Blacksails wrote: Do we know how much the asia-pacific region represents of their total revenue?
It's the smallest region in terms of revenue. Tau were made purely to appeal to that market. They are fortunate that the animae explosion happened in western markets.
I remember at the time of that release some friends of mine, who had lived in Japan, and what they thought of the prospects of the Tau in the Japanese market.
Essentially, it represented a complete mis-fire in terms of reading the culture and market and didn't stand a pope's chance in hell..
Shame as I still think there is a massive untapped market in Japan/S. Korea for miniature wargaming. Generally well educated youth that tend to have patience, free time, really high disposable income. It just needs a company to read the market correctly, team up with a local retailer and put some money into it.
Pacific wrote:I remember at the time of that release some friends of mine, who had lived in Japan, and what they thought of the prospects of the Tau in the Japanese market.
Essentially, it represented a complete mis-fire in terms of reading the culture and market and didn't stand a pope's chance in hell..
Maybe the Japanese don't like giant robots with little heads. I know this kind of thing seems to be a GW trademark at the moment (I believe it started with the Hellbrute?), but come on... why have a twenty foot tall killing machine with a tiny head, it looks weird.
Pacific wrote:I remember at the time of that release some friends of mine, who had lived in Japan, and what they thought of the prospects of the Tau in the Japanese market.
Essentially, it represented a complete mis-fire in terms of reading the culture and market and didn't stand a pope's chance in hell..
Maybe the Japanese don't like giant robots with little heads. I know this kind of thing seems to be a GW trademark at the moment (I believe it started with the Hellbrute?), but come on... why have a twenty foot tall killing machine with a tiny head, it looks weird.
More that GW was trying to move into a niche that was already over supplied.
Vaguely Tau looking things are already widely available in Japan - so it lacked novelty.
Robot models in Japan are generally of higher quality for similar or cheaper price. GW then tried to get into the Japanese market by offering digital pdfs of the rules and army books for free in Japanese. I don't know if they still do this, Kid Kyoto could tell us, but I remember when I lived in Koshigaya, north of Tokyo in Saitama pref, that I first thought people were pirating the books. One of the reasons it didn't catch on in Japan is the sheer space needed to play. There was a sizable game store in Yokohama that had maybe 2 tables available and another in Osaka; I don't know of any other stores which could have supported gaming.
Way better quality, for a much cheaper price. There's no way you'd buy Tau over Gundam if it was just for modelling. It's hard to express in words how superior Gundam is to GW.
Enigwolf wrote: To answer the questions, the person I spoke to was a senior regional director, one of the guys in charge of the Asia-Pacific Region. He was at our FLGS for a meeting with distributors some time back. The central and east Asia market actually consumes a lot of LotR - outsells all of their other product lines, actually.
I wonder if that's because the other 2 lines sell particularly badly? I know that a few years ago it was cheaper to buy from FW than GW Japan, but I don't know how far back. That'd mean a lot of 40K sales would have been reported as being UK.
There isn't really an equivalent for LOTR, and it generally needs less stuff, so I can see it being more popular (or, rather, less unpopular), but I can't see the East Asian market providing enough revenue to allow them to try anything risky.* They will have had enough money during the LOTR boom to take some risks though.
*When was the last time GW did anything particularly risky? Dreadfleet?
Herzlos wrote: Way better quality, for a much cheaper price. There's no way you'd buy Tau over Gundam if it was just for modelling. It's hard to express in words how superior Gundam is to GW.
Enigwolf wrote: To answer the questions, the person I spoke to was a senior regional director, one of the guys in charge of the Asia-Pacific Region. He was at our FLGS for a meeting with distributors some time back. The central and east Asia market actually consumes a lot of LotR - outsells all of their other product lines, actually.
I wonder if that's because the other 2 lines sell particularly badly? I know that a few years ago it was cheaper to buy from FW than GW Japan, but I don't know how far back. That'd mean a lot of 40K sales would have been reported as being UK.
There isn't really an equivalent for LOTR, and it generally needs less stuff, so I can see it being more popular (or, rather, less unpopular), but I can't see the East Asian market providing enough revenue to allow them to try anything risky.* They will have had enough money during the LOTR boom to take some risks though.
*When was the last time GW did anything particularly risky? Dreadfleet?
Herzlos wrote: Way better quality, for a much cheaper price. There's no way you'd buy Tau over Gundam if it was just for modelling. It's hard to express in words how superior Gundam is to GW.
Enigwolf wrote: To answer the questions, the person I spoke to was a senior regional director, one of the guys in charge of the Asia-Pacific Region. He was at our FLGS for a meeting with distributors some time back. The central and east Asia market actually consumes a lot of LotR - outsells all of their other product lines, actually.
I wonder if that's because the other 2 lines sell particularly badly? I know that a few years ago it was cheaper to buy from FW than GW Japan, but I don't know how far back. That'd mean a lot of 40K sales would have been reported as being UK.
There isn't really an equivalent for LOTR, and it generally needs less stuff, so I can see it being more popular (or, rather, less unpopular), but I can't see the East Asian market providing enough revenue to allow them to try anything risky.* They will have had enough money during the LOTR boom to take some risks though.
*When was the last time GW did anything particularly risky? Dreadfleet?
Remember that these were years ago, not present-day, when their LotR sales were booming. I don't know what specifically with "risks" he was talking about, but I'd speculate on possibly the quick turnaround from 6th to 7th recently. I don't remember what year LotR was at or what was going on in the 40k world at the time, since I was hiatus from the game for studies at the time.
That said, I've been to about half a dozen FLGS's regularly in Asia - more unregularly - and with a business and finance background I love chatting to the owners of FLGS's about how their stores do. Most FLGS's in Asia don't sustain themselves with 40k or Fantasy sales from regulars, typically it's a lot of walk-in traffic for family-style board games and older collectors with disposable income who splurge. I'd theorize it comes down to a combination of a cultural (more family-centric values) and economic thing, as for the most part I'd reckon the income gap is pretty big here between middle and upper class due to costs of living in countries like Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and with the higher price-points here middle class individuals find it hard to get into a hobby like 40k/Fantasy. As a result of this, there are less FLGS's truly dedicated to wargaming in this area of the world, so it's harder to sustain a gaming community.
Furthermore, since a lot of FLGS's do Direct Order from GWHQ rather than going through distributorship (distributorship in Asia-Pacific tends to play favorites, or in some extreme cases be corrupt, for a lot markets, to say the least), I don't know how this factors into revenue recognition at GWHQ. I suspect it gets recognized under the European market, however, not Asia-Pacific. As a result, I would hypothesize that the revenue and sales figures for the Asia-Pacific region are grossly under-recognized.
Thus, it doesn't surprise me if LotR has sold more than 40k/Fantasy in the Asia-Pacific region simply due to the target market it happens to appeal to - kids who saw the movies with their parents and older individuals who've been a fan of Tolkien who have the disposable income to throw at it.
Blacksails wrote: Do we know how much the asia-pacific region represents of their total revenue?
It's the smallest region in terms of revenue. Tau were made purely to appeal to that market. They are fortunate that the animae explosion happened in western markets.
No, no, no... Tau were a competely sui generis idea that the GW desidn studio came up with. It had no connection, whatsoever, to anime. I mean, that's what they do. They come up with cool ideas that are completely their own creation!
Or at least that was the claim (under oath?) during the Chapterhouse debacle...
Anecdotally speaking, I've never seen anyone here play LotR. LotR boxes are gathering dust in Neutral Grounds shops. And obviously I'm in the Asia-Pacific region. I'm in Asia and I can see the Pacific Ocean right here where I work.
agnosto wrote: Robot models in Japan are generally of higher quality for similar or cheaper price. GW then tried to get into the Japanese market by offering digital pdfs of the rules and army books for free in Japanese. I don't know if they still do this, Kid Kyoto could tell us, but I remember when I lived in Koshigaya, north of Tokyo in Saitama pref, that I first thought people were pirating the books. One of the reasons it didn't catch on in Japan is the sheer space needed to play. There was a sizable game store in Yokohama that had maybe 2 tables available and another in Osaka; I don't know of any other stores which could have supported gaming.
There is a group in Osaka who meets at the community center every 2 weeks, but yeah most Japanese live in Apartments with no space to play games, talking about price.
Menchanicus robot?
Hi mook from gundam built fighters fully posable with weapons for 980yen (les than 10$)
Blacksails wrote: Do we know how much the asia-pacific region represents of their total revenue?
As of May 2014; approximately 1.5% of revenue.
So, yeah, hotcakes indeed.
It depends whether Asia-Pacific includes Australia or if it's just Asia. Traditionally it does, and Asia + Australia is 9.5% of total revenue. But if we're only talking about Asia rather than Asia + Australia, yeah, it's only 1.54%.
MWHistorian wrote:I believe you, I just don't believe the GW representative. The data goes against everything he said.
Exactly. It's not that I think Enigwolf is lying at all. But I certainly don't believe anyone representing GW in an official capacity is going to say anything that might tarnish the name of itself, its products or its affiliates.
That's why it's important to know who said it, under what setting and even if things are bad, do you really expect a company representative to say "things are bad"? Of course not, they're going to try and spin it any way they possibly can in order to keep their job.
weeble1000 wrote: We know anecdotally that LOtR is dead in the U.S., GW's biggest market
Actually, GW's biggest market is mainland Europe, followed by the USA followed by the UK, but they're all pretty equal splits of the revenue pie (33%, 30% and 26% respectively).
(I know I'm being nitpicky, but I think it's important to remember that while the USA is important GW's stronghold is in Europe, with almost 60% of total revenue coming from Europe, even Australia is reasonably important to overall revenue at 8%).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
heartserenade wrote: Anecdotally speaking, I've never seen anyone here play LotR. LotR boxes are gathering dust in Neutral Grounds shops. And obviously I'm in the Asia-Pacific region. I'm in Asia and I can see the Pacific Ocean right here where I work.
Anecdotally, if you'd asked me 10+ years ago, LOTR was very popular here. There was a time in my local area when it was easier to get a game of LOTR than it was to get a game of 40k or WHFB, and if you wanted a game of 40k it would most certainly be against a teenager while LOTR had a more mature gamer base.
These days? I haven't met anyone who plays it for quite a while.
Blacksails wrote: Do we know how much the asia-pacific region represents of their total revenue?
I'll look it up.
Last year Australia sold 8.633 million pounds worth of product that amounts to 7% of global turnover.
Does Asia Pacific not include markets like China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines , Singapore, Korea, et cetera?
Yeah sorry for the mix up, you are correct. Unlike Australia and New Zealand which is operated by Games Workshop Oz PTY LTD. The Asia Pacific region is around 1.5% of revenue.
Blacksails wrote: Do we know how much the asia-pacific region represents of their total revenue?
I'll look it up.
Last year Australia sold 8.633 million pounds worth of product that amounts to 7% of global turnover.
Does Asia Pacific not include markets like China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines , Singapore, Korea, et cetera?
Yeah sorry for the mix up, you are correct. Unlike Australia and New Zealand which is operated by Games Workshop Oz PTY LTD. The Asia Pacific region is around 1.5% of revenue.
Cheers.
If you say "Asia-Pacific", that includes Australia. If you don't want to include Australia, then you just call it "Asia", the "Pacific" bit is NZ/Australia/New Guinea.
But then Enigwolf said
Enigwolf wrote: The central and east Asia market actually consumes a lot of LotR - outsells all of their other product lines, actually.
If we're only talking about EAST ASIA, then that's a mostly insignificant market. If we're talking Asia-Pacific, that's a significant chunk of revenue (not the largest obviously, but I consider 9.5% of global revenue a considerable chunk).
Blacksails wrote: Do we know how much the asia-pacific region represents of their total revenue?
I'll look it up.
Last year Australia sold 8.633 million pounds worth of product that amounts to 7% of global turnover.
Does Asia Pacific not include markets like China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines , Singapore, Korea, et cetera?
Yeah sorry for the mix up, you are correct. Unlike Australia and New Zealand which is operated by Games Workshop Oz PTY LTD. The Asia Pacific region is around 1.5% of revenue.
Cheers.
If you say "Asia-Pacific", that includes Australia. If you don't want to include Australia, then you just call it "Asia", the "Pacific" bit is NZ/Australia/New Guinea.
But then Enigwolf said
Enigwolf wrote: The central and east Asia market actually consumes a lot of LotR - outsells all of their other product lines, actually.
If we're only talking about EAST ASIA, then that's a mostly insignificant market. If we're talking Asia-Pacific, that's a significant chunk of revenue (not the largest obviously, but I consider 9.5% of global revenue a considerable chunk).
We're getting into semantics now. My original comment reflected all of Asia-Pacific, including Australia and NZ. The specific comment I made about LotR that you quoted was about LotR. Australia makes huge amounts of revenues relative to the COGS because of the extreme mark-up rate that GW consumers pay for their products there.
Enigwolf wrote: We're getting into semantics now. My original comment reflected all of Asia-Pacific, including Australia and NZ. The specific comment I made about LotR that you quoted was about LotR.
I'm getting in to semantics because they're important semantics. Whether or not you include Australia is the difference between 1.5% and 9.5%.
Australia makes huge amounts of revenues relative to the COGS because of the extreme mark-up rate that GW consumers pay for their products there.
Depends what you define as "huge". Yes, they make more per item sold in Australia, but it's still a significant market, more so than the rest of Asia.
Either way.... while I don't think you're lying in that you spoke to someone from GW and that person said what you said they said.... I honestly don't think it's even remotely significant that they said that. Whether things are going well or going badly, OF COURSE they are still going to try and spin it in a way that makes it sound good. They'd be stupid if they didn't.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: ]If you say "Asia-Pacific", that includes Australia. If you don't want to include Australia, then you just call it "Asia", the "Pacific" bit is NZ/Australia/New Guinea.
GW sales regions =/= actual geographic regions.
For example, when talking about GW regions, "UK" means UK+Ireland, "Continental Europe" means France, Spain, Germany, Italy and Northern Europe, "North America" means US+Canada. Luckily, they don't define Asia beyond "China, Japan (retail) and Asia (trade).
For further confusion, GW does also operate with the term Asia Pacific, which is the actual Asia Pacific, when they analyse all sales (including FW, BL, DE and the online store, as well as to countries outside their main regions).
AllSeeingSkink wrote: ]If you say "Asia-Pacific", that includes Australia. If you don't want to include Australia, then you just call it "Asia", the "Pacific" bit is NZ/Australia/New Guinea.
GW sales regions =/= actual geographic regions.
Indeedy, I used to work for a company that included the UK in "Southern Europe" ! Silly Scandinavians....
Enigwolf wrote: Remember that these were years ago, not present-day, when their LotR sales were booming. I don't know what specifically with "risks" he was talking about, but I'd speculate on possibly the quick turnaround from 6th to 7th recently. I don't remember what year LotR was at or what was going on in the 40k world at the time, since I was hiatus from the game for studies at the time.
I can comfortably believe that, LOTR seems to have propped up GW in it's boom, and even in the UK they seemed to have problem keeping up with demand. But that died off a decade ago (ROTK launched in 2003) and never came back with the Hobbit, before the prices went crazy.
Anyways, I'm just curious, after all the semantics...
What's are the revenues of Australia/New Zealand as a percentage of the global revenue?
I wouldn't overthink gross or net profit, unless you're able to obtain costs. For all you know, the cost of operating a distribution center in Australia, shipping to the region, and managing the sales channel there is very high. Or the profits could be fantastic. We just don't know.
Sadly we can only guess, as GW's management decided last year no longer to report sales by region. Instead they are going to report sales by channel, meaning web/mail order, retail (GW shops) and distributor (independant shops).
Profits per region obviously area an important factor since the management must decide whether a region represents a potential growth market and deserves to be financially supported while unprofitable as the game takes off.
I would guess that GW saw East Asia in this category 15 years ago, since the cost of translating all the books to Japanese and releasing them free would have been pretty considerable and justified by the expectation that massive sales of kits would follow. That did not happen, though.
Talys wrote: Anyways, I'm just curious, after all the semantics...
What's are the revenues of Australia/New Zealand as a percentage of the global revenue?
I wouldn't overthink gross or net profit, unless you're able to obtain costs. For all you know, the cost of operating a distribution center in Australia, shipping to the region, and managing the sales channel there is very high. Or the profits could be fantastic. We just don't know.
I mentioned it earlier on this page but you must have missed it If you take each region's sales but ignore "All other sales businesses" in the 2014 report then Australia is 8% of global revenue for 2014 (down from 9% in 2013). I assume that includes NZ but it's not actually specified in the report so maybe it doesn't. "Asia" is only 1.54% in 2014 and 1.52% in 2013.
It's interesting to note Australia has 40 stores compared to North America's 87, that means Australia has 1.7 stores per million in Australia compared to 0.16 stores per million in NA. I found those to be an interesting statistics given the frequent discussions on Australian pricing.
As for profit, it's all in the 2014 report, this is profit in thousands of pounds per segment...
UK 2,244 (2014) 5,227 (2013) Continental Europe 4,790 (2014) 5,218 (2013) North America 3,720 (2014) 3,336 (2013) Australia 557 (2014) 756 (2013) Export 581 (2014) 457 (2013) Asia 223 (2014) 155 (2013)
It's worth noting that the Australian vs GBP exchange rate changed dramatically from 2013 to 2014, so it's probably not worth comparing 2013 numbers to 2014 numbers unless you normalise them by the exchange rate.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I find it all quite interesting. That means Australia has around half as many stores as the USA, but the actual COSTS in Australia are around a third of the USA. But I think because they have so many stores in Australia, the revenue to profit ratio is poor. But then if they removed the stores they'd probably be up the creek because they've successfully pissed off so many of the FLGS's and online stores. Having a large number of stores in Australia probably goes back to the late 90's when the stores were (anecdotally) performing extremely well.
Enigwolf wrote: To answer the questions, the person I spoke to was a senior regional director, one of the guys in charge of the Asia-Pacific Region. He was at our FLGS for a meeting with distributors some time back. The central and east Asia market actually consumes a lot of LotR - outsells all of their other product lines, actually.
This is the internet, believe me or don't believe me, that's your choice - I'm just sharing what I heard and I have no reason to cook up something like that. Shrug, I couldn't care less. I was one of the early anonymous rumor reporters that told Natfka about the mass Finecast->Plastic-maybe-resin switch back in '12.
Thanks for letting it roll off Enigwolf. Have an exalt.
I appreciate the input, despite the fact that I called it BS. Note that I was not saying you were misrepresenting what you heard.
Anyway, I appreciate you being cool about getting jumped on.
If a portion (one hopes Asia is selling more than LoTR kits) of 9% of your overall, global sales are propping up your entire LoTR line, your company has serious issues.
Enigwolf wrote: To answer the questions, the person I spoke to was a senior regional director, one of the guys in charge of the Asia-Pacific Region. He was at our FLGS for a meeting with distributors some time back. The central and east Asia market actually consumes a lot of LotR - outsells all of their other product lines, actually.
This is the internet, believe me or don't believe me, that's your choice - I'm just sharing what I heard and I have no reason to cook up something like that. Shrug, I couldn't care less. I was one of the early anonymous rumor reporters that told Natfka about the mass Finecast->Plastic-maybe-resin switch back in '12.
Thanks for letting it roll off Enigwolf. Have an exalt.
I appreciate the input, despite the fact that I called it BS. Note that I was not saying you were misrepresenting what you heard.
Anyway, I appreciate you being cool about getting jumped on.
I appreciate the candor. I'm normally a pretty skeptical guy of GW myself, but frankly, as none of us work in GW Corporate, all we can do is speculate and relay what other people have said. For all the hate that gets thrown at them, they're still running a profitable, and ultimately financially successful company, in a sector with very few other publicly-traded companies to compete again.
It's easy to point fingers at GW corporate leadership and make it sound like you can do a better job, but unless you're in that position no one knows what they have to go through or deal with. That said, the fact that the LotR line is still alive is an indicator. Someone before criticized my criticism of comments made here without business savvy. Fair enough, indulge me for a moment.
Microeconomic theory states that in a monopolistic competition and oligopolic market, through a combination of the Average Total Costs (ATC), Average Variable Costs (AVC) and Marginal Cost (MC) curves, with the assumption that the Average Revenue (AR) curve = Marginal Revenue (MR) curve, that there are five scenarios for a business or product line to be in operation: (1) Profitability, (2) break-even, (3) minimalizing losses by staying open, (4) covering variable costs (barely) AKA operating at shut-down point, or (5) shutting down. It's clearly not shut down yet, and I'm sure that the initial spike of revenues has covered their initial sunk-cost of licensing the IP, so it's not minimalizing losses by operation. Break-even and coverage of variable costs is highly unlikely given the nature of the industry and the additional overheads (plus opportunity costs to the rest of their business units).
Thus, by process of elimination and Occam's Razor, the conclusion to be made is that LotR is still a fairly profitable business line for them 'til now.
Games Workshop is still alive, and is alive enough to be making mass changes and massive releases on an increased pace. I surmise that they're still a very healthy company, financially.
Have an Exalt for a singing the songs of Econ 101 like a bard in a tavern
One of the reasons I am entertained by forums and the Internet is that people online love to Forge the Narrative. What must be the truth are the all of the unknown facts that would make their hypothesis true.
If only my physics prof would have gotten on board with that, I woulda done GREAT!
Talys wrote: Have an Exalt for a singing the songs of Econ 101 like a bard in a tavern
One of the reasons I am entertained by forums and the Internet is that people online love to Forge the Narrative. What must be the truth are the all of the unknown facts that would make their hypothesis true.
If only my physics prof would have gotten on board with that, I woulda done GREAT!
Thanks. I like to think that I learned something in uni.
Feel free to bring this discussion up again in a month's time. If I'm not already sick of doing financial analysis on publicly-traded companies for my day job, you might be able to convince me to write a report on their stock performance. For now, if you've anything else to say to counter economic theory, please feel free to be the next John Keynes.
I don't have to throw around a number of large words to read GW's financials since, as you so aptly pointed out, they are a publicly traded company and come to the rather obvious conclusion that the company is not in immediate danger of folding. That said, it is also obvious that they are losing profitability and more than likely losing market share to smaller competitors.
Certainly, GW is still the large fish in a small pool but the little fish have grown teeth and are nibbling away at a greater rate than previously evidenced. Combine this with the current trend to make their product more exclusive by limiting availability of the entire product line; not many companies in the toy or even collectibles industry would brag that a 1000 of their products are direct-only because they would rather sell more than less through broad exposure in the market place. Instead, the cost cutting sword is slicing both ways and limiting GW's ability to recruit new customers.
As myself and a few others have said. GW is in a good position financially, currently, but no company can lose 10% revenue ma double down on what caused the losses to begin with. It would certainly help if upper management didn't think that market research was "otiose" because then they might actually be able to figure out what's causing the slide. Here's a hint, it's not a lack of releases but more that the general market seems to expect a higher quality product than is being released or else they wouldn't be defecting to other games.
I don't have a degree in economics but I have been investing for a number of years and have learned some of the warning signs of a poorly managed company, a painful lesson to be sure (damn bio-tech stock), and I manage several multi-million dollar projects as part of my job. Mistakes can cost and not listening to stakeholders (customers in this case) is objectively costing GW. They are not too deep to pull out and right now it appears that an increased release cycle may have slowed the fall BUT how long they can maintain this without reducing support for existing products or incurring greater expense in expanding production facilities? They've already retracted to their core by closing production in China and the US and limited expansion by restructuring in such a way that they'll have less market exposure.
Talys wrote: Have an Exalt for a singing the songs of Econ 101 like a bard in a tavern
One of the reasons I am entertained by forums and the Internet is that people online love to Forge the Narrative. What must be the truth are the all of the unknown facts that would make their hypothesis true.
If only my physics prof would have gotten on board with that, I woulda done GREAT!
Thanks. I like to think that I learned something in uni.
Feel free to bring this discussion up again in a month's time. If I'm not already sick of doing financial analysis on publicly-traded companies for my day job, you might be able to convince me to write a report on their stock performance. For now, if you've anything else to say to counter economic theory, please feel free to be the next John Keynes.
What?
Where have I said GW are bankrupt or any other such nonsense?
I'm not trying to counter your copy and pasted attempt to try and shut people down with words you don't think they'll understand, nor do I disagree with your conclusion based on current information.
I'm interested to see how you argue that any company, publicly traded or not, can continue to counter a trend of falling revenue and profits indefinitely though? Got something on econowiki for that?
Plus, just FYI, flopping out your qualifications on the desk to try and prove your rightness isn't a cool move and doesn't really do much to support your argument. There's always a bigger... fish.
Enigwolf wrote: That said, the fact that the LotR line is still alive is an indicator.
If that's your indicator, you might consider reconsidering your position. LotR isn't what I'd call "still alive". There's a whole heap of old stuff you can't buy any more because GW aren't supporting it any more and GW clearly haven't been taking it seriously with new stuff since after the first Hobbit movie (I don't think we had any plastic kits for the last movie and the whole thing screams "we are only putting in a token effort now").
As for your microeconomics lesson, I'm not sure what website you pulled that off, it's been a while since I did economics, but surely there's an option which fits with "If you're not developing new models it doesn't cost much to keep the product line and you may or may not have an contractual obligation to support the product for some period of time".
Games Workshop is still alive, and is alive enough to be making mass changes and massive releases on an increased pace. I surmise that they're still a very healthy company, financially.
Personally, I've never asserted that GW is anything less than alive. They are still making profits and still have over 400 stores world wide.
BUT, you'd be naive to not realise that they have falling revenues in spite of an increased release rate (and we know that products sell best when they're first released) which is not a great sign AND it's quite clear they are shrinking while the rest of the market is growing, also not a great sign.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: BUT, you'd be naive to not realise that they have falling revenues in spite of an increased release rate (and we know that products sell best when they're first released) which is not a great sign AND it's quite clear they are shrinking while the rest of the market is growing, also not a great sign.
You see this said a lot, but without actual data on other companies, it's hard to assess whether the industry is growing, but no particular manufacturer is making fistfuls of money, or whether a small number in the industry is eating up most of the profits while many other companies are struggling, or whether every company is raking in the dough.
For example, if the industry as a whole grew 15%, but because there were 20% more entrants, that's a bad thing for all the companies that are there, even though the industry grew. Good for the consumer, of course.
Since Games Workshop, I think is the ONLY publicly traded company in the field, it's hard to answer those questions, unless you happen to work at PP or one of the other significant manufacturers.
So long as other companies aren't popping out releases like land raiders and stormravens and wraithknights, GW will always have some kind of niche, because there are people (like me!) who just love those kinds of things, in a cohesive, unified way (ie not 10 models produced by 7 different companies). There are some pretty big barriers to making those, I guess. We'll see where it all ends up in a decade or two
AllSeeingSkink wrote: BUT, you'd be naive to not realise that they have falling revenues in spite of an increased release rate (and we know that products sell best when they're first released) which is not a great sign AND it's quite clear they are shrinking while the rest of the market is growing, also not a great sign.
You see this said a lot, but without actual data on other companies, it's hard to assess whether the industry is growing, but no particular manufacturer is making fistfuls of money, or whether a small number in the industry is eating up most of the profits while many other companies are struggling, or whether every company is raking in the dough.
For example, if the industry as a whole grew 15%, but because there were 20% more entrants, that's a bad thing for all the companies that are there, even though the industry grew. Good for the consumer, of course.
Since Games Workshop, I think is the ONLY publicly traded company in the field, it's hard to answer those questions, unless you happen to work at PP or one of the other significant manufacturers.
While other companies don't release their numbers, individual stores get surveyed and there is data on that (I can't remember where off the top of my head, but I know it exists and shows other non-GW segments of the hobby are growing).
And to use Enigwolf's microeconomic logic, the very fact we have so many other games these days, the fact we have so many kick starters, the fact I can walk in to a hobby shop and GW only takes up 5% of the shelf space where as 10 years ago it took up 30% of the shelf space.... these are all indicators that the rest of the market is doing well.
