Much like Tinkerbell, GW only exists through the belief of its audience, although I believe in GW's case it's the shaking of fists rather than clapping.
mechanicalhorizon wrote: Maybe some of old-timers chose to leave because they got tired of the same old thing and wanted something new?
They could have also left because there were other things they wanted to pursue, like the Perry Twins, and felt they didn't need to work for GW anymore.
The gaming industry has expanded significantly over the last 10 years, there are more opportunities (only for some) in the industry and maybe they had their own ideas for games and miniatures and wanted to explore them, like Warlord Games and Mantic did.
I don't dispute that people had been "railroaded" out of GW, but people do leave of the own accord for their own reasons as well.
Yeah, like Enigwolf said, some people who have been at GW have been there for decades. There are so many reasons to physically move -- wanting to do something different doesn't mean what you're doing is bad, or there might be family physically somewhere else, or it might be as simple as your wife having a great opportunity in another part of the world.
I'm sure some people have left on better terms than others. You don't see flaming firebrands, though, who have leave with a trail of fiery rhetoric against the company, the way you see with some of the top executives who have been edged out of Google or Microsoft or Apple. Or at least, if there are, I haven't much heard about them
-edit- I'm a bit dismayed with some of the responses to Vyxen: Honesetly, if people believe that the product that GW is putting out is providing good value... there's no need to rain all over their enthusiasm. To a new entrant to the hobby, the pricing structure of the past really isn't here nor there.
I think Vyxen had the bad fortune to wander into a howlers situation.
Don't take it too personally, Vyxen! We don't want to chase you off under a shower of, um... invective. Like we said, we do know what it's like to be excited and enthusiastic about a new hobby or a game. It's just that for some of us, the head-scratching changes constantly implemented by GW (not just price rises) mean that we don't get that from them so much, anymore, compared to other games in the hobby; and it looks like it's slowly killing the company, which we wouldn't argue about if we didn't still care about the game or the miniatures or the setting in some way, or the gamers who might be left high and dry to some extent.
To Vyxen's original points, though, they did have some merit. I'm probably as guilty as anyone else for buying stuff because the box or art looks nice (after all, this is why I impulse-bought my first infinity models, first Privateer Press models, etc), and for people who are just starting the hobby, if they go to the PP section of the store, and then to the 40k section of the store (which will be the two largest sections), they won't see that one is much cheaper than the other. And all those PP blisters of old metal models that fill a slatwall aren't very pretty. They have no "cover art" so to speak.
If someone isn't concerned about the total price of the army, and they're more interested in cool miniatures, there's a good chance they'll just grab the 40k stuff. I know there's a lot of focus on price, but let's face it, to a lot of people, a thousand bucks for entertainment broken up into a few chunks is NOT a lot of money. They spend that on car stereos and computer video cards and Xboxes and vacations and whatever. You don't have to be rich to spend that kind of money. The trick is just to be employed and not have kids Then it's just about where you spend your extra money. Do you buy a new army, or do you go on a trip?
I also get her $50 / $100 thing even though it sounds weird. To put a real model into context, if I'm at the store, if I want Borka on the bear, I just buy him, even though he's a $60 solo or whatever. I don't think, "Gee, I could buy another box of trollblood scattergunners instead, and it would even cost less."
Her reason for buying the Limited Edition is probably the best one too, because it's nice to feel spoiled getting something for your b-day that you wouldn't normally be able to justify as a purchase for yourself. I mean, I don't think I'll ever buy an LE for myself, but I'd be thrilled to get one as a present. Why can't GW time a good codex around my birthday :(
If someone isn't concerned about the total price of the army, and they're more interested in cool miniatures, there's a good chance they'll just grab the 40k stuff.
I'm not sure why you are so convinced that those in search of "cool miniatures" will head straight for 40k, do not pass go, do buy other products. :-/
IMHO, the quoted statement is true if/or:
1. If you are a fan of the GW lore / aesthetic
2. You wish to play the 40k game
3. GW is the only manufacturer of the strange thing-a-ma-bob that you are after: i.e. Skitarii Ironstrider, Khorne Riding Lawnmower, Grey Knight baby carrier or Pumbagore.
Talys wrote: I know there's a lot of focus on price, but let's face it, to a lot of people, a thousand bucks for entertainment broken up into a few chunks is NOT a lot of money.
Its not much for us who are already heavily invested in the hobby. Us grognards typically have good jobs. Its a metric crap-ton of money for those who are in lower earning brackets, have a mortgage (or as you mentioned: kids), or are a student. 80% of my 40k expenditures in college were second hand buys. GW's aggressive pricing structure restricts potential buys from this demographic. Maybe it's all part of a plan - I'm not a business person, but IMHO, having a wider customer base can't be a bad thing.
If someone isn't concerned about the total price of the army, and they're more interested in cool miniatures, there's a good chance they'll just grab the 40k stuff.
I'm not sure why you are so convinced that those in search of "cool miniatures" will head straight for 40k, do not pass go, do buy other products. :-/
Actually, if someone wants "cool minis" and is not concerned about pricing, I'd say they'd rather grab the Hitech Miniatures stuff before any GW product.
If someone isn't concerned about the total price of the army, and they're more interested in cool miniatures, there's a good chance they'll just grab the 40k stuff.
I'm not sure why you are so convinced that those in search of "cool miniatures" will head straight for 40k, do not pass go, do buy other products. :-/
IMHO, the quoted statement is true if/or:
1. If you are a fan of the GW lore / aesthetic
2. You wish to play the 40k game
3. GW is the only manufacturer of the strange thing-a-ma-bob that you are after: i.e. Skitarii Ironstrider, Khorne Riding Lawnmower, Grey Knight baby carrier or Pumbagore.
