routinely since the topic always comes up. However, they have been almost debt-free for many years, and their liquidity has easily covered the dividends.
If they do take out a loan to pay out a dividend this quarter, I'll be the first one to say they are setting themselves up for a problem. Like you said though, there is nothing to suggest they have done that at this time.
The X-Wing blisters still cost about the same as the bottom end of similar sized GW blisters (the £12.50 characters rather than the £25 characters), except they come pre-painted, have all the rule cards and tokens you need, and make up a significant proportion of a force (i.e probably 25% of a force rather than 2%).
Revell Millenium Falcon easy-kit is about same size as X-Wing Falcon, but half the price though obviously it does not contain markers or counters.
GW does not have the quality to justify any of their pricing. Aesthetics are not necessarily quality, as that is always personal preference. Quality to me is this simple - if I buy a GW mini and a mini from another manufacturer - will both of them last years on my shelf and give me plenty of years of playing time. In this aspect, GW is no different than any other manufacturer. However, with Finecast, that is even debatable. Finecast can wreck a miniature just sitting in your car on a fairly warm day. No other manufacturer has that problem.
Regular hard plastic can warp in sunlight - I've experienced that myself with couple of Airfix kits...
The release of 7th edition is a particularly telling sign. The LEs, run at 40% of the total of 6th edition, are STILL available weeks after release when 6th edition sold out in a matter of hours at a higher quantity. Reports are leaking out that Dystopian Wars, 2nd edition, is outselling 40k 7th edition by a factor of 7 to 1 in some areas.
Uh...I wouldn't bet on DW outselling 40k just yet. In "some ares" (ie. this area) noboby plays any of the Spartan games titles...
That 7th ed 40k isn't selling as well as 6th edition is hardly a surprise. It came up less than two years after that. Nobody I know of has bought the ruleset. However, nobody I know is planning on quitting GW either.
The next period financials are going to be less about if GW turned it around and more about how quickly they are going to reach bottom. The signs are already there in the last period that desperation is sinking in (rushing digital releases out like candy; rushed release of 7th edition; 70%-100% price increases on certain new products; moving 1,100 products to direct only; inability to maintain acceptable stock levels on new product releases - Wood Elves; and the biggie, upping the dividend to much more than normal - 20 pence vs. 16 pence normal) and the financials are going to be disappointing.
Ummm...their dividend was SMALLER than normal as they skipped giving half-year dividend.
"70 to 100% price increases on certain new products"? Which ones? I hope you're not saying "limited edition". By the way, have you noticed that for second straight year they have skipped their annual Great Spring Price Increase.
Lead time for project like 40k 7th edition is much bigger than six months. It was started at least a year in advance. "Rushing digital releases" and "moving products to Direct Only" are policies which have been on place for much longer than six months.
Only thing which you're likely correct is that their next financial report probably isn't going to be particularly good, though I do not expect it to be absolute disaster either. They'd have to had to warn the stockholders from such signifant negative development.
Last time they had a revenue drop was in 2009-2010 half year, when they dropped from £62.5 to £60 million. It looks to me that 6th edition 40k brought them back to growth after slow decline, then things ran high until wildly popular Tau release last year, then it was down again. Kirby's comment about their sales decline starting 'in first half of 2013' seems to point to that direction.
dereksatkinson wrote: Except i'm actually able to show that we are losing middle class jobs and losing our purchasing power has been going on since 2000. People have been bitching about GW since I started in the hobby and nothing you guys are actually talking about is anything new. It's sort of like me trying to argue that Apple is doomed because it's not compatible with Windows. That's a 14+ year old argument just like all the ones surrounding GW.
Okay, one more time. Please read this SLOWLY.
1.) We are NOT currently in an economic recession.
2.) Market has grown by double-digits for five straight years at an average of 15% per year.
3.) Many of GW's competitors ARE NOT FREAKIN' UPSTARTS. You keep thinking they are small. Compared to GW yes, but they are not garage businesses either.
4.) Many of GW's competitors were here in this little crash called THE GREAT RECESSION. They kept right on growing through it without a hiccup, so your theory has been completely proven wrong already.
5.) GW posted a DOUBLE-DIGIT DECLINE in revenue in their last period. This is a MAJOR change for any large corporation at any time. It is indicative of a shift in customer buying behaviors.
6.) All the ancillary facts, opinions, and other such nonsense you have shown have had NO IMPACT whatsoever in this market in the Great Recession or the last five years, yet you keep saying it has when all the evidence is you are 100% completely and utterly wrong.
7.) You keep spewing US facts. GW is a GLOBAL company. The US middle class may be going bye-bye because of being lead by corrupt and inept government, but this is not happening elsewhere to the same degree. Canada's middle class is doing just fine, as are those of many, many other countries.
8.) As you like to say, "the proof is in the pudding", and all the market proof is directly opposite of what you are saying. What you have been saying didn't prove out in 2008 (and don't even throw Rackham in there as an example because Jean Bey's own discussion of the circumstances of failure was Rackham investing in developing product and inventory that didn't sell - ala AT-43 and pre-painted Confrontation minis).
dereksatkinson wrote: They are the established brand right now and their competitors are the small upstarts. Pointing out that these small companies are much more likely to go under is a valid point to be discussed. It applies to every industry. Of course company specific issues matter, but their positioning for the primary trend matters much more than marketing.