Enigwolf wrote: Microeconomic theory states that in a monopolistic competition and oligopolic market, through a combination of the Average Total Costs (ATC), Average Variable Costs (AVC) and Marginal Cost (MC) curves, with the assumption that the Average Revenue (AR) curve = Marginal Revenue (MR) curve, that there are five scenarios for a business or product line to be in operation: (1) Profitability, (2) break-even, (3) minimalizing losses by staying open, (4) covering variable costs (barely) AKA operating at shut-down point, or (5) shutting down. It's clearly not shut down yet, and I'm sure that the initial spike of revenues has covered their initial sunk-cost of licensing the IP, so it's not minimalizing losses by operation. Break-even and coverage of variable costs is highly unlikely given the nature of the industry and the additional overheads (plus opportunity costs to the rest of their business units).
Thus, by process of elimination and Occam's Razor, the conclusion to be made is that LotR is still a fairly profitable business line for them 'til now.
But I would retort that some contractual obligations may be at play to provide a game system with all characters during the run of movies and possibly plus a year.
Plus you could have simply said that the dies are most likely paid for and the net revenue is still worthwhile (plastic is possibly cheaper than the packaging).
Wow that was a strong attempt to make something simple sound complicated, I had a professor say to me "If you cannot explain something simply, you obviously do not know the subject matter well enough... or are showing off.". He was a funny one but leaned very little on "Occam's Razor" to show what was most probable.
Games Workshop is still alive, and is alive enough to be making mass changes and massive releases on an increased pace. I surmise that they're still a very healthy company, financially.
They are healthy in the scheme of things.
It is just odd that they have thriving competition (very hard to confirm due to most being private companies) and GW methods are pretty much "stay the course".
There just appears to be no long term plan at all to increase market share.
Would I be wrong in claiming they are content to provide dividends and find profit by reduced operation costs and increasing product margins?
Running the risk of sounding silly: the golden goose is getting old and no one is willing to climb the bean stock again (innovate, engage customers).
Yeah, got some economics in as electives but my main thing is business operations, supply chain management and very successful building my retirement by self managing my stock investments.
Kirby is "comfy" there really is no motivation to change his methodology, the demise of the company will not precede his retirement.
Talys wrote: Have an Exalt for a singing the songs of Econ 101 like a bard in a tavern
One of the reasons I am entertained by forums and the Internet is that people online love to Forge the Narrative. What must be the truth are the all of the unknown facts that would make their hypothesis true.
If only my physics prof would have gotten on board with that, I woulda done GREAT!
As a counterpoint, Trial Advocacy 101 might say that GW didn't get its handed to it in the GW v CHS case, but that doesn't line up with the practical reality of the situation. Even Kirby publicly admitted to both GW's failure to achieve its litigation goals and the expenditure of an "indecent" amount of money in attempting to do so.
The company is making lots of revenue, ergo it must be healthy.
The company won a jury verdict in its favor, ergo it must have have achieved its litigation goals.
In both cases, one does not necessarily follow from the other.
When GW is in trouble, you will see a lot of releases that are upgrade kits, rather than new models and new factions, and no new risky models (like the Bloodthirster or Nagash) where return on investment is dubious.
So long as GW is tossing out new factions like Harlequin and AdMech in rapidfire release, I think we can all be pretty certain that there are healthy cash flows. Them molds aren't free.
When GW is in trouble, you will see a lot of releases that are upgrade kits, rather than new models and new factions, and no new risky models (like the Bloodthirster or Nagash) where return on investment is dubious.
So long as GW is tossing out new factions like Harlequin and AdMech in rapidfire release, I think we can all be pretty certain that there are healthy cash flows. Them molds aren't free.
Or GW doesn't know what is risky as they do no market research and so throw whatever they can think of out there.
I recall jokes being made in the dark and distant past of early 2000s about how if GW were ever in real fincial trouble they would do a line of Heresy era products....
When GW is in trouble, you will see a lot of releases that are upgrade kits, rather than new models and new factions, and no new risky models (like the Bloodthirster or Nagash) where return on investment is dubious.
So long as GW is tossing out new factions like Harlequin and AdMech in rapidfire release, I think we can all be pretty certain that there are healthy cash flows. Them molds aren't free.
Could be the exact opposite too though- they'll save big splash releases that people have been clamoring for, and big revamps/large models for when in trouble to bring their bottom line back up. When times are good they'll start throwng out upgrade kits and such between bigger releases to bide time for when profits get slow again.
When GW is in trouble, you will see a lot of releases that are upgrade kits, rather than new models and new factions, and no new risky models (like the Bloodthirster or Nagash) where return on investment is dubious.
So long as GW is tossing out new factions like Harlequin and AdMech in rapidfire release, I think we can all be pretty certain that there are healthy cash flows. Them molds aren't free.
How does a Dark Angels re-release with a new codex and a single plastic model fit into that theory?
When GW is in trouble, you will see a lot of releases that are upgrade kits, rather than new models and new factions, and no new risky models (like the Bloodthirster or Nagash) where return on investment is dubious.
So long as GW is tossing out new factions like Harlequin and AdMech in rapidfire release, I think we can all be pretty certain that there are healthy cash flows. Them molds aren't free.
How does a Dark Angels re-release with a new codex and a single plastic model fit into that theory?
You have to look at a few months, though, not one week's release. I mean, Necron got one model, too. But There were an avalanche of AdMech, an amazing number of Harlequin releases, two new space marine kits and one solo, one Eldar kit and two solo models, a huge Bloodyhirster kit, 4 assassins, theKhorne stuff, the IK upgrade... in like 6 months?
Contrast that with any other company... I mean, even if they could move the product, no other company could even afford to make an AdMech sized plastic release in a year. Even for GW, I cannot think of another 180 day period where there were this many new models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sinful Hero wrote: Could be the exact opposite too though- they'll save big splash releases that people have been clamoring for, and big revamps/large models for when in trouble to bring their bottom line back up. When times are good they'll start throwng out upgrade kits and such between bigger releases to bide time for when profits get slow again.
I kind of doubt it -- those molds are really expensive and a long term investment, with all the costs upfront. It's a lot of risk to entertain if you're trying to conserve cash. They would be way better off releasing Skyhammer type stuff.
And if you're fair about it, the ONLY formation bundle worth buying, really, has been Skyhammer, though certainly, Necron and Eldar rules encouraged kit sales.
Or GW doesn't know what is risky as they do no market research and so throw whatever they can think of out there.
Could be, but where does the money for the initial outlay come from?
The alternative theory is that GW could be making more profit, but instead reinvest those monies into facilities and molds. Can't sell from an empty wagon, right?
You have to look at a few months, though, not one week's release..
It's actually longer than that. IIRC, GW normally has their moulds made at least 18months in advance, in order to allow enough lead time to get product cast and distributed around the world. So the rash of shiny new releases we've just had is stufff that has been in the works for at least that long, plus development and sculpting time, in some cases much longer (Eldar Jetbike, and I would guess Harlequins - they said back in 4th edition that they were developing all of the flavours of Eldar as a unified whole, and then nothing much happened straight away other than the peek at the prototype jetbike. It wouldn't surprise me if they've been sitting on some of the Eldar stuff since then).
You have to look at a few months, though, not one week's release..
It's actually longer than that. IIRC, GW normally has their moulds made at least 18months in advance, in order to allow enough lead time to get product cast and distributed around the world. So the rash of shiny new releases we've just had is stufff that has been in the works for at least that long, plus development and sculpting time, in some cases much longer (Eldar Jetbike, and I would guess Harlequins - they said back in 4th edition that they were developing all of the flavours of Eldar as a unified whole, and then nothing much happened straight away other than the peek at the prototype jetbike. It wouldn't surprise me if they've been sitting on some of the Eldar stuff since then).
Yes, I'm sure you're right. For instance, a lot of the new sprues released this year, IIRC say (C) 2014 or 2013.
If they didn't have cashflows to maintain a rapid release cadence, they would stretch out these releases, though. Think of it this way -- if GW released just Eldar, Space Marines, and Adeptus Mechanicus in 2015, everyone would have gone, "wow, that was a lot of new kits out of GW this year". Their current release rate is eye-popping. I mean, there's no way a two-armed biped could keep up if they wanted to buy and paint *everything*.
If GW were in some kind of financial trouble, the smart thing to do wouldn't be to lauch everyhthing in 6 months, then have nothing left to release in the next 12, right? And we know that, if nothing else, Sigmar is coming out, no doubt with shiny new models. It isn't even profit-optimizing, because there's little chance you'll get many people who buy *everything*, whereas if you dribbled it out over a longer period, your chances for that would be higher.
GW is actually operating like some kind of gerbil on crack, lol. Makes me want to be retired, so that I could spend all day painting stuff haha.
jonolikespie wrote: TSR were throwing out rapid release of poor quality right before they went down as a means to try and prop up falling sales.
I guess the only difference here comes down to if you think the recent releases are poor quality or not, but I don't think we'll ever agree on that
Hah! Yeah.
Well, one big difference, though, is that TSR's releases were cheap to produce (it's just paper). Yeah, GW has a lot of print releases, but the model release cadence is a little mind blowing. And the molds cost what the molds cost, whether the models are good or not, right?
Oh well, 'tis what it is. Back to watching Sense8 while I paint me new blood angels! (42 to more tacticals to go...)
There is a new release of some kind every week, not including White Dwarf.
This can be seen as a sign of health or a sign of desperation. My own view is that GW know they have lost a lot of the veteran players, so their strategy now is to exploit more deeply the ones who remain (superfans who want to buy a lot of GW) and of course newcomers.
The thing is though, while they are profitable and have good cash flow, every year for the past few years their sales and cash flow and profits have been declining. The rapid release rate of new products must be increasing their costs. If it does not lead to growth, the danger is continuing decline.
When GW is in trouble, you will see a lot of releases that are upgrade kits, rather than new models and new factions, and no new risky models (like the Bloodthirster or Nagash) where return on investment is dubious.
So long as GW is tossing out new factions like Harlequin and AdMech in rapidfire release, I think we can all be pretty certain that there are healthy cash flows. Them molds aren't free.
I'd read it the other way, they are throwing out all of the big guns to try and rake in cash, like the Knights.
Then there's the re-releases at an increased pace; a new Knights codex after a year, new Marines codex, new Dark Angels codex, new 40K release after 2 years (where the only real change was unbound a.k.a. no reason not to buy anything), Space Hulk re-release.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: BUT, you'd be naive to not realise that they have falling revenues in spite of an increased release rate (and we know that products sell best when they're first released) which is not a great sign AND it's quite clear they are shrinking while the rest of the market is growing, also not a great sign.
You see this said a lot, but without actual data on other companies, it's hard to assess whether the industry is growing, but no particular manufacturer is making fistfuls of money, or whether a small number in the industry is eating up most of the profits while many other companies are struggling, or whether every company is raking in the dough..
Agreed, there's no statistically significant source of information as to growth. There's been some surveys and reports from smaller companies, but if you take the number of companies entering the industry then you can assume it's worthwhile doing so.
All the evidence we've seen (apart from GW) is that the industry is growing, I haven't seen anything to imply that it's remaining static or even contracting. There's more manufacturers, stores and events, more media coverage, more releases.
Talys wrote: Have an Exalt for a singing the songs of Econ 101 like a bard in a tavern
One of the reasons I am entertained by forums and the Internet is that people online love to Forge the Narrative. What must be the truth are the all of the unknown facts that would make their hypothesis true.
If only my physics prof would have gotten on board with that, I woulda done GREAT!
Thanks. I like to think that I learned something in uni.
Feel free to bring this discussion up again in a month's time. If I'm not already sick of doing financial analysis on publicly-traded companies for my day job, you might be able to convince me to write a report on their stock performance. For now, if you've anything else to say to counter economic theory, please feel free to be the next John Keynes.
What?
Where have I said GW are bankrupt or any other such nonsense?
I'm not trying to counter your copy and pasted attempt to try and shut people down with words you don't think they'll understand, nor do I disagree with your conclusion based on current information.
I'm interested to see how you argue that any company, publicly traded or not, can continue to counter a trend of falling revenue and profits indefinitely though? Got something on econowiki for that?
Plus, just FYI, flopping out your qualifications on the desk to try and prove your rightness isn't a cool move and doesn't really do much to support your argument. There's always a bigger... fish.
When someone uses their knowledge to answer a post, try not to break rule one when replying. It makes you look foolish
Azreal13 wrote:...
I'm not trying to counter your copy and pasted attempt to try and shut people down with words you don't think they'll understand, nor do I disagree with your conclusion based on current information.
I'm interested to see how you argue that any company, publicly traded or not, can continue to counter a trend of falling revenue and profits indefinitely though? Got something on econowiki for that?
Plus, just FYI, flopping out your qualifications on the desk to try and prove your rightness isn't a cool move and doesn't really do much to support your argument. There's always a bigger... fish.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
As for your microeconomics lesson, I'm not sure what website you pulled that off, it's been a while since I did economics, but surely there's an option which fits with "If you're not developing new models it doesn't cost much to keep the product line and you may or may not have an contractual obligation to support the product for some period of time".
I love the internet for its contradictions - I get called out a few pages back for criticizing some of the wild speculation here of GW business strategy for being unfounded and unbacked by theory or evidence, and then get told to back up my own claims. And then I get attacked again when I provide the meat behind my arguments. Another thing I love about internet forums is that no matter who you are in real life or what you've done, it's all spurious because keyboard warriors will simply accuse you of copy-pasta in order to lower the counter-argument's legitimacy when they have no such legitimacy of their own (side note: I will be more than happy to have an academic discussion about Games Workshop as a business with anyone who's interested, because I think it's a fascinating industry and company to analyze). So, mostly for my own amusement, here's a screenshot of my OneNote page from biz school days (notes typed on laptop, graphs drawn using a Wacom Intuos 4 or my tablet) about this same theory that I mentioned before, complete with the graphs I was mentioning. Date and course number blacked out for purposes of my real identity. I more than welcome you to provide proof that I copied and pasted my above explanation from somewhere else, otherwise, please cut out the personal attack bullcrap.
And yes, the contractual obligation is one that is entirely a possibility (that I will admit I had not considered before), and one that falls under the third scenario, staying open to minimize losses, because a contractual breach will likely be more damaging. With regards to keeping the product line, that's the scenario about covering variable costs. However, as I mentioned before, because of the opportunity cost to other business units (i.e. designers to keep making new models, production lines that aren't used to churn out more 40k/Fantasy) and additional overheads (logistics management like SKUs and vendors, the administrative costs, etc.) it's unlikely that they're keeping it open because it "doesn't cost much to keep the product line". There is always a cost-of-goods sold associated with any product sold, even in software, and if this cost is minimally low, then well, that's profitability.
Talizvar wrote:There just appears to be no long term plan at all to increase market share.
Would I be wrong in claiming they are content to provide dividends and find profit by reduced operation costs and increasing product margins?
Running the risk of sounding silly: the golden goose is getting old and no one is willing to climb the bean stock again (innovate, engage customers).
Yeah, got some economics in as electives but my main thing is business operations, supply chain management and very successful building my retirement by self managing my stock investments.
Kirby is "comfy" there really is no motivation to change his methodology, the demise of the company will not precede his retirement.
Not at all wrong. In fact history has shown that a lot of companies that are used to being the dominant player are satisfied sticking with the "stay the course" as someone had mentioned in order to continue providing stable dividends for their shareholders, often by, as you so optly pointed out, optimizing current operations to reduce costs and increase the value of current product offerings for higher profit margins (Limited Edition things and annual re-releases with incremental upgrades are a classic example of this in the retail and product development world). And yes, this typically does not end well for said company when another competitor is able to replicate their success but implement it better (Apple vs. the rest of the smartphone world, Polaroid's demise, etc.)
Enigwolf wrote: I more than welcome you to provide proof that I copied and pasted my above explanation from somewhere else, otherwise, please cut out the personal attack bullcrap.
Dude you seriously need to lighten the hell up. It wasn't a personal attack at all. I assumed you got it off a website because that's normally where stuff comes from, almost all the course notes from my undergraduate degree could be found on various websites If I wanted to prove a point about a specific simplification of the Navier-Stokes equations I wouldn't go looking up my old course notes from 4th year aerodynamics, I'd just google it
But whatever, the reason I posted what I did was because your options don't allow for the situation I think GW is actually in with LOTR. As one of my old professors said, economics struggles to tell you anything you don't already know
There's far more signs that LOTR is struggling rather than thriving. I also noticed you completely fething ignored the part of my post where I pointed out one of the basis for your arguments (that LOTR is "still alive" was spurious at best. GW aren't supporting LOTR, many products are going out of stock and The Hobbit has only had a token amount of support.
Enigwolf wrote: I more than welcome you to provide proof that I copied and pasted my above explanation from somewhere else, otherwise, please cut out the personal attack bullcrap.
Dude you seriously need to lighten the hell up. It wasn't a personal attack at all. I assumed you got it off a website because that's normally where stuff comes from, almost all the course notes from my undergraduate degree could be found on various websites If I wanted to prove a point about a specific simplification of the Navier-Stokes equations I wouldn't go looking up my old course notes from 4th year aerodynamics, I'd just google it
But whatever, the reason I posted what I did was because your options don't allow for the situation I think GW is actually in with LOTR. As one of my old professors said, economics struggles to tell you anything you don't already know
There's far more signs that LOTR is struggling rather than thriving. I also noticed you completely fething ignored the part of my post where I pointed out one of the basis for your arguments (that LOTR is "still alive" was spurious at best. GW aren't supporting LOTR, many products are going out of stock and The Hobbit has only had a token amount of support.
First of all, my apologies. I wasn't sure if you wanted a response to that bit of your post, because I didn't disagree with it - I didn't want to make my own post more of an essay than it already was. I haven't checked what's in stock and what's not in stock with LotR; should I probably have checked it to get a better understanding? Probably, but I didn't, and that's my own fault.
I don't think it's thriving, as a matter of course, LotR was just brought up in relevance when I referenced my conversation with a GW regional director years ago about the state of GW's finances at the time, which I think was misconstrued to be taken as today.
Do I think that the LotR line is in its death throes and will likely be gone from GW within the next 5 years? Yes, but for now, its still generating them revenue (whatever token amounts), even if its just clearing tons old stock (although there will come a point in time where the cost of inventory'ing the few boxes that remain outweigh the gains to be had from selling them off, and then they'll liquidate it in some way shape or form). I mean, the same thing did kinda happen with Specialist Games. I still think GW should've announced those discontinuations much earlier - there were a lot of BFG ships for my AdMech fleet I still wanted that are now OOP and mad expensive on ebay. >=[
Enigwolf wrote: I love the internet for its contradictions - I get called out a few pages back for criticizing some of the wild speculation here of GW business strategy for being unfounded and unbacked by theory or evidence, and then get told to back up my own claims. And then I get attacked again when I provide the meat behind my arguments. Another thing I love about internet forums is that no matter who you are in real life or what you've done, it's all spurious because keyboard warriors will simply accuse you of copy-pasta in order to lower the counter-argument's legitimacy when they have no such legitimacy of their own
You know what I don't love? A supercilious attitude from someone when they're attempting to disprove an argument that wasn't made. The implication that simply because someone doesn't fit some very short list of what is deemed appropriately qualified that it somehow means they can't be right in their opinions or the assumption that someone doesn't have different, but equally valid qualifications or experience informing what they say.
If GW were in some kind of financial trouble, the smart thing to do wouldn't be to lauch everyhthing in 6 months, then have nothing left to release in the next 12, right? And we know that, if nothing else, Sigmar is coming out, no doubt with shiny new models. It isn't even profit-optimizing, because there's little chance you'll get many people who buy *everything*, whereas if you dribbled it out over a longer period, your chances for that would be higher.
GW is actually operating like some kind of gerbil on crack, lol. Makes me want to be retired, so that I could spend all day painting stuff haha.
The way I'm seeing it, this is exactly what is happening right now.
A long time ago, people cried for Horus Heresy models, especially Primarchs. GW never did them, and one day one of the old guard (was it Andy Chambers? I could be misremembering) threw out that the reason for it was that they are pretty much GW's Ace In The Hole. Should GW ever be in trouble, they could release the Primarchs which are bound to be guaranteed smash hits.
They exist now. They are only half a step away from being released by GW proper.
Adeptus Mechanicus is another save bet. People have been wanting AdMech for years. Not like Sisters, which always had more of an contained community, AdMech appealed to a big chunk of the Marine and Guard players, making them another pretty much guaranteed sell.
Harlequin are more of a dark horse, but with both Eldar and Dark Eldar players having an interest in them, they aren't too risky either.
The Greater Demons have been in dire need of plastics since... pretty much forever. I remember people as early as beginning 4th edition talking about them. And Khorne is probably the most popular flavor of them. Practically every Chaos Marine, Demons, Warriors and Demons player has an interest in them.
And Nagash? Nagash has been hyped up as this mythical, legendary thing from times gone yore, with that horrible model. Woven into a release hyping it up even more (I seem to remember that at first everyone thought that The End Times were just about Nagash, him beeing the actual ultimate big bad of WHFB and all...) and the thing will move a few boxes too.
So, yeah, it very much seems to me that GW has started using up the big guns. Once we have the Emperor of Mankind im plastic, we know that they have run out of wiggle room.
So, yeah, it very much seems to me that GW has started using up the big guns. Once we have the Emperor of Mankind im plastic, we know that they have run out of wiggle room.
Hopefully they'll start moving the 40k timeline past 999.M41, at that time
I don't think there's any super special surprises coming. They've already said what the numbers, roughly, are, right (in percentage terms, anyhow)?
There is one possible surprise - will GW have yet another dividend, in spite of decreasing revenue?
And people will be surprised, either way....
A BIG surprise would be GW taking out another loan to pay dividends. (Well, I would be surprised, at any rate. I expect GW to send out a smaller dividend this year, but that they will send one out.)
AllSeeingSkink wrote: BUT, you'd be naive to not realise that they have falling revenues in spite of an increased release rate (and we know that products sell best when they're first released) which is not a great sign AND it's quite clear they are shrinking while the rest of the market is growing, also not a great sign.
You see this said a lot, but without actual data on other companies, it's hard to assess whether the industry is growing, but no particular manufacturer is making fistfuls of money, or whether a small number in the industry is eating up most of the profits while many other companies are struggling, or whether every company is raking in the dough.
For example, if the industry as a whole grew 15%, but because there were 20% more entrants, that's a bad thing for all the companies that are there, even though the industry grew. Good for the consumer, of course.
Since Games Workshop, I think is the ONLY publicly traded company in the field, it's hard to answer those questions, unless you happen to work at PP or one of the other significant manufacturers.
So long as other companies aren't popping out releases like land raiders and stormravens and wraithknights, GW will always have some kind of niche, because there are people (like me!) who just love those kinds of things, in a cohesive, unified way (ie not 10 models produced by 7 different companies). There are some pretty big barriers to making those, I guess. We'll see where it all ends up in a decade or two
If only there was a publication that was put forth by one of the largest hobby distributors that regularly sells stock to most stores as well as polls them four times a year as to what they sell most (in addition to their own large sales database as a distributor)....
The hobby is 225% bigger now than it was the year 5th edition came out and had the 6th straight growth year. GW since jumping the shark has had the opposite.
@Enigwolf: I am sure your education is hard-won, I think many (including myself) get a bit excited when people base their argument on "appeal to authority", you got me trying to lay down my creds in reply... hehe... the economic theory and models are great to throw about but it all boils down to figuring out a hypothesis and what data is available to give it some legs.
I can only point to the financial reports, their actions and some of the statements from Kirby.
I figure since he is a large shareholder, being in charge and making dividends a priority is a fantastic way to pay yourself and gives every motivation to have spare cash (and be in charge). It has the added benefit of making other shareholders happy so little resistance to be seen by "his" primary stakeholders.
The part that gets all emotional is that many would like to see GW survive past Kirby's retirement and it appears he does not care in that regard.
So, frustration runs high when so many would like to see the old GW community come back and Kirby obstructing this because it is rather irrelevant to his plans.
It is rather easy to have a rather snobbish behavior with customers when they supply money on demand and they have little impact on his actual job (we cannot "oust" him).
Except you Menes to take the icv2 data with a pinch of salt - iirc it only deals with American traders and even then disclosure is voluntary. Don't get me wrong - it's useful, but it's useful in the same way that you use a wet finger to gauge the wind...
Was about to say similar, although equally there's zero information out there that I've seen that contradicts it.
I guess the only thing is the rumour that PP have remained largely flat the last few years too, but then I've seen that attributed to a bottleneck in production capacity, which makes a lot of sense.
(side note: I will be more than happy to have an academic discussion about Games Workshop as a business with anyone who's interested, because I think it's a fascinating industry and company to analyze).
For what it's worth, I would love to take you up on this offer. First rounds on me
Deadnight wrote: Except you Menes to take the icv2 data with a pinch of salt - iirc it only deals with American traders and even then disclosure is voluntary. Don't get me wrong - it's useful, but it's useful in the same way that you use a wet finger to gauge the wind...
It's not perfect that's for sure. As you said, it is only for the US. It only deals with stores that deal with one particular distributor that publishes it (albeit one of the top two IIRC). It is also the ONLY source of information that we have for sales across the industry in a large (and very important) geographic region. They're likely adding in Kickstarter funds to the total as well since those are readily available (at least the initial funding but not the post campaign pledge manager portion). When they say that the hobby has grown, that doesn't mean that your individual store has doubled sales but rather speaks to online sales, FLGS sales, and direct from manufacturer like KS. The reality is that is likely the best we'll ever get since getting "better" will require competing businesses (stores, distributors, and manufacturers) to open up their accounting files to each other. It also is completely at odds with the trends that GW itself is seeing. I wouldn't trust an ICV2 percentage that told me GW sales were up 4% since what they sell has been SEVERELY curtailed by GW with hundreds of items going to direct only; GW sales could be up 40% and they wouldn't know. What we can take a look at is that GW total sales and profits are down when according to the only non-manufacturer specific industry wide source we have says that the hobby overall has more than doubled. Whereas GW has had year after year of decreasing sales and profits despite cutting themselves to the bone, the hobby has been growing year after year. GW is still profitable and (according to the quarterly sales rankings) still the seller of the #1 minis game (40k) but the massive lead that they built up in the 1980's and 1990's has been steadily eroding. That erosion has intensified over the last couple of years likely because of their drastic changes not despite them.
WOTC was experiencing something similar during 4th edition D&D. They dropped out of the top RPG sales spot and even publicly admitted (only AFTER they announced 5th edition was being worked on) that the hobby was growing but their sales were relatively stagnant. Their brand manager said in an interview that 4e wasn't selling worse than 3rd in sheer numbers but the rest of the industry was growing but their slice of that whole pie was shrinking. GW used to have that but now since they've instituted all those changes "for the fans" in 6th/7th ed their actual unit sales have gone down on top of the industry growth. It's because they used to be so successful that they can afford to screw up so long.
ICV2 of course has obvious flaws. Even so, it is very clear that the tabletop games scene as a whole is currently healthier than it has ever been.
RPGs abound.
Euro style boardgames are booming.
There is a resurgence in old-fashioned hex map style wargames, including republished and entirely new titles.
Small manufacturers of miniatures like Hasselfree and Statuesque are doing well.
Bigger concerns such as Perry and Warlord are putting out more and more historical plastic sets, that would have been unthinkable 1 years ago.
There is ample support from companies like Litko and various terrain makers providing laser cut tokens and models.
None of this puts any kind of a figure on things but it makes it clear that the overall industry is very healthy.
Kilkrazy wrote: ICV2 of course has obvious flaws. Even so, it is very clear that the tabletop games scene as a whole is currently healthier than it has ever been.
RPGs abound. Euro style boardgames are booming. There is a resurgence in old-fashioned hex map style wargames, including republished and entirely new titles. Small manufacturers of miniatures like Hasselfree and Statuesque are doing well. Bigger concerns such as Perry and Warlord are putting out more and more historical plastic sets, that would have been unthinkable 1 years ago. There is ample support from companies like Litko and various terrain makers providing laser cut tokens and models.
None of this puts any kind of a figure on things but it makes it clear that the overall industry is very healthy.
You forgot to mention the attendance surge at big cons like Gen Con, Dragon Con, Origins, etc. as well as the GAMA Trade Show.