No argument there.
I'd add, however, that if you go into most hobby shops, 40k has the nicest looking displayed boxes. If you took all the price tags off, and someone could just fill a shopping basket with a few boxes of neat looking stuff, 40k would do well. Privateer Press has a very impressive display, but at most stores, half the display is of metal blisters that don't show a painted model.
I mean, I don't buy a game that way (though I might buy a few models on impulse like that from any given manufacturer), but I was just supporting Vyxen's comment that some people shop this way.
Talys wrote: I know there's a lot of focus on price, but let's face it, to a lot of people, a thousand bucks for entertainment broken up into a few chunks is NOT a lot of money.
Its not much for us who are already heavily invested in the hobby. Us grognards typically have good jobs. Its a metric crap-ton of money for those who are in lower earning brackets, have a mortgage (or as you mentioned: kids), or are a student. 80% of my 40k expenditures in college were second hand buys. GW's aggressive pricing structure restricts potential buys from this demographic. Maybe it's all part of a plan - I'm not a business person, but IMHO, having a wider customer base can't be a bad thing.
Hey, I never said that I thought what GW was doing was super smart
I think that it's possible to have your cake and eat it too -- to please those crazy enthusiasts that they deem are core customers AND have a product attractive to the wider gaming community AND be attractive to new players. I don't think all those things are mutually exclusive, not that am an expert in it or anything.
I too think a wider customer base is a key to long term success. And really... "why not" comes to mind as an outsider looking in.
If someone isn't concerned about the total price of the army, and they're more interested in cool miniatures, there's a good chance they'll just grab the 40k stuff.
I'm not sure why you are so convinced that those in search of "cool miniatures" will head straight for 40k, do not pass go, do buy other products. :-/
Actually, if someone wants "cool minis" and is not concerned about pricing, I'd say they'd rather grab the Hitech Miniatures stuff before any GW product.
Dunno how many hobby shops you'd find those in. We have a hobby shop in this area that stocks TONS of stuff -- like, everything from Flames of War, a bunch of Mantic, all the DUST, Infinity, all the Dreamforge stuff, lots of Reaper, tons of battle boards and terrain sets, and even a ton of scale models (Tamiya, Revell, etc.), and they don't even carry Hitech.
I would buy Darksword stuff too, if they were distributed locally. I think their miniatures are gorgeous, but mail order is not my preference. Likewise, I don't buy much Forgeworld, not because of the price, but because I can't get it locally.
A lot of times, distribution counts for a lot. Citadel paints are popular not because they're awesome, but because for a lot of people, they can actually go to a store nearby and buy them.
Swastakowey wrote: I have noticed that there exists a group of people who love the idea of making 40k armies. That group then buys an army and paints a couple of models. They then quickly move to a new army do the same thing. Some of these people sell before moving on, others horde.
I personally think its these people who spend a load of cash on GW more so than anyone else. One of my friends is like this. Constantly buys whole armies then sells them really cheap. Loves coming up with army ideas but doesn't look like he actually enjoys playing the game.
Of course there are people who do this and love the game, but in my experience there aren't heaps of those.
The amount of money people from this group spends is huge. Add the cost of a 1800 point army, then (in the case of a friend) multiply that by 10+ armies and it adds up.
Almost like an addiction really.
But other than financial reports there isn't really hard info on GW and their downfall. As much as I think they won't last people have been saying it's coming since before my time.
If someone isn't concerned about the total price of the army, and they're more interested in cool miniatures, there's a good chance they'll just grab the 40k stuff.
I'm not sure why you are so convinced that those in search of "cool miniatures" will head straight for 40k, do not pass go, do buy other products. :-/
Actually, if someone wants "cool minis" and is not concerned about pricing, I'd say they'd rather grab the Hitech Miniatures stuff before any GW product.
unless, like me, you think that Hitech minis are incredibly ugly...
i would not buy them, personally...
you would literally have to pay me to paint one, as their models do nothing or me...
same goes for Scibor's version of "not" Adeptus Astartes...
all i collect are what i feel are "cool minis", and i can honestly say that GW minis are my absolute favorite minis to collect and paint...
as a kid growing up, they were my choice of Ral Partha or Grenadier...
now, 30 years later, they are still my choice over Infinity, PP, or any other minis...
i still buy the minis i like from every manufacturer on the market, but when i think of what i would like to paint, it is always a variety of Adeptus Astartes...
even after 30 years, there are still so many iconic pieces of 40k background that i want to bring to life in miniature, but haven't had the time for...
i think i could happily go through the rest of my life painting, and still not paint every version of an Adeptus Astartes that i "fantasy paint" in my head...
the lore is that deep, and inspires me that much...
some may see it differently, and that's cool, but for me it is not about fanatical devotion to one company, or product line, but about what inspires me the most to create, and that is the 40K universe...
Just being fair here, but being a 'doomsayers of gw' and 'curbing enthusiasm for the hobby' are not necessarily the same thing. With respect, gw isn't 'the hobby' either,many those 'doomsayers' (apparently I am one now because I disagreed with vyxen?) are also fully capable of enjoying, and being enthusiastic about other aspects than just competitive gaming.
I applaud enthusiasm. I also applaud honest discourse and objective attitudes. You can have both.,..