Now, I am going to put a challenge to you here. Provide specific examples rather than generalizations. One man pizza shops do not count. Established brands, big companies, or small companies does not matter. What matters is if the company has socked away enough cash and can trim expenses enough to survive a downturn. If I do remember correctly, and my memory might be a little hazy here, it was the huge banks and multi-billion dollar auto companies that needed bailouts or else they were going to go bye-bye. But Tesla, founded in 2003, and much smaller than the big auto companies, wasn't running to Washington for bailouts. Nor were a lot of the smaller banks that survived the recession just fine.
Ponder on this point. GW has a much bigger cost obligation than any of their competitors. A cost obligation that is key to their continued revenue and survival. Something not a single one of their competitors have. In addition, GW does not have a lot of cash reserves for a company that has been profitable for as many years as they have. A company with a management team that has half a clue (which GWs does not) would NOT be paying any dividend at all right now and keeping that cash on hand just in case of an economic downturn. Just the fact that they paid a higher than normal dividend speaks clearly they are not planning in any way, shape or form for an economic downturn. Otherwise, it can only be that the next period financials are really going to be bad and they are hoping the announcement of the higher than normal dividend is going to shore up the stock price for the inevitable crash coming after financials publications.
Presumably the next interim report will have a new 40k starter set which I suspect will be even more of a boost than regular 7th ed books, especially if it's a brand new set and not just Dark Vengeance. Of course if they don't put the full mini-rulebook in the starter set then it could flop as badly as the 7th LE books have. The next interim will also be comparing to the current interim report, so it's hard to believe that it won't be at least small YOY growth due to the tail end of the 7th ed release and new starter set, even if the underlying business is not doing well.
Alas, 7th edition doesn't seem to be getting its own starter set, at least for a while. Lets not forget that starters are quite expensive to produce, so they want to squeeze out maximum mileage out of each.
It doesn't really look like they're going to have much of a "magic bullet" for quick sales fix this year. 7th edition book of course will sell some, but obviously enthusiasm is down as it came out so soon. And a new mini-rulebook isn't alone going to boost DV into new sales frenzy. Maybe if they add a new limited edition mini into it...
1.) We are NOT currently in an economic recession.
Well, US is not technically in recession, but it's close... And EU is doing worse than USA...
As for Rackham, as I understand it, they sold lots of minis but didn't actually make much money and when they ran into trouble, hired some "marketing experts" who didn't understand the business and ruined the company for good.
Backfire wrote: Ummm...their dividend was SMALLER than normal as they skipped giving half-year dividend.
"70 to 100% price increases on certain new products"? Which ones? I hope you're not saying "limited edition". By the way, have you noticed that for second straight year they have skipped their annual Great Spring Price Increase.
Lead time for project like 40k 7th edition is much bigger than six months. It was started at least a year in advance. "Rushing digital releases" and "moving products to Direct Only" are policies which have been on place for much longer than six months.
Dividend for year was less, but for period it is 4 pence higher than normal.
70% price increase on Scions. Previous stormtroopers were 10 models for $41.25 in metal (or $4.13/model) and new Scions are 5 models in plastic for $35 (or $7/model) - a 70% price increase.
Monthly White Dwarf had 148 pages for $10 (or $0.67 a page). New White Dwarf is $4 for 32 pages ($0.125 a page) - almost a 100% price increase.
They are not doing across the board price increases now, but they are getting stupid silly on new releases instead (like $60 Witch Elves, $53 Flash Gitz, a $105 MorkGorkNaut that is half the size of the $115 Stompa and now a $37 single ork model in plastic).
Also, has anyone noticed the wierd thing going on with the Ork release? Now they are releasing the models AHEAD of the codex. Apparently they really do believe that the rules don't matter and people are just going to scoop up expensive models that they may never use once they see the rules in the codex.
In addition, for 7th edition and those hoping for the rules without the fluff and catalog you got your wish today. A mini-sized version of the rules is now available.... only it also comes with a mini-edition of all the codexes for the small price of $375. Hmmm... wonder how many players didn't already have their respective codexes, but I guess GW figures you will buy them all again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Backfire wrote: As for Rackham, as I understand it, they sold lots of minis but didn't actually make much money and when they ran into trouble, hired some "marketing experts" who didn't understand the business and ruined the company for good.
Yes, there is more to the story and you are correct as well. Point is, it wasn't the recession that did them in as Derek claimed earlier, it was their own business decisions.
azreal13 wrote: Privateer Press are what, 14, years old? Hardly a new business. FFG have been kicking around for a good while too. In fact, all the established players (excepting Corvus Belli? Not sure on them) have been around for definitively longer than that oh so crucial first three years. Not that it matters, a well run business with a sound model and good product will, in all likelihood, survive regardless of age.
Infinity itself has been around since 2005. Corvus Belli I'm not sure about, but they did their own range of 15mm fantasy miniatures before starting Infinity. So they're pretty old too.
historical isn't in direct competiton with 40k or fantasy.. very different groups of people play them. I'm actually looking at it from the business definition. I do understand what you are saying and acknowledge that from both of our perspectives, we are both right.
No, SCE, no citation needed. Nobody has ever, in the history of wargaming, started playing Bolt Action or Flames Of War instead of a GW game. Never happened. Nobody has ever moved on from a GW game to Napoleonics or Ancient Battles either. Na-uh.
Damn, guess I need to sell the Romans I've been building for the last 5 years. I definitely do play fantasy and sci-fi genre games, by Derek's Law (tm) I can't possibly play a historical as well. Guess that's my Napoleonic French cavalry division up the swanny too.
