Looky Likey wrote: Quality is a nebulous term though, and includes other nebulous terms such as competitiveness within the meta, if its fluffy, fun builds, reuse of existing model particularly if its models that didn't work in the previous codex, and new models. Everybody has differing preferences for those categories and the overall mix for them.
GW should operate a similar model to MtG for each new codex: release a counter to last high powered thing and new high powered thing in next release, repeat.
A world of NO. I quit MtG precisely because WotC started pulling this crap.
Looky Likey wrote: Your argument has the second hand market as a disease infecting GW's profit , shutting down the second hand market (which would never be possible as the second hand market is more like the common cold) would be curing the disease, I would rather they immunise against the disease. This immunisation would be through improving retention, if they can keep vets enthused and preferably buying new product to use along side old product then that should reduce the volume on sale, which in turn would drive up second hand prices due to lower supply.
My point was that by releasing better quality product vets are more likely to expand their army with the latest release as it compliments and extends the army's current capabilities.
I see where you are going, but that's really overstating the point.
GW already does a lot to keep the secondhand market suppressed with a) their policies about usage of their images and b) their policies for independent retailers around sales volume, web marketing and availability of miniatures.
When you talk about "immunizing" vets, that would be through the release of new Codexes, right? Wouldn't it seem strange to you if vets were selling off their armies very cheap when new Codexes came out? It might make someone think there's a problem here...
I can't agree with you there.
I have sold and bought a feth ton of GW models on eBay.
How many people are there in the developed world who do not own and cannot borrow a digital camera or smartphone and shoot pics of the stuff they want to sell?
How many people go to shops for secondhand wargame stuff rather than eBay or the secondhand tables at big shows?
Actually, I think it would be more interesting if they did something like what was done with D&D Insider where you could access all the books digitally as long as you paid a monthly subscription. I think it's a better experience than having to buy a codex or pry details out of the internet to decide whether or not you want the rules inside.
FORCE NARRATIVE!!!! EPIC BATTLES!!!! A BIG STINKING FLY AND MAGGOT INFESTED MANURE OF A RULE SET THAT CAUSED THE FALL OF THE EVIL EMPIRE!!!!
Eh somewhat correct as this was one of several reasons for the decline of Games Workshop.
So now we have another bad report. Nothing new with the spin doctoring, apoligist praying fanbois, trying to make things so much betta than it is.
This is what I think is going to happen.
GW is not going anywhere anytime soon, HOWEVER the company is contracting in quality of services and global sphere of influence. IMPORTANT TO NOTE: Not so long ago they where the 800 pound gorilla dictating what their niche market will be.
Now,....
Metaphorically speaking they GOT their nuts cut off from the Chapter House debacle and their copyrighted TRUTHS and business tactics were exposed in court.
They will always have their stronghold in England and some hot spots globally but that is all. They are an abject failure to understand the their market as a whole, their customer base and most of all the ever changing flows of the global economy.
Moarrr or lessss GW will become a national corporation.
As far as the new CEO? Expect no big and wonderful changes. It will be business as before as Kirby will still hold power within the Board of Directors. I EXPECT ANOTHER YESSSSSEEERRRR MAN.
Just like Wells was.
I don't feel sorry for stupid people that shun the realities of GW has become so please continue pray to the God Emperor in his glass cathedral. Maybe he will DO a miracle give by creating a golden shower of awesomeness on to the masses.... and you will be pleased by it and continue to play that Tarded game system. Buy those incredibly high priced models, and go to GW stores which are becoming more and more of a online ordering station than an actual game store.
I feel sorry for those people who remember not so long ago what Games Workshop was... The place to go to paint and create models and terrain with like minded individuals.
And actually play a game with a set of decent rules.
Have you even read the financial reports from the last decade?
No one knows for sure how ell gw was doing before the management buyout, that information isn't public.
The lotr deal was made when gw was still growing every year and making a profit. During the lotr period revenue and profit actually stopped growing, many attributed that to gws focus on lotr instead of their own properties. The lotr deal only started gaining ground after the deagostini release of the weekly magazine nad miniatures.
What? The first GWLoTR product was released in 2001 to accompany the release of the movies.
From 2001 to 2004 (the so called LoTR bubble period), GW's profits went from 22.8M GBP to 40.1M GBP. The first year alone that they sold LoTR, they grew 30% instead of the animic 10% of the year before. The year before that, they had a very scary drop of 30%, so no, they were not growing before LoTR came along.
Sorry but what you are saying has no basis on reality.
jonolikespie wrote: Also, while we're fact checking, that magazine was monthly.
We're both wrong it was released every two weeks.
@phantomviper
Look at the revenue and the actual release date of the financial reports. Gw financial years aren't the same as calender years. I' ll look up the exact reports when i' m not stuck behind an ipad...
GW's financial years are still years, they just run from June to May, approximately. It means there is a possibility of a 6 month disconnect I guess, but is barely relevant in this context.
Posted from my iPad, which I find not in the least bit restrictive when it comes to any of this.
LONG-SERVING Games Workshop manager Rachel Tongue is to serve as its finance director.
Tongue joined the gaming retail and production business in 1996 and is currently company secretary and compliance manager. The chartered accountant and tax adviser takes on the role from 1 January.
The company saw its share price recently dip following a cut in its predicted interim operating profits, by £1m, due to its exposure to sterling's strength against the dollar and euro.
Long-serving chairman and CEO Tom Kirby announced earlier in the year that he plans to step away from the executive role.
One thing I always feel the need to remind people, when reading graphs of GW stock like Loki posted, is that the share price is in pence, not Pounds or Euros.
So, for my US compatriots, that share price of 512.75 pence is equivalent to $8.03.
Well, yeah, if you bought some,time in 2009 and sat on them, you'd still have cause to feel good about things, any time in the last two years however, you'd probably be a bit annoyed.
Remember, the stock market always trends up when looked at over a sufficiently long time period, so if I'd bought any shares of a company that is still currently listed 5 years ago I'd probably still be looking at a return - irrespective of if that company is run like arse or no.
Toofast wrote: To my last point, market research is not 'otiose' in a niche market when nearly 12,000 random people sign a petition complaining about how much they don't like your company.
FTFY.
What you define as a "customer" may not be what Games Workshop defines as a "customer". People complain online every year about the prices of some of my company's items. Guess what, if they're too much for you, then you're probably not in that brand's target customer segment. Similarly, Louis Vuitton destroys all of their unsold bags rather than donate them or sell them below retail at an outlet store because they believe that it cheapens the value of their brand. It isn't that either company doesn't want your money. It's just that it's easier to try to get a specific group of people's money, rather than try to cast a wide net.
It's entirely possible that Games Workshop's problems lie in the intricacies of their niche market more than anything else. With a product that doesn't expire (my project log uses parts from kits I bought in the nineties), at a certain point the second hand market will create serious competition for them. This isn't like selling console video games where the technology refreshes every 6-8 years. It isn't like cars where eventually they wear out and you need new ones. A certain amount of the product will leave circulation, either being destroyed, discarded or stored indefinitely. But a ton of it is still out there. Games Workshop may definitely well have made mistakes in their business model, but they exist in a unique space where they have to create new products to sell to a fanbase that doesn't actually need any new products. I don't think they've done the best they could have done, but it isn't an easy market they exist in. The market works against them naturally at this point.
It's like the endless string of fallacies you hear every time the topic of Sisters of Battle comes up. People think games Workshop is incompetent, that they're just leaving money on the table by not makingnew Sisters of Battle miniatures. That all they'd have to do is revamp them like they did with the Dark Eldar. Not for a second considering whether or not Games Workshop even wants to revamp them, or if that would be in the business's best interests.
Running a business is pretty hard. That's why most people here don't do it, lol. But just because you're not a customer anymore doesn't mean they're doing things wrong. Games Workshop's customer base is a largely transient group and it always has been. The real question is whether or not they've been doing the right things to secure new ones. I don't think they have. But that doesn't lend credence to the idea that if you specifcally are upset, they are doing something wrong.
All that brings in to question what their customer base should be. Plus, I see no reason why they can't equally try and fleece new players as much as veteran players. It just seems illogical and counter intuitive to ignore an existing portion of your customer base.
All I'm saying is that there's a measure of turnover that is inherent to their business.
I'm not a customer anymore. If I buy anything 40K, it's almost exlcusively second hand, and in small quantities. That's just the nature of the beast.
Like I said, more than once, I'm not saying they did things 100% correctly. It's obvious that their sales have fallen off and their new customer acquisition isn't covering that difference. I think their prices present a burdensome barrier to entry and a barrier to returning customers buying additional armies. But they also sold 125 million of those squiggly British monies worth of product last year. I've heard that's almost $200M. That's not small potatoes, so they're still doing something right.
Business equations have a lot of variables, ad you can't solve for all of them by simply looking at YoY sales data.
No, I get that, they still sell a lot of goods, that are still of solid quality. The models are nothing to sneeze at in many ways (there are exceptions, of course), and while the rules are mediocre, the books themselves are solid.
I just question their decision, and your assessment of that decision, of ignoring a part of their customer base and accepting a turnover rate that could easily be lessened, while sacrificing incredibly little from their efforts of getting new blood. I'd argue that catering to the existing or ex-customers directly helps in getting new blood, which just leaves me scratching my head.
I work for the government and have zero knowledge of business, which makes me about as unqualified as you can get on the matter, but I'm left puzzled at a lot of their decisions. It certainly doesn't seem to be improving their situation, which I imagine is important for business.
Blacksails wrote: All that brings in to question what their customer base should be. Plus, I see no reason why they can't equally try and fleece new players as much as veteran players. It just seems illogical and counter intuitive to ignore an existing portion of your customer base.
It seems like they have fictional expectations of what their customer base should be but less of a clue who their actual customer base is in reality. They think a specific type of person buys their stuff and they are focused on selling their product to this type of person but in the end it doesn't add up to what they want it to be.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: All I'm saying is that there's a measure of turnover that is inherent to their business.
Sure.
The thing is, the rate of that turnover is influenced in no small part by how the company chooses to treat their existing customer base.
And since in general it's easier to get money out of happy, current customers than it is to attract new customers (particularly when potential new customers are being warned off by an increasingly hostile 'veteran' crowd), it seems a little baffling that GW seem so set on focusing on the new trade and ignoring all those customers who are hanging around and wanting to give them money.
While it is quite correct to say that many aspects of running a business are complicated, especially across multiple territories with all the currency issues, cultural diffeerences (both broad and specific) and logistical challenges that presents, the nature of nearly all business can be reduced to the phrase:
"Find out what they want and give it to them."
Kirby has publicly stated they don't take any action with regard to the first half of that statement, and their falling revenue and profits suggests they aren't fulfilling the second
Couple that with that they appear to want word of mouth to be one of the primary drivers of new blood into buying their products, it would behoove GW to be seen to be doing good things by vets, whether they are still active customers or not, because having a positive attitude from your client base, whether they be active purchasers at this moment in time or not, has literally no downsides.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: All I'm saying is that there's a measure of turnover that is inherent to their business.
Sure.
The thing is, the rate of that turnover is influenced in no small part by how the company chooses to treat their existing customer base.
I can personally attest to that.
Whenever people express interest in my models and want to get started in miniature wargaming themselves, I always advise them to stay well clear of GW and first consider the alternatives because GW is really crap value for money, unless they really really like the models/games. In which case I tell them how to save money by buying 2nd hand on ebay, or retailers that give discounts. Its not about bashing GW, its about giving my friends, and prospective hobbyists, good advice.
My uncle is interested so on boxing day I'm going to teach him how to paint Gripping Beast Anglo Saxons. I'll probably give him some issues of Wargames Illustrated too. I can't give him White Dwarf...because I haven't bought any in 3 years (well except for this weeks issue which I bought for the Hobbit supplement. The White Dwarf went in the bin).
With 5 kids, a wife who doesn't work (a newborn baby and two kids > 6) and a low paying job, the last thing I'm going to do is direct him to Gamesworkshop.
Gripping Beast sell metal character models for as little as £3. An equivalent model from GW (i.e. LOTR/Hobbit) costs as much as £15.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Whenever people express interest in my models and want to get started in miniature wargaming themselves, I always advise them to stay well clear of GW and first consider the alternatives because GW is really crap value for money, unless they really really like the models/games. In which case I tell them how to save money by buying 2nd hand on ebay, or retailers that give discounts. Its not about bashing GW, its about giving my friends, and prospective hobbyists, good advice.
And here's my point in a nutshell.
GW is not significantly worse "value for money" than any other retailer out there. But they do have a flourishing alternative market in second hand figures for prospective entry level players.
and their falling revenue and profits suggests they aren't fulfilling the second
Without looking at the bigger picture, you can't say that. Well, i guess you can. You just did. But it isn't a fact. It's just a guess.
I mean, everybody harps on GW for not talking to its customer base, but what would you answer if you did?
"We want to pay less money and we want versions of the rules that make our existing model collections better so we don't have to buy new stuff."
The thing is, the rate of that turnover is influenced in no small part by how the company chooses to treat their existing customer base.
Another guess.
The reality is that people get older and their priorities change. For a lot of people, that means abandoning the game. I didn't play it for like ten years between when I gave it up and when I started my project log.
There's only so much money you can get out of existing customers, because again, it's a purchase you can finish, and an individual product line can only get so deep.
These customers wanting to give GW money don't actually exist. There are just a bunch of people who think they represent some untapped profit potential. See: SIsters of Battle fans, lol.
and their falling revenue and profits suggests they aren't fulfilling the second
Without looking at the bigger picture, you can't say that. Well, i guess you can. You just did. But it isn't a fact. It's just a guess.
I mean, everybody harps on GW for not talking to its customer base, but what would you answer if you did?
"We want to pay less money and we want versions of the rules that make our existing model collections better so we don't have to buy new stuff."
Nope, I'm on record in numerous more appropriate threads about what I feel I would do to get GW back in track.
Short answer, as it isn't especially on topic for this thread and it could very well spiral off in that direction - focus on the value of their offering, not exclusively the price and concentrate on making a game people are excited to play with models people want to own.
There's other things that need addressing, like the immense millstone of cost which is their retail chain, but I'll gloss over those for the sake of brevity.
People will buy new stuff if they're excited to own it, regardless of what they already own, that's the nature of a hobby with a collecting element to it - make a new Blood Angels Terminator Squad which gets people excited, it'll sell well beyond just BA players who want a TAS, make one that is thinly veiled resculpts of some Space Hulk CAD designs with limited poseability, you'll get a resounding Meh! from a lot of those potential purchasers. Make a new plastic Terminator Librarian you'll equally get a lot of interest, make it look cool, you'll get people excited - cover it in chapter specific iconography and design the kit so it is actually really tough to model as anything but the chapter it was designed for? Again, you've just cut out numerous sales from everyone who doesnt play BA.
None of these things are disastrous or the end of the world of course, just examples of something GW's does a lot which is get things almost right for many people. An improved dialogue with their customer base would let them readjust their aim, and start hitting the gold, rather than the red.
The simplest answer is wait two more weeks. We've had two sets of solid data points validating claims to the counter that dedicated fans still propose. A third set then sets a trend.
Highest volume of releases (ever?) to include new rules and nearly every faction and still diminished revenue and profit (even when taking out incidentals like the website and fighting Chapterhouse) and you have pretty strong data.
But what's facts? Pithy things. Now gemJEWEL like wonders? Those we can invest in safely!
Veteran Sergeant wrote: I mean, everybody harps on GW for not talking to its customer base, but what would you answer if you did?
"We want to pay less money and we want versions of the rules that make our existing model collections better so we don't have to buy new stuff."
Not really, no.
I mean, yes, I'd like to pay less... But other than the prices of codexes and the 1990's currency exchange rate that they've been using here in Oz for the last decade and haven't fully flushed out of their model price range yet, I don't have a problem with GW's prices. And I want to buy new stuff.
The problem is that the current state of the 40K rules leaves me with no inclination to do so.
So what I would be saying if they were listening is 'Get your gak together'.
The moment GW turns 40K back into a playable game, I'll go back to buying stuff.
The reality is that people get older and their priorities change. For a lot of people, that means abandoning the game. I didn't play it for like ten years between when I gave it up and when I started my project log.
There's only so much money you can get out of existing customers, because again, it's a purchase you can finish, and an individual product line can only get so deep.
None of which changes the fact that you lose existing customers faster if you treat them like gak.
These customers wanting to give GW money don't actually exist. There are just a bunch of people who think they represent some untapped profit potential. See: SIsters of Battle fans, lol.
Speaking as someone who wants to give GW money, I would disagree with this statement.
Their customer service practices up until recently are unfortunate. And yes, their prices are bogus. I've invested heavily into Warmachine these days because PP, while expensive like GW, offers a better ROI. I have the entirety of the games rules, which are thoroughly tested and groomed, for $60 for life. No burdensome bloated tome that I must tote. Just my phone or iPad. New scenarios are free, new game types are free... GW, for being a "model" company, sure does charge a lot for their rules.
So here's another person who would have happily bought a complete Tau army, Blood Angels, and kept and completed my Eldar had the game not been both hot street trash full of random or wishy-washy rules and entirely overpriced quantity for the content, let alone quality, I received. I no longer play "is this unit good or not" roulette, I don't dread book updates, and I have a lot less rules conflicts so I can get proper frustrated over learning the game versus piss poor technical writing.
But hey, higher MSRP inflated the used market when I bailed so I got most of my money back!
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Whenever people express interest in my models and want to get started in miniature wargaming themselves, I always advise them to stay well clear of GW and first consider the alternatives because GW is really crap value for money, unless they really really like the models/games. In which case I tell them how to save money by buying 2nd hand on ebay, or retailers that give discounts. Its not about bashing GW, its about giving my friends, and prospective hobbyists, good advice.
And here's my point in a nutshell.
GW is not significantly worse "value for money" than any other retailer out there.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that.
Gripping Beast plastic Saxons or Vikings...
£22 for 44 miniatures. 50p each.
I have a box of these on my WIP shelf, and I'm getting a box of the unarmoured Dark Age Warriors for christmas. Excellent value IMO, lots of multipart options and pose ability. Good detail, perhaps not as good as the very best of GW's newest Hobbit range, but excellent for the price you pay. I use the extra weapons and shields to convert my LOTR/Hobbit figures.
GW Warriors of Minas Tirith. (Typical LOTR plastic figure)...
£15 for 12 miniatures. £1.25 each.
Limited variety of poses. No multipart options for pose ability (though a few kits like Warg Riders have extra bits), unless you count arms that come separate for molding reasons and typically have to be glued on to the correct miniature. Good detail, but very noticeable undercuts, more so than my Saxons. No extra weapons.
GW Hunter Orcs (typical Hobbit plastic figure)...
£20 for 12 miniatures. £1.67 each.
Limited variety of poses. No multipart options. No extra weapons or bits (though some others kits do, like Rivindell Knights). Good detail, but again big undercuts and sometimes utterly bizarre sprue arrangements (the Rivindell knights have a head piece that comes in two separate piece with a great big seam across the face).
Really not seeing the value.
But they do have a flourishing alternative market in second hand figures for prospective entry level players.
Really? Out of my entire post, thats all you comment on? Theres not just a flourishing market in second hand figures. Theres a flourishing market of Gamesworkshops competitors.
and their falling revenue and profits suggests they aren't fulfilling the second
Without looking at the bigger picture, you can't say that. Well, i guess you can. You just did. But it isn't a fact. It's just a guess.
No its not. Its an inference, made from observing the declining sales and revenue reported every year in GW's own reports. GW is selling less, and raising prices to make up the shortfall. And it's profits are still falling.
I mean, yes, I'd like to pay less... But other than the prices of codexes and the 1990's currency exchange rate that they've been using here in Oz for the last decade and haven't fully flushed out of their model price range yet, I don't have a problem with GW's prices. And I want to buy new stuff.
The problem is that the current state of the 40K rules leaves me with no inclination to do so.
So what I would be saying if they were listening is 'Get your gak together'.
The moment GW turns 40K back into a playable game, I'll go back to buying stuff.
this. I'm happy to pay extra for quality, but the game rules are not quality. "Forge the narrative" doesn't cut it.
TheKbob wrote:So here's another person who would have happily bought a complete Tau army, Blood Angels, and kept and completed my Eldar had the game not been both hot street trash full of random or wishy-washy rules and entirely overpriced quantity for the content, let alone quality, I received. I no longer play "is this unit good or not" roulette, I don't dread book updates, and I have a lot less rules conflicts so I can get proper frustrated over learning the game versus piss poor technical writing.
But hey, higher MSRP inflated the used market when I bailed so I got most of my money back!
and this. People can speculate till the cows come home, the financial reports for the last several years have painted a pretty thorough picture of what's going on. That new armagedon computer game won't hit the right audience needed to bring in the money to deflect attention away from their core business.
Ok, let's assume GW only wants a certain customer base. How do they know they are attracting their preferred customer base and keeping their preferred customer base invested in their brand without market research? They don't have celebrities showing off their product on the red carpet and in magazines like LV. If your company is successful and everything you produce is selling like hot cakes, your revenue is up, profit is up, then maybe market research isn't necessary because what you're doing is working. When revenue and profits are trending down for 10 years and the competition is trending up and growing at a record pace, you should probably find out why that's happening. It doesn't really matter what kind of customers you want, you need to find out why you aren't getting them. People love using the ebay excuse for their downfall. I've been getting stuff on ebay since middle school. I'm 26 years old. There were plenty of 40k models on ebay during the GW boom. If there is an influx of 40k armies on ebay, that goes back to not keeping existing customers happy. How do you figure out how to keep them happy? Market research. It doesn't take a fancy degree or experience as a CEO of a multi million dollar international company to figure this out.
These customers wanting to give GW money don't actually exist. There are just a bunch of people who think they represent some untapped profit potential. See: SIsters of Battle fans, lol.
Speaking as someone who wants to give GW money, I would disagree with this statement.
I know a lot of people with $100+ a month going into gaming that don't give any of it to GW. And they all used to give all of it to GW. They all tend to say very similar things about why they no longer spend it on GW products. Usually it's game play and value issues.
This idea that all these people represent some sort of illusory demand who think their money would add up but really wouldn't is just silly. The flourishing of numerous smaller competitors shows that there is unmet demand in the market place. All while GW's revenues and profits slide. Games are booming right now. Board games are making a huge comeback. Magic has never been pulling in more money than it is now. The internet lets potential customers connect with suppliers on the other side of the planet. There's never been more variety in hard plastic kits that are available (not to mention metal and resin and awful PVC).
In an environment where gaming is on the upswing, GW should be rolling in cash. They should be able to leverage their established design and manufacturing infrastructure to dominate the market. They outright own the type of plastic production other people have to outsource to in order to access. Their marginal cost of the a given sprue is tiny relative to their design cost and the capital for their equipment-- but that's already bought and paid for.
GW should be crushing it in the current environment.
Toofast wrote:Ok, let's assume GW only wants a certain customer base. How do they know they are attracting their preferred customer base and keeping their preferred customer base invested in their brand without market research? [...] How do you figure out how to keep them happy? Market research. It doesn't take a fancy degree or experience as a CEO of a multi million dollar international company to figure this out.
GW doesn't want to participate in the larger market. They want a segmented, ignorant customer base that they can tell what to buy. Yep, in the information age, they want segmentation and ignorance. I think the reports from ex-employees that GW largely holds their customers in contempt is likely accurate. Ask them what they want? Surely you jest. We'll tell those ignorant plebs what to want.
I've got plenty of disposable income that goes to other companies but don't give a single penny to GW as their rules are utter garbage and don't support any specialist games any more.
frozenwastes wrote: This idea that all these people represent some sort of illusory demand who think their money would add up but really wouldn't is just silly.
I try to keep a more open mind when considering these things. At the end of the day, we don't really know. I have lots of friends over the years who have quit for various reasons... however I think even if GW cleaned up their ways, most of them probably wouldn't rejoin because they've simply moved on with their lives and don't spend the time on gaming any more. There is also the possibility that GW are approaching market saturation where most nerds who might be interested in 40k already know about it and have decided they don't want to do it or already have an army so even if GW fixed themselves they might get many more sales as people already have established armies. The same saturation may not have hit other games yet which are mostly much smaller player bases.
But yeah, my point is that it's not always easy to predict. Just because gaming is on an upswing doesn't necessarily mean GW can benefit from it... especially if the upswing is from players that have already played GW games and are now moving to other games rather than new players.
frozenwastes wrote: They want a segmented, ignorant customer base that they can tell what to buy.
Yep, in the information age, they want segmentation and ignorance.
I think the reports from ex-employees that GW largely holds their customers in contempt is likely accurate. Ask them what they want? Surely you jest. We'll tell those ignorant plebs what to want.
This, unfortunately, rings all too true.
We've seen this attitude on too many levels (and alluded to in a Court case, FFS ) for it to be just a "perception".
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I have lots of friends over the years who have quit for various reasons...
Here the thing: Whatever the reason is, the result is GW not getting their money. The only one with responsibility (and likely the resources) to figure that out is GW. The gaming boom that's been going on the quite a few years shows that there is money out there that GW is not getting.
GW doesn't want to figure this out. They think it's unnecessary because they think they have a core customer base of true believers/chumps who will just keep buying and that market research beyond that is unnecessary. The numbers don't support this. Revenues and operating profits are down. After years of hawkish cost cutting. They do massive restructuring and close entire national divisions and now that it's all paid for they should be reaping the rewards of a lower cost of operations. And operating profits are still down.
GW has everything it needs in order to succeed in terms of manufacturing infrastructure. And the capital put in has already been paid back by past sales. If they could even muster up the tiniest sliver of desire to know what the larger industry wants, they'd be optimally positioned to flourish in the current environment.
It's entirely possible that GW has permanently destroyed the demand for their product and people spending money elsewhere will never, ever come back. That's not a rosier picture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Padre wrote: We've seen this attitude on too many levels (and alluded to in a Court case, FFS ) for it to be just a "perception".
When you put someone from the company on the stand and they say under oath that the hobby is purchasing Games Workshop products, something is very, very wrong. And when they did advertise a customer experience analysis position, the position was for the experience of "purchasing our wonderful miniatures." Customer Experience Management is about all experiences of the customer during the entire time they have a relationship with your company. This includes every experience of the product itself as a product can be thought of as a bundle of experiences. But nope, GW just wants to concentrate on the customer experience of getting sold.
Probably the biggest demonstration of contempt for their customers was the release of a new rules set after only 23 months and the new rules were largely just a copy paste job from the last rules with a new psychic phase, some random missions and new "unbound" rules so anyone can be sold the new release when the GW employee greets them at the store. Splitting codexes/army books into supplements and day one DLC so they have to make multiple purchases to have the rules for their army is pretty contemptuous as well.
When you look at the type of stuff a small startup can make with a few hundred thousand in kickstarter money, imagine what GW could do if they took a few million that would have been paid out in dividends and started a future growth division where they looked at the larger market, figured out a demand and then met it with their plastic injection moulding and kit design infrastructure. If they embraced the larger hobby, game and toy distribution and made a product (or series) that could be sold on its own merits rather than relying on the (fading) strength of GW's segmented market sales machine.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I have lots of friends over the years who have quit for various reasons...
Here the thing: Whatever the reason is, the result is GW not getting their money. The only one with responsibility (and likely the resources) to figure that out is GW. The gaming boom that's been going on the quite a few years shows that there is money out there that GW is not getting.
GW doesn't want to figure this out. They think it's unnecessary because they think they have a core customer base of true believers/chumps who will just keep buying and that market research beyond that is unnecessary. The numbers don't support this. Revenues and operating profits are down. After years of hawkish cost cutting. They do massive restructuring and close entire national divisions and now that it's all paid for they should be reaping the rewards of a lower cost of operations. And operating profits are still down.
GW has everything it needs in order to succeed in terms of manufacturing infrastructure. And the capital put in has already been paid back by past sales. If they could even muster up the tiniest sliver of desire to know what the larger industry wants, they'd be optimally positioned to flourish in the current environment.
It's entirely possible that GW has permanently destroyed the demand for their product and people spending money elsewhere will never, ever come back. That's not a rosier picture. .
I definitely don't think GW are doing the right thing, but thinking they can actually turn it around is still just speculation. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if they fixed the rules and stopped increasing prices that their sales still wouldn't recover.
GW were the big boys and now customers are branching out... I don't think GW are managing it well, but at the same time I do think it's also part of a natural progression that gamers are simply moving on.
If GW changed their ways and produced decent rules I'd probably buy them... but I can't say that I'd really buy as much as I ever did in the past because my collection (and unpainted collection) is huge and there's other games to play now anyway.
While I don't think GW are doing things well... I also don't think there's some massive untapped potential that GW could catch even if they started producing better rules and stopped price increases.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I definitely don't think GW are doing the right thing, but thinking they can actually turn it around is still just speculation. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if they fixed the rules and stopped increasing prices that their sales still wouldn't recover.
GW were the big boys and now customers are branching out... I don't think GW are managing it well, but at the same time I do think it's also part of a natural progression that gamers are simply moving on.
If GW changed their ways and produced decent rules I'd probably buy them... but I can't say that I'd really buy as much as I ever did in the past because my collection (and unpainted collection) is huge and there's other games to play now anyway.
While I don't think GW are doing things well... I also don't think there's some massive untapped potential that GW could catch even if they started producing better rules and stopped price increases.
Wow that's grim. And I have an avatar of a frozen corpse.
My own thinking is that GW's growth and expansion into an international company was largely the result of demographics. The children of the baby boomers were growing up just as GW was making bright and accessible products available through retailers around the world.
Then when those who were teens in the 90s grew up, they had a fresh injection of revenue from LOTR fans and the massive success of their marketing partner DeAgostini with Battle Games In Middle Earth. While LOTR did alright in North America, DeAgostini's success in promoting their products in Europe was shockingly successful. The magazine got extended twice and when it was finally winded down, key people were recruited for White Dwarf (though I think they are largely gone now).
Ever since that boom faded, GW has been in a state of massive cost cutting, price increases and a slow decline of revenue and sales volume. And now it's like they have no plan to return to growth, do any marketing or even learn what the market might want.
But then add to it the idea that there is nothing they can do. That's just grim.
I also don't think it's reality as other companies are managing to develop products people want. Why can't GW reallocate some dividend money on a division that does that exact same thing? Develop a product that can be marketed to the larger gaming and hobby/toy market using their existing design and manufacturing set up? Spend some retained earnings on a marketing campaign. Maybe "Battle Games in the Old World" or "Battle Games in the Dark Millennium" or something.
Maybe revamping 40k and WFB over and over is doomed to fail, but surely there must be something GW can do to get new customers, get customers back and return to growth? Or at the very least, stop shrinking? Anything?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: There is also the possibility that GW are approaching market saturation where most nerds who might be interested in 40k already know about it and have decided they don't want to do it or already have an army so even if GW fixed themselves they might get many more sales as people already have established armies. The same saturation may not have hit other games yet which are mostly much smaller player bases.
As if anyone ever stops with one complete army.
For the games I currently play, I've got 2/3 growing factions each, with the exception of X-Wing (because there's only 2 factions at current and my opponent has the other) and WHF/40K because I didn't want to sell them all off.
Sure, people will move away, but some of them will come back. Apparently lots of ex-GW players went into stores when they heard Space Hulk was re-launched, only to be turned away because it was no longer available. So they've got potential to bring people back, they just always seem to mess up the execution.
Herzlos wrote: As if anyone ever stops with one complete army.
I think a lot of GW's sales go to people who don't even own a single army
Maybe it's just my area, but most people I know from GW's heyday only had 1 40k army and 1 WHFB army in various states of completion.
I think the forums are more representative of the freaks who go out and buy multiple armies I feel most people get half way through 1 army before they realise the incredible time and money investment before you even get to the point of playing a game.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I definitely don't think GW are doing the right thing, but thinking they can actually turn it around is still just speculation. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if they fixed the rules and stopped increasing prices that their sales still wouldn't recover.
GW were the big boys and now customers are branching out... I don't think GW are managing it well, but at the same time I do think it's also part of a natural progression that gamers are simply moving on.
If GW changed their ways and produced decent rules I'd probably buy them... but I can't say that I'd really buy as much as I ever did in the past because my collection (and unpainted collection) is huge and there's other games to play now anyway.
While I don't think GW are doing things well... I also don't think there's some massive untapped potential that GW could catch even if they started producing better rules and stopped price increases.
Wow that's grim. And I have an avatar of a frozen corpse.
My own thinking is that GW's growth and expansion into an international company was largely the result of demographics. The children of the baby boomers were growing up just as GW was making bright and accessible products available through retailers around the world.
Then when those who were teens in the 90s grew up, they had a fresh injection of revenue from LOTR fans and the massive success of their marketing partner DeAgostini with Battle Games In Middle Earth. While LOTR did alright in North America, DeAgostini's success in promoting their products in Europe was shockingly successful. The magazine got extended twice and when it was finally winded down, key people were recruited for White Dwarf (though I think they are largely gone now).
Ever since that boom faded, GW has been in a state of massive cost cutting, price increases and a slow decline of revenue and sales volume. And now it's like they have no plan to return to growth, do any marketing or even learn what the market might want.
But then add to it the idea that there is nothing they can do. That's just grim.
I also don't think it's reality as other companies are managing to develop products people want. Why can't GW reallocate some dividend money on a division that does that exact same thing? Develop a product that can be marketed to the larger gaming and hobby/toy market using their existing design and manufacturing set up? Spend some retained earnings on a marketing campaign. Maybe "Battle Games in the Old World" or "Battle Games in the Dark Millennium" or something.
Maybe revamping 40k and WFB over and over is doomed to fail, but surely there must be something GW can do to get new customers, get customers back and return to growth? Or at the very least, stop shrinking? Anything?
I guess I'm not quite THAT grim... I do think GW could still do well, but I tend to think 40k is going to be a shrinking market before it can be an expanding one like it has in years gone by. I'm not really sure what they can do with WHFB any more, if End Times doesn't bring in more sales it will be grim, but I think GW have shot themselves in the foot by making WHFB a game that encourages such huge armies because it creates a huge barrier to starting a new army far beyond 40k.
I do think GW should start expanding to new games instead of trying to milk 40k for all it's worth, but it's a much more competitive market now than it was in the days of Epic and it seems the most recent Epic didn't do well enough for them to want to try it again.
I agree. I don't believe for a second that the market is saturated (which is a claim GW has made in the past). Products like washing machines and fridges struggle with market saturation, because who the hell wants a squad of washing machines? Most people don't have the space or the requirement to get more than one.
Miniatures are completely different. They are a hobby in themselves. People will keep buying them just for the fun of building and painting them. A lot of people would be happy to keep collecting and turning their armies into larger and larger formations (company-chapter-legion etc..). And why stop at one army? Or even one game?
What puts people off is the cost. Having miniatures already is not an issue.
Smacks wrote: I agree. I don't believe for a second that the market is saturated (which is a claim GW has made in the past). Products like washing machines and fridges struggle with market saturation, because who the hell wants a squad of washing machines? Most people don't have the space or the requirement to get more than one.
Miniatures are completely different. They are a hobby in themselves. People will keep buying them just for the fun of building and painting them. A lot of people would be happy to keep collecting and turning their armies into larger and larger formations (company-chapter-legion etc..). And why stop at one army? Or even one game?
What puts people off is the cost. Having miniatures already is not an issue.
I think you're looking at it from the mindset of an enthusiast more than a core player. Having an army and wanting to start another one is another few hundred hours investment, hundreds of dollars, takes up more space in your house, and why buy another 40k army when you can buy in to a different game to expand your experience?
I'm not denying there are enthusiasts who buy multiple armies, nor am I denying that some people would come back and buy some product if GW fixed their rules and pricing... I simply question whether those people are actually going to make a significant difference to GW's profit and revenue.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think you're looking at it from the mindset of an enthusiast more than a core player. Having an army and wanting to start another one is another few hundred hours investment, hundreds of dollars, takes up more space in your house, and why buy another 40k army when you can buy in to a different game to expand your experience?
That is all true, but I think it is the "hundreds of dollars" that is the main obstacle. Work time and space are only really issues if you're buying a whole 2000 point army at once. And also work time can be fun time.
I don't believe there is anyone who hasn't seen at least one unit from another race that they'd like to build/paint. Core player or not. That can lead to an allied force, then a small army, then a 2nd army and so on. But with prices how they are, a lot of people consciously stop themselves from going down that path. And people are less able to justify buying an expensive unit that doesn't fit their army. Cost is certainly the enemy of 'impulse' buying.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I guess I'm not quite THAT grim... I do think GW could still do well, but I tend to think 40k is going to be a shrinking market before it can be an expanding one like it has in years gone by.
I think the product experience needs to be revamped. The current approach isn't working. It's just sort of in a holding pattern and slowly stagnating as far as sales volumes and revenue/profit are concerned.
The approach at GWHQ seems to be "Our miniatures are awesome and there can never be anything wrong with out product, so don't even think it needs to change. And say it out loud? You don't have the right attitude to keep working here do you?" So I don't think they're going to get someone seriously able to rethink the customer's experience of the product from the ground up any time soon.
I'm not really sure what they can do with WHFB any more, if End Times doesn't bring in more sales it will be grim, but I think GW have shot themselves in the foot by making WHFB a game that encourages such huge armies because it creates a huge barrier to starting a new army far beyond 40k.
Something like the game size of 5th edition but with the hero hammer turned down a few notches could make for a very successful game. Where if you buy a 10 man unit of witch elves, you're like "This is awesome!!" and not "I guess I need more boxes for it to be viable." Or if you get a box of empire and it's not "well, I just built and painted a twentieth of my army..." They need rules that don't actually make your miniatures feel less valuable/useful. People want their miniatures to be awesome, not pointless.
I do think GW should start expanding to new games instead of trying to milk 40k for all it's worth, but it's a much more competitive market now than it was in the days of Epic and it seems the most recent Epic didn't do well enough for them to want to try it again.
I think they need a completely new approach to 40k itself. One of 40k's strengths as a product is the army structure/force-org chart provided a clear direction for collection. Now they just seem to have confused it all with unbound and detachments and needing multiple volumes to get the rules for your army. It just seems like a big mess meant to allow the local GW employee to sell everyone every model they release. The model count of 40k during GW's largest period of growth was a bit bigger than what Warmachine and Bolt Action are going with. They should return to that, but again, cut down the hero hammer and take a more modern approach to customization like X-Wing has with its different upgrade types.
If GW's current approach to their products worked, it would have helped them capture all the recent growth in the market rather than have their market share be given away to competitors.
There is one big problem with everything in this post though. It has this implied approach that the game experience matters. GW seems to have decided that it doesn't, except in a sort of "have some fun and the rules don't matter! pew! pew! yah!" kind of way. GW sees themselves as a company that sells miniatures to collectors who will pay whatever they ask and buy what they are told. Someone with an approach like that is never, ever going to rethink things in terms of customer experience of the product. What the customer might want? That's "otiose" according to Kirby.
So from here GW keeps slowly stagnating. Paying out all their cash in dividends and maintain a policy of only investing back in the company when it can save them money, but not for revenue growth. As they keep adjusting trade terms and moving more products to direct only, GW's customer base will shrink in areas reliant on trade sales and become more and more segmented and ignorant of the larger gaming market. Trade sales took a big hit in the last couple reports and then they announced they would no longer be providing that breakdown by sales channel in future reports.
Another thing that's hurting them is their GW store policies. Here's some things that just don't make any sense.
1. 4 times a year, the company spends $500k sending every north American full time employee to retail workshop. Why not have 1 a year? The other 3 could be youtube videos, then have each manager write a few paragraphs summarizing the video, what they learned and how to implement that on a store level. Use the extra $1.5M a year to pay part time employees so you can keep the stores open 7 days a week and longer hours each day.
2. They tell the managers throw away black library books and kits that get a re box. However, the smart and underpaid managers take the products out to their car instead of the dumpster and sell the stuff on ebay. Why don't they have a sale/clearance table with 25% off, then 50% after 30 days on the table? This would get them some money back for the product and not result in things going on ebay that directly compete with their products in the stores.
3. They tell the managers from the moment they're hired that they basically have 3-6 months to hit the numbers or they will be replaced. This causes managers to use hard sell tactics which pushes more customers away. It also causes them to look for better, more stable jobs as soon as they think they won't hit the numbers.
4. Every store has the same target number to hit, $140,000 a year. A store in Hoover, AL population 80,000 people has the same goal as a store in LA where Robin Williams and Vin Diesel would walk in and buy up the whole store. This makes no sense and gives managers at large market stores a free pass while punishing managers of smaller market stores. Stores have different rent, overhead, and customer bases yet they're all expected to do the same $140k a year in sales. Calling this stupid and asinine would be putting it mildly.