And I'm exalting and agreeing with this. I am one of the 'doomsayers', so to speak. People can enjoy GW products, and do so for years, I'm not holding a gun to their heads. But there's a strong possibility that somewhere down the line, GW will do something - or a bunch of small things - that'll sour the experience for them ('I've got loadsamoney' and 'other things are expensive' only work up to a point) and it seems to be happening at a faster rate that is actually impacting on their bottom line. GW might not go anywhere soon, but it's going somewhere eventually - like a blindfolded speed freak on a motorcycle, kicking cheering spectators in the groin as it zooms past, and there's a clifftop in sight.
So yeah, enjoy GW products. But cast a sideways glance at something outside the secure compound once in a while. It might just keep you in this great hobby, if the novelty fades. It might even expand your hobby and your enjoyment of it in the meantime.
@vermis - a lot of people in the anti-GW crowd make the assumption that GW fans don't try out other stuff. They can't understand how someone could 'glance sideways' and not see that there is so much better out there for so much cheaper.
But the thing is, there are a lot of people like me who DO glance sideways, every trip to the hobby shop, and very frequentl buy some non-GW product. Like jah, I just happen to genuinely prefer GW's models. I don't ask anyone to agree with me, but it does boggle my mind that some people don't seem to understand that GW has fans who prefer their products after swimming in various pools, because they actually think GW makes a better product, and most of the other stuff they want at the ho by shop really isn't any cheaper, at least not in a macro sense (what I'd spend in a month or year).
I don't have loads of money or money to burn, but the cost of $50 boxes of models is not ever going to be what makes or breaks me. It won't ever equate to mortgage or food or auto or home maintenance or presents for my wife or taking care of my mom. I mean, it isn't in the same order if magnitude. That doesn't mean that I'll always buy models, because I might just get into something else for a while, say photography or a sport, and spend less time in hobby.
My point: It is out of choice, not ignorance, that I give Games Workshop my money.
Talys wrote: @vermis - a lot of people in the anti-GW crowd make the assumption that GW fans don't try out other stuff. They can't understand how someone could 'glance sideways' and not see that there is so much better out there for so much cheaper.
But the thing is, there are a lot of people like me who DO glance sideways, every trip to the hobby shop, and very frequentl buy some non-GW product. Like jah, I just happen to genuinely prefer GW's models. I don't ask anyone to agree with me, but it does boggle my mind that some people don't seem to understand that GW has fans who prefer their products after swimming in various pools, because they actually think GW makes a better product, and most of the other stuff they want at the ho by shop really isn't any cheaper, at least not in a macro sense (what I'd spend in a month or year).
...
My point: It is out of choice, not ignorance, that I give Games Workshop my money.
Well said, actually. I picked up Warmahordes, X-Wing, Armada, and Netrunner at some point in time, as well as Conquest recently. I'm in the process of selling off all but my Conquest stuff, because none of them, frankly, kept my interest as long as 40k did.
Talys wrote: @vermis - a lot of people in the anti-GW crowd make the assumption that GW fans don't try out other stuff. They can't understand how someone could 'glance sideways' and not see that there is so much better out there for so much cheaper.
While I can't speak for everyone I think its safe to say this attitude comes not from people feeling intellectually superior or anything negative like that, but from GWs attitude about how they are the hobby and the WHOLE hobby. It seems, at least to some of us, that rather than try to compete with the competition GW simply wants new hobbyists to never realize those other games exist.
Talys wrote: @vermis - a lot of people in the anti-GW crowd make the assumption that GW fans don't try out other stuff. They can't understand how someone could 'glance sideways' and not see that there is so much better out there for so much cheaper.
While I can't speak for everyone I think its safe to say this attitude comes not from people feeling intellectually superior or anything negative like that, but from GWs attitude about how they are the hobby and the WHOLE hobby. It seems, at least to some of us, that rather than try to compete with the competition GW simply wants new hobbyists to never realize those other games exist.
Well sure. Ford and Chevy would both like you to think nobody else makes a pickup truck and Apple wants you to think they have the only app store (tm) and Microsoft would have you think 100% of businesses use Windows.
But who really believes any of that? . Still, it behooves Apple to TRY to lock you into their ecosystem, no different than Google or Microsoft. It's their job to promote their stuff, not anyone else's, and it's also their job to throw up as many walls for any competitor that they can.
Perhaps, but if I walk into a Ford dealership or an Apple store and ask what makes their product better than Chevy/Samsung I won't feel uncomfortable and get the impression the salesman I am speaking to wants me to leave because those names are forbidden in his store.
keezus wrote: GW's aggressive pricing structure restricts potential buys from this demographic. Maybe it's all part of a plan - I'm not a business person, but IMHO, having a wider customer base can't be a bad thing.
I totally agree with you, and I think they lose business because of it. My entire army was bought from eBay in pieces. I have sold stuff on eBay. I am talking about $500 worth of stuff changing hands since the beginning of the year. I (and likely others) would much rather buy from GW and get brand new kits, but at around 25%-50% off it is tough to walk by. If I shop on eBay, GW only gets the money once. I can't be the only one who collects this way, and it adds up against GW.
Good point at the end though - no business expertise here either. Maybe they are doing even better at their current price point.
jonolikespie wrote: Perhaps, but if I walk into a Ford dealership or an Apple store and ask what makes their product better than Chevy/Samsung I won't feel uncomfortable and get the impression the salesman I am speaking to wants me to leave because those names are forbidden in his store.
Sadly I have had that experience in a GW store.