Anyone want to buy cheap Hail Caesar and Black Powder rulebooks? Proof of the non-ownership of sci-fi or fantasy rulesets will be required.
The future of GW is it will keep making money and succeeding. I have loved the game and purchased models for close to 20 years and will continue to do so.
Tsilber wrote: The future of GW is it will keep making money and succeeding. I have loved the game and purchased models for close to 20 years and will continue to do so.
Not sure if serious or Imperial servitor.
Or if a commissar is behind you with a gun to your head.
azreal13 wrote: No, SCE, no citation needed. Nobody has ever, in the history of wargaming, started playing Bolt Action or Flames Of War instead of a GW game. Never happened. Nobody has ever moved on from a GW game to Napoleonics or Ancient Battles either. Na-uh.
[/sarcasm]
Funnily enough, I myself am wrapping up my Warhammer 40K (Raven Guard SM) and Lord of the Rings forces (Arnor, Gondor, Rivindell, Mordor and Angmar) and beginning to "move on" to historical games. SAGA by Gripping Beast/Studio Tomahawk in particular (which I like so much that I want to use the rules for Lord of the Rings too). And possibly Bolt Action, I'd love to try that out and do an Operation Market Garden (Arnhem) British Paratrooper force.
I don't intend to quit 40K and LOTR SBG and I'm keeping my miniatures (and trading the ones I don't use), but I am proceeding with an end game in mind - setting myself goals, at which point my collections will be "complete". And I'm using 3rd Party miniatures to convert and/or proxy where possible. Gripping Beast's plastic Saxon Thegns, Vikings and Dark Age Warriors will make for great Rohirrim infantry. Victoria Miniatures and Anvil Industry have some great Sci Fi trooper miniatures that I'd like to use as Imperial Guard allies for my Space Marines.
Derek's problem is that he (appears to be) stuck in a Black & White mindset.
His idea that 40K and Fantasy players are completely different to Historical players is completely arbitrary.
Yes, that might appear to be true if the only Wargaming venue you ever set foot in is a Gamesworkshop store, where the target demographic tends to be young kids who know nothing but GW, and the naturally higher concentration of GWFanboyDiehardsNeck Beards<Insert Wargamer stereotype here>.
But all sensible Wargamers will simply play and collect whatever appeals to them, not what brand name is slapped on the box. We pick games and miniatures based on our personal preferences. Some people may prefer Heroic Scale Sci Fi (Warhammer 40K) and Fantasy (WHFB). And other people may prefer Historicals (Napoleonics). But genre preferences are not mutually exclusive, as Derek appears to be suggesting. Without some kind of extensive survey of Fantasy and 40K players vs Historical players, to say that Sci Fi, Fantasy and Historical games are played by entirely different people is a huge sweeping generalisation.
Hell, I started Wargaming with LOTR SBG ~2003 at the age of 12, then at 17 I started a Raven Guard Space Marine army with 5th Ed in 2008 (though I haven't played since 5th Ed, about 3 years ago now). I'm now working on an Anglo Saxon / Anglo Danish force for SAGA. I would like to try out Bolt Action, Infinity and Muskets & Tomahawks. Large scale Napoleonic games do not appeal to me personally (nor do mass battle games in general), but I'd love to try out a Napoleonic era skirmish game based on the Sharpe tv series.
I picked Gripping Beast's plastic Saxon kits over GW's Rohan Warriors because I regard the Rohan plastics as outdated and lacking variety in poses, whereas GB's multi-part plastics and plethora of bits work great for conversions. So I'm doing a converted dual-use force that can reasonably pass as Anglo Saxons in a historical game and also as Rohan infantry in LOTR SBG. And I still have a large stock pile of bits left over that I'm using to convert my other LOTR miniatures.
The guy at my club that introduced me to SAGA (and historical Wargaming in general) is a 50+ Wargamer. From what I've seen him playing he appears to prefer historical... Dark Age Vikings/Saxons etc, WW2 Flames of War, <28mm Historicals (Impetus, Warhammer Ancients etc). But he also plays Warhammer 40K and Fantasy (he has a big Space Marine tank army).
Yeah, I'm also in the "switched to historicals from GW" camp. All my hobby money that used to go to GW for my SM army is now going to Perry and GB and Mantic. I'm even using my Rohan figures for pseudo-historical battles (basically using historical rules but in a fictional setting).
Yes, historicals are competing against GW for my money, and they're winning hard.
heartserenade wrote: Yeah, I'm also in the "switched to historicals from GW" camp. All my hobby money that used to go to GW for my SM army is now going to Perry and GB and Mantic. I'm even using my Rohan figures for pseudo-historical battles (basically using historical rules but in a fictional setting).
Yes, historicals are competing against GW for my money, and they're winning hard.
Or at least not losing.
I entered fantasy gaming from historical gaming - way back in the seventies. (I am another over 50 gamer.)
I prefer fantasy - but also enjoy WWI, Hundred Years War, and Thirty Years War gaming. (And I am working on a fantasy campaign based on the French & Indian War.)
People can migrate either way, and often the effect is additive - new games and genres being added, with systems being dropped a lot more slowly than they are added.
And the miniatures are likewise passed between games - I use Perry WotR mercenaries in Mordheim.
The Auld Grump, but I will admit... once upon a time there was a certain amount of animosity between the historical gamers and the fantasy gamer - animosity that seemed rather one sided at the time, with fantasy gamers getting a kick out of Sturmgeschutz & Sorcery, and the historical side less amused.