5. After a manager puts in their 2 week notice, they still get their 50% off discount. This leads to outgoing managers throwing "half off parties" for their customers and selling $10-25k in product all at 50% off during their last days at the store. Then the new manager has to come in and try to make sales when all the regular customers just spent 6 months worth of hobby money to take advantage of the half off party. The next year, you have numbers to beat that absolutely ridiculous because of the 50% off party. A GW I know of was averaging $2,800 a week in sales. In 2 days it did over $7,500 (which was $13,000 in product if purchased at normal retail price). Next year, the numbers for that week/month/quarter are going to be skewed because of the huge surge in sales. When you ask a trainer about it, they say that happens everywhere when a manager quits and it's just an excuse for why the store isn't making the numbers.
TLR GW is clueless when it comes to running a retail operation. My 6 year old niece whose only business experience is a $.50 lemonade stand could probably do a more competent job running GW north America retail than they're doing right now.
But they do have a flourishing alternative market in second hand figures for prospective entry level players.
Really? Out of my entire post, thats all you comment on? Theres not just a flourishing market in second hand figures. Theres a flourishing market of Gamesworkshops competitors.
It's this common failure to understand the significance that I'm pointing out.
I'm not saying that Games Workshop has been right and you guys are wrong.
I'm saying that Games Workshop hasn't been right, but most of the time, the business analysis done on this forum (and others like it) is also wrong, lol.
People are thinking of small solutions to big problems. And applying "What I would do" or "What I want to do" to the solution is definitely not a good way to approach it. When we're talking about 125 million British squigglies worth of revenue coming from ~40-50 British squiggly products, there's a lot broader set of target segments that you have to reach. I'm guessing your little "$60 for life" company isn't making anywhere near that on a yearly basis.
I fully believe the strategy they've had to manipulate the rules to push new product has been poorly conceived, because they've backed themselves into a corner. They probably should have aimed to lower the barriers to entry to promote diversification, but I haven't seen their sales data and analysis. Either way, it looks like a slow death spiral, and I'm guessing that people at GW have realized that the miniatures game has no long term viability. However, in the short term, it's still pushing a monstrous amount of revenue so it isn't like it's an unpleasant ride down the toilet.
Everything at this point is a loss, and everything they do will generate a complaint. You guys say GW isn't listening, but the reality is you're not the only voice out there. Go to General Discussion. See if you can find a General Consensus that isn't simplified down to "The rules suck!" What is it that people like and don't like? Oh wait, it's not the same things. Some people like Superheavies, some people hate them. Some people like flyers, some people don't. It goes on and on.
So some of you say "Fix the rules!" What does that even mean? Not everyone will ever be happy about 40K, no matter what it looks like.
Herzlos wrote: As if anyone ever stops with one complete army.
I think a lot of GW's sales go to people who don't even own a single army
Maybe it's just my area, but most people I know from GW's heyday only had 1 40k army and 1 WHFB army in various states of completion.
I think the forums are more representative of the freaks who go out and buy multiple armies
Exactly. Again why using anecdotal evidence, especially your own experience, is never a good idea. This forum is a minority of a minority. I'd bet the vast majority of GW's sales go to people who own one or fewer 2000 point armies.
But I also agree there's no "fixing" it. 40K will eventually die under the GW banner, and the new owners of the license, whoever that is, will make money off licensing.
They don't have to keep every single person happy, they just have to keep most people happy, and garner enough enthusiasm from a percentage of those happy people to make them want to recruit more players.
Just because you can't make a perfect product for everyone, that's no reason not to try to, and likely make a much better product for many in the process.
Everything at this point is a loss, and everything they do will generate a complaint. You guys say GW isn't listening, but the reality is you're not the only voice out there. Go to General Discussion. See if you can find a General Consensus that isn't simplified down to "The rules suck!" What is it that people like and don't like? Oh wait, it's not the same things. Some people like Superheavies, some people hate them. Some people like flyers, some people don't. It goes on and on.
So some of you say "Fix the rules!" What does that even mean? Not everyone will ever be happy about 40K, no matter what it looks like.
I'm going to pick at this point, as I have no real issues with anything else you've said.
GW isn't listening to anyone. It doesn't matter what conflicts happen in the voices on forums, because most of those conflicts are in the details and either unsubstantiated or poorly argued points worth ignoring, or mired in such minor minutiae as to not be worth anyone's time to read.
What they should be listening to are the macro issues, which requires some extrapolation, interpretation, and clever navigation. There are universal things they could improve upon that people complain about on the forums regularly. I've illustrated a few issues they could improve upon that would generate no more negative goodwill than already exists.
Basic things like communication channels; proper facebook, twitter accounts, previews, schedules, plans, informing the players of upcoming changes that may affect their armies, explanations about such changes, hell, just some basic transparency into the studio would be universally welcome. Just a look at how FW runs things would be a step in the right directions.
Pricing is another thing, or rather value. Constant price increases whenever a new box is released, or new kit isn't making any friends among the gamers. However, things like their discount box sets are well received. More boxes like that for a variety of factions and kits would be hugely appreciated. Not to mention ensuring every kit has all the options necessary to make any legal configuration offered by the rules for WYSIWYG. This also goes for rules. Supplements are a good idea in theory, but at $60 for two pages of crunch gets pretty insulting. Codices are getting stripped down of content which is being resold in chunks for even more money; there's no reason not to include everything you need to play your army in a single, reasonably priced book.
Quality of the rules is harder to nail down, and where a lot of discussions get bogged down in the details and conflicting interests. Some people love giant stompy death robots; others prefer a handful of lone, elite assassins. Making a game that perfectly caters to both those extremes is likely incredibly difficult. However, there are plenty of design options that could do just that. The solution would be to engage with the community through a beta development team and open feedback. Testing the game to work out the silly rules that don't work; the obvious balance issues with lemon units; the poor and vague wording; the inconsistencies and bloat; all of that could be easily fixed, which would make the game universally better for all regardless of their preference for giant death robots or small scale elite operations. There is absolutely no reason why the rules couldn't be clear, concise, and ensure that no unit is so blatantly overpowered or hilariously underpowered. None.
Finally, they had a great lineup of specialist games they've thrown away. Its amusing to watch smaller companies fill the gaps with similar games, and just looks like wasted money on GW's part. Not to mention the intangibles, like customer goodwill when they stopped supporting those games; which all had pretty solid rules.
In short, when you see someone say 'Fix the rules', don't dismiss it because it'd be too hard to make someone happy who loves giant death robots with someone who hates them, understand that there is plenty about the rules that can be fixed to drastically improve the quality, value, and playability of the game.
Its nothing short if impossible to perfectly please everyone in every possible way, but no one reasonably expects that. What people expect is effort.
We're not getting that. And that's why people are not buying.
*Edit* My backing/proof/reasoning is that many successful and growing miniature companies do most/all of those things above to some or to the fullest extent I briefly discussed.
And yes, I'm aware these companies are all much smaller then what GW turns over. The point is that GW is throwing away money when they could be the biggest fish in a pond with no other fish, rather then a large fish in an expanding pond surrounded by small, but thriving fish.
But they do have a flourishing alternative market in second hand figures for prospective entry level players.
Really? Out of my entire post, thats all you comment on? Theres not just a flourishing market in second hand figures. Theres a flourishing market of Gamesworkshops competitors.
It's this common failure to understand the significance that I'm pointing out.
I'm not saying that Games Workshop has been right and you guys are wrong.
I'm saying that Games Workshop hasn't been right, but most of the time, the business analysis done on this forum (and others like it) is also wrong, lol.
So you're saying that your analysis could in fact be wrong, and everyone else is actually right?!?
Toofast wrote: Another thing that's hurting them is their GW store policies. Here's some things that just don't make any sense.
1. 4 times a year, the company spends $500k sending every north American full time employee to retail workshop. Why not have 1 a year? The other 3 could be youtube videos, then have each manager write a few paragraphs summarizing the video, what they learned and how to implement that on a store level. Use the extra $1.5M a year to pay part time employees so you can keep the stores open 7 days a week and longer hours each day.
2. They tell the managers throw away black library books and kits that get a re box. However, the smart and underpaid managers take the products out to their car instead of the dumpster and sell the stuff on ebay. Why don't they have a sale/clearance table with 25% off, then 50% after 30 days on the table? This would get them some money back for the product and not result in things going on ebay that directly compete with their products in the stores.
3. They tell the managers from the moment they're hired that they basically have 3-6 months to hit the numbers or they will be replaced. This causes managers to use hard sell tactics which pushes more customers away. It also causes them to look for better, more stable jobs as soon as they think they won't hit the numbers.
4. Every store has the same target number to hit, $140,000 a year. A store in Hoover, AL population 80,000 people has the same goal as a store in LA where Robin Williams and Vin Diesel would walk in and buy up the whole store. This makes no sense and gives managers at large market stores a free pass while punishing managers of smaller market stores. Stores have different rent, overhead, and customer bases yet they're all expected to do the same $140k a year in sales. Calling this stupid and asinine would be putting it mildly.
5. After a manager puts in their 2 week notice, they still get their 50% off discount. This leads to outgoing managers throwing "half off parties" for their customers and selling $10-25k in product all at 50% off during their last days at the store. Then the new manager has to come in and try to make sales when all the regular customers just spent 6 months worth of hobby money to take advantage of the half off party. The next year, you have numbers to beat that absolutely ridiculous because of the 50% off party. A GW I know of was averaging $2,800 a week in sales. In 2 days it did over $7,500 (which was $13,000 in product if purchased at normal retail price). Next year, the numbers for that week/month/quarter are going to be skewed because of the huge surge in sales. When you ask a trainer about it, they say that happens everywhere when a manager quits and it's just an excuse for why the store isn't making the numbers.
TLR GW is clueless when it comes to running a retail operation. My 6 year old niece whose only business experience is a $.50 lemonade stand could probably do a more competent job running GW north America retail than they're doing right now.
Man, if even half that stuff is true that is pretty damning.
2. They tell the managers throw away black library books and kits that get a re box. However, the smart and underpaid managers take the products out to their car instead of the dumpster and sell the stuff on ebay. Why don't they have a sale/clearance table with 25% off, then 50% after 30 days on the table? This would get them some money back for the product and not result in things going on ebay that directly compete with their products in the stores.
They seem to be obsessed with the idea that discounts devalues the products. It might make sense for Gucci to destroy last years bags rather than sell them at a discount, because they are a high end designer label and exclusivity is the appeal, purchased by people who don't need to worry about the price. But it doesn't for GW, who make plastic toys and supporting rules that almost anyone can afford and provide no indication of status. If you want to impress the girls, you drive a Lamborghini or wear a $15,000 rolex, you don't rock up with your Imperial Knight army.
I can get why they don't run regular sales; it causes people to wait for the next sale, but what's even more bizarre is that they won't even discount obsolete or end of line stuff, like 6th Ed rule books were at full price until they went off the shelf and got destroyed, whereas in the past they'd have clearance bins of old edition books.
Same with repacks and remoulds. The old stuff isn't directly competing with the new stuff anymore.
The numbers all prove that any sale is pretty popular, but I don't think they can see past the "luxury" branding.
The rest of the points sound just awful enough to be believed.
@Kilkrazy.
Unfortunately as companies grow, the people that are best placed to grow the business,in the customer facing positions .Get less and less say in how the company is run.
IF GW corporate management listened to the store managers, and the studio staff, rather than finding the easiest way to make short term profits.GW plc would not be in such a poor state ATM.
When things go well the C.E.O/chairman pretends its all down to his amazing abilities to run the company.Where as it is usually down to the huge amount of dedication and work put in by the staff.
When things start to decline,its the staff that the C.E.O gets rid of , and the ones that dont hold the same view as the him are first to go.
Since these things inevitably go back to price as a main issue, I just priced out what I've spent approximately on my Khador army for Warmachine. It came to approximately $600, give or take a bit. That gives me at the least two different 35 point armies (no overlap between them at all) and I could do close to two 50 point lists. That's not counting painting supplies or the like.
Last time I checked buying anything for 40k, I was at over half of that before I even hit 1,000 points (assuming I had the rules/codex already), so figure that $600 would be the equivalent of a 1,500 point 40k army with little or no variation.
It should be pointed out that GW had a cheap skirmish intro game- Lord of the Rings, which they have strangled by more than doubling the prices on new products, releasing only lacklustre new kits, and gradually halting support for what was a nice library of kits in their inventory.
I went to look at getting a Mamukil today and it was out of stock, for God's sake.
I would love to know the rationale behind the treatment of the Hobbit game, because it is a little bit mindblowing to see how badly it's been managed compared to the original game, which up until a few years ago was by far their best value for money option. And if you just want to play a game, it probably still is their best value option, strangely enough!
The company ethos has changed, so they're treating LOTR differently now than before their loss making years. They don't want just anyone to enjoy the Hobbit miniatures, they want the fanatics who will pay any price. They don't care about developing a local community of people who play the game, they just want a core group of collectors who will buy the miniatures at any price.
You can see it in the prices. Here, when the first movie launched, the plastic unit kits were $20. They had 24 miniatures in them. So that's ~.83 cents each. If you put that in today's dollars because of infaltion, they'd be ~1.07 each, with a box being 25.80. Right now the box is $29.75. Except... it contains half the amount of miniatures. So the cost per miniature is $2.48. Adjusted for inflation that would be 231% the price of when the kit was released.
One pricing model is to take advantage of the low marginal cost of each sprue when you make injection moulded plastic and is meant to get the product in the hands of as many people as possible. The other pricing money is meant to extract as much cash, at as low a cost to GW as possible, by only catering to a select few who are willing to pay more than double the original price even after adjusting for inflation.
GW doesn't want gamers. They want collectors who they can tell what to buy at what price. The hobbit as a game was a complete failure because it was never meant as a game, but as a vehicle to sell collectors miniatures. This holds for 40k and WFB as well. You can play the game, but it's real primary purpose is to sell people miniatures. To put the idea of collecting a whole army of them into people's heads.
I think the main cause of GW's decline into revenue and profit stagnation is their lack of appreciation for the network effect in miniature wargaming. The network effect is the idea that the more people that use a given product, the more useful it is to everyone. Like the more people that have email, the more useful it is as a communication tool. With gaming, the more people that play, the more potential opponents you have. The more people that paint, the more potential learning opportunities, painting competitions, etc.,. So when GW switches from a mass production pricing model meant to get their games into as many hands as possible (the 90s and first half of the 2000s) things change. Switching to a premium pricing model meant selling fewer products to fewer people at higher prices (more than double the price in the case of the Hobbit). This also creates less opportunities for the social nature of the hobby to work. Less games get played. Less painting and terrain making parties. Less painting competitions. There's just less of everything, because less sold at a higher price to the fewer number of people who would buy it at that price.
This also means less opportunity for word of mouth advertising (their only advertising). Sure, it saved them massive amount of money in terms of production staff, administration, shipping the product, to the point that they've closed their national offices, closed their US based production facility, etc.,. The switch in pricing model also drastically annoyed their existing customer base. People are going to be far less enthusiastic about buying new product when they're being charged twice as much (in real terms) as before. So they'll be less inclined to play the game, less inclined to paint it, less inclined to tell their friends about it. And it can even go so far as to create a volunteer sales force within your ex-customers who are out there actively steering people away from your products.
I agree with you about the network effect. In fact I would go further and say that GW have managed to turn the network effect on its head and create a large community of veterans who not only grumble about how terrible GW is nowadays, they also do their best to turn newcomers off GW games and onto alternatives.
Da Boss wrote: It should be pointed out that GW had a cheap skirmish intro game- Lord of the Rings, which they have strangled by more than doubling the prices on new products, releasing only lacklustre new kits, and gradually halting support for what was a nice library of kits in their inventory.
I went to look at getting a Mamukil today and it was out of stock, for God's sake.
I would love to know the rationale behind the treatment of the Hobbit game, because it is a little bit mindblowing to see how badly it's been managed compared to the original game, which up until a few years ago was by far their best value for money option. And if you just want to play a game, it probably still is their best value option, strangely enough!
Their thinking is fairly self-evident. Warped, counter-productive, moronic even, but not hard to discern. They have gleefully adopted the concept I call "phantom profit", that being the idea that every unit of currency which a particular action on the part of the company or customer could possibly be said to have cost the company, is treated as money which definitely has been lost. It's the same disease affecting the entertainment industry(initially just a bad idea, but once half-informed shareholders and corporate liability lawyers got it into their heads it's led us to modern DRM and copyright law, so yeah...).
To a company that believes in phantom profit, every sale of a less profitable thing is automatically equivalent to the non-sale of a more profitable thing. This is compounded in GW's case because thanks to their total lack of market research, products are considered by the company to be interchangeable in the minds of their customers, and so naturally if the customer buys Product A which has modest margins, they are not purchasing Product B which has higher margins. The conclusion reached at the end of the twisted chain of logic is either "we have to raise the price of Product A to make its margin equivalent with Product B" or "if we eliminate/devalue Product A, then they'll buy Product B instead and we'll make more money!".
The problem obviously is that fails to account for a lot of factors, eg:
- Products are not always interchangeable in the eyes of customers; if I like LotR, or Battlefleet Gothic, or Warmaster etc, I might well give exactly zero gaks about 40K and Fantasy, either because the background or the gameplay don't appeal. Eliminating/failing to support/jacking the prices on the stuff people preferred led to actual customers and sales lost.
- Intangible benefits can be as valuable to a company as outright profits. Lets say for the sake of argument we take the basic idea at face value; if a "core" product gamer buys into a "supplementary" product, that must necessarily result in them buying less core product, and since the margins are better on core product that results in less profit for the company. Even if that's true, you have to consider what other factors are at play; one of GW's biggest advantages as a company was the ubiquity of their games. Particularly in the UK, but to a fair extent until the last few years in Europe and the USA as well, if you wanted to play something other than historicals, you played GW games. Not because they were the only product on the market, they weren't, but because the combination of wide availability and simple peer dynamics made it the most sensible choice. The supplementary products, I contend, were a key part of maintaining that ubiquity; if a player became bored of a "core" game, or their circumstances changed and they had less time or money to devote to hobby projects, or they were never interested in the "core" offerings to begin with, there were multiple other options available to satisfy them; smaller model scale mass battle games, naval combat games, small model numbers campaign skirmish games, all in both fantasy and sci-fi flavours - every person who transitioned to one of those supplementary products had the potential to transition back to core products at a later time, every person who started out with the supplementary products had the potential to be lured into core purchases, and most importantly while people buying your supplementary products may potentially have been buying less core products they were still buying GW's products and so remained inside the GW ecosystem, exposed to GW "marketing" and acting as both recruiters for new customers and positive reinforcement for existing customers.
Now with LotR it's difficult to tell much beyond "GW priced a lot of people out and lost some number of customers as a result", because it's hard to figure out how many of the people who've stopped playing/buying LotR would have done so anyway once the films had slipped out of the public consciousness and stopped being "the thing" of the moment, but the Specialist Games are another matter given the fairly strong correlations between their decline and final eradication, and the rise in both numbers and success of competitors and GW's declining financials. GW evidently believed they could clear away all the "unproductive" parts of their customer base but still maintain their profit growth and perpetual dividend machine through a combination of cost-cutting and price rises, but I'd argue in ridding themselves of customers they perceived to be of lesser value they didn't consider or account for the knock-on effects - people who got bored of 40K who would previously have taken a break and collected a BFG fleet or Necromunda gang now pick up Deadzone or Dystopian Wars or Dropzone Commander, and once "the hobby" stops being all about GW a lot of those people will begin making small purchases for their 40K army from other companies, then larger purchases or just moving to other games entirely, or they'll become used to buying cheaper models and end up buying GW models from dodgy recasters rather than GW. That's been happening for long enough now, first in America but now even visible to an extent in the UK where GW have a branded store in just about every town with more than two houses, that they can't rely on that ubiquity any more. They're stuck in a negative feedback loop of their own creation; they drive away a portion of their customers, so with a reduced customer base people coming new into wargaming are incrementally less likely to be exposed to their products and feel GW are the only option, which means less customers, which lessens their ubiquity and makes the problem worse, which prompts them to try and clear out more "unproductive" customers, etc etc ad nauseum. Throw in the rise of the internet, the partial mainstreaming of "geek culture", platforms like Kickstarter, and GW management's blinkered attitude...yeah, not good.
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree with you about the network effect. In fact I would go further and say that GW have managed to turn the network effect on its head and create a large community of veterans who not only grumble about how terrible GW is nowadays, they also do their best to turn newcomers off GW games and onto alternatives.
Creating a volunteer anti-sales force is definitely something GW has done. They could have really leveraged the gaming community, had a dedicated volunteer coordinator and expanded programs like the Outriders/Grey Knights and Tech Priests. Instead they cut them all as well as all the volunteers keeping games like Bloodbowl alive. So not only do they not have any organized volunteering system where people run demos of their games and whatnot, they've created un unorganized volunteer corps that's actively sending people elsewhere. It's hilarious (and sad)
It's a rough time for an independent store when your sales with GW are dropping, but you still have lots of product on the shelves but the people who are coming to your organized play events are steering them to other products. Which is okay, because those products are often from a single distributor so the store has a better margin on them and more money diverted from GW onto them is better in the long run for their discount with the distributor, but what to do about the existing stock and managing the shrinking group of people buying it? Then the store starts struggling to hit minimum order sizes when there's not some sort of high demand pre-order and special orders get delayed and the whole process becomes a headache compared to just adding whatever you want to an order with a distributor.
frozenwastes wrote: This also means less opportunity for word of mouth advertising (their only advertising). Sure, it saved them massive amount of money in terms of production staff, administration, shipping the product, to the point that they've closed their national offices, closed their US based production facility, etc.,. The switch in pricing model also drastically annoyed their existing customer base. People are going to be far less enthusiastic about buying new product when they're being charged twice as much (in real terms) as before. So they'll be less inclined to play the game, less inclined to paint it, less inclined to tell their friends about it. And it can even go so far as to create a volunteer sales force within your ex-customers who are out there actively steering people away from your products.
This is, pretty much, how every gamer I know feels right now. GW's games were almost the only ones being played in my area, during the last two decades. Since last year, everyone is exploring new fields, mostly Infinity and Flames of War. Even FLGS managers encourage customers to try new games, and occasionally rant over GW (IIRC their policies for independent stores are not very friendly either). Me and my gaming group have spent the summer with a Dredd campaign, and last week we bought Dreadball, and everyone is preparing their respective teams for a league. We also pledged for the Kings of War kickstarter, which will arrive around July.
I haven't played a game of 40k in almost two months. It is hard to see my CSMs standing on a shelf. I have been playing GWs games since I was 9, and it is hard to accept what's happening nowadays with the game. But, as much as I love it, I realised I had no fun whatsoever during my last 10 games or so... I have lost my enthusiasm about it. But moving to other games has been refreshing, and I'm really excited about these new projects. Maybe all I needed was a change.
Sorry for going a little bit off topic, but I read that line and saw my gaming group reflected. This is no rant against GW, I am not selling my armies or dropping entirely the game. It's just parked for a while. I'm following every new release, and will be expecting futuer changes in new editions. As a gamer, I don't want GW to fall, and I don't think that's what most gamers want. I have the feeling we all know they have the potential to make GREAT games. They have done it in the past, let's hope they do it again in the future.
I think the hobbit game was more of a block move by GW. They really didn't want to continue the support of this game, even though LOTR made them money, but they didn't want to take the chance of someone else getting the license. Everyone knew the Perry's we're going to leave GW, they haven't worked on anything non LOTR in a long time and their own company was doing well as far as I know, so it was a way to keep them off the grid, and make sure they didn't wind up with the license. Could you imagine the results of that . The Percy's with rights to the Hobbit, we've seen the models already, but if they had done the pricing and gotten the profits plus the publicity that would have been another competitor that GW just couldn't have. So the result, GW keeps the license, ties up the Perry's, and squashes a possible competitor/range that could compete with them all in one blow. They ensure the game stifles by poor support, and does the bare minimum to keep the contract. It's a lose, lose, lose proposition which is an actual strategy in business. Look at how 7-11 became so big in the United states years ago. They would open three store up around one competing store and take a loss until that other store was bled dry and closed up, then they would close two of their stores and leave the one remaining store to grab all the cash. GW still thinks they are able to do this with their franchise and IP, and are trying to force out all other competition, but all it's doing is draining its own reserves as other systems are winning players over and gaining market share.
Man, if even half that stuff is true that is pretty damning.
I can promise you, it's all true. I'm good friends with a guy who recently left GW and another who currently runs a store. They have both complained to me separately about all of those things. All the numbers both of them told me matched up.
Toofast wrote: 4. Every store has the same target number to hit, $140,000 a year. A store in Hoover, AL population 80,000 people has the same goal as a store in LA where Robin Williams and Vin Diesel would walk in and buy up the whole store. This makes no sense and gives managers at large market stores a free pass while punishing managers of smaller market stores. Stores have different rent, overhead, and customer bases yet they're all expected to do the same $140k a year in sales. Calling this stupid and asinine would be putting it mildly.
But correcting this issue would require the research of markets. I'm sure there's a term for such a thing... market... studying? Regional... research? Whatever it's called, GW doesn't do that.
This might have been asked a few pages in, but are there similar charts for other table top games such as War Machine and FOW, etc. to show how those companies are performing at this time?
I'll have to echo those that say because of GW's current business practice in regards to pricing (40k in my case) has caused me to refrain from recommending the game to anyone. The game is just so expensive for what you get, and I cannot in good faith recommend that someone put forth such a heavy investment.
Honestly a major issue with GW's constant price increases is that no one can realistically just "try out" the game with an army of their choice. As has been iterated repeatedly, it's multiple hundreds of dollars for an operational force, not including dice, templates, codex(s), rulebook, and paint.
I'll admit, because of how expensive this is all getting I was honestly considering painting green army men to fill the ranks of my Imperial Guard forces...
Cothonian wrote: I'll have to echo those that say because of GW's current business practice in regards to pricing (40k in my case) has caused me to refrain from recommending the game to anyone. The game is just so expensive for what you get, and I cannot in good faith recommend that someone put forth such a heavy investment.
Honestly a major issue with GW's constant price increases is that no one can realistically just "try out" the game with an army of their choice. As has been iterated repeatedly, it's multiple hundreds of dollars for an operational force, not including dice, templates, codex(s), rulebook, and paint.
I'll admit, because of how expensive this is all getting I was honestly considering painting green army men to fill the ranks of my Imperial Guard forces...
I was tempted to do this as well back when I tried getting into the miniatures because I wanted a mostly-infantry IG army...I also even considered magnets for soldier limbs and equipment just to try and save money.
If they were cheap enough, I wouldn't even bother with that; if I need a flamethrower sometimes and a melta other times, I'd just buy two guys. But because they were so expensive, I was looking for any way to cut costs...then I realized the simplest way to save money was just not to bother at all :/
A way they could encourage more sales, on a related point, would be to go with the "What You See is What You Get" line of thinking in models, and actually have certain paint schemes for your armies indicate separate regiments/broods/etc with their own separate bonus rules that mean something, much like how the SM chapters work only applied to the rest of the game.
Out-of-Game, you'd either be incentivizing the purchase of additional minis to make separate colour-schemed armies, or the purchase of additonal paints for those who would rather repaint their existing models.
In-Game, it would make your opponent have something additional to consider "oh, they're using the Jormugand Brood", or "looks like they have a platoon of Ultramar Guard" and have it affect strategy/tactics.
Reading through the posts here I have to say that either my understanding of what a collector is off or GW's is. I myself see a collector as a person who buys a handful of models from a similar range, not 1500 / 2000pts worth!?! If I was a games manufacturer I'd not want my main market to be collectors, I'd want it to be gamers, people who want to be able to multiple armies to play with, not somebody who would just buy the odd solo model to paint or the odd squad. Or am I wrong in my understanding of the term?
Wolfstan wrote: Reading through the posts here I have to say that either my understanding of what a collector is off or GW's is. I myself see a collector as a person who buys a handful of models from a similar range, not 1500 / 2000pts worth!?! If I was a games manufacturer I'd not want my main market to be collectors, I'd want it to be gamers, people who want to be able to multiple armies to play with, not somebody who would just buy the odd solo model to paint or the odd squad. Or am I wrong in my understanding of the term?
GW expects the average customer to collect a force, like a specific company of marines or Imperial Guard, rather than individual models. I guess the company phrase 'hobbyist' (or cash cow) is more accurate.
It's true that GW acts like a firm in a collectors market rather than a game company. They cut costs in production (switch to plastic and centralization in Nottingham) and retail (one man stores) to maximize profit per item sold and aim to control the distribution of product to a greater degree (web exclusives and more constraints on independent retailers). In seventh edition they've replaced many older models with newer versions rather than adding new units. This is typically aimed at collectors who rate aesthetic more than rules. If the increased margin per product offsets the fall in demand the company will be better off.
During the early/mid 2000s GW soured on the gaming scene. Sales suffered due to competition with the second hand market and gamers tend to only buy newer and more powerful units. This is the period of power creep and codex bloat to induce players to buy new models and switch armies. Whether the refocus on collectors since sixth edition is going to work remains to be seen. Is the customer base large enough over time to sustain the company and will the investors accept a steady profit stream but with little opportunity for growth.
Blacksails wrote: All that brings in to question what their customer base should be. Plus, I see no reason why they can't equally try and fleece new players as much as veteran players. It just seems illogical and counter intuitive to ignore an existing portion of your customer base.
It seems like they have fictional expectations of what their customer base should be but less of a clue who their actual customer base is in reality. They think a specific type of person buys their stuff and they are focused on selling their product to this type of person but in the end it doesn't add up to what they want it to be.
And that is quite literally what almost killed LEGO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: While it is quite correct to say that many aspects of running a business are complicated, especially across multiple territories with all the currency issues, cultural diffeerences (both broad and specific) and logistical challenges that presents, the nature of nearly all business can be reduced to the phrase:
"Find out what they want and give it to them."
Kirby has publicly stated they don't take any action with regard to the first half of that statement, and their falling revenue and profits suggests they aren't fulfilling the second
Couple that with that they appear to want word of mouth to be one of the primary drivers of new blood into buying their products, it would behoove GW to be seen to be doing good things by vets, whether they are still active customers or not, because having a positive attitude from your client base, whether they be active purchasers at this moment in time or not, has literally no downsides.
And the fact is that lots of new or prospective GW customers are going to be rubbing shoulders with GW vets at some point, whether it is at a club, FLGS, convention, or even in home play. They might even be rubbing shoulders with them just about every time they play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: I agree. I don't believe for a second that the market is saturated (which is a claim GW has made in the past). Products like washing machines and fridges struggle with market saturation, because who the hell wants a squad of washing machines? Most people don't have the space or the requirement to get more than one.
Miniatures are completely different. They are a hobby in themselves. People will keep buying them just for the fun of building and painting them.
People will keep buying them for the fun of imagining what they might do with them, and for the pleasure of collecting them. How many miniatures that have been purchased lie untouched in drawers, boxes, on shelves, etc. I myself have legions of miniatures that I will 'get to one day'. Deep down I know that a good portion of them will never get any tender love and care. But I like them, enjoy them, and continue to spend money on them.
I buy miniatures for their aesthetic value, I buy them because I think a game sounds cool, I buy them because I have a project planned. Miniatures are a hobby. How many woodworkers have fittings and wood laying around for projects they will 'get to one day'? Same with any hobby really. Even board games. How many gamers have purchased a new board game that has only ever been played...once...twice...never?
But I bet it has been unboxed, examined, admired, thumbed, and read through. I bet it is on the shelf for that special time when 5+ people are visiting and willing to put 3-4 hours into a game. Same with miniatures games. Gamers will continue to buy games...games that excite their imagination and that compete effectively with all of the other games out there on the market.
GW is not competing effectively. It says so much that a company holding multiple IP franchises that have so excited the imaginations of gamers can be offering such pitiful value as to be unable to compete effectively in the market. And I do understand that GW is selling lots of products and making plenty of profit. Those days are going to end if GW does not institute the type of fundamental changes that most indications suggest it is unwilling to implement.
The prices aren't just a barrier to entry, they are a barrier to interest. GW seems to want these 'collectors' who are willing to pay special edition prices for everything. Yet they aren't willing to nurture people's interest in beginning collections in the first place.
When I was young GW had games like Hero Quest on sale in big toy stores. Regular kids were getting those games for Christmas and being introduced to the hobby through them. I imagine a lot of people who are 'collectors' now, started their collections in exactly that way. But as the escalating prices push more and more of those people away, they simple aren't being replaced. So it is no surprise sales are dropping.
If GW management are out of touch with gamers then they are in a completely different universe to non-gamers. I remember a few years ago, my (then) flat-mate taking an interest in my Space Marines, he was genuinely excited and talked about how he'd like to get some and maybe we could have some games -- then he found out how much they cost (about £18 for a tac squad then). Jaw drop and expletives followed, and then he looked at me like I was an idiot. Because, honestly, who other than an idiot would pay such vast amounts of money for plastic soldiers. I don't think this is an uncommon response. I've seen parents literally dragging their kids out of GW at a run when they see how much things cost. And so another potential customer, or future collector is lost to the world.
Blacksails wrote: All that brings in to question what their customer base should be. Plus, I see no reason why they can't equally try and fleece new players as much as veteran players. It just seems illogical and counter intuitive to ignore an existing portion of your customer base.
It seems like they have fictional expectations of what their customer base should be but less of a clue who their actual customer base is in reality. They think a specific type of person buys their stuff and they are focused on selling their product to this type of person but in the end it doesn't add up to what they want it to be.
And that is quite literally what almost killed LEGO.
LEGO is ridiculously expensive, and a terrible value relative to any alternative. And yet, at least in my area, it is freaking impossible to buy the sets that my nephews and such want as Christmas presents unless you buy them like, 4 months in advance.
I spent a few hundred dollars on 3 LEGO gifts this year. The one Imperial Destroyer I bought literally costs more than a Titan-sized model. A Death Star is more expensive than 95% of forge world models ($500+). I mean, FFS, 40k is cheap compared to LEGO lollol.
Talys wrote: LEGO is ridiculously expensive, and a terrible value relative to any alternative. And yet, at least in my area, it is freaking impossible to buy the sets that my nephews and such want as Christmas presents unless you buy them like, 4 months in advance.
I spent a few hundred dollars on 3 LEGO gifts this year. The one Imperial Destroyer I bought literally costs more than a Titan-sized model. A Death Star is more expensive than 95% of forge world models ($500+). I mean, FFS, 40k is cheap compared to LEGO lollol.
He wasn't talking about price.
Lego lost track of who their customers were and what they wanted for a while there, and it nearly broke them. The issue was never about price, though, it was about offering product that the people who were actually buying their product wanted to buy.
If you compare LEGO with GW you need to explain why LEGO despite being ridiculously expensive and rubbish is a highly successful company while GW is a company that every year needs to pull a new explanation out of its butt for why its sales and profits have declined due to extraordinary circumstances that did not affect LEGO this year.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you compare LEGO with GW you need to explain why LEGO despite being ridiculously expensive and rubbish is a highly successful company while GW is a company that every year needs to pull a new explanation out of its butt for why its sales and profits have declined due to extraordinary circumstances that did not affect LEGO this year.
Probably because lego doesn't have an insane start up cost and can be found in nearly every toy store, not to mention has the reputation of making kids more intelligent.
Plus lego doesn't give half its customers the finger because they aren't using them right and are on a continuing campaign to sully what little is left of that experience.
It boils down to GW has to compete for our disposable income across more streams than it ever had before.
It just is not shiny enough in the new hotness to have much of a chance.
Tablets and phones consume product a dollar at a time convenient and immediate.
Kickstarters are allowing us to spend money on what we want to see hit the shelves.
Steam has a multitude of sales for all manner of games that the iStore has not provided.
X-box and Playstation have an online store as well to download whatever you want on the console.
Same applies for my kids 3DS portable games.
Netflix has created "binge watching" as a phenomenon, not much time to put models together when you have 5 seasons of show to catch-up on.
Really well made board games and table-top games have come out to allow an almost immediate ability to play: a good draw for those not talented enough or patient enough to spend the time.
This list is mainly my own personal excuse of why I am not spending dollars to keep GW in the black, having so much money tied up in models I do not use much is the main motivation for feeling guilty about not playing. I should be driven towards being excited to play which has not been the case lately.
Too many other things bring me that joy that GW seems to have fallen behind the times in doing.
Looking back at the veteran "anti-marketers" I can see why it happens: GW was capable in the past to bring out that gaming joy easily, there is a sense of betrayal when the old "go-to" just does not scratch that itch anymore.
Look, the LEGO example, as insaniak explained, was both precisely on point and very limited to the issue of market research.
LEGO had, for a long time, foregone market research because the company assumed it knew who its customers were and what they wanted. For example, LEGO had never tried to produce products that appealed to girls.
The company was in serious financial trouble and, long story short, they brought in outside management. The first thing said management did was to engage in comprehensive market research.
The results were staggering in that they were largely at odds with what the company had so long presumed it knew about its customers. Fast forward to today, and LEGO is once again a very successful company that is not on the brink of bankruptcy.
There's a movie about it and everything.
The LEGO example simply illustrates how a large, established, successful company can lose touch with its customers if it does not put any effort into actually trying to figure out what its customers, and potential customers, really want.
That is exactly where GW is right now, and you don't have to take the comparison any further than that.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you compare LEGO with GW you need to explain why LEGO despite being ridiculously expensive and rubbish is a highly successful company while GW is a company that every year needs to pull a new explanation out of its butt for why its sales and profits have declined due to extraordinary circumstances that did not affect LEGO this year.
Lego are stealing all of GW's customers?
My brother and law and I were thinking of starting up Mordheim. All my terrain is scifi, so we were thinking of how to make tons of quick fantasy terrain that's easily changeable. Then I thought "Let's play LegoMordheim instead!", I have all mine from my childhood, all my brothers and all the sets we've bought my son over the last nine years . So yes Lego is stealing GW customers, because I dont want to buy a regiment of skaven to make a skaven group. I'll have to figure out how to make skaven minifigs, but will still be cheaper. Now if GW didn't piss on specialist games I'd be building newmordheim warbands and necromunda gangs left and right.
Too many other things bring me that joy that GW seems to have fallen behind the times in doing.
Looking back at the veteran "anti-marketers" I can see why it happens: GW was capable in the past to bring out that gaming joy easily, there is a sense of betrayal when the old "go-to" just does not scratch that itch anymore.
Exactly.
I worked for GW, it doesn't take much to get people excited and spend a few hundred dollars without a single sales pitch. GW just started acting like a sleazy used car salesmen where its not lying, but telling you "sort of" truth. Essentially GW eroded the trust it had with people and became a Saturday morning cartoon villain, with each week revealing a new dastardly plan to attempt to steal your money in an underhanded way and make the game less enjoyable. It wears on people, its a toxic relationship and there is only so much people can stand of that before they find something that appreciates them.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you compare LEGO with GW you need to explain why LEGO despite being ridiculously expensive and rubbish is a highly successful company while GW is a company that every year needs to pull a new explanation out of its butt for why its sales and profits have declined due to extraordinary circumstances that did not affect LEGO this year.
Lego are stealing all of GW's customers?
For GW's Hobbit and LOTR customers, yes. There are several members in the Great British Hobbit League on facebook who are dedicated collectors of The Hobbit Lego (one particular guy made a huge Lego Helms Deep diorama).
Ravenous D wrote: Essentially GW eroded the trust it had with people and became a Saturday morning cartoon villain, with each week revealing a new dastardly plan to attempt to steal your money in an underhanded way and make the game less enjoyable. It wears on people, its a toxic relationship and there is only so much people can stand of that before they find something that appreciates them.
I would not be quite that harsh but it is rather funny to envision.
I think we are used to a certain standard of customer service and have seen the multitude of scammy attempts at getting our money by others.
So when we face the GW store or the online store we think "Oh please!" and walk away without a passing thought.
I usually liked to try and complete my army even if it is just a new look of a similar performing model.
The speed of release and writing in/out of models has made me not care anymore for some reason.
My armies play OK with a bit of tweaking (or downright nasty with a bit of thought) but I am drawn more into getting a game of X-wing in.
GW will continue to fail as long as people like me find nothing they have to offer to care about compared to other product.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: For GW's Hobbit and LOTR customers, yes. There are several members in the Great British Hobbit League on facebook who are dedicated collectors of The Hobbit Lego (one particular guy made a huge Lego Helms Deep diorama).
Well that settles what random thing I'm Googling tonight. Give me a mo...
Rivendell ... all of it .... what the hell!? People do this for a hobby?
How much would something like that cost?
That's the sort of dedication to a hobby that GW could only dream of.
Talizvar wrote: It boils down to GW has to compete for our disposable income across more streams than it ever had before..
I dont think it really does. People are still buying miniatures games. The issue is that GW have lost sight of what they used to do best (which is to make a game that people enjoyed playing, that had cool minatures) in favour of producing shiny miniatures and flashy books aimed at people who want to 'collect' rather than the people who want to play, because they think that their customers are more interested in looking at their stuff than in using it to play the game.
Smacks wrote: I agree with a lot of what Yodhrin wrote.