I've had both terrible and fantastic experiences at GW stores, including hearing an intelligent comparison with WMH and explanation of why (in the mind of the GW employee) GW models were superior. While I didn't agree with everything the person said (most notably, I don't think plastic is ALWAYS superior to resin), he knew what he was talking about and didn't make stuff up.
I might be getting my wires crossed, but The Hobbit is most certainly a non-starter since the kickoff "limited edition" box is still for sale YEARS late on the GW site. Right here.
TheKbob wrote: I might be getting my wires crossed, but The Hobbit is most certainly a non-starter since the kickoff "limited edition" box is still for sale YEARS late on the GW site. Right here.
hahaha
For what it's worth, that set is actually a pretty good value for models. Never bought it though, because I despised the Hobbit movie. Wife enjoyed it, but it was so far removed from the original book that it was all I could do to sit through the "battle of five armies". And Radagast. Why is he even IN the movie!!! (the model is kinda cool and all, though).
Korinov wrote: I have a special issue with the "this is an expensive hobby after all" argument, and how often it's employed to justify insane pricing policies.
What hobby? Wargaming/miniature painting/modelling hobby? Or The GW Hobby(TM)? If the answer is the second one, then all fine, The GW Hobby(TM) is certainly very expensive.
The wargaming hobby (understood as a whole) may be or may not be expensive depending on the rulesets you're playing and what and how many models you're buying.
I mean, if you are playing a skirmish or small battle game - whose rules are available for free in pdf - and your models of choice are among the less expensive in the market (either historicals or fantasy/sci-fi ranges with the more sensitive prices) then I wouldn't really define it as an expensive hobby. Because you will neither need a ton of models to play neither pay a lot of money for the ones you adquire.
If you, however, are playing 2000 points 40k games and sticking to official models, paints and tools... oh dear, then it's going to be an expensive hobby.
Finally, I think it makes little sense to compare the costs of wargaming with different hobbies. Just compare the prices of certain model ranges (and paints, and tools) with others. You may notice an extreme disparity. As a customer, it's a matter of choice.
I'm not keen on the expensive hobby phrase at all either, there are many more (popular) hobbies that are much more expensive and there are many that are much cheaper.
I agree that the only thing that matters is if GW is more expensive than its direct competitors and if it is much more expensive than it needs to be, this is the only comparison that is relevant for me. The actual price of the item is irrelevant as what is expensive to one person could be disposable money to somebody else, i.e., just because I can't afford x doesn't mean x is expensive, it just means x is too expensive for me. Its that personal qualifier that is needed around the discussion on price, that or keep it limited to directly comparable products.
It does make sense to compare the cost of wargaming with alternative forms of entertainment targeted at the same demographic though.
I mean, it isn't meaningful necessarily in what you'd spend on a PC versus what you'd spend on tools and models, but it does matter, because people choose what to do with their money when it's a constraint. So, if I have $1,000, do I buy a new PC, a new video card, an XB1 with a accessories and a bunch of titles, or a new 40k army (for instance).
Ironically, the new video card will be useful for a much shorter period of time than a 40k army
It's also interesting, at least to me in an academic sense, to compare cost per hour of entertainment.
Looky Likey makes a great point though, that "expensive" is such a relative term, because "expensive to me" may mean something totally different from person to person.
Talys wrote:@vermis - a lot of people in the anti-GW crowd make the assumption that GW fans don't try out other stuff. They can't understand how someone could 'glance sideways' and not see that there is so much better out there for so much cheaper.
Oh but I do understand - I used to be just the same. I daresay most of us here who moved on from GW were the same, to some extent, until we weren't. Nice convenient GW store to congregate in and bask in the wonder of 40K and FB. Space marines and genestealers and orcs and skaven - brilliant. Everything you could ever want for gaming. Sure there were other minis that were kinda sorta interesting, and there was a shop nearby where you could buy different colours of paint for your space marines. There was even a wee FLGS that opened nearby. But the pull was was never too strong to spend most of your gaming time and money anywhere else. Other games didn't have Space Marines or were historicals - boh-ring. Going to that FLGS or a club or even someone's house was ridiculous - unthinkable - because all your gaming buddies (or pickup gaming acquaintances) were right there in GW, along with the only two games that really mattered.
Until they weren't.
GW releases the SGs for one last hurrah. Look at this cockamamie Epic stuff with teeny-tiny versions of the minis we all love! Might as well give it a try - the SM company box is cheap enough. (In fact, why does it seem to be better value than...?) These rules are weird - there aren't even any distinguishable sergeants, let alone a couple of dozen bits of wargear to give them! But hey, this plays pretty well. (In fact, why does it play better than...? And why exactly do we need to sweat and mathammer over which arbitrary choices and wargear to permanently affix to our minis...?) This BFG thing plays pretty well too. Let's take a look at the others to see what we've been missing.
Then it was like the dinosaurs: environmental conditions had already started to kill off enthusiasm when the meteor hit. Those new, interesting SGs were suddenly banned from the shop. At the same time us 'vets' were unceremoniously thrown out on our ear. GW and it's worlds, still beloved even though the cracks had started to show, suddenly made it clear that they didn't wub us anymore. They never did.
Overnight the situation almost completely switched. Indy shops and clubs and especially kitchen tables became much more viable gaming venues than the GW store. It was a choice between organising and gaming at those places, or nowhere; and it took some time and adjustment but we voted 'gaming'. The sting of abandonment was also temporarily added to that increasing dissatisfaction with the rules and prices, so that when we met at those places we were much more receptive of other games. (alongside those SGs that were also kicked out) And y'know what - hand on heart, no sour grapes - most of them are pretty good. Better even. These minis are great too, viewed outside the suffocating GW blanket. Even these historical thingies aren't bad - brightly coloured wheeling blocks and derring-do and everything. Hey, at least it's better-written...