Tsilber wrote: The future of GW is it will keep making money and succeeding. I have loved the game and purchased models for close to 20 years and will continue to do so.
Not sure if serious or Imperial servitor.
Or if a commissar is behind you with a gun to your head.
Im dead serious. I mean look at the effect GW has. Even those who claim to hate them, still have a constant need to talk about them. People who claim their rules suck, their product is over priced, and GW has terrible customer service. Still play the game and/or buy the models.... Either way they still find a need to talk about GW, hence creating interest. I mean if i disliked something that much, or hated something that much or constantly found a reason to write about how mad I am or terrible something is. I would move on, let it go, and spend time and energy talking about or playing something else I did like.
I think the future of GW is looking great in all honesty, they have come a long way and continue to put out wonderful looking models to go with a great background story/fluff.
Yeah, anti-abortionists who talk often against abortions are secretly pro-abortion and have abortions all the damn time.
Please.
People like talking about the things they dislike because they like talking about the things they dislike. Not because they secretly love them. They're creating NEGATIVE INTEREST. If you see a new game you want to try and all you see are negative comments about it, would you be more inclined to play the game?
Tsilber wrote: Im dead serious. I mean look at the effect GW has. Even those who claim to hate them, still have a constant need to talk about them. People who claim their rules suck, their product is over priced, and GW has terrible customer service. Still play the game and/or buy the models.... Either way they still find a need to talk about GW, hence creating interest. I mean if i disliked something that much, or hated something that much or constantly found a reason to write about how mad I am or terrible something is. I would move on, let it go, and spend time and energy talking about or playing something else I did like.
I think the future of GW is looking great in all honesty, they have come a long way and continue to put out wonderful looking models to go with a great background story/fluff.
We love 40k, so we're here to talk about 40k. The worst thing about 40k is who makes it so that's what we bitch about the most, that should be pretty obvious. Thankfully we can play 40k without giving GW much if any money, especially vets who already have plenty models. Other companies like Mantic, Dreamforge and Vic Minis all get a lot of money for "counts as" 40k which directly takes money from GWs pockets and the speed of this is only increasing as GWs policies get more insane, not to mention their modeling aesthetics direction lately.
One of the main criticisms i've seen of GW is that they cut into the margins of the independent retailer. That makes their margins larger than their competition. Unless you want to argue that other game companies are doing the same.
I've never heard such a criticism. I've heard complaints that because GW stuff is so commonly sold (and so expensive) game stores need to provide a deep discount (20%+) or something they have at most a 40% margin on. But they make up for it in volume.
The criticism I've heard about GW from stores is usually about the contempt they are treated with and the trade terms; They need to buy in a range of stuff that probably won't sell, can't stock the whole range, never know what's going on, often get orders mixed up and miss deliveries when local own stores get stock fine.
And that's before getting into things like the world pricing, trade embargos, and US webstores not allowing to use images, list anything or take online payments for stuff. Really, in this modern age of technology the only way to sell GW online in the US is still "email us for a price list".
The only complaints I've heard about competition is huge/unpredictable lead times on getting stock, rather than feeling actively shafted.
Corvus Belli was a maker of 15mm Ancients wargame figures before they started Infinity. They still do the Ancients. The figures are very good, the range is a bit limited but nicely focussed on Iberian Peninsula.
Kilkrazy wrote:Corvus Belli was a maker of 15mm Ancients wargame figures before they started Infinity. They still do the Ancients. The figures are very good, the range is a bit limited but nicely focussed on Iberian Peninsula.
Corvus Belli's first English language product announcement that I can find is June 17, 2002. I'm not sure how long they operated before that in just Spain, but their English language product announcements and distribution started 12 years ago.
If someone is particularly interested I am sure they could just ask Corvus Belli who seem a very nice bunch of guys and get a potted history of the company.
Backfire wrote: Ummm...their dividend was SMALLER than normal as they skipped giving half-year dividend. "70 to 100% price increases on certain new products"? Which ones? I hope you're not saying "limited edition". By the way, have you noticed that for second straight year they have skipped their annual Great Spring Price Increase.
Lead time for project like 40k 7th edition is much bigger than six months. It was started at least a year in advance. "Rushing digital releases" and "moving products to Direct Only" are policies which have been on place for much longer than six months.
Dividend for year was less, but for period it is 4 pence higher than normal.
Uh, I think it is rather more important how much money they fork out overall, than in one bunch. Besides, they have had 25p dividends in the past.
70% price increase on Scions. Previous stormtroopers were 10 models for $41.25 in metal (or $4.13/model) and new Scions are 5 models in plastic for $35 (or $7/model) - a 70% price increase.
Monthly White Dwarf had 148 pages for $10 (or $0.67 a page). New White Dwarf is $4 for 32 pages ($0.125 a page) - almost a 100% price increase.
They are not doing across the board price increases now, but they are getting stupid silly on new releases instead (like $60 Witch Elves, $53 Flash Gitz, a $105 MorkGorkNaut that is half the size of the $115 Stompa and now a $37 single ork model in plastic).
Storm troopers are more expensive per model, yes, this is what happened in other reboxings of the past, too, it's regrettable and IMO stupid, but not a new trend. New Big Mek is CHEAPER than his predecessor which was $40 for single metal model.
It seems to me that they're moved to somewhat similar pricing system than PP - old model prices are not increased as much, but new models are sometimes outrageously expensive. If you want a good example of the latter, look at new Space Marine characters for 25€ a piece! Fortunately previous much cheaper models are still available.