INDIANAPOLIS (August 19, 2014) Gen Con 2014, completed August 14-17 at the Indiana Convention Center, experienced another year of record attendance numbers and unprecedented growth. For the fourth consecutive year, Gen Con grew by more than 10%. This year, reaching more than 14% year-over-year growth with a weekend turnstile attendance of 184,699 and unique attendance of 56,614. This number surpasses 2013’s previous record of 49,530 unique attendees. Since 2009, Gen Con’s annual attendance has more than doubled.
At [Dragon Con's] 20th anniversary in 2006, there were 22,000 attendees, and the convention continued to grow, drawing 27,000 attendees in 2007, 40,000 in 2010, and 57,000 in 2013.
You forgot to mention the attendance surge at big cons like Gen Con, Dragon Con, Origins, etc. as well as the GAMA Trade Show.
INDIANAPOLIS (August 19, 2014) Gen Con 2014, completed August 14-17 at the Indiana Convention Center, experienced another year of record attendance numbers and unprecedented growth. For the fourth consecutive year, Gen Con grew by more than 10%. This year, reaching more than 14% year-over-year growth with a weekend turnstile attendance of 184,699 and unique attendance of 56,614. This number surpasses 2013’s previous record of 49,530 unique attendees. Since 2009, Gen Con’s annual attendance has more than doubled.
At [Dragon Con's] 20th anniversary in 2006, there were 22,000 attendees, and the convention continued to grow, drawing 27,000 attendees in 2007, 40,000 in 2010, and 57,000 in 2013.
Truth. It's getting harder and harder to get a block of fething rooms at GenCon. Don't the rest of you fethers have jobs? Stay home!
AllSeeingSkink wrote: BUT, you'd be naive to not realise that they have falling revenues in spite of an increased release rate (and we know that products sell best when they're first released) which is not a great sign AND it's quite clear they are shrinking while the rest of the market is growing, also not a great sign.
You see this said a lot, but without actual data on other companies, it's hard to assess whether the industry is growing, but no particular manufacturer is making fistfuls of money, or whether a small number in the industry is eating up most of the profits while many other companies are struggling, or whether every company is raking in the dough.
For example, if the industry as a whole grew 15%, but because there were 20% more entrants, that's a bad thing for all the companies that are there, even though the industry grew. Good for the consumer, of course.
Since Games Workshop, I think is the ONLY publicly traded company in the field, it's hard to answer those questions, unless you happen to work at PP or one of the other significant manufacturers.
So long as other companies aren't popping out releases like land raiders and stormravens and wraithknights, GW will always have some kind of niche, because there are people (like me!) who just love those kinds of things, in a cohesive, unified way (ie not 10 models produced by 7 different companies). There are some pretty big barriers to making those, I guess. We'll see where it all ends up in a decade or two
If only there was a publication that was put forth by one of the largest hobby distributors that regularly sells stock to most stores as well as polls them four times a year as to what they sell most (in addition to their own large sales database as a distributor)....
The hobby is 225% bigger now than it was the year 5th edition came out and had the 6th straight growth year. GW since jumping the shark has had the opposite.
I've read a bunch of those. It's not really that helpful, though, because as I said, you know the pie is a bigger one now, but you're not sure how it's split up.
First of all, when they talk about hobby, they include Collectibles (like Magic), board games, card/dice games, RPGs, and non-collectible miniature games (like 40k). The hobby that I'm talking about are only those that compete with 40k -- so definitely anything that is a miniature skirmish/wargame, maybe miniature board games, but definitely not collectibles and RPGs.
Looking exclusively at the miniature-based hobbies, there are MANY producers of models now. But how many make money? How much money do they make? That's what I'm asking: for the health of companies like Mantic and Dreamforge, as well as the smaller ones like Anvil. I mean, does Anvil's sales equate to 5% of GWs? 1% 0.1%? Less? What kind of profit does that equate to? Inquiring minds would like to know.
What specifically is the market size increase of the noncollectible miniature games category? It says that even this category was up, but it doesn't say by how much, and it doesn't say how many new entrants there were, so for all we know, although the market expanded with more companies and more products, each existing company sold less. I'm not saying that's what happened; I'm saying we don't know.
In addition, something that people don't really talk whenever they bring this report up is the category noncollectible miniatures: The top 3, in order, are pretty consistently 40k, Xwing, Warmachines. On this one that you sent, #4 and 5 are D&D Attack Wing, and Star Trek Attack Wing.
Now, this is pretty surprising to me.
First of all, that XWing outsells Warmachines. I don't really think that's great news for Warmachines, because I don't think the dollar sales of XWing is really all that spectacular. I mean, the gap between 40k and XWing must be humongous.
Secondly, the #4 and #5 games are like, tiny. I don't even know anyone that owns them. I've never seen anyone buy them. To put that in context, think of games like Malifaux and Infinity -- it means, for all the talk of their hotness, they're not even a rounding error in terms of the spending. Which is actually pretty close to my own spending -- I probably don't even spend a buck for every $100 that I spend on 40k on Infinity, not because I don't want to, but because of the tiny amount of new stuff that comes out every year, and the fact that there's no point in buying multiple boxes of the same models (for gaming purposes).
warboss wrote: WOTC was experiencing something similar during 4th edition D&D. They dropped out of the top RPG sales spot and even publicly admitted (only AFTER they announced 5th edition was being worked on) that the hobby was growing but their sales were relatively stagnant. Their brand manager said in an interview that 4e wasn't selling worse than 3rd in sheer numbers but the rest of the industry was growing but their slice of that whole pie was shrinking.
Locally, at least, 4th was selling worse than 3rd had by the end of its first year - and even their first shipment of books had over 60% returned to the publisher.
In part because the stores's first shipment of 4th edition was huge - the total actually sold for the original release was pretty close to those for 3.5 - close either way. A bit above or a bit below, but in the same ballpark.
The home office for the bookstore had a massive overstock of 4th edition material. And that massive overstock was all returned.
Returns are a big problem for RPGs sold through the book trade - but so far neither Pathfinder nor 5th edition has seen anything like the returns faced by 4th edition. *EDIT* High returns were part of what killed TSR.
By the time Pathfinder had come out the sales for 4th edition had stalled - with much of the blame being the excellent online support that WotC provided their subscribers. (Why buy a book when the online character generator allows you to use the information anyway?)
In part Pathfinder did well because the home office understocked Pathfinder - having been burned by 4th edition.
Instead of getting cases of books, most of which had to be returned, the store got two or three, sold through, reordered, sold through, reordered, sold through, got a slightly larger order, sold through, rinse and repeat.
Selling through makes a bookstore owner feel warm and tingly inside.
Locally, Pathfinder is still outselling 5th - by a small amount. Nationally... it looks like 5th has the edge.
5th is definitely doing better locally than 4th did at any time past the original release.
Both games are currently doing very well.
And the ease that Pathfinder adventures can be converted means that 5th is actually helping the sales of Paizo adventure paths - and it is likely that assist goes both ways, with Adventure Paths helping boost the sales of 5th edition.(Not the first time - the best selling D&D Essentials was the dungeon tiles set - which people could use with Pathfinder....)
Now if only WotC would cement the license for 3PP to make supplements for 5th edition....
And one important note - WotC does do market research, and does do advertising. And when they had realized that they had fumbled the ball... they took action to turn things around. (WotC had failed to do market research for 4th edition - thinking that the name was what was selling, not the game.... Turns ot that they were wrong.)
The Auld Grump - of all the dumb things that Kirby has done, deciding that market research was 'otiose' was by far the dumbest.
In the days when I played RPGs, we were very un-loyal to game systems. It could be D&D for a while, then we might move to Rifts, then to Shadowrun, then GURPS.
Even within a game system, changing game worlds was done frequently.
The real cost to change for players is very small compared to miniatures/wargaming, because all you need to do is buy and read some books. There aren't minis to paint, you don't build themed terrain, and the dollar investment is quite small.
Talys wrote: In the days when I played RPGs, we were very un-loyal to game systems. It could be D&D for a while, then we might move to Rifts, then to Shadowrun, then GURPS.
Even within a game system, changing game worlds was done frequently.
The real cost to change for players is very small compared to miniatures/wargaming, because all you need to do is buy and read some books. There aren't minis to paint, you don't build themed terrain, and the dollar investment is quite small.
Dude, I totally loved Rifts. Let's not forget Toon because there's nothing like failing your smarts roll to allow you to do something insane.
Talys wrote: In the days when I played RPGs, we were very un-loyal to game systems. It could be D&D for a while, then we might move to Rifts, then to Shadowrun, then GURPS.
Even within a game system, changing game worlds was done frequently.
The real cost to change for players is very small compared to miniatures/wargaming, because all you need to do is buy and read some books. There aren't minis to paint, you don't build themed terrain, and the dollar investment is quite small.
True, to a degree- when Warhammer first came out Citadel was mostly selling miniatures for D&D - and Games Workshop was primarily a distributor for same.
Fantasy battles (Chainmail) led to fantasy roleplaying games (D&D), led to fantasy battles (Warhammer)....
Yes, RPG groups are fickle creatures, but they continue to buy stuff for the games that they like, even when that is not the game currently being run.
Sales for 4th started high... but just kept dropping. Pathfinder sales started low, but sales are still climbing.
The peak of Pathfinder may never have been as high as 4th edition, but sales have been a lot more steady, and are growing.
WotC is being a lot more cautious with 5th edition - they managed to glut their own market during 4th edition, which was all the worse when the returns started piling back into their warehouses. %th edition seems to be avoiding that fate.
Amusingly, the model used for releasing and selling Pathfinder was the one that the original owners of WotC had planned for Dungeons & Dragons, back before selling out to Hasbro.
Turns out that the old WotC had known what they were doing....
The Auld Grump - who admits that he took great joy in the demise of 4th edition....
Talys wrote: In the days when I played RPGs, we were very un-loyal to game systems. It could be D&D for a while, then we might move to Rifts, then to Shadowrun, then GURPS.
Even within a game system, changing game worlds was done frequently.
The real cost to change for players is very small compared to miniatures/wargaming, because all you need to do is buy and read some books. There aren't minis to paint, you don't build themed terrain, and the dollar investment is quite small.
Dude, I totally loved Rifts. Let's not forget Toon because there's nothing like failing your smarts roll to allow you to do something insane.
If ever there is a Kickstarter for a rerelease of Toon....
The Auld Grump - I ran a Toon/Call of Cthulhu crossover once.... Turns out that invading the universe of Toons is not a good idea for things from beyond the stars....
TheAuldGrump wrote: True, to a degree- when Warhammer first came out Citadel was mostly selling miniatures for D&D - and Games Workshop was primarily a distributor for same.
Kind of ironic that that's all my GW models are used for these days...full circle.
I don't think there's any super special surprises coming. They've already said what the numbers, roughly, are, right (in percentage terms, anyhow)?
There is one possible surprise - will GW have yet another dividend, in spite of decreasing revenue?
And people will be surprised, either way....
A BIG surprise would be GW taking out another loan to pay dividends. (Well, I would be surprised, at any rate. I expect GW to send out a smaller dividend this year, but that they will send one out.)
The Auld Grump
I'd expect a smaller dividend payout as well, to be honest - suddenly stopping dividend payouts raises more red flags to shareholders than lowering it and blaming it on market conditions resulting in lower sales, etc. etc. which is what I'd expect them to do. If the Kirby conspiracy theories of him wanting to dump his shares at the highest value before he quits GW so he's rich are true, then he'll be trying not to upset the stock price.
Talizvar wrote:@Enigwolf: I am sure your education is hard-won, I think many (including myself) get a bit excited when people base their argument on "appeal to authority", you got me trying to lay down my creds in reply... hehe... the economic theory and models are great to throw about but it all boils down to figuring out a hypothesis and what data is available to give it some legs.
I can only point to the financial reports, their actions and some of the statements from Kirby.
I figure since he is a large shareholder, being in charge and making dividends a priority is a fantastic way to pay yourself and gives every motivation to have spare cash (and be in charge). It has the added benefit of making other shareholders happy so little resistance to be seen by "his" primary stakeholders.
The part that gets all emotional is that many would like to see GW survive past Kirby's retirement and it appears he does not care in that regard.
So, frustration runs high when so many would like to see the old GW community come back and Kirby obstructing this because it is rather irrelevant to his plans.
It is rather easy to have a rather snobbish behavior with customers when they supply money on demand and they have little impact on his actual job (we cannot "oust" him).
Not at all an unfair statement to make. My phat post was merely responding to a call-out by another person a couple of pages back that essentially said "prove that you know what you're talking about", which then turned on its own head. I don't doubt that Kirby is trying to make GW as fat as possible before he sells out (few people wouldn't?), frankly, I'm not a fan of the guy, and many GW staff don't seem to be either. I just don't think GW is going to die anytime soon despite their supposed financial troubles, because honestly even their own financial reports are too sparse for any of us to draw proper conclusions unless we're at one of their investor relations meetings. I think Talys pointed this out in another thread on GW finances, but all things come to an end eventually, and the doom-sayers are going to prophesize about the end relentlessly. Even if it means scrutinizing every bit of GW performance and finding a way to call it an omen of ill signs to come. If it's not tomorrow, it's the next month. If not the next month, the next year. So on and so forth. Eventually they'll get right, but such is the impermanence, really, of all things physical in this world. Talys did mention something which I thought was amusingly on point and shows the contradictions in the doom-sayers incessant arguments:
Talys wrote:If GW is producing a lot of stuff, it must be because it's desperate; if GW isn't producing a lot of stuff it must be that they're broke. If GW is making money, it must be because they're going broke because they're manipulating the numbers and cutting costs.
(side note: I will be more than happy to have an academic discussion about Games Workshop as a business with anyone who's interested, because I think it's a fascinating industry and company to analyze).
For what it's worth, I would love to take you up on this offer. First rounds on me
TheAuldGrump wrote: If ever there is a Kickstarter for a rerelease of Toon....
The Auld Grump - I ran a Toon/Call of Cthulhu crossover once.... Turns out that invading the universe of Toons is not a good idea for things from beyond the stars....
Who knows, it might happen; I backed the Bard's Tale IV KS and I heard that Car Wars was re-released...
I can totally see how CoC wouldn't work well in Toon-land. "You fail and become insane." "Cool, I can just auto-fail my smarts and auto-pass chutzpah now!" "Doh!"
TheAuldGrump wrote: If ever there is a Kickstarter for a rerelease of Toon....
The Auld Grump - I ran a Toon/Call of Cthulhu crossover once.... Turns out that invading the universe of Toons is not a good idea for things from beyond the stars....
Who knows, it might happen; I backed the Bard's Tale IV KS and I heard that Car Wars was re-released...
I can totally see how CoC wouldn't work well in Toon-land. "You fail and become insane." "Cool, I can just auto-fail my smarts and auto-pass chutzpah now!" "Doh!"
Fun as all Hell to play though.
I admit, it was because I had just finished running a dead serious CoC game... and felt an urgent need for silly.
Lots, and lots, and lots of silly.
The Auld Grump - yes, one of the baddies got squashed by a falling anvil....
TheAuldGrump wrote: If ever there is a Kickstarter for a rerelease of Toon....
The Auld Grump - I ran a Toon/Call of Cthulhu crossover once.... Turns out that invading the universe of Toons is not a good idea for things from beyond the stars....
Who knows, it might happen; I backed the Bard's Tale IV KS and I heard that Car Wars was re-released...
I can totally see how CoC wouldn't work well in Toon-land. "You fail and become insane." "Cool, I can just auto-fail my smarts and auto-pass chutzpah now!" "Doh!"
Fun as all Hell to play though.
I admit, it was because I had just finished running a dead serious CoC game... and felt an urgent need for silly.
Lots, and lots, and lots of silly.
The Auld Grump - yes, one of the baddies got squashed by a falling anvil....
Last off-topic post from me (sorry folks). I loved CoC but playing it was more like the bard in the "Gamers" movie in that you had to make a stack of characters to replace the ones that went crazy or died. Twilight 2000 was another fun but complicated and deadly game. "You got shot, you're dead." "but...but....I made this character 5 minutes ago and it took an hour to make it!" "sorry, you're dead."
I've read a bunch of those. It's not really that helpful, though, because as I said, you know the pie is a bigger one now, but you're not sure how it's split up.
First of all, when they talk about hobby, they include Collectibles (like Magic), board games, card/dice games, RPGs, and non-collectible miniature games (like 40k). The hobby that I'm talking about are only those that compete with 40k -- so definitely anything that is a miniature skirmish/wargame, maybe miniature board games, but definitely not collectibles and RPGs.
What is evident is that GW's slice of ANY pie is shrinking as their sales are stagnant to decreasing while their prices go up. No matter what is happening, GW is not partaking of it. As for "only those that compete with 40k", I'm sorry but you seem to have fallen for the GW investor spin hook, line, and sinker. Only in the GW boardroom and their own corporate stores do GW products exist in a vacuum. In the real world, the same dollars that could go to GW could go to paper and pen RPGs, videogames, other minis games, and non-GW accessories.
Looking exclusively at the miniature-based hobbies, there are MANY producers of models now. But how many make money? How much money do they make? That's what I'm asking: for the health of companies like Mantic and Dreamforge, as well as the smaller ones like Anvil. I mean, does Anvil's sales equate to 5% of GWs? 1% 0.1%? Less? What kind of profit does that equate to? Inquiring minds would like to know.
What specifically is the market size increase of the noncollectible miniature games category? It says that even this category was up, but it doesn't say by how much, and it doesn't say how many new entrants there were, so for all we know, although the market expanded with more companies and more products, each existing company sold less. I'm not saying that's what happened; I'm saying we don't know.
In addition, something that people don't really talk whenever they bring this report up is the category noncollectible miniatures: The top 3, in order, are pretty consistently 40k, Xwing, Warmachines.
Better is NOT the enemy of perfect. You have better information after I posted the link than you did before but you're poo-poo'ing it because it isn't perfect. What you want will never exist simply because capitalism. There is no benefit to a privately held company opening up the books to their competitors and the general public just because of curiosity. You'll never get the perfect comparisons you want but you seem keen to disregard the good data you have at your fingertips. YMMV but that seems odd to me from a common sense point of view. The only reason we have that kind of info from GW is because they chose to become publicly traded and are REQUIRED BY LAW to file those types of reports. That isn't the case for any other gaming company besides WOTC and WOTC's share of the Hasbro pie outside of MTG is barely worth noting.
On this one that you sent, #4 and 5 are D&D Attack Wing, and Star Trek Attack Wing.
Now, this is pretty surprising to me.
First of all, that XWing outsells Warmachines. I don't really think that's great news for Warmachines, because I don't think the dollar sales of XWing is really all that spectacular. I mean, the gap between 40k and XWing must be humongous.
Xwing was pretty much sold out at the distributor level within days and after a few weeks post shipment at the store level for many months. For the first year, you could sell xwing OVER retail price used but complete in the swap shop and bartertown because the demand outstripped supply so much. FFG in one of their yearly statements said that they initially ordered more of xwing than any other minis product they ever made because they new the power of the star wars brand name. They kept increasing then doubling restock shipments and new waves until they realized that they were off by an order of magnitude in their assessment of demand. I'm not sure why you're so keen to downplay the interest in arguably the most popular scifi brand ever coming out with the first almost no effort required starfighter figure collection in almost 20 years (the last being the far inferior micromachines version) that came with a very elegant and balanced ruleset as well. None of those criteria are true for GW unfortunately. Just another footnote, Xwing took Warhammer Fantasy's spot in that list. It was for years 40k, fantasy, then warmahordes FYI.
In the end, the ONLY objective data we have is that GW unit sales and profits are down while the overall industry that GW is a part of has increased substantially during that time. If you have something beyond your personal experiences (which I've tried to keep out of the conversation on my end but which mirror the above), feel free to post a link. I'll try and find the interview where WOTC said as well that the hobby was growing (and at that time they were a minis manufacturer with both Star Wars and D&D minis) but you'll probably discount it because it largely refers to an rpg company... without providing anything at all to the contrary. Things are simply NOT looking bright for GW objectively nor subjectively (see the poll here on dakka over in 40k general). The rest of the industry though seems to have rebounded nicely after the recession.
@Warboss - That report isn't new. It's been pointed out many times before. I'm sorry to say this to you, but it's not news to me
What I was trying to highlight is this possible scenario.
Year 1: Company A, B, C each make $10m in sales, total industry = $30m
Year 2: 5 new companies jump in, and industry grows to $45m. Company A, B, C each make $8m in sales.
Year 3: 10 new companies jump in, and industry grows to $70m. Every existing company makes less money.
It is possible for an industry to grow massively, yet for every participant to make less money. You see this in the food cart industry in busy cities -- even though there are 5x more food carts, all the competition means that even the great ones make less money. Likewise for traditional restaurants. Just because people are spending more eating out doesn't rule out the possibility that on average, restaurants are making less money, because concurrent with the increase in market size, there may be an increase in supply.
Is this the case here? We don't know, and probably never will.
As I and others have pointed out, there is insufficient data to draw meaningful conclusions. I concur with the facts that the industry as a whole has grown (although we don't know by how much), and that Games Workshop's revenue, as an individual participant in that industry, has shrunk. That doesn't mean that this isn't the same for many other participants in the industry, despite its overall growth.
I'm not downplaying XWing. I'm just saying that as a fraction of the sales at the stores that I visit, it's not a huge chunk. I mean, NOTHING close to Magic -- of this I'm certain. And yes, I agree: Fantasy sales are dismal. Anecdotally, Fantasy doesn't appear to be moving at all. If anything, I would have to guess that 40k sales must have increased quite a bit to pick up some of that slack.
By the way, you cannot say that the industry has increased "substantially", unless you're including non-miniature wargaming things that hobby shops sell, which isn't a meaningful metric with relation to Games Workshop, as they have no desire to enter into those markets. All we know is that "even" noncollectible miniatures have grown (not by how much; for all you know, it's by 0.05%). Card games and wargames aren't the same thing, even if they're sold by the same people, in the same way that microwaves and dishwashers and televisions might be sold at the same store, but aren't comparables.
Talys wrote: We don't know, and probably never will.
As I and others have pointed out, there is insufficient data to draw meaningful conclusions. I concur with the facts that the industry as a whole has grown (although we don't know by how much), and that Games Workshop's revenue, as an individual participant in that industry, has shrunk. That doesn't mean that this isn't the same for many other participants in the industry, despite its overall growth.
By the way, you cannot say that the industry has increased "substantially", unless you're including non-miniature wargaming things that hobby shops sell, which isn't a meaningful metric with relation to Games Workshop, as they have no desire to enter into those markets. Card games and wargames aren't the same thing, even if they're sold by the same people, in the same way that microwaves and dishwashers and televisions might be sold at the same store, but aren't comparables.
We agree on that first part at least and probably agree to disagree on the rest. Just an FYI, GW is in the business of card games, board games, and RPGs through licences. When those segments of the hobby grow, their potential profits do as well. Whether or not they *actually* do grow up to them and their licensees. They may not be directly producing those but they have oversight over all of them and make money off of each and every item sold. It's a bit forced to say that they're somehow completely divorced from them.
Well, by that metric, GW is also in the animated feature and computer game business too. And clothing and music and...
I wouldn't count non-core business, because I don't think they have a lot of control over it (other than who they license to). Maybe a creative veto? I don't even know about that.
But sure, you can count GW as a full-fledged participant in the "overall hobby business" if you want. I still think, however, it's more useful to compare them to games/hobbies in the miniature wargames space rather than, for instance, Pathfinder or Magic. Or even Tamiya motorcycles or Revell tanks. I think that from the day MtG hit the shelves in my favorite hobby store, it stomped miniatures and models of all types in sales by a wide, wide lead. People were pouring in spending a hundreds, even a thousand bucks a shot, every day. Cases of boosters were spoken for before they arrived, and people were taking them by the tens (of cases), limited only by what the store would allow them to buy. There was never that kind of fever for any GW product, ever.
Talys wrote: Well, by that metric, GW is also in the animated feature and computer game business too. And clothing and music and...
I wouldn't count non-core business, because I don't think they have a lot of control over it (other than who they license to). Maybe a creative veto? I don't even know about that.
But sure, you can count GW as a full-fledged participant in the "overall hobby business" if you want. I still think, however, it's more useful to compare them to games/hobbies in the miniature wargames space rather than, for instance, Pathfinder or Magic. Or even Tamiya motorcycles or Revell tanks. I think that from the day MtG hit the shelves in my favorite hobby store, it stomped miniatures and models of all types in sales by a wide, wide lead. People were pouring in spending a hundreds, even a thousand bucks a shot, every day. Cases of boosters were spoken for before they arrived, and people were taking them by the tens (of cases), limited only by what the store would allow them to buy. There was never that kind of fever for any GW product, ever.
The only useful comparison is against any product that can reasonably be assumed to be competing for "A.N Hobbyist's" cash when they walk through the door of their local independent hobby shop.
It would be tough to argue GW is competing against cheese, but any product that can generally be found sitting on shelves in close proximity in a typical hobby store is fair game IMO.
Talys wrote: Well, by that metric, GW is also in the animated feature and computer game business too. And clothing and music and....
They are. If you license out the rights to that industry and profit from products made for it, you are indeed "in' that business to a degree. I don't recall the exact numbers (maybe you can look them up?) but didn't the licensing income increases keep the company profitable last year or the year before and without it they would have been in the red? I believe that increased licensing was specifically mentioned as one of their key goals to make more money.
Talys wrote: Well, by that metric, GW is also in the animated feature and computer game business too. And clothing and music and....
They are. If you license out the rights to that industry and profit from products made for it, you are indeed "in' that business to a degree. I don't recall the exact numbers (maybe you can look them up?) but didn't the licensing income increases keep the company profitable last year or the year before and without it they would have been in the red? I believe that increased licensing was specifically mentioned as one of their key goals to make more money.
Well, I'm not going to argue with you about how you choose to classify GW
I don't think it's an important semantic, and you can either look choose to look at GW as a miniatures/wargame manufacturer that's licensed out its IP, or a company that wants to be into as much as it can possibly in. I'm sure they highly value their IP and would be very happy if someone would toss three hundred million dollars or so into a film and grab JMS for his next feature
TheAuldGrump wrote: Amusingly, the model used for releasing and selling Pathfinder was the one that the original owners of WotC had planned for Dungeons & Dragons, back before selling out to Hasbro.
Turns out that the old WotC had known what they were doing....
The Auld Grump - who admits that he took great joy in the demise of 4th edition....
Considering Paizo ( which publishes Pathfinder) was founded by Lisa Stevens -- an old WoTC'er who was quite involved in the TSR purchase-- and all the senoir people at Paizo are old WoTC'ers, this should not be a surprise. Perhaps they took the money they made from the Hasbro sale (they were all shareholders) and went to start Paizo with some of it?
There is no "perhaps". I went to a gencon panel a decade ago almost when Lisa Stevens was talking about the lean times in the beginning of Wizards prior to MTG when they were sued by Palladium Books and money was in short supply. They were paid occasionally in these mythical "stock" things (her words) that turned out to be a good thing.
Talys wrote: Well, by that metric, GW is also in the animated feature and computer game business too. And clothing and music and....
They are. If you license out the rights to that industry and profit from products made for it, you are indeed "in' that business to a degree. I don't recall the exact numbers (maybe you can look them up?) but didn't the licensing income increases keep the company profitable last year or the year before and without it they would have been in the red? I believe that increased licensing was specifically mentioned as one of their key goals to make more money.
I believe the numbers were 5% of revenue, 2% of profit.
So, no, licensing income didn't keep the company profitable.
Talys wrote: Well, by that metric, GW is also in the animated feature and computer game business too. And clothing and music and....
They are. If you license out the rights to that industry and profit from products made for it, you are indeed "in' that business to a degree. I don't recall the exact numbers (maybe you can look them up?) but didn't the licensing income increases keep the company profitable last year or the year before and without it they would have been in the red? I believe that increased licensing was specifically mentioned as one of their key goals to make more money.