So yeah, I know what it's like to be fixated on GW. I also know what it's like for aaall those people who've been alienated by GW, with a whimper or a bang. Maybe the novelty will fade for you, Talys, though given your astonishingly, wilfuly blinkered and unceasing handwaving of anything GW might be doing wrong, I somehow doubt it. But you are part of a shrinking demographic, and I don't think you're gonna be able to hold GW's hand and lead it all the way through the gauntlet it's facing.
For those alienated gamers, present and future, maybe some might think I'm being melodramatic and I should just worry about my own personal hobby, but I feel some kind of concern and sympathy for them. Many, or most, will move on and find other games by themselves. Others will just feel like giving up altogether, and that's a big loss for them and for the hobby. (For us, not The Hobby(TM)) I don't know how effective my one voice is, bleating in the din of one tiny corner of the internet, and I know it's not as effective as others here, but in some small way I want to encourage both groups that it's not a howling wasteland outside of the GW compound. It's full of variety and possibility, and a lot of fun, and it just needs a couple of extra steps to get to. I know. I was there.
And you'll save a crapload of money too.
Looky Likey wrote:The actual price of the item is irrelevant as what is expensive to one person could be disposable money to somebody else, i.e., just because I can't afford x doesn't mean x is expensive, it just means x is too expensive for me. Its that personal qualifier that is needed around the discussion on price, that or keep it limited to directly comparable products.
Alternatively, just because I can afford x doesn't mean x isn't expensive, it just means I have some money.
@vermis - well, I'm happy for you that you have found something that's a great fit for you. I hope you can be happy for the folks that have different tastes and priorities as you, and like GW stuff.
keezus wrote: Maybe it's all part of a plan - I'm not a business person, but IMHO, having a wider customer base can't be a bad thing.
It can be, if you're targeting a very specific demographic, aka a niche, which is what GW has stated that they're doing in their business plan - which is the reason they don't need to conduct market research (yeah, I'm referring to that one statement that sent everyone up in arms with pitchforks). That's why we have multi-million dollar supercars (Lambo Venino Roadster for $4.5mil), phones that cost more than some people will ever make in a month (Porsche Design Blackberry P'9982 for $2500), classes higher than first class on commercial airliners that are basically small apartments (UAE Etihad Airlines apartment cabins), etc.
In all these cases, exclusivity caused by extreme high prices is the draw for many of their customers. Lowering the cost and opening it up to the masses isn't what they're aiming to do. It's the same reason Limited Edition stuff exists.
I mean, Hypercars sell because they are a status symbol for those with far too much money. But do you find many people in Monaco or Dubai playing with Space Marines with their special edition Lambo outside the store?
I could see it if was like Kingdom death, with their $30 limited run mini's, but with mass produced plastic?
Herzlos wrote: Does that really apply to $30 plastic soldiers?
I mean, Hypercars sell because they are a status symbol for those with far too much money. But do you find many people in Monaco or Dubai playing with Space Marines with their special edition Lambo outside the store?
I could see it if was like Kingdom death, with their $30 limited run mini's, but with mass produced plastic?
I'm using it as an example that there are "upper tier" niches in every market. Cars, phones, whatever it may be. GW has stated that they're targeting the wargaming niche market, which means that it makes a little more sense that they don't care about lowering their prices to get more users or not doing market research (see the other thread for my explanation for why this is logical from a business standpoint). Also note that I said "a little more sense", not "makes complete sense".
Alternatively, just because I can afford x doesn't mean x isn't expensive, it just means I have some money.
How expensive something is, is solely relative to its peer products and its customer base's disposable cash. If you are contrasting a clearly marked up product against cheaper competitors then yes, it is expensive, however if I have x thousands to spend on models each week do I care if the model cost me £10 more than somebody else? Certainly nowhere near what somebody who has £30 or £100 to spend.
Herzlos wrote:Does that really apply to $30 plastic soldiers?
I mean, Hypercars sell because they are a status symbol for those with far too much money. But do you find many people in Monaco or Dubai playing with Space Marines with their special edition Lambo outside the store?
I could see it if was like Kingdom death, with their $30 limited run mini's, but with mass produced plastic?
You are assuming everybody who buys a hypercar has as much value as you would. When you are a billionare spending ~£1million on one car is nothing, it is like me buying a £1000 clunker, yes I don't want to throw away the £1000 but I'm certainly not as bothered about the car as I would be if I had spent £100k on the car. Worth having a read: http://www.smash.com/supercar-sadness-26-abandoned-forgotten-high-performance-cars-left-dubai/
To put it another way, I have a reasonable hobby budget but it is less than 4% of my net income, I'm actually short on time to build and paint than I am for models that I can buy, even with having about half my models commission painted. I don't even see that as that unusual in the hobby, I've seen many big piles of unpainted lead that even people of self confessed modest means have accrued.
You don't need that big of an income for a £30 box of marines to be such a small percentage of your income, its a personal decision if that feels expensive or not when you get to that point, much like the idiots who leave their hypercars to rot.
@Enignwolf: I think the problem is that their stated target of the "enthusiast" and "premium" market is not borne out by their actions. Ignoring price entirely:
1. The ultimate enthusiast events - Gamesdays have been slashed and shrunk down to a poorly attended GW-only marketplace.