In addition, for 7th edition and those hoping for the rules without the fluff and catalog you got your wish today. A mini-sized version of the rules is now available.... only it also comes with a mini-edition of all the codexes for the small price of $375. Hmmm... wonder how many players didn't already have their respective codexes, but I guess GW figures you will buy them all again.
Mini-version was available for 6th edition, I'm pretty sure they will eventually release it as a separate book as well once the 'bundle' sale fizzles out. Cynical sales tactic, but nothing particularly new. I think you're just reading too much into it. Sometimes cigar is just a cigar.
Backfire wrote: As for Rackham, as I understand it, they sold lots of minis but didn't actually make much money and when they ran into trouble, hired some "marketing experts" who didn't understand the business and ruined the company for good.
Yes, there is more to the story and you are correct as well. Point is, it wasn't the recession that did them in as Derek claimed earlier, it was their own business decisions.
Well, I do not know enough to make a judgement. The way I heard it was that their margins were razor thin, and as soon as they had a slight sales drop (maybe recession, maybe not), it dragged them to red. And then they hired some financial whiz kids who were meant to save the company...
I've been with the hobby for 25 years and still continue to purchase GW models, however, I can't say the same for the next 25 years. If you look at it from a non hobbyist perspective you don't see GW putting out anything to encourage younger gamers into the hobby.
They need to bring back the things with pick up and play rule systems such as Space Hulk/Crusade, Warhammer and heroquest, even Blood Bowl as a permanent feature, at a reasonable (somewhat stocking filler) price. Things that can be picked up easily and are expandable into the hobby whilst taking up little time, space, effort and more importantly investment.
From a kids perspective an Ork is a green thing with a gun that looks freakin' amazing and rules the galaxy, add in 2 Books and 30 pages of text to use it and it's allot less appealing.
I can't justify spending £250+ for a starter army (that would get beat) and books for my kids or nephews knowing it's in direct competition with Xbox, and Ipads, I can justify £50-£60 to distract them for 45 minutes. .
Tsilber wrote: The future of GW is it will keep making money and succeeding. I have loved the game and purchased models for close to 20 years and will continue to do so.
Not sure if serious or Imperial servitor.
Or if a commissar is behind you with a gun to your head.
Im dead serious. I mean look at the effect GW has. Even those who claim to hate them, still have a constant need to talk about them. People who claim their rules suck, their product is over priced, and GW has terrible customer service. Still play the game and/or buy the models.... Either way they still find a need to talk about GW, hence creating interest. I mean if i disliked something that much, or hated something that much or constantly found a reason to write about how mad I am or terrible something is. I would move on, let it go, and spend time and energy talking about or playing something else I did like.
I think the future of GW is looking great in all honesty, they have come a long way and continue to put out wonderful looking models to go with a great background story/fluff.
Past success is not a guarantee of future success. Look at TSR. They were friggin' D&D. And they fell hard, some of the same symptoms GW has currently. (Not understanding their clientel, run by people who actively disdain the player base, greed, stupidity, pumping out tons of products that are lackluster and ill conceived, etc) Also, people who are on Dakka and complain about GW, don't necessarily still play the game and especially don't necessarily by any GW products. I flat out refuse to buy anything made by GW until they get their act together. Some people who leave, actually leave. The question is: how many people leave and is it a big enough number to affect GW.
Yes. People complain because they are seeing something that they once loved being twisted and Fethed Up Beyond All Recognition, and want to stop the process.
You don't just give up easily on something that you love.
I've only played and collected 40K since 5th Ed (2008), and LOTR SBG since ROTK (2003) but I'm already disillusioned with GW and 40K in particular.
I've delt with sloppy, poorly written rules from GW since RT came out. It's when I FINALLY (yes it took me awhile) realized that they had no intention to write decent rules or create balance that I started looking for an alternative. When I found out they were destroying the fluff of the game (Eldred and Tigirius summoning demons and tyranids allying with space marines to fight off the imperial guard and iron hands) that I called it quits. I moved on to games that actually have good rules, don't actively try to destroy it's own fluff and isn't run by a bunch of bad, stereotypes of the "evil capitalist" from a bad movie.
I have purchased GW products this year, but it's all the OOP metal models and a few used kits off eBay to make the Space Marine chapter I wanted to (a combo of Iron Hand + Blood Angels called the Obsidian Spectres). Do I expect ever to play it? No.
The thing with one's opinion is that it's great to have, but it doesn't change reality or fact. Games Workshop is struggling and doing everything a struggling company would do at this point. Since the December to Remember event in 2013, the quality and value proposition for new GW products has gone completely off the rails. The new Ork fat thing is $5~ cheaper than the twice as big Stompa. There is literally no sense to that at all. More so when you see how crazy the plastic kits from Japan are getting these days at an extremely reasonable price.
It's essentially this. Games Workshop is all but lying to their customers. They say they are a models company interested in collecting miniatures, but charge the highest price for rules on the market. You have $50 cash grab books that feature 1-4 units and they call that a codex. You have one codex that cannot legally be ran by itself because it AUTOMATICALLY LOSES. You have boxes being cut in half by the amount of units and the price going up. You have models moved from a a superior metal to resin and the price going up, let alone the resin being some of the worst in the industry. You have $15 rules additions to weak, middling codices that suddenly make them "playable" released only a few weeks later (while deleting large swaths of models from the books that just so happen to correlate strongly to a certain courtcase).