The Jaw drop and expletives followed, and then he looked at me like I was an idiot. Because, honestly, who other than an idiot would pay such vast amounts of money for plastic soldiers. I don't think this is an uncommon response.
Especially when you can buy toys already assembled and painted for less cost as well. A lot of people look and say, you have to cut them off the mold, glue them and then paint them and also pay more for it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talizvar wrote: It boils down to GW has to compete for our disposable income across more streams than it ever had before.
It just is not shiny enough in the new hotness to have much of a chance.
Tablets and phones consume product a dollar at a time convenient and immediate.
Kickstarters are allowing us to spend money on what we want to see hit the shelves.
Steam has a multitude of sales for all manner of games that the iStore has not provided.
X-box and Playstation have an online store as well to download whatever you want on the console.
Same applies for my kids 3DS portable games.
Netflix has created "binge watching" as a phenomenon, not much time to put models together when you have 5 seasons of show to catch-up on.
Really well made board games and table-top games have come out to allow an almost immediate ability to play: a good draw for those not talented enough or patient enough to spend the time.
This list is mainly my own personal excuse of why I am not spending dollars to keep GW in the black, having so much money tied up in models I do not use much is the main motivation for feeling guilty about not playing. I should be driven towards being excited to play which has not been the case lately.
Too many other things bring me that joy that GW seems to have fallen behind the times in doing.
Looking back at the veteran "anti-marketers" I can see why it happens: GW was capable in the past to bring out that gaming joy easily, there is a sense of betrayal when the old "go-to" just does not scratch that itch anymore.
Problem is, I believe, GW doesn't believe these are competition. They don't see people buying Xbox or PS or 3DS or Lego or what ever as competition. The way I see it, money being spent on something else beside GW it is competition. A lot of times, is, do I buy a new video game or do I buy 40K? Guess what, I find better value in a video game than I do with 40K. So my money goes on the video game. If that is not competition, I don't know what is then. If I found better value in 40K, then I wouldn't be buying video games then.
Smacks wrote: I agree with a lot of what Yodhrin wrote.
The Jaw drop and expletives followed, and then he looked at me like I was an idiot. Because, honestly, who other than an idiot would pay such vast amounts of money for plastic soldiers. I don't think this is an uncommon response.
Especially when you can buy toys already assembled and painted for less cost as well. A lot of people look and say, you have to cut them off the mold, glue them and then paint them and also pay more for it?
Lol, that's a trick the model industry pulled a long time ago. Let's convince people that finishing our products for us is part of the fun, and then we'll charge them more for it!
Seriously though, it is part of the fun, but it does cost a lot less to manufacture what amounts to an unfinished good.
I don't understand why GW dont do more online exclusive bundle deals with notable discounts. When they released the boxes for the first ever dataslates like the Tau Suits or the Marine StormWing they got everyone excited because they were great value and it led to people willingly spending more money with GW. Regardless of the profit margin it resulted in more money passing through the tills and in many cases money that otherwise would not have been spent with GW.
This was also the case when they released those boxes for Apocalypse which included formations.
Rather than 'one click' bundles that no idiot will buy, why not provide online bundles for current or popular formations such as Adamantium Lance or the new Blood Angel triple Stormraven/Tactical? Right now if I want to buy Adamantium Lance, I am logging on to AliExpress, not GW.com.
Something killing GW is also the lack of support that corporate gives GW stores. If stores were actually allowed to use all the space they have available and host events more often, people would view them as FLGS, not hellholes.
Also, store managers are forced to call every model a good buy. Whenever someone brings up something like how Lychguard are terrible, the managers will say something like "They are a hobbying challenge" or "You just don't know how to use them."
Talys wrote: LEGO is ridiculously expensive, and a terrible value relative to any alternative. And yet, at least in my area, it is freaking impossible to buy the sets that my nephews and such want as Christmas presents unless you buy them like, 4 months in advance.
I spent a few hundred dollars on 3 LEGO gifts this year. The one Imperial Destroyer I bought literally costs more than a Titan-sized model. A Death Star is more expensive than 95% of forge world models ($500+). I mean, FFS, 40k is cheap compared to LEGO lollol.
He wasn't talking about price.
Lego lost track of who their customers were and what they wanted for a while there, and it nearly broke them. The issue was never about price, though, it was about offering product that the people who were actually buying their product wanted to buy.
Which brings us to GW's "they'll buy what we make" attitude, which they've expressed in the past. With that sort of attitude no wonder things are getting worse.
Davor wrote: Problem is, I believe, GW doesn't believe these are competition.
That comes down to GW's insistence that they are "The Games Workshop Hobby", rather than simply a (large) cog in the overall miniature wargaming hobby. They don't see themselves as having competition as no one else makes GW minis, so how could they have competition (this could also factor into why they went after CHS - the first company to make GW minis that wasn't GW... even though CHS don't make GW minis, but that's another story for another time).
GW puzzles me. Imagine the number of young new players something like a Saturday morning cartoon for 40k would make. Heck or even a real budget movie, not that crap they tried in the past.
Couple it with actual starter sets that contain one faction (eliminating the need to sell half the crap) that each have a cheap print booklet with EASY start up rules and presto, your back in the game.
That wouldn't even require reconciling the vets and it would be huge for them. Though it would obviously only make things better if they did.
Rules should be free for download, offer high quality print, but lower the bar for entry for those who would be intimidated by the prospect of needing $135 before they have even assembled a fig.
Has to be one of the worst teams around currently. So puzzling, so unfortunate.
weeble1000 wrote: LEGO had, for a long time, foregone market research because the company assumed it knew who its customers were and what they wanted. For example, LEGO had never tried to produce products that appealed to girls.
I don't know if that is a good example. LEGO did have things like the Paradisa range in the mid 90s which was essentially LEGO Barbie, and was probably a response to slumping sales. But that was exactly the attitude that almost lead them into bankruptcy. What happened was they got rattled by computer games and other competing toys, so they tried to expand and innovate their way into new markets and lean on their brand. The problem was they didn't find the 'runaway successes' innovation that they were looking for. What turned LEGO around was the decision to get more competitive and fight for their own share of existing markets.
If we are talking about baffling business practises, the top top top of the pile is a company that's sales model is built around new customers coming into the hobby yet refuses to spend a penny on advertising and actively avoids their product being stocked in large chain stores.
That's quite literally mind-boggling levels of stupidity.
AlexRae wrote: If we are talking about baffling business practises, the top top top of the pile is a company that's sales model is built around new customers coming into the hobby yet refuses to spend a penny on advertising and actively avoids their product being stocked in large chain stores.
That's quite literally mind-boggling levels of stupidity.
They don't spend money on mainstream advertising, they do have their stores and video games though which I'm sure they consider as basically being an advertising-type thing.
GW's business model is based around new young customers being drawn in by exposure to the game from older brothers, cousins and uncles, etc.
Part of the reason why the sales are in decline is that increasingly the brothers, cousins and uncles are pointing the young potential recruits to other parts of the general wargame hobby instead of GW.
AlexRae wrote: If we are talking about baffling business practises, the top top top of the pile is a company that's sales model is built around new customers coming into the hobby yet refuses to spend a penny on advertising and actively avoids their product being stocked in large chain stores.
That's quite literally mind-boggling levels of stupidity.
They don't spend money on mainstream advertising, they do have their stores and video games though which I'm sure they consider as basically being an advertising-type thing.
The stores only work as advertising if the customer walks past them [1] and they are busy [2] with people having fun.
Because of the cost cutting they are witnessing the following problems with the above:
[1] The stores are moving to smaller locations with lower footfall - less people see them, and you more or less need to know they exist to go looking for them
[2] The one-man model and reduction in opening hours / gaming space means the stores are quieter, so there's less chance customers will stumble across someone having fun playing the game.
There will be some cross-over from the big ticket video games (like Space Marine), but there won't be much for the Apps, which are mostly derivative and very expensive for what you get. There will still be nothing like the customer take up as when you could buy Hero Quest or Space Hulk in any toy store.
AlexRae wrote: If we are talking about baffling business practises, the top top top of the pile is a company that's sales model is built around new customers coming into the hobby yet refuses to spend a penny on advertising and actively avoids their product being stocked in large chain stores.
That's quite literally mind-boggling levels of stupidity.
They don't spend money on mainstream advertising, they do have their stores and video games though which I'm sure they consider as basically being an advertising-type thing.
The stores only work as advertising if the customer walks past them [1] and they are busy [2] with people having fun.
Because of the cost cutting they are witnessing the following problems with the above:
[1] The stores are moving to smaller locations with lower footfall - less people see them, and you more or less need to know they exist to go looking for them
[2] The one-man model and reduction in opening hours / gaming space means the stores are quieter, so there's less chance customers will stumble across someone having fun playing the game.
There will be some cross-over from the big ticket video games (like Space Marine), but there won't be much for the Apps, which are mostly derivative and very expensive for what you get. There will still be nothing like the customer take up as when you could buy Hero Quest or Space Hulk in any toy store.
Yeah I'm aware stores have lost a lot of their potency as advertising tools over the years, but the fact they do still exist as a form of advertising is all I was pointing out.
That is hoping people will walk into your shops, which as Herzlos said are now moving out of larger Malls and centres and to cheaper smaller locations with much less foot fall.
They don't even have a proper PR department. They don't even engage with 'known' people who like their stuff, which is also ridiculous.
It is spending money on advertising, anything that increases the public's awareness of your brand can be deemed advertising.
It isn't direct advertising (radio/TV/press advertising - the type where you pay a third party to feature your products/company in their output) but it is a form of indirect advertising.
I sort of agree with their approach, if not their execution. Indirect advertising is much more subtle, and therefore can often be considered more effective, and a lot less likely to be lost in the noise of a dozen other similar ads in the magazine/tv show that would likely be competing for attention.
Red Bull are the masters of this form of advertising. While they do spend money on conventional advertising, it is the F1 Team, Football team, sponsorship etc which I've seen cited as the most effective advertising they do, it is a highly effective way of creating a link in your customer's minds between your brand and the sort of imagery you wish them to associate with it.
So while I'd certainly dispute the efficacy of it as a strategy, it isn't really accurate to call using your shops as a main method of attracting customers not advertising.
Herzlos wrote: There will still be nothing like the customer take up as when you could buy Hero Quest or Space Hulk in any toy store.
Warning, armchair CEO-ing about to commence:
This is what needs to happen. GW needs to lose the whole "collectors only" ideology if they actually care about the bottom line. If I were king for a day....
1. Entry Level: A fantasy and a sci-fi board game made with board game plastic, not real miniatures. Simple rules but uses the same stats as the main games (WS,BS...) This would be the low-cost, interest-building entry into the greater GW universe. I'd market this and place it in every toy and big box store, everywhere with ads and information in the boxes about other offerings and fluff/background.
2. Mid Level: Mordheim, Bloodbowl, Necromunda. Make these snap-fit, hard plastic models. Provide painting tutorials in the boxes. team/gang sets with small pots of paint, brushes and painting tutorials. Big box comes with rules, card terrain (buildings, playmat, etc), fluff, information, etc but no models at a lower cost so consumers can buy the teams/gangs they want to play.
3. Advanced Level: WHFB, 40K. full, hard plastic kits. Starter rules available online for free. "Advanced" rules purchasable in two formats, hardbound "collectors" and softbound editions. Unit rules included in boxes. Actually take the time to hire quality writers and playtesters to ensure the rules are worth a damn..
2. Mid Level: Mordheim, Bloodbowl, Necromunda. Make these snap-fit, hard plastic models. Provide painting tutorials in the boxes. team/gang sets with small pots of paint, brushes and painting tutorials. Big box comes with rules, card terrain (buildings, playmat, etc), fluff, information, etc but no models at a lower cost so consumers can buy the teams/gangs they want to play.
I have to take issue with this idea. Have a boxed set with rules and terrain but no models? That will not make customers happy. That is not much different from how 40K/Fantasy is set up now, where you buy 1 product (the DA/Chaos box or the SW/Ork box) and think you're getting the game, only to find out that you need to buy $800 more models and $100 more in books to play an actual game. If you're going to sell Mordheim or Necromunda, put two bloody gangs in the box so that people can buy one thing and start playing right away (well, after the models are assembled) and with no further money spent on stuff. Mordheim and Necromunda were done right when they first came out; that is one formula GW doesn't need to fix.
AlexRae wrote: That is not spending money on advertising.
That is hoping people will walk into your shops, which as Herzlos said are now moving out of larger Malls and centres and to cheaper smaller locations with much less foot fall.
They don't even have a proper PR department. They don't even engage with 'known' people who like their stuff, which is also ridiculous.
Hoping someone walks in to your shops which have big "Games Workshop" signs and miniatures in the windows is a form of advertising. It's why GW shop keepers are trained to jump all over anyone who walks in the store to try and either get them in to an intro game if they've never played before or get them to buy something if they are a return customer. Instead of going for broad advertising in magazines/TV/bus stops they prefer getting hold of less people but in a more controlled environment.
GW also make arrangements (or at least used to, not sure if they still do) with FLGS's to have posters and banners and whatnot showing in and outside of stores. That is again a form of advertising.
Then you have the video games I mentioned earlier.
You can argue the effectiveness of those forms of advertising, but they are definitely forms of advertising. I actually think more mainstream advertising probably wouldn't be as effective as it is for video games, music and movies because of the niche nature of wargames.
Though I don't disagree moving stores away from areas of high foot traffic severely limits the effectiveness of using stores as advertising (there are still stores in some shopping centres around this area, though several have moved away to areas of lower foot traffic).
2. Mid Level: Mordheim, Bloodbowl, Necromunda. Make these snap-fit, hard plastic models. Provide painting tutorials in the boxes. team/gang sets with small pots of paint, brushes and painting tutorials. Big box comes with rules, card terrain (buildings, playmat, etc), fluff, information, etc but no models at a lower cost so consumers can buy the teams/gangs they want to play.
I have to take issue with this idea. Have a boxed set with rules and terrain but no models? That will not make customers happy. That is not much different from how 40K/Fantasy is set up now, where you buy 1 product (the DA/Chaos box or the SW/Ork box) and think you're getting the game, only to find out that you need to buy $800 more models and $100 more in books to play an actual game. If you're going to sell Mordheim or Necromunda, put two bloody gangs in the box so that people can buy one thing and start playing right away (well, after the models are assembled) and with no further money spent on stuff. Mordheim and Necromunda were done right when they first came out; that is one formula GW doesn't need to fix.
So, a $40 rule book that comes with cardboard fold-out buildings sucks? People gripe about the models that come with the starter boxes now. Just as well not sell a box then just the rule book and then everything else as optional.. *shrug* can't make everybody happy I 'spose.
Since these points unavoidably go back to price like a main issue, I recently listed out there what I've invested approximately on my Khador armed service for Warmachine.
So, a $40 rule book that comes with cardboard fold-out buildings sucks? People gripe about the models that come with the starter boxes now. Just as well not sell a box then just the rule book and then everything else as optional.. *shrug* can't make everybody happy I 'spose.
Customers don't like hearing "buy this thing, then buy these two other things before you can use the first thing you bought". They would much rather hear "Buy this one thing then start playing". That is why Space Hulk sold well, and Mordheim, and Necromunda. Casual players, who don't have a huge number of models already, could just drop $100 on a big box and get everything they needed to play the game; rules, minis, dice, templates, and crappy cardstock terrain.
So, a $40 rule book that comes with cardboard fold-out buildings sucks? People gripe about the models that come with the starter boxes now. Just as well not sell a box then just the rule book and then everything else as optional.. *shrug* can't make everybody happy I 'spose.
"People" don't gripe about the models that come in starter boxes, only experienced players / gamers and other people that already know the product even have enough information about it to decide what specific models they wan't if any.
Starter boxes are not aimed at those people, they are aimed at grabbing a person that just came of the street and knows nothing about a specific product. And those people will vastly prefer a self contained package that allows them to play the game right away instead of requiring them to buy other things before they can start enjoying their purchase.
Pretty much all the boxes for GW specialist games were pretty good in this regard, having everything in them that was required for that specific game to be played.
agnosto wrote:1. Entry Level: A fantasy and a sci-fi board game made with board game plastic, not real miniatures.
This isn't the way to go. GW has already paid for their design equipment, their tooling equipment and their injection moulding machines. There's no reason at all for them to switch to a different material or process.
agnosto wrote:1. Entry Level: A fantasy and a sci-fi board game made with board game plastic, not real miniatures.
This isn't the way to go. GW has already paid for their design equipment, their tooling equipment and their injection moulding machines. There's no reason at all for them to switch to a different material or process.
Well at the very least, they could add colour tints to the plastic models in Specialist Games / Starter sets to differentiate the two sides like Space Hulk did (red Terminators, purple genestealers IIRC). That would turn the models into classic board game pieces.
For the Dark Vengeance set, chaos could be red and the Dark Angels green.
Battle for Macragge, purple genestealers and blue ultramarines.
etc.
Better than bare grey plastic minis that all look the same with no paints and brushes included, and with the box being marketed at a demographic that typically have never painted minis (new hobbyists).
Oh yeah, GW has definitely done different coloured plastics. They've done red and dark blue and white and others over the years. I'm just saying there's no reason to switch to a different process when they already have the infrastructure for their current approach.
I do really agree that they need to come up with a new product to sell through every sales channel available to them. A complete game experience designed from the ground up to compete with everything else out there through the same distribution and beyond. Department stores, general toy distribution, any and everywhere that will get more of such a product into the hands of as many people as possible.
Hoping someone walks in to your shops which have big "Games Workshop" signs and miniatures in the windows is a form of advertising. It's why GW shop keepers are trained to jump all over anyone who walks in the store to try and either get them in to an intro game if they've never played before or get them to buy something if they are a return customer. Instead of going for broad advertising in magazines/TV/bus stops they prefer getting hold of less people but in a more controlled environment.
I dont seem to have the same experience of GW stores as the rest of the world...
When I go into my local GW, (which might be 3-4 times in a year tops ; so I wouldnt class myself a regular, as theyve usually changed manager every time I go in.)
What I see first is the same locals that were there last time. Theres about 4 or 5 faces that seem to be part of the furniture, theyre not staff, just hang out there it seems.
The manager is most of the time sat at the painting table with these guys busy working at his latest project. While they all natter about whatever is the topic of the day... last time it was something about comic book plotlines... so isnt always hobby related.
I get left to browse the shelves with not much more than a hello from the manager,
If I want to purchase anything, I'm left to browse the shop, pick it up myself and take it to the till.. I could stand by the till for quite a while before the manager noticed I even wanted to buy something unless I vocally prompt him to do his job.
He makes no pressure for me to buy more or to buy anything really... I could be shop lifting for all he knows, I'm pretty sure his attention is mostly on the mini he's working on and the regulars he's chatting with while he's doin it. I only just got acknowledgement that I entered the store... seems I'm not part of the clique or something.
Who are these managers that pounce on customers? (its not just the one guy either... the shops had 3-4 different managers in as many visits... only one of them tried the hard sell... and frankly the guy was being a w*nker and I think he knew I thought so ; didnt make many sales funnily.
Is my local store the weird one? cus its so contrasting with the experiences I read about on dakka. I find them a bit... how should I say... overly relaxed and not even bothered if im buying anything atall. (maybe those regular faces buy so much that he doesnt need to give much of a toss...who knows)
This is similar to how my GW is, except the manager is better at interacting with customers. He doesn't try the hard sell, just chats with them and breaks his attention from the regulars while there are other customers in the store.
Toofast wrote: This is similar to how my GW is, except the manager is better at interacting with customers. He doesn't try the hard sell, just chats with them and breaks his attention from the regulars while there are other customers in the store.
This is the problem that stores that follow the GW model face... People who are good at the hard sell leave customers not realising that they're copping the hard sell.
But those people are few and far between. For every salesman who is good at what they do, there's a dozen of the over-eager teenagers who try to sell you a battleforce to go with the pot of paint that you just walked in with, or spend 15 minutes loudly extolling the virtues of the latest release for an army that you have no interest in. And those sorts of salesmen hurt a business, because customers who encounter them often won't come back.
When I go into my local GW, (which might be 3-4 times in a year tops ; so I wouldnt class myself a regular, as theyve usually changed manager every time I go in.)
I would suggest that if every ~6 months there is a new manager, not going for the hard sell isn't doing them any favors in the sales department.
Maybe I've not given him a fair observation ; as stated I dont exactly go all the time, also I'l admit im not there for hours on end when I do. Generally I know what I wanted to buy, maybe will impulse buy something (paint), one instance I recall I wanted ork storm boyz. They had none... I walked away with a fighta bomma, a much more expensive kit. With zero interaction from the salesman (lol I'd talked myself out of some extra coin and to this day still didnt get those stormboyz!!)
Maybe theyre just good enough to know by the cut of my jib that im there to buy a specific thing and will lay the pennies down if theyve got it (will even talk myself into more expensive alternatives on occasion it seems)
(maybe I'm giving them too much credit hehehe)
Red Bull is a TERRIBLE example. They have continual TV adverts in prime time. They have a several hundred million dollar marketing budget for events alone which sees their branding plastered all over Xtreme Sports, Music Events, Motor Racing... even a SPACE JUMP!
Red Bull spend second only to Coca Cola when it comes to marketing their product externally.
Games Workshop spend precisely zero.
Yet their entire business model is centred around drawing in new customers. Ask any GW manager what their targets are, it isnt just a revenue point, they have to sell a certain number of starter boxes to new customers.
Again, I will go back to the point of the free publicity you could get by engaging with 'known' people who have an interest in their product. Why do I not see photos on their (non-existent) social media of the actor Ansel Elgort to name a recent example in a GW store? Or even on his own social media stream showing off product he has been sent directly by the GW marketing department?
They are missing so many avenues of promotion it hurts my brain. Yet they continue to up prices and bleed profits from their existing and shrinking customer base.
This won't change any time soon though, the current board clearly have a very firmly set vision of 'their hobby' and whilst the shareholders are being paid their very nice dividends there will be no pressure to change. However looking at the last 3 years of revenue and sales trends these dividends will not last long. And that is when pressure will be applied on the current board to actually join everyone else in 2015 and utilise modern retail business practises.
AlexRae wrote: Red Bull is a TERRIBLE example. They have continual TV adverts in prime time. They have a several hundred million dollar marketing budget for events alone which sees their branding plastered all over Xtreme Sports, Music Events, Motor Racing... even a SPACE JUMP!
Red Bull spend second only to Coca Cola when it comes to marketing their product externally.
Games Workshop spend precisely zero.
Ok, now read what I wrote and try again.
I didn't make any comparisons with Red Bull's direct advertising budget and GW's - I made a comparison between a company that spends money on indirect advertising poorly (GW) and one that does it very well (Red Bull.) I didn't mention, nor would I, on account of not being a fool, any comparison between how they spend their money on direct advertising.
AlexRae wrote: Red Bull is a TERRIBLE example. They have continual TV adverts in prime time. They have a several hundred million dollar marketing budget for events alone which sees their branding plastered all over Xtreme Sports, Music Events, Motor Racing... even a SPACE JUMP!
Red Bull spend second only to Coca Cola when it comes to marketing their product externally.
Games Workshop spend precisely zero.
Ok, now read what I wrote and try again.
I didn't make any comparisons with Red Bull's direct advertising budget and GW's - I made a comparison between a company that spends money on indirect advertising poorly (GW) and one that does it very well (Red Bull.) I didn't mention, nor would I, on account of not being a fool, any comparison between how they spend their money on direct advertising.
I would argue that it's hard to call owning the F1 team indirect advertising given it means that the car is plastered with their logo, something other companies spend big money on.
The thing is, indirect advertising only works if the company is known. In the case of Red Bull, if their indirect advertising works for them, it's because everybody has seen the ads and knows what Red Bull is.
Indirect advertising doesn't sell you the product. It just makes you more likely to remember the name.
AlexRae wrote: Red Bull is a TERRIBLE example. They have continual TV adverts in prime time. They have a several hundred million dollar marketing budget for events alone which sees their branding plastered all over Xtreme Sports, Music Events, Motor Racing... even a SPACE JUMP!
Red Bull spend second only to Coca Cola when it comes to marketing their product externally.
Games Workshop spend precisely zero.
Ok, now read what I wrote and try again.
I didn't make any comparisons with Red Bull's direct advertising budget and GW's - I made a comparison between a company that spends money on indirect advertising poorly (GW) and one that does it very well (Red Bull.) I didn't mention, nor would I, on account of not being a fool, any comparison between how they spend their money on direct advertising.
I would argue that it's hard to call owning the F1 team indirect advertising given it means that the car is plastered with their logo, something other companies spend big money on.
They get their name mentioned every single time the team is mentioned, even on the BBC which is, by definition, a non-commercial broadcaster. You won't find any other sponsors name checked like Red Bull are every single time their car is mentioned, only the manufacturers that have teams or supply tyres, engines etc get anything like the same exposure.
All ways up, sponsorship is a form of indirect advertising by definition anyway.
If GW is expected to continue the current operational profit regime, then all I can say they should expect to once again post a dreadful global sales decline of 11 million pounds+
I have heard that GW will post a full year sales loss of approximately 3 million pounds in the Australian sector. This plus that GW can't gut their Australian Operations any further unless they begin to shut stores and sack staff, they have reached and surpassed the tipping point in Australia.
The problem for GW seems that they have saturated their market with too many releases, an appalling scattergun theology that has too many not knowing what is coming next.
Then again, when Tom Kirby is still the major share holder of the company and still part of the board, no wonder GW is in decline.
Also remember that at one point GW shares were 28+ British Pounds, a shocking state of decline for a once proud company.
But when you treat your Investors higher than the folks that actually spend money on product, then you deserve everything you get.
insaniak wrote: The thing is, indirect advertising only works if the company is known. In the case of Red Bull, if their indirect advertising works for them, it's because everybody has seen the ads and knows what Red Bull is.
Indirect advertising doesn't sell you the product. It just makes you more likely to remember the name.
This has bothered me the most with them.
There is no public advertising to speak of.
To catch the eye of the general public and with little or no drive within FLGS to flog their wares it is becoming a crisis of not catching any eyeball time.
If they could at least put out a good live action movie or something.
Could you imagine getting the same people who put together "Guardians of the Universe"?
"Take my money please!" springs to mind.
Showing the glee of that racoon's face with the big gun and do the same for an Ork = blockbuster.
Achaylus72 wrote: If GW is expected to continue the current operational profit regime, then all I can say they should expect to once again post a dreadful global sales decline of 11 million pounds+
I have heard that GW will post a full year sales loss of approximately 3 million pounds in the Australian sector. This plus that GW can't gut their Australian Operations any further unless they begin to shut stores and sack staff, they have reached and surpassed the tipping point in Australia.
Can I ask where? I seem to remember you posting similar things in another thread, but it emerged it was your turn of phrase and was actually more what you thought than what you heard.
The problem for GW seems that they have saturated their market with too many releases, an appalling scattergun theology that has too many not knowing what is coming next.
This isn't helping, no, but it isn't really the problem that's causing the major issues.
Then again, when Tom Kirby is still the major share holder of the company and still part of the board, no wonder GW is in decline.
He's not the majority share holder, he is the largest individual stakeholder, but there are institutions, at time of writing, that own a greater %.
Also remember that at one point GW shares were 28+ British Pounds, a shocking state of decline for a once proud company.
Nope, never, their high point was just under £9 about 10 years ago.
But when you treat your Investors higher than the folks that actually spend money on product, then you deserve everything you get.
This is actually the state of affairs for many publicly traded companies, it's just GW suck at it.
Years ago when I worked for GW I got a visit from the head of North American Retail Sandra Casey. I shared with her an idea I had to drive customers to the GW stores, that maybe have never been to one.
My idea was that we put a little flyer in the boxes of licensed GW video games saying that if the individual went to a GW store and got an introductory experience then the GW person would give them a code for some kind of exclusive digital gubin in whatever video game it was that brought them there.
Her answer was that it was an excellent idea, but that it was opposed to there business plan of advertising by word of mouth and so they would not even consider it. Quickly followed by asking me what I was doing to drive more customers to my store. They are quite determined not to advertise.
A bit later at one of the training events in Memphis I sat next to a lady from GWUK. I shared with her the same idea. She loved the idea and said she would take it back to the UK and see what the licensing guys had to say about it. I've not bought a GW licensed game in awhile. Anyone seen any evidence of this?
Kind of seems like a no brainer to me. There are quite a few people that play GW video games that have never heard of or experienced the table top game. Seems like one of the reasons to license video games (and other genre) is to find a new way to get people introduced to your products. I little flyer does have cost, but not that much cost. ;shrug Made sense to me.
HairySticks wrote:I dont seem to have the same experience of GW stores as the rest of the world... When I go into my local GW, (which might be 3-4 times in a year tops ; so I wouldnt class myself a regular, as theyve usually changed manager every time I go in.) What I see first is the same locals that were there last time. Theres about 4 or 5 faces that seem to be part of the furniture, theyre not staff, just hang out there it seems. The manager is most of the time sat at the painting table with these guys busy working at his latest project. While they all natter about whatever is the topic of the day... last time it was something about comic book plotlines... so isnt always hobby related. I get left to browse the shelves with not much more than a hello from the manager,
I'd say that's a rarity. There's 3 stores I visit occasionally in my city (probably on average 3 or 4 times a year) and they have always had workers who come up to have a chat. And when I say always, I mean the past 19 years I've been in the hobby. We're talking dozens of different managers and workers and it's always been that way. Only a few would just say "hi" and let you go about your business.
That's in Australia, while living in the US I've also been to GW stores in Philly and (I think, my memory is poor ) just outside Washington and they were both the same, workers come up to have a chat.
mitch_rifle wrote:I dont know about you's but honestly i don't like being hounded whilst im shopping
Honestly, it's never bothered me. It's always puzzled me why it bothers other people so much. It doesn't interfere with my browsing in the slightest. I didn't even notice until a few years after I started collecting and a mate of mine told me that it annoys him. It's puzzled me why it bothers people so much... but then I guess I'm the sort of person who likes it when people are polite and say g'day g'day, how ya goin', what d'ya know, well strike a light
The really creepy one was this hobby store I used to frequent as a kid. The owner wouldn't even say hello unless you said it first and he'd just stare at you while you browsed the store. I'm sure he was just worried about kids stealing stuff but it was creepy as all hell and I never spent much time there. Much prefer someone chatting to me than that.
Honestly i dont see why they dont advertise in like gaming magazines and whatnot
or just on tv
If their completely unwilling to invest a cent into advertising then honestly that just goes to show how much confidence they have in their product
I can see why they don't bother with TV or magazines. It's a niche market which I think most people would just ignore in mainstream advertising. You can't compare it to red bull, where you walk in to any shop looking for a drink and you see red bull in the fridge lined up next to other drinks and so having good brand awareness can help sell your product. If someone saw a GW ad on TV they'd have to actively seek out a GW and frankly I think damned near everyone will see an ad for toy soldiers and not give a damn.
GW aren't the only wargaming company... none of them do mainstream advertising (at least not that I've seen). They all just stick to advertising in places where nerds will already be (advertising through strategy video games, advertising in stores, both independent stores and their own stores) and any mainstream advertising is left to random walk ins or customers word of mouth (where you have a better chance of explaining why wargames are cool instead of just being little man dollies on a TV or magazine ad).
The only form of mainstream advertising which I think would be useful is cheap starter sets in other stores like walmart, kmart, book stores, etc, but I think their prices are so high these days that it might not be effective anyway.
Yes, its a monumentally egregious mistake not to include a flyer for the LOTR/Hobbit SBG range in every Middle Earth dvd or video game.
Doubly so for Warhammer Fantasy and 40,000 licenced video games like Space Marine. Hell, as they own the IP for Warhammer GW could even make it a condition of the licence.
Once more - I never compared GW to Red Bull, I used Red Bull as an example of a company that does indirect marketing well, which GW does not. They do, however, appear to be in need of some shelf appeal alongside the other wargaming companies in the wargaming fridge.
It is perfectly feasible for GW to conduct effective indirect marketing without being a massive globally known household name - anything that encourages wargamers to speak favourably to other wargamers or potential wargamers about GW products could be considered to have done it's job.
It is largely unnecessary for a 70 year old man living in a very rural area in a country very distant from any of GW's key territories to hear about Warhammer. It is important that GW catch the eye of non-GW gamers, ex-GW gamers and potential GW gamers. The shops are a limited means of achieving that, and word of mouth appears to have been losing effectiveness dramatically recently.
Azreal13 wrote: Once more - I never compared GW to Red Bull, I used Red Bull as an example of a company that does indirect marketing well, which GW does not.
Oh I know... it's just since we're talking about them I thought I'd use them as an example of why direct mainstream marketing would be more effective for a company that sells a drink vs a company that sells a product as niche as table top wargaming. I don't think wargaming companies should try to emulate music/movies/games/energy drink in the way of direct advertising. If they do direct advertising it'd probably be more aimed at parents as a way to get their kids out of the house and away from the computer
Gamers already complain about the operating costs of stores, I only imagine they'd complain even more about multi million dollar advertising campaigns.
I got into the hobby because I saw an ad for the lord of the rings magazine on TV. While I don't think an ad for general GW products would work well that did, and I think if they advertised something like space hulk they would see a lot more people interested in it and being introduced to the wider hobby as a result.
Even putting that aside though there us NO justification for GWs measly or entire lack of presence at conventions and the like. That is where they should be going all out to try and draw attention back to them in an environment where everyone is already part of that niche market.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Gamers already complain about the operating costs of stores, I only imagine they'd complain even more about multi million dollar advertising campaigns.
Maybe instead of passing the costs off onto their customers GW could invest some profits rather than pay a dividend, or maybe even just invest the same amount they already are more wisely *cough*new website*cough*.
Azreal13 wrote: Once more - I never compared GW to Red Bull, I used Red Bull as an example of a company that does indirect marketing well, which GW does not.
Oh I know... it's just since we're talking about them I thought I'd use them as an example of why direct mainstream marketing would be more effective for a company that sells a drink vs a company that sells a product as niche as table top wargaming. I don't think wargaming companies should try to emulate music/movies/games/energy drink in the way of direct advertising. If they do direct advertising it'd probably be more aimed at parents as a way to get their kids out of the house and away from the computer
Gamers already complain about the operating costs of stores, I only imagine they'd complain even more about multi million dollar advertising campaigns.
Fair enough.
Worth remembering that high caffeine energy drinks weren't really a thing before Red Bull, mind - they took a niche product with limited appeal and through nothing to speak of except judicious application of the advertising budget turned it into a god knows how many millions global market segment, and largely retained its position as the premium brand.
Azreal13 wrote: Once more - I never compared GW to Red Bull, I used Red Bull as an example of a company that does indirect marketing well, which GW does not.
Oh I know... it's just since we're talking about them I thought I'd use them as an example of why direct mainstream marketing would be more effective for a company that sells a drink vs a company that sells a product as niche as table top wargaming. I don't think wargaming companies should try to emulate music/movies/games/energy drink in the way of direct advertising. If they do direct advertising it'd probably be more aimed at parents as a way to get their kids out of the house and away from the computer
Gamers already complain about the operating costs of stores, I only imagine they'd complain even more about multi million dollar advertising campaigns.
Fair enough.
Worth remembering that high caffeine energy drinks weren't really a thing before Red Bull, mind - they took a niche product with limited appeal and through nothing to speak of except judicious application of the advertising budget turned it into a god knows how many millions global market segment, and largely retained its position as the premium brand.
That is true, though it's still a drink and a drink is always going to have (at least potential) mainstream appeal. You put it in fridges next to Coke and Mountain Dew and the advertising kicks in. Where as I think table top wargaming is always going to be a niche because I tend to think it's only ever going to appeal to a very specific type of person. Which doesn't necessarily mean TV/magazine/etc advertising won't work, but I can definitely see the reasoning to not wanting to pursue it,
After all, GW isn't the only table top wargaming company and as far as I'm aware, none of them advertise in the same way as you see is typical of movies/music/video games/food/drink/cars/etc.
Azreal13 wrote: Once more - I never compared GW to Red Bull, I used Red Bull as an example of a company that does indirect marketing well, which GW does not.
Oh I know... it's just since we're talking about them I thought I'd use them as an example of why direct mainstream marketing would be more effective for a company that sells a drink vs a company that sells a product as niche as table top wargaming. I don't think wargaming companies should try to emulate music/movies/games/energy drink in the way of direct advertising. If they do direct advertising it'd probably be more aimed at parents as a way to get their kids out of the house and away from the computer
Gamers already complain about the operating costs of stores, I only imagine they'd complain even more about multi million dollar advertising campaigns.
Fair enough.
Worth remembering that high caffeine energy drinks weren't really a thing before Red Bull, mind - they took a niche product with limited appeal and through nothing to speak of except judicious application of the advertising budget turned it into a god knows how many millions global market segment, and largely retained its position as the premium brand.
That is true, though it's still a drink and a drink is always going to have (at least potential) mainstream appeal. You put it in fridges next to Coke and Mountain Dew and the advertising kicks in. Where as I think table top wargaming is always going to be a niche because I tend to think it's only ever going to appeal to a very specific type of person. Which doesn't necessarily mean TV/magazine/etc advertising won't work, but I can definitely see the reasoning to not wanting to pursue it,
After all, GW isn't the only table top wargaming company and as far as I'm aware, none of them advertise in the same way as you see is typical of movies/music/video games/food/drink/cars/etc.
And this is exactly why GW needs their specialist games and a robust stable of tie-in video games. You can advertise for a video game, and people will understand it immediately. You can advertise for a (relatively) straightforward board game, and people will understand that too. You reel people in with more accessible products, and then they're introduced to the wider game universe.
Trying to run a TV or magazine advert for 7th edition 40k is a loser right out of the gate. An ad for Space Hulk (digital or physical game, either way) actually has a chance of working.
CalgarsPimpHand wrote: And this is exactly why GW needs their specialist games and a robust stable of tie-in video games. You can advertise for a video game, and people will understand it immediately. You can advertise for a (relatively) straightforward board game, and people will understand that too. You reel people in with more accessible products, and then they're introduced to the wider game universe.
Trying to run a TV or magazine advert for 7th edition 40k is a loser right out of the gate. An ad for Space Hulk (digital or physical game, either way) actually has a chance of working.
Definitely agree. I have always thought GW was very short sighted in not supporting specialist games and downright moronic when they axed them all. They created these awesome expansive universes in 40k and WHFB but instead of exploiting them with lots of board games and spin offs (I mean come on, Aeronautica Imperialis was a great game) they've gone tunnel vision on the core games.
Azreal13 wrote: Once more - I never compared GW to Red Bull, I used Red Bull as an example of a company that does indirect marketing well, which GW does not.
Oh I know... it's just since we're talking about them I thought I'd use them as an example of why direct mainstream marketing would be more effective for a company that sells a drink vs a company that sells a product as niche as table top wargaming. I don't think wargaming companies should try to emulate music/movies/games/energy drink in the way of direct advertising. If they do direct advertising it'd probably be more aimed at parents as a way to get their kids out of the house and away from the computer
Gamers already complain about the operating costs of stores, I only imagine they'd complain even more about multi million dollar advertising campaigns.
Fair enough.
Worth remembering that high caffeine energy drinks weren't really a thing before Red Bull, mind - they took a niche product with limited appeal and through nothing to speak of except judicious application of the advertising budget turned it into a god knows how many millions global market segment, and largely retained its position as the premium brand
.
That is true, though it's still a drink and a drink is always going to have (at least potential) mainstream appeal. You put it in fridges next to Coke and Mountain Dew and the advertising kicks in. Where as I think table top wargaming is always going to be a niche because I tend to think it's only ever going to appeal to a very specific type of person. Which doesn't necessarily mean TV/magazine/etc advertising won't work, but I can definitely see the reasoning to not wanting to pursue it,
After all, GW isn't the only table top wargaming company and as far as I'm aware, none of them advertise in the same way as you see is typical of movies/music/video games/food/drink/cars/etc.
Realistically, despite the big strides many appear to have taken, none of the other bigger names (PP, Wyrd, CB etc..) have the finances to support a decent advertising campaign.
Frankly, GW likely don't, and I agree that just throwing cash at the telly people wouldn't be efficient use of cash. There's lots of other options though - I think the strongest has already been hinted at by others, which is to use license tie-ins. The chap who suggested the content code redeemable in store had a good idea, one could also piggy back on the greater finances in the video game industry and have a campaign for a game with conventional advertising and use that as a way of gaining brand awareness.
An old fashioned Saturday morning kids show could have legs too - albeit I think once that path is started down, Space Marine action figures and Golden Throne play sets could be in a much more imminent future than many of us are comfortable with!