1a. There used to be insane hobby displays built by the GW outlets and there used to be dedicated events teams! These really got the creative juices flowing, but sadly, these are a thing of the past. Now we are stuck with the sad-sad current incarnation of White Dwarf.
2. The quality exhibited by 'Eavy Metal is much diminished from its hey-day. This is BY DESIGN to control costs since by in large, the overall skill of painters is much improved today.
2b. The "Showcase" magazine is chock full of glossy photos of these "mid to mid-high" paint job models built in their STOCK configuration. There's conversion stuff in there - while the photos are much better, the content itself is a far cry to the articles of old.
2c. The paint and modelling work in their one man stores has suffered accordingly. Granted, the appearance of the display armies is going to vary with the ability of the staffers, but in general, I've found the overall paint quality has greatly decreased due to a need for speed painting large quantities of models with extremely limited man-hours.
3. IMHO, the model design team feels rudderless and within some armies, there is highly variable degree of appearance in the releases. For every "Plastic Sternguard", you have a "Space Marine Centurions", or "Flying VW Beetle". This has more of a "get it out the door" than carefully targeting the "premium" market. I realize this is mostly about aesthetics, but the Centurions in general are a significant departure from the feel of the army. -edit- To go more recent: IMHO, the coolest damn thing to come out of the Ad Mech stuff is the Ironstrider kit. This thing encapsulates the gothic ridiculousness of John Balanche's old art. The new Ad Mech robots? IMHO these look like dollar store robots run through a photo shop edge enhance filter and given a passable paintjob.
3a. With the departure from metals, GW is now replacing all their character models in plastic. All the MK1 plastic characters were multipart with tons of options to cater to the "modeling crowd". Now they are all single pose with no options. If they wanted their cake and eat it too, they should have gone with Option 3. The Empire Battle Wizards were single-pose but had lots of options. IMHO, they were the best of two worlds. Cool pose by design, options for the hobbyist.
3aa. I realize you can mitigate this by converting - but one of the most oft stated advantages of the GW system is converting (i.e. glue together parts provided with no fuss) made easy.
Anyhow... I find it hard to believe GW's stated strategy when so little of their actions seem to support this strategy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: For what it's worth, that set is actually a pretty good value for models. Never bought it though, because I despised the Hobbit movie. Wife enjoyed it, but it was so far removed from the original book that it was all I could do to sit through the "battle of five armies". And Radagast. Why is he even IN the movie!!! (the model is kinda cool and all, though).
Don't forget you get the extra valuable Goblin Town terrain. The most premium $70 pre-built popsicle stick kitbash. Like anything else, it's only good value if you are looking for models of that particular variety. You can pretty up the packaging as much as you want, but fact of the matter is that its not really the kit that hobbyists have been clamoring for.
keezus wrote: @Enignwolf: I think the problem is that their stated target of the "enthusiast" and "premium" market is not borne out by their actions. Ignoring price entirely:
...
I don't disagree with any of this. I too do believe that there's a certain disconnect between some of their business actions (or lack thereof), and their stated goals/target market. However, I'm in no real position to assume that I would be able to do any better either, since I'm not the one in that role right now and I don't see the big picture that they do.
keezus wrote: @Enignwolf: I think the problem is that their stated target of the "enthusiast" and "premium" market is not borne out by their actions. Ignoring price entirely:
...
I don't disagree with any of this. I too do believe that there's a certain disconnect between some of their business actions (or lack thereof), and their stated goals/target market. However, I'm in no real position to assume that I would be able to do any better either, since I'm not the one in that role right now and I don't see the big picture that they do.
Something that's handy to consider is two-level bargaining, mostly because it models business interactions really well. Essentially the notion is that whenever you're looking at a decision between two parties, you also have to consider all the other decisions those two parties are involved in with any third parties, making what seems like stupid decisions taken in isolation to either be rational decisions in the context of all those other decisions, or simply the result of being overwhelmed by the complexity of how those decisions interact. It's hard to tell which is which. Much like it's hard to see the tactics in Warhammer because there's so much decoration around what's a fairly complex problem set. Which is a long-winded way of saying: Yeah, right on.
keezus wrote: @Enignwolf: I think the problem is that their stated target of the "enthusiast" and "premium" market is not borne out by their actions. Ignoring price entirely:
...
I don't disagree with any of this. I too do believe that there's a certain disconnect between some of their business actions (or lack thereof), and their stated goals/target market. However, I'm in no real position to assume that I would be able to do any better either, since I'm not the one in that role right now and I don't see the big picture that they do.
Something that's handy to consider is two-level bargaining, mostly because it models business interactions really well. Essentially the notion is that whenever you're looking at a decision between two parties, you also have to consider all the other decisions those two parties are involved in with any third parties, making what seems like stupid decisions taken in isolation to either be rational decisions in the context of all those other decisions, or simply the result of being overwhelmed by the complexity of how those decisions interact. It's hard to tell which is which. Much like it's hard to see the tactics in Warhammer because there's so much decoration around what's a fairly complex problem set. Which is a long-winded way of saying: Yeah, right on.
Exalted for being spot on. Talys has pointed out recently in this thread that it very well may be that GW's current course of action is actually earning them more profits than any other alternative courses of action, and we simply don't see that. If some keyboard warrior on Dakka thinks they can run GW better than its being run right now, I welcome them to try.
Exalted for being spot on. Talys has pointed out recently in this thread that it very well may be that GW's current course of action is actually earning them more profits than any other alternative courses of action, and we simply don't see that. If some keyboard warrior on Dakka thinks they can run GW better than its being run right now, I welcome them to try.