Oh, and court cases... you have a fairly good size company trying to sue book authors and small, third party houses and getting smashed in the face on both cases for intellectual property. You are defending a company that tried to claim copyright on the term "Halberd". There's no depths to that stupidity.
So yes, you can like Games Workshop and have this image in your mind that they can do no wrong and doing great. But your perception is not reality. And like many other issues in today's society, an opinion on a matter doesn't change fact.
And for the record, I love the Warhammer 40k universe and would love for it to be nothing more than awesome. A well priced game with tight rules, a vast community, and are only arguments are "my models are cooler than your models!" type. I'd love to be able to roll up to any table, plop down my army and never worry about "is it too strong or too weak;" will I perceived as TFG or pull back to much and then get tabled by what I perceive as TFG. Where there is no such thing as "chasing the meta" and no one goes years without a new model or rules updates. Where an edition update doesn't complete change large swaths of the game, but actually be a tweak, simplification, and clarification of the rules. Where game changes and new models are openly tested by the community and feedback is given on official forums so that we all know when we purchase the new rules exactly what we are getting and there's never a "bad choice" unit in a codex, just different styles and varieties. Where a "gunline" isn't looked at with disdain and an "assault" based army isn't met with an eye roll and a chuckle. Where the concept of a deathstar is just another army strategy and not a back breaking scenario of I pick my models up while you run the game.
I don't think everyone with a concerned or outright negative opinion of the current state of Warhammer 40k and Games Workshop is wanting to twist the knife or just being "haters." We are all heavily invested gamers who still care about this part of our hobby and want it to be fun and a worthwhile expenditure of our time and money. The fact that the negative concerns are growing, and not the bile spewing hatred of a new book release, but the actual apathetic approach to new product is the status quo. Releases are luke warm these days and tepid in sales, with even the poster children of their product line registering less of an uptick as normally seen.
And lastly, placing all the blame on the players is the most ludicrous and asinine thing I have ever seen. It's a completely shallow and selfish means of saying "it's not a problem for me, just get better friends!" or something along those lines. It's garbage that goes hand in hand with "Forge the Narrative" as a concept. And it does nothing but breed fissures and dissent within the community further making it a negative space.
I have purchased GW products this year, but it's all the OOP metal models and a few used kits off eBay to make the Space Marine chapter I wanted to (a combo of Iron Hand + Blood Angels called the Obsidian Spectres). Do I expect ever to play it? No.
The thing with one's opinion is that it's great to have, but it doesn't change reality or fact. Games Workshop is struggling and doing everything a struggling company would do at this point. Since the December to Remember event in 2013, the quality and value proposition for new GW products has gone completely off the rails. The new Ork fat thing is $5~ cheaper than the twice as big Stompa. There is literally no sense to that at all. More so when you see how crazy the plastic kits from Japan are getting these days at an extremely reasonable price.
It's essentially this. Games Workshop is all but lying to their customers. They say they are a models company interested in collecting miniatures, but charge the highest price for rules on the market. You have $50 cash grab books that feature 1-4 units and they call that a codex. You have one codex that cannot legally be ran by itself because it AUTOMATICALLY LOSES. You have boxes being cut in half by the amount of units and the price going up. You have models moved from a a superior metal to resin and the price going up, let alone the resin being some of the worst in the industry. You have $15 rules additions to weak, middling codices that suddenly make them "playable" released only a few weeks later (while deleting large swaths of models from the books that just so happen to correlate strongly to a certain courtcase).
Oh, and court cases... you have a fairly good size company trying to sue book authors and small, third party houses and getting smashed in the face on both cases for intellectual property. You are defending a company that tried to claim copyright on the term "Halberd". There's no depths to that stupidity.
So yes, you can like Games Workshop and have this image in your mind that they can do no wrong and doing great. But your perception is not reality. And like many other issues in today's society, an opinion on a matter doesn't change fact.
And for the record, I love the Warhammer 40k universe and would love for it to be nothing more than awesome. A well priced game with tight rules, a vast community, and are only arguments are "my models are cooler than your models!" type. I'd love to be able to roll up to any table, plop down my army and never worry about "is it too strong or too weak;" will I perceived as TFG or pull back to much and then get tabled by what I perceive as TFG. Where there is no such thing as "chasing the meta" and no one goes years without a new model or rules updates. Where an edition update doesn't complete change large swaths of the game, but actually be a tweak, simplification, and clarification of the rules. Where game changes and new models are openly tested by the community and feedback is given on official forums so that we all know when we purchase the new rules exactly what we are getting and there's never a "bad choice" unit in a codex, just different styles and varieties. Where a "gunline" isn't looked at with disdain and an "assault" based army isn't met with an eye roll and a chuckle. Where the concept of a deathstar is just another army strategy and not a back breaking scenario of I pick my models up while you run the game.
I don't think everyone with a concerned or outright negative opinion of the current state of Warhammer 40k and Games Workshop is wanting to twist the knife or just being "haters." We are all heavily invested gamers who still care about this part of our hobby and want it to be fun and a worthwhile expenditure of our time and money. The fact that the negative concerns are growing, and not the bile spewing hatred of a new book release, but the actual apathetic approach to new product is the status quo. Releases are luke warm these days and tepid in sales, with even the poster children of their product line registering less of an uptick as normally seen.