Well, I'm not going to argue with you about how you choose to classify GW
I don't think it's an important semantic, and you can either look choose to look at GW as a miniatures/wargame manufacturer that's licensed out its IP, or a company that wants to be into as much as it can possibly in. I'm sure they highly value their IP and would be very happy if someone would toss three hundred million dollars or so into a film and grab JMS for his next feature
Typically in business strategy if you're looking at the performance of a company you're looking at its core business units, not the extensions of it through licensing, so I'd have to agree with Talys here. Otherwise formulating business strategy would be neigh-on-impossible if everyone was in everyone else's markets. Sure, you could make the argument that they are indeed in those industries too because money is being spent on it, but frankly, the licensing kickbacks for them are so low that any logical analysis of their strategy would leave them out.
Talys wrote: Well, by that metric, GW is also in the animated feature and computer game business too. And clothing and music and....
They are. If you license out the rights to that industry and profit from products made for it, you are indeed "in' that business to a degree. I don't recall the exact numbers (maybe you can look them up?) but didn't the licensing income increases keep the company profitable last year or the year before and without it they would have been in the red? I believe that increased licensing was specifically mentioned as one of their key goals to make more money.
I believe the numbers were 5% of revenue, 2% of profit.
So, no, licensing income didn't keep the company profitable.
Shouldn't that be the other way around?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although, glancing at the yearly report, royalties were at 1,442,000 pounds, while total profits were 12,396,000, making licensing a total of 11.6% of their profits (1.17% of their total revenue).
As mentioned in the preceding post, the royalties considered by themselves amounted to a significant chunk of the whole company profit.
You can look at this two ways; as a fat cherry on top of the icing on the cake, or as the tiny payload capsule of a satellite rocket that uses thousands of tons of equipment and fule to get only a tiny package into orbit.
In other words, the licensing profit is all very well but it would not remotely be possible without the enormous amount of resources invested in the regular tabletop game, retail chain and so on. Which leads to the conclusion that if the tabletop game failed, the licencing revenue would follow.
Talys wrote: Well, by that metric, GW is also in the animated feature and computer game business too. And clothing and music and....
They are. If you license out the rights to that industry and profit from products made for it, you are indeed "in' that business to a degree. I don't recall the exact numbers (maybe you can look them up?) but didn't the licensing income increases keep the company profitable last year or the year before and without it they would have been in the red? I believe that increased licensing was specifically mentioned as one of their key goals to make more money.
I believe the numbers were 5% of revenue, 2% of profit.
So, no, licensing income didn't keep the company profitable.
Shouldn't that be the other way around?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although, glancing at the yearly report, royalties were at 1,442,000 pounds, while total profits were 12,396,000, making licensing a total of 11.6% of their profits (1.17% of their total revenue).
I will not deny that I blindly cited someone in the other GW finances thread that's going parallel to this one.
As mentioned in the preceding post, the royalties considered by themselves amounted to a significant chunk of the whole company profit.
You can look at this two ways; as a fat cherry on top of the icing on the cake, or as the tiny payload capsule of a satellite rocket that uses thousands of tons of equipment and fule to get only a tiny package into orbit.
In other words, the licensing profit is all very well but it would not remotely be possible without the enormous amount of resources invested in the regular tabletop game, retail chain and so on. Which leads to the conclusion that if the tabletop game failed, the licencing revenue would follow.
Even so, GW themselves only lists their licensing costs as about 370 thousand. And at this point, the IP is pretty much self sustaining. Sure, it wouldn't be worth a damn without the games behind it, but at this point I think 40K is embedded well enough into geek consciousness that GW could die and FFG could do a pretty good job keeping it running with the RPGs alone. Which, honestly, might actually be better for the setting when I think about it...
GW itself however would not survive on licencing alone. It is the 98% of their sales of rules and kits that makes it possible to continue as a business and then take the 2% in licensing. That is what I mean.
As mentioned in the preceding post, the royalties considered by themselves amounted to a significant chunk of the whole company profit.
You can look at this two ways; as a fat cherry on top of the icing on the cake, or as the tiny payload capsule of a satellite rocket that uses thousands of tons of equipment and fule to get only a tiny package into orbit.
In other words, the licensing profit is all very well but it would not remotely be possible without the enormous amount of resources invested in the regular tabletop game, retail chain and so on. Which leads to the conclusion that if the tabletop game failed, the licencing revenue would follow.
Even so, GW themselves only lists their licensing costs as about 370 thousand. And at this point, the IP is pretty much self sustaining. Sure, it wouldn't be worth a damn without the games behind it, but at this point I think 40K is embedded well enough into geek consciousness that GW could die and FFG could do a pretty good job keeping it running with the RPGs alone. Which, honestly, might actually be better for the setting when I think about it...
I'm not sure it would. How do we know that the main buyers of the licensed stuff aren't primarily GW gamers and would move on if GW closed?
The shovelware using the IP isn't going to be of any interest to non-fans, because you can get versions of the same games with a generic skin for far less. Total War; Warhammer might remain popular though, because of the strength of the TW brand. FFG seems to be doing less and less with GW IP since they are so busy with Star Wars.
Talys wrote: I'm not downplaying XWing. I'm just saying that as a fraction of the sales at the stores that I visit, it's not a huge chunk. I mean, NOTHING close to Magic -- of this I'm certain. And yes, I agree: Fantasy sales are dismal. Anecdotally, Fantasy doesn't appear to be moving at all. If anything, I would have to guess that 40k sales must have increased quite a bit to pick up some of that slack.
Do you realise that 40K sells nothing close to Magic either ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: The only useful comparison is against any product that can reasonably be assumed to be competing for "A.N Hobbyist's" cash when they walk through the door of their local independent hobby shop.
It would be tough to argue GW is competing against cheese, but any product that can generally be found sitting on shelves in close proximity in a typical hobby store is fair game IMO.
Indeedy. Kirby's problem is that not only does he not consider the likes of CCG's, RPG's, Board game etc competition, he doesn't consider other miniatures games competition either !
Talys wrote: I'm not downplaying XWing. I'm just saying that as a fraction of the sales at the stores that I visit, it's not a huge chunk. I mean, NOTHING close to Magic -- of this I'm certain. And yes, I agree: Fantasy sales are dismal. Anecdotally, Fantasy doesn't appear to be moving at all. If anything, I would have to guess that 40k sales must have increased quite a bit to pick up some of that slack.
Do you realise that 40K sells nothing close to Magic either ?
At this point in time, that's just plain rhetorical. Worldwide in this industry, nothing sells close to Magic.
At this point in time, that's just plain rhetorical. Worldwide in this industry, nothing sells close to Magic.
That's the point; you can't use Magic as a frame of reference for how well something is selling.
With X-Wing, whilst it's a relatively low buy in, it's available in a lot more places than any other tabletop game, and it seems most gamers have some. It's sales are only really restricted by production capacity (which they've been ramping up as quickly as possible). As mentioned, because demand outstripped supply for so long, used items were being traded for well above RRP.
X Wing is the closest thing I've seen to plastic crack. Its absolutely hit the sweet spot of getting a game that can be sold in bookshops to parents looking to keep little jimmy quiet, and quickly building up to a hugely competitive tournament game.
Its got a very tight ruleset, excellent support from FFG and its prepainted nature means you can be playing in minutes. Most of my local FLGs in London sell out of it in days when in stock, meaning FFG do need to improve their distribution a bit. But thats a great problem to have!
If you compare one local store which opened as a warhammer store but gets maybe 2-4 warhammer players a week versus 20-40 xwing players (overwhelmingly ex GW fans) and you quickly see that X Wing is where most people are going - cheaply accesible and huge fun to play. The pricing is sensible as £10-£12 per ship is pocket money prices and means I don't think twice about buying a new ship. When you only need two or three ships to play a tournament game, you realise its a licence for FFG to print money.
If GW had any brains they'd be looking at the scary success of FFG and become very afraid.
At this point in time, that's just plain rhetorical. Worldwide in this industry, nothing sells close to Magic.
That's the point; you can't use Magic as a frame of reference for how well something is selling.
With X-Wing, whilst it's a relatively low buy in, it's available in a lot more places than any other tabletop game, and it seems most gamers have some. It's sales are only really restricted by production capacity (which they've been ramping up as quickly as possible). As mentioned, because demand outstripped supply for so long, used items were being traded for well above RRP.
When X-Wing first came out, I could buy some at the local Books-A-Million!* - something that I have not been able to do with WH40K since the very early nineties.
The Lord of the Rings box was available, at Waldenbooks. (And sold well.)
And, yes... Magic was and is still available at BAM! - but I have no idea as to how much it makes for them or how well it sells. (Mostly because I do not look. I can see how the various RPG books are doing because I pop in every Tuesday to see what is new.)
X-Wing, Magic, Dungeons & Dragons, Magic the Gathering, and even Settlers of Catan get more exposure in the book store than WH40K. The stores have BL books - but they are spined.
The Auld Grump
* BAM! would still have X-Wing, if they could get it.....
jim30 wrote: When you only need two or three ships to play a tournament game, you realise its a licence for FFG to print money.
If GW had any brains they'd be looking at the scary success of FFG and become very afraid.
Careful now, if you're starting to talk about tournaments, you'll realize that pretty much any FFG LCG is set up to require you to buy 2 to 3 core sets in order to have a competitive list. It's pretty much always been this case. And that becomes prohibitively wasteful, because people like me don't want to buy 3 core sets just to have the number of upgrade cards I need, while I toss out the rest of the stuff I paid for (or join the rest of the world in trying to ebay it off at meager prices).
You're framing that as a criticism when in fact it's the reality for most any game played in a competitive environment within the wargaming sphere, and X Wing is simply somewhat better in that regard (although not hugely, FFG are very good at including upgrade cards in ships that aren't optimised for them and often lists require multiples of one card available in one or a few boosters - and there's no proxies in sanctioned events.)
The competitive scene of pretty much any activity requires greater investment than just to do it casually.
Even then, the cost of 3 core sets (or hell, 3 core sets and 5 other ship types) is still a feth ton cheaper than a 1500pt 40K list with attendant rulebooks and codices.
3 XWing core sets is a similar price to DV by the way and gives you a pretty limited range of options (good luck at that tournament! ), I mean it doesn't even include all the options for the XWing or Tie..
As Enigwolf points out you are then in the additional booster territory which as my own collection of Xwing ships will attest, is not a ton cheaper than any system.
3 XWing core sets is a similar price to DV by the way and gives you a pretty limited range of options (good luck at that tournament! ), I mean it doesn't even include all the options for the XWing or Tie..
As Enigwolf points out you are then in the additional booster territory which as my own collection of Xwing ships will attest, is not a ton cheaper than any system.
Why would you wan't to buy 3 x-wing core sets?
For their LCGs, this is pretty much the norm (even though I did win a Netrunner 2014 regional tournament and I only ever bought a single core set), but for X-Wing you don't get any advantage in buying multiples of it. You are much better served buying expansion packs.
Most people buy multiple X-Wing starters, for the extra Tie fighters and dice, or to swap with a friend.
MaxT wrote: Even then, the cost of 3 core sets (or hell, 3 core sets and 5 other ship types) is still a feth ton cheaper than a 1500pt 40K list with attendant rulebooks and codices.
3 X-Wing starter sets at RRP comes in at only a few bucks more than the the worst case 40KBRB + Codex: Marines. (£90 Vs £85), before you even touch a mini. Of course, that drops by £25 if you get the mini book, or goes up if you need more than 1 Codex (allies or a supplement).
Going back slightly tho, I think most agree that the tabletop games industry is expanding, and GW are stagnating/shrinking. There's plenty enough circumstantial evidence of the first and GW's accounts show the second.
So, what are GW doing about it? Why haven't they tried to take a piece of the pie of these other related areas? Why haven't they got gateway games into book/boardgame/toy shops alongside X-Wing? They stopped selling in Hobbycraft not so long ago. Why on earth are the licencing out their IP for buttons to FFG who're then making money selling games of of it? Surely they can make more than a couple of hundred k making and selling those types of games themselves. Why don't they have a range of pocket money models with a simple game attached? Why aren't those in every newsagent alongside Lego men bags and trading cards? Why don't they have a range of board games in wider distribution channels?
With X-Wing, whilst it's a relatively low buy in, it's available in a lot more places than any other tabletop game, and it seems most gamers have some. It's sales are only really restricted by production capacity (which they've been ramping up as quickly as possible). As mentioned, because demand outstripped supply for so long, used items were being traded for well above RRP.
This is a legitimate point. I've found X-Wing starter boxes in all sorts of places, from bookstores to Wal-Mart. I think that reduces some intangible barriers to entry: things like general accessibility to product, awareness of the product, etc.
MaxT wrote: Going back slightly tho, I think most agree that the tabletop games industry is expanding, and GW are stagnating/shrinking. There's plenty enough circumstantial evidence of the first and GW's accounts show the second.
So, what are GW doing about it? Why haven't they tried to take a piece of the pie of these other related areas? Why haven't they got gateway games into book/boardgame/toy shops alongside X-Wing? They stopped selling in Hobbycraft not so long ago. Why on earth are the licencing out their IP for buttons to FFG who're then making money selling games of of it? Surely they can make more than a couple of hundred k making and selling those types of games themselves. Why don't they have a range of pocket money models with a simple game attached? Why aren't those in every newsagent alongside Lego men bags and trading cards? Why don't they have a range of board games in wider distribution channels?
MaxT wrote: Going back slightly tho, I think most agree that the tabletop games industry is expanding, and GW are stagnating/shrinking. There's plenty enough circumstantial evidence of the first and GW's accounts show the second.
So, what are GW doing about it? Why haven't they tried to take a piece of the pie of these other related areas? Why haven't they got gateway games into book/boardgame/toy shops alongside X-Wing? They stopped selling in Hobbycraft not so long ago. Why on earth are the licencing out their IP for buttons to FFG who're then making money selling games of of it? Surely they can make more than a couple of hundred k making and selling those types of games themselves. Why don't they have a range of pocket money models with a simple game attached? Why aren't those in every newsagent alongside Lego men bags and trading cards? Why don't they have a range of board games in wider distribution channels?
Sigh.
Because that would require thinking and effort.
And Marketing, and money... and actual development talent.
Money really isn't an issue, they paid out ~£11.5 million in dividends in January, if they'd instead reinvested that in the business they'd have had plenty of dosh for the development of related areas.
Thinking, effort, marketing and talent on the other hand.....
notprop wrote: To be fair the 40KRPGs that FFG started out with used the self same system that Black Industries (GW) developed.
Licencing makes a hole lot of sense. Lots of money, none of the Risk.
£1.4 million, or just over 1% of revenue for all licences combined is not lots of money.
Licencing to some companies does make sense, in that you're correct. Making computer games for example is nowhere near GW's core business, so licencing that out is sensible. (Giving a licence to any old gakky mobile game is another debate). But RPG's for example are essentially a combination of rules and fiction. Erm hang on, that's exactly GW's core business, evidenced by Codex's. GW are a game making company that licences out making games to a direct competitor, for them to profit far more from than themselves. Can you think of any other company that does that?
£1.4M is allot of money in anyone's book. Its also a sum that reoccurs every year for a set term. It's bolted on turnover paid at the start of the licence (ordinarily) which is them smoothed over the term of the licence.
Now imagine you work for a company and loose £1.4M or 1% of turnover for them and imagine what happens.
GW makes plastic toys. That is their core business.
Printing books is not done by GW, nor is distributing them to bookshops. Licensing makes perfect sense.
agnosto wrote: 1.4 million is nothing to a multi-natl with over 400 physical stores; that's not even enough to keep the lights on for an appreciable length of time.
Losing 1% of their revenue, on top of the losses of revenue from their stores, is quite a big deal.
1% of turnover that generates a disproportional amount of your profit (5-10% depending on source) is definitely not nothing.
Licensing make sooo much sense for GW it's hard to see what even the most pessimistic of people would try to argue it is somehow a negative thing to be given money by someone to carry out a task that you are not set up to undertake at virtually no cost?!?!
I'm not sure I can think of any company who would consider 1% of their revenue to be ''nothing''. 1.4 million is a significant amount of money to GW, especially when it's almost entirely profit. They're not that big of a company.
Licensing make sooo much sense for GW it's hard to see what even the most pessimistic of people would try to argue it is somehow a negative thing to be given money by someone to carry out a task that you are not set up to undertake at virtually no cost?!?!
Licensing makes sense to a company when those licenses aren't competing with their core products.
In GW's case, licensing video games, movies, tv shows, etc, makes perfect sense.
Licensing things like card games, RPGs and board games, that they could "easily" produce in house creating a much higher revenue stream? That doesn't make as much sense.
1% of turnover that generates a disproportional amount of your profit (5-10% depending on source) is definitely not nothing.
Licensing make sooo much sense for GW it's hard to see what even the most pessimistic of people would try to argue it is somehow a negative thing to be given money by someone to carry out a task that you are not set up to undertake at virtually no cost?!?!
Who said that they were losing it? But let's say that they did; they've already lost much more than that last year and didn't bat an eye. Let's put this in a personal perspective, your company hits hard times and hands down a 1% pay cut to all staff. Are you suddenly destitute? Sure, you'll miss the money but the world didn't end it just means you might not take that trip next summer.
Another way to look at this. Kirby gave himself a 26-ish% percent pay raise last year as the company dropped in revenue around 10%. 10% didn't even make the company look at executive compensation decisions. 1% is nothing to GW.
Licensing make sooo much sense for GW it's hard to see what even the most pessimistic of people would try to argue it is somehow a negative thing to be given money by someone to carry out a task that you are not set up to undertake at virtually no cost?!?!
Licensing makes sense to a company when those licenses aren't competing with their core products.
In GW's case, licensing video games, movies, tv shows, etc, makes perfect sense.
Licensing things like card games, RPGs and board games, that they could "easily" produce in house creating a much higher revenue stream? That doesn't make as much sense.
I appreciate that your term "easily" is in inverted commas, because I don't think GW's forte these days is in producing card games, RPGs, and board games. Have they got some experience in it? Maybe. But remember that even the 40kCCG years ago was licensed to Sabertooth Games, not designed in-house. We don't know the exact state of their in-house designers and writers, so who are we to comment on whether them making the games would be "easy". Again, we don't even know the terms of the licensing agreement, whether GW is taking a % of revenues that FFG makes off of their licensed products, whether its a fixed sum annually, or whether its a compound of both. What we do know is that FFG can't make GW miniatures, which insinuates that GW considers miniatures to be their core business, and doesn't want their licensees to cannibalize on that.
Besides, given the ambiguous writing of a lot of the 40k game system's rules, do you really want them writing different sets of rules for new game systems based on their IP, when FFG has a crapton of experience writing very clear and easily-understood rules? Plus the supply chain connections and expertise to distribute these game systems to the relevant shops?
Licensing make sooo much sense for GW it's hard to see what even the most pessimistic of people would try to argue it is somehow a negative thing to be given money by someone to carry out a task that you are not set up to undertake at virtually no cost?!?!
Licensing makes sense to a company when those licenses aren't competing with their core products.
In GW's case, licensing video games, movies, tv shows, etc, makes perfect sense.
Licensing things like card games, RPGs and board games, that they could "easily" produce in house creating a much higher revenue stream? That doesn't make as much sense.
It would also create a much larger expense stream. A license is 99%+ profit. Doing it in-house would involve hiring new game developers, handling printing and distribution, additional space in stores for merchandise, etc. It might increase revenue generated, but there is absolutely no guarantee that it would result in higher actual profit.
If doing it themselves would always result in higher profits, nobody would issue licenses.
I appreciate that your term "easily" is in inverted commas, because I don't think GW's forte these days is in producing card games, RPGs, and board games. Have they got some experience in it? Maybe. But remember that even the 40kCCG years ago was licensed to Sabertooth Games, not designed in-house. We don't know the exact state of their in-house designers and writers, so who are we to comment on whether them making the games would be "easy". Again, we don't even know the terms of the licensing agreement, whether GW is taking a % of revenues that FFG makes off of their licensed products, whether its a fixed sum annually, or whether its a compound of both. What we do know is that FFG can't make GW miniatures, which insinuates that GW considers miniatures to be their core business, and doesn't want their licensees to cannibalize on that.
Besides, given the ambiguous writing of a lot of the 40k game system's rules, do you really want them writing different sets of rules for new game systems based on their IP, when FFG has a crapton of experience writing very clear and easily-understood rules? Plus the supply chain connections and expertise to distribute these game systems to the relevant shops?
No, I completely agree with you that FFG makes much better products out of those licenses than GW could currently make. The current crop of incompetents working in GW's design team couldn't write a decent game, of any type, if their lives depended on it.
When I said "easy" I was commenting on the fact that they already have (or should have in any case), all the tools for producing those types of products in house and have even made similar products themselves. Excluding card games, GW has produced both board games and RPGs in fairly recent times.
Even if in their now reduced capacity GW can no longer make them, they throw away millions of pounds each year in what Kirby calls "truly surplus cash" paying dividends because they claim that they have no other use for the money. Part of that cash could and should be used to explore these alternative revenue streams and to take advantage of the huge boom that the boardgame and cardgame markets are currently experiencing.
I appreciate that your term "easily" is in inverted commas, because I don't think GW's forte these days is in producing card games, RPGs, and board games. Have they got some experience in it? Maybe. But remember that even the 40kCCG years ago was licensed to Sabertooth Games, not designed in-house. We don't know the exact state of their in-house designers and writers, so who are we to comment on whether them making the games would be "easy". Again, we don't even know the terms of the licensing agreement, whether GW is taking a % of revenues that FFG makes off of their licensed products, whether its a fixed sum annually, or whether its a compound of both. What we do know is that FFG can't make GW miniatures, which insinuates that GW considers miniatures to be their core business, and doesn't want their licensees to cannibalize on that.
Besides, given the ambiguous writing of a lot of the 40k game system's rules, do you really want them writing different sets of rules for new game systems based on their IP, when FFG has a crapton of experience writing very clear and easily-understood rules? Plus the supply chain connections and expertise to distribute these game systems to the relevant shops?
No, I completely agree with you that FFG makes much better products out of those licenses than GW could currently make. The current crop of incompetents working in GW's design team couldn't write a decent game, of any type, if their lives depended on it.
When I said "easy" I was commenting on the fact that they already have (or should have in any case), all the tools for producing those types of products in house and have even made similar products themselves. Excluding card games, GW has produced both board games and RPGs in fairly recent times.
Even if in their now reduced capacity GW can no longer make them, they throw away millions of pounds each year in what Kirby calls "truly surplus cash" paying dividends because they claim that they have no other use for the money. Part of that cash could and should be used to explore these alternative revenue streams and to take advantage of the huge boom that the boardgame and cardgame markets are currently experiencing.
Thanks the for explanation. Then yes, I do completely agree with you. Personally, I'm don't know why GW is a publicly-traded company, and I want to understand the business strategy behind them having done so eons ago. FASA/Ral Partha were never public, and neither was Wizards of the Coast, nor are companies like FFG now.
It would also create a much larger expense stream. A license is 99%+ profit. Doing it in-house would involve hiring new game developers, handling printing and distribution, additional space in stores for merchandise, etc. It might increase revenue generated, but there is absolutely no guarantee that it would result in higher actual profit.
If doing it themselves would always result in higher profits, nobody would issue licenses.
Licenses are issued for things that aren't a part of a company's core business.
Making board games, RPG's and card games are all things that fall within GW's core business.
Card games are nothing more than rules, artwork and printing. GW already does all of those.
Boardgames are nothing more than rules, artwork, miniatures / tokens and printing. GW already does all of those.
RPGs are nothing more than rules, story, artwork and printing. GW already does all of those.
It would also create a much larger expense stream. A license is 99%+ profit. Doing it in-house would involve hiring new game developers, handling printing and distribution, additional space in stores for merchandise, etc. It might increase revenue generated, but there is absolutely no guarantee that it would result in higher actual profit.
If doing it themselves would always result in higher profits, nobody would issue licenses.
Licenses are issued for things that aren't a part of a company's core business.
Making board games, RPG's and card games are all things that fall within GW's core business.
Card games are nothing more than rules, artwork and printing. GW already does all of those. Boardgames are nothing more than rules, artwork, miniatures / tokens and printing. GW already does all of those. RPGs are nothing more than rules, story, artwork and printing. GW already does all of those.
I would argue that board games are part of GW's extended business rather than core business, which is miniatures & wargames. At one point, RPGs were part of GW's core business, but it's not anymore.
The core business of an organization is that organization's main or essential activity. It isn't "everything they do and everything they've ever done". It expresses what they do, not what they could do or are capable of.
To give an example, a web design company might make promotional flyers for its customers. The desktop publishing aspect of their business is not their core business even though it derives some revenue; their core business is web design.
From the business perspective (as an investor, bank, accountant, or management) the core business comprises a significant percentage of at least one of: revenue, cost, opportunity cost, or talent.
Enigwolf wrote: Personally, I'm don't know why GW is a publicly-traded company, and I want to understand the business strategy behind them having done so eons ago. FASA/Ral Partha were never public, and neither was Wizards of the Coast, nor are companies like FFG now.
Enigwolf wrote: Personally, I'm don't know why GW is a publicly-traded company, and I want to understand the business strategy behind them having done so eons ago. FASA/Ral Partha were never public, and neither was Wizards of the Coast, nor are companies like FFG now.
Well, if you make more than 150,000 pounds a year it would be the most bang for the buck mainly receiving income from dividends.
Well, you don't need to be a public company to issue dividends, and so far as I'm aware, dividends from a public company aren't taxed any differently than dividends from a private company (in Canada this is the case for sure). On the other hand, there are capital gains exemptions, such that the first X number of dollars (several hundred thousand in Canada) that you make from the sale of shares ("capital gains") are tax free, and this is a huge thing. I made quite a lot of money this way Also, in North America, capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than regular income (to encourage investment). Hence, Warren Buffet saying that he pays less income tax than his secretary. Keep in mind that dividends are NOT capital gains; the sale of shares (at a higher price than their acquisition) are.
The two most common reasons for going public are an exit strategy for founders and a means of raising capital.
With respect to the former, you can sell 49% of your company and still maintain absolute control over it, so a lot of folks think, "why not"? It's a way to get a bunch of money for the people to cash out some. With most companies, you can probably sell of 70% of it and still safely retain control. Most of the shareholders will never attend or vote, or just give management their proxy. With some companies, the founders can sell of 90%+ and still retain control. Look at Microsoft -- as far as anyone is concerned there, "it's Bill's company", and what he wants, goes, even though I don't think he even owns 3% of the shares anymore. Steve Jobs owned a negligible percentage of Apple after his return; yet, the company was essentially his to command until his death.
In GW's case, I think it is more the former than the latter. Their cashflows are very strong, and as much as I think Kirby is a bit of a douche, he is right; there's not really anything useful they can do with that cash, their reserves are quite high and very stable, and the responsible thing to do for a company in such a situation is to pay it out (not horde it).
The other thing they could do with all their cash is scoop up other companies, but they seem to have zero interest in this.
Just click on the balance sheet. Their cash position in 2014 was better than 2013, but both are very healthy for a company of their size, with their obligations, etc. Most companies would love to be un those shoes.
Businesses make investments, though. Sure, some years they'll have a little more cash than other years. The GW bank account is about as good as it gets for a small cap company of reasonable success, and they are a debt-free company.
Often, people overemphasize p&l and don't put enough emphsis on balance sheet and cashflow statement. The real crux of it is often in the notes, too, because that's often where the 'why' is embedded.
For a small public company, it isn't hard to get an auditor to see things your way, too.
To a previous point, going public is a great way to cash out some money, but it's usually TERRIBLE for a small business. I wish in our company we never had, and many C-level execs and founders of small businesses have expressed the same to me, whether it's helicopters, tours, or tech. On paper, it's so easy, you get so much money and liquidity, and all that. But in practice it totally changes how a company works in a very short period of time, and pulling down your pants for everyone to see sucks.
I am not a fan of companies GW's size being public, frankly. At about a billion dollars of revenue, or at least the prospect of it, I'd think it's the only way to go, but I think with its cash flows and profitability, and apparently no desire to enter other markets (acquisitions), my opinion is that fans and founders alike would have been happier with them as a private company.