Regardless of what any "keyboard warrior" thinks, GW has boasted in plain black and white that they do no market research. They do not know if any other course of action with earn more profit.
Exalted for being spot on. Talys has pointed out recently in this thread that it very well may be that GW's current course of action is actually earning them more profits than any other alternative courses of action, and we simply don't see that. If some keyboard warrior on Dakka thinks they can run GW better than its being run right now, I welcome them to try.
Regardless of what any "keyboard warrior" thinks, GW has boasted in plain black and white that they do no market research. They do not know if any other course of action with earn more profit.
I wouldn't say "boasted" is the right word. They have stated that they do not market research, because the perceived industry they are targeting is a niche one, and the properties of a niche market typically lends itself to not needing much in the way of year-over-year market research, unlike mainstream and commodity markets. This also does not mean that they have never conducted any market research in the past, because they have. Is the information that they gleaned from a decade ago still worthwhile today? Unless you work at GW, no one knows.
Exalted for being spot on. Talys has pointed out recently in this thread that it very well may be that GW's current course of action is actually earning them more profits than any other alternative courses of action, and we simply don't see that. If some keyboard warrior on Dakka thinks they can run GW better than its being run right now, I welcome them to try.
Regardless of what any "keyboard warrior" thinks, GW has boasted in plain black and white that they do no market research. They do not know if any other course of action with earn more profit.
I wouldn't say "boasted" is the right word. They have stated that they do not market research, because the perceived industry they are targeting is a niche one, and the properties of a niche market typically lends itself to not needing much in the way of year-over-year market research, unlike mainstream and commodity markets. This also does not mean that they have never conducted any market research in the past, because they have. Is the information that they gleaned from a decade ago still worthwhile today? Unless you work at GW, no one knows.
The information from a decade ago when GW had a monopoly on wargaming? Versus now where several game systems have taken over the 2nd-5th highest selling spots? Since GW has dropped all product lines except for the main three and several competitors have stepped into that niche-niche? Since Kickstarter has sprung up, allowing small start ups to gather large amounts of capital for investment in their initial product offering?
You're right. That market research would be totally relevant in todays market.
Exalted for being spot on. Talys has pointed out recently in this thread that it very well may be that GW's current course of action is actually earning them more profits than any other alternative courses of action, and we simply don't see that. If some keyboard warrior on Dakka thinks they can run GW better than its being run right now, I welcome them to try.
Regardless of what any "keyboard warrior" thinks, GW has boasted in plain black and white that they do no market research. They do not know if any other course of action with earn more profit.
I wouldn't say "boasted" is the right word. They have stated that they do not market research, because the perceived industry they are targeting is a niche one, and the properties of a niche market typically lends itself to not needing much in the way of year-over-year market research, unlike mainstream and commodity markets. This also does not mean that they have never conducted any market research in the past, because they have. Is the information that they gleaned from a decade ago still worthwhile today? Unless you work at GW, no one knows.
The information from a decade ago when GW had a monopoly on wargaming? Versus now where several game systems have taken over the 2nd-5th highest selling spots? Since GW has dropped all product lines except for the main three and several competitors have stepped into that niche-niche? Since Kickstarter has sprung up, allowing small start ups to gather large amounts of capital for investment in their initial product offering?
You're right. That market research would be totally relevant in todays market.
You're putting words in my mouth (fingers? keyboard?) - I never said that that was what I believed, merely what was possible from their perspective. All I said definitively was that "we don't know" because we don't work at GW.
Exalted for being spot on. Talys has pointed out recently in this thread that it very well may be that GW's current course of action is actually earning them more profits than any other alternative courses of action, and we simply don't see that. If some keyboard warrior on Dakka thinks they can run GW better than its being run right now, I welcome them to try.
Regardless of what any "keyboard warrior" thinks, GW has boasted in plain black and white that they do no market research. They do not know if any other course of action with earn more profit.
I wouldn't say "boasted" is the right word. They have stated that they do not market research, because the perceived industry they are targeting is a niche one, and the properties of a niche market typically lends itself to not needing much in the way of year-over-year market research, unlike mainstream and commodity markets. This also does not mean that they have never conducted any market research in the past, because they have. Is the information that they gleaned from a decade ago still worthwhile today? Unless you work at GW, no one knows.
"We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants."
That doesn't sound like boasting to you? Tom Kirby flat-out stated that finding out who their customers are and what they want is pointless.
Also, I find the idea that decade-old market research could even possibly be valid to be ridiculous. Ten years ago, GW games were still the only real choices for games, if you wanted to play outside of your own house. And even if old data still has some value, wouldn't current data be that much more valuable? The whole "we aren't GW so we can't know anything for sure" line is really getting old. There is plenty of information available and plenty of posters with financial experience to make some educated guesses.
Exalted for being spot on. Talys has pointed out recently in this thread that it very well may be that GW's current course of action is actually earning them more profits than any other alternative courses of action, and we simply don't see that. If some keyboard warrior on Dakka thinks they can run GW better than its being run right now, I welcome them to try.
Regardless of what any "keyboard warrior" thinks, GW has boasted in plain black and white that they do no market research. They do not know if any other course of action with earn more profit.
I wouldn't say "boasted" is the right word. They have stated that they do not market research, because the perceived industry they are targeting is a niche one, and the properties of a niche market typically lends itself to not needing much in the way of year-over-year market research, unlike mainstream and commodity markets. This also does not mean that they have never conducted any market research in the past, because they have. Is the information that they gleaned from a decade ago still worthwhile today? Unless you work at GW, no one knows.