And lastly, placing all the blame on the players is the most ludicrous and asinine thing I have ever seen. It's a completely shallow and selfish means of saying "it's not a problem for me, just get better friends!" or something along those lines. It's garbage that goes hand in hand with "Forge the Narrative" as a concept. And it does nothing but breed fissures and dissent within the community further making it a negative space.
The only issue I have with this post is that the users who need to read and absorb it most will be the ones that breeze past it and dismiss it out of hand.
TheKBob.... Best Post Ever! I don't think anyone should be allowed to continue until they read that post, and I'm not talking about skimming through it until you find something that offends you. Actually read it. Well done sir.
I feel like a lot of posts like TheKbob, have a similar theme, just a general apathy is coming over the players. I feel like the saying "The opposite of love isn't hate but apathy" is really applicable for how the community is feeling.
I wish I could add facts, but all I've got is my own anecdote.
I stopped playing 40k in 2008 when I realised I wasn't enjoying myself (shortly after Apocalypse). Last year I realised I was missing the hobby and was desperate to start painting and playing again. I looked at Warhammer Fantasy as a change, but a short browse of forums made me realise I didn't fancy what seemed to be a ridiculous rule set. 40k seems in an even worse state than when I left.
I've decided to buy into Infinity, it just looks like so much fun. I'm also heavily invested in Mierce's Darklands because the minis are outstanding.
I'm GW's perfect target audience. Male, single and a geek with far too much money. I still love the Warhammer universes and I really wanted to get back into them. But GW, by making rubbish games, has persuaded me to get my kicks from other companies whose miniatures are actually more expensive than theirs.
I'm also just about done buying models from GW. The last models I bought from GW proper were the various fortification pieces they released a little while ago. Other than, I only buy Forgeworld. And even then, once I finish my Pre-Heresy Emperor's Children, I'll be done with that, too. Orks? I buy from Kromlech. Imperial Guard? I buy from Dreamforge Games. I've bought some Infinity (haven't actually played yet, though) and some X-Wing, too.
I WANT 40K to be the best game it can be, make no mistake. But GW is no longer in the business of making what I want to buy (especially at GW prices). They killed the Specialist Games, which were among their best products ever. And, ironically enough, other companies have successfully and profitably filled the vacuum those Specialist Games left behind. But I don't want to play Dreadball, I want to play Blood Bowl. I don't want to play Firestorm Armada, I want to play Battlefleet Gothic. I don't want to play Dropzone Commander (well, actually, I do, but that's not the point), I want to play Epic. GW is continuing to let the gaming market slip from their fingers, and they have no one to blame but themselves.
I've been voting with my dollar as well - last year GW made $750 or so off of me - this year $0.
They need to create value to match their pricing. I still love 40k as a game and will continue to play with what I have supplemented by models from other markets, and will return to the fold if GW's actions warrant it.
In the meantime I will reward Hawk with my dollars, I just bought the DzC starter. I know you want one too Tannhauser!
Tsilber wrote: Im dead serious. I mean look at the effect GW has. Even those who claim to hate them, still have a constant need to talk about them. People who claim their rules suck, their product is over priced, and GW has terrible customer service. Still play the game and/or buy the models.... Either way they still find a need to talk about GW, hence creating interest. I mean if i disliked something that much, or hated something that much or constantly found a reason to write about how mad I am or terrible something is. I would move on, let it go, and spend time and energy talking about or playing something else I did like.
I think the future of GW is looking great in all honesty, they have come a long way and continue to put out wonderful looking models to go with a great background story/fluff.
We love 40k, so we're here to talk about 40k. The worst thing about 40k is who makes it so that's what we bitch about the most, that should be pretty obvious. Thankfully we can play 40k without giving GW much if any money, especially vets who already have plenty models. Other companies like Mantic, Dreamforge and Vic Minis all get a lot of money for "counts as" 40k which directly takes money from GWs pockets and the speed of this is only increasing as GWs policies get more insane, not to mention their modeling aesthetics direction lately.
Well said and well put. I understand what your saying. I wasnt saying people are wrong for hating GW and then still playing or talking about them. I was just stating if someone hated it that much and hated the rules and hated the price of models (which is not the case with some as you put it) I wold simply not buy the models, play the game or waste energy talking about it. But again I understand that this is not the case with everyone. I personally have no issues with GW, never had a problem with them. I'll buy what I like or what I can afford, and find fun and competitiveness in any rules they put out, its been that way for nearly 20 years for me.
EDIT: ROFL, spoke to soon (20years...) So i just opened a package from GW and the finecast mold is messed up a bit. So I might be changing my points of views on Monday when I call them. I find the timing of all this hysterical.
My post was made in response of the "Tsilber" folks out there. It's not a targeted attack, but every time someone rolls through a thread of legitimate beef with Games Workshop and their games, the hand waving of "I have no problems, lulz for you!" gets quite trite.
If I have to read another "Hate the Player, Not the Game!" blog (or BoLS) article, I may have to take a pair of hobby knives to the eyes. These arguments only further breed dissent in a player base already torn apart.
There are many that "have no problem" with Games Workshop. Not having a problem and there actually being one or not is two separate matters. I love me some terrible ass video games. Like, we're talking the Rogue Warriors and Ride to Hell: Retributions of the video game worlds. They are god awful piles of nonsense and I revel in their filth because it tickles my fancy. I will never, ever make a claim of my enjoyment of one of these games versus someone else's actual beef with buying a poor or over-costed product. Games Workshop is a poor and over-costed product in comparison to every other game on the market. Their value proposition is the worst for any wargame. Their rules support is non-existent. Their customer and community support, outside the bare necessities required to survive as a model company, is non-existent. Merely replacing bad or miscast minis isn't "good enough" because every reputable minis company does this. I missed my hand from my pBaldur model, so I just put in a request with PP using their online form and I had a new hand in two weeks. No proof, no discussion, just bam, $0.25 bit that probably cost more to ship than make.