While it is right to say that wargaming is a niche hobby, it is probably a mistake to assume it can only ever be niche. You're right that wargamers tend to be a very specific mix of science and creative which isn't all that common, but it is very easy to underestimate just how staggeringly unaware the population at large can be. I've been asked by customers "how long have you been here, I thought this was a shoe shop?" when working in a location that had been owned and operated by a cell phone retailer for over a decade. I've spent small fortunes on advertising my own business and got little or no response to it, and when analysing why, discovered situations where it was substantially easier for a customer to have been totally informed, but they still somehow contrived to miss what was right under their nose.
This leads me to believe that there are many potential gamers out there who are just completely unaware that they're interested in tabletop games, and those are the people you'd try and reach.
How is a massively complex question, but it is probably one GW should try and answer.
Fliers in GW games would have two problems which mean they are next to pointless;
1 - What games would these be as nearly all current GW games are digital only ? The last boxed retail one I remember was Space Marine ?
2 - Fliers are really really not effective when used in a passive way such as in box - most people no longer even look at instructions for a game let alone other stuff,
Personally I still think GW's problem is price as a barrier to entry in the hobby and the real/perceived complexity of some kits now.
I honeslty would not want to ever assemble the latest tactial marine box as they have managed to make a high part number kit even higher!.
Not to mention that GW in the UK have seemingly launched another round of attacking indie stockists for the most minor of things. My local was "caught" using GW stock images on his website to sell their product so has now decided to ditch them and replace GW with another miniature makers product.
GW just don't like working with other people. They could really use an arrangement like they had with De Agostini again, but they don't seem to want to let anyone else play with their ball so shut that down after LotR stopped. It's pretty clear they don't really like the Hobbit licence and would rather focus only on their own in house products, despite the fact that LotR was huge for them. They won't produce a product they can sell in more public stores like a general release of Space Hulk, or work with companies like Milton Bradley to make something like Heroquest or Space Crusade. A lot of people my age had Heroquest as their first fantasy game, I started with that and Space Hulk. There have been rumours for years that GW had the opportunity to get their products into superstores but where just too demanding so nothing came of it. They don't even like their own independent stockists, people you should build relations with.
It surprises me that they've managed to have an arrangement with Fantasy Flight Games for so long, but even there they won't let them make miniatures in case it competes, rather than complements and supports, their own products.
GW seem to think that total control is the best way, preventing anyone working with or complementing them, officially or not. I'm sure that by expanding opportunities to the players they'll pull in more customers. Instead they shut down every avenue in their hobby that doesn't lead directly to their online store in the misguided belief that they can force sales out of the customer on their terms. What happens is that customers get fed up of lack of choice, freedom, variety and the inconvenience of it all. So they stop buying.
<sigh>
- No market research. (So how do they know they are right or wrong)
- Depends on word of mouth. (From who???)
- Largely hate relationship with FLGS. (Not getting much shelf space in my area, consistent complaints about dealing with GW as a supplier)
- Rabid IP protection preventing resellers from using any of their images for selling product or otherwise. (Hard to get that brand awareness when you cannot show it to potential customers).
- Steady increase of model / support document costs. (The standard gripe, becoming an irrelevant argument now: if it is a "hot" brand any cost could be justified...)
- Decline in IP use in other mediums. (The latest video game offerings have not been great)
- GW web site exclusively for selling product, little in hobby guides / support. (The old site before the forum take-downs and "upgrade" was awesome.)
- Veteran players remembering "the good old days" so more willing to bad-mouth the present GW sales model. (The contrast is just... brutal.)
I really just do not know how GW plans to maintain what they have or even expand.
It just seems negligent of management to maintain "stay the course" when overall gross income is on the decline.
Funny how we talk of GW "hate" when it is more like watching something you liked choosing to roll over and die (a long, agonizing one however...).
It is really strange both with my friends and the local FLGS the 40k scene has dried-up and we are all playing other things.
Maybe GW can look around a bit and figure out something to pull it out of the fire.
I hope they can forgive us for not waiting around until they do.
Basically, as I see it, GW is apparently unaware of their rising competitors for wargaming money sources, and until they collectively pull their own heads from their sphincters, they are essentially tossing away their future just for the sake of quick profits from over priced models.
Honestly, My IG can be corporate troops in Warpath, or other games out there.
Tau can be used as generic aliens for other games
Orks are well seeded though out the gamer psyche, and also be maruders for warpath, or simple junk wizard aliens in other games, all of these ideas for folks who have large collections, also many veteran gamers simply decided what edition of 40k to play with as they may still have their old books (like me).
But there is a disconnect between GW and their customer base. They decided word of mouth and "churn" which can work for some skeevy companies as far as hiring/firing workers for places, but eventually catches up customer wise to bite one's bum.
reduced costs of models and minis would mean a likely increase in overall revenue for them from mass selling of miniatures collecting dust in warehouses unsold due to the super inflated prices they push now. I buy larger paint supplies for less money as I am sorry, but the paint pots of 0.4fl oz at 4bucks a pot compared to a decent half ounce squeeze bottle of same quality paint for just over 3bucks works out to be more feasible for me. same with cheaper brushes and hobby tools. they really do go crazy trying to squeeze money from ideas that have decent alternatives to their products.
Funny how we talk of GW "hate" when it is more like watching something you liked choosing to roll over and die (a long, agonizing one however...).
It is really strange both with my friends and the local FLGS the 40k scene has dried-up and we are all playing other things.
Maybe GW can look around a bit and figure out something to pull it out of the fire.
I hope they can forgive us for not waiting around until they do.
This! I dont hate them, And I really doubt most of us here actually hate them, I do strongly dislike many of their choices, Its mildly upsetting to see something that you've loved for 20 years be on the slow downhill, its kind of like when your grandparents start to get a bit senile, and loose the marbles. Really quite sad and upsetting to see them loose touch with the person you grew up to know and love.
Even those spewing the most hate filled bile towards them... are still thinkin about GW all the godamned day to come up with such excellent beefs with how they do things. Theyre probably those who loved it the most in their younger days, feeling the most heart broken and betrayed by the changes over the years.
And the people who can run off a list of years worth of things GW did badly... why were they still sticking around to know all this stuff after the first few times? (cus they love it really - yes ... I'm accusing you all of loving it really you are after all spending your precious lives posting on a discussion forum that is predominantly 40k related )
Funny how we talk of GW "hate" when it is more like watching something you liked choosing to roll over and die (a long, agonizing one however...).
It is really strange both with my friends and the local FLGS the 40k scene has dried-up and we are all playing other things.
Maybe GW can look around a bit and figure out something to pull it out of the fire.
I hope they can forgive us for not waiting around until they do.
This! I dont hate them, And I really doubt most of us here actually hate them, I do strongly dislike many of their choices, Its mildly upsetting to see something that you've loved for 20 years be on the slow downhill, its kind of like when your grandparents start to get a bit senile, and loose the marbles. Really quite sad and upsetting to see them loose touch with the person you grew up to know and love.
Even those spewing the most hate filled bile towards them... are still thinkin about GW all the godamned day to come up with such excellent beefs with how they do things. Theyre probably those who loved it the most in their younger days, feeling the most heart broken and betrayed by the changes over the years.
And the people who can run off a list of years worth of things GW did badly... why were they still sticking around to know all this stuff after the first few times? (cus they love it really - yes ... I'm accusing you all of loving it really you are after all spending your precious lives posting on a discussion forum that is predominantly 40k related )
Well, I hate (in a wholly justified, yet emotionally damaging manner) some of the people running the company, but that has naught to do with the fictiuonal universes. I play the crap out of the FFG40KRPGs! What has always amazed me about GW is that ex-customers still read all of the GW news, keep up with product releases, and talk about the company. That's crazy when you think about it. It means that getting those customers back is a whole lot easier than it would otherwise be. Yet GW continually fails to do so.
Achaylus72 wrote: But when you treat your Investors higher than the folks that actually spend money on product, then you deserve everything you get.
Unless I'm mistaken, corporations are actually required by law to put the interest of shareholders above anyone else, including their customers.
As a public company GW has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders that obligates GW to make sound financial decisions for the company that protects the shareholders' investment. That doesn't mean GW has carte Blanche to do whatever they want so long as they can pay a dividend.
I find it interesting that GW continues to promote from within and double down on all the strategies that got them in this position in the first place. It's like the captain of a ship seeing an iceberg and instead of making a course correction, he orders full steam ahead and rams right into it. Word of mouth marketing worked in the 90s when people liked GW as a company. Unfortunately for GW, word of mouth marketing now typically consists of "don't play GW games. Get WMH, infinity, etc." Considering they're pretty much solely relying on existing customers to gain new ones, you would think keeping their existing customers happy would be a priority. Instead they try to bleed us dry until even the most avid fan boy who has stuck with GW for 15-20 years is steering their friends to other games. A Co worker of mine saw me building models and asked more about the hobby. I told him about 40k and he looked at armies. He priced a tau army he wanted...and ended up buying the WMH starter when I showed him how much a khador army would cost. Another friend of mine has 30k of eldar and 10k of blood angels, and 10k of various other armies. He's been playing since the launch of rogue trader. He just told me he's going to start selling off his collection because of what the game has become and the decisions of the company. When you can't get new customers due to price no matter how excited they are about the hobby, and your longest running, highest spending, most loyal customers are leaving, who exactly is going to buy your products?
Toofast wrote: I find it interesting that GW continues to promote from within and double down on all the strategies that got them in this position in the first place. It's like the captain of a ship seeing an iceberg and instead of making a course correction, he orders full steam ahead and rams right into it.
I'd say more like the captain of a ship who's been showboating and ran aground, confident that he can get to the lifeboats before anyone realizes there's a problem. Kirby has been planning to retire for some time now, and right before the ship starts listing would be a good time. Surely it couldn't end in court. Does anyone have dry socks?
Doesn't seem likely. The company's cash position is too strong for any quick development in this regard. Also given the nature of their product, it would be quite unlikely there would be sudden mass exodus of customers.
However it is a bad sign if they can't improve from supposedly anomalously poor first half of last Financial Year. If the sales continue to decline, at some point they start making a loss, and someone larger will eventually take over (atm their stock is still too high for convenient takeover), possibly closes the Nottingham and moves production to China.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Better than you if you think anyone was predicting the imminent demise of the company.
EDIT
anyone was plausibly predicting the imminent demise of the company.
Well, the plausibility was not in the criteria, was it...?
That already happened, they have next to doubled their prices over a few years with flat and now declining revenue.
Achaylus72 wrote: But when you treat your Investors higher than the folks that actually spend money on product, then you deserve everything you get.
Unless I'm mistaken, corporations are actually required by law to put the interest of shareholders above anyone else, including their customers.
As a public company GW has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders that obligates GW to make sound financial decisions for the company that protects the shareholders' investment. That doesn't mean GW has carte Blanche to do whatever they want so long as they can pay a dividend.
It's virtually impossible for a shareholder to sue a corporation, its officers, or directors successfully over poor performance or perceived poor management decisions (for example, Nokia). Breach of fiduciary duty is normally reserved for instances where officers or directors, or majority shareholders enrich themselves at the expense of other shareholders. Even so, one must prove that the intentionally meant to do harm.
Incidentally, directors and officers of private corporations have exactly the same obligations.
In this case, GW has enriched the shareholders with dividends, even when they have to take out a loan to do it. The shareholders should be thrilled, GW is mortgaging the long term health of the company to pay dividends right now. The shareholders should have time to get their parachutes on and get out before the plane hits the ground.
agnosto wrote:1. Entry Level: A fantasy and a sci-fi board game made with board game plastic, not real miniatures.
This isn't the way to go. GW has already paid for their design equipment, their tooling equipment and their injection moulding machines. There's no reason at all for them to switch to a different material or process.
The board game market generally don't want to have to assemble and paint before play. So for an entry level board game you really want single piece coloufed plastics.
agnosto wrote:1. Entry Level: A fantasy and a sci-fi board game made with board game plastic, not real miniatures.
This isn't the way to go. GW has already paid for their design equipment, their tooling equipment and their injection moulding machines. There's no reason at all for them to switch to a different material or process.
The board game market generally don't want to have to assemble and paint before play. So for an entry level board game you really want single piece coloufed plastics.
That really has nothing to do with switching the material to board game plastic or using a different process. See the lord of the rings miniatures for examples of single piece toy soldiers in GW's plastic and things like Space Hulk for their plastic in different colours.
GW has absolutely no reason to switch to a PVC based board game plastic given that they already have invested in a plastic injection process that works and has a very low marginal cost per sprue.
They can do really good single piece or snap fit hard plastic models anyhow, so they could easily do a "board game style" starter without needing to go the PVC route.
agnosto wrote: Anyone remember the D&D Saturday morning cartoon? Man, I'm old but that's an example of marketing.
Well we did have Battletech cartoons as well. I don't think that helped them much. If anything it shows you how America touches something it can ruin it and not be taken seriously.
Now I say you want to make 40K popular? Get James Cameron to make the movie. Yes there will be a love story to it, but you got to admit, James Cameron knows how to make something popular and people take notice and make a few billion at the same time.
agnosto wrote: Anyone remember the D&D Saturday morning cartoon? Man, I'm old but that's an example of marketing.
Well we did have Battletech cartoons as well. I don't think that helped them much. If anything it shows you how America touches something it can ruin it and not be taken seriously.
Now I say you want to make 40K popular? Get James Cameron to make the movie. Yes there will be a love story to it, but you got to admit, James Cameron knows how to make something popular and people take notice and make a few billion at the same time.
I can remember my son asking for battle tech toys that year, so the cartoons worked.
agnosto wrote: Anyone remember the D&D Saturday morning cartoon? Man, I'm old but that's an example of marketing.
Well we did have Battletech cartoons as well. I don't think that helped them much. If anything it shows you how America touches something it can ruin it and not be taken seriously.
Now I say you want to make 40K popular? Get James Cameron to make the movie. Yes there will be a love story to it, but you got to admit, James Cameron knows how to make something popular and people take notice and make a few billion at the same time.
I can remember my son asking for battle tech toys that year, so the cartoons worked.
Battletech toys. Did he ask for the boxed game? Did he ask for Battletech books and or supplements? Did he ask for Battletech minis and rules? Did he ask for Citytech, areotech? Anything releated to the game and not toys made by another company?
I used to watch the battletech cartoon, really enjoyed it as a kid. However had no idea it was a mini game until some years later... So I would say as advertising for the mini game it failed, amazingly... I wouldve loved that at the time. But blissfully unaware.
agnosto wrote: Anyone remember the D&D Saturday morning cartoon? Man, I'm old but that's an example of marketing.
Well we did have Battletech cartoons as well. I don't think that helped them much. If anything it shows you how America touches something it can ruin it and not be taken seriously.
Now I say you want to make 40K popular? Get James Cameron to make the movie. Yes there will be a love story to it, but you got to admit, James Cameron knows how to make something popular and people take notice and make a few billion at the same time.
I can remember my son asking for battle tech toys that year, so the cartoons worked.
Battletech toys. Did he ask for the boxed game? Did he ask for Battletech books and or supplements? Did he ask for Battletech minis and rules? Did he ask for Citytech, areotech? Anything releated to the game and not toys made by another company?
Who paid for the cartoons? the creators of the toys or the game. ?
loki old fart wrote: People keep saying if the share price drops enough, hasbro or another company may step in and buy GW.
Why would they? Since the chapterhouse fiasco, whats left to buy?
A lot of machinery, a lot of moulds, a lot of stuff they do own, at least within the scope of wargaming, and a level of customer awareness beyond anything else within the sector.
Plus a large customer base and a substantial number of customers champing at the bit to re-engage should things improve.
As stated before the brand is considered Toxic. No major player at this moment wants to buy this hotmess of a corporation.
loki old fart wrote: People keep saying if the share price drops enough, hasbro or another company may step in and buy GW.
Why would they? Since the chapterhouse fiasco, whats left to buy?
A lot of machinery, a lot of moulds, a lot of stuff they do own, at least within the scope of wargaming, and a level of customer awareness beyond anything else within the sector.
Plus a large customer base and a substantial number of customers champing at the bit to re-engage should things improve.
As stated before the brand is considered Toxic. No major player at this moment wants to buy this hotmess of a corporation.
I'm afraid that's just unsubstantiated hearsay.
Firstly, the GW name could be considered tarnished, but hardly toxic, they're not Enron.
Secondly, they are, despite the last few reports, still a profit making company who own a popular IP and aren't reliant on any real outside agency for their success.
Their issue is that they are underperforming spectacularly and companies in GW's position are exactly the sort that would attract the attention of specialists who look for this sort of company profile.
Not the sort of thing that may attract another wargaming firm, or the oft cited Hasbro, but certainly something which has appeal for a certain sort of investor.
Warhammer 40k and warhammer itself are easily recognized and well beloved brands (or at least as much as you can in the niche market of wargaming.)
If anyone buys GW the first thing to go will be the GeeDubs name. (please note this the opinion of someone with little economic knowledge so feel free to object or point out any errors in my statement.)
Davor wrote: Now I say you want to make 40K popular? Get James Cameron to make the movie. Yes there will be a love story to it, but you got to admit, James Cameron knows how to make something popular and people take notice and make a few billion at the same time.
The love story/film studio meddling aspect is trivially easy to solve: throw Ciaphas Cain at them. If they want to shove a square peg in a round hole, give them a round peg instead, and let them make their movie about a self-depreciating badass who loves the ladies.
Are other companies that compete with GW private or corporations? If they are corporations as well how are their numbers in their own busniness? Up or down/even? I ask this because it seems a lot of people say how GW numbers are at the moment, but i have not seen anyone (may have missed it lol) say how the other business that make Warmachine, Infinity, etc are doing. I know Warlord Games is owned by an individual (or at least that is my understanding) and thus we probably would not know how well they are doing in reality aside from perception.
Dont get me wrong I do think GW is causing its issues, just wanted to see if there is a bigger picture etc
Spacewolfoddballz wrote: Are other companies that compete with GW private or corporations? If they are corporations as well how are their numbers in their own busniness?
All other companies in the field are private and there is no data beyond what is released to the public (like CB's announcement of 75% growth several years in a row, Warlord's continuing acquisitions of smaller historical figure ranges, or when a major retailer like Wayland announce figures on a particular product like Operation Icestorm). There's no legal requirement for them to release such data (nor even tell the truth I guess).
On another note, it's amusing to see just how much the appeal of the 40k background is overstated sometimes.
Spacewolfoddballz wrote: Are other companies that compete with GW private or corporations? If they are corporations as well how are their numbers in their own busniness? Up or down/even? I ask this because it seems a lot of people say how GW numbers are at the moment, but i have not seen anyone (may have missed it lol) say how the other business that make Warmachine, Infinity, etc are doing. I know Warlord Games is owned by an individual (or at least that is my understanding) and thus we probably would not know how well they are doing in reality aside from perception.
Dont get me wrong I do think GW is causing its issues, just wanted to see if there is a bigger picture etc
Most (all?) of GW's competition is privately owned and therefore doesn't release the same kind of financial reports GW is required to publish, but anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that the miniatures industry as a whole is doing pretty well and GW's losses are the result of losing market share rather than industry-wide problems.
Azreal13 wrote: Not the sort of thing that may attract another wargaming firm, or the oft cited Hasbro, but certainly something which has appeal for a certain sort of investor.
IMO it's exactly the right kind of target for a Hasbro-type purchase, if the price drops low enough. The IP has a lot of long-term value, the model kits are good, and the only problems are almost entirely the result of bad management rather than a weak product. The ideal owner for GW's IP would be a company with enough experience in the game industry to know how to fix the management issues and the resources to absorb GW and start making major changes immediately. I think the theoretical non-gaming investor would only make GW's problems even worse by continuing their trend of not understanding how the gaming hobby works and making bad decisions as a result.
I agree it isn't beyond the realms of all possibility, just that there are more companies and individuals out there who specialise in acquiring lame ducks and fixing them up than there are likely purchasers with the funds and existing portfolio to complement GW, it isn't impossible Hasbro or Bandai or similar could show an interest, just that the balance of probability isn't necessarily tilting in that direction.
As for public vs private ownership, incorporated (or limited liability, I don't think there's a difference, just a UK vs US thing) companies who have their operations based in the UK ARE obliged to disclose their accounts, the depth of detail of which is regulated by thresholds in turnover (larger companies are obliged to share more information.)
Unfortunately, of all the bigger players I've thought to check, Mantic are the only one's who are UK based (PP and FFG are US, CB are Spanish) and their last filed accounts had their turnover pegged at £13m IIRC (it's late and its a few weeks since I looked, so I'm possibly incorrect.) I didn't go back and do any comparisons for growth, but enough info is out there for some educated guesswork.
I can remember my son asking for battle tech toys that year, so the cartoons worked.
Battletech toys. Did he ask for the boxed game? Did he ask for Battletech books and or supplements? Did he ask for Battletech minis and rules? Did he ask for Citytech, areotech? Anything releated to the game and not toys made by another company?
Who paid for the cartoons? the creators of the toys or the game. ?
No idea who paid for it. It was made by an American company, or I should say, it was made for an American audience with Americanized cartoon graphics.
AlexHolker wrote:
Davor wrote: Now I say you want to make 40K popular? Get James Cameron to make the movie. Yes there will be a love story to it, but you got to admit, James Cameron knows how to make something popular and people take notice and make a few billion at the same time.
The love story/film studio meddling aspect is trivially easy to solve: throw Ciaphas Cain at them. If they want to shove a square peg in a round hole, give them a round peg instead, and let them make their movie about a self-depreciating badass who loves the ladies.
Reason there is a love story is to get the ladies involved. By involved I mean to like the movie. A lot of money was made on Titanic and Avatar and Terminator because it had a lot of stuff in it so men and women can relate to it. Want women to go see a 40K movie. There needs to be a love story for them so they can be part of it. Also throw in some Channing Tatum and what not in there, and women will love the for him and the story, and men will love it for the action and grim dark. Kids will love it because it's Space Marines in Live action.
Jehan-reznor wrote: The Space crusade board-game was a great entry game and had some interesting mini's for it's time, they should do a revised edition of that.
I'm actually surprised that with all the rushed releases this hasn't been done. Hell I haven't bought a GW product in years but I'd actually buy that. Plus you'd think of all the 'new' projects it would be trivially simple to do.
Heroquest and Space Crusade had an involvement from Milton Bradley.
How far that involvement ran, and how much of an implication it would have on a re-release I can't attest to.
Advanced Heroquest and Space Crusade, however, may be a different matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But then if you're taking Advanced Heroquest, one may as well re-do Warhammer Quest and then coast for another decade on the gratitude and good will that would generate!
Heroquest and space crusade were available to buy in department stores for a reasonable price. No point creating an entrypoint game if it's only available in gw stores and costs 3x the price of a board game.
You might have fond memories of those games but I remember getting all those games when they were $30AUD bargain bins in Toys R Us. I can't imagine they sold well at their $100 original price tag.
I don't know if Games Workshop is tarnished but some GW shops are being rebranded to Warhammer.
This may be an experiment by GW to change their public image.
Also, these days the name itself isn't really applicable, and is something of an ironic reminder of the company's past.
The name conjures up a picture of something like the Pixar offices, of creative types getting around a table and throwing in ideas, and the business with the financial capital to put these great games into peoples hands. It applied during the 90's, arguably these days the only company that fits that moniker is Mantic (unsurprisingly, as the company is made up of ex-GW rule writers and staff)
Thachng wrote:You might have fond memories of those games but I remember getting all those games when they were $30AUD bargain bins in Toys R Us. I can't imagine they sold well at their $100 original price tag.
There was a survey a while ago asking how wargamers got into games. IIRC it was 20% or so that came from those MB games initially, a not inconsiderable amount. The point is that like the lack of DeAgostini magazine tie-ins, lack of WD in newsagents*, lack of online presence, they all represent less opportunity for the prospective customers to get in to GW games, or even find out about them in the first place.
* My first exposure to GW was a copy of WD in a shop. If I were a child of 11 in 2014, it wouldn't happen - yes Visions exists, but at 7GBP a pop and in a sealed bag I probably wouldn't buy it. Even if someone had opened the sealed bag (as often happens) the contents are those of a collection of photos/a catalogue, not a journalistic magazine - I think a lot of 11/12 years are sharper than that, and need more.
Thachng wrote: You might have fond memories of those games but I remember getting all those games when they were $30AUD bargain bins in Toys R Us. I can't imagine they sold well at their $100 original price tag.
Space Crusade, not so much. Heroquest did quite well, though.
Although I don't recall it ever being $100. Fairly sure I paid about $65 for it in 1991.
It wouldn't really take much for another company to turn things around if they did a little research. Make a tighter ruleset, re balance the codexes, set up a Facebook page and engage with the community, put their existing market research team on finding out what will keep the veterans around and happy so they bring in new blood, basically just look at what GW was doing 10-15 years ago and do that again. I would love to see this happen as many people I know stopped buying/playing because of GW, not because they don't want to be in the hobby any more. Balanced rules and the feeling that the company actually cares about your experience would go a long way toward getting the customers back that have recently gone to other games.
Gamers already complain about the operating costs of stores, I only imagine they'd complain even more about multi million dollar advertising campaigns.
Generally, a successful advertising campaign will make more than it costs, and we're not even talking about mulit-million dollar advertising campaigns, they could be much more effective for a few thousand. There's at least 4 (Ravage, Wargames Illustrated, Wargames, Soldiers & Strategy, and Miniature Wargames) 3rd party wargames magazines, counless other scale model and video gaming magazines. A full/half page ad in a few of them would work wonders, especially if it's was about a new release, like an ad about 7th Edition 40K or the End Times stuff, in a scattering of magazines. They'd never do that because of leaks though; you can only really advertise if you're willing to tell people what's going on.
Realistically, despite the big strides many appear to have taken, none of the other bigger names (PP, Wyrd, CB etc..) have the finances to support a decent advertising campaign.
Wyrd, and CB do a lot of advertising though; I see Wyrd banners on a few sites, CB has adverts up and sponsors Beasts Of War. Many other smaller companies have a lot of ads in the wargaming magazines (From memory, the following are usually in WI: Gripping Beast, North Star, Warlord, Battlefront, Fire Forge, Sanguin Skirmish, the Perry Brothers)
I don't know if Games Workshop is tarnished but some GW shops are being rebranded to Warhammer.
This may be an experiment by GW to change their public image.
If the GW name is tarnished, it's tarnished among people who are enthusiasts enough to know that Warhammer is still made by GW and thus the Warhammer name is also tarnished unless it's genuinely picked up by a new company.
But among most people I don't really think the GW name is tarnished enough for that to be a game changer in their success.
There's no chance of that happening. The culture of management is such that problems can't be the fault of the manager. As such mistakes cannot be rectified as to do so would mean admitting them.
Peregrine wrote: Most (all?) of GW's competition is privately owned and therefore doesn't release the same kind of financial reports GW is required to publish, but anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that the miniatures industry as a whole is doing pretty well and GW's losses are the result of losing market share rather than industry-wide problems.
I don't know if it works differently in the US but in the UK a 'private' company would probably be still be a limited corporation. Their accounts are a matter of public record. For example here are the accounts for Wayland games.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If the GW name is tarnished, it's tarnished among people who are enthusiasts enough to know that Warhammer is still made by GW and thus the Warhammer name is also tarnished unless it's genuinely picked up by a new company.
But among most people I don't really think the GW name is tarnished enough for that to be a game changer in their success.
I don't think the name is tarnished on the storefront level. If anything, a "Warhammer"-rebrand is to keep out people walking in to buy an X-Box game or a new copy of Monopoly for Christmas.
And while Games Workshop may not be tarnished, it has no sex appeal as a brand either. "Warhammer" is the brand they live on, be it their own games and miniatures and books, be it licensing it out to others. Not sure if that truly is the reason, but if they'd be smart, long-term thinking, and all that, they'd try to really hit home on their IP on different levels, and that IP is "Warhammer", not "Games Workshop".
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If the GW name is tarnished, it's tarnished among people who are enthusiasts enough to know that Warhammer is still made by GW and thus the Warhammer name is also tarnished unless it's genuinely picked up by a new company.
But among most people I don't really think the GW name is tarnished enough for that to be a game changer in their success.
I don't think the name is tarnished on the storefront level. If anything, a "Warhammer"-rebrand is to keep out people walking in to buy an X-Box game or a new copy of Monopoly for Christmas.
And while Games Workshop may not be tarnished, it has no sex appeal as a brand either. "Warhammer" is the brand they live on, be it their own games and miniatures and books, be it licensing it out to others. Not sure if that truly is the reason, but if they'd be smart, long-term thinking, and all that, they'd try to really hit home on their IP on different levels, and that IP is "Warhammer", not "Games Workshop".
I personally think the draw of non-gaming folk into the stores is actually quite a good thing. Sure, the managers have to shift through a lot of "y you no hav CoD?" but you pull in people who might not have otherwise known they had any interest in wargaming.
Plus, I feel that stores called Warhammer come off as a bit...well, dorky tbh. It might as well add a "+3" to the name.
IMO it's exactly the right kind of target for a Hasbro-type purchase, if the price drops low enough. The IP has a lot of long-term value, the model kits are good, and the only problems are almost entirely the result of bad management rather than a weak product. The ideal owner for GW's IP would be a company with enough experience in the game industry to know how to fix the management issues and the resources to absorb GW and start making major changes immediately. I think the theoretical non-gaming investor would only make GW's problems even worse by continuing their trend of not understanding how the gaming hobby works and making bad decisions as a result.
I agree. Strong IP with obvious management errors should make it quite interesting for larger companies.
A couple of errors I see with current management are, first, poor entry offerings for new customers, and second, lack of expansion when the market is good.
The mantra of 'focusing on key games' was smart in the 90's when the business was slowing down, but they have failed to recover the ground when the market has gotten better. There has been great opportunity for expansion with the Specialist Games range, but they've practically given it away to competition. There's no strategy how to build their empire bigger, really - even if you had a good influx of new players (which they don't) the core games can only expand so far. I'd say it's the lack of market research and opportunity seeking, really. They'd need a new, hungry CEO for that.
For recruiting new players, they'd need a good bang for buck entry option. Being the biggest miniature company, they should also be able to draw in crowds with well discounted entry sets. It's a bit silly that smaller companies can actually be a lot cheaper, too - usually it's the other way around. The current GW price point is just silly, really - dropping several hundred euros just to get a full 1500 pts army isn't very tempting, especially from a newbie point of view.
The Warhammer name is sorely tarnished with the people they needed to keep, the gaming veterans who enjoyed the franchise for better or for worse. There are still hold outs, but the actual game side of the business is busted terribly. GW needs to pull in fresh blood to the overall wargaming scene, but you're going to have store owners and in-store gamers being a new line of defense against "that game" coming back up. Trying to get my local crowd to play GW would be a lost cause as the store owner doesn't want to support it and the crowd has all been burnt on it.
As those networks grow, you're going to see it harder and harder to get newbies and retain the vets. When you have big names like Miniature Market dumping their entire stock, you know something is going wrong. It's not a secret that GW treats their trade account/store owner partnerships terribly. Stack that with an insane push to everything centrally purchased with increasing price tags and you double down on killing interest of newcomers and bringing vets back.
Every other game company I've been a patron towards is worth admiration overall despite a few flaws. With GW, you have to have a near masochistic relationship to enjoy swallowing price hikes for less content routinely now.
It's too bad that in a time when technology is allowing for the most incredible product in it's history, GW is seemingly alienating people.
Is this a fact, however, or is this slump reflective of the gaming industry overall?
Relapse wrote: It's too bad that in a time when technology is allowing for the most incredible product in it's history, GW is seemingly alienating people.
Is this a fact, however, or is this slump reflective of the gaming industry overall?
GW has been alienating people for a long time now, it's just starting to catch up with them. They used to target independent retailers who were doing good business and setup a gw shop in the area to kill them off. They have 'interesting' trade terms with retailers such as in america indies aren't allowed to show pictures of the product they're selling. They've gone after fan sites with their legal team and shut them down. They've even gone after unrelated people (such as spots the space marine). Basically, they've gone after everyone who was a supporter of them, and it has generated a lot of negative will. Thats part of the problem they're facing, what on earth can you do to bring back the customers and infrastructure (indies) that they've intentionally burned?
I think part of the problem is kirby bought a business that 'runs itself', and that got them pretty far but has run out of momentum. The 'new' competition that has sprung up is a symptom of the failings of gw, not the cause. Here we stand 25 years later and 7th edition is a watered-down version of 2nd edition. Outside the bigger kits (i won't go into the finecrap debacle), there hasn't been any true innovation inside the company. The closest i've seen is the day1 dlc policy, which is a faulty copy (microtransactions is supposed to mean tiny costs) of the online gaming industry and its problems. There comes a point where 'raise the prices' won't fix the problems, and we're beginning to see that point.
Yep, Finecast was a terrible idea that should have been more thoroughly tested. Glad to see that fading in the rear view mirror. After I bought a couple of kits, it killed a lot of purchases
I otherwise would have made, and I didn't buy any GW for almost a year.
For me personally the worst thing is thinking of what could be. GW could be the top dog that others aspire to if they did things right. They could have various games that let you explore all facets of the worlds, not just two. There could be support for competitive and casual play, and balanced rules.
It's almost tragic to think of an alternate universe where GW does all of these things and corresponds with the community via their own forums, third party forums, Twitter, etc. - imagine being able to talk to the designers via Twitter?
Imagine if GW didn't try to cheat you in their paint ranges by offering a measly 12mL for higher than everyone else. They would corner the market basically as Citadel paints tends to be available in most game stores and then it would have a good price, great range and coverage and give you a good amount. Instead they give you a tiny bit, charge more and try to sell you overpriced tools and brushes just because they can.
Accolade wrote: I personally think the draw of non-gaming folk into the stores is actually quite a good thing.
I agree. Keep a few copies of Space Marine for each platform and a few copies of Space Hulk in the store, and you've got a good way to test the waters with anyone looking for video games or board games. If they aren't interested, point them towards the nearest video game store.
CEO- Well, looks like our profits are dropping. We are getting far fewer customers than before-
*dodges sniper rifle bullet fired from 40k vets in the building next door*
,and our current policies do not seem to be working. Any suggestion, gentlemen?
Person 1- Start advertising. We can do TV advertisements or maybe carry White Dwarf and Visions in stores.
CEO- That costs money, dammit Biggles! We need a minimum-cost solution!
Person 1- Sir, a good advertising program would generate more revenue than-
*Escorted out by security*
AHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
CEO- Now, I think we should implement a new strategy. Raise all prices by 100%, and cut the number of miniatures per box in half. I need a new edition and full round of codexes every month.
So have the events it describes, I'll be willing to bet.
WayneTheGame wrote: For me personally the worst thing is thinking of what could be. GW could be the top dog that others aspire to if they did things right.
For me, the worst thing is thinking that GW is still top dog for the time being, and others aspire to it via the same practises.
I think it's best if we don't have any top dog. The diversity in the historical side of things caused by an inability to copyright the past has lead to an incredible state in terms of number of market participants and consumer choice.
With each passing reporting period GW loses ground on revenue while increasing prices on their best selling items (new releases) so they are fading into irrelevancy to the majority of gamers. It's a good thing not to have one company dominate the industry.
frozenwastes wrote: I think it's best if we don't have any top dog. The diversity in the historical side of things caused by an inability to copyright the past has lead to an incredible state in terms of number of market participants and consumer choice.
With each passing reporting period GW loses ground on revenue while increasing prices on their best selling items (new releases) so they are fading into irrelevancy to the majority of gamers. It's a good thing not to have one company dominate the industry.
This is what I have been saying for years now, this is the best thing that can happen to the market, its because we had one company dominate the market place that held back wargaming from being healthy and having diversity. The more open wargaming is to competition and diversity the more amazing products will be produced and the more settings and gener's will be introduced to wargaming. This is something I do not understand why so many of you are so are so concerned about, GWs demise will be far from harming the industry but a very good thing for wargaming as a whole.
frozenwastes wrote: I think it's best if we don't have any top dog. The diversity in the historical side of things caused by an inability to copyright the past has lead to an incredible state in terms of number of market participants and consumer choice.
With each passing reporting period GW loses ground on revenue while increasing prices on their best selling items (new releases) so they are fading into irrelevancy to the majority of gamers. It's a good thing not to have one company dominate the industry.
This is what I have been saying for years now, this is the best thing that can happen to the market, its because we had one company dominate the market place that held back wargaming from being healthy and having diversity. The more open wargaming is to competition and diversity the more amazing products will be produced and the more settings and gener's will be introduced to wargaming. This is something I do not understand why so many of you are so are so concerned about, GWs demise will be far from harming the industry but a very good thing for wargaming as a whole.
That may be true in areas with a thriving wargaming community, what GW brought to the table was a game that was widespread enough that you could easily find a game. I'm collecting 15mm ww2 models fully knowing they're liable to sit on my shelf never getting used because I struggle to find people who play it. Overall there's diversity in wargaming, but realistically on a local level it can be as shallow as either you play 40k or you play Warmahordes. Of course I'm aware in some areas 40k might not be popular and it might be Flames of War that's the standard, but there is definitely an advantage to having a big boy in the gaming market for communities that are smaller and more splintered.
Theoretically, if you have multiple armies for a game system, are people/your friends willing and interested in playing that game with you using your models even if they're not willing to invest in it themselves?
That's what I'm planning for, myself. I have 6 WIP armies for LOTR SBG, and I plan to get a second army for SAGA, so I have spare armies to lend to potential opponents. I imagine that people might be more open to playing a game if they have don't have to invest in it themselves.
My,uncle is interested in mini wargaming,so I spent boxing day showing him how to paint. I'm into fantasy (Lord of the Rings and Game Of.thrones) and historical games (Dark Ages). He's into comic books, so I told him about the Knight Miniatures Barman game. I'm not especially interested in that myself but if he gets the models I'd jump at the chance to try it out. And vice versa probably.
Warhammer 40000 is too expensive a game for me to ever consider getting a 2nd army.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Theoretically, if you have multiple armies for a game system, are people/your friends willing and interested in playing that game with you using your models even if they're not willing to invest in it themselves?
Yeah I've tried that, I just end up with 2 armies sitting on my shelf instead of 1 You spend hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours assembling 2 armies, you convince a couple of people to play it, you play a few games, if no one jumps on board to collect it themselves, the armies go back on the shelf never to be touched again.
The main reason I persist with 40k is it's consistently been the game I could just pick up and play with whatever gaming community happens to be around at the time. Yes, it's an expensive game, but it's the one the most people play.
Granted, there are now a lot of people playing Warmahordes but that has never appealed to me.
What's even more expensive, time consuming and offputting than 40k is starting half a dozen different games of which you only ever play a handful of times
This is what I have been saying for years now, this is the best thing that can happen to the market, its because we had one company dominate the market place that held back wargaming from being healthy and having diversity. The more open wargaming is to competition and diversity the more amazing products will be produced and the more settings and gener's will be introduced to wargaming.
And then add in the internet where creatives can get in touch directly with their end users. Where we can buy hand cast miniatures from the other side of the ocean and get rules instantly in electronic formats (or print on demand printed and shipped in our own countries). Instead of needing enough interest through normal distribution channels, now people interested in bringing something to market can have their customer base spread around the globe.
This is something I do not understand why so many of you are so are so concerned about, GWs demise will be far from harming the industry but a very good thing for wargaming as a whole.
GW's demise isn't required. They just need to keep shrinking (or perhaps merely cease to grow while everyone else expands) until they no longer are the go to option for guaranteed opponents. This is already the case in many areas. And with GW cutting the operating hours of their stores and their concentration on low volume at high prices, even high volume areas for GW are going to have a reduction in customers which will compound over time as GW is reliant on word of mouth advertising and the network effect reduces the utility of their games as the local player base declines.
Higher prices + declining revenue = some combination of less people buy and less product being sold. Which means with the declining player base with each reporting period that passes, less and less people will go to GW as the default options, which means more declining revenue for them. It compounds over time and GW's high prices ensure competition producing miniatures in much, much smaller numbers can enter the market at sustainable margins.
I want more of the same: declining revenue, volume and profit in a growing market. GW should also keep distributing more than they make as dividends as that means there's no threat to the market of them suddenly wising up and trying to regain market share that has already been ceded. As much as I advocate for taking a few million of the dividend money and investing in a product development division whose responsibility is to return GW to growth, I'd rather they didn't do it. I'd rather they just keep raising the price with new releases, keep the barrier to entry with high starter prices and maybe cut their retail hours even further by completing the transition to single employee stores (there's still a surprising number of fully staffed GW stores).
This slow, orderly decline is the perfect environment for innovators to enter the market and I hope it continues for quite some time. When each local community atrophies to the point that choosing 40k or WFB is no longer a guaranteed way to find opponents, then people might be more inclined to pick products on their merits as miniatures and as games first and foremost rather than settling for what is most played. Now there still will be those for whom GW's offerings line up perfectly with what they want and GW can just be one of many options with no particular market dominance.