Then again, I didn't make millions from the deal and have a liquid asset to pass to my successors, pr rather, wasn't the one faced with that option, so it's easy for me to say
GW's problem is not their current balance sheet, cash in hand, cash flow, or profit and loss account. It is the recent trend of declining sales. At some point, if sales should continue to decline year on year, the company's fixed cost base will inevitably change the profit into a loss, eroding cash and reducing the balance sheet, etc.
Each half year's statement, or annual report, is a snapshot of a moment in time. The longer term trend is what is important.
To be clear, the company is currently in a financially healthy position, but its market position has been growing worse for some time and this should give some cause for concern.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW's problem is not their current balance sheet, cash in hand, cash flow, or profit and loss account. It is the recent trend of declining sales. At some point, if sales should continue to decline year on year, the company's fixed cost base will inevitably change the profit into a loss, eroding cash and reducing the balance sheet, etc.
Each half year's statement, or annual report, is a snapshot of a moment in time. The longer term trend is what is important.
To be clear, the company is currently in a financially healthy position, but its market position has been growing worse for some time and this should give some cause for concern.
Yes, the opposite trend would be better for them!
The question is, does management want to do do the things that would take the company that way. It feels to me that GW is a company that says, "we'll do what we want and the people who like it will give us money", rather than, "what do we need to do to make more money?"
I can actually relate to both, and like I said, at some point GW may have to suck it up and do stuff they don't like so much in order to make the money they need to keep the lights on.
Thanks the for explanation. Then yes, I do completely agree with you. Personally, I'm don't know why GW is a publicly-traded company, and I want to understand the business strategy behind them having done so eons ago. FASA/Ral Partha were never public, and neither was Wizards of the Coast, nor are companies like FFG now.
There was an interview from a (now defunct) wargames magazine with Rick Priestley and John Stallard five or so years back. Both mentioned being part of the management buy out that made GW a publicly traded company. As I recall, Bryan Ansell wanted to get out of the business at the same time as the company was poised for large scale growth. Stallard, leading the sales team, realized they could run profitable stores in much smaller locations than they thought previously. The vision was that every boy should own a football, nintendo, and warhammer box set. They had the vision, but needed the cash to do it..
I believe the interview also mentioned that Kirby was one of the best GM's the two of them knew and an avid gamer at the time. Funny how things pan out.
I agree with you. I think GW management have a vision, or at least an idea of how they want things to work, but it doesn't seem to be working at the moment as well as it might.
Azreal13 wrote: You pay a lower rate of tax in the UK from dividends than you do from salaried income.
Take it from a former company director.
Also, GW's cash reserves have taken a beating in the last couple of years IIRC.
Given out in the form of those same dividends....
I wonder what would have happened if Kirby had put that same money into, let's say Market Research and/or advertising?
The Auld Grump
Or spent it on development, or even buying out companies like ffg. They had prettg serious cash to invest and gave it all back to the share holders saying they literally have nothing to do with it.
Azreal13 wrote: You pay a lower rate of tax in the UK from dividends than you do from salaried income.
Take it from a former company director.
Also, GW's cash reserves have taken a beating in the last couple of years IIRC.
Given out in the form of those same dividends....
I wonder what would have happened if Kirby had put that same money into, let's say Market Research and/or advertising?
The Auld Grump
Or spent it on development, or even buying out companies like ffg. They had prettg serious cash to invest and gave it all back to the share holders saying they literally have nothing to do with it.
GW spends a lot on developing modelling-related stuff, and I echo the sentiment that GW NOT buying FFG is a good thing. Since they don't seem to want to expand beyond their comfort zone, it's a great thing for GW, smaller companies, and their fans that GW never went on a Microsoft-esque spending spree.
I think at one point they could have easily done it, and in the process ruined a dozen budding great companies.
Thanks the for explanation. Then yes, I do completely agree with you. Personally, I'm don't know why GW is a publicly-traded company, and I want to understand the business strategy behind them having done so eons ago. FASA/Ral Partha were never public, and neither was Wizards of the Coast, nor are companies like FFG now.
There was an interview from a (now defunct) wargames magazine with Rick Priestley and John Stallard five or so years back. Both mentioned being part of the management buy out that made GW a publicly traded company. As I recall, Bryan Ansell wanted to get out of the business at the same time as the company was poised for large scale growth. Stallard, leading the sales team, realized they could run profitable stores in much smaller locations than they thought previously. The vision was that every boy should own a football, nintendo, and warhammer box set. They had the vision, but needed the cash to do it..
I believe the interview also mentioned that Kirby was one of the best GM's the two of them knew and an avid gamer at the time. Funny how things pan out.
Talys wrote: GW spends a lot on developing modelling-related stuff,
They spend a tiny amount of their revenue on development.
Their cost of sales includes development, and hovers around 25% of their revenue. So all other associated costs, ie production, packaging etc plus development.
So yes, by the metric of the annual income of your average wargamer, a lot, but relatively speaking? Not so much.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In fact, in 2011/12, which is the last report they had design and development as a separate entry and not lumped in with COGS, the sum total was <£500k
Kilkrazy wrote: GW's problem is not their current balance sheet, cash in hand, cash flow, or profit and loss account. It is the recent trend of declining sales. At some point, if sales should continue to decline year on year, the company's fixed cost base will inevitably change the profit into a loss, eroding cash and reducing the balance sheet, etc.
Each half year's statement, or annual report, is a snapshot of a moment in time. The longer term trend is what is important.
To be clear, the company is currently in a financially healthy position, but its market position has been growing worse for some time and this should give some cause for concern.
Yes, the opposite trend would be better for them!
The question is, does management want to do do the things that would take the company that way. It feels to me that GW is a company that says, "we'll do what we want and the people who like it will give us money", rather than, "what do we need to do to make more money?"
I can actually relate to both, and like I said, at some point GW may have to suck it up and do stuff they don't like so much in order to make the money they need to keep the lights on.
The question is: Will they realize they need to change in time and will they even know what to change? (seeing as how they pridefully don't do market research.)
Yes, as of now, GW is in the black. No one's saying otherwise.
What they are saying as "If this trend continues, they will go out of business sooner than later."
The problem is, their current direction is what's causing declining sales and they show no sign of altering their course. Thus, if they continue as they are, they will fold.
Then you won't have new space marines anymore.
In fact, in 2011/12, which is the last report they had design and development as a separate entry and not lumped in with COGS, the sum total was <£500k
I think that molds or new paintbrushes go under COGS. In comparison, what do you think other companies spend on nonproduct R&D?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: The question is: Will they realize they need to change in time and will they even know what to change? (seeing as how they pridefully don't do market research.)
Yes, as of now, GW is in the black. No one's saying otherwise.
What they are saying as "If this trend continues, they will go out of business sooner than later."
The problem is, their current direction is what's causing declining sales and they show no sign of altering their course. Thus, if they continue as they are, they will fold.
Then you won't have new space marines anymore.
As a personal matter, I'll cross the bridge or no new space marines when I get there. I certainly wont lose sleep over it
I think it's equally prideful to think that any of us could do a better job, because at the end or the day, Kirby et al run a more successful business than I ever have.
I think it's equally prideful to think that any of us could do a better job, because at the end or the day, Kirby et al run a more successful business than I ever have.
There are obvious problems with GW's direction. (supported by shrinking sales numbers that are clear to anyone that can do basic arithmetic) Some are obvious and don't take experts to see. It's not that we can do better, it's that THEY should do better. It's supposed to be their job to fix it.
I think it's equally prideful to think that any of us could do a better job, because at the end or the day, Kirby et al run a more successful business than I ever have.
There are obvious problems with GW's direction. (supported by shrinking sales numbers that are clear to anyone that can do basic arithmetic) Some are obvious and don't take experts to see. It's not that we can do better, it's that THEY should do better. It's supposed to be their job to fix it.
This is one or the downsides of being a public company -- people judge you solely by metrics like, did you sell more? As a private company, those metrics would be different. Often, the most successful of private companies are ones who are happy doing what they're good at and what they want -- not necessarily at profit maximization.
I mean, have you ever considered that GW might actually he happy with where they are and satisfied with their performance overall, even proud of it?
If it were my (private) company, it would be more important to me for my people to be doing what they love, than for me to make more money each year. At some point, the only difference is how much dividends get paid out, and at that point, I would not mind trading profit for satisfaction.
Would I care about who I piss off or alienate? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on a lot of things.
I think it's equally prideful to think that any of us could do a better job, because at the end or the day, Kirby et al run a more successful business than I ever have.
There are obvious problems with GW's direction. (supported by shrinking sales numbers that are clear to anyone that can do basic arithmetic) Some are obvious and don't take experts to see. It's not that we can do better, it's that THEY should do better. It's supposed to be their job to fix it.
This is one or the downsides of being a public company -- people judge you solely by metrics like, did you sell more? As a private company, those metrics would be different. Often, the most successful of private companies are ones who are happy doing what they're good at and what they want -- not necessarily at profit maximization.
I mean, have you ever considered that GW might actually he happy with where they are and satisfied with their performance overall, even proud of it?
If it were my (private) company, it would be more important to me for my people to be doing what they love, than for me to make more money each year. At some point, the only difference is how much dividends get paid out, and at that point, I would not mind trading profit for satisfaction.
Would I care about who I piss off or alienate? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on a lot of things.
That sounds all good and artistic, but it doesn't hold up in real life.
I say that as a professional artist and author.
You can't just pull the "artist card" and say you can just do whatever you want.
There are only two hard rules of writing
If you write something that the fans hate, don't do it.
If you write something they think is awesome, do it.
In in end I'm running a business and I need to by food.
If they wanted to do an art project they should go do that and leave the company to someone else.
But it's true, I didn't consider the possibility that they want to fail. I gave them more credit than they deserve it seems.
It's the job of a business to make money. Of course you'll be judged on how much money you take in. That's the point of having a business.
People often give the excuse that GW is a business and they shouldn't care for their fans. Well, if they're failing as a business because a lot of fans don't feel GW cares then where does that put us?
MWHistorian wrote: That sounds all good and artistic, but it doesn't hold up in real life.
I say that as a professional artist and author.
You can't just pull the "artist card" and say you can just do whatever you want.
There are only two hard rules of writing
If you write something that the fans hate, don't do it.
If you write something they think is awesome, do it.
In in end I'm running a business and I need to by food.
If they wanted to do an art project they should go do that and leave the company to someone else.
But it's true, I didn't consider the possibility that they want to fail. I gave them more credit than they deserve it seems.
I write computer software, and I make pretty good money. I could make (a lot) more money if I wanted to, and worked on projects and people I don't really like. I'm not an artist but I care about more things than profit.
And yet, I don't consider myself for being a failure.
If I had to guess, GW feeds more mouths and makes more people happy than you. And me. Put together! for the rest of our lives! does that make us failures?
MWHistorian wrote: That sounds all good and artistic, but it doesn't hold up in real life.
I say that as a professional artist and author.
You can't just pull the "artist card" and say you can just do whatever you want.
There are only two hard rules of writing
If you write something that the fans hate, don't do it.
If you write something they think is awesome, do it.
In in end I'm running a business and I need to by food.
If they wanted to do an art project they should go do that and leave the company to someone else.
But it's true, I didn't consider the possibility that they want to fail. I gave them more credit than they deserve it seems.
I write computer software, and I make pretty good money. I could make (a lot) more money if I wanted to, and worked on projects and people I don't really like. I'm not an artist but I care about more things than profit.
And yet, I don't consider myself for being a failure.
If I had to guess, GW feeds more mouths and makes more people happy than you. And me. Put together! for the rest of our lives! does that make us failures?
If such a large percentage of my fans were upset with my work? Then yes.
heartserenade wrote: It's the job of a business to make money. Of course you'll be judged on how much money you take in. That's the point of having a business.
People often give the excuse that GW is a business and they shouldn't care for their fans. Well, if they're failing as a business because a lot of fans don't feel GW cares then where does that put us?
Actually, the point of starting a business is often because it's something you're good at that's fun and that you can make a living off of. Making money is important, but it's not the ONLY thing that's important.
Having happy fans is important too, but not everyone has to be a fan for you to be successful. Just enough people that you can do what you want to, and make as much money as you want to.
heartserenade wrote: It's the job of a business to make money. Of course you'll be judged on how much money you take in. That's the point of having a business.
People often give the excuse that GW is a business and they shouldn't care for their fans. Well, if they're failing as a business because a lot of fans don't feel GW cares then where does that put us?
It is the job of some businesses to only make money first and foremost, but not all. A lot of starts-ups, these days, operate on the promise of doing something cool, or making lives easier somewhere, somehow, for example.
If such a large percentage of my fans were upset with my work? Then yes.
And yet they must still have a lot of fans. At some point, as I said, if that number falls too low, they have to suck it up and do something they don't want to do.
To give you a comparable, nobody calls Mark at Dreamforge for being a failure for not growing past a 1 person company. It's his choice not to grow past that, and I'm happy that he's found his groove.
If such a large percentage of my fans were upset with my work? Then yes.
And yet they must still have a lot of fans. At some point, as I said, if that number falls too low, they have to suck it up and do something they don't want to do.
To give you a comparable, nobody calls Mark at Dreamforge for being a failure for not growing past a 1 person company. It's his choice not to grow past that, and I'm happy that he's found his groove.
Falling revenue, year on year, despite price increases would suggest that too many of their fans are upset with their work.
If most of my fans were yelling at me to do something different and I continued to sell less and less books, I would be an idiot not to listen.
Making money isn't the only reason, but if you told your shareholders "We're planning to make less and less money every year. Cool?" They probably wouldn't be happy.
If GW does WANT to make more money and then they're just failing at it, it's their own fault.
If such a large percentage of my fans were upset with my work? Then yes.
And yet they must still have a lot of fans. At some point, as I said, if that number falls too low, they have to suck it up and do something they don't want to do.
To give you a comparable, nobody calls Mark at Dreamforge for being a failure for not growing past a 1 person company. It's his choice not to grow past that, and I'm happy that he's found his groove.
Falling revenue, year on year, despite price increases would suggest that too many of their fans are upset with their work.
No, it does not. Correlation does not equate with causation.
But you really can't judge a business because "they're doing something fun and they're making a living off of it", is it? That's highly subjective, and a lot of people do business that they don't really like doing because they need the money. That's something a privileged person who don't have problems with money would say.
It's absurd to be like "Sure, let's give GW a free pass on their declining sales because they're doing what the love and that's awesome!" As an investor it would be stupid to think like that.
MWHistorian wrote: If most of my fans were yelling at me to do something different and I continued to sell less and less books, I would be an idiot not to listen.
Making money isn't the only reason, but if you told your shareholders "We're planning to make less and less money every year. Cool?" They probably wouldn't be happy.
If GW does WANT to make more money and then they're just failing at it, it's their own fault.
See, the thing is, I don't think GW hears us. It's like screaming at a deaf person who's not even looking anywhere remotely near your direction. When was the last time you recall them doing any kind of mass market research?
heartserenade wrote: It's the job of a business to make money. Of course you'll be judged on how much money you take in. That's the point of having a business.
People often give the excuse that GW is a business and they shouldn't care for their fans. Well, if they're failing as a business because a lot of fans don't feel GW cares then where does that put us?
It is the job of some businesses to only make money first and foremost, but not all. A lot of starts-ups, these days, operate on the promise of doing something cool, or making lives easier somewhere, somehow, for example.
It's also worth noting that GW *is* making money, and probably is more profitable than any other wargaming/miniature company. We're comparing GW to GW, saying they're making less money than they used to. They probably have more cash than most other miniature companies too. To turn around and say, "what a failure!" seems a bit comical.
MWHistorian wrote: If most of my fans were yelling at me to do something different and I continued to sell less and less books, I would be an idiot not to listen.
Making money isn't the only reason, but if you told your shareholders "We're planning to make less and less money every year. Cool?" They probably wouldn't be happy.
If GW does WANT to make more money and then they're just failing at it, it's their own fault.
See, the thing is, I don't think GW hears us. It's like screaming at a deaf person who's not even looking anywhere remotely near your direction. When was the last time you recall them doing any kind of mass market research?
The website survey is about the only thing I've ever heard of
Though I think the reps are supposed to make small talk with local stores. Does that count?
@MWHistorian - I get what you're saying, but there are a bazillion authors and screenwriters and producers that do exactly that. M. Night Shyamalan comes to mind...
heartserenade wrote: But you really can't judge a business because "they're doing something fun and they're making a living off of it", is it? That's highly subjective, and a lot of people do business that they don't really like doing because they need the money. That's something a privileged person who don't have problems with money would say.
It's absurd to be like "Sure, let's give GW a free pass on their declining sales because they're doing what the love and that's awesome!" As an investor it would be stupid to think like that.
Which is why I'm wondering why GW became a publicly-traded company in the first place.
heartserenade wrote: It's the job of a business to make money. Of course you'll be judged on how much money you take in. That's the point of having a business.
People often give the excuse that GW is a business and they shouldn't care for their fans. Well, if they're failing as a business because a lot of fans don't feel GW cares then where does that put us?
It is the job of some businesses to only make money first and foremost, but not all. A lot of starts-ups, these days, operate on the promise of doing something cool, or making lives easier somewhere, somehow, for example.
Is GW a startup company?
And if you have a startup company that does something cool but it doesn't make enough money, is it a successful company?
heartserenade wrote: It's the job of a business to make money. Of course you'll be judged on how much money you take in. That's the point of having a business.
People often give the excuse that GW is a business and they shouldn't care for their fans. Well, if they're failing as a business because a lot of fans don't feel GW cares then where does that put us?
It is the job of some businesses to only make money first and foremost, but not all. A lot of starts-ups, these days, operate on the promise of doing something cool, or making lives easier somewhere, somehow, for example.
Is GW a startup company?
And if you have a startup company that does something cool but it doesn't make enough money, is it a successful company?
Start-ups were used as an example of a company that isn't making money the first thing on its priority. But yes, to your second question. Please, do you think Oculus Rift or Tesla (minus government subsidies) are actually in the black on their own?
heartserenade wrote: It's the job of a business to make money. Of course you'll be judged on how much money you take in. That's the point of having a business.
People often give the excuse that GW is a business and they shouldn't care for their fans. Well, if they're failing as a business because a lot of fans don't feel GW cares then where does that put us?
It is the job of some businesses to only make money first and foremost, but not all. A lot of starts-ups, these days, operate on the promise of doing something cool, or making lives easier somewhere, somehow, for example.
Is GW a startup company?
And if you have a startup company that does something cool but it doesn't make enough money, is it a successful company?
This. GW has a responsibility to both its shareholders and its employees to remain profitable. A surefire way to not do that is to lose sales every year and do nothing to correct for it.
heartserenade wrote: It's the job of a business to make money. Of course you'll be judged on how much money you take in. That's the point of having a business.
People often give the excuse that GW is a business and they shouldn't care for their fans. Well, if they're failing as a business because a lot of fans don't feel GW cares then where does that put us?
It is the job of some businesses to only make money first and foremost, but not all. A lot of starts-ups, these days, operate on the promise of doing something cool, or making lives easier somewhere, somehow, for example.
Is GW a startup company?
And if you have a startup company that does something cool but it doesn't make enough money, is it a successful company?
This. GW has a responsibility to both its shareholders and its employees to remain profitable. A surefire way to not do that is to lose sales every year and do nothing to correct for it.
heartserenade wrote: But you really can't judge a business because "they're doing something fun and they're making a living off of it", is it? That's highly subjective, and a lot of people do business that they don't really like doing because they need the money. That's something a privileged person who don't have problems with money would say.
It's absurd to be like "Sure, let's give GW a free pass on their declining sales because they're doing what the love and that's awesome!" As an investor it would be stupid to think like that.
Which is why I'm wondering why GW became a publicly-traded company in the first place.
I find the arguement "GW isn't failing because they want to lose customers and sales!" A bit silly.
Let's stick with what we can prove.
GW is pushing out more product than ever, yet their sales are shrinking.
MWHistorian wrote: I find the arguement "GW isn't failing because they want to lose customers and sales!" A bit silly. Let's stick with what we can prove. GW is pushing out more product than ever, yet their sales are shrinking.
Yes, these are indisputable facts.
The problem is, we can't draw any conclusions from it. It could be, if they pushed out less product, their sales would shrink more. It could be, if they did nothing at all, their sales would be exactly the same. We can't even make a good guess.
Edit: A better way to put it -- if they focused on cheaper products and appealing to a broader base, their total revenue might be LESS than their current strategy, apparently of focusing on more products and appeasing the more hardcore fans.
heartserenade wrote: But you really can't judge a business because "they're doing something fun and they're making a living off of it", is it? That's highly subjective, and a lot of people do business that they don't really like doing because they need the money. That's something a privileged person who don't have problems with money would say.
It's absurd to be like "Sure, let's give GW a free pass on their declining sales because they're doing what the love and that's awesome!" As an investor it would be stupid to think like that.
i think doing something you love, and making a living off of it, is the most important thing...
i am not privileged in any way, and have been poor all my life...
i tried doing work that i didn't like, and none of those jobs lasted more than a couple of months before i just walked away, because i would rather be poor than do a job i don't love...
even making $40 an hour was not worth the time it took away from my painting and surfing...
as to your second point, every investor who posts here is very happy with their GW stock, because it pays...
heartserenade wrote: But you really can't judge a business because "they're doing something fun and they're making a living off of it", is it? That's highly subjective, and a lot of people do business that they don't really like doing because they need the money. That's something a privileged person who don't have problems with money would say.
It's absurd to be like "Sure, let's give GW a free pass on their declining sales because they're doing what the love and that's awesome!" As an investor it would be stupid to think like that.
i think doing something you love, and making a living off of it, is the most important thing...
i am not privileged in any way, and have been poor all my life...
i tried doing work that i didn't like, and none of those jobs lasted more than a couple of months before i just walked away, because i would rather be poor than do a job i don't love...
even making $40 an hour was not worth the time it took away from my painting and surfing...
as to your second point, every investor who posts here is very happy with their GW stock, because it pays...
cheers
jah
$40 is like triple the minimum wage of a worker here in the Philippines. The average person here don't get opportunities like that.
And you're telling me you're not privileged because you have the luxury of turning down something like that, while we don't get opportunities like that? Huh. Sorry if "doing what I love" for most of us here means "literally starving to death". But sure, tell people to do what they love even if it means they'll literally die of starvation or not having a house for the night.
The problem is, we can't draw any conclusions from it. It could be, if they pushed out less product, their sales would shrink more. It could be, if they did nothing at all, their sales would be exactly the same. We can't even make a good guess.
Edit: A better way to put it -- if they focused on cheaper products and appealing to a broader base, their total revenue might be LESS than their current strategy, apparently of focusing on more products and appeasing the more hardcore fans.
I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing. Perhaps that GW might theoretically only WANT to serve a smaller part of the market, and that this could be indicative of them shrinking to that point but no further, and deliberately so?
I suppose that could be. It'd be hard to say without either hearing it from the horse's mouth, or showing that to be the case. And I get the impression they could perhaps have a little better PR around it. From what I've been reading they're kinda acting like they're hoping that the customers they don't want to serve don't talk too many others to tag along. Reminds me a little of what happened around Star Wars Galaxies and the NGE (but only a little). That's total speculation on my part though.
I'd be more inclined to believe that trend is towards eventually being in the red. Which is going to be problematic barring other forms of funding (which can themselves be dangerous to the long term survivability of a company - basically killed my previous employer).
I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing. Perhaps that GW might theoretically only WANT to serve a smaller part of the market, and that this could be indicative of them shrinking to that point but no further, and deliberately so?
I suppose that could be. It'd be hard to say without either hearing it from the horse's mouth, or showing that to be the case. And I get the impression they could perhaps have a little better PR around it. From what I've been reading they're kinda acting like they're hoping that the customers they don't want to serve don't talk too many others to tag along. Reminds me a little of what happened around Star Wars Galaxies and the NGE (but only a little). That's total speculation on my part though.
I'd be more inclined to believe that trend is towards eventually being in the red. Which is going to be problematic barring other forms of funding (which can themselves be dangerous to the long term survivability of a company - basically killed my previous employer).
First, I am pretty sure GW doesn't want to implode and does want to be profitable. Second, we know that despite declining revenue, GW still is a strong and successful company.
Now, we don't know what management actually wants, because whatever they say in an annual report may simply be what investors want to hear.
There are a couple of different, unsubstantiated hypothesis that I've tossed out.
One is that GW knows better than us, and the key to maximizing profits is to focus on getting more money out of fewer people. In this scenario, they project that if they lowered prices and slowed the release cadence, they would make LESS money, than by maximizing what they can get our of the really eager crowd that can't get enough.
Another is that GW cares a lot about the type of hobbyist that are like-minded with them and are trying very hard to please them, at the expense of passing off the larger, but less dedicated community. I cite two examples to support this: superfans would happily buy annual codex releases and add to their army every year; more casual players want to get infrequent rules changes to get more mileage out of their investment. Also, the modelling heavy crowd gets all hot and bothered over incremental model improvements, and the casual gamer cares much less. GW's release cadence and product prerelease ('better' products at higher prices) support this theory.
Or GW management could hate their company, hate their employees and hate their customers and just want to bleed it all dry. But I don't think so; I think this is just what people think when they aren't GW's target demographic.
heartserenade wrote: But you really can't judge a business because "they're doing something fun and they're making a living off of it", is it? That's highly subjective, and a lot of people do business that they don't really like doing because they need the money. That's something a privileged person who don't have problems with money would say.
It's absurd to be like "Sure, let's give GW a free pass on their declining sales because they're doing what the love and that's awesome!" As an investor it would be stupid to think like that.
i think doing something you love, and making a living off of it, is the most important thing...
i am not privileged in any way, and have been poor all my life...
i tried doing work that i didn't like, and none of those jobs lasted more than a couple of months before i just walked away, because i would rather be poor than do a job i don't love...
even making $40 an hour was not worth the time it took away from my painting and surfing...
as to your second point, every investor who posts here is very happy with their GW stock, because it pays...
cheers
jah
$40 is like triple the minimum wage of a worker here in the Philippines. The average person here don't get opportunities like that.
And you're telling me you're not privileged because you have the luxury of turning down something like that, while we don't get opportunities like that? Huh. Sorry if "doing what I love" for most of us here means "literally starving to death". But sure, tell people to do what they love even if it means they'll literally die of starvation or not having a house for the night.
Ugh.
i'm sure there are people in every single country in the world who would love the opportunity to make $40 and hour...
my point is that i am happier making $2.50 an hour doing something i love, than $40 doing something i don't...
it isn't about having the luxury to turn something down, or being privileged, but about wanting to make my money on my terms...
i work eight hours a day, seven days a week, just to survive, but i am happy...
i prefer living on the beach in Mexico, making $500 a month, over living in Alaska, making a $1000 a week...
for me, making money is not as important as making great art...
i'm happy to go a little hungry in order to have the freedom to live how i want to...
heartserenade wrote: But sure, tell people to do what they love even if it means they'll literally die of starvation or not having a house for the night. Ugh.
I agree by the very nature of where you were born you can have many opportunities.
Jah was pointing out the level he was willing to live to keep his freedom to his "happy" level (everything has a cost).
The dire circumstances you outline are rather a stark contrast discussing hobby luxuries sold typically $50 odd dollars a box and seems rather out of place: is that you circumstance?
If so, what the heck are you doing talking about GW models??
heartserenade wrote: $40 is like triple the minimum wage of a worker here in the Philippines. The average person here don't get opportunities like that.
And you're telling me you're not privileged because you have the luxury of turning down something like that, while we don't get opportunities like that? Huh. Sorry if "doing what I love" for most of us here means "literally starving to death". But sure, tell people to do what they love even if it means they'll literally die of starvation or not having a house for the night.
Ugh.
While I can sympathize with you, minimum wage in Canada isn't a third of that either, nor in most of the USA. I don't think jah ever suggested that someone should do what they love AND STARVE. In most first-world countries, it's possible to do BOTH -- eat and be happy. And have shelter. His special skill is painting minis -- look at his gallery, and you'll see it's very good, and he's also won prestigious awards. But I'm sure that took a lot of dedication and work to develop that portfolio and those skills, to be able to make a living at it.