I told GW my Bretonnian BSB had a sword that was a complete curled in mess and got a reply of "have you tried how water yet?" Gee, thanks. Because I want to sit there and try to completely unbend a near perfect circle sword for 2 hours on an expensive model I purchased. Um, no? Give me one that isn't a hot pile, please. Finecast... *grumble* I will probably just cut him up as I got a metal BSB off Bartertown instead of dealing with that mess. When your customers would rather hunt down used models over new, something is very much wrong with the situation. As someone who has been hunting eBay for old metals, the units people want all sell for way more than the Finecast variants on eBay and Bartertown if they are metal. Everyone knows what's the better medium for their Sanguinor or Chaplain or BSB guy...
My little rant is a selfish exposition on my feelings of the game. I don't really expect exalts, but thanks for the notice. And as ClockworkChaos mentioned, the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy. I have grown more and more apathetic to the idea of playing Warhammer 40k that it makes me sad and disappointed. I spent today nabbing a few Warmahordes models from my local store, playing two small battle box games, and generally chatting about Warmahordes, Malifaux, and Infinity. Possibly even drumming up some love for Infinity in my local store versus the one an hour away, bonus!
I will not be buying any new Games Workshop product in the foreseeable future. A Bretonnia update will have me interested, but I already have 40+ knights, several lords, 2 trebuchets, and loads of archers and peasants. I really can't think of anything they can sell me that goes outside of bread and butter fantasy army. And I'd have to find someone else to actually play Fantasy against, too.
All things considered, there will be many "everything is okay!" type folks looking a bit bewildered when the age of 40k closes. From reading this thread and others with many smart folks either playing the best "in-character" ruse I've seen on a forum in ages, or we've got a lot of smart business types pointing to the numbers and saying "doesn't look good, gents." I've had some feedback from some GW guys saying their stores aren't doing so hot, either, but that could be more anecdotal (and I'd hate to see them lose their jobs because the guys I've met are all rock stars!).
I don't want to be right, but I won't be afraid to say "I told you so." At the end of the day, if people sided more with the nay-sayers, we'd have a better game. As with anything, stand divided in a community, be it politics or plastic manz, and we will fall. Gonna go play Dark Souls 2 and paint some Warmachine. Stay sane, ya'll.
Edit: As a parting word, please enjoy the best part of Rogue Warrior. Mickey Rourke dialog edited into a swear filled, foul mouthed rap. Enjoy:
I wanted to go back and address Derek's point that if they were planning on paying a dividend with any sort of debt, the nature of the debt would require them to disclose it when they engaged in the debt. No debt yet? No reason to think the dividend will be funded by debt.
It's a very shakey position given that:
a) Companies are likely not required to make any special disclosures outside of their annual reports for debt they classify as "bank overdraft" (like GW did the previous times they borrowed to pay a dividend-- no special debt announcement).
b) GW has no reason to borrow the money until it is needed. Dividends are not paid the instant they are announced. The announcement outlines when the payment will occur. In this case, the 4th of July.
If I have to read another "Hate the Player, Not the Game!" blog (or BoLS) article, I may have to take a pair of hobby knives to the eyes. These arguments only further breed dissent in a player base already torn apart.
That for me is the saddest aspect of all this, how competitiveness and trying to actually win have become insults in the 40K community. Even when there's an acknowledgement that the rules are busted, the reaction is misdirected into a needless division between TFG competitive players and semi-mythical "casual" ones who apparently show up with no intention of trying to win except by blind luck.
If I have to read another "Hate the Player, Not the Game!" blog (or BoLS) article, I may have to take a pair of hobby knives to the eyes. These arguments only further breed dissent in a player base already torn apart.
That for me is the saddest aspect of all this, how competitiveness and trying to actually win have become insults in the 40K community. Even when there's an acknowledgement that the rules are busted, the reaction is misdirected into a needless division between TFG competitive players and semi-mythical "casual" ones who apparently show up with no intention of trying to win except by blind luck.
The thing on BOLS at least is there's always a crowd that jump on any post criticizing the game, either stating how 40k isn't meant for competitive games, how 40k was never balanced, or just insulting the person and telling them to go play chess instead. Nevermind the constant acceptance of the prices and thinking everything is fine and dandy and 40k is exploding. I get that BOLS itself has their own site and clicks and stuff so I'm used to seeing articles written that gush over everything GW does as though it was great, but the fact the community is so vehement against anyone who criticizes the company is disturbing.
That's not unusual, it's where the motivation for the quote in my sig came from, it is human nature to gravitate towards groups or individuals that reinforce the views we hold ourselves.
The unfortunate outcome of that sort of behaviour is a community stuck in a closed feedback loop where anything or anyone that disrupts that view is shouted down or driven out.
One of the strengths of Dakka, IMO, is there is a sufficiently diverse pool of opinion, represented by strong minded individuals on both sides. For all the bizarre crap I see posted here, where people appear to have no grasp of the situation as I see it, or seem to read things in a completely different way to me, to the point where I can't even begin to see how the thought process to arrive at their conclusions must have gone, the site is a better, stronger place for it.