I still maintain that GW's expansion was largely the result of demographic factors beyond their control (the teenage children of the baby boomers in the 90s followed by the LOTR boom) and the last 10 or so years has simply been GW returning to a natural economic equilibrium for their product at the price they have chosen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Yeah I've tried that, I just end up with 2 armies sitting on my shelf instead of 1 You spend hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours assembling 2 armies, you convince a couple of people to play it, you play a few games, if no one jumps on board to collect it themselves, the armies go back on the shelf never to be touched again.
I cut out the "if no one jumps on board to collect it themselves" and just host dinner party nights with a game I'm hosting. And run games of it at local gamin club days and conventions. I've never had a problem getting monthly games of anything I want, even complicated games like Battletech or Federation Commander or niche historicals like 19th century Central/South America wars for independence.
The main reason I persist with 40k is it's consistently been the game I could just pick up and play with whatever gaming community happens to be around at the time. Yes, it's an expensive game, but it's the one the most people play.
And with each passing reporting period we see less people are buying less while GW downplays the importance of game play. In 2009 there were surely more players than today and even then Jervis said at UK Games Day that most of their customers never play their games. GW is losing this advantage of opponent availability.
What's even more expensive, time consuming and offputting than 40k is starting half a dozen different games of which you only ever play a handful of times
The only reason to do that is if you make your fun dependent on other people starting a new army along with you after you build two starter forces. If you adopt a project based approach and run games a host, this is a non issue. Historicals have been humming along with this model since the plastic airfix explosion of the 1950s. GW's model is actually a recent aberration. This approach of expecting each participant to build and bring their own army is kind of strange when you think of it. Imagine Settlers of Catan but you have to bring your own roads, settlements, cities and some hexes. Or Chess, but you're expected to bring your own pawns. (Yes, I know the analogy isn't perfect, but analogies aren't arguments, just illustrations to help you understand).
The demographic and pop culture shifts that allowed for GW to reach the state of market dominance where this artificial construct of buying only half a game (and expecting someone else to buy the other half and bring it) is slowly coming to an end and we're getting back to the norm across the last 60 or so years of the hobby. The GW style approach of expecting other people to buy into the game before you can have a complete experience of the game and not have your purchase sit on the shelf is just inappropriate in a diverse market place. The only reason miniatures sit on the shelf is because you're not picking them up and putting them on the table with a friend you invited over for dinner/drinks and wargaming.
frozenwastes wrote: This approach of expecting each participant to build and bring their own army is kind of strange when you think of it.
Maybe.... but it's an appealing one which I think draws in a lot of people.
I've never had all that much luck hosting games with my own models. Maybe I'm not enthusiastic enough about it or maybe my friends just aren't in to it, but for the most part I spend hundreds of hours building armies for the sake of a couple of nights worth of gameplay. I'd sooner just play cards or board games
Not that I don't enjoy constructing armies... that's why I'm doing 15mm WW2 forces full well knowing that they'll probably never see more than a couple of games... but when it actually comes to playing a game, 40k has the appeal of just being able to pick up my army go to a club or FLGS and play a game.
Not that I think diversity is bad, I think diversity in wargaming is good, I'm just offering a counter point to the idea that GW's demise and 40k not being top dog would be best where in reality for the most part I just see me and many others playing even less wargames than I do now. If 40k disappeared tomorrow, around this area Warmahordes would be the new top dog, if Warmahordes disappeared I imagine it would be very hard to arrange any sort of game the same way it is currently hard to organise any game that isn't 40k or Warmahordes.
frozenwastes wrote: This approach of expecting each participant to build and bring their own army is kind of strange when you think of it. Imagine Settlers of Catan but you have to bring your own roads, settlements, cities and some hexes. Or Chess, but you're expected to bring your own pawns. (Yes, I know the analogy isn't perfect, but analogies aren't arguments, just illustrations to help you understand).
Chess has no "deck-building" aspect to it. I assume Settlers of Catan doesn't either. Games like Magic the Gathering and Warhammer give you a lot of leeway regarding your starting resources, so it is natural that these games would favour the BYO setup where they can tailor their starting resources to their preferences.
On a side note, I also have gone the dinner party route for a significant percentage of my miniatures gaming. On about a monthly basis I play a game where the miniatures, terrain, rules, and venue are my own.
7-9 folks usually show up to play, and we typically play for a marathon 8 hour session filled with good food and plenty of booze. This type of binge gaming has provided a startling amount of gaming satisfaction.
It is, however, very much an I'm-an-adult-now development. I have the disposable income to have a collection of miniatures and terrain for a dozen players, but don't have the time to go to the FLGS once per week. I do miss the heady college days of regular visits to the FLGS for late nights of gaming, driving home at midnight trying to figure out where a battle plan went wrong, heading out for post-war drinks.
C'est la vie.
Edit: I will add, however, that I think what Frozen is talking about is part of what has contributed to the popularity of games-in-a-box that we have been seeing. You can pack Zombicide in a box, carry it to a venue, and simply look for players. Same with Shadows of Brimstone, Super Dungeon Explore, Mice and Mystics, or any of the other miniatures-forward dungeon-crawler board games. I think there are lots of other reasons for the current popularity of this format, but I think the above is a strong factor.
FFG found the best of both worlds with a wargame that is terribly simple, has a low barrier to entry, is cheap enough to easily collect enough product to support multiple players, is eminently portable, can be played on most commonly-available surfaces, is built on a widely mainstream IP, and requires little investment of time but also provides room for hobby nuts to do some hobbying. A lot of those characteristics help to make a plentiful opponent pool.
Edit Edit: I just noticed that my post count is now progressing through the years of the American Civil War.
weeble1000 wrote: It is, however, very much an I'm-an-adult-now development. I have the disposable income to have a collection of miniatures and terrain for a dozen players, but don't have the time to go to the FLGS once per week.
My problem isn't disposable income to buy multiple armies and games, it's that most the wargames I'm interested you need to paint the models and I just don't have the time to do that. It seems most the games I like involve a lot of options too, so they're really designed for BYO armies rather than me picking armies that I like and assigning them to people.
weeble1000 wrote: It is, however, very much an I'm-an-adult-now development. I have the disposable income to have a collection of miniatures and terrain for a dozen players, but don't have the time to go to the FLGS once per week.
My problem isn't disposable income to buy multiple armies and games, it's that most the wargames I'm interested you need to paint the models and I just don't have the time to do that. It seems most the games I like involve a lot of options too, so they're really designed for BYO armies rather than me picking armies that I like and assigning them to people.
Well, neither do I, but I find that gamers are pretty tolerant about playing with 'unfinished' miniatures when they don't have to do anything other than show up and play, LOL. I have also found that gamers who like to paint are usually happy to do some painting when all they have to do otherwise is show up and play.
I also usually provide a few little incentives for assistance with hobby stuff, such as some exp, small scenario benefits, or similar. It is easy enough to send someone home with a few miniatures after a game and get them back next month with a basic paint job. And then if no one is willing to help paint a few miniatures here or there, they can't really complain if all of the bad guys aren't painted this month.
There was a survey a while ago asking how wargamers got into games. IIRC it was 20% or so that came from those MB games initially, a not inconsiderable amount. The point is that like the lack of DeAgostini magazine tie-ins, lack of WD in newsagents*, lack of online presence, they all represent less opportunity for the prospective customers to get in to GW games, or even find out about them in the first place.
That is exactly how my girlfriend got into fantasy gaming - her mum ran HeroQuest for her. (We played the heck out of my old copy of HeroQuest on Thanksgiving - my girlfriend, her mum, her cousin, and me. The game still has a lot of play in it. )
It is, however, very much an I'm-an-adult-now development. I have the disposable income to have a collection of miniatures and terrain for a dozen players, but don't have the time to go to the FLGS once per week. I do miss the heady college days of regular visits to the FLGS for late nights of gaming, driving home at midnight trying to figure out where a battle plan went wrong, heading out for post-war drinks.
This is very much where I am. Between finishing grad-school, job, wife, and now 6 month old daughter, I'm stretched pretty thin. When I do have leisure time with friends, I find all the prep and forging of narrative to get a game of 7th edition going extremely distasteful. Most of the people I usually play with have gone to board games for the quick, portable gaming fix. I still enjoy modelling but have a 1/2 built Knight Acheron on my desk, and a completely unassembled Megara under it, that I have been working in for 2 months now....
I remember the days of time but no money....almost fondly.
It is, however, very much an I'm-an-adult-now development. I have the disposable income to have a collection of miniatures and terrain for a dozen players, but don't have the time to go to the FLGS once per week. I do miss the heady college days of regular visits to the FLGS for late nights of gaming, driving home at midnight trying to figure out where a battle plan went wrong, heading out for post-war drinks.
This is very much where I am. Between finishing grad-school, job, wife, and now 6 month old daughter, I'm stretched pretty thin. When I do have leisure time with friends, I find all the prep and forging of narrative to get a game of 7th edition going extremely distasteful. Most of the people I usually play with have gone to board games for the quick, portable gaming fix. I still enjoy modelling but have a 1/2 built Knight Acheron on my desk, and a completely unassembled Megara under it, that I have been working in for 2 months now....
I remember the days of time but no money....almost fondly.
If you've not already, pick up the third HH book from Forgeworld; the Strike Force rules work just as well with 40K armies as 30K, and it plays out like Kill Team crossed with Necromunda, but more flexible/fun than KT and with less intergame book keeping than Necro. I've pretty much stopped planning 40K projects as armies, working with Strike Forces means shorter games, less modelling work before I get the satisfaction of completing a project, and less money spent on each force(which of course just means I now have twice as many projects planned ).
frozenwastes wrote: Yes, I know the analogy isn't perfect, but analogies aren't arguments, just illustrations to help you understand.
Chess has no "deck-building" aspect to it. I assume Settlers of Catan doesn't either. Games like Magic the Gathering and Warhammer give you a lot of leeway regarding your starting resources, so it is natural that these games would favour the BYO setup where they can tailor their starting resources to their preferences.
Yes, I know the analogy isn't perfect, but analogies aren't arguments, just illustrations to help you understand.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Maybe.... but it's an appealing one which I think draws in a lot of people.
Which leaves us where we are now in the industry. If people have a healthy local 40k or WFB (less likely) community, and they enjoy GW's products and rules, then things for that particular area haven't changed much since GW's near monopoly during the LOTR years. I consider those with local 40k communities who also happen to like the game to be quite fortunate. I've seen what it looks like when the local community fades and the player base falls below the critical mass. It isn't pretty. People can get into a petty fortress mentality about their game vs other games. Independent stores find themselves in a hard situation where their customer base for a product is fading, but they can't just easily order it in through their regular distributors for the remaining volume.
I'm just offering a counter point to the idea that GW's demise and 40k not being top dog would be best where in reality for the most part I just see me and many others playing even less wargames than I do now.
I don't think anyone in this thread is predicting GW's "demise" any time soon. They're still posting a profit and are very vigilant about watching their costs.
You are quite right that those who rely on this product model of building half the game pieces and looking for someone else to supply the rest will get less games in when there is no go-to game along those lines. I also think that if an area has a go-to game for that approach, the people who play that, or play the 2nd most popular one are the worst possible people to invite over for a night of gaming. They already have exactly what they are looking for and if their community is at all threatened or in decline (some areas can have that fortress mentality where people think if they give an inch to a competing wargame, it could spell the end of their enjoyment if that other game takes over) they'll be extra wary of trying other options.
The type of people I invite to my games are the same people who, if they were free, would say yes if I invited them over for a movie night. Or to play a board game. Or whatever. If they are only acquaintances rather than friends, they're far more likely to be from a local board game club than trying to get people at the local store's Warmachine/Hordes night. And the goal certainly isn't to try to get them to also start an army. It's to have a fun night playing a game.
With every reporting period that GW is posting declining revenue while their prices go up (we know from the CHS lawsuit public files that GW sells new releases at a much higher rate than existing products, except for some core space marine items) that less product is being sold to less people. We have also seen the phenomenon of GW gaming in local areas falling below the critical mass point for the network effect to be of a benefit and people are no longer able to easily find pick up games. It's not a universal phenomenon though. I'm sure there will be areas where GW games are played regularly by a great many people long after they have disappeared from other areas.
Before the last financial report, PaintingBuddha (a former c-level executive) pointed out a few very simple things about GW. He pointed out the dividend thing that I brought up earlier in the thread (that GW's pay out ratio was indicative of future earnings) and that the fundamental disconnect GW has is between games and collecting/hobby. I bet GW is absolutely unconcerned about the network effect and whether or not you can find a local opponent. They do have an opportunity to have the issue brought to their attention though.
They recently hired a customer experience person who is to go around to all the GW stores and see what the successful ones are doing to sell more GW miniatures. Then report back to the CEO about what works. It's possible that the person will come back and tell them that hard sales are the thing. That when someone walks into a GW store, the stores making the most money are the ones where the employee pounces on the person and doesn't stop selling them on the product until they either buy it or get out. It also possible though, that the best performing GW stores will be ones that have thriving local gaming happening. And that developing organized play and focusing on the game experience drives sales.
Will GW be willing to hear that if it's the case? I'm not sure it is the case as I think GW stores that just concentrate on classic hard selling techniques will probably out perform the community builders, but if that's wrong and the gaming community builders have it right, will GW's CEO be willing to even hear it?
If the network effects do not mostly (80%?) involve GW shops, then the customer experience person will not collect accurate information about why people play (or stop playing ) GW.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the network effects do not mostly (80%?) involve GW shops, then the customer experience person will not collect accurate information about why people play (or stop playing ) GW.
That's a very good point.
And it gets the heart of the problem with the customer experience position in the first place. They're ignoring one of the central tenants of customer experience management-- that a product is a bundle of experiences. Instead, they're only concentrating on the customer experience of "purchasing our wonderful miniatures" (not kidding about the quote) and never even look at how the experience of the product itself is working out.
And if its true that the majority of the people who actually play (or played) GW games don't do so in a GW store, they'll be getting a skewed sampling of what's going on.
The point of this person's job though, is to figure out what works best for selling GW product to people in GW stores. Any talk about the actual product or what their customers do with it (or don't do with it) will be quite "otiose."
But it's an "aberration" that has become the default in the non-historical market, and it's even present in the historical market. Can you really call it an "aberration" when it has defined the market for 20-30 years and shows no signs of ending?
The GW style approach of expecting other people to buy into the game before you can have a complete experience of the game and not have your purchase sit on the shelf is just inappropriate in a diverse market place.
No, it's necessary to have a diverse marketplace. A market which has lots of different 5-model skirmish games with little or no list-building is not a diverse market because it has eliminated all of the larger-scale games (where buying a complete game for 2+ people is not plausible). You might be rolling different dice, but you're still playing essentially the same game.
The only reason miniatures sit on the shelf is because you're not picking them up and putting them on the table with a friend you invited over for dinner/drinks and wargaming.
I think you seriously overestimate how easy it is to get people to play a game. Even if you have an open-minded group that is willing to try everything once it doesn't mean they're willing to play it again if they don't like the first game. So if you don't have an established community you're still taking the risk of having your games gathering dust on the shelf.
Peregrine wrote:But it's an "aberration" that has become the default in the non-historical market, and it's even present in the historical market. Can you really call it an "aberration" when it has defined the market for 20-30 years and shows no signs of ending?
I think I can call it an abberation within the context of the history of modern miniature wargaming. From the 1950s to now. It may not show signs of "ending" but I think it's showing signs of failing or having a negative effect on people getting in games of what they want to play. Even now people are lamenting the lack of opponents and trying to figure out how to get other people to not only play the games they want, but buy into and build them. GW may have created the expectation of a "you buy half the game, your opponent buys the other half" in a lot of people's mind, but for a lot of people it's just not working like it does when you have one option dominating the local scene (and you happen to like it).
A market which has lots of different 5-model skirmish games with little or no list-building is not a diverse market because it has eliminated all of the larger-scale games (where buying a complete game for 2+ people is not plausible). You might be rolling different dice, but you're still playing essentially the same game.
Larger model count games simply don't get eliminated when you have to buy, assemble and paint for 2+ people. It's still going strong in historical gaming with much, much higher model counts than in most fantasy or sci-fi gaming. This idea that you can either buy both sides and have tiny games or buy half a game and expect the opponent to supply the other half is a false dichotomy.
Spoiler:
I think you seriously overestimate how easy it is to get people to play a game. Even if you have an open-minded group that is willing to try everything once it doesn't mean they're willing to play it again if they don't like the first game. So if you don't have an established community you're still taking the risk of having your games gathering dust on the shelf.
I really think the problem that people are having is that they are trying to sell people already in the hobby on trying their pet game. This basically involves an implied un-selling of what they are already doing. That's really, really difficult. I would never consider it easy, much less overestimate how easy it would be to accomplish.
I'd like to expand on this but it's too off topic--let's just say that I think recruiting opponents who are already active miniature gamers who regularly paint and play is a horrible idea and I think that's where people are finding their difficulties multiply when they introduce a new game. The issues are only going to become more widespread as GW's market share fades and it becomes more and more of a fight for people's time and attention in this "buy half a game and the opponent buys the other half" approach. Those who have seen a local scene devolve into a fortress mentality where every other game than the one they play is seen as a threat to the future of the gaming community know what I'm talking about.
I know I'm asking people to rethink how they look at their hobby and question some things they might not have given much thought in the past, but with greater and greater numbers of different games and miniature lines becoming more available as GW declines, this is going to be more and more of an issue for people. Also more of an issue for GW as when they lose the advantage that keeps people like AllSeeingSkink playing, they may see regional revenue tumble as the critical mass is lost and the advantage of the network effect fades away. If this happens in enough places at a sufficiently rapid pace, GW may see the revenue shock that Wayshuba has been predicting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
weeble1000 wrote: FFG found the best of both worlds with a wargame that is terribly simple, has a low barrier to entry, is cheap enough to easily collect enough product to support multiple players, is eminently portable, can be played on most commonly-available surfaces, is built on a widely mainstream IP, and requires little investment of time but also provides room for hobby nuts to do some hobbying. A lot of those characteristics help to make a plentiful opponent pool.
I also noticed a trend in the local X-Wing community. Outside of organized play events with prizes, people don't seem to expect the opponent to show up with the other half of the game contents. I know very, very few players that don't have, at a minimum, a full 100 points of each faction, even if they are more aggressively collecting one over the other. They also seem to have more than enough dice and templates for everyone as well.
And yeah, the hobby nuts can do their thing. My friend just sent me pictures of a deathstar trench he built complete with turbolaser towers. A google image search shows he's not alone, whether it's papercraft, resin miniatures, plasticard textures, etc.,: https://www.google.ca/search?q=x-wing+miniatures+death+star+trench&tbm=isch&sa=X
The game is ideally positioned to weather the competition in a diverse market where "buy half the game and expect someone else to supply the other half" games are hitting a wall in terms of expanding local player bases. Or even where they are succeeding, but because multiple games succeed, you have so many people with incompatible collections because of the variety available. I know locally any given non-GW gamer might be into Dystopian Wars, or Infinity, or FoW, or WM/H or whatever, but there's no ubiquity to any of them, and no longer for GW games either. When you are dependent on another person bringing the rest of the game supplies so you can play, you need the critical mass point of the network effect to be reached. X-Wing, like the self contained "miniatures forward" board games you mentioned, gets past the problem by being far closer to a traditional approach of not relying on other people to complete the game supplies so you can play.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the network effects do not mostly (80%?) involve GW shops, then the customer experience person will not collect accurate information about why people play (or stop playing ) GW.
That's a very good point.
And it gets the heart of the problem with the customer experience position in the first place. They're ignoring one of the central tenants of customer experience management-- that a product is a bundle of experiences. Instead, they're only concentrating on the customer experience of "purchasing our wonderful miniatures" (not kidding about the quote) and never even look at how the experience of the product itself is working out.
And if its true that the majority of the people who actually play (or played) GW games don't do so in a GW store, they'll be getting a skewed sampling of what's going on.
The point of this person's job though, is to figure out what works best for selling GW product to people in GW stores. Any talk about the actual product or what their customers do with it (or don't do with it) will be quite "otiose."
Actually, if one considered the miniatures end only, GW's pricing would be cheap, and the quality and variety quite good. It's a perfect system for people who primarily wish to collect endless scifi fantasy models.
The real issue for GW isn't that it isn't faithful to its mission statement, or even that there aren't people who fit thru bill. It's the size of population that enjoy and can afford to be model collectors. I think this population is small (people who want to spend hundreds or thousands a year on hobby), and for a lot of people, other games are simply a better value as a game.
Personally, I've quite enjoyed many other games, but I lose interest after a short time because the hobby aspect and new releases are too shallow.
frozenwastes wrote: I think I can call it an abberation within the context of the history of modern miniature wargaming. From the 1950s to now.
Except, again, 20-30 years is not an "aberration". Calling it an aberration implies that it's a brief and unusual event that is quickly forgotten. But that's not what we've seen here. Instead we have 20-30 years of the 40-50 years in your "modern era", with no sign that it's going to stop. That's not an aberration, that's a long-term change in how the industry works.
It may not show signs of "ending" but I think it's showing signs of failing or having a negative effect on people getting in games of what they want to play.
Really? What signs of failure do you see in a market where virtually every non-historical game and some major historical games use the "bring your own army" model? This isn't just a GW thing, everyone in the industry is doing it and nobody has shown even hints of moving away from it with their future releases.
Larger model count games simply don't get eliminated when you have to buy, assemble and paint for 2+ people. It's still going strong in historical gaming with much, much higher model counts than in most fantasy or sci-fi gaming. This idea that you can either buy both sides and have tiny games or buy half a game and expect the opponent to supply the other half is a false dichotomy.
Spoiler:
Err, lol? You do realize that the picture you just posted is the equivalent of the guy with 10,000 points of five different 40k armies, right? Most people are not going to buy/build/paint 2+ armies with that many models. So you have two choices: embrace the "bring your own army" approach, or accept that your game will only be played by a tiny number of people centered around a few rich collectors with tons of free time.
I really think the problem that people are having is that they are trying to sell people already in the hobby on trying their pet game. This basically involves an implied un-selling of what they are already doing. That's really, really difficult. I would never consider it easy, much less overestimate how easy it would be to accomplish.
So then who are you trying to get as your players? People who don't play games at all?
I also noticed a trend in the local X-Wing community. Outside of organized play events with prizes, people don't seem to expect the opponent to show up with the other half of the game contents. I know very, very few players that don't have, at a minimum, a full 100 points of each faction, even if they are more aggressively collecting one over the other. They also seem to have more than enough dice and templates for everyone as well.
And I've noticed the exact opposite in my local community: everyone brings their own stuff. People will occasionally borrow a card or model to try a new list, but the default assumption is that you bring everything you need for your half of the game.
And this just highlights the point I made about scale: X-Wing only allows one player to supply everything to play the game because it's a small-scale game with few models on the table. When you only need 3-5 ships for each player and they're all pre-painted it's very easy to accumulate enough stuff to loan a squadron to a new player. If X-Wing was a 40k-scale game this would not happen, and you'd almost always have to buy and bring your own half of the game if you ever want to play.
X-Wing, like the self contained "miniatures forward" board games you mentioned, gets past the problem by being far closer to a traditional approach of not relying on other people to complete the game supplies so you can play.
Sure, but only at the cost of market diversity. I really don't see how this is better than a market dominated by a small number of companies.
I do not believe the historical model of army building is for one person to build both armies for a game and hawk them around friends. Not for major areas of interest, at any rate.
In my experience, which is largely club based UK, there are major genres such as Napoleonics and Ancients, which have been well established for decades, and there is no shortage of opponents. If you want to play Ancients, you build an army in a scale that suits what your friends already have (i.e. 25mm or 15mm) and off you go.
DBA proposed that players built matched pairs of armies for playing campaigns, but in DBA the armies are so small compared to normal mass battle Ancients, that it was easier to make a pair of armies than to make one army for say WRG Ancients. As well, many DBA players already owned Ancients armies for larger games, that could be split down to several DBA sized armies.
The times you would want to provide both sides and all the associated clobber where if you had a particular interest in a more unusual genre, say 6mm, or naval, that wasn't already well established.
In my experience, which is largely club based UK, there are major genres such as Napoleonics and Ancients, which have been well established for decades, and there is no shortage of opponents. If you want to play Ancients, you build an army in a scale that suits what your friends already have (i.e. 25mm or 15mm) and off you go.
On that note, and the topic of persuading others to play your 'pet game' and wasting resources on multiple armies etc... Historicals have an added advantage that periods are not bound to any specific set of rules. Minis and armies can be used across a range of game rules, and a lot of newer ancients/medieval rulesets even use compatible basing or are 'basing neutral' to accommodate this, and to reduce any reluctance to give it a go when you don't have to rebase everything. There I'd say the wastage is mostly on rulebooks, which IMO fit on a shelf (or a drive) with a little less distress.
Not that it's an advantage exclusive to historical gaming. It could be applied to SF/F too, though maybe a little less so as producers tailor special rules to go with specific, tailored models. Although personally, I see a lot of that practise as another aberration brought about by GW and carried on, to some extent, by new 'games in a box'. (I may be using a slightly different definition of that term, tho) Which I think contributes to that bit of apprehension AllSeeingSkink and others feel. The general perception that if the game doesn't please, the whole is wasted; not many seem to want to strip the rules out and slot in an alternative set. I think the one notable exception is the prevalence of gamers using their Warhammer armies for KoW, or vice-versa.
I keep going on about it, but it surprises me to keep reading discussions going on about the reason: the partitioning of rule sets and the reliance on special rules and characters. (It irritates me to see people declare rule sets 'flavourless' because they don't have clunky cheese or codex churn creating some kind of black hole gravity well in the meta) But drawing back and looking at the wider picture, specific rules and minis recede, themes and genres start to stand out more, and there are generic, compatible rule sets for most if not all of them. There are sci-fi settings of a few differing degrees of hardness (I hear gothic space-opera has a bit of a following), though all the highly personalised, unique elements in various settings tend to boil down to modern squads with guns in the rules, with the occasional tank, robot or psychic power. Similarly with fantasy battles: ancient/medieval warfare with added wizards and monsters. Even steampunk, VSF and horror: there are alternative rules for them all. They just aren't hyped up to fever pitch on Beasts of War or Kickstarter...
I have found from personal experience, nothing gets a fire going for gaming than a rules update / scale of gaming change.
Friends and I were playing 40k a fair bit and putting together and painting large armies.
Alphastrike came out for Battletech and the boys got all excited on doing large scale warfare with their existing models.
Now they are getting prettied up and the list building has begun.
I found myself in the position of "Do I really want to drop everything and get my old models going again?".
To play with the other guys for the time-being I may have to.
The evil thing going on is one of the other guys has been buying into X-wing so I am sure he will reach a point where he will want a game in for that.
My Robotech kickstarter stuff I have been putting energy into where this is probably the game where I MUST provide both factions fully done.
I think the people not playing GW stuff at the moment are still keeping an eye on them hoping at some point they will create a winning rule-set and it becomes the new hotness and the armies of 40k get dusted off and the other games get cast aside. So-far GW has not produced anything shiny enough to give-up anything yet.
frozenwastes wrote:
I'd like to expand on this but it's too off topic--let's just say that I think recruiting opponents who are already active miniature gamers who regularly paint and play is a horrible idea and I think that's where people are finding their difficulties multiply when they introduce a new game. The issues are only going to become more widespread as GW's market share fades and it becomes more and more of a fight for people's time and attention in this "buy half a game and the opponent buys the other half" approach. Those who have seen a local scene devolve into a fortress mentality where every other game than the one they play is seen as a threat to the future of the gaming community know what I'm talking about.
I know I'm asking people to rethink how they look at their hobby and question some things they might not have given much thought in the past, but with greater and greater numbers of different games and miniature lines becoming more available as GW declines, this is going to be more and more of an issue for people. Also more of an issue for GW as when they lose the advantage that keeps people like AllSeeingSkink playing, they may see regional revenue tumble as the critical mass is lost and the advantage of the network effect fades away. If this happens in enough places at a sufficiently rapid pace, GW may see the revenue shock that Wayshuba has been predicting.
This is completely true. I see it well when I try to show other game systems - you can't expect people who already have a big army in another game to invest a lot of money in that as well, and playing both. There is simply not enough free time for that, let alone the money needed to "keep in line" with the news and all.
That's why "smaller games" needing less models, having more simple rules and costing less are more acceptable, especially for people who already have a big collection.
Recently, I gave up the "buy the other half so that I can play" approach and always take up at least two factions - so that I can bring the whole thing and just have to look after another player so that I can enjoy one of my favorite games. That means a lot of work from me, but it's much much easier and I manage to play a game I like.
If I was to try to do the same with 40k or Battle, it would be more difficult because these games ask for a huge number of models that are very pricey and ask a lot of work to be ready on the table. So yes, I agree with Frozenwastes that if GW keeps going on shrinking their own network and clubs having enough with their destructive way of handling their games....it won't be long before GW games become harder to just find players.
In my city, that already happens for Warhammer Battle. Their "End of Time" campaign doesn't really brings new players, rather give old gamers an opportunity to use their big collection before...the end.
It was really interesting to read, Frozenwaste. Thanks for that!
Peregrine wrote:
Really? What signs of failure do you see in a market where virtually every non-historical game and some major historical games use the "bring your own army" model? This isn't just a GW thing, everyone in the industry is doing it and nobody has shown even hints of moving away from it with their future releases.
Prices for historical games are completely different while the work and time needed are basically the same.
This means historical games only have half the problem of GW. In that time of gaming opportunities, that's just another disadvantage - as if they really needed it.
Err, lol? You do realize that the picture you just posted is the equivalent of the guy with 10,000 points of five different 40k armies, right? Most people are not going to buy/build/paint 2+ armies with that many models. So you have two choices: embrace the "bring your own army" approach, or accept that your game will only be played by a tiny number of people centered around a few rich collectors with tons of free time.
Which is exactly why GW's model can't keep on if they don't bring something "smaller" to introduce. Nowadays, gamers don't have enough free time to play everything. A 40k or Battle game takes a lot of time because of wacky rules and lot of models on the table. The fact it's expensive is just another thorn in the feet.
So yeah, only rich people with load of free time can really do that. It doesn't apply to a lot of gamers, meaning it isn't possible to keep on the long term for a society living on that only.
That's why there are so many "true skirmish" or board games - it's more easy to bring new players if you show them it takes less time and less money to have something you can play with that.
So then who are you trying to get as your players? People who don't play games at all?
Honestly, since I'm trying to show other miniature games in my club, I find it easier to convince people who aren't active in another "time consuming" game. When I try to talk to "veteran gamers", they usually already struggle with their IRL to find suitable time to play a "good game" with their collection. Sure, they already know a lot of mecanisms and all, but they are much more "careful" when presented with another game on the "buy half of the game and expect the other to bring the other half" model.
Because they usually are afraid not to find that other half. It has been a problem even with Warhammer Battle: there are less and less games of that in my club recently. I wouldn't be surprised it stops completely if GW does something really stupid with the rumored V9 (if it exists at all...). "End of Times" books nearly managed to actually kill it with their sillyness about products already "unavailable" after 10 minutes on the pre-command web store...
So yeah, it can happen. Closing our eyes won't be preventing it, for sure.
frozenwastes wrote: This approach of expecting each participant to build and bring their own army is kind of strange when you think of it.
Maybe.... but it's an appealing one which I think draws in a lot of people.
I've never had all that much luck hosting games with my own models. Maybe I'm not enthusiastic enough about it or maybe my friends just aren't in to it, but for the most part I spend hundreds of hours building armies for the sake of a couple of nights worth of gameplay. I'd sooner just play cards or board games
Not that I don't enjoy constructing armies... that's why I'm doing 15mm WW2 forces full well knowing that they'll probably never see more than a couple of games... but when it actually comes to playing a game, 40k has the appeal of just being able to pick up my army go to a club or FLGS and play a game.
Not that I think diversity is bad, I think diversity in wargaming is good, I'm just offering a counter point to the idea that GW's demise and 40k not being top dog would be best where in reality for the most part I just see me and many others playing even less wargames than I do now. If 40k disappeared tomorrow, around this area Warmahordes would be the new top dog, if Warmahordes disappeared I imagine it would be very hard to arrange any sort of game the same way it is currently hard to organise any game that isn't 40k or Warmahordes.
Interesting -- For me, modeling the army is both 95% of the fun and time. When I want to 'game' in a serious, non social way, the computer I find is just so superior. It takes no setup tome, you can abandon a game if necessary, and there are no balance/fairness constraints.
Err, lol? You do realize that the picture you just posted is the equivalent of the guy with 10,000 points of five different 40k armies, right? Most people are not going to buy/build/paint 2+ armies with that many models. So you have two choices: embrace the "bring your own army" approach, or accept that your game will only be played by a tiny number of people centered around a few rich collectors with tons of free time.
Which is exactly why GW's model can't keep on if they don't bring something "smaller" to introduce. Nowadays, gamers don't have enough free time to play everything. A 40k or Battle game takes a lot of time because of wacky rules and lot of models on the table. The fact it's expensive is just another thorn in the feet.
So yeah, only rich people with load of free time can really do that. It doesn't apply to a lot of gamers, meaning it isn't possible to keep on the long term for a society living on that only.
That's why there are so many "true skirmish" or board games - it's more easy to bring new players if you show them it takes less time and less money to have something you can play with that.
This is very true. I agree completely.
On the other hand, GW can't exist in its current size as a manufacturer of skirmish games, because there just isn't enough revenue. My FLGS (all of them) make way more money on 40k than WMH regardless of what people are playing, because a typical 40k player/collector spends many times what a game-in-a-box or WMH customer spends. My stores generally dislike GW for its trade practices, but there are not other companies that produce releases at the cadence their collector type customers are happy with, and those customers are very spendy.
"On the other hand, GW can't exist in its current size as a manufacturer of skirmish games, because there just isn't enough revenue. My FLGS (all of them) make way more money on 40k than WMH regardless of what people are playing, because a typical 40k player/collector spends many times what a game-in-a-box or WMH customer spends. My stores generally dislike GW for its trade practices, but there are not other companies that produce releases at the cadence their collector type customers are happy with, and those customers are very spendy."
Well to be honest that is GWs fault for creating a game scale that is out of wack with the miniature scale they use, perhaps if they kept with a smaller scale for their larger scale games it would be much more affordable and then they could have kept their 28mm games more to the size of necromunda and Mordhiem instead of the current ghastly scale of combat they are at. Skirmish scale games do fine and just as well in profit as any other game. You have less money needed to invest to start your miniatures line and game, and it is easy to expand and support, so money needed to make back to break even is a lot less than the larger scale games ( let alone the cost of plastic molds which can reach insane levels of cost that cost more than many miniature sculpts combined) Infinity is doing great and thriving, as well as other skirmish games. GW would just have to downsize, and we all know already they have made more than their money back with their insane prices on their product.
They would simply have to begin treating their customers well and acknowledging that they have competition, but I am rather fine with how they are going as this gives the rest of us a real chance of entering the market and growing our own games and companies. My local gaming club makes most of its money from Card games and Board games, along with Reaper miniatures ( large DnD crowd) and warmachine / hordes having just as large of a section as the GW's games combined. For the most part my local clubs bread and butter are their Card Games and Board games, as they are the largest part of the market place. Wargaming can catch up but it needs to continue with diversity and ease of entry, Skirmish games allow us to produce a game at a reasonable investment cost and produce a game that meets the current market demand which is a game that does not take the entire day to play but a game that can be played several times in one day.
I might be talking with someone who gets hung up on terms. Please replace "aberration" with departure, shift or whatever other term you need to make it work for you. I happen to think that the norm of the hobby going back to its origins is one where a person spearheads a complete game experience rather than relying on other people to supply opposing forces. And that the majority of game play that goes on is not publicly at stores, clubs or conventions, but at home, among friends. Furthermore it's also a departure from the norm for games in general, which tend to not expect people to rely on others to have a functional set of gaming pieces. It's been persistent tanks to GW taking advantage of the demographics of the 90s and those who have decided to imitate how they market and sell miniatures, but I suspect the majority of manufacturers sell miniatures to people who never show up in a public place needing other people to supply the other half of the game. Instead they paint and play quietly at home with friends. Unseen by the those who play at clubs and stores.
Maybe GW's numbers show them the same thing? That even during the height of store gaming the number of people playing there relative to the sales overall was quite small. Maybe they falsely believe that people aren't primarily interested in the game at all because they only saw such a small percent of their customers show up with any regularity?
Another thing to bear in mind is that a hosting model to running games as a social event never prevents anyone from starting their own army or collection. If someone is sufficiently interested, then that's awesome. I'm definitely not advocating for an approach where one person provides everything and no one else can. People making their own armies after trying the game and me having two are not mutually exclusive. I don't know how many people got the starter set for Battletech (or a lance of individual miniatures) after coming over for some mech gaming over the years. And the newest starter is the best starter in BT's history. Great miniatures, nice board game quality hex boards. Lol, you'll probably tell me that Battletech is the same game as Infinity because they both use the same number of miniatures.
What signs of failure do you see in a market where virtually every non-historical game and some major historical games use the "bring your own army" model?
The only failure I'm talking about (which I expanded on in the rest of that paragraph) is the failure to reliably find opponents once the local community is no longer dominated by a single option (or a few options with larger player pools). I'm talking about the situation where there are a few 40k players, a few WFB players, a few Infinity players, a few WM/H players, a few Dystopian Wars players, etc., and no single game has the numbers to reach the critical mass point of the network effect that makes being able to rely on other people to be into the same game as you a reason to choose any game over another-- specially GW games as this is a thread about their business prospects and people often site the ability to find opponents as one of their comparative advantages.
You do realize that the picture you just posted is the equivalent of the guy with 10,000 points of five different 40k armies, right?
It was just an example picture of a game with a large model count where the person hosting it owned all the miniatures. It is just an example showing that in the absence of the single dominant option for "buy half the game approach" the only thing in the market will be 5 model skirmish games is a wrong headed idea.
So you have two choices: embrace the "bring your own army" approach, or accept that your game will only be played by a tiny number of people centered around a few rich collectors with tons of free time.
This has been an issue with the hobby from the beginnings of it. In the 1950s we see the arrival of plastic inch tall miniatures and the beginnings of an industry of mail order metal toy soldiers that begins to make it accessible to more people. There are a huge variety of ways people have made gaming more and less accessible over the years. High cost of entry and high cost of a full sized game is one area that GW is currently struggling with. Though I think their concentration on people who could afford the prices allowed them to weather the credit crisis of 2008 better than many independent game shops did.
So then who are you trying to get as your players? People who don't play games at all?
I'm really struggling to find a way to answer this while staying on topic. I live in a rural area in Canada about an hour from a city, so if I can find enough people that I get to play whatever miniature game I want on a monthly basis without only looking for people who are currently interested in another miniature wargame already, I'm sure people living in large urban centres or regions with much higher population density can do even better. I guess I'm not a "sub culture" kind of guy and don't see miniature wargaming as something you do with people who are already into it.
To try to reattach this to the topic, I'd say that I find opponents in the exact same way that GW tries to. Only I provide zero barriers to entry. GW manages to stay profitable and sell to new people with a very high up front cost. Compared to that, finding other social animals willing to hang out and check out a friend or acquaintance's past time is easy. And if they like it, I take the same approach as GW and offer free painting lessons, guidance etc.,.
This is one area that I think GW figured out really well and I think part of their problem is their lessened retail hours and lessened opportunities for new player recruitment. Kirby said as much in the report before last and people blew off the reduced revenue from switching to single employee stores as an excuse, but I think he was telling the truth. I've been told by multiple sources that the revenue from a store drop by about 40% when GW switches from a fully staffed location to a single employee location. I doubt they'll share how many of their stores are still fully staffed in the upcoming report, but they did 6 months ago and if they shift those to a single employee store, that will cause a 12-16 million decline in their gross revenue with a commensurate reduction in costs (which is the point of the plan to transition them to single employee locations)
Vermis wrote:On that note, and the topic of persuading others to play your 'pet game' and wasting resources on multiple armies etc... Historicals have an added advantage that periods are not bound to any specific set of rules.
There are often huge savings to the end user when you don't go for a complete package approach. GW's segmentation of their market place and providing of everything has allowed them to sell glue and paint at a much, much higher cost per milliliter than the products that try to compete in the open market place outside of a complete package. The problem is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to maintain an ignorant and segmented customer base in the age of the internet.
Although personally, I see a lot of that practise as another aberration brought about by GW and carried on, to some extent, by new 'games in a box'. (I may be using a slightly different definition of that term, tho) Which I think contributes to that bit of apprehension AllSeeingSkink and others feel. The general perception that if the game doesn't please, the whole is wasted; not many seem to want to strip the rules out and slot in an alternative set. I think the one notable exception is the prevalence of gamers using their Warhammer armies for KoW, or vice-versa.