To suggest that he's being elitist for calling on other people to follow their dreams isn't fair. I mean I get it: there are parts of the world inhere that isn't possible is just stating reality, just as it's not safe in your own home in many parts of Africa or the Middle East. They wont be buying minis either...
I'm not saying he's elitist. I'm saying it's a privilege for some people. It's not an option to all, so I'm pointing out that saying things like "I just have to do what I love bro" to a person who can't do that is, at the very least, insensitive.
This is why i find statements like "Businesses are there to do something you like doing!" silly. Sure, it can be true but the point of having a business in the first place is making money, whether you love what you do or not. Just like the main purpose of eating is not dying, whether you enjoy the food or not. Even in first-world countries, not everyone can afford doing what they love.
The dire circumstances you outline are rather a stark contrast discussing hobby luxuries sold typically $50 odd dollars a box and seems rather out of place: is that you circumstance?
If so, what the heck are you doing talking about GW models??
And that is why I don't buy GW. It's too expensive.
Are you implying one can't enjoy painting and collecting miniatures or discussing them in forums if they're poor?
Don't make it about class warfare, when clearly this was not what jah was saying. He said he turned down work at $40 an hour to do what he loved -- implying he gave up more money which he could have had in order to spend his time doing something he enjoyed. Should he give that up, or not encourage others to do likewise, because someone somewhere can't eat?
Talzvar essentially said (or meant) the same thing as me, in different words: if your situation is so dire that food and shelter are in question, why would miniatures (from any company) be something you were talking about? I mean, at the end of the day, taking care of yourself and your family is way more important than a game. Anywhere in the world!
So yes, I will come out and say it: if you struggle to afford food and shelter, collecting miniatures is a terrible idea.
Of course you can discuss it, but I mean, it's totally academic.
There is a strong case for do what you can tolerate for a while, if it gives you a significant funding base to fund what you love for the rest of your life. Probably a better trade off, but that's life philosophy and personal investment strategy versus plastic army men.
The latter, we know GW could use some financial advice lessons. Gonna be fun, maybe they'll hit right before the 4th. Strap a space marine to a reverse drop pod for celebration.
Where did I mention that miniatures should come first before food or shelter? Please don't put words in my mouth.
And even if you're in a dire circumstance, does that ban you from discussing miniatures?
Should he give that up, or not encourage others to do likewise, because someone somewhere can't eat?
No, because that's his choice. I would do the same if I have the same choice.
My problem lies with people harping "just do what you love". I would love to do that. A lot of people would love to do that. But for a lot of people, it's not a choice. And it comes off as a little insensitive, even if that is not the intention.
I guess this is super off topic now. If you want to discuss it with me via PM, feel free to do so. But I suggest we get back on topic so that this thread won't end up closed.
it's insensitive for me to say that i would rather be poor and happy, than work a job i don't like???
i'm not speaking for, to, or about anyone other than me when i say that you don't have to be "a privileged person who doesn't have problems with money" to chase your dreams...
i bust my butt to develop the skills to make a very meager living off of painting GW minis, and couldn't be happier...
it's not as if i made the choice because i am independently wealthy...
i choose to use the skill that can make me poor but happy, rather than the one that would make me comfortable and unhappy...
that might make me crazy, but it doesn't make me insensitive to the plight of the poor...
First, I am pretty sure GW doesn't want to implode and does want to be profitable. Second, we know that despite declining revenue, GW still is a strong and successful company.
How are you defining strong and successful? That they are still profit generating?
Now, we don't know what management actually wants, because whatever they say in an annual report may simply be what investors want to hear.
That'd be pretty worrying, since the reports seem to raise many eyebrows in financial circles, usually involving articles on how GW is a perfect example of how not to do things.
More realistic is that the puppet master (Chairman and ex-CEO) is about 2-3 years from retirement and owns 7.9% of the stock. He's got no interest in the longevity of the company and every interest in maximising profit before he retires, and seems to rule the company absolutely.
One is that GW knows better than us, and the key to maximizing profits is to focus on getting more money out of fewer people. In this scenario, they project that if they lowered prices and slowed the release cadence, they would make LESS money, than by maximizing what they can get our of the really eager crowd that can't get enough.
But their reports are showing that isn't working; they are currently making less money every financial report.
Another is that GW cares a lot about the type of hobbyist that are like-minded with them and are trying very hard to please them, at the expense of passing off the larger, but less dedicated community. I cite two examples to support this: superfans would happily buy annual codex releases and add to their army every year; more casual players want to get infrequent rules changes to get more mileage out of their investment. Also, the modelling heavy crowd gets all hot and bothered over incremental model improvements, and the casual gamer cares much less. GW's release cadence and product prerelease ('better' products at higher prices) support this theory.
If they are appeasing the superfans at the expense of the larger community, it's not working (see their reports). The thing is, without any perceptible research, they've no idea what the customers want. They make the games they think they want, based on what their staff do, which seems to be GM'd games that largely ignore the rules. There's a place for that though.
Thing is, there's all sorts they can do to satisfy both the superfans and the casual gamers, like clear rules and FAQ's.
First, I am pretty sure GW doesn't want to implode and does want to be profitable. Second, we know that despite declining revenue, GW still is a strong and successful company.
How are you defining strong and successful? That they are still profit generating?
I'm simply comparing them to other companies in the miniature wargaming industry. They probably make more money and have more cash than their competitors, and despite all the griping, they ARE selling a lot of stuff, in relative miniature/wargaming dollar terms. They are also debt free and have a lot of talent and own significant manufacturing capability.
Most hobby stores would really feel losing 40k sales, as they would Magic, and probably Privateer Press, but they wouldn't care if they lost, for instance, Mantic or Dreamforge.
GW is also strong in the sense that they are the masters of their own destiny (whatever that may be). A lot of companies can't say that.
Herzlos wrote: More realistic is that the puppet master (Chairman and ex-CEO) is about 2-3 years from retirement and owns 7.9% of the stock. He's got no interest in the longevity of the company and every interest in maximising profit before he retires, and seems to rule the company absolutely.
Who knows. What's he going to do with his 8%? If he wants to sell it, his best strategy is to maximize share prices. Does he divest it? I have no idea, as I don't follow it.
Generally speaking, an insider can't just dump 8% of the stock. Insiders need to announce any purchases or sales of shares, so the whole world will know ahead of time. If the Chairman decides to dump it all and announces it, by the time it comes around to his selling the shares, it will be worth a lot less. The smart money is on slowly divesting it, like Bill Gates has done with his Microsoft shares.
I genuinely don't think Kirby wants to raid the GW piggy bank for his own profit, and leave GW a ruined husk. It seems as plausible as Kirby tanking the GW stock so that he can scoop up more. I could be wrong, of course. I'm just sayin'.
Occam's Razor would peg the truth at the most obvious scenario, being that he probably just isn't the best steward of the company that there could be.
But their reports are showing that isn't working; they are currently making less money every financial report.
As I said, this is really hard to analyze. All we know is that they're making less profit than they have at their peak. Maybe with a different course of action, like low prices, low barriers to entry, and support for a low model count game, they would be really popular but make a lot less money.
Or, maybe they just want to focus on the so-called "GW Hobbyists" and superfans. I have no idea, but it does seem pretty certain that they don't care much for (or about) the people who are quite casual, want low model count games, and who are primarily interested in a game with gamepieces, rather than the folks who want to play a game using collectible miniatures. Of course, who knows what will happen with Sigmar - maybe I'll eat my words.
Herzlos wrote: If they are appeasing the superfans at the expense of the larger community, it's not working (see their reports). The thing is, without any perceptible research, they've no idea what the customers want. They make the games they think they want, based on what their staff do, which seems to be GM'd games that largely ignore the rules. There's a place for that though.
Maybe? Perhaps the have a better pulse of their superfans than we know, and perhaps they can extrapolate more data out of what they have than we can. For instance, some pricing looks pretty inconsistent and crazy to us; maybe it's an experiment on their end to see the price elasticity of their product. After all, there were a number of price increases, and then most of the prices stabilized and haven't changed much recently (for old kits, I mean).
On the topic of "market research", I have no idea what other companies in the wargaming industry spend on this. For instance, do we have any idea if Dreamforge or Darksword or FFG do any market research? A lot of small companies just "put one foot in front of the other", and despite GW being the biggest fish in the pond, it's still a relatively small company.
Thing is, there's all sorts they can do to satisfy both the superfans and the casual gamers, like clear rules and FAQ's.
I don't disagree with you at all that FAQs would be a good thing. I think the rules in 7e are relatively clear, though (at least, I'm happy with them).
I don't know if they can satisfy casual gamers without slowing down release cadence and reducing price. What I hear from casual gamers is that whoa, 2 year codex is crazy fast; what I hear from hardcore fans is that 1-2 year revised codex is ideal. You can't really reconcile that. Neither can you reconcile that meta shifts (for instance BOOM, new faction, adjust!) hurt casual players way, way more than the superfans.
I'm curious as to what research people think GW could/should be doing?
They have 400 odd retail locations across the world feeding back sales data and one would assume more qualative information.
Each of which has a Facebook page which I understand allows comments.
They have 30years of experience that should inform them of what advertising does/doesn't work for them.
They already update production tech and materials regularly, so I'm sure they have that covered.
Customer surveys have been held recently.
The have both postal and electronic addresses and customer service personnel where you can contact then and ask/feedback whatever you want.
True they don't have a forum but why would you when there are already ample enough wargaming forums that do that role (which we know GW employees look at). With the added bonus of not exposing your employees to abuse, which can happen.
Based upon the above I would imagine they already have more information on the wargaming industry than any other entity that I can think of.
I can only think of a loyalty card system for more detailed data mining so to better use the info they already have.
I'm just not seeing how more research will improve sales given the data they already possess/have access to?
Even well-known, established brands do research. Everyone does.
Except GW. Because it is otoise, for some reason.
Research would lead them to know why they're dropping in sales, or what their customers don't like about their product and why aren't they buying. Research would also point them to the direction of getting said customers back. This isn't even a mysterious subject: it's basically marketing 101. Do. Market. Research.
notprop wrote: I'm curious as to what research people think GW could/should be doing?
A couple of thoughts --
They could do McDonald's type testing to optimize price. Pick a region that matters not so much, and test the impact of price changes and product changes. Create a bundle, sell it there at a different price than the rest of the world, see what the response is, that kind of thing. I hope this is not Australia (shudder)
They could attend events in an official capacity and solicit input as to what the pain points of the game are, and to see how the game is played outside of GW stores, and see what the culture of their playerbase is.
I think an official forum would be good. The problem is that they get REALLY negative, really fast, and you can't really just wack-a-mole every negative comment. It's bad form, anyhow and pisses people off (as censorship). However, they could make an official forum (1) explicitly for game balance issues and (2) explicitly for game rulings. They could restrict posting to people who have at least made 1 web order, which would dramatically cut down on people creating accounts just to troll.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
heartserenade wrote: Even well-known, established brands do research. Everyone does.
Except GW. Because it is otoise, for some reason.
Research would lead them to know why they're dropping in sales, or what their customers don't like about their product and why aren't they buying. Research would also point them to the direction of getting said customers back. This isn't even a mysterious subject: it's basically marketing 101. Do. Market. Research.
I'm sorry, but this is not factually accurate. I have worked for companies up to 10 times the size of Games Workshop (in revenue) that think that market research -- beyond the scope of what their people tell them -- is a waste of time.
notprop wrote: I'm curious as to what research people think GW could/should be doing?
They have 400 odd retail locations across the world feeding back sales data and one would assume more qualative information.
Each of which has a Facebook page which I understand allows comments.
They have 30years of experience that should inform them of what advertising does/doesn't work for them.
They already update production tech and materials regularly, so I'm sure they have that covered.
Customer surveys have been held recently.
The have both postal and electronic addresses and customer service personnel where you can contact then and ask/feedback whatever you want.
True they don't have a forum but why would you when there are already ample enough wargaming forums that do that role (which we know GW employees look at). With the added bonus of not exposing your employees to abuse, which can happen.
Based upon the above I would imagine they already have more information on the wargaming industry than any other entity that I can think of.
I can only think of a loyalty card system for more detailed data mining so to better use the info they already have.
I'm just not seeing how more research will improve sales given the data they already possess/have access to?
They don't do any of that though, even if they have the data to hand. How do we know that? GW say it themselves in their business model:
We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.
heartserenade wrote: Even well-known, established brands do research. Everyone does.
Except GW. Because it is otoise, for some reason.
Research would lead them to know why they're dropping in sales, or what their customers don't like about their product and why aren't they buying. Research would also point them to the direction of getting said customers back. This isn't even a mysterious subject: it's basically marketing 101. Do. Market. Research.
What leads you to think they don't know why sales are dropping?
The obvious one would be the Hobbit system is declining after the release of the films and it's reduced support as the licence finishes as we know happened with LotR's.
Managed reduction in turnover is a thing. Not something you trumpet in the press or in reports (the licenser wouldn't be too happy for a start!) but it does happen.
The timing of the revamped WFB makes this all the more likely to me.
Most hobby stores would really feel losing 40k sales, as they would Magic, and probably Privateer Press, but they wouldn't care if they lost, for instance, Mantic or Dreamforge.
From what I gather, more stores are dropping GW than picking them up.
Who knows. What's he going to do with his 8%? If he wants to sell it, his best strategy is to maximize share prices. Does he divest it? I have no idea, as I don't follow it.
He's passed a motion for the last 2 years to allow GW to buy back stock that'd cover it, so I assume he's planning on selling it at face value internally when he leaves. But the dividend over that period will exceed the stock value, so again I assume he's aiming to maximize dividends rather than share price.
notprop wrote: I'm curious as to what research people think GW could/should be doing?
They have 400 odd retail locations across the world feeding back sales data and one would assume more qualative information.
Each of which has a Facebook page which I understand allows comments.
They have 30years of experience that should inform them of what advertising does/doesn't work for them.
They already update production tech and materials regularly, so I'm sure they have that covered.
Customer surveys have been held recently.
The have both postal and electronic addresses and customer service personnel where you can contact then and ask/feedback whatever you want.
True they don't have a forum but why would you when there are already ample enough wargaming forums that do that role (which we know GW employees look at). With the added bonus of not exposing your employees to abuse, which can happen.
Based upon the above I would imagine they already have more information on the wargaming industry than any other entity that I can think of.
I can only think of a loyalty card system for more detailed data mining so to better use the info they already have.
I'm just not seeing how more research will improve sales given the data they already possess/have access to?
It is a bit hit and miss. For instance, when GW created the new web store, they failed to port over the existing customer accounts. That threw away several years of useful marketing information, not a clever move as they were trying to beef up direct sales via internet mail order.
Talys wrote: On the topic of "market research", I have no idea what other companies in the wargaming industry spend on this. For instance, do we have any idea if Dreamforge or Darksword or FFG do any market research? A lot of small companies just "put one foot in front of the other", and despite GW being the biggest fish in the pond, it's still a relatively small company.
Many companies have key figures that are active in the community. Cavatore attends Bolt Action tournaments, for instance. Priestly will happily talk to folk at conventions.
Many other companies run open betas (Privateer Press, Corvus Belli), many others have outriders of some description.
Most seem pretty responsive to feedback and seem genuinely passionate about the hobby.
notprop wrote: I'm curious as to what research people think GW could/should be doing?
They have 400 odd retail locations across the world feeding back sales data and one would assume more qualative information.
Each of which has a Facebook page which I understand allows comments.
They have 30years of experience that should inform them of what advertising does/doesn't work for them.
They already update production tech and materials regularly, so I'm sure they have that covered.
Customer surveys have been held recently.
The have both postal and electronic addresses and customer service personnel where you can contact then and ask/feedback whatever you want.
True they don't have a forum but why would you when there are already ample enough wargaming forums that do that role (which we know GW employees look at). With the added bonus of not exposing your employees to abuse, which can happen.
Based upon the above I would imagine they already have more information on the wargaming industry than any other entity that I can think of.
I can only think of a loyalty card system for more detailed data mining so to better use the info they already have.
I'm just not seeing how more research will improve sales given the data they already possess/have access to?
They don't do any of that though, even if they have the data to hand. How do we know that? GW say it themselves in their business model:
Sales data clearly exists as it is needed to inform the Reports they publish and is a basic tool for management accounting.
We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.
Don't get me wrong Tom Kirby is a great one for grandiose self serving statements but taken in context I think we can see that he means 3rd part testing and testing within the greater toy market. I don't imagine for a second that the accountants and managers they already employ who are not using the information they generate from their own operations. How else would they know that Space Marines sell better than Hobbits?
Most hobby stores would really feel losing 40k sales, as they would Magic, and probably Privateer Press, but they wouldn't care if they lost, for instance, Mantic or Dreamforge.
From what I gather, more stores are dropping GW than picking them up.
That's actually been one of the bigger things to come from the current surge of other games, coupled with GW's slow dwindling. 10 years ago, trying to keep a games store running without GW was practically unthinkable. Now, we hear store owners saying they've either ditched GW completely or have had GW sales drop to the point where they're considering it, with the shortfall being picked up by other games.
He's passed a motion for the last 2 years to allow GW to buy back stock that'd cover it, so I assume he's planning on selling it at face value internally when he leaves. But the dividend over that period will exceed the stock value, so again I assume he's aiming to maximize dividends rather than share price.
I'm not sure what the rules for the exchange GW trades on are, but that would be illegal in the US/Canada. An insider can't have the company buy their own shares, because it's not an arms-length transaction and the possibilities for abuse are awful.
On the other hand, if GW stock is low (I think it is) and GW has cash it can't do anything useful with, stock buybacks are a wonderful thing for shareholders, as it means less dilution (and therefore an increased value of each remaining share).
Most hobby stores would really feel losing 40k sales, as they would Magic, and probably Privateer Press, but they wouldn't care if they lost, for instance, Mantic or Dreamforge.
From what I gather, more stores are dropping GW than picking them up.
That's actually been one of the bigger things to come from the current surge of other games, coupled with GW's slow dwindling. 10 years ago, trying to keep a games store running without GW was practically unthinkable. Now, we hear store owners saying they've either ditched GW completely or have had GW sales drop to the point where they're considering it, with the shortfall being picked up by other games.
It's a whole new world out there.
Yeah, depends on the store I guess. There are some stores that don't do GW here, but mostly they just do CCGs -- any wargaming stuff they carry is just a pretense, without enough inventory to get anyone to buy anything. Interesting times, though! I'm sure we'll see more in the years to come.
I'm sorry, but this is not factually accurate. I have worked for companies up to 10 times the size of Games Workshop (in revenue) that think that market research -- beyond the scope of what their people tell them -- is a waste of time.
In my experience though as a graphic designer for advertising every client we've had has done market research. You may be right not everyone does it, but if you're sales are declining I think it's a good idea for you to do it. And maybe the companies you've worked with are not the kind of companies who deal with their customers in a direct manner? I have no idea idea about your previous work experiene so I'm spitballing here.
It's always a good idea to know your customer better so you know what they want and how to serve them. Happy customers = more money, usually.
notprop wrote: Sales data clearly exists as it is needed to inform the Reports they publish and is a basic tool for management accounting.
Sales data tells you what is and isn't selling. It doesn't tell you why those things are or aren't selling, or who is buying them, or what they're using them for. All of which are fairly helpful things to know in order to tailor further releases.
I'm sorry, but this is not factually accurate. I have worked for companies up to 10 times the size of Games Workshop (in revenue) that think that market research -- beyond the scope of what their people tell them -- is a waste of time.
In my experience though as a graphic designer for advertising every client we've had has done market research. You may be right not everyone does it, but if you're sales are declining I think it's a good idea for you to do it. And maybe the companies you've worked with are not the kind of companies who deal with their customers in a direct manner? I have no idea idea about your previous work experiene so I'm spitballing here.
It's always a good idea to know your customer better so you know what they want and how to serve them. Happy customers = more money, usually.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you that it can be a good thing
heartserenade wrote: You may be right not everyone does it, but if you're sales are declining I think it's a good idea for you to do it.
...
It's always a good idea to know your customer better so you know what they want and how to serve them. Happy customers = more money, usually.
Especially when you have fans visiting your head office anyway. Why not treat them to a cookie from Bugmans for spending 10 minutes telling you about their hobby, or even just go and ask them. The cost to GW for doing some form of research is pretty much nil.
notprop wrote: Sales data clearly exists as it is needed to inform the Reports they publish and is a basic tool for management accounting.
Sales data tells you what is and isn't selling. It doesn't tell you why those things are or aren't selling, or who is buying them, or what they're using them for. All of which are fairly helpful things to know in order to tailor further releases.
It also doesn't tell you why potential new customers or former customers aren't buying.
Herzlos wrote: It also doesn't tell you who is buying, or why.
Just that x units of code y was sold. To a dozen new-starts or to that one superfan?
You can derive some of that out of your web orders, and some of it is anecdotally available from your store managers, though. Plus, certain items like codex releases are a good gauge of how many players you have, to determine average spend.
A lot of data can be mined out of an EIS system; but we don't know to what extent GW is analyzing what they have.
You could gather some info from the webstore, but then it's:
a. Only about 30% of sales, so you miss a lot of the demographics and
b. They lost all the historic sales data when they moved over to the new webstore.
Codexes give you some vague idea of how many people play or are interested in an army, but again anything more than that is hearsay.
There's a concept that exists in decision analysis, called "cost of perfect information". This idea basically associates a cost of obtaining the "perfect information" needed to make the ultimately "best" decision in any given situation. In a real world scenario, this could be the cost of running market studies and focus groups, or the opportunity cost of pulling your senior managers away from their usual tasks to run these studies. Of course, "perfect information" is an impossible-to-reach state, and therefore, this gets distilled down to the cost of information. If the marginal cost of information > marginal gains from having that information, meaning that you lose more by conducting market research than you gain from having the market research, then it is not worth it to conduct the research.
GW's statement that such studies are unnecessary in a niche makes sense once you look at it from that perspective, given that the innate properties of a niche market. GW isn't a new company - it's old, and I can accept the altogether human hubris that they've been in the industry for so long, that they feel their understanding of the market is good enough, and any marginal benefit of conducting further studies is outweighed by the marginal costs.
GWhas done these kinds of surveys in the past. They also used to run pretty freely-available open betas. What ended up happening? A crap ton of stuff was leaked every time, and I'm sure it's cost them sales. I'm not surprised that the ghost of that still haunts GW to this day, given how irontight they are with their in-development knowledge now.
A lot of analytics can be found in trend-analysis these days from web-traffic and SCM information with their retailers for almost no cost. This might be enough to provide GW with the information they need to make decisions. But since none of us here are senior GW execs (that we know of), we can't speculate on what insights they do and don't hold, now can we?
Why do 'leaks' cost sales then? Because previews of other companies doesn't put me off buying their stuff, in fact I make a mental note to put some aside for it. MtG has organised 'leaks' and spoilers and that seems to whip up a lot of interest.
I think the secrecy is related to their concerns that third parties might steal their pigs. They've made it clear that's a major concern of theirs. But as so many of these products are supplemental and require a GW purchase, I don't buy the 'it steals our sales' claim. No one suggests that companies like Accurate Armour 'take' sales off Tamiya. Rubbish.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Why do 'leaks' cost sales then? Because previews of other companies doesn't put me off buying their stuff, in fact I make a mental note to put some aside for it. MtG has organised 'leaks' and spoilers and that seems to whip up a lot of interest.
I think the secrecy is related to their concerns that third parties might steal their pigs. They've made it clear that's a major concern of theirs. But as so many of these products are supplemental and require a GW purchase, I don't buy the 'it steals our sales' claim. No one suggests that companies like Accurate Armour 'take' sales off Tamiya. Rubbish.
One of the GW blokes I spoke to at Enter the Citadel mentioned that because very-early release rules were leaked, sometimes players had overreacting reactions (like they still do now, ironically) and made twitch decisions not to purchase things based on the rumors that they had heard. Ironically, we still see this happen.
Enigwolf wrote: One of the GW blokes I spoke to at Enter the Citadel mentioned that because very-early release rules were leaked, sometimes players had overreacting reactions (like they still do now, ironically) and made twitch decisions not to purchase things based on the rumors that they had heard. Ironically, we still see this happen.
Which they could fix without all the secrecy?
With the Warhammer replacement, there's been nothing official beyond the pre-order date, so rumour has been running wild for months now.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Why do 'leaks' cost sales then? Because previews of other companies doesn't put me off buying their stuff, in fact I make a mental note to put some aside for it. MtG has organised 'leaks' and spoilers and that seems to whip up a lot of interest.
I think the secrecy is related to their concerns that third parties might steal their pigs. They've made it clear that's a major concern of theirs. But as so many of these products are supplemental and require a GW purchase, I don't buy the 'it steals our sales' claim. No one suggests that companies like Accurate Armour 'take' sales off Tamiya. Rubbish.
One of the GW blokes I spoke to at Enter the Citadel mentioned that because very-early release rules were leaked, sometimes players had overreacting reactions (like they still do now, ironically) and made twitch decisions not to purchase things based on the rumors that they had heard. Ironically, we still see this happen.
Perhaps if there were no outrageous rules or price hikes to be leaked, the amount of overreacting would be way lower, and sales wouldn't take a dent.
In short, from what you've explained, GW hates leaks because those leaks warn people in advance of the gak they're going to try to sell them.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Why do 'leaks' cost sales then? Because previews of other companies doesn't put me off buying their stuff, in fact I make a mental note to put some aside for it. MtG has organised 'leaks' and spoilers and that seems to whip up a lot of interest.
I think the secrecy is related to their concerns that third parties might steal their pigs. They've made it clear that's a major concern of theirs. But as so many of these products are supplemental and require a GW purchase, I don't buy the 'it steals our sales' claim. No one suggests that companies like Accurate Armour 'take' sales off Tamiya. Rubbish.
One of the GW blokes I spoke to at Enter the Citadel mentioned that because very-early release rules were leaked, sometimes players had overreacting reactions (like they still do now, ironically) and made twitch decisions not to purchase things based on the rumors that they had heard. Ironically, we still see this happen.
Perhaps if there were no outrageous rules or price hikes to be leaked, the amount of overreacting would be way lower, and sales wouldn't take a dent.
In short, from what you've explained, GW hates leaks because those leaks warn people in advance of the gak they're going to try to sell them.
I'm speaking of a time more than a decade ago where your pewter blister-packs were an RNG of what model and what weapon combinations you got, not today. You know, back when GW still ran beta-tests and experienced leaks, which is why they don't do it anymore.
Edit:
For the record, I still think that turn 1 Land Raider charges with Khorne Berzerkers with chainaxes that made your best armour save (even Termis, which were blessedly rare those days) be a max of 4+ which could then consolidate into another close combat still ranks amongst the cheesiest armies I've ever fielded.
One of the GW blokes I spoke to at Enter the Citadel mentioned that because very-early release rules were leaked, sometimes players had overreacting reactions (like they still do now, ironically) and made twitch decisions not to purchase things based on the rumors that they had heard. Ironically, we still see this happen.
Well, yes, if someone is going to make a snap judgement not to buy something, whether they see that thing a week before release or six months before release doesn't seem like it would have any effect on that judgement. The secrecy would do nothing for them on that front.
One of the GW blokes I spoke to at Enter the Citadel mentioned that because very-early release rules were leaked, sometimes players had overreacting reactions (like they still do now, ironically) and made twitch decisions not to purchase things based on the rumors that they had heard. Ironically, we still see this happen.
Well, yes, if someone is going to make a snap judgement not to buy something, whether they see that thing a week before release or six months before release doesn't seem like it would have any effect on that judgement. The secrecy would do nothing for them on that front.
Sorry, I forgot to elaborate further. The issue that they were facing was that often rules that were leaked were far from complete, and often only represented one set of beta-test options, and did not at all represent the final product that was intended to be released. In that 6-month gap, players would jump-ship to Battletech instead.
I think it is a lot more to do with the Chapter House case, to be honest. GW discovered that if they put a unit in a codex (the Tervigon, for instance, and the Spore pod) and did not make a model, then other companies would make models or conversion kits to satisfy player demand. On suing, GW were horrified to find out that having a picture in the codex did not prevent these third parties from making their versions. Thus, GW decided to keep their cards much closer to their chests in future. Nowadays, there are more releases of what might be called partial codexes, accompanied by the necessary models.
heartserenade wrote: It's the job of a business to make money. Of course you'll be judged on how much money you take in. That's the point of having a business.