GW really has done their best to make their stuff as non-generic as possible. Even the armies that started as historical armies + magic and monsters in the Old World have been stylized and changed to the point that GW believes they are legally distinct IP. They've carried out a similar plan with 40k. To a large degree I think it's worked. It seems most people never make the leap to seeing the miniatures and the rules as separate elements. Privateer does the same thing-- I think their steam powered fantasy look is often more about reducing miniature compatibility and keeping things exclusive than being a purely artistic element. I use tons of non-PP miniatures in my WM/H armies though. My Idrians, for example, are 7 Years War Iroquois with muskets.
I agree though and think neither GW nor PP is really distinguishing things enough to matter to a gamer with an open mind. Some things are very niche and unique though, so there are exceptions.
But drawing back and looking at the wider picture, specific rules and minis recede, themes and genres start to stand out more, and there are generic, compatible rule sets for most if not all of them. There are sci-fi settings of a few differing degrees of hardness (I hear gothic space-opera has a bit of a following), though all the highly personalised, unique elements in various settings tend to boil down to modern squads with guns in the rules, with the occasional tank, robot or psychic power.
People have always had a hard time breaking out of mindsets caused by inertia. And it's in GW's best interests if the people only ever see their stuff as a connected package. I know so many people who have tons of painted 40k and WFB that never play them because they don't enjoy the current game and it never crosses their mind to use other rules (like the previous edition they did enjoy and own all the books for!). I had to host a game once for a friend who was lamenting about how his nicely painted Inquisitorial 40k army and his Lost & The Damned combined chaos force just sits on the shelf. He brought the miniatures, I supplied the rules, terrain, etc.,. It just didn't occur to him that if there was a portion of his hobby that wasn't working, he could change just that part. Though it does require taking ownership of one's hobby and not remaining dependent on what the local community wants to play.
Similarly with fantasy battles: ancient/medieval warfare with added wizards and monsters. Even steampunk, VSF and horror: there are alternative rules for them all. They just aren't hyped up to fever pitch on Beasts of War or Kickstarter...
Marketing is the fine art of getting people to act in your interests rather than their own. There really are tons of options for everyone's taste in terms of rules. The only problem again, is opponents. When you expect to supply only half the game, then not only do you need to find people with a compatible miniature collection, now you need to find people with a compatible notion of what the rules should be like. And unfortunately for GW, they caused fractures within their own community of players. Just recently I saw a post on a local gaming group on FB where the person was looking for an opponent. They had to spell out they didn't want unbound, they didn't want units that create other units, regular force org with no funny detachments, and so on.
It used to be the case that GW's rules united people with a common vision. Now there seems to be divergent expectations of what the other half of the game the opponent is supposed to supply is even supposed to look like. Not good for the comparative advantage of always being able to find opponents. I know locally there are two small groups of 40k players that have such different ideas about the game that they are effectively no longer a pool of available opponents for each other.
Sarouan wrote:Recently, I gave up the "buy the other half so that I can play" approach and always take up at least two factions - so that I can bring the whole thing and just have to look after another player so that I can enjoy one of my favorite games. That means a lot of work from me, but it's much much easier and I manage to play a game I like.
I find that once you have enough painted miniatures for a simple game for both sides, you start having this rolling momentum where you can do more in each future game. It seems daunting at first to paint up two armies, make the terrain, play aids etc., at first, but many gamers already own two armies for their favorite game universe already.
GW would love it if more people did this sort of thing with their games. Word of mouth is what they are hoping for. Unfortunately they've gone with a premium pricing model that makes it impractical.
If I was to try to do the same with 40k or Battle, it would be more difficult because these games ask for a huge number of models that are very pricey and ask a lot of work to be ready on the table. So yes, I agree with Frozenwastes that if GW keeps going on shrinking their own network and clubs having enough with their destructive way of handling their games....it won't be long before GW games become harder to just find players.
It's happening at different rates in different places. GW is actually growing in many areas, just not as fast as they are shrinking in others. In my area, they are no larger than the next option and getting two 40k players to agree on what's legit to play has further divided things.
It was really interesting to read, Frozenwaste. Thanks for that!
Thanks! I really think GW has lost sight of games being the central focus and has taken their eye off the social nature of the hobby with their intentional shrinking of their volume and customer base in order to protect their margins and maximize dividend payments through cost cutting and higher prices.
This means historical games only have half the problem of GW. In that time of gaming opportunities, that's just another disadvantage - as if they really needed it.
There's definitely a disconnect between the game size and premium pricing scheme. It goes into the core of their business though as well. They are producing injection moulded plastic. That means they have a high up front cost and a low cost per each sprue they make. It's the perfect example of a technology of mass production. Where volume drives down the average cost and maximizes profit. GW has decided to go with a low volume price and retail strategy and paired it up with a mass production method geared towards high volumes.
Sure, they already know a lot of mecanisms and all, but they are much more "careful" when presented with another game on the "buy half of the game and expect the other to bring the other half" model.
Because they usually are afraid not to find that other half. It has been a problem even with Warhammer Battle: there are less and less games of that in my club recently. I wouldn't be surprised it stops completely if GW does something really stupid with the rumored V9 (if it exists at all...). "End of Times" books nearly managed to actually kill it with their sillyness about products already "unavailable" after 10 minutes on the pre-command web store...
So yeah, it can happen. Closing our eyes won't be preventing it, for sure.
Just be happy your club didn't decide to fight about it. At one club meeting, a guy not happy about not finding regular 40k opponents brought up the fact that the club did start as a 40k club and he thought it should go back to its roots and other games should be banned. I think I actually laughed out loud. He had entered a mindset where every other game played was a threat to his opponent pool. "They usually are afraid to not find the other half" is right.
People want to have opponents easily available to them. This is best served by a game with a low barrier to entry and not too high of a cost for whatever is considered a full sized game locally. GW on the other hand, wants to reduce the number of models sold so they can save on things like shipping and production and staff, but they want to charge a higher price for it so they make more money than if they sold multiple (that's the plan anyway). GW's interests are at odds with the interests of the portion of their customers that actually care about the game.
frozenwastes wrote: I see I'm talking with someone who gets hung up on terms. Please replace "aberration" with departure, shift or whatever other term you need to make it work for you.
It's not "getting hung up on terms" when the two terms mean completely different things. You're presenting this as something weird that GW has done, which implies that it isn't the "normal" state of the industry and if GW goes away things will go back to "normal". But that's not what it is at all. GW may have been responsible for some changes 20-30 years ago, but those changes have spread to the entire industry and caused "bring your own army" to become the normal state. And, again, there's no sign at all that this will change in the foreseeable future, even if GW dies.
It was just an example picture of a game with a large model count where the person hosting it owned all the miniatures. It is just an example showing that in the absence of the single dominant option for "buy half the game approach" the only thing in the market will be 5 model skirmish games is a wrong headed idea.
Sigh. You missed the key point of what I said: people that will collect entire army-scale games exist, but they're incredibly rare. The tiny number of people who have both the money and free time* to collect multiple complete armies for a game are not enough to support a commercially-viable product line. A viable game needs to get sales from the people who don't have that level of time and money available, and that means either adopting the "bring your own army" approach, or keeping model counts low enough that most people can afford several armies.
Compared to that, finding other social animals willing to hang out and check out a friend or acquaintance's past time is easy.
Yes, finding people willing to try a game once is easy. But if I'm going to invest heavily in a game I expect to be able to play it frequently, not just once every few months after spending a lot of work trying to convince someone to give it a try. And that's a lot easier when you have a local community available to play with, instead of trying to convince random people to come have a kitchen table game with you.
GW's segmentation of their market place and providing of everything has allowed them to sell glue and paint at a much, much higher cost per milliliter than the products that try to compete in the open market place outside of a complete package.
This has very little to do with GW's segmentation of the market and a lot to do with GW's targeting of younger customers who aren't aware of the full range of products available and non-gamer family members who know even less.
It seems most people never make the leap to seeing the miniatures and the rules as separate elements.
But why should these things be separate? Keeping the models and rules separate only works in historical games, where everything is defined by how the real-world armies worked. You don't have to worry about what the rules say about what firing arc a real-world tank has, or how many machine guns an infantry squad should be equipped with. You just produce models based on the real tank and infantry squad, and you can be confident that they will be a good match for rules that are based on the same real tank and infantry squad. But that doesn't work for a scifi game like 40k. How many guns should your jet pack shooting infantry carry? How many guns should go on your tank, and what arcs should they have? Should your infantry squad get machine guns or missile launchers or some weird alien thing that hardly even looks like a gun for their upgrade weapons, and how many should they have per squad? What shape should all of these things be to work well with LOS/footprint issues? You can't answer any of these model design questions without picking a specific set of rules to follow. So if you want to keep miniatures and rules separate you have two choices:
1) Generic models that can fit most rules if you try hard enough, but never do anything ambitious. No vehicles, no fancy units (bikes, crisis suits, etc), just a ton of different 10-man infantry squads with laser rifles.
or
2) Generic rules that can accommodate any models. For example, infantry squads don't have different gun types, you just say "10-man squad with rifles" so that no matter what your models look like there's no WYSIWYG issue.
I don't really think that either of these options is an appealing one.
Though it does require taking ownership of one's hobby and not remaining dependent on what the local community wants to play.
And this is the problem. Most people don't have the free time or dedication required to design their own rules, playtest and refine them until they're actually fun to play, and then convince other people to join them. For most of us if we can't just show up at the local store/club and play our games we'll just find something else to do.
When you expect to supply only half the game, then not only do you need to find people with a compatible miniature collection, now you need to find people with a compatible notion of what the rules should be like.
This is a problem with bad games, not "bring your own army" games. This problem of finding people with compatible ideas about how the game should work only exists because GW publishes garbage and leaves the work of fixing it to the players. Better games don't need this compatibility search, you just say "hey, let's play a game of X" and start playing the game. And bringing both sides of the game yourself doesn't fix the problem of player compatibility. Even if someone doesn't have their own models they still have ideas about what they want to get out of the game, and offering to loan them models isn't going to change those expectations.
Talys wrote: On the other hand, GW can't exist in its current size as a manufacturer of skirmish games, because there just isn't enough revenue. My FLGS (all of them) make way more money on 40k than WMH regardless of what people are playing, because a typical 40k player/collector spends many times what a game-in-a-box or WMH customer spends. My stores generally dislike GW for its trade practices, but there are not other companies that produce releases at the cadence their collector type customers are happy with, and those customers are very spendy.
GW has been very smart to front load the costs as well (though I think they went too far). So if someone starts and they end up not being one of the spendy types who sticks with it and provides consistent revenue, they already got a larger amount of money from that person before they quit. At the same time though, high barriers to entry start to erode recruitment rates. GW seems happy with how it's turned out, but their revenue is plunging and their dividend isn't sustainable.
There is probably a game size, a bit larger than Warmachine and a bit smaller than 40k that can be both a high price premium product and sell at good volumes and have a lower barrier to entry. During the 90s when GW grew from a British importer of D&D into an international retailer of their own miniatures, most of their games were like that. Bigger than Warmachine, smaller than current 40k/Fantasy.
I always thought the GW approach to army building was a fantastic marketing technique. You provide collectors with a nice frame work to collect and have this cycle of playing, buying and paint, playing again while you fill out your army. They even used to have loyalty schemes where if you got every slot on a force org chart filled, the codex for your next army book/codex was free.
GW decided to break away from this approach and concentrate on up front costs. Expensive books, splitting codexes into multiple volumes plus dataslates to get all the rules. They want to get someone in, get their money and it's okay if they quit, maybe buying a unit or two before they finally leave entirely.
Zach Coffell said it really well in his article on Motley Fool UK (a financial investment news and discussion site):
There is one Warren Buffet principle that leaves the investment thesis in Games Workshop crumbling… Buffett once said: “I try to buy stock in businesses that are so wonderful that an idiot can run them. Because sooner or later, one will”
Games Workshop’s great product offering meant success was its to lose, and unfortunately management seem to be doing their best to destroy these fantastic qualities from the inside.
The last 6 years has been GW giving its market share away with their intentional lowering of sales volume to save money, increase EPS and pay out larger dividends.
frozenwastes wrote: I happen to think that the norm of the hobby going back to its origins is one where a person spearheads a complete game experience rather than relying on other people to supply opposing forces.
It isn't. It might have worked that way 50 years ago, but how it worked 50 years ago isn't relevant. The norm of the hobby in 2014 is that each player supplies their own army. This is true of pretty much every game in the market, not just GW games. It has been that way for at least 20-30 years, and there is no sign that this trend is going to change in the foreseeable future. Like it or not, the old days are gone.
And that the majority of game play that goes on is not publicly at stores, clubs or conventions, but at home, among friends.
Evidence for this? Specifically in the miniature wargame market, not gaming in general?
Furthermore it's also a departure from the norm for games in general, which tend to not expect people to rely on others to have a functional set of gaming pieces.
You're making the mistake of ignoring the difference between genres of games. Obviously board games work that way, but other genres don't. CCGs/LCGs follow the same "bring your own deck" model as miniatures games, RPGs make a default assumption that each player has their own stuff (and even when books are shared it's expected that you bring your own character), and obviously miniatures default to "bring your own army". And in all of these cases "bring your own stuff" is a long-term trend that is pretty much universal across all products in the genre, not just a weird temporary thing that everyone expects to end soon.
Maybe GW's numbers show them the same thing?
I doubt it. If GW's own numbers show that most customers paint and play at home then they'd be closing their retail stores as fast as possible. Keeping a marginally-profitable retail division around only makes sense if you assume that most customers are interested in the "store community" experience.
Peregrine wrote:that means either adopting the "bring your own army" approach, or keeping model counts low enough that most people can afford several armies.
No, that's a false dichotomy. How many pence is a Perry or a Victrix plastic infantry model? And those are from companies that have to out source their tooling and injection moulding. A company that already owns their tooling and injection moulding infrastructure could price even more competitively (if they so desired). The technology is all about driving down the margin cost of the next sprue produced. WGF has also made this work in the non-historical line. They've said that their zombies and survivors have outsold all other produces they've made combined. At 30 figures for $22. People get both the survivors and the zombies and get a lot of them. Zombies are fun in hordes, after all.
Furthermore, companies have been doing a great job marketing products meant to speed up painting. And with youtube and various blogs and communities, there has never been an easier time to learn how to paint fast.
Yes, finding people willing to try a game once is easy. But if I'm going to invest heavily in a game I expect to be able to play it frequently, not just once every few months after spending a lot of work trying to convince someone to give it a try. And that's a lot easier when you have a local community available to play with, instead of trying to convince random people to come have a kitchen table game with you.
I obviously disagree. I find people who are already miniature gamers tend to already be doing something they want to do. I don't try to unsell them on their project and get them to buy into my pet game. Instead, I tell them if they have a second army I could borrow, I'll be happy to play anytime and let them know I have a similar standing offer for what interests me. I guess just as certain GW employees will be better at others than closing the deal, I manage to succeed in the middle of nowhere in Canada while people complain about not finding opponents with a million or more people within an hour's travel of where they are. I think the difference is that I'm not doing the uphill battle of trying to peddle my game to people who are already happily playing something else.
I always find it funny when people talk about how they got their two demo forces for a new game and took it down to a local store and are shocked that the people who came there to play a different game aren't interested in trying it out. That really shouldn't surprise anyone.
This has very little to do with GW's segmentation of the market and a lot to do with GW's targeting of younger customers who aren't aware of the full range of products available and non-gamer family members who know even less.
When I talk about GW's customer base being segmented, I usually also talk about them being ignorant. This time I forgot. My bad.
But why should these things be separate?
There is no "should". There's just the goals of companies and individuals and their interests. It's in GW's interest to sell a complete package. It might not be in the gamer's best interest because if one part of the package lets them down, they might end up disappointed in the whole thing. It also tends to cost more to go for a complete package seller than to, for example, get miniatures from GW and paints from Vallejo. Then there's the ease of use side of things. A complete package should be ready to go. There's not really a "should" though. Just your goals and what meets them. I happen to think relying on a complete package makes you vulnerable to changes in the design ethos of the studio for your game, and often involves higher prices.
Keeping the models and rules separate only works in historical games
Sci-fi and fantasy is often just historical stuff with chrome added on. An infantry dude with a gun is still an infantry dude with a gun.
So if you want to keep miniatures and rules separate you have two choices:
You really like your false dichotomies, don't you?
[qoute]I don't really think that either of these options is an appealing one.
The reason neither is appealing is they're not the real options, but ones you made up for the sake of an argument. But we're getting far into off topic land now. I'm sure you can think of a third option that's better than those two if you try. The one I like is where you approach it like the mechanics in an RPG-- they're there to tell you who succeeded and how well. To represent a conflict or uncertainty in the group story. In DIY miniature gaming, you represent the story the miniature tells you when you look at it. You don't make everything generic. As you said though, not an approach for people who aren't willing to put in the time/work/thought to make it work. You can't do it yourself until you've taken ownership of it and many, many people don't want to do that for a variety of reasons. It's not a bad thing to want it easy when it comes to a hobby, after all. It's supposed to be fun.
This is a problem with bad games, not "bring your own army" games.
I definitely agree. It magnifies the problem with "bring your own army" games in a fragmented community. It adds another axis of compatibility you need to align upon. You are right that the problem is not inherent to rules that work well as pick up games-- anyone selling miniatures to people expecting other people to supply the other side should be getting people on the same page, not fragmenting their expectations.
This problem of finding people with compatible ideas about how the game should work only exists because GW publishes garbage and leaves the work of fixing it to the players. Better games don't need this compatibility search, you just say "hey, let's play a game of X" and start playing the game.
GW used to have this huge incredible comparative advantage in that their approach unified the player base and their expectations. They threw that away in order to be able to sell everyone every release with unbound and try to sell everyone things like demons. There are still thriving communities where everyone is on the same page though. Locally people only get on the same page for a yearly tournament where the organizers say "we're playing with armies like this, if you don't like it, don't come."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:The norm of the hobby in 2014 is that each player supplies their own army. This is true of pretty much every game in the market, not just GW games. It has been that way for at least 20-30 years, and there is no sign that this trend is going to change in the foreseeable future. Like it or not, the old days are gone.
I'm not so sure they ever left. I think while GW grew and then people emulated their approach for historicals, people were happily gaming away with their miniatures, getting what they needed for their project.
And that the majority of game play that goes on is not publicly at stores, clubs or conventions, but at home, among friends.
Evidence for this? Specifically in the miniature wargame market, not gaming in general?
Take GW's revenue, adjust it by sales channel as outlined in their last report, take the number of retail locations they run and then find out how many people are showing up to play their on a given saturday. They all have face book pages, so you can ask about turn out. Then divide the revenue and see just how small of a portion the active store gamers really represent.
The stores in the closest two cities to me have reported a similar phenomenon. And the local pressganger for WM/H also told me the same thing. That they sell enough miniatures for 30 people to be actively playing, but only 6 or so show up regularly to any event. Whatever it is that people are doing with miniatures, I think they do it more in private than public. I suspect if you surveyed retailers in general you'd find a similar phenomenon. It's been part of the arguments about "why isn't GW catering to veteran players" arguments over the years. The publicly active players seem to think they're the important revenue stream, when they're probably not (or else GW would be catering to them).
I doubt it. If GW's own numbers show that most customers paint and play at home then they'd be closing their retail stores as fast as possible. Keeping a marginally-profitable retail division around only makes sense if you assume that most customers are interested in the "store community" experience.
Give how much effort GW is putting into turning their stores from hobby centres into glorified sales kiosks, I could never agree. And how rapidly they will close a store or replace the employee if they don't hit their target numbers.
Maybe the stores that have active gaming will end up out performing those that don't, and the customer experience employee will find that out. I doubt it though, as I said earlier in the thread, I suspect those employees that use classic hard selling techniques to make their targets are probably going to outperform the community builders as tried and true sales techniques work. You develop report, reduce sales resistance, increase sales acceptance, put the product in their hands, close the sale, walk them to the cash register and upsell. I highly doubt the community builder staff will out perform them, so when the customer experience person goes to investigate what they are doing that's working so well, they'll probably recommend against the game or community centred approach in favor of the sales kiosk approach.
frozenwastes wrote: I happen to think that the norm of the hobby going back to its origins is one where a person spearheads a complete game experience rather than relying on other people to supply opposing forces.
It isn't. It might have worked that way 50 years ago, but how it worked 50 years ago isn't relevant. The norm of the hobby in 2014 is that each player supplies their own army. This is true of pretty much every game in the market, not just GW games. It has been that way for at least 20-30 years, and there is no sign that this trend is going to change in the foreseeable future. Like it or not, the old days are gone.
And that the majority of game play that goes on is not publicly at stores, clubs or conventions, but at home, among friends.
Evidence for this? Specifically in the miniature wargame market, not gaming in general?
Furthermore it's also a departure from the norm for games in general, which tend to not expect people to rely on others to have a functional set of gaming pieces.
You're making the mistake of ignoring the difference between genres of games. Obviously board games work that way, but other genres don't. CCGs/LCGs follow the same "bring your own deck" model as miniatures games, RPGs make a default assumption that each player has their own stuff (and even when books are shared it's expected that you bring your own character), and obviously miniatures default to "bring your own army". And in all of these cases "bring your own stuff" is a long-term trend that is pretty much universal across all products in the genre, not just a weird temporary thing that everyone expects to end soon.
Maybe GW's numbers show them the same thing?
I doubt it. If GW's own numbers show that most customers paint and play at home then they'd be closing their retail stores as fast as possible. Keeping a marginally-profitable retail division around only makes sense if you assume that most customers are interested in the "store community" experience.
I am sorry I have to agree with Frozen here, in fact that is how you can get many people interested in a new game as I have witnessed from my own club and eventually those who have played the game usually go and pick up their own forces as well. This is a perfectly viable way too start a game, I would in the long run however encourage the regular gamers to purchase their own force, but the biggest thing is as long as the game is being played and is represented in the gaming club it will be in view of all who go in and out of the club and generates a much higher chance of more gamers picking up the game. Just like Demoing except it happens every week or so. I see what you are saying about the long term you want your fellow gamers to buy , build and bring their own forces in which I agree, but to make sure your invested game gains attention and grows to the level were you know you will be able to get a game of it, bringing your own two small forces to play is an excellent way to do it.
We see many companies encouraging this approach through PP's privateer system for example is a very similar set up encouraged by the company to help its game grow. The large army forces games do make this approach very expensive and time consuming, however 28mm wargaming really should not be played at such a scale, that style of game should be done with a smaller scale of miniatures which leads to a reduced cost of player investment so they can then do the same thing. This is why right now Skirmish games are out pacing the few large scale 28mm games out their. They can be demoed, easy to set up and show a game to a new player in no time. These large scale games cannot have such a set up due to time and money investment that the average gamer cannot do such a set up.
This Is why it is brilliant to produce a skirmish game as you will be able to have such events and players form your communities were with GW and other scaled games your going to have a much harder time in growing and keeping your current market place as its just plainly a lot harder to Demo your game due to time restraints alone. Other companies could possibly do this still but GW and the way their poor excuse for a game system is any new player will not understand how to play a game to any level within one Demo. So I will leave it at that. Also frozen wastes for your earlier post about my post I agree with you 100% their I understand your reasoning and agree with it , its a much better way for the market to grow!.
frozenwastes wrote: No, that's a false dichotomy. How many pence is a Perry or a Victrix plastic infantry model? And those are from companies that have to out source their tooling and injection moulding. A company that already owns their tooling and injection moulding infrastructure could price even more competitively (if they so desired). The technology is all about driving down the margin cost of the next sprue produced. WGF has also made this work in the non-historical line. They've said that their zombies and survivors have outsold all other produces they've made combined. At 30 figures for $22. People get both the survivors and the zombies and get a lot of them. Zombies are fun in hordes, after all.
Two things:
1) You're assuming that all models will work like generic things like zombies and survivors. Zombies are like historical miniatures, they have no IP protection and they're usually interchangeable, so competition can drive prices down. But most people who want non-historical miniatures are interested in more than just generic stuff, and that probably means higher prices.
2) Money isn't the only cost. Building and painting those models still takes a lot of time. For example, even though I'm only buying expensive OOP stuff I'm still accumulating models faster than I'm finishing them and adding them to my army. It has taken me years to get my IG up to the 1500-2000 point level at anything close to WYSIWYG, there's no way I'd ever be able to build a second army even if the models were free.
Furthermore, companies have been doing a great job marketing products meant to speed up painting. And with youtube and various blogs and communities, there has never been an easier time to learn how to paint fast.
Which is only relevant if you're satisfied with "spray color primer, minimal detail, dump in a bucket of wash". If you want to paint your stuff at a higher standard there's nothing you can do about the fact that it is going to take a lot of time.
When I talk about GW's customer base being segmented, I usually also talk about them being ignorant. This time I forgot. My bad.
But these are two separate issues. Segmentation in the market doesn't necessarily mean ignorance. You can have customers that are only interested in GW games who are still aware of things like buying knives/drill bits/etc elsewhere, and you can have non-gamer family walk into an independent store full of non-GW products and say "just give me what my kid needs to be happy". And in the case of GW's overpriced tools the ignorance factor is much more important than their ability to create their own niche in the market.
There is no "should".
But you presented a separation between rules and models as a good thing, implying that, at least in your mind, there is such a thing as "should".
Sci-fi and fantasy is often just historical stuff with chrome added on. An infantry dude with a gun is still an infantry dude with a gun.
But that "chrome" is very important for WYSIWYG purposes
I'm sure you can think of a third option that's better than those two if you try.
Ok, let's see you prove it. Explain exactly how you would design a scifi tank model without referring to any rules. Please be sure to explain things like how you choose which guns it will be armed with, where they will be placed on the model, and what fire arcs they will have. I bet that whatever answer you give is going to be one of my two options.
In DIY miniature gaming, you represent the story the miniature tells you when you look at it.
So what about a model tells you whether its gun should be STR 6 or STR 7 (in 40k terms), and how many points the model should cost as a result of that choice?
As you said though, not an approach for people who aren't willing to put in the time/work/thought to make it work.
Sorry, but "write your own rules" is not an option. I don't want a game where I have to invent rules for all the units based on whatever models I decide to use, and then spend tons of time playtesting them to get everything balanced before I can enjoy the game. If I'm going to pay money for rules I expect them to be a finished product.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: Take GW's revenue, adjust it by sales channel as outlined in their last report, take the number of retail locations they run and then find out how many people are showing up to play their on a given saturday. They all have face book pages, so you can ask about turn out. Then divide the revenue and see just how small of a portion the active store gamers really represent.
Except that's not an answer because it doesn't account for things like parents buying a space marine starter box for their kid and then throwing the unbuilt models in the trash 10-15 years later when the kid moves out and the parent wants their bedroom for an office. That sale would count as a "person who buys at GW and plays at home" even though they never played the game. Similarly, it doesn't account at all for people who buy from the local store and play their games in a private club, which is just a slight location change for the "bring your own army, play pickup games" model.
Give how much effort GW is putting into turning their stores from hobby centres into glorified sales kiosks, I could only laugh. And how rapidly they will close a store or replace the employee if they don't hit their target numbers.
Except that's not what GW is doing. Remember that GW has closed all of their big mall stores and replaced them with stores in the middle of nowhere. That only makes sense if you assume that your primary target market is people who already know about your product and want a place to play their games in addition to buying stuff. If you assume that most of your target market doesn't play in the store then you want to get rid of the gaming space and put the store in a high-traffic mall where customers will actually find it. Or you give up on attracting new customers at your retail store and move all of your stuff online and into independent stores.
(And yes, the way GW is cutting store quality is stupid, but it's a sign of trying to run a "play your games" store at the absolute lowest possible cost.)
And that the majority of game play that goes on is not publicly at stores, clubs or conventions, but at home, among friends.
Evidence for this? Specifically in the miniature wargame market, not gaming in general?
GAMA, WotC, Wargames Illustrated, Soldiers & Strategy and others have found as much through their own research in gaming and miniatures in general.
It is also an observable fact. If you look at the costs needed to run a game store, divide that by the number of people who play at game stores...the amount each one of those people would need to spend far outstrips even the most generous hobby budget. You can verify it anecdotally by asking store owners as well regarding how much of their customer base plays in house versus those who pop in for one thing or another and don't come back for a month or more.
Now add in all those who don't even bother with the stores and shop online only. Add all those who don't have access to a local game store (large areas of the US have no game store, or no game store with in house gaming facilities - including significant population centers).
People who game in stores is tiny fraction of the whole market. Not even touching mass market gaming (which is almost entirely done at home - things like the collectible games), even just looking at GW's market share, you can conclude that most gaming happens outside of stores. Roughly $57 million sold in North America last year. Approximately 850 hobby stores that carry GW products (total, including GW and independents). Average spending per person per year $450 (based on numerous surveys) - you have an average 150 customers per store buying GW products (granted, they won't all be GW products...sloppy number crunching to illustrate). Average game capacity per store with in store gaming - two tables (GAMA data). Average wait to play per game night for 150 customers to play on 2 tables at 2 hours per game?
I'd have to dig it out to get the specifics, but most the surveys correlate to roughly 5-10% being regular in store gamers (once a month or more) while another 10-15% will show up for special occasions (tournaments, contests, in-laws visiting...). The remaining 75-85% game in stores less than once a year or never. The ones who actually game in store have been shown to spend less than those who do not - often due to their socioeconomic position (in store gamers tend to be younger).
Peregrine wrote:1) You're assuming that all models will work like generic things like zombies and survivors.
No, I'm saying that there are, right now, examples in the market place that show that people can get large collections of figures for low amounts of money if they want to. And sci-fi and fantasy non-generic offerings don't have different manufacturing and distribution costs just because no one else can make them. GW charges more because they want better margins and the cost savings of lower volumes. Adjusted for inflation, the LOTR plastic infantry have gone up 230% in price from when they were originally released. No one else could make them when they were less than half their current price, yet GW sold them quite cheaply.
2) Money isn't the only cost. Building and painting those models still takes a lot of time. For example, even though I'm only buying expensive OOP stuff I'm still accumulating models faster than I'm finishing them and adding them to my army. It has taken me years to get my IG up to the 1500-2000 point level at anything close to WYSIWYG, there's no way I'd ever be able to build a second army even if the models were free.
So because you paint a certain rate, that means no one right now is happily buying loads of miniatures, painting them up and getting them on the table. It would be totally off topic for me to trot out picture after picture of huge (usually historical) games with way more miniatures than your IG army has, but I could do it. You asserted that building more than one army isn't a viable approach, apparently from a personal perspective as well as an industry one. And yet... the huge armies exist that would take up way, way more time to paint and assemble than 2 of your IG armies.
EDIT: Turns out I couldn't resist:
Spoiler:
Anyone who can get that done, can get two 2000 point armies done. And I don't know how often I see points totals in people's signatures in the multiple thousands. There seems to be enough people buying and painting miniatures that large collections bigger than two armies aren't that rare.
And again: A person making two armies and another person deciding to make their own are not mutually exclusive! It's in GW's best interest if they can get people to demo their games for their friends who are not yet wargamers. It's in any manufacturer's best interests to have their customers do that for their product.
Which is only relevant if you're satisfied with "spray color primer, minimal detail, dump in a bucket of wash". If you want to paint your stuff at a higher standard there's nothing you can do about the fact that it is going to take a lot of time.
The reality is that enough people do want to paint quickly that products have been brought to market to accommodate them. It's okay if they are not the kind of product you are interested in. I know a lot of people are very happy with some of GW's products aimed at this kind of process.
Ok, let's see you prove it. Explain exactly how you would design a scifi tank model without referring to any rules. Please be sure to explain things like how you choose which guns it will be armed with, where they will be placed on the model, and what fire arcs they will have. I bet that whatever answer you give is going to be one of my two options.
Entirely based off of aesthetics, thinking about what the implications of the design choices would be if it experienced actual combat and the realities of sculpting, tooling and mass producing the end model. Those last concerns are way more important considerations that game stats when it comes to product development. I don't think I would think about rules at all when designing the model. I'd want the model to stand on its own merits.
In DIY miniature gaming, you represent the story the miniature tells you when you look at it.
So what about a model tells you whether its gun should be STR 6 or STR 7 (in 40k terms), and how many points the model should cost as a result of that choice?
How indeed. I see the DIY approach is too alien for you to even understand it. Do you want to hear something strange? The popular rules sets by Warlord Games like Hail Caesar and Black Powder... don't have points values! What?! How can they do that? LOL
Sorry, but "write your own rules" is not an option. I don't want a game where I have to invent rules for all the units based on whatever models I decide to use, and then spend tons of time playtesting them to get everything balanced before I can enjoy the game. If I'm going to pay money for rules I expect them to be a finished product.
The context for my advocacy of separating rules and miniatures was to allow those who are satisfied with one but not the other to still find a gaming solution that works for them. Your particular interests, again, are irrelevant to that situation. And unfortunately to everyone else, I can't think of a way to tie it into the topic of the thread. Maybe something about how GW seems to be going after a target audience that doesn't care about rules as much as we might? Sure. I think that works. I just think they could have embraced the casual free-wheeling approach without fragmenting the rules expectations to sell more models.
Peregrine wrote: So if you want to keep miniatures and rules separate you have two choices:
1) Generic models that can fit most rules if you try hard enough, but never do anything ambitious. No vehicles, no fancy units (bikes, crisis suits, etc), just a ton of different 10-man infantry squads with laser rifles.
or
2) Generic rules that can accommodate any models. For example, infantry squads don't have different gun types, you just say "10-man squad with rifles" so that no matter what your models look like there's no WYSIWYG issue.
Actually - not so much. There are several systems available which make use of any figure and can equip them pretty much as you see fit. My go to rules set for that sort of thing is Defiance: Vital Ground from Majestic Twelve. They have rules covering all your vehicles, critters, infantry and in the last expansion include steampunk based mechs with wizards who cast spells through them...
Building a list takes a bit more time the first go around for each army - but the math behind the list building is solid enough that you can be pretty certain lists created by two different people will be balanced against each other for the same point value. After you work the math the first time though, you can do new lists for different point values in very short order to play smaller or larger games.
Sean_OBrien wrote: People who game in stores is tiny fraction of the whole market. Not even touching mass market gaming (which is almost entirely done at home - things like the collectible games), even just looking at GW's market share, you can conclude that most gaming happens outside of stores. Roughly $57 million sold in North America last year. Approximately 850 hobby stores that carry GW products (total, including GW and independents). Average spending per person per year $450 (based on numerous surveys) - you have an average 150 customers per store buying GW products (granted, they won't all be GW products...sloppy number crunching to illustrate). Average game capacity per store with in store gaming - two tables (GAMA data). Average wait to play per game night for 150 customers to play on 2 tables at 2 hours per game?
LOL!
I'd have to dig it out to get the specifics, but most the surveys correlate to roughly 5-10% being regular in store gamers (once a month or more) while another 10-15% will show up for special occasions (tournaments, contests, in-laws visiting...). The remaining 75-85% game in stores less than once a year or never. The ones who actually game in store have been shown to spend less than those who do not - often due to their socioeconomic position (in store gamers tend to be younger).
So maybe GW's transition to a sales focused approach for their stores isn't such a bad thing to do. Very interesting stuff.
Sean_OBrien wrote: People who game in stores is tiny fraction of the whole market. Not even touching mass market gaming (which is almost entirely done at home - things like the collectible games), even just looking at GW's market share, you can conclude that most gaming happens outside of stores. Roughly $57 million sold in North America last year. Approximately 850 hobby stores that carry GW products (total, including GW and independents). Average spending per person per year $450 (based on numerous surveys) - you have an average 150 customers per store buying GW products (granted, they won't all be GW products...sloppy number crunching to illustrate). Average game capacity per store with in store gaming - two tables (GAMA data). Average wait to play per game night for 150 customers to play on 2 tables at 2 hours per game?
LOL!
I'd have to dig it out to get the specifics, but most the surveys correlate to roughly 5-10% being regular in store gamers (once a month or more) while another 10-15% will show up for special occasions (tournaments, contests, in-laws visiting...). The remaining 75-85% game in stores less than once a year or never. The ones who actually game in store have been shown to spend less than those who do not - often due to their socioeconomic position (in store gamers tend to be younger).
So maybe GW's transition to a sales focused approach for their stores isn't such a bad thing to do. Very interesting stuff.
Most the information I have seen (sporadic from different sources) goes back to the mid-1980s and the trends haven't really changed much in the US. The mistake that they made was that they tried to export a European business model to the rest of the world. In the UK and mainland Europe, especially during the 1970s and 1980s, houses were significantly smaller and didn't really have the room to set up gaming tables outside of taking over a dining table. The US, Canada and Australia generally had space - extra bedrooms, basements, sometimes even purpose built rec rooms. We also generally had further to go to get to fewer stores, a lack of public transportation for hooligans to take before they learn to drive and all the other aspects which made GW stores a viable option.
If you examine the GW stores which actually manage to survive more than one lease term in the US - going back to the beginning - the majority tend to be in high population density urban areas. They end up surviving less due to the population density and more due to the necessity of an outside game facility due to apartment living.
There is probably a game size, a bit larger than Warmachine and a bit smaller than 40k that can be both a high price premium product and sell at good volumes and have a lower barrier to entry. During the 90s when GW grew from a British importer of D&D into an international retailer of their own miniatures, most of their games were like that. Bigger than Warmachine, smaller than current 40k/Fantasy.
I agree. 20-40 infantry sized models (depending on faction), plus 2-5 40mm base sized models, plus 1 vehicle sized model would make for an easily transportable game with a lower barrier to entry (at least in cost).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sean_OBrien wrote: Most the information I have seen (sporadic from different sources) goes back to the mid-1980s and the trends haven't really changed much in the US. The mistake that they made was that they tried to export a European business model to the rest of the world. In the UK and mainland Europe, especially during the 1970s and 1980s, houses were significantly smaller and didn't really have the room to set up gaming tables outside of taking over a dining table. The US, Canada and Australia generally had space - extra bedrooms, basements, sometimes even purpose built rec rooms. We also generally had further to go to get to fewer stores, a lack of public transportation for hooligans to take before they learn to drive and all the other aspects which made GW stores a viable option.
You should check out the city of Vancouver. Downtown, condominiums are as small as 200 sq ft now. The price? Literally, the cheapest condo for sale downtown is a quarter million dollars. The cheapest single-family detached dwelling in the city that isn't floating on water and where you actually own the land is (way) over a million dollars, and they are tear downs. And rent is proportionately expensive.
My wife actually jokes that my love of the hobby costs us $2,000 a month, because that's what we could rent my 1500sq ft man-cave gaming basement for LOL.
2) Money isn't the only cost. Building and painting those models still takes a lot of time. For example, even though I'm only buying expensive OOP stuff I'm still accumulating models faster than I'm finishing them and adding them to my army. It has taken me years to get my IG up to the 1500-2000 point level at anything close to WYSIWYG, there's no way I'd ever be able to build a second army even if the models were free.
So because you paint a certain rate, that means no one right now is happily buying loads of miniatures, painting them up and getting them on the table. It would be totally off topic for me to trot out picture after picture of huge (usually historical) games with way more miniatures than your IG army has, but I could do it. You asserted that building more than one army isn't a viable approach, apparently from a personal perspective as well as an industry one. And yet... the huge armies exist that would take up way, way more time to paint and assemble than 2 of your IG armies.
Actually, since 1988 or so, I have collected many playable armies -- Imperial Guard, Grey Knights, and Eldar were all very complete armies in my first decade of gaming. I did Orks next and Tyranids next, and Dark Angels after that. At several points in time, various armies were refreshed back to "modern" playable lists. I'm currently working on Dark Eldar and Blood Angels, and will probably have 1,850 points playable / 2,500 points by the end of the year (2015, I mean, not 2014 haha). I already have all the models, except one stormraven -- I "just" need to build and paint them. I even have a couple of Finecast Grotesques that seem OOP now
It was never about a FoTM army (I admit I am building an Angel's Fury, but mostly because it just "feels" like the right way for BA to make an entrance, rather than it being potentially game-wise awesome) -- it was always about cool models.
Anyone who can get that done, can get two 2000 point armies done. And I don't know how often I see points totals in people's signatures in the multiple thousands. There seems to be enough people buying and painting miniatures that large collections bigger than two armies aren't that rare.
And again: A person making two armies and another person deciding to make their own are not mutually exclusive! It's in GW's best interest if they can get people to demo their games for their friends who are not yet wargamers. It's in any manufacturer's best interests to have their customers do that for their product.
Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. It really isn't even that hard, if you have spare time, and you enjoy the hobby. It's just miserable if you can't afford it, don't like the modelling end of it, and are in a rush to have playable units (in this case, 40k is SO not the right hobby...).
For all the griping about hobby cost, 40k as a hobby is *much* cheaper than many forms of entertainment. It isn't hard to spend $2,000 on a pair of hockey, football, or concert tickets if you want to. Many sports cost way, way more than hobby. Ever bought a nice golf club? How about a set? Green fees?
Sorry, but "write your own rules" is not an option. I don't want a game where I have to invent rules for all the units based on whatever models I decide to use, and then spend tons of time playtesting them to get everything balanced before I can enjoy the game. If I'm going to pay money for rules I expect them to be a finished product.