People often give the excuse that GW is a business and they shouldn't care for their fans. Well, if they're failing as a business because a lot of fans don't feel GW cares then where does that put us?
You mean exactly what Kirby said - "Sales, is all the money we take in and we quantify by counting it."
Mind you, he said this as the boom began and GW's sales were slipping....
Maybe he is trying to make his job easier? Less to count?
Then, I believe the next year, he boasted about not doing market research.
I am sorry, whether folks like GW or not - getting the information that you need to grow is never a bad idea.
Ask Lego.
Ask Domino's.
Ask WotC.
But Kirby is so convinced that he knows his market that he does not bother to find out.
Or, maybe, he is gilding his parachute, and preparing to leap from the plane before it crashes.
The Auld Grump - I kind of doubt the latter - I think that his ego is too big to deliberately crash the company.
If such a large percentage of my fans were upset with my work? Then yes.
And yet they must still have a lot of fans. At some point, as I said, if that number falls too low, they have to suck it up and do something they don't want to do.
To give you a comparable, nobody calls Mark at Dreamforge for being a failure for not growing past a 1 person company. It's his choice not to grow past that, and I'm happy that he's found his groove.
The point people are objecting to is you have to match justification to intent. GW's behaviour signals a clear intent that their focus is not on art, or their fans, or any other "higher" purpose, it is on maximising revenue and profits in order to generate dividends. They just took one of their two core IPs down to the local Halal butcher and cut its throat as an excuse to push more Newshiny ffs. It is therefore only fair that they be judged from a competitive, business-first, profit-first perspective, and on that metric their long-term trend is a mark against them.
If GW bought back their shares and went private again, started putting out smaller stuff(like the old SGs they canned) and allowing their staff to do "fun" side-projects(like FW used to be for before they turned into Space Marine Shoulderpads & Contemptor World), put some focus back on building & maintaining a community for their products and so on, then they could justifiably expect to be judged as artists and hobbyists first and profit-mongers second, but as it stands engaging in Cartman-esque "I do whut I want!" just doesn't fly.
notprop wrote: I'm curious as to what research people think GW could/should be doing?
They have 400 odd retail locations across the world feeding back sales data and one would assume more qualative information.
Each of which has a Facebook page which I understand allows comments.
They have 30years of experience that should inform them of what advertising does/doesn't work for them.
They already update production tech and materials regularly, so I'm sure they have that covered.
Customer surveys have been held recently.
The have both postal and electronic addresses and customer service personnel where you can contact then and ask/feedback whatever you want.
True they don't have a forum but why would you when there are already ample enough wargaming forums that do that role (which we know GW employees look at). With the added bonus of not exposing your employees to abuse, which can happen.
Based upon the above I would imagine they already have more information on the wargaming industry than any other entity that I can think of.
I can only think of a loyalty card system for more detailed data mining so to better use the info they already have.
I'm just not seeing how more research will improve sales given the data they already possess/have access to?
They don't do any of that though, even if they have the data to hand. How do we know that? GW say it themselves in their business model:
Sales data clearly exists as it is needed to inform the Reports they publish and is a basic tool for management accounting.
You do not need sales data (in the sense of "data you could analyse and draw meaningful conclusions from") to publish management accounts.
Herzlos wrote: He's passed a motion for the last 2 years to allow GW to buy back stock that'd cover it, so I assume he's planning on selling it at face value internally when he leaves. But the dividend over that period will exceed the stock value, so again I assume he's aiming to maximize dividends rather than share price.
This is GW's board publically admitting they're doing a terrible job. There are two ways in which it could be meaningful. Firstly, buying back the shares could be used to boost the EPS, provided their profits remain at a sufficient level to have that effect. Secondly, it acts as a defence against takeover, both from the company' ability to reduce the available shares for a predator, and as a means to reduce the cash holding of the company (because company's with lots of cash on hand are attractive targets).
Enigwolf wrote: GW's statement that such studies are unnecessary in a niche makes sense once you look at it from that perspective, given that the innate properties of a niche market. GW isn't a new company - it's old, and I can accept the altogether human hubris that they've been in the industry for so long, that they feel their understanding of the market is good enough, and any marginal benefit of conducting further studies is outweighed by the marginal costs.
Anyone operating in the retail sphere in the UK who says or even thinks that should probably be not be in a decision-making position of company operating in the retail sphere in the UK.
notprop wrote: I'm curious as to what research people think GW could/should be doing?
They have 400 odd retail locations across the world feeding back sales data and one would assume more qualative information.
Each of which has a Facebook page which I understand allows comments.
They have 30years of experience that should inform them of what advertising does/doesn't work for them.
They already update production tech and materials regularly, so I'm sure they have that covered.
Customer surveys have been held recently.
The have both postal and electronic addresses and customer service personnel where you can contact then and ask/feedback whatever you want.
True they don't have a forum but why would you when there are already ample enough wargaming forums that do that role (which we know GW employees look at). With the added bonus of not exposing your employees to abuse, which can happen.
Based upon the above I would imagine they already have more information on the wargaming industry than any other entity that I can think of.
I can only think of a loyalty card system for more detailed data mining so to better use the info they already have.
I'm just not seeing how more research will improve sales given the data they already possess/have access to?
They don't do any of that though, even if they have the data to hand. How do we know that? GW say it themselves in their business model:
Sales data clearly exists as it is needed to inform the Reports they publish and is a basic tool for management accounting.
You do not need sales data (in the sense of "data you could analyse and draw meaningful conclusions from") to publish management accounts.
How else would you be able to split and sort your revenue?
That same information can be used to glean all sorts of info and trends; it's what made Dunnhumby so mega rich.
GW's statement that such studies are unnecessary in a niche makes sense once you look at it from that perspective, given that the innate properties of a niche market. GW isn't a new company - it's old, and I can accept the altogether human hubris that they've been in the industry for so long, that they feel their understanding of the market is good enough, and any marginal benefit of conducting further studies is outweighed by the marginal costs.
Ok, let's play a game!
You be GW, I'll be me.
I've got a ~3000pt painted Space Marines army. I've not bought the new book, nor have I bought any kits for it in some time.
Why?
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS You can only answer this question based on information you, as GW, have declared you have on hand, therefore you cannot know anything outside of your own sales data to answer this question.
GW's statement that such studies are unnecessary in a niche makes sense once you look at it from that perspective, given that the innate properties of a niche market. GW isn't a new company - it's old, and I can accept the altogether human hubris that they've been in the industry for so long, that they feel their understanding of the market is good enough, and any marginal benefit of conducting further studies is outweighed by the marginal costs.
Ok, let's play a game!
You be GW, I'll be me.
I've got a ~3000pt painted Space Marines army. I've not bought the new book, nor have I bought any kits for it in some time.
Why?
Answer: do you want a Stomper for that army? it would go great.......shall I take it to the till?
Howard A Treesong wrote: Why do 'leaks' cost sales then? Because previews of other companies doesn't put me off buying their stuff, in fact I make a mental note to put some aside for it. MtG has organised 'leaks' and spoilers and that seems to whip up a lot of interest.
I think the secrecy is related to their concerns that third parties might steal their pigs. They've made it clear that's a major concern of theirs. But as so many of these products are supplemental and require a GW purchase, I don't buy the 'it steals our sales' claim. No one suggests that companies like Accurate Armour 'take' sales off Tamiya. Rubbish.
One of the GW blokes I spoke to at Enter the Citadel mentioned that because very-early release rules were leaked, sometimes players had overreacting reactions (like they still do now, ironically) and made twitch decisions not to purchase things based on the rumors that they had heard. Ironically, we still see this happen.
And this is the utter stupidity of GW. They make a decision based off of one reason, and don't look at anything else. Specifically, they don't look at what advertising for a new product does for sales, and how a good release of a new game will increase further sales. If none of your mates are playing a game, do you even care? How about 20 of them just picked up a starter set and are talking about it? Large release events are great advertising.
I beg GW for information, so I can work to advertise their product and sell more. Three weeks out from Age of Sigmar I have no information on the game, don't know the price. I can't schedule or plan an even.
GW's statement that such studies are unnecessary in a niche makes sense once you look at it from that perspective, given that the innate properties of a niche market. GW isn't a new company - it's old, and I can accept the altogether human hubris that they've been in the industry for so long, that they feel their understanding of the market is good enough, and any marginal benefit of conducting further studies is outweighed by the marginal costs.
Ok, let's play a game!
You be GW, I'll be me.
I've got a ~3000pt painted Space Marines army. I've not bought the new book, nor have I bought any kits for it in some time.
Why?
Answer: do you want a Stomper for that army? it would go great.......shall I take it to the till?
I don't know how you knew I'd already got a Knight and offered a Stompa, but kudos, apparently GW really do know it all!
Talys wrote: On the topic of "market research", I have no idea what other companies in the wargaming industry spend on this. For instance, do we have any idea if Dreamforge or Darksword or FFG do any market research? A lot of small companies just "put one foot in front of the other", and despite GW being the biggest fish in the pond, it's still a relatively small company.
Many companies have key figures that are active in the community. Cavatore attends Bolt Action tournaments, for instance. Priestly will happily talk to folk at conventions.
Many other companies run open betas (Privateer Press, Corvus Belli), many others have outriders of some description.
Most seem pretty responsive to feedback and seem genuinely passionate about the hobby.
They're not huge in the TTWG scene, but CMON has semi-open play testing of their game ideas on Friday nights at their HQ in Alpharetta, GA. Their developers will bring games in the beta stage to local game shops and hold play test sessions, then solicit feed back from the people who played. I've actually participated with these play test sessions on a small number of times, and it's interesting to see the changes made between sessions based specifically upon player feed back.
Don't get me wrong Tom Kirby is a great one for grandiose self serving statements but taken in context I think we can see that he means 3rd part testing and testing within the greater toy market. I don't imagine for a second that the accountants and managers they already employ who are not using the information they generate from their own operations. How else would they know that Space Marines sell better than Hobbits?
But, there's a HUGE and GLARING problem with that approach.
Sure, they know that Space Marines sell better than Hobbits. However, they have no idea WHY that sales disparity exists. Consequently, they don't have any idea how to increase the sales of Hobbits, and could potentially make a change that hurts sales of Space Marines.
And this is the utter stupidity of GW. They make a decision based off of one reason, and don't look at anything else. Specifically, they don't look at what advertising for a new product does for sales, and how a good release of a new game will increase further sales. If none of your mates are playing a game, do you even care? How about 20 of them just picked up a starter set and are talking about it? Large release events are great advertising.
I beg GW for information, so I can work to advertise their product and sell more. Three weeks out from Age of Sigmar I have no information on the game, don't know the price. I can't schedule or plan an even.
I have zero pre-orders.
Obviously they aren't GW FineFans™ as this is assured to be the time they listened and got it right. Just remind them to disregard any models or gaming materials that have been "retired". Kind of like when the massive errata that is 7E hit so soon after 6E; praise the minimal effort in modifications for a higher price!
Internal data is all well and good but if you have declining sales and your customers are observably moving to other, competing products AND you still don't perform any sort of market research by looking outside the company, you're asking for failure. If you completely ignore what the competition is doing, you are in danger of losing sales volume and generally this loss is compounded, year-on-year, if adjustments aren't made.
GW is currently financially healthy and produces a strong product but they seem to be completely ignoring market forces that have resulted in sales loss and instead have opted for a model of rapid releases because the sales losses obviously mean that people don't have enough product to buy and have nothing to do with companies competing for consumer spending.
That's the result of not doing any sort of market research. People can wave it away all they like but companies stay competitive by knowing what the competition is doing and learning how to not only keep their current clientele but expand into untapped market-share. Failure to adjust business practices to coincide with current market trends and pressures results in what is happening now with GW.
No doom and gloom, no implosion, just market retraction to the point where their overhead will eventually exceed their revenue and then with a quiet whimper they will just go away. No retail company is immune, no matter how many walls and moats they try to build and no matter how much they think that they are an entity unto themselves. Hubris is painful and GW will not be the first company to feel its effects. They can not keep up this rapid release schedule indefinitely; you can only rerelease a codex at $50 each with minor changes before your customers catch on and leave en masse. This means they have to do something different to attract new blood because the old way of doing things is obviously not doing it and they've handicapped themselves by cutting back their primary recruitment device, their stores.
And this is the utter stupidity of GW. They make a decision based off of one reason, and don't look at anything else. Specifically, they don't look at what advertising for a new product does for sales, and how a good release of a new game will increase further sales. If none of your mates are playing a game, do you even care? How about 20 of them just picked up a starter set and are talking about it? Large release events are great advertising.
I beg GW for information, so I can work to advertise their product and sell more. Three weeks out from Age of Sigmar I have no information on the game, don't know the price. I can't schedule or plan an even.
I have zero pre-orders.
This is the problem with not having a real marketing department in a company their size; anyone with any experience or training could have told them that hype is not generated in a vacuum. Not all of their customers read rumors on websites like Dakka and the email was extremely forgettable due to zero real information. Great, we have a name for a product but no information what it is or anything.
I think it utterly baffling that one would hand-wave away declining sales as a metric possibly indicating problems while on the other hand declare that profits outstripping that of their competitors is a possible indication that nothing is wrong.
I mean... an elephant with some terminal disease is still going to eat more than a healthy wolf in terms of kg food ingested (even if the kg food is reduced due to the elephant's declining health)! Food consumed is by itself a terrible metric, just as looking at profits in a vacuum is similarly meaningless.
@Az: Responds to your marketing question: You are no longer buying GW kit because:
1. The game sizes are too small for you to use your whole collection. Solution: 5000 point standard games.
2. You are no longer a child / teenager: have grown out of the target demographic / spent your parents into the poor house. Solution: This is not an issue and is part of GW's business plan.
3. You are dead. Solution: This is not an issue and is part of GW's business plan.
GW's statement that such studies are unnecessary in a niche makes sense once you look at it from that perspective, given that the innate properties of a niche market. GW isn't a new company - it's old, and I can accept the altogether human hubris that they've been in the industry for so long, that they feel their understanding of the market is good enough, and any marginal benefit of conducting further studies is outweighed by the marginal costs.
Ok, let's play a game!
You be GW, I'll be me.
I've got a ~3000pt painted Space Marines army. I've not bought the new book, nor have I bought any kits for it in some time.
Why?
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS You can only answer this question based on information you, as GW, have declared you have on hand, therefore you cannot know anything outside of your own sales data to answer this question.
Easy: I don't work for GW, and won't pretend like I work for GW, so I won't humor your question by pretending to know what data they have and do not have internally.
And this is the utter stupidity of GW. They make a decision based off of one reason, and don't look at anything else. Specifically, they don't look at what advertising for a new product does for sales, and how a good release of a new game will increase further sales. If none of your mates are playing a game, do you even care? How about 20 of them just picked up a starter set and are talking about it? Large release events are great advertising.
I beg GW for information, so I can work to advertise their product and sell more. Three weeks out from Age of Sigmar I have no information on the game, don't know the price. I can't schedule or plan an even.
mikhaila wrote: And this is the utter stupidity of GW. They make a decision based off of one reason, and don't look at anything else. Specifically, they don't look at what advertising for a new product does for sales, and how a good release of a new game will increase further sales. If none of your mates are playing a game, do you even care? How about 20 of them just picked up a starter set and are talking about it? Large release events are great advertising.
I beg GW for information, so I can work to advertise their product and sell more. Three weeks out from Age of Sigmar I have no information on the game, don't know the price. I can't schedule or plan an even.
I have zero pre-orders.
What do you mean zero preorders? How can giving you a bunch of post cards with a date and a vague name that could easily just be the next $7 Black Library book to replace all your theoretically sellable books and model kits not bring in folks by the droves? As a collector's model company that just happens to make a game on the side, how come all the collectors aren't frothing at your store's doorstep just to pick up whatever this postcard is alluding to with no further information? Surely keeping everyone is the dark is the key to massive profit... otherwise GW wouldn't be seeing year on year record skyrocketing sales with their new (in game) openness. They won't tell you WHAT you'll be buying but by throwing out any semblance of balance you can be sure to know that you CAN use it (or more importantly buy it).
warboss wrote: How can giving you a bunch of post cards with a date and a vague name that could easily just be the next $7 Black Library book to replace all your theoretically sellable books and model kits not bring in folks by the droves? As a collector's model company that just happens to make a game on the side, how come all the collectors aren't frothing at your store's doorstep just to pick up whatever this postcard is alluding to with no further information? Surely keeping everyone is the dark is the key to massive profit... otherwise GW wouldn't be seeing year on year record skyrocketing sales with their new (in game) openness. They won't tell you WHAT you'll be buying but by throwing out any semblance of balance you can be sure to know that you CAN use it (or more importantly buy it).
From the same company that brought you 13 Black Crusades under the same Leadership... Maybe they'll get it right on the 14th try by doing the same thing.
warboss wrote: How can giving you a bunch of post cards with a date and a vague name that could easily just be the next $7 Black Library book to replace all your theoretically sellable books and model kits not bring in folks by the droves? As a collector's model company that just happens to make a game on the side, how come all the collectors aren't frothing at your store's doorstep just to pick up whatever this postcard is alluding to with no further information? Surely keeping everyone is the dark is the key to massive profit... otherwise GW wouldn't be seeing year on year record skyrocketing sales with their new (in game) openness. They won't tell you WHAT you'll be buying but by throwing out any semblance of balance you can be sure to know that you CAN use it (or more importantly buy it).
From the same company that brought you 13 Black Crusades under the same Leadership... Maybe they'll get it right on the 14th try by doing the same thing.
I know you're not referring to this, but frankly, the 13th Black Crusade global event, while it had its technical snafus (participation exceeded GW's greatest expectations) was perhaps the best tabletop gaming event I've ever seen done in this industry.
Enigwulf: I participated in that event. Its a shame that GW went back on their word and not only did not advance the storyline in any meaningful way, but made the decision to never hold another event like it again.
keezus wrote: Enigwulf: I participated in that event. Its a shame that GW went back on their word and not only did not advance the storyline in any meaningful way, but made the decision to never hold another event like it again.
I do like that the events that transpired are now baked into the lore, however, I was playing Chaos at the time and trollololol'ing as we basically curb-stomped in the early days. Plus we got a 'dex out of it too! If GW actually started from a meaningful date, like the early M41, and had one of these every year or two to advance the storyline, that would've been pretty badass. Alas, such lost potential.
keezus wrote: Enigwulf: I participated in that event. Its a shame that GW went back on their word and not only did not advance the storyline in any meaningful way, but made the decision to never hold another event like it again.
I do like that the events that transpired are now baked into the lore, however, I was playing Chaos at the time and trollololol'ing as we basically curb-stomped in the early days. Plus we got a 'dex out of it too! If GW actually started from a meaningful date, like the early M41, and had one of these every year or two to advance the storyline, that would've been pretty badass. Alas, such lost potential.
Errrr... Didn't Chaos win that event overall, not just in the early days? So GW rolled back the timeline to pretend that never happened and hasn't hosted another thing since.
keezus wrote: Enigwulf: I participated in that event. Its a shame that GW went back on their word and not only did not advance the storyline in any meaningful way, but made the decision to never hold another event like it again.
I do like that the events that transpired are now baked into the lore, however, I was playing Chaos at the time and trollololol'ing as we basically curb-stomped in the early days. Plus we got a 'dex out of it too! If GW actually started from a meaningful date, like the early M41, and had one of these every year or two to advance the storyline, that would've been pretty badass. Alas, such lost potential.
I think the next iteration would have to be 50k, and they'd fill out all the gaps within 10,000 years with "history" Then we'd have 30k, 40k and 50k!
Although the *approach* of the 51st millennium would be cool.
keezus wrote: Enigwulf: I participated in that event. Its a shame that GW went back on their word and not only did not advance the storyline in any meaningful way, but made the decision to never hold another event like it again.
I do like that the events that transpired are now baked into the lore, however, I was playing Chaos at the time and trollololol'ing as we basically curb-stomped in the early days. Plus we got a 'dex out of it too! If GW actually started from a meaningful date, like the early M41, and had one of these every year or two to advance the storyline, that would've been pretty badass. Alas, such lost potential.
Errrr... Didn't Chaos win that event overall, not just in the early days? So GW rolled back the timeline to pretend that never happened and hasn't hosted another thing since.
That's hardly including the events in the lore.
Yeah they did. I still played (was winding down) when the Eye of Terror/13th Crusade was going on, and they made a huge deal about how the outcome could change 40k depending on how it went. And when Chaos just obliterated the Imperial forces in games, they retconned it to never happen because the actual outcome would have basically been the destruction of the Imperium, and the storyline has been frozen at M41.9997 or whatever ever since then.
IIRC the actual outcome would have been Cadia fell, letting the Eye open and allow Abaddon a beeline straight to Terra where he would have killed the Emperor and plunged the Imperium into darkness.
See, that would make for an awesome evolution of the timeline.
The Imperiums forces become fractured cells of resistance against the forces of Chaos.The Imperial Guard attempts to hold what worlds it can as its travel capabilities have been much reduced due to the loss of the astronomicon (or however it is spelled) and forges an alliance with the Tau to give safe harbour to refugees. Meanwhile the Space Marines launch lightning raids on vital points of Abaddons new empire.
The Tau begin to expand outwards, absorbing many formerly Imperial worlds through the offering of protection from Abaddons forces, gaining many human auxiliaries from the Imperial Guard.
With Terra his, Abaddon becomes a new Emperor of mankind, however without the unifying symbol of the Emperor to fight against any more, the forces of chaos start to splinter and fight amongst themselves even more, weakening his rule.
The Eldar remain as enigmatic as ever, working behind the scenes to try and end Abaddons rule and break the forces of chaos.
Dark Eldar continue to do what they've always done.
Meanwhile the Orks come careening into the middle of it all in order to have a damn fine scrap.
The Necrons start to awaken and hit at worlds on the fringes of space. Only vague scattered reports make it back to the leaders of the races.
Meanwhile the Tyranid menace devours worlds as its tendrils start to slowly move towards the core...
We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.
Thinking about this statement, I'm further convinced that GW does what they love to do rather than what they think their customers would love for them to do.
Essentially, they're saying: "We don't care what the market wants. We build our games the way we want to, and if people want to play in one of our game worlds, they'll give us some money."
Which doesn't offend me in the least. If what they produce is incompatible with what I want, they'll cease to get my money. Whether they want to pay attention to what I want or not is more for their benefit, not mine, though of course, I hope they continue to produce things that I want.
I have largely believed that they could still have the feel of 40k without some of the silliness (inter-faction conflicts) if they advanced the timeline and broke up the Imperium and other factions too. For example:
The Imperium collapses, and thousands of worlds break away into independent city-states or domains. The High Lords maintain control over some systems and constantly call for a new Grand Crusade to reunite the Imperium. The Imperial Fists and their successors, ever loyal, reform the old Legion to reclaim their territories, decrying others as traitors and oathbreakers and proudly pointing to their honor and virtue as proof of their superiority.
The Ultramarines and their successors see the collapse of the Imperium as a sign and under a restore Robute Guilliman form the Dominion of Ultramar, promising a new Imperium in a parallel to the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire.
The more independent chapters like the Space Wolves, Minotaurs and Space Sharks decide to become independent, possibly as mercenaries. Other various chapters choose between the old Imperium, the new Dominion of Ultramar or even form their own independent groups. Dark Angels for example might become their own group with their successors, becoming slightly more sinister in the process as they step up pursuing the Fallen through any means necessary.
You now have a way to explain Marine vs. Marine conflicts without it being handwaved as a training exercise or other silly reason for coming to blows. Guard players can make their own unit with its own history and its own world without worrying about why they would fight Ultramarines.
Similar things can happen with Eldar (some craftworlds become pirates?) and even Tau (as an analogy to the Three Kingdoms of China or the Warring States period of Japan, there could be a third sect that fights against Farsight and the traditional Tau).
I think that would be pretty cool, advance the plot but not take away what makes 40k40k. There's still the threat of Chaos, Necrons, Tyranids and Orks. Dark Eldar are largely untouched. There can still be constant alliances against common foes, so you can still have Fists + Ultramarines vs. Chaos one week and the next the Fists + Ultramarines clash as they both try to conquer a wayward planet.
We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.
Thinking about this statement, I'm further convinced that GW does what they love to do rather than what they think their customers would love for them to do.
Essentially, they're saying: "We don't care what the market wants. We build our games the way we want to, and if people want to play in one of our game worlds, they'll give us some money."
Which doesn't offend me in the least. If what they produce is incompatible with what I want, they'll cease to get my money. Whether they want to pay attention to what I want or not is more for their benefit, not mine, though of course, I hope they continue to produce things that I want.
Which, and I'll say it again, unless your passion happens to be really popular with other people, is a fething stupid way to run a business.
Kirby thinks he's Steve Jobs, he's closer to big jobs.
We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.
Thinking about this statement, I'm further convinced that GW does what they love to do rather than what they think their customers would love for them to do.
Essentially, they're saying: "We don't care what the market wants. We build our games the way we want to, and if people want to play in one of our game worlds, they'll give us some money."
Which doesn't offend me in the least. If what they produce is incompatible with what I want, they'll cease to get my money. Whether they want to pay attention to what I want or not is more for their benefit, not mine, though of course, I hope they continue to produce things that I want.
Which, and I'll say it again, unless your passion happens to be really popular with other people, is a fething stupid way to run a business.
Kirby thinks he's Steve Jobs, he's closer to big jobs.
And Steve Jobs made money by looking at good ideas from other places, then putting them into Apple products and jacking the price up.
So Kirby isn't even being a very good Steve Jobs as he doesn't bother to look at what the competition is doing as he doesn't believe there is any competition.
We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.
Thinking about this statement, I'm further convinced that GW does what they love to do rather than what they think their customers would love for them to do.
Essentially, they're saying: "We don't care what the market wants. We build our games the way we want to, and if people want to play in one of our game worlds, they'll give us some money."
Which doesn't offend me in the least. If what they produce is incompatible with what I want, they'll cease to get my money. Whether they want to pay attention to what I want or not is more for their benefit, not mine, though of course, I hope they continue to produce things that I want.
Which, and I'll say it again, unless your passion happens to be really popular with other people, is a fething stupid way to run a business.
Kirby thinks he's Steve Jobs, he's closer to big jobs.
Could be. I actually really dislike most Apple products, and really like most GW products, so maybe not a good example for me
Windows guy all the way, man. Surface Pro 3 >>> iPad. Interogator Chaplain >>> Mac!
There no need to post to explain how it doesn't personally apply to you, unless it really is so far removed from your experience you need further information.
There no need to post to explain how it doesn't personally apply to you, unless it really is so far removed from your experience you need further information.
Sure thing, but a better example would have been, Kirby thinks he's Steve Jobs but he's Gil Amelio (Jobs 1997 predecessor who is often credited with running Apple into the ground). Of course, a lesson there is that a big company in dire straights can turn it all around with one hit product.
heartserenade wrote: Are you implying one can't enjoy painting and collecting miniatures or discussing them in forums if they're poor?
Ha! definitely was not thinking or implying that, replace your word "poor" with "starving" that is what I was saying.
When there is some money to rub together for hobbies that is great, everyone needs recreation.
When discussing starvation, I would sell every model I had to deal with the issue or at least hold off that hardship.
I had a friend getting evicted out of his house and I had to help him move in the night, I had to shake my head at all the extra stuff he had: I would have sold it all.
When it comes to keeping your family housed, clothed and fed: collecting anything seems rather silly.
GW is trying to sell itself as a "premium" collector supplier, I equate no status with purchasing their stuff: do you see enough value to justify the cost?
Most don't.
Sorry, I forgot to elaborate further. The issue that they were facing was that often rules that were leaked were far from complete, and often only represented one set of beta-test options, and did not at all represent the final product that was intended to be released. In that 6-month gap, players would jump-ship to Battletech instead.
Yup, that will happen. Particularly if you don't communicate with your customer base.