The context for my advocacy of separating rules and miniatures was to allow those who are satisfied with one but not the other to still find a gaming solution that works for them. Your particular interests, again, are irrelevant to that situation. And unfortunately to everyone else, I can't think of a way to tie it into the topic of the thread. Maybe something about how GW seems to be going after a target audience that doesn't care about rules as much as we might? Sure. I think that works. I just think they could have embraced the casual free-wheeling approach without fragmenting the rules expectations to sell more models.
Meh. I've said it before, and I'll repeat it again. Tabletop wargaming is so much better entertainment as a social experience rather than "You and me, 1850 points, FIGHT!". There are so may better ways to do the latter (like StarCraft). In the context of a social experience where it's not two cavemen bashing each other with clubs, where the loser says, "not fair, your club was bigger", it should be easy for humans to agree that certain aspects of a game are fun, or not fun, and to make adjustments or concessions as necessary.
Also, in my many years of wargaming, there are relatively very few people that rules-lawyer their gaming experiences. Even if you're right, and arguing the point and spending tons of time trying to justify a rule is just generally not a fun way to play, and at least within the sphere of my play partners and people I encounter, this is an extremely rare phenomenon. Generally, if one person is *certain* a rule should work one way, the other person just says, "Sure", and if there is research or rules haggling to be done, it's done after the game. I mean, unless it's an obvious error in a clearly stated rule that is easy to refer to. Among experienced players that have gamed with each other before though, this just doesn't happen that often.
If you examine the GW stores which actually manage to survive more than one lease term in the US - going back to the beginning - the majority tend to be in high population density urban areas. They end up surviving less due to the population density and more due to the necessity of an outside game facility due to apartment living.
The closest GW to me has done alright since the switch to a single employee. The guy is a master salesman and I'm sure when he gets done with GW and embraces a true professional sales position, he'll become quite well off. The store is in an affluent area with lots of 2000+ square foot single family homes, but small yards. Almost all of his revenue comes from new 14-20 year olds who see the store when they go past it to a nearby mall and wonder what it is. If all of GW's stores could have this sort of combination of location and staff, GW would be very healthy.
My worry for GW going forward is that they just got rid of their middle management. From what I understand there's one rep for North America who answers directly to the board and all the store managers answer to him. So is there someone in North America analyzing income demographics, urban density and traffic patterns to find the best locations? I know they outsourced recruiting, but that's not really any guarantee they'll get the kind of sales people they need.
Talys wrote:
My wife actually jokes that my love of the hobby costs us $2,000 a month, because that's what we could rent my 1500sq ft man-cave gaming basement for LOL.
That's a sizable space for gaming. It's awesome that you don't have to rent it out, and that if you ever need to you can. Are the Trumpeter club meetings at Bonsor near Metrotown still happening?
Talys wrote:It was never about a FoTM army (I admit I am building an Angel's Fury, but mostly because it just "feels" like the right way for BA to make an entrance, rather than it being potentially game-wise awesome) -- it was always about cool models.
I'm the same way. Tyranids hit that Alien sweet spot from my childhood. And genestealer cults captured my imagination enough that they've appeared as the bad guys in a few different fantasy and sci-fi RPGs that I've run over the years.
Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. It really isn't even that hard, if you have spare time, and you enjoy the hobby. It's just miserable if you can't afford it, don't like the modelling end of it, and are in a rush to have playable units (in this case, 40k is SO not the right hobby...).
For all the griping about hobby cost, 40k as a hobby is *much* cheaper than many forms of entertainment. It isn't hard to spend $2,000 on a pair of hockey, football, or concert tickets if you want to. Many sports cost way, way more than hobby. Ever bought a nice golf club? How about a set? Green fees?
While I don't think it speaks well of GW to have to compare it to something like golf or off roading to make the cost seem reasonable, I largely agree with the sentiment that even 40k is doable. I think what hurts GW though is that their customers seem to be getting exhausted. Each new release puts a higher price tag on a kit when compared to previous ones and the natural supply and demand curves seem to be taking their effect with less people buying less (which does allow GW to save money on production, retail and distribution costs).
Meh. I've said it before, and I'll repeat it again. Tabletop wargaming is so much better entertainment as a social experience rather than "You and me, 1850 points, FIGHT!". There are so may better ways to do the latter (like StarCraft). In the context of a social experience where it's not two cavemen bashing each other with clubs, where the loser says, "not fair, your club was bigger", it should be easy for humans to agree that certain aspects of a game are fun, or not fun, and to make adjustments or concessions as necessary.
You'd think. I think the main reason people complain about GW's approach is that they are simply not the its target audience. Perhaps they feel that GW would be better off if their likes were catered rather than ignored. I think there is something to the case that the social gamers who make adjustments or concessions as necessary aren't in any way negatively impacted by rules that function well in "You and me, 1850 points, FIGHT!" mode.
Real game development costs money though. The amount of people on the credits for design and development for a set of Magic: The Gathering cards is pretty impressive. And that's not counting their entire "Advance design team" that does a lot of ground work months before the lead designer comes along and starts writing card text. GW is in money saving mode right now. They're simply not going to spend that kind of money when they can just ask their current team to play some games Friday afternoon and answer the question "was it fun?"
frozenwastes wrote: So because you paint a certain rate, that means no one right now is happily buying loads of miniatures, painting them up and getting them on the table. It would be totally off topic for me to trot out picture after picture of huge (usually historical) games with way more miniatures than your IG army has, but I could do it. You asserted that building more than one army isn't a viable approach, apparently from a personal perspective as well as an industry one. And yet... the huge armies exist that would take up way, way more time to paint and assemble than 2 of your IG armies.
I assume we're talking about what is viable for most people. There are people out there who can assemble 2 armies of 300 models each, for most people that's just not viable, which is why the BYO army system is appealing to a large slab of the population. In my entire gaming life the number of people who have actually bought, assembled AND painted armies of 100+ models are far outnumbered by the number of people who have started armies but never gotten them finished.
The BYO army system makes wargaming beyond skirmish levels more accessible... this is a good thing.
frozenwastes wrote: That's a sizable space for gaming. It's awesome that you don't have to rent it out, and that if you ever need to you can. Are the Trumpeter club meetings at Bonsor near Metrotown still happening?
I'm not sure. Many, many moons ago, I played at UBC, then hung out with the crowd at Imperial Hobbies in Richmond, and then eventually just played privately with friends. I've never been much of the Metrotown scene -- though I occasionally pop into the Highgate Games Workshop if I happen to be nearby.
About 2/3 of my basement is set aside for gaming. The rest is storage... including a collection of models that I must paint before I die. Which will necessitate me living to the age of the Emperor... or at least Dante
While I don't think it speaks well of GW to have to compare it to something like golf or off roading to make the cost seem reasonable, I largely agree with the sentiment that even 40k is doable. I think what hurts GW though is that their customers seem to be getting exhausted. Each new release puts a higher price tag on a kit when compared to previous ones and the natural supply and demand curves seem to be taking their effect with less people buying less (which does allow GW to save money on production, retail and distribution costs).
Yeah, I definitely know what you mean. "Exhaustion" is not a bad description of it, though I blame that mostly on a terrible set of 6th edition rules that they wanted to get rid of ASAP. The 2014 codices seem pretty well designed and balanced (with the exception of Grey Knights), so I've been a relatively happy customer from a product perspective. However, I don't like big heavy hardcover codices, and I don't like digital ones; and I feel ripped off by the hardcover small codices (not that I've bought any of those). If they sold small softcover codices like the mini rules for $35-$40 each, I think I and a few others could be happy in terms of price.
You'd think. I think the main reason people complain about GW's approach is that they are simply not the its target audience. Perhaps they feel that GW would be better off if their likes were catered rather than ignored. I think there is something to the case that the social gamers who make adjustments or concessions as necessary aren't in any way negatively impacted by rules that function well in "You and me, 1850 points, FIGHT!" mode.
Real game development costs money though. The amount of people on the credits for design and development for a set of Magic: The Gathering cards is pretty impressive. And that's not counting their entire "Advance design team" that does a lot of ground work months before the lead designer comes along and starts writing card text. GW is in money saving mode right now. They're simply not going to spend that kind of money when they can just ask their current team to play some games Friday afternoon and answer the question "was it fun?"
No argument there. I strongly feel that 40k rules could be much better, and that they could create a subset of 40k for the people who just want to show up and bash it out with 2 armies. It would be a good way to entice people to be sucked into the 40k universe.
Now, using MtG as a comparison, I fiercely played and collected that for a few years, but hit "Exhaustion" and finally sold it all. Funny thing: I found 1 box the other day with a playable deck that I missed giving the fella I sold all my cards to. Went to a local store, and the value of those cards was almost $1000!! I was pretty happy Though, if I had magically held onto either of my 2 alpha print black lotuses, I would have been much more happy, I suppose!
I actually found MtG a pretty easy hobby to walk away from. 40k always draws me back because the models are cool. I mean, I bought a box of BA assault terminators when they came out (and unlike the tac squad, they were crazy expensive CAD $70 before discounts). I need more terminator models like I need a root canal, but I just saw the new stormshields and my eyes glazed over. Purdddyyyyy....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I assume we're talking about what is viable for most people. There are people out there who can assemble 2 armies of 300 models each, for most people that's just not viable, which is why the BYO army system is appealing to a large slab of the population. In my entire gaming life the number of people who have actually bought, assembled AND painted armies of 100+ models are far outnumbered by the number of people who have started armies but never gotten them finished.
The BYO army system makes wargaming beyond skirmish levels more accessible... this is a good thing.
Sorry for my ignorance: what is a BYO army system? Do you mean a system where the models and rules can be used interchangeably between different systems?
Talys wrote: Sorry for my ignorance: what is a BYO army system? Do you mean a system where the models and rules can be used interchangeably between different systems?
Sorry my post might have been off topic since the conversation has been moving on, it goes back to what we were talking about on the previous page, where you have a host that supplies both armies for a game vs someone bringing their own army to play against a person who also brought their own army.
Talys wrote: Sorry for my ignorance: what is a BYO army system? Do you mean a system where the models and rules can be used interchangeably between different systems?
Sorry my post might have been off topic since the conversation has been moving on, it goes back to what we were talking about on the previous page, where you have a host that supplies both armies for a game vs someone bringing their own army to play against a person who also brought their own army.
Ahhh okay, I get it
In theory, I have no problem supplying both armies. In practice, I don't very often, because I spend too much time prepping and painting my miniatures and wince at the thought of them being mishandled.
In all-in-one games like Space Hulk, I keep 2 sets of miniatures -- one painted nicely, and one very quickly painted for playing (and I do mean *very*). Sometimes, I'll bring out my nice set to play my side with, but my buddies get to use basic paint job models. They can bring their own fancy miniatures if they want!!
AllSeeingSkink wrote:There are people out there who can assemble 2 armies of 300 models each, for most people that's just not viable, which is why the BYO army system is appealing to a large slab of the population. In my entire gaming life the number of people who have actually bought, assembled AND painted armies of 100+ models are far outnumbered by the number of people who have started armies but never gotten them finished.
I know GW believes their typical customer quits without ever really playing the games. Jervis said as much in 2009 at UK Games Day. He called the people who maybe play a handful of times ever but concentrate on the model side of things "craft hobbyists" and said they made up of almost two thirds of GW's customer base.
This whole sub-conversation sprang out of our conversation about getting into games without knowing where the opponents are going to come from. While some want a strict either-or dichotomy to hold absolutely sway, it was actually just about the subset of people who like a project enough to collect and paint all the needed miniatures. It's true that a lot of people start armies and never get them done, but those aren't really the people in question. You don't go to the trouble to paint both sides of a conflict and host games because you're the type of person who doesn't care enough to finish painting an army.
I also think we disagree about how many people there are out there who actually get things done. Maybe I'm spending too much time around historical players, but they seem to get things done. And the terrain is often even more time consuming than the huge armies.
Spoiler:
I think there are enough dedicated hobbyists out there to support a market where people can collect and paint everything needed for a game. And as I keep saying, there is nothing mutually exclusive about this. It's not some sort of either-or dichotomy or two absolutes you have to pick from. It's just an observation that shopping around your game to people who already have what they want probably isn't as effective as a more project oriented social event approach. It's how the industry was built in the first place. It would also probably work well for GW to spend a lot more time thinking about the social side of things and how their product is used and could be used instead of concentrating on the Games Workshop Hobby being the act of purchasing their miniatures as was stated in the CHS lawsuit.
The BYO army system makes wargaming beyond skirmish levels more accessible... this is a good thing.
Anything that makes miniature wargaming more accessible is a good thing. If you happen to like what people play locally and the community isn't too fragmented, then it can work. You've seen what it's like first hand when it doesn't though. I'm not sure how a game is more accessible if you can't get games of it in. I know what I'm saying sounds counter intuitive-- especially the idea that the existing player base of other games might not be the most fruitful recruiting ground compared to those not in the hobby at all-- but it's something to try if your current approach hasn't been giving you the results you are looking for.
Talys wrote:Yeah, I definitely know what you mean. "Exhaustion" is not a bad description of it, though I blame that mostly on a terrible set of 6th edition rules that they wanted to get rid of ASAP.
I know the two editions within 23 months of each other exhausted a lot of people locally though. Imagine if you only got into 40k 6 months or so before the end of 6th edition and bam! you're asked to repurchase the rules. I think when people look back on it from the future, the sudden release of 7th edition is going to be what a lot of people site as the beginning of the end for their time with 40k. Many of them wouldn't have spent enough time with 6th edition to know if it was something that should have been gotten rid of ASAP or not. Call me cynical, but I think the real reason for 7th edition was the quick cash injection that a new edition release brings.
Talys wrote: No argument there. I strongly feel that 40k rules could be much better, and that they could create a subset of 40k for the people who just want to show up and bash it out with 2 armies. It would be a good way to entice people to be sucked into the 40k universe.
I don't know what the solution is. Maybe in the end it will be the completion of the alienation of the game focused customers. And GW can develop their retail operation of selling to people who are more about the models and keep a watch on their costs and stabilize their revenue and GW really can be the efficient cash machine Kirby touts it as in a way that's more sustainable than their current approach.
Anyone who can get that done, can get two 2000 point armies done.
Sigh. THIS IS NOT AN AVERAGE PLAYER. Seriously, why do you keep posting these pictures as if they represent the amount of effort an average player is willing to invest? Obviously there are a small number of dedicated collectors who build huge armies like that, but they aren't common and I seriously doubt there are enough of them to support a viable product. The average player spends a lot less time and money on their models, and many players struggle to finish even a single 1500-2000 point army. This is fine when each player is only responsible for bringing their own stuff, but if you want those players to move to a "one player brings both armies" model then you have to reduce per-army model counts to compensate.
Entirely based off of aesthetics, thinking about what the implications of the design choices would be if it experienced actual combat and the realities of sculpting, tooling and mass producing the end model. Those last concerns are way more important considerations that game stats when it comes to product development. I don't think I would think about rules at all when designing the model. I'd want the model to stand on its own merits.
Congratulations, you just proved my point by creating a model that can only be used if the rules are generic enough to let any random tank model fit the unit rules, regardless of what it looks like/what guns it has/etc. What were you saying about creating false dilemmas?
I see the DIY approach is too alien for you to even understand it.
No, I understand the "DIY approach", also known as "a publisher selling you half a game and letting you do all the work of finishing it". I just think it's a good way to commit financial suicide. It might work for a handful of obsessive historical players with unlimited amounts of free time, but if it ever becomes the default in the non-historical community it could very easily destroy non-historical gaming. Think this is exaggerated a bit? Just look at how many customers GW keeps losing because they think "DIY" is a good way to publish a game.
The best solution is for GW to suffer a bad year, the shareholders to panic sell and crash the stock price, and WOTC to buy the company. Any situation that leaves GW's current management in control just means the continuing destruction of GW's games and possibly significant damage to the hobby as a whole.
I know the two editions within 23 months of each other exhausted a lot of people locally though. Imagine if you only got into 40k 6 months or so before the end of 6th edition and bam! you're asked to repurchase the rules. I think when people look back on it from the future, the sudden release of 7th edition is going to be what a lot of people site as the beginning of the end for their time with 40k. Many of them wouldn't have spent enough time with 6th edition to know if it was something that should have been gotten rid of ASAP.
I hear you. Even at the maximum 23 months, it's a short time frame for new rules. It's not only the cost -- there's also the changes a new edition brings, and people adjust better to codex changes (like new Blood Angels) than to sweeping new changes that requires they change the way they play.
I don't know what the solution is. Maybe in the end it will be the completion of the alienation of the game focused customers. And GW can develop their retail operation of selling to people who are more about the models and keep a watch on their costs and stabilize their revenue and GW really can be the efficient cash machine Kirby touts it as in a way that's more sustainable than their current approach.
I hope that's not the case. I always thought of Forge World as that, but I guess I'm not a big enough fan, because I can't bring myself to pay the import fees and such on top of the higher cost of the FW models. If they sold them at my FLGS, that would be a different thing.
Frankly, in the North American market, at least, I wish they'd get rid of the retail thing and focus on relationships with local stores. I much prefer to buy from local stores because the price is better, but also because GW stores just don't carry all the other cool hobby stuff made by other companies (even exclusive of models). Although my GW store might stock 20x the GW models, it has less than 0.1% of the hobby supplies sold at my favorite FLGS. I don't really just want stuff made and sold by gaming companies; I like products by independent modelling supply companies like Woodland Scenics and Vallejo, and products that aren't limited to hobby, like airbrushes or a fifty kinds of sandpaper, a hundred different files, or a wall full of paintbrushes and mediums. It isn't even needing it -- I get a kick out of just browsing pegboards and shelves crammed with stuff ten feet high, looking for that one neat product that I never thought of using, and trying it out.
Anyone who can get that done, can get two 2000 point armies done.
Sigh. THIS IS NOT AN AVERAGE PLAYER. Seriously, why do you keep posting these pictures as if they represent the amount of effort an average player is willing to invest? Obviously there are a small number of dedicated collectors who build huge armies like that, but they aren't common and I seriously doubt there are enough of them to support a viable product. The average player spends a lot less time and money on their models, and many players struggle to finish even a single 1500-2000 point army. This is fine when each player is only responsible for bringing their own stuff, but if you want those players to move to a "one player brings both armies" model then you have to reduce per-army model counts to compensate.
Although that's not an average player, it's not really out of the ballpark crazy, either. There are many people with at least that size of collections, though a lot of them might not have them painted as well.
I think that Frozenwastes said it pretty well when he said: "I think the main reason people complain about GW's approach is that they are simply not the its target audience."
If you don't enjoy the hobby enough to finish a 1500 point army, 40k is not the game for you. Finito. There is no way around it. You will hate it. There is no possible way to love the 40k tabletop wargame if you don't love building and painting scifi models, because the whole hobby revolves around building and painting a lot of models.
If there aren't enough people who enjoy the hobby of building and painting scifi models, then 40k will die.
Congratulations, you just proved my point by creating a model that can only be used if the rules are generic enough to let any random tank model fit the unit rules, regardless of what it looks like/what guns it has/etc. What were you saying about creating false dilemmas?
If your opponent will let you proxy, go for it. I think some proxying is pretty reasonable. However, the problem in the context of a game like 40k is, if you point to a Transformer toy and say, "This is an Imperial Knight", point to a Tonka and say, "This is a Predator", and point to thirty civil war models and say, "These are Imperial Guard, those are scions, that's a terminator squad" -- how will your opponent remember that, and how will they know what weapons they have equipped?
The best solution is for GW to suffer a bad year, the shareholders to panic sell and crash the stock price, and WOTC to buy the company. Any situation that leaves GW's current management in control just means the continuing destruction of GW's games and possibly significant damage to the hobby as a whole.
I actually am not totally opposed to Frozenwastes' other solution: totally alienate the gamer crowd for 40k, and simply focus on model and fluff releases for the modelling + gaming crowd. It would make me sad to see them "abandon" the quest to make a better game, but as long as the model prices remain at their relative levels and quality to other companies' scifi models and prices, they'll probably keep getting my business. I don't care if the game is ever perfectly fixed, as I find it quite playable, and I wouldn't mind a slower rules release cadence + faster models release cadence.
I would rather see games set in the 40k universe like Space Hulk for the gaming crowd. You get everything you need in a box, it's a good game, well balanced, easy to play pickup and a good value (even for models). I also like how the IP is used for computer games and such, though they need to partner with better developers who will write a standout game.
By the way, the shareholders of corporations are actually relatively powerless. The board of directors wield all of the power. Although technically shareholders elect the board, the practical reality is that in a public company, the largest shareholders, who also happen tend to have a history control who will be on the board. Sometimes, as a part of getting financing, a company might surrender 1 board seat, which is a pretty major concession.
GW is a very long ways from insolvency and a forced acquisition, because its fundamentals are pretty good, despite gamer doom and gloom. It has both physical and intellectual property assets that aren't going to devalue, it has significant cash reserves, it isn't leveraged, it's profitable, and it has a worldwide distribution infrastructure. In addition, its overheads are not high, and quite controllable. From a management perspective, the company appears to speak with one voice -- there are no significant shareholders or board members who dissent from the company's vision.
Peregrine wrote:Sigh. THIS IS NOT AN AVERAGE PLAYER. Seriously, why do you keep posting these pictures as if they represent the amount of effort an average player is willing to invest?
This whole conversation is about an approach that can be used by people who like a game so much that they'd consider getting two armies together, making all the terrain, play aids, dice, etc., and hosting the game. You don't need this level of dedication in the average player. Just enough. Social activities thrive because key individuals provide momentum and get things done. And again, it's not mutually exclusive with the people who just want to collect one army.
Obviously there are a small number of dedicated collectors who build huge armies like that, but they aren't common and I seriously doubt there are enough of them to support a viable product.
I think there are enough of them, you disagree. We're going in circles here.
Congratulations, you just proved my point by creating a model that can only be used if the rules are generic enough to let any random tank model fit the unit rules, regardless of what it looks like/what guns it has/etc.
Here's what you are missing: It's not "regardless of what it looks like/what guns it has/etc." but becauseof what it looks like/what guns it has/etc.,. The systems that allow for a wide variety of models from multiple manufacturers to work don't approach it by being overly general, but by being necessarily specific.
The best solution is for GW to suffer a bad year, the shareholders to panic sell and crash the stock price, and WOTC to buy the company. Any situation that leaves GW's current management in control just means the continuing destruction of GW's games and possibly significant damage to the hobby as a whole.
Sorry, but Hasbro only buys success. They're not a value investment firm who hunts for bargains and struggling companies to turn them around. This idea of WotC buying GW is a total pipe dream. It's not how Hasbro does mergers and acquisitions. All of Hasbro's mergers and acquisitions are a matter of public record and you can see the types of companies they buy.
I think leaving the current management in control is going to be largely beneficial to the hobby as a whole as GW is slowly giving away market share in an orderly fashion. Local stores that see their GW sales drop can slowly transition to other revenue sources. GW's constant higher prices makes the margins possible for more and more smaller players who don't have access to things like mass production in plastic. I think GW will find a stabilization point. They've already demonstrated that they are willing to give up revenue and volume in order to have better margins, so there's really no reason why they can't continue their shift towards direct sales to a smaller number of people at a higher price and find the right combination of staff and locations to make their retail operation work.
I can hear your frustration though. You sound like someone who is let down by part of a complete package approach, but can't admit that you can solve your own problem because of some principled stance "that it's not your job."
frozenwastes wrote: Local stores that see their GW sales drop can slowly transition to other revenue sources. GW's constant higher prices makes the margins possible for more and more smaller players who don't have access to things like mass production in plastic. I think GW will find a stabilization point. They've already demonstrated that they are willing to give up revenue and volume in order to have better margins, so there's really no reason why they can't continue their shift towards direct sales to a smaller number of people at a higher price and find the right combination of staff and locations to make their retail operation work.
Ask most FLGS, though, and you'll still find that their two big moneymakers are Games Workshop and Magic the Gathering. WMH is a distant third for revenue, and you can easily see this by product prominence.
In the Vancouver area, I think there's only 1 FLGS that doesn't sell GW and place it very prominently -- and that shop is almost all MtG (and other TCGs), and has a token amount of Privateer Press and some other stuff (like X-Wing) that is so incomplete as to be unplayable using only the models for sale.
Talys wrote:Frankly, in the North American market, at least, I wish they'd get rid of the retail thing and focus on relationships with local stores.
I think they should go hat-in-hand to all the sales channels they've spurned over the years and sell as much of their product as possible through as many channels as possible. And that even a small portion of their dividend money should be reinvested in a department responsible for returning them to growth by developing products appropriate for the wider market. That instead of ceding market share and trying to segment their customer base, they should compete in the open market through hobby and toy distribution and go in guns blazing, leveraging their plastic model kit infrastructure.
I don't really just want stuff made and sold by gaming companies; I like products by independent modelling supply companies like Woodland Scenics and Vallejo, and products that aren't limited to hobby, like airbrushes or a fifty kinds of sandpaper, a hundred different files, or a wall full of paintbrushes and mediums. It isn't even needing it -- I get a kick out of just browsing pegboards and shelves crammed with stuff ten feet high, looking for that one neat product that I never thought of using, and trying it out.
I got my first Airbrush from Imperial Hobbies in Richmond. And some sanding films that have become a mainstay of my model prep work. I know what you mean about browsing a well stocked hobby store.
Although that's not an average player, it's not really out of the ballpark crazy, either. There are many people with at least that size of collections, though a lot of them might not have them painted as well.
...
If you don't enjoy the hobby enough to finish a 1500 point army, 40k is not the game for you. Finito. There is no way around it. You will hate it. There is no possible way to love the 40k tabletop wargame if you don't love building and painting scifi models, because the whole hobby revolves around building and painting a lot of models.
I think this is really well said. And regardless of whether a given individual makes one army or two, the more dedicated people who are willing to put in the effort, the better the local community will be.
I actually am not totally opposed to Frozenwastes' other solution: totally alienate the gamer crowd for 40k, and simply focus on model and fluff releases for the modelling + gaming crowd. It would make me sad to see them "abandon" the quest to make a better game, but as long as the model prices remain at their relative levels and quality to other companies' scifi models and prices, they'll probably keep getting my business. I don't care if the game is ever perfectly fixed, as I find it quite playable, and I wouldn't mind a slower rules release cadence + faster models release cadence.
After GW hit the end of the LOTR boom, they switched the goal of their company. It used to be to get their product in the hands of as many people as possible and be a growth company. After the restructuring following the LOTR bubble bursting, they decided that they would be about lower volumes at higher prices with well protected margins that focus on what they believe their niche is: the hobbyist/collector. Being smart, they didn't fire the portion of their customer base that was in it for the game, but simply concentrated on what they wanted to. As people didn't get a clear "you're fired as a customer" notice from GW, they still act like the GW of 2014 is the GW of 2004 (or even the GW of 1994 or 1984) and are wondering why things aren't the way they would like.
frozenwastes wrote: This whole conversation is about an approach that can be used by people who like a game so much that they'd consider getting two armies together, making all the terrain, play aids, dice, etc., and hosting the game. You don't need this level of dedication in the average player. Just enough. Social activities thrive because key individuals provide momentum and get things done. And again, it's not mutually exclusive with the people who just want to collect one army.
But I don't see why this is something worth talking about. There aren't enough people like that with large enough budgets (both time and money) to accommodate a 40k-scale game that such a game is a viable product without the "bring your own army" model. Which goes back to my original point, that if the industry moves away from "bring your own army" the result will be less diversity as larger-scale games fail.
Here's what you are missing: It's not "regardless of what it looks like/what guns it has/etc." but becauseof what it looks like/what guns it has/etc.,. The systems that allow for a wide variety of models from multiple manufacturers to work don't approach it by being overly general, but by being necessarily specific.
If you're very specific then you end up with things like "hull-mounted heavy bolter", and if your tank model doesn't have a hull-mounted gun that can plausibly be a heavy bolter your tank model can't be used to represent that unit. The only way your tank model can be used with that kind of rules is if you're the one writing the rules and can make sure they match the models you produce.
(And yes, I'm discarding the "build your own vehicle rules" approach because it doesn't produce balanced results.)
Sorry, but Hasbro only buys success. They're not a value investment firm who hunts for bargains and struggling companies to turn them around. This idea of WotC buying GW is a total pipe dream. It's not how Hasbro does mergers and acquisitions. All of Hasbro's mergers and acquisitions are a matter of public record and you can see the types of companies they buy.
Then replace Hasbro/WOTC with a company of your choice, the end result is the same: GW's IP in the hands of a company that can make good use of it.
You sound like someone who is let down by part of a complete package approach, but can't admit that you can solve your own problem because of some principled stance "that it's not your job."
It's not about principles, it's about results. I don't have the game design skill and playtesting time to create my own rules, therefore any game that depends on me writing my own rules is a bad game for me.
The BYO army system makes wargaming beyond skirmish levels more accessible... this is a good thing.
Anything that makes miniature wargaming more accessible is a good thing. If you happen to like what people play locally and the community isn't too fragmented, then it can work. You've seen what it's like first hand when it doesn't though. I'm not sure how a game is more accessible if you can't get games of it in. I know what I'm saying sounds counter intuitive-- especially the idea that the existing player base of other games might not be the most fruitful recruiting ground compared to those not in the hobby at all-- but it's something to try if your current approach hasn't been giving you the results you are looking for..
underfire wargaming wrote: This is what I have been saying for years now, this is the best thing that can happen to the market, its because we had one company dominate the market place that held back wargaming from being healthy and having diversity. The more open wargaming is to competition and diversity the more amazing products will be produced and the more settings and gener's will be introduced to wargaming. This is something I do not understand why so many of you are so are so concerned about, GWs demise will be far from harming the industry but a very good thing for wargaming as a whole.
What I've simply been trying to say is that having a top dog like GW can be good for the wargaming community because it reduces fragmentation and gives you a system where you can collect an army and reliably go play a game against someone.
Diversity only works when you have a huge community of wargamers so that you can always find someone to play against regardless of which game you play (which might be the case in some places, it's not my experience in any place I've lived) or when (as you pointed out) you have people willing to collect an entire game and not just 1 force in a game and then other people who are willing to play that game with them, which I feel is impractical for a lot of people with a lot of wargames.
So the reality as I see it, if GW dies or becomes less popular, part of the wargaming community might become more diverse but I think for the most part it will just fragment communities that currently rely on the popularity of 40k to get games in at all. Communities that didn't rely on the popularity of 40k will mostly remain unchanged. If you were playing historical games before you'll just continue to play historical games.
Talys wrote: If you don't enjoy the hobby enough to finish a 1500 point army, 40k is not the game for you.
I do enjoy the game enough to finish a 1500 point army, as demonstrated by the fact that I'm slowly working on finishing mine despite mostly moving to X-Wing for gaming. The point is that I don't have the realistic ability to build a second 1500-2000 point army so that I can supply both halves of the game. And I certainly don't have the ability to build multiple 1500-2000 point armies so that I can supply both halves of the game and keep things interesting instead of just playing the same two armies over and over again. The game only works because the "bring your own army" approach means that I only have to supply my half of the game and my opponent provides theirs.
If there aren't enough people who enjoy the hobby of building and painting scifi models, then 40k will die.
It's not just about enjoying the hobby of building and painting scifi models, it's about enjoying it enough to buy and build multiple armies. That's a level of commitment way beyond what the game requires now.
However, the problem in the context of a game like 40k is, if you point to a Transformer toy and say, "This is an Imperial Knight", point to a Tonka and say, "This is a Predator", and point to thirty civil war models and say, "These are Imperial Guard, those are scions, that's a terminator squad" -- how will your opponent remember that, and how will they know what weapons they have equipped?
And that's exactly the problem I'm pointing out. If you separate models and rules (like real-world games) outside of the historical wargaming genre, where you don't have real armies/units/etc to tell you what everything looks like and what every unit/model should be armed with, you run into huge WYSIWYG problems. Non-historical games, especially scifi games, need coordination between the rule authors and model designers to make sure that everything is WYSIWYG.
GW is a very long ways from insolvency and a forced acquisition, because its fundamentals are pretty good, despite gamer doom and gloom. It has both physical and intellectual property assets that aren't going to devalue, it has significant cash reserves, it isn't leveraged, it's profitable, and it has a worldwide distribution infrastructure. In addition, its overheads are not high, and quite controllable. From a management perspective, the company appears to speak with one voice -- there are no significant shareholders or board members who dissent from the company's vision.
If the fundamentals are so great then why do they keep losing revenue and profit?
Also, you don't have to get all the way to bankruptcy to have someone buy the company. All it takes is for stock prices to drop low enough that the shareholders consider an offer of $X per share to be better than the expected value of the company in the future. And we've already seen GW's share prices drop significantly after bad financial reports, so it wouldn't be much of a surprise to see more drops if GW continues to have bad reports and show no sign of being able to reverse the downward trends.
Peregrine wrote: And we've already seen GW's share prices drop significantly after bad financial reports, so it wouldn't be much of a surprise to see more drops if GW continues to have bad reports and show no sign of being able to reverse the downward trends.
GW's stock price has fallen much lower in the past and no one has wanted to buy them out. They dropped below 150 in 2008 and below 120 in 2001, despite current drops they're still plodding along at over 500.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: GW's stock price has fallen much lower in the past and no one has wanted to buy them out. They dropped below 150 in 2008 and below 120 in 2001, despite current drops they're still plodding along at over 500.
I didn't say it was inevitable, just possible (and IMO the best outcome for the community). A lot can change in 5-10 years, and share price isn't the only factor.
The idea of Bring Your Own Army depends on the overall resource drain of making an army and the commitment of the players.
For example, MERCS "armies" are only six models each, so if you are moderately keen player you can easily build several. I have four MERCS "armies", firstly because I wanted a game that I could easily set up and play with people who didn't have it, and secondly because I wanted to put a lot of effort into building a fantastic terrain set up for it, so I didn't want to spend a lot of time on the figures.
Conversely, if someone played MERCS with me and liked it, even for a non-wargamer, it is not too big an ask to buy and paint six figures.
So the reality as I see it, if GW dies or becomes less popular, part of the wargaming community might become more diverse but I think for the most part it will just fragment communities that currently rely on the popularity of 40k to get games in at all. Communities that didn't rely on the popularity of 40k will mostly remain unchanged. If you were playing historical games before you'll just continue to play historical games.
Well, I think there's a legitimate debate over whether there would be another dominant scifi game, were 40k to disappear.
I think that one would emerge, but I don't think it would be WMH, though it could be another product from Privateer Press. The reason is pretty simple: local gaming stores would go out of business on WMH sales -- it's wonderful supplemental income, and we may all like various aspects of it, but most of the people playing WMH don't spend a lot of money.
For hobby shops to stay in business, what they need much more than growth and buy-in is their clientele buying more things and on a regular schedule. In other words, you'd much rather have Joe buy $200 every month, than to have 12 guys each come in and buy $200 every year. The latter sucks, because the ratio of people playing balloons, and you need a lot more space and infrastructure to support them. Plus, it was real nice that they gave you $200, but now they're just taking up space.
This is why MtG, 40k, and even comic books do well at hobby stores -- the store owners know that once invested, the customers will keep coming back for more. There is just no way for someone to keep collecting WMH stuff every month (not enough new stuff, and no way to use it in the game). And, it's impractical to find customers who will buy new games every few months. I mean, they exist, but there aren't tons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:If the fundamentals are so great then why do they keep losing revenue and profit?
Also, you don't have to get all the way to bankruptcy to have someone buy the company. All it takes is for stock prices to drop low enough that the shareholders consider an offer of $X per share to be better than the expected value of the company in the future. And we've already seen GW's share prices drop significantly after bad financial reports, so it wouldn't be much of a surprise to see more drops if GW continues to have bad reports and show no sign of being able to reverse the downward trends.
In order to make money on equities, you need to not only be right, but you need to be right when everyone else is wrong. It's not good enough to correctly figure that GW is a crappy stock; you have to figure it's a crappy stock when everyone else think's it's great, or vice versa. Otherwise, all you're doing is paying market value, and that's a terrible way to make money.
When I say that a company has strong fundamentals, I don't mean that it's making money hand over fist. GW has strong fundamentals because it relies on few external factors to remain viable. It won't be affected by things totally out of its control, like interest rates (if it borrowed a lot of money) or high operating costs that would drastically alter its operations if there were a few lean quarters (like Research in Motion/Blackberry). If GW has bad quarters, it will tighten its belt, adjust things, and plod along. It won't implode and become unable to pay its bills.
Its stock price reflects this: it is kind of crappy because there isn't an expectation of growth; and yet, there is also not terribly crappy because there isn't an expectation of distress. This makes for a really poor acquisition, because in order to control the company, you'll have to pay more for it than what everyone else thinks its worth -- and if the board doesn't want it to happen, you'll just be overpaying for a stock that will have terrible value.
The other reasons that companies acquire other companies don't apply to GW. Nobody will buy GW (at least at its prices) for its intellectual property or goodwill, and nobody who can afford it will want to buy GW for their manufacturing facilities, technical abilities and/or distribution channels.
Peregrine wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: GW's stock price has fallen much lower in the past and no one has wanted to buy them out. They dropped below 150 in 2008 and below 120 in 2001, despite current drops they're still plodding along at over 500.
I didn't say it was inevitable, just possible (and IMO the best outcome for the community). A lot can change in 5-10 years, and share price isn't the only factor.
Remember that even if someone were to buy 100% of the shares, the directors are locked in until the next AGM. You'd effectively own the company but not be able to make a single decision, and your investment would be at the mercy of a group of people that hate you. This is one of the reasons that hostile takeovers are a complex matter.
Really, for this to occur GW would have to do so badly that it lost money AND ran out of cash. The company would need to be in a position of weakness, and take whatever crappy deal came along because they needed to do so to survive. Then, another company would have to come along, and decide that rescuing GW was worthwhile, because if run properly, the company could be a real star. Or that they could fire everyone and do a better job themselves of the Warhammer brand. Frankly, I think all of these things individually are a unlikely, never mind happening at the same time.
There wasn't a dominant SF game before 40K. The nearest anyone came to domination in a particular genre probably was Wargames Research Group with their Ancients rules series. However they only wanted to produce rules and lists for balanced, competition historicals. Anyway, the example of Flames of War shows that it is impossible to dominate a historical period.
I don't know quite why 40K became so dominant. I think it is largely because GW were able to boost the game widely through the retail chain they had built up to sell lots of their stuff too, that attracted a lot of various customers through the doors. Once the 40K bandwagon got rolling, the network effect must have helped.
The other thing is that 40K didn't use to be such an expensive game compared to other games on the market. I mean, the early 40K models like most Citadel models were a bit more expensive than historical models, but nowadays the 40K models are a lot more expensive, not to mention the rules.
Yes, I would agree that the more "common" expectation for 40k in particular is to bring your own (due to it's expense I would suspect).
Since the game can get quite large, the logistics of dragging around two armies is also prohibitive.
Funny though, I take both factions with me when playing X-wing so I can start a new player or get someone going who did not have their army.
X-wing may be an unfair comparison since little preparation is involved but the expense I find not an issue to have two armies.
I find that the newer, less accepted games people tend to bring two armies to possibly get others to play.
I recently got my Robotech RPG Tactics game and am making both factions for that very reason.
We also have an annual event called "HotLead" that many people bring multiple armies for the very purpose of hosting a game people sign up to play.
Multiple large armies fully painted as "uncommon".
Executive Summary:
There are many reasons for having multiple armies and anyone who has emotional investment in tabletop gaming it only makes sense to have two opposing armies ready to go.
- To not miss a game by providing an army to play.
- To be able to teach someone a game in the hopes they choose to play regularly.
- To be able to set-up a nice looking diorama of some event with the two armies.
- To be able to "host" an event as an open table.
- Able to have a different army to play for variety (plus differing builds).
My ramble/evidence in coming up with the above points:
Spoiler:
I have to disagree with this point with Peregrine, "casual gamers" may be of a greater volume where tabletop war gaming would not be their main hobby.
"Most" people I have talked to like at conventions (Hotlead) that would list wargaming as their main hobby have multiple armies and usually across multiple game systems and almost all I talked to always had two opposing armies ready to go because they do not want to waste the opportunity of getting a game in because someone did not bring their army. Historical gaming is always a great example to point to because almost anyone I see get into those games want that diorama-like game, they are attracted to the look of large battles. They sometimes want to model some historical event and want to see it, which necessitates having both armies. Talked to some crazy guy who displayed a full 1:1 (1 model = 1 soldier) Napoleonic battle (think it was 6mm) with models for both sides: approximately some 60,000 models... extreme case again but is the very kind of people who are the ambassadors for their type of game.
Some dangers for GW in the years ahead:
As 40k player base shrinks, due to the large size of the game and the expectation of bring your own army: this alone could accelerate the game's demise.
If most other systems make it easy to bring two armies of either side (small volume & size of models & inexpensive) they would be more likely to be showcased while 40k would not.
I like to point to human nature, yes finding "facts" out there on market evidence is great but I look to my "common" spending habits and my friends to see if some gaming company are doing the right things.
I think the last model I bought for 40k was a box of Centurions and find no efficient / logical reason to field them according to the game rules so they are either shelved or played for giggles.
I guess I am the targeted customer as a "collector" but I consider myself as a casual one: I am typically in it for the rules unless I see a model I am inspired to put together or modify.
Unless GW really commits themselves to designing really good looking "collectable" models, they are only fooling themselves, they are no longer fooling those who want a good game to play.
Peregrine wrote:But I don't see why this is something worth talking about.
Wargaming is a social hobby and the ability to introduce new people to it can really drive both the growth of local communities as well as sales of a given game. AllSeeingSkink expressed his frustrations at not being able to find opponents for other games he is interested in and I pointed out that the approach people are taking of trying to get other people to replace their game of choice with his might be an uphill battle. Furthermore, it speaks to GW's need for word of mouth advertising. GW used to be able to rely on a core group of enthusiasts to introduce others to the hobby. Any company in this market would benefit by having a group of enthusiastic customers who can demonstrate the game to those who don't play it (or any miniature game).
There aren't enough people like that with large enough budgets (both time and money) to accommodate a 40k-scale game that such a game is a viable product without the "bring your own army" model. Which goes back to my original point, that if the industry moves away from "bring your own army" the result will be less diversity as larger-scale games fail.
You still think it's "either or." That one approach is mutually exclusive of another. You don't need everyone to go two army project mode to reap major benefits of having what are effectively volunteer salespeople, just enough.
Then replace Hasbro/WOTC with a company of your choice, the end result is the same: GW's IP in the hands of a company that can make good use of it.
So a mystical fairy will swoop in and save them? I'm wondering what company you think is both interested and large enough to make this happen.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:What I've simply been trying to say is that having a top dog like GW can be good for the wargaming community because it reduces fragmentation and gives you a system where you can collect an army and reliably go play a game against someone.
I don't disagree. I was just pointing out that things are fundamentally social and that your own difficulties in navigating a more fragmented environment may have solutions (and not new solutions either).
Diversity only works when you have a huge community of wargamers so that you can always find someone to play against regardless of which game you play (which might be the case in some places, it's not my experience in any place I've lived) or when (as you pointed out) you have people willing to collect an entire game and not just 1 force in a game and then other people who are willing to play that game with them, which I feel is impractical for a lot of people with a lot of wargames.
Earlier SeanO'Brian cited some GAMA surveys that the average person spends about $450 a year on miniature wargaming. So whatever the option is, you just need the "movers and shakers" of the local community to spend enough more than average to make two playable armies. That's really not that big of a stretch as long as you don't price your product at a premium like GW is now. If GW wanted to, they could out price Perry or Victrix on a per figure basis. They own their plastic production infrastructure outright with no debt.
So the reality as I see it, if GW dies or becomes less popular, part of the wargaming community might become more diverse but I think for the most part it will just fragment communities that currently rely on the popularity of 40k to get games in at all. Communities that didn't rely on the popularity of 40k will mostly remain unchanged. If you were playing historical games before you'll just continue to play historical games.
I think more and more people are having "aha" moments and are realizing the hobby is in their hands. The children of the baby boomers are into their 30s now and as has been pointed out, this maturing can cause a shift in how people approach their hobby. More home gaming, more established relationships and more concentration on what works for them rather than what works for organized play at local stores.
Peregrine wrote:The point is that I don't have the realistic ability to build a second 1500-2000 point army so that I can supply both halves of the game. And I certainly don't have the ability to build multiple 1500-2000 point armies so that I can supply both halves of the game and keep things interesting instead of just playing the same two armies over and over again.
*You* don't have to. Only a sufficient number of enthusiasts do. GW needs word of mouth advertising to work for them again. Right now the price x number of models make it a bad candidate for a more social event project oriented approach. However, back in 2004 (adjusted for inflation) that wasn't the case. GW isn't that same GW anymore, but that doesn't mean someone else can't figure this out and do great things as far as sales are concerned.
It is obvious to me GW doesn't care about gamers anymore. The last example for this is the change in 40k model bases (we talk a lot about Space Marines but those for Tyranids are speaking even more) - this has nothing to do with having a better game, just about aestheticism.
The same is happening with Warhammer Battle, where the last books are more about fluff than rules and all the models are "big awesome monsters/units". It's all about the awesomeness, not about the balance of the game.
Not like it ever existed once in all of their games, anyway.
I like the picture of "you're no longer a key customer for us, you're fired". That's exactly what I understood since their "new politic". That's why I find it funny tournament players in a "highly competitive" point of view still try to hold on 40k or Battle game systems - while it is very obvious GW products no longer are suited for that (I would say they never were, but that's just my point of view here). It's like watching a kid trying to stop sea waves with their hands.
Yes. The critical point though is whether GW's new strategy of pissing off most of their existing customers and milking a small number of fanatic collectors and new recruits can be a successful one.
A few months ago I thought it might be possible, but the starting point of this thread is the early profits warning issued by GW that clearly is intended to blunt the impact of what presumably is going to be a poor set of mid-year results next month.
I think, though, the biggest damage come from their recent "quacks" in the management of their stocks and their communication. Having some of their products suddenly disappearing or new ones not even lasting 10 minutes on their web store while in pre-command is hurting their reputation as a capable commercial society. They show you can't even trust them for something as basic as that. Hell, they even brought back Space Hulk, that was said to be a limited edition, so even the collector customer doesn't have any reason to believe GW when they will talk about "limited editions".
They really need to change that "weekly" release stance. And sending back to the White Dwarf for "more information about whether a product will come back or not"? Please, get rid of that gak.
Besides, they should definitely change their name. They're no longer a "Games Workshop". Call it "Hobby Workshop" or even "Warhammer Collector" or something. But no "Games". Not anymore.
As a shareholder, the various "informal (weird)" "communications (rants)" from Kirby alone would worry me.
The "things did not go as planned but I am sure if we stay the course all will be well" was just silliness.
Also the hinted at "If our customers were not so clueless they would realize how awesome we are and they should buy everything we have!!!" (anyone else get this "feeling" from Kirby?) has been funny, if taken seriously it would be insulting.
Anyway, I hope that one day they will figure out that confusing the company's needs with customer needs does not lead to sales.
frozenwastes wrote: I was just pointing out that things are fundamentally social and that your own difficulties in navigating a more fragmented environment may have solutions (and not new solutions either).
Yeah, but for many people those solutions aren't viable and/or aren't appealing.
Even smaller skirmish games I don't find it terribly appealing to collect 2 forces because when it comes to those games I like to stretch my legs and try and paint the models well rather than collecting multiple forces and painting them mediocre.
I think more and more people are having "aha" moments and are realizing the hobby is in their hands. The children of the baby boomers are into their 30s now and as has been pointed out, this maturing can cause a shift in how people approach their hobby. More home gaming, more established relationships and more concentration on what works for them rather than what works for organized play at local stores.
It just depends on the community. Me and my mates are all at or approaching 30, almost none of them play wargames at all any more. I've had the "aha" moment where I realised collecting armies for games that other people aren't playing is a good way to waste time and money Even the games I've collected 2 armies rarely get played, largely because it becomes 1 dimensional when no one else collects and you're just playing the same static force against another static force and largely because (at least my mates) are happy enough to learn a new game but won't want to keep playing it unless they are actively collecting it themselves.
Funnily enough, you talk about gamers maturing and having more home gaming and established relationships... that describes my gaming group when we were kids more than it does now as an adult I started gaming when I was about 9 and from around 9 to 15 I played a lot of home games (a lot at stores too, but more at homes). At school I hung round with other kids who played wargames and we used to go round to each others houses after school and play games for hours on end. We had the free time, we all knew each other well from school so we'd see each other every day, the hardest thing was for a few members of the group we'd have to organise parents to get lifts to each other's houses. We just set up tables where ever and mostly used random items for terrain. I was the only one who collected Epic, a couple of us collected WHFB and a couple collected 40k, for the most part we couldn't afford to do multiple armies so we shared a lot.
Fast forward to adult life, I rarely ever see my gaming mates, I have a lot of friends from work and what not that I see as well, often when I meet up with gaming mates I have non-gaming mates around too so we end up doing other things, we all have less time to play games. The toughest thing is finding time to play and finding time to paint the stuff so we can play. organising more than a couple of hours together can be tough, for the most part we all own what we need to play the games we play and tend not to share and tend not to play games that not everyone collects an army to play. Even setting up a table is more difficult now because we aren't satisfied with random kitchen condiments for terrain but most of us don't have the time or space for proper terrain or tables, a couple of my gaming mates actually moved out of the large suburban homes of their parents and in to smaller apartments and so gaming at their place now is impossible. Being able to organise a game at an FLGS is more useful to me now than it was as a kid, lol.
I guess my local gaming group is like your description but in reverse
frozenwastes wrote: I was just pointing out that things are fundamentally social and that your own difficulties in navigating a more fragmented environment may have solutions (and not new solutions either).
Yeah, but for many people those solutions aren't viable and/or aren't appealing.
Even smaller skirmish games I don't find it terribly appealing to collect 2 forces because when it comes to those games I like to stretch my legs and try and paint the models well rather than collecting multiple forces and painting them mediocre.
I think more and more people are having "aha" moments and are realizing the hobby is in their hands. The children of the baby boomers are into their 30s now and as has been pointed out, this maturing can cause a shift in how people approach their hobby. More home gaming, more established relationships and more concentration on what works for them rather than what works for organized play at local stores.
It just depends on the community. Me and my mates are all at or approaching 30, almost none of them play wargames at all any more. I've had the "aha" moment where I realised collecting armies for games that other people aren't playing is a good way to waste time and money Even the games I've collected 2 armies rarely get played, largely because it becomes 1 dimensional when no one else collects and you're just playing the same static force against another static force and largely because (at least my mates) are happy enough to learn a new game but won't want to keep playing it unless they are actively collecting it themselves.
Funnily enough, you talk about gamers maturing and having more home gaming and established relationships... that describes my gaming group when we were kids more than it does now as an adult I started gaming when I was about 9 and from around 9 to 15 I played a lot of home games (a lot at stores too, but more at homes). At school I hung round with other kids who played wargames and we used to go round to each others houses after school and play games for hours on end. We had the free time, we all knew each other well from school so we'd see each other every day, the hardest thing was for a few members of the group we'd have to organise parents to get lifts to each other's houses. We just set up tables where ever and mostly used random items for terrain. I was the only one who collected Epic, a couple of us collected WHFB and a couple collected 40k, for the most part we couldn't afford to do multiple armies so we shared a lot.
Fast forward to adult life, I rarely ever see my gaming mates, I have a lot of friends from work and what not that I see as well, often when I meet up with gaming mates I have non-gaming mates around too so we end up doing other things, we all have less time to play games. The toughest thing is finding time to play and finding time to paint the stuff so we can play. organising more than a couple of hours together can be tough, for the most part we all own what we need to play the games we play and tend not to share and tend not to play games that not everyone collects an army to play. Even setting up a table is more difficult now because we aren't satisfied with random kitchen condiments for terrain but most of us don't have the time or space for proper terrain or tables, a couple of my gaming mates actually moved out of the large suburban homes of their parents and in to smaller apartments and so gaming at their place now is impossible. Being able to organise a game at an FLGS is more useful to me now than it was as a kid, lol.
I guess my local gaming group is like your description but in reverse
Hah! I went through a bit of that in my early 30's -- towards my late 30's was my "hobby revival" after a haiatus. Early 40's, I just have a lot more time and disposable income. Also, I happen to enjoy being at home (I'm not big on travel), so hobby is a great way to spend my spare time. Makes me happy The amount of time I spend gaming is a bit cyclical, I think. There are on and off periods. But, my time on models is more regular.
And to go back to comparisons with other entertainment, really, a $60 kit takes me longer to go through than a $60 video game, excluding that you get the finished model after, or that you can play a game with it
I think, though, the biggest damage come from their recent "quacks" in the management of their stocks and their communication. Having some of their products suddenly disappearing or new ones not even lasting 10 minutes on their web store while in pre-command is hurting their reputation as a capable commercial society. They show you can't even trust them for something as basic as that. Hell, they even brought back Space Hulk, that was said to be a limited edition, so even the collector customer doesn't have any reason to believe GW when they will talk about "limited editions".
They really need to change that "weekly" release stance. And sending back to the White Dwarf for "more information about whether a product will come back or not"? Please, get rid of that gak.
Besides, they should definitely change their name. They're no longer a "Games Workshop". Call it "Hobby Workshop" or even "Warhammer Collector" or something. But no "Games". Not anymore.
Well, Games Workshop is just a name. GW is a good a name as any. Did you know that TSR stood for Tactical Studies Rules? In what universe was D&D or any product that TSR ever made about tactical studies rules? And IBM only makes a fraction of its profits off of business machines.
I don't really get your gripe about Space Hulk. After 3rd edition sold out, they didn't make more for years, and people b*tched that they couldn't buy it except at ridiculous prices on eBay. So they eventually do another run, it sells out, and now they're making more. In 4th, they said that there would be highly constrained stock; they never said they wouldn't make more boxes. If you went out and bought a dozen boxes hoping to resell them on ebay for a ridiculous amount of money, well, sucks to be you
I am not opposed fundamentally to a weekly White Dwarf, but I am opposed to it just being a new product guide. In December, the two issues of WD with the tactical objective punchouts are a good example of WD's with great value. Then again, I simply don't buy every WD. If it has nothing or very little for me, I just skip it. At the end of the year, I play catchup and get them for $1 or less each, or my hobby store just gives me all the ones I'm missing when they're ready to dump old issues.
The LE hardcovers selling out -- well, that is a little crazy, I guess they should print more? But w/e -- I never have wanted to spend $200+ on a set of books just to get an extra picture book and a foldout poster. They always come out in softcover later on for less money, so I'm not sure what the big deal is.
I will agree that their shareholder communications seems much more about the company making money than a love-fest to their customers. Which is fine, but their PR guy needs to tune the language so that it doesn't seem offensive to some customers, who want to feel loved. Personally, I don't really care if A&W as a corporation loves me, as long as they make good burgers and fries. I don't really care if Amazon or Costco makes me feel warm and fuzzy as long as they deliver stuff to my door in 2 days at good prices. I kind of expect them to optimize their prices to maximize profits, not to provide me with the best possible value. Perhaps I am just jaded
On the other hand, if it's a small local store of any type, where I get to know permanent owner/operators and regular staff, I *DO* expect them to care about me... or at least fake it.
The BYO army system makes wargaming beyond skirmish levels more accessible... this is a good thing.
Anything that makes miniature wargaming more accessible is a good thing. If you happen to like what people play locally and the community isn't too fragmented, then it can work. You've seen what it's like first hand when it doesn't though. I'm not sure how a game is more accessible if you can't get games of it in. I know what I'm saying sounds counter intuitive-- especially the idea that the existing player base of other games might not be the most fruitful recruiting ground compared to those not in the hobby at all-- but it's something to try if your current approach hasn't been giving you the results you are looking for..
underfire wargaming wrote: This is what I have been saying for years now, this is the best thing that can happen to the market, its because we had one company dominate the market place that held back wargaming from being healthy and having diversity. The more open wargaming is to competition and diversity the more amazing products will be produced and the more settings and gener's will be introduced to wargaming. This is something I do not understand why so many of you are so are so concerned about, GWs demise will be far from harming the industry but a very good thing for wargaming as a whole.
What I've simply been trying to say is that having a top dog like GW can be good for the wargaming community because it reduces fragmentation and gives you a system where you can collect an army and reliably go play a game against someone.
Diversity only works when you have a huge community of wargamers so that you can always find someone to play against regardless of which game you play (which might be the case in some places, it's not my experience in any place I've lived) or when (as you pointed out) you have people willing to collect an entire game and not just 1 force in a game and then other people who are willing to play that game with them, which I feel is impractical for a lot of people with a lot of wargames.
So the reality as I see it, if GW dies or becomes less popular, part of the wargaming community might become more diverse but I think for the most part it will just fragment communities that currently rely on the popularity of 40k to get games in at all. Communities that didn't rely on the popularity of 40k will mostly remain unchanged. If you were playing historical games before you'll just continue to play historical games.
My point is that you will NEVER see a large community of WARGAMERS ( not GW hobbyists) as long as that one or any one company dominants the market to the level they still do. To have a healthy market you need diversity, simply put it I would never have gotten into any form of wargaming had I not discovered other games as I had no interest in GWs games settings , aesthetics , game play and prices. It was not until I went to a FLGS that I saw all these other games way back and hence forth got into wargaming. This is not an uncommon thing in any market, could you imagine if the video game market was dominated by EA? to such a level that any other form of video games had a up hill battle to gain any attention in such a market? ( I wont turn this into a video games debate but you can imagine it would be quite a bad time for video games). Board Games , Historical wargames Games and Card Games are healthy and doing well in the market place, my FLGS is quite a large gaming club with more than enough room for 20+ gaming tables, but the high majority of events are focused on card games, and many tables are full of Board games and Historical games take place as well, not to mention the thriving RPG environment which I have been apart of the majority of the last 2 years as well as the occasional historical game.
Any wargaming done their are usually in smaller groups yes their are a few warhammer events but they are quite small and are smaller every year. A group that played nothing but GW games was on its way out but with opening up to deadzone , infinity and board games has doubled in size. The DnD group does well as it has opened up too allow path finder and 5th edition into its group and now struggles to find enough space for all of their games. Their is a thriving Warmachine and Hordes group that fills up half the store every Sunday along with painting table demos in all. Local guys are producing their own games and products and they enrich the market as well as give them a job doing what they love.
Wargaming however as a whole crowd is vastly smaller than the Board gaming crowd or the Card gaming one. Wargaming has such potential to be right up their with them. It can equal video games in popularity if only their was enough diversity that genres would attract more attention. However with GWs dominance and so many companies making copies and look alikes of GWs games aesthetics the market sees a lot of wasted talent being put on making outdated heroic scale miniatures when they can produce true scale miniatures with such great creative ideas.
If GW died, the only FLGS clubs that would go out are the ones that are foolish enough to base their income on that one game, which all the FLGS in my area do not do, they have opened up to card games and board games as well as supporting other wargames and they have a much stable and higher income without dealing with the FLGS Hate that GW likes to spew out at them, as if their own GW clubs really have a place anymore in North America. Wargaming in the Sci Fi area has been for the most part stagnate with only growth in the GW part which now is declining at a rapid rate. Fantasy has done better, but that is due to RPGs using the miniatures which as lead to companies like Reaper miniatures to thrive and grow their ranges into some of the best miniature ranges in the market ( nothing really beats Reapers fantasy ranges diversity not even GW can beat that!). Were are other like games? most of them start up and then die out, because so many will only play GW games until the last 5 years or so were GWs actions have finally began to be enough for gamers and we now see games like infinity taking up shelf space.
I want to see this market grow and I am doing my own part to add some unique diversity into the market place. If you ever want to see a large wargaming community outside of historical settings than you need to begin supporting diversity in the market place. If GW tanked I do not see wargaming taking a hit, GW hobbyist? yes they will but wargaming as a whole will only continue to grow and catch up for lost time. Many GW hobbyists have said they would not play another game, in which case the question is then they really are not apart of the wargaming market then?. The rest would go and support other game companies or who knows maybe even start their own?. However I do like frozenwastes comment to me a page back, I do see a gradual shift being a more stable one for the market, my only fear is then we would just get another company dominating the market, but with each passing month and year my worries in this area lessen as I see more diversity coming into the market place. Now all that is left is to convince gamers that not every successful company out side of infinity needs to make their range in plastic :/!.
So people who express a liking for GW's aesthetic, background, games etc and would rather play only those aren't "real" wargamers in your eyes, but you can say you don't like the aforementioned and would never have got into wargaming if that's all that was on-offer, and that's no problemo?
Yodhrin wrote: So people who express a liking for GW's aesthetic, background, games etc and would rather play only those aren't "real" wargamers in your eyes, but you can say you don't like the aforementioned and would never have got into wargaming if that's all that was on-offer, and that's no problemo?
Aye OK pal.
I think you may have taken what I said out of context, I was referring to those who when such a topic as what I have been talking about is mentioned, make the excuse for GW that if the company became less dominant or left entirely that it would be bad for the market because then they would not playing anymore , further adding that they would only play GWs games and that is it. In which case they are still wargamers, but not a part of the wargaming market place outside of GW so in a way they could be referred to as some have coined the term " GW hobbyists" who do not like to acknowledge of even the existence of wargaming those are who I was mentioning in the response above.
For the 2nd part of your comment, into context I was saying, if their were no other wargames out their and it was only GW , which until I found the many great FLGS we have here seemed to be the case, I see no wrong with me looking at a setting I do not like, minis that I do not like, a company that does awful and unmoral attacks against anyone they think is a threat let alone how poorly they think and treat their customers. I see no "problemo" with taking my hard earned cash and my own time and investing into something else such as DnD? how is that wrong?.
People can like the GW game and aesthetic that is fine but all I was commenting on are those who then say that they refuse to play anything else and think that the market should bend to their whims, its fine for the most part because they will stay with GW until its end and then choose to block their selves from ever trying out anything else, which is in my view wrong because they limit themselves from ever trying out new games , settings and ideas, its like someone only reading one subject matter and never reaching out and learning new things, its just a shame really but not something that makes me feel wargaming is about exploring different settings geners, historical times for example. They are wargamers but I feel a wargamer is better off having tried as many games as they can in their life time as it gives them such a depth of knowledge and tastes that they can better develop an idea of what they like in the market and not like instead of being brainwashed into one game and that is it.
That is why I am concerned about those who only like one setting and company and refuse to even consider trying out something new, but again this is their decision and they are wargamers still but not apart of the wargaming market outside of GW, which GW themselves like to view itself as not a wargame in the first place so I will leave it at that.
I don't think tabletop wargaming has the potential to be as large as boardgames or video games because it is basically more difficult in the important sense of requiring more commitment of resources from the people who want to be involved in it. Like a video game you just have to buy the game and stick it in your computer. A boardgame you just buy it and find some friends. The rules are going to be easier.
Nothing against that at all, I play video games and board games as well as wargames, but you have to admit there is a lot more time and effort involved in playing wargames and that restricts it to a smaller population.
That said, there is no evidence from the success of Salute, Vapnartak, Colours and so on, that the supposed dominance of GW has prevented the overall wargame scene from being increasingly healthy, varied and vibrant.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Yeah, but for many people those solutions aren't viable and/or aren't appealing.
That's fine. Maybe in the future it will work for you as our gaming situations definitely shift over time.
I guess my local gaming group is like your description but in reverse
I think it's great if someone has a local community for one of GW's games and loves playing and collecting it.
GW needs more such healthy communities-- and they don't even necessarily need to be about serious game play. I know the more vibrant of the two 40k groups within an hours drive of me do hobby time at every second meeting of the gaming group. A full 50% of their time spent together is building and painting miniatures and terrain. I often join them just to paint whatever is next in my que and talk geek.
I believe GW's declining revenue doesn't have one simple cause. We may want to simply point at high prices, or something we don't like about their game, or how they handle news and preorders, their internet policy, their strict policies for the independent trade "partners", turning people off by being so litigious, and so on, but I think it's actually a combination of the things that has lead to their declining profit and shrinking dividend. Less people buying less product can't be good for any local critical mass, even if it's not about game play, but about hobbying.
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think tabletop wargaming has the potential to be as large as boardgames or video games because it is basically more difficult in the important sense of requiring more commitment of resources from the people who want to be involved in it. Like a video game you just have to buy the game and stick it in your computer. A boardgame you just buy it and find some friends. The rules are going to be easier.
Nothing against that at all, I play video games and board games as well as wargames, but you have to admit there is a lot more time and effort involved in playing wargames and that restricts it to a smaller population.
That said, there is no evidence from the success of Salute, Vapnartak, Colours and so on, that the supposed dominance of GW has prevented the overall wargame scene from being increasingly healthy, varied and vibrant.
Azazelx wrote:Completely right. Suggesting that Wargames can equal the reach or popularity of Boardgames, let alone Video Games is deluded.
I completely agree with these sentiments. I enjoy 40k because it is a war game that demands my time, effort, and passion -- not in spite of it. As I build what is going to be my 6th army, I'm not saying, "damn, this is going to take me 600 hours to get the units done up the way I want"... I'm saying, "Sweet, 600 hours of fun, and after, I get to play and show off this army!"
On the other hand I understand that there is no WAY there are as many people who enjoy this kind of thing, or are at a point in their life where they have the time and money to enjoy it, as computer games or board games.
Yodhrin wrote: So people who express a liking for GW's aesthetic, background, games etc and would rather play only those aren't "real" wargamers in your eyes, but you can say you don't like the aforementioned and would never have got into wargaming if that's all that was on-offer, and that's no problemo?
Aye OK pal.
I think you may have taken what I said out of context...
No no, I understood the comment and the context just fine, I simply think it's somewhat hypocritical to berate one group for their personal tastes and then...
For the 2nd part of your comment, into context I was saying, if their were no other wargames out their and it was only GW , which until I found the many great FLGS we have here seemed to be the case, I see no wrong with me looking at a setting I do not like, minis that I do not like, a company that does awful and unmoral attacks against anyone they think is a threat let alone how poorly they think and treat their customers. I see no "problemo" with taking my hard earned cash and my own time and investing into something else such as DnD? how is that wrong?.
...completely fail to acknowledge that your own preferences are no different. You look at GW and see those things, as is your right. For the record many of the people who still like GW's games and background share many of those opinions. But how is that different from someone who looks at the other options in the "wargaming market" as you put it and decide they're uninterested in those?
People can like the GW game and aesthetic that is fine but all I was commenting on are those who then say that they refuse to play anything else and think that the market should bend to their whims, its fine for the most part because they will stay with GW until its end and then choose to block their selves from ever trying out anything else, which is in my view wrong because they limit themselves from ever trying out new games , settings and ideas, its like someone only reading one subject matter and never reaching out and learning new things, its just a shame really but not something that makes me feel wargaming is about exploring different settings geners, historical times for example. They are wargamers but I feel a wargamer is better off having tried as many games as they can in their life time as it gives them such a depth of knowledge and tastes that they can better develop an idea of what they like in the market and not like instead of being brainwashed into one game and that is it.
That is why I am concerned about those who only like one setting and company and refuse to even consider trying out something new, but again this is their decision and they are wargamers still but not apart of the wargaming market outside of GW, which GW themselves like to view itself as not a wargame in the first place so I will leave it at that.
And here we see why; you're unwilling to extend to others the same courtesy you require for yourself(that they respect your personal tastes and choices); in your eyes those who're only interested in that specific subset of wargaming are "brainwashed"
Fantasy has done better, but that is due to RPGs using the miniatures which as lead to companies like Reaper miniatures to thrive and grow their ranges into some of the best miniature ranges in the market ( nothing really beats Reapers fantasy ranges diversity not even GW can beat that!).
Aesthetic is a subjective matter of taste. However, I don't see objectively, how an unbiased person could point at Reaper's fantasy models and go, "those are obviously superior to Games Workshop's!". I mean, sure, someone might prefer Reaper minis (or heck, the crappy D&D minis...) but just take a look at both websites. WHFB has a ton of gorgeous models. There is nothing in the Reaper line that remotely comes to the complexity of the sculpts for Treeman Ancient, Nagash, Morghasts, Glotkin, Blightkings, Malekith -- just to name some of the larger 2014 releases.
I own lots of reaper minis, mostly because they are cheap (especially the Bones). But you cannot seriously compare a Bones dragon with a WHFB dragon:
Reaper also has a ton of older minis in the 28mm scale that are just awful in terms of anatomy and proportion. I mean, I have old Ral Partha models that were sculpted better. The other issue with Reaper is that it's just plain harder to find shops that stock it, or stock more than a couple of models.
I want to see this market grow and I am doing my own part to add some unique diversity into the market place. If you ever want to see a large wargaming community outside of historical settings than you need to begin supporting diversity in the market place. If GW tanked I do not see wargaming taking a hit, GW hobbyist? yes they will but wargaming as a whole will only continue to grow and catch up for lost time. Many GW hobbyists have said they would not play another game, in which case the question is then they really are not apart of the wargaming market then?
So as not to take you out of context, this is the part that most GW fans probably take exception to. If someone plays 40k or WHFB and nothing else, and wont' consider anything else, OF COURSE they are a "part of the wargaming market". They buy/collect/play a product that the FLGS classifies as a wargame... ergo, they are a part of the wargaming market. In the same way that someone who only plays historical wargames, and will not play anything other than the American Civil war is part of the wargaming market. For that matter, someone who only plays one skirmish game (for example, Warmachines) is equally a part of the wargaming market.
I would actually argue that people who play board games only, whether or not they have miniatures, are NOT part of the wargaming market (in the same way that RPGs and TCGs are not wargames), although they are all part of the broader gaming market, often served by the same stores.
What would make 40k not a wargame is if it ceased to be sold as part of a wargame, and instead, the models were sold for hobby -- like Revell or Tamiya models. Someone who collects Revell jet fighters like F16 and SR71 are clearly hobbyists who do not wargame.
Anyhow, I'm not trying to flame you. Just pointing out why it's a bizarre comment and several people have taken exception to it, whatever the context.
Yodhrin wrote: So people who express a liking for GW's aesthetic, background, games etc and would rather play only those aren't "real" wargamers in your eyes, but you can say you don't like the aforementioned and would never have got into wargaming if that's all that was on-offer, and that's no problemo?
Aye OK pal.
I think you may have taken what I said out of context...
No no, I understood the comment and the context just fine, I simply think it's somewhat hypocritical to berate one group for their personal tastes and then...
For the 2nd part of your comment, into context I was saying, if their were no other wargames out their and it was only GW , which until I found the many great FLGS we have here seemed to be the case, I see no wrong with me looking at a setting I do not like, minis that I do not like, a company that does awful and unmoral attacks against anyone they think is a threat let alone how poorly they think and treat their customers. I see no "problemo" with taking my hard earned cash and my own time and investing into something else such as DnD? how is that wrong?.
...completely fail to acknowledge that your own preferences are no different. You look at GW and see those things, as is your right. For the record many of the people who still like GW's games and background share many of those opinions. But how is that different from someone who looks at the other options in the "wargaming market" as you put it and decide they're uninterested in those?
People can like the GW game and aesthetic that is fine but all I was commenting on are those who then say that they refuse to play anything else and think that the market should bend to their whims, its fine for the most part because they will stay with GW until its end and then choose to block their selves from ever trying out anything else, which is in my view wrong because they limit themselves from ever trying out new games , settings and ideas, its like someone only reading one subject matter and never reaching out and learning new things, its just a shame really but not something that makes me feel wargaming is about exploring different settings geners, historical times for example. They are wargamers but I feel a wargamer is better off having tried as many games as they can in their life time as it gives them such a depth of knowledge and tastes that they can better develop an idea of what they like in the market and not like instead of being brainwashed into one game and that is it.
That is why I am concerned about those who only like one setting and company and refuse to even consider trying out something new, but again this is their decision and they are wargamers still but not apart of the wargaming market outside of GW, which GW themselves like to view itself as not a wargame in the first place so I will leave it at that.
And here we see why; you're unwilling to extend to others the same courtesy you require for yourself(that they respect your personal tastes and choices); in your eyes those who're only interested in that specific subset of wargaming are "brainwashed"
What group did I berate? I only commented on how people think the entire wargaming market is dependant on one company keep it up? As well it is not hypocritical as what I said about myself choosing what I wanted to play and not is not the goal of what I was saying, what I was saying if people want to see this market grow into a thriving one then they should want diversity because that is what leads to a healthy market place. This topic is going off from what it is originally intended to be . I said it is fine if people just want to play GW games, I just think it is a shame they should never want to try out other games and build up from those test and demos their own personal tastes and wants when it comes to gaming and try out more than just one set of a companies game. It is fine if they do so however it is just a shame in my view is all no means for offense.
I extended the same courtesy to others, my only argument is for those who say the market should be fearful if GW goes under because then they wont buy anymore games which has been said several times in a different thread by individuals. This logic is what I am pointing too these few individuals that greatly confuses me. That they would if GW did go under never touch another game , or even if GW stays around never try anything else out because it is not a GW product? is that not a fitting definition of Brainwashed? so I do apologize for saying it as it targeted the GW customer base as a whole that was wrong and incorrect of me to say. which GW has focused with their segment of their market place? I am not saying everyone who plays GW is such , I am mainly targeting the whiteknights and presenting how GWs actions have not been good for the Hobby of wargaming because they block off their customers from the market so much that most don't even know what wargaming is.
I apologize if anyone feels I was targeting them with this statement. all I was saying is that with GW being in such a dominating position and with a large chunk of their customer base unwilling to ever try out another game left me very concerned as how is wargaming supposed to grow and become healthy when the market is in such a state? and at times other companies would do this as well which I understand its great marketing no doubt about that and any company would be foolish for not encouraging such a customer base. However when they did have their Iron grip the market suffered with no other games really coming out and staying around for long. Now we are finally seeing an end to this dark age and moving into what some have called " the golden age" of wargaming. I hope too see this continue and I do hope my apology for my poor usage of the term brainwashing above has been excepted I will refrain and only talk now about the wargaming market place as a whole.
Fantasy has done better, but that is due to RPGs using the miniatures which as lead to companies like Reaper miniatures to thrive and grow their ranges into some of the best miniature ranges in the market ( nothing really beats Reapers fantasy ranges diversity not even GW can beat that!).
Aesthetic is a subjective matter of taste. However, I don't see objectively, how an unbiased person could point at Reaper's fantasy models and go, "those are obviously superior to Games Workshop's!". I mean, sure, someone might prefer Reaper minis (or heck, the crappy D&D minis...) but just take a look at both websites. WHFB has a ton of gorgeous models. There is nothing in the Reaper line that remotely comes to the complexity of the sculpts for Treeman Ancient, Nagash, Morghasts, Glotkin, Blightkings, Malekith -- just to name some of the larger 2014 releases.
I own lots of reaper minis, mostly because they are cheap (especially the Bones). But you cannot seriously compare a Bones dragon with a WHFB dragon:
Reaper also has a ton of older minis in the 28mm scale that are just awful in terms of anatomy and proportion. I mean, I have old Ral Partha models that were sculpted better. The other issue with Reaper is that it's just plain harder to find shops that stock it, or stock more than a couple of models.
I want to see this market grow and I am doing my own part to add some unique diversity into the market place. If you ever want to see a large wargaming community outside of historical settings than you need to begin supporting diversity in the market place. If GW tanked I do not see wargaming taking a hit, GW hobbyist? yes they will but wargaming as a whole will only continue to grow and catch up for lost time. Many GW hobbyists have said they would not play another game, in which case the question is then they really are not apart of the wargaming market then?
So as not to take you out of context, this is the part that most GW fans probably take exception to. If someone plays 40k or WHFB and nothing else, and wont' consider anything else, OF COURSE they are a "part of the wargaming market". They buy/collect/play a product that the FLGS classifies as a wargame... ergo, they are a part of the wargaming market. In the same way that someone who only plays historical wargames, and will not play anything other than the American Civil war is part of the wargaming market. For that matter, someone who only plays one skirmish game (for example, Warmachines) is equally a part of the wargaming market.
I would actually argue that people who play board games only, whether or not they have miniatures, are NOT part of the wargaming market (in the same way that RPGs and TCGs are not wargames), although they are all part of the broader gaming market, often served by the same stores.
What would make 40k not a wargame is if it ceased to be sold as part of a wargame, and instead, the models were sold for hobby -- like Revell or Tamiya models. Someone who collects Revell jet fighters like F16 and SR71 are clearly hobbyists who do not wargame.
Anyhow, I'm not trying to flame you. Just pointing out why it's a bizarre comment and several people have taken exception to it, whatever the context.
Ah I should have made my stance about my view of Reaper miniatures much better than I did. I love Reaper miniatures and in my own personal view which is my own, I view them as one of the top and over GW because of their Diversity, any fantasy based race you can think of and odds are they have a mini for it. Yes their miniatures are heroic scale ( most of them are older sculpts so this is understandable and they have aged well) but their sheer diversity I cannot think of any company that equals it, except for perhaps infinity but their miniatures are focused purely on the Infinity setting. That is why I put them a step above GW, that and their much better treatment of FLGS, their customers and all though their attempts at game systems sadly did not go to well for them. Sculpts can be great ( even though if its got the GW sticker on it you can guarantee its going to be covered in excessive amounts of skulls cause yea ?) However even of late many of their sculpts have been going down in quality.
I compare on a standard of Diversity , Reaper miniatures make their money for DnD games and no one else in the market place really reaches their level of diversity ( Otherworld miniatures are working their way up their with much better sculpts). When it comes to fantasy I would choose Reaper for the most part any day, and heck their are a few GW minis that I would look at , Forge world as well for fantasy ( even if I have too sand off the skulls ) over all though I stand strong with my choice in Reaper due to Reapers diverse line, but they produce for an open market with no exact setting of their own. Were GW has their own settings and hence limit their range to such which is fine this is all just my personal taste on what I like to see when it comes to a fantasy range.
I really hate to have to argue the 2nd part, but I would still say they technically would be apart of the GW wargaming market but really not a target of the many other Wargaming companies as they would not want any of their products so in that case I fell confident in my stance their. Their are the high majority who defiantly do buy other game products and they are a great and large part of the wargaming market place and are very important for wargamings future let me add in as well.
I never did say Board games , Card Games and RPGs ( even though for miniatures many RPGs cross over into wargaming due to such purchases, Reaper for example) are apart of the Wargaming market, they are their own separate markets I agree. What I was doing was comparing the size and health of these three thriving market places to the current health of wargaming which was not doing very well for the last 2 decades or so, and only recently has seen healthy growth in diversity of games and products offered by more and more companies. What I was comparing was potential market size and growth to a much more main stream future instead of being stuck as a niche market.
I never said GWs games were not wargames, though I will say their rules for the most part a sorry excuse for a wargame rule system that it seems people need to house rule in order to have fun playing it. I hope that can clear up with what I was saying. I want to see wargaming grow and market growth comes from diversity and more companies and I would like to see the trend continue. I will refrain from any more posts on this topic I do apologize if anyone was offended , I will ensure next time my posts are written with much more clarity and to void any terms that may offend anyone.
Wargames existed before GW. Wargames will exist after GW has gone.
Will the market be smaller? Yes, in the sense that not everyone who plays only GW will switch to other wargames. No, in the broader sense that GW's two games are only a small part of the huge diversity of rules and models that exists elsewhere.
Ironically GW have greatly reduced the diversity of their offerings over the past 10 years, dropping several categories, mass battle, skirmish, RPG, historical, naval, space and sports games from their line-up.
Did GW help to grow the wargames market? Yes. Can the market remain healthy and grow without GW? Yes. It was already growing before GW got going, and to some extent GW was lifted by the rising tide.
I keep thinking of what got me into war gaming to understand "target market".
Executive Summary: Wanting a suitably "realistic" setting to play in, with a reasonably complex rule-set to also lend "realism".
Spoiler:
I am an old guy (mid 40's) back in the time I was a "tween" I was into models, board games and RPG's were in their heyday.
I liked the strategy games of the time (Avalon Hill was the big name publisher) and most games of this complexity used cardboard counters for the units.
I was with my dad at his friend's house some eye-surgeon and I made the mistake of looking in his study.
The guy had a table with rolling scenery and little tanks and stuff all over it.
He was a train nut as well so the scenery was top notch, think he was playing 15mm micro armor "Panzer Warfare".
One look at a realistic layout, a complex "realistic" rule set, I could never go back to playing anything else.
That day was like walking into Santa's workshop and seen a standard of "toys" you had to have.
The above statement is as concise as I could make it.
If we were "collectors" you would be really someone into building "models" exclusively, many people do that as a "classic" hobby.
Strategy in a "pure" form tends to lean toward ugly looking since it is about abstraction, competitive play in a fixed rule-set.
There is something to be said for a unit of yours on the other side of a hill about to engage an enemy unit on the other side hidden in a tree-line.
Thoughts of "line of sight", "cover", "range", movement when going over a hill... all these considerations fire the mind for tactical thinking.
People who can appreciate this are the true tabletop war gaming crowd.
I feel if a company is not emphasizing an immersive rule-set played within an immersive setting, they have lost their core market.
GW has created a very immersive setting but their rules have become "goofy" and that immersion has been lost.
) for it to be just a "perception".
. The Percy's with rights to the Hobbit, we've seen the models already, but if they had done the pricing and gotten the profits plus the publicity that would have been another competitor that 
. So yes Lego is stealing 
(will even talk myself into more expensive alternatives on occasion it seems)
(maybe I'm giving them too much credit hehehe)