Alternatively, when you become aware of the latest leak, you bung a post up on your facebook page, or your official forums, saying 'Hey, folks, we're aware that some information from a play-test version of the upcoming Codex: Mogwai was leaked out into the world. Please keep in mind that this is an early draft, and not necessarily representative of what will make it into the final book.
Oh, and if you're interested in giving your feedback, you can sign up for playtesting at this link...'
Yes, you'll still get the odd rage-quit as a result of information like that getting out. The alternative that we got instead was the 5th edition Codex: Dark Eldar, which was in development for approximately 47 years with players being told next to nothing for years on end. By early 5th edition, Dark Eldar players were quitting because their first generation codex was now 2 editions out of date and there was no sign of a new one actually happening anytime soon.
Keeping people in the dark doesn't build excitement. It just leaves them with no idea of what's being released.
Talizvar wrote: @insaniak: Do you think GW look on "leaks" the same as previews of a movie release?
Where they hope to get a certain number of impulse / pre-order / sight-unseen purchases before the bad press / reviews catch up with it?
I suspect it is a consideration in their sales tactics.
I honestly don't think that the current information blackout is anything to do with sales at all, regardless of what Kirby says.
I believe it's solely to do with 'protecting' their IP, by not giving those evil, freeloading third party producers a chance to get the jump on them by releasing alternate versions of upcoming stuff. Which was never actually a massive problem (aside from perhaps in cases like the Thunderwolves, where GW inexplicably waited for approximately a thousand years before releasing their own version), but GW has shown quite conclusively over the last few years that their approach to IP protection is not entirely rational.
Talizvar wrote: @insaniak: Do you think GW look on "leaks" the same as previews of a movie release?
Where they hope to get a certain number of impulse / pre-order / sight-unseen purchases before the bad press / reviews catch up with it?
I suspect it is a consideration in their sales tactics.
No, I don't think so. This year's (rules) releases have been very good, in my opinion, and the leaks have been pretty minimal. I think they played around with Eldar (many teasers via White Dwarf) and Space Marines (virtually no teasers at all) to see which is a better strategy.
The people who will buy everything buy everything anyhow. I mean, if you were gonna buy a LE Space Marines codex, it didn't matter if the codex sucked, you were gonna buy it; it's only whether you buy the NEXT LE codex that's impacted if this one sucked. If you are playing the game and playing a faction, let's face it, chances are, you're going to buy your own faction's codex whether it's great or not.
Other than a handful of players, I don't think most now buy all the rules (there are so many that it's hard to even read them all), so it's not like they're going to get extra sales by being secretive.
I don't think most of the player base is as obsessed with knowing what's coming up as the Internet forum population. Of the 7 other people that I game with regularly, 6 of them don't rush out to pick up even their own codex the day the hobby shop puts it on the shelf; they just get one on hold and grab it when that weekend, or whatever.
For me, the rumor-leak-release cycle has some kind of weird, addictive vibe to it.
Thanks Insaniak and Talys.
I keep forgetting that the main defense they have for guarding their IP is releasing a physical model.
I do think that the primary reason for the blackout is to give no warning of any new units coming out so those "freeloaders" do not create another legal tizzy by getting something out first.
I still maintain that some of the excitement dies down a bit the more people know about what is coming out so the rush on release would be less. I wonder if GW has tried intentionally leaking a huge amount of stuff verses almost nothing and had a comparable means of measuring sales.
Talizvar wrote: @insaniak: Do you think GW look on "leaks" the same as previews of a movie release?
Where they hope to get a certain number of impulse / pre-order / sight-unseen purchases before the bad press / reviews catch up with it?
I suspect it is a consideration in their sales tactics.
No, they don't want leaks, the intention is that, from the first time you know about it, you can buy (preorder) it. The leaks happen because wd is published out of house (in Poland if I remember correctly) and staff there snap pics before they get boxed and shipped. That's why sometimes it is foreign editions, as the rascals take pics of whatever language version they happen to be packing. That's also why the pics generally come out around a week before actual release, as they are printed as close to shelf date as realistically possible. Now they have an inhouse press that might change, but reprints of hh novels, old omnibuses, whw exclusives, and codexes are probably going to dominate it's use.
Talizvar, the rumor and speculation cycle definitely is an excitement-builder for me.
Most of the apprehension comes from GW's willingness to change design foundations mid-cycle. For sample, 7.0 codexes are generally good and in alignment with each other, and 7.5 (post-Decurion) are in alignment with each other too.
The problem is, the two aren't jus different power levels (which can be tweaked) but also different design philosophies. In 7.0, it was tone things down, get rid of some of the really powerful stuff and de-escalate.
Then 7.5 it was keep things at pre 7.0 levels, fix sone underpowered stuff, and toss in really neat, relatively effective superformations that are both fluffy and strong.
Both are good, but really, until codex DA, we all wondered if everyone was getting the new structure, and if Necron power levels were the new norm. GW could have told us 'yes' without much spoiling anything, and everyone would have been super excited and positive about new codices, instead of, "it's far too soon for CWE/SM codex"
Personally, I love the new codexes, and I wish GW would update everything to 7.5 at that power level. I'd be so happy.
They're incapable. They'll get halfway through '7.5' then 8 will drop and the whole merry go round starts again.
They'd rather manipulate people into buying minor updates that don't fundamentally change anything in the army other than further manipulate model purchases than try and make a product people are excited to buy because of its quality and have people buy loads of models because they're excited to play.
Talys wrote: Most of the apprehension comes from GW's willingness to change design foundations mid-cycle. For sample, 7.0 codexes are generally good and in alignment with each other, and 7.5 (post-Decurion) are in alignment with each other too. .
And this is compounded by the fact that they do it nearly every edition. They get halfway through, and just suddenly decide to change their whole design philosophy.
This is a big part of the reason I would like to see them abandon the Codex model entirely - just release all of the army lists with the new edition (ala 3rd edition) and then use the lifespan of that edition to release campaign books, formations and new (rules in box) units. Lets them distribute new stuff evenly for everyone, and has everyone starting (and theoretically progressing) if not on a perfectly level playing field, at least on the same playing field.
Talys wrote: Most of the apprehension comes from GW's willingness to change design foundations mid-cycle. For sample, 7.0 codexes are generally good and in alignment with each other, and 7.5 (post-Decurion) are in alignment with each other too. .
And this is compounded by the fact that they do it nearly every edition. They get halfway through, and just suddenly decide to change their whole design philosophy.
This is a big part of the reason I would like to see them abandon the Codex model entirely - just release all of the army lists with the new edition (ala 3rd edition) and then use the lifespan of that edition to release campaign books, formations and new (rules in box) units. Lets them distribute new stuff evenly for everyone, and has everyone starting (and theoretically progressing) if not on a perfectly level playing field, at least on the same playing field.
Yeah, I've been on board with this model for a long time. The difficulty, of course, being that there are so many lists now, it would be a big, expensive volume to have every rule page from every codex, even minus all the fluff and such.
Still, it's just paper, and I'd love to see a digital and paper version of this released so that everyone's on the same playing field each go-around. Incremental stuff with models and in White Dwarf is cool, too, just add it to a yearly volume update.
Azreal13 wrote: They're incapable. They'll get halfway through '7.5' then 8 will drop and the whole merry go round starts again.
They'd rather manipulate people into buying minor updates that don't fundamentally change anything in the army other than further manipulate model purchases than try and make a product people are excited to buy because of its quality and have people buy loads of models because they're excited to play.
Well, you can see it as either sinister, or unplanned. The sinister version is that they're doing this because GW is being devious. I think the more likely probability is that when someone comes up with a good idea, they just do it, without really considering what's out already for the table and how it will impact those players until the next cycle. Or they think about it, but figure it's better to get the cool idea out.
Really, the 7.0 codex releases are pretty much in line with the 6.0 codex releases, especially if you take out Wave Serpent and MSS as a design flaw. Once it hit 7.5, BAM, the whole dynamic changed. Now we're talking about Space Marine Companies, Skyhammer formations, Mechanicus Convocations, Decurions, and Warhosts -- versus "Is CAD worth it?". Or, "should I take x formation with CAD"? And I think this is a healthy place for listbuilding to be.
Now, as I said, I really like 7.5, except power level differences against 6.0 and 7.0 lists. So I guess, I remain hopeful that they'll carry through this good idea. It would be a wonderful thing if they would update 7.0 via white dwarf (how hard would it be to give Dark Eldar a superformation?), but of course, I'm dreaming in Technicolor here
xraytango wrote: I always love it when they say "in line with market expectations".
Yeah, if the market expects lower sales volumes and increasing prices.
I wonder what these "modest sales growths" are. Perhaps it is only them saying that they saw sales growth where it hadn't been before because there were other sales channels that were selling those products.
Notice they didn't say a "modest sales growth overall". They are making qualified statements for some reason.
I wonder if we will see an overall down trend as we have these last couple of years.
There should be a good reason why their sales have declined in an industry that has seen an aggregate 45% growth over the last three years ( appx 14%-16% each year)
Of course we see that they should be the industry leader yet <strikes deceased equine> they are not.
One day all otiose things shall be gone and they won't have to worry about it.
A "decline in our own stores", da crap does that even mean? Declining sales in their stores or a reduction in the number of stores?
I could see it as fewer sales in their stores due to NOTHING is being done to actually promote their stores!
In line with expectations means just that. Personally, my expectations is that they will move to be back in line with their revenues prior to the LOTR bubble. That would be a realistic expectation of where the Company would be moving to. Especially it WHFB is flat and they still have some special LOTR bubble item that came out (ie Smaug or other limited release item).
I wouldn't expect GW to have the same growth as most of the relatively new start ups. They are not a start up and to pin them against a start up is not fair because they are a mature company. They face very different hurdles. The one thing that stands out to me as them being well run is their aversion to debt financing. I believe that Companies who can operate debt free are run better than those who grow through debt financing. GW doesn't have to keep the capital on hand as a result and is able to toss it back to the owners which is nice (and how my share in GW continues to grow even when the rest of the market is sucking wind).
@boyd - Indeed, GW's aversion to debt and it's ability to finance or operate without outside debt is certainly significant. I don't think it's a very sexy equity or anything, because there's no likelihood of explosive growth; they're unlikely to become a billion dollar much less a 50 billion dollar company any time soon.
You make a good point that a mature company shouldn't be held to the same growth standard as a young company (after all, quadrupling $10,000 in sales isn't that hard, nor that exciting). But also, we don't know how much companies within the industry has grown, and the number people quote always includes the CCG segment, which is a very different business that GW doesn't care about getting into.
It would be interesting to see how much money Privateer Press, or Reaper, or Mantic, or Dreamforge grew, invested in development, invested in market research, or profited. Of course, we don't have that because they're privately held. But without it, it is impossible to tell how GW is doing with respect to comparables, because the industry could be growing simply because there are more entrants, and everyone could be getting a smaller piece of a bigger pie.
For anyone that thinks GW is going to "fail" and it's stock price will plummet... you should short GAW. You'll make a killing if you're right!
@Azrael - Insaniak has it right. No matter WHERE they start doing a fundamental change, SOMEONE will get screwed for about 2 years (assuming that's the codex cycle). So it doesn't matter if they do it mid-cycle, or at the beginning of 8e. If you're first to get a codex, yay, if you're last, sucks to be you. This time around, Necron got it first, leaving BA rather butthurt, because they won't get a force org revamp til like, 2017.
The proper solution is to release changes for everyone as fundamental as force organization concurrently, whatever that frequency is. Within those constraints, they can add stuff like new models, or even new formations, being mindful to keep power levels relatively stable between factions.
To take a roleplaying analogy, it would be like upgrading all of the swords in January, all of the polearms in June, and all of the magical Staves in December. It really doesn't make any sense to do that, since the *game* is combination of them all.
Dude, I don't know if it's by accident or on purpose but you're speaking to me like I'm simple, and I don't appreciate it. I don't need you to explain Insaniak's point to me, I'm quite capable of grasping it for myself, thanks.
Does the fact that there's an elegant solution to the issue of codex creep not further reinforce my point that the way things are done now in many ways is a fething stupid way of running a business?
Azreal13 wrote: Dude, I don't know if it's by accident or on purpose but you're speaking to me like I'm simple, and I don't appreciate it. I don't need you to explain Insaniak's point to me, I'm quite capable of grasping it for myself, thanks.
Does the fact that there's an elegant solution to the issue of codex creep not further reinforce my point that the way things are done now in many ways is a fething stupid way of running a business?
I know that the answer my Fantasy group found for Army creep was to switch games entirely....
As for the folks saying that GW's financial leaders must know what they are doing... the legal cluster-frack that they got into about Chapterhouse shows that at least one of the high level people really is completely incompetent in regards to the very thing that he was supposed to specialize in. (Mr. Merritt did not know the difference between Trademark and Copyright - and apparently had no idea that third party after market parts are freakin' legal!)
And Merritt was hand chosen by Kirby, I do believe....
@Az - I don't know why you think I'm being patronizing or condescending (or whatever) -- I'm not trying to be.
I'm agreeing that a simultaneous army list would be preferable, but I'm also saying that in the alternative, it doesn't matter to me when the cycle changes because no matter what someone gets the short end of the stick when the system fundamentally changes.
While there may be a better way to do things, that doesn't mean that I think GW is stupid (or that you are). There are a lot of shades between unplayable and perfect; we all have a different opinion of where that needle falls and each is equally valid.
Anyhow, I don't want to get argumentative and I've spent far too much of my life on this thread, so I will disengage.
Talys wrote: @Az - I don't know why you think I'm being patronizing or condescending (or whatever) -- I'm not trying to be.
I was introduced to the fine word "mansplain".
Ruined explaining anything to anyone for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansplaining Heard the person who coined it on CBC radio.
I agree with the idea that power levels get switched mid-stream so these codex "inequities" are what drive people around the bend.
I see that enough as they rotate through my various armies where I have to keep adjusting what models I have to a painted level of play to match these formations.
notprop wrote: Sales data clearly exists as it is needed to inform the Reports they publish and is a basic tool for management accounting.
Baragash wrote:You do not need sales data (in the sense of "data you could analyse and draw meaningful conclusions from") to publish management accounts.
How else would you be able to split and sort your revenue?
That same information can be used to glean all sorts of info and trends; it's what made Dunnhumby so mega rich.
Management accounts do not require sales data to produce because a) management accounts are no where near as detailed as transactional data, which is where you really want to go to do good analysis and b) management accounts are typically produced from the invoicing data set because it makes accounting with regard to revenue recognition a much more straightforward process.
I would concede that it probably exists, but whether GW has the skills and the systems to analyse it properly, and is using it to make rational decisions is far from a safe assumption. Related anecdote: there was a period of about 2-3 years where I was a regular visitor to WHW playing tournies, every time I went the business analyst role was being advertised on the jobs board in the canteen (I'm not going anywhere with that other than I find it amusing, unfortunately the pay sucked and having worked for GW for 4 years some time prior to that, I think I'd rather have shoved my head in a wasps' nest).
Prior to 6th edition (from my perspective, the reset to 3rd, and the incremental changes in 4th and 5th) there was a possibility and even a reasonable expectation that the rules would be improved and "finished", after which all the faction codexes would be brought up to the same, finished standard, with proper balance, etc. Whether that was ever an option that GW considered, I don't know.
However, surely it is obvious today that GW's business model is to continuously make changes to 40K that invalidate earlier rulesets and codexes. That is very clear indeed from the way GW have released new kits and whole new areas of rules since the advent of 6th edition.
And this is compounded by the fact that they do it nearly every edition. They get halfway through, and just suddenly decide to change their whole design philosophy.
I used to think that GW had such things as a design philosophy, a direction or a mind-set. I was also annoyed by the fact that they seemingly were consistently inconsistent in being able to apply said "philosophy" to more than 2-4 codexes in a row.
I have now changed my mind.
I think the designers (and I use the term extremely generously here) are simply flailing about and making whatever comes to their incompetent minds.
Any illusion of a systematic well thought-out approach to codex-design is simply retroactively created by us looking back at the various codexes. The human mind is pattern-seeking, and we will attempt to impose a pattern even when one does't exist.
Steelmage99 wrote: I think the designers (and I use the term extremely generously here) are simply flailing about and making whatever comes to their incompetent minds..
That's getting a little needlessly extreme. Rule #1, and all that.
Whatever your opinion on what they do, the studio guys are actual people.
Steelmage99 wrote: I think the designers (and I use the term extremely generously here) are simply flailing about and making whatever comes to their incompetent minds..
That's getting a little needlessly extreme. Rule #1, and all that.
Whatever your opinion on what they do, the studio guys are actual people.
And people that are under the direction of the sales department at that.
Steelmage99 wrote: I think the designers (and I use the term extremely generously here) are simply flailing about and making whatever comes to their incompetent minds..
That's getting a little needlessly extreme. Rule #1, and all that.
Whatever your opinion on what they do, the studio guys are actual people.
Out of curiosity, why is it inappropriate to describe a professional as "incompetent" when evaluating the quality of that professional's work?
A slight phrasing change would result in:
"I do not think that Games Workshop employs competent game designers," or "In my opinion, Games Workshop's employees are not competent game designers," or "I think the designers are not competent to develop a coherent rules system, and are instead flailing about and making whatever comes into their minds."
If a client told me that I am incompetent at my job, I would feel insulted (I think that I am very competent at my job), but the statement would not necessarily be an insult.
"Incompetent" is a label, but more a judgement of quality than of value. 'You are too stupid to get the job done right', for example, is different from 'You are not competent to do the job'.
I might interpret the latter as the former, and have a negative emotional response, but that's on me, not the person who said it.
I have now changed my mind.
I think the designers (and I use the term extremely generously here) are simply flailing about and making whatever comes to their incompetent minds.
It really bugs me when people say this...
The designers at gw are not incompetent. Give them creative control, give them the tools to build the games, and they can generally do solid work. Chambers. allesio. Ronny. Priestly. And so on.There is a lot of genuine talent within the company.
What isn't there however is creative control. They are not the movers and shakers in the company. They are not the shot callers. Even getting in white dwarf is pr, as it offers negligible 'real' power, and in actual fact can work against them.They are seen as the promotions department of a toy company, and gw is a hire and fire company, where job security is a luxury only for those above a certain level. So in other words, you don't Rock the boat.
You are talking about a company where 'game designers' is a title, not a reality, and it's that simple. They are given a project brief to fulfil, and a timeline to do it in. Anything outside that limited scope? No, sorry...I genuinely believe that a lot of the designers would love to do a lot of things differently, but the word from on high is 'no, you do this'.
Remember as well, a lot of the design of gw games is rooted within historical games, it's a different mentality from 'organised play'. I just ready the hail Caesar rules. Good fun, and not a single 'army' has points costs associated with it. Gw games can work when approached in the same way.
People complain about all the different design philosophies throughout the game's history (and rightly so)" but bear in mind, gw corporate doesn't want a balanced game. They don't want everyone singing off of the same hymn sheet. shifting the design ethos every couple of codices is nothing more thst their way of future proofing the requirement to update the other codices in the future as a response. In other words, it's about selling the next ten codices. If they had all their codices working from a similar power level, everyone would play that edition and not bother with anything else in their minds...
Errrrr... How many of those GW designers are actually still with GW, Deadnight?
Also, the reason that Hail Caesar and many other historical systems don't have points costs is because they are designed to recreate historical battles, where the numbers on each side were known. Hannibal doesn't suddenly have 500 Elephants when facing Scipio etc.
That doesn't work with GW games. They don't have that rigidity in the armies.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Errrrr... How many of those GW designers are actually still with GW, Deadnight? .
Very few. It's irrelevant though. They were with gw. They learned through gw. And yet, they are all capable of making very solid wargames. Which goes directly against the notion that 'gw designers are incompetent', as was asserted. The current crop of designers could just as likely bethe next generation of independent game designers with their own companies making the next generation of good games.
The problem is gw's corporate attitude, not their designers.
Also, the reason that Hail Caesar and many other historical systems wouldn't have points costs is because they is designed to recreate historical battles, where the numbers on each side were known.
No. With respect, All you're demonstrating is a lack of creativity and an inflexible attitude towards how to play wargames.
It doesn't have to be about any particular 'recreation' - that shows a fundamental lack of comprehension of the games in question and what they represent, and what they can represent. Yes, you can use them for reenactments, but you cal also do other stuff, just as you can recreate historical battles in 40k or do your own. It's about immersion in history and bringing those old eras to life on the tabletop as much as anything else.
I can just as easily play my Romans or Greeks against my mates Gauls or Carthaginians quite happily, and it doesn't have to recreate any particular 'named' battle. It just needs a co-operative attitude.
That doesn't work with GW games. They don't have that rigidity in the armies.
Except it does. The Right attitude. Likeminded individuals. That's all it takes.
Seriously, try it. Find some old boys that play historicals, and have a few games with and against them. Immerse yourself in how they play. It's quite fun. Its actually gone and given me a new sense of perspective and enjoyment in how I view, enjoy and participate in wargames since I've started doing this alongside my infinities and warmachines. It's a nice sidestep from 'organised play' which is also fun, but 'organised play' doesn't encompass all thst wargames are, or all wargames should be about.
Very few. It's irrelevant though. They were with gw. They learned through gw. And yet, they are all capable of making very solid wargames. Which goes directly against the notion that 'gw designers are incompetent', as was asserted. The current crop of designers could just as likely bethe next generation of independent game designers with their own companies making the next generation of good games.
That is just nonsensical. The fact that there used to be designers in a company who could make good wargames means nothing when we're talking about the current design team.
The current designers have shown, time and again, an inability to write clear, concise rules and often failed at even understanding the rules they did write. Hence why the current Dark Angels book has a formation with 3 HQ slots where only a single HQ option is available who also happens to be a special character. GW corporate doesn't force them to write the rules badly. They just so far haven't given any evidence of being able to write them well.
Very few. It's irrelevant though. They were with gw. They learned through gw. And yet, they are all capable of making very solid wargames. Which goes directly against the notion that 'gw designers are incompetent', as was asserted. The current crop of designers could just as likely bethe next generation of independent game designers with their own companies making the next generation of good games.
That is just nonsensical. The fact that there used to be designers in a company who could make good wargames means nothing when we're talking about the current design team.
The current designers have shown, time and again, an inability to write clear, concise rules and often failed at even understanding the rules they did write. Hence why the current Dark Angels book has a formation with 3 HQ slots where only a single HQ option is available who also happens to be a special character.
Except it does.
Like I said, promotions department in a toy company. They arent the shot callers. They do what they're told, otherwise they're out on their ass, and it's a small enough industry thst they can't just March up and start elsewhere with no problems. 'Sell the new tyranid monstrous creatures'. Nerf the old ones. 'Design and Sell giant centrepiece models like riptides'. So... You do it. Remember, thryre not necessarily the ones behind the rules writing. It's very much a secondary concern within the company, and the protestations of the game designers mean vEry little. All it takes is one middle management aching to show how big his balls are and he'lol push the studio to do x and y and z. And if they don't, they can walk. That's the reality.
Get them to work in pp, corvus beli etc and you'll probably see a different set of results from them altogether.
Very few. It's irrelevant though. They were with gw. They learned through gw. And yet, they are all capable of making very solid wargames. Which goes directly against the notion that 'gw designers are incompetent', as was asserted. The current crop of designers could just as likely bethe next generation of independent game designers with their own companies making the next generation of good games.
That is just nonsensical. The fact that there used to be designers in a company who could make good wargames means nothing when we're talking about the current design team.
The current designers have shown, time and again, an inability to write clear, concise rules and often failed at even understanding the rules they did write. Hence why the current Dark Angels book has a formation with 3 HQ slots where only a single HQ option is available who also happens to be a special character.
Except it does.
Like I said, promotions department in a toy company. They arent the shot callers. Get them to work in pp, corvus beli etc and you'll probably see a different set of results from them altogether.
So, you're telling me that the GW corporate overlords wanted them to write rules for a detachment which could not, within the most basic rules of the game, fill all of its possible slots? You may need to explain to me how that is good for GW corporate as it means they can sell less models for that particular formation.
So, you're telling me that the GW corporate overlords wanted them to write rules for a detachment which could not, within the most basic rules of the game, fill all of its possible slots? You may need to explain to me how that is good for GW corporate as it means they can sell less models for that particular formation.
It honestly just would not surprise me malus. They're a model making company - rules are just something else to shift at the end of the day. If he corporate says 'write up a formation', you write up a formation. If you have extremely tight deadlines to get it to printing and what not, well then you can't be entirely blamed for a mistake or two, or not crossing all your ts and dotting all of your i's, especially for something as minor as that! Getting it to the printers and getting it out is the number one. Deadlines and all that. If it's problematic, just figure it out. If it's not within the basic rules, just change it, or make it up would be their attitude. Rulebook says that too. You know - the 'figure it out yourself' diy gamer thing and 'work it out with your opponent'.I'm sure some people will enjoy the tinkering or wil handwave away the bits thst are problematic. Shrug. Don't like it? Shrug harder.
By the way, I Never said it was 'good' either, or thst I agree with it - this is just thst is the attitude within certain parts of the company. Remember, not everyone at gw is a gamer, and gamers are looked down upon by a lot of the executives and middle management there.
Yeah, that's a stretch. There likely is no corporate mandate to make completely impossible to fulfill rules. It is simply a matter of not caring enough to playtest or proofread on the part of the design team.
warboss wrote: Yeah, that's a stretch. There likely is no corporate mandate to make completely impossible to fulfill rules. It is simply a matter of not caring enough to playtest or proofread on the part of the design team.
Or not having time or resources for it. I'm sure the design team does care. They just can't do anything about it. Not the shot callers, remember?
Playtesting takes a long time, and we can't have employees arsing about playing games on company time on a Friday. Plenty more important stuff to do at tge end of the day.
So the result?
Designer complains. Rocks the boat for upper management.
Corporate doesn't listen. Corporate doesn't care.
Designer gets told to get on with his job or there's the door.
At the end of the day, where do you go? Let's be cynical for a second. Gamers are in general quite a toxic, stuck up and community thst often stinks of self righteousness and entitlment, with many amongst our ranks who hateeverything you do anyway.why bother trying to please them when they'll never be pleased by snything you'll do. Look at the hate matt ward got. I can imagine thst kind of vitriol wearing you down, especially when so little of what you do is your own call. In the end, you stop giving a damn and trying to please the unpleasable. Do your job go home. Ignore the Internet wailings. Move on with your life...
It's like any one of thousands of companies out there. Heck my own is the same. Ask the folks on the bottom rungs what's wrong and what needs fixed, and they'll tell you. Ask management to do it, and they make it so bloody hard to do anything, you go back to the old way for a quiet life. Any change is slow, incredibly expensive and laborious. It generally sucks. But that's life.
I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.
Out of curiosity, why is it inappropriate to describe a professional as "incompetent" when evaluating the quality of that professional's work?
Because it's rude .
If a client told me that I am incompetent at my job, I would feel insulted (I think that I am very competent at my job), but the statement would not necessarily be an insult..
A statement that you feel insulted by is pretty much by definition an insult .
This is not , however, the place for an in depth discussion on appropriate behaviour. For the purposes of this thread , I'm drawing a line at calling people incompetent. Move on.
Talys wrote: I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.
The problem with that is that is that many of the problems are very obvious to even non-minmax gamers.
The Dark Angel Ravenwing formation issue, for example, was brought up on something like the page after the full rules were leaked (it had been noticed before but it was thought that the rules for gaining the Ravenwing rule might be somewhere else). The whole problem is literally "Only models with rule X can be part of detachment. Detachment has 3 HQ slots. Only one HQ unit has rule X and is unique so cannot be taken 3 times."
That's not something that would make it past someone writing even a super casual list using that detachment.
Talys wrote: I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.
This wouldn't surprise me. It's not a 'wrong' way of playing, but it's not all wargaming can be or should be about either.
If you take each region's sales but ignore "All other sales businesses" in the 2014 report then Australia is 8% of global revenue for 2014 (down from 9% in 2013). I assume that includes NZ but it's not actually specified in the report so maybe it doesn't. "Asia" is only 1.54% in 2014 and 1.52% in 2013.
I found those to be an interesting statistics given the frequent discussions on Australian pricing.
handed to it in the 