"We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants."
That doesn't sound like boasting to you? Tom Kirby flat-out stated that finding out who their customers are and what they want is pointless.
Also, I find the idea that decade-old market research could even possibly be valid to be ridiculous. Ten years ago, GW games were still the only real choices for games, if you wanted to play outside of your own house. And even if old data still has some value, wouldn't current data be that much more valuable? The whole "we aren't GW so we can't know anything for sure" line is really getting old. There is plenty of information available and plenty of posters with financial experience to make some educated guesses.
Validity of old market research not withstanding, Kirby stated that they, as a company, feel they KNOW exactly what their target audience is. Arrogant or not, they, as a company, feel they do know exactly who their customers are and what they want (and in all honesty, I'm not entirely sure they are off base), and so it doesn't make sense to spend gobs of money on that sort of research. Can you honestly say that the miniature and table top game market has expanded or dramatically changed in the last 20 years? Just because there are more options for customers to choose from doesn't mean the target audience has really changed or grown significantly. GW knows there is competition, they don't need market research for that. However, because of GW's flawed view of itself as a "miniatures company", their way of addressing the competition is to increase the quality of their models (which its fair to say they have for the most part) instead of improving their rules writing (which is something many of us would like).
GW does half of its business (or maybe even more, I don't know) direct with the customer, so they have the raw sales data they need to determine what their customers want. Its why WHFB is getting replaced. Its why Space Marines have their model ranged updated regularly while others are still using 2nd edition models. Its why the Specialty Games was shuttered. We may not like it as fans of some of those games, but from purely business perspective, these are all good decisions. Market research is nice and certainly has its uses, but ultimately, sales are what drive GW to make the decisions it makes, good or bad.
For such a niche market, I'm not sure it would even be beneficial for GW to invest heavily in market research. For a publicly traded company that markets to a niche audience, every dollar spent has to have some kind of return to the bottom line. To get an idea of how useless, or even dangerous, market research can potentially be, look no further than the restaurant industry. McDonald's asked their customers what they wanted, and got a bunch of BS from the millenials about wanting fresh, all-natural ingredients, premiums options, more variety, etc. So McDonald's dramatically expanded its menu to include those things their customers claimed they wanted. Guess what, sales of those items were terrible, and has resulted in the closure of 100s of stores, all the while, the same old Big Mac and Quarter Pounder they've always had continue to keep their impressive sales numbers. Pizza Hut did the same thing, tried to go all artisan with their pizzas, and again, failed miserably. All because they listened too closely to market research and forgot their true audience (which largely has remained the same for decades). While a mistake like that is just a setback for a company as large as McDonalds or Yum!(owners of Pizza Hut), it would be catastrophic for a company the size of GW.
Validity of old market research not withstanding, Kirby stated that they, as a company, feel they KNOW exactly what their target audience is. Arrogant or not, they, as a company, feel they do know exactly who their customers are and what they want (and in all honesty, I'm not entirely sure they are off base), and so it doesn't make sense to spend gobs of money on that sort of research. Can you honestly say that the miniature and table top game market has expanded or dramatically changed in the last 20 years? Just because there are more options for customers to choose from doesn't mean the target audience has really changed or grown significantly. GW knows there is competition, they don't need market research for that. However, because of GW's flawed view of itself as a "miniatures company", their way of addressing the competition is to increase the quality of their models (which its fair to say they have for the most part) instead of improving their rules writing (which is something many of us would like).
GW does half of its business (or maybe even more, I don't know) direct with the customer, so they have the raw sales data they need to determine what their customers want. Its why WHFB is getting replaced. Its why Space Marines have their model ranged updated regularly while others are still using 2nd edition models. Its why the Specialty Games was shuttered. We may not like it as fans of some of those games, but from purely business perspective, these are all good decisions. Market research is nice and certainly has its uses, but ultimately, sales are what drive GW to make the decisions it makes, good or bad.
For such a niche market, I'm not sure it would even be beneficial for GW to invest heavily in market research. For a publicly traded company that markets to a niche audience, every dollar spent has to have some kind of return to the bottom line. To get an idea of how useless, or even dangerous, market research can potentially be, look no further than the restaurant industry. McDonald's asked their customers what they wanted, and got a bunch of BS from the millenials about wanting fresh, all-natural ingredients, premiums options, more variety, etc. So McDonald's dramatically expanded its menu to include those things their customers claimed they wanted. Guess what, sales of those items were terrible, and has resulted in the closure of 100s of stores, all the while, the same old Big Mac and Quarter Pounder they've always had continue to keep their impressive sales numbers. Pizza Hut did the same thing, tried to go all artisan with their pizzas, and again, failed miserably. All because they listened too closely to market research and forgot their true audience (which largely has remained the same for decades). While a mistake like that is just a setback for a company as large as McDonalds or Yum!(owners of Pizza Hut), it would be catastrophic for a company the size of GW.
I think there's certainly room for market research in wargaming. The games that people play and the way they spend their money have changed. Most of GW's competitors produce skirmish-sized games in 28mm, or other scales entirely. Is that a meaningful trend? Maybe, maybe not. Sales data is great for telling you what is being purchased, but not why. If I buy a set of Citadel Woods and a Garden of Morr (sp?) graveyard set, all they know is that I bought it, not that I'm intending to use it with Malifaux.
I guess we'd have to define what "heavily invested" means. GW certainly doesn't need the dedicated teams that McDonald's and Pizza Hut do, but they could use social media. Other companies use their forums and Facebook/Twitter/whatever to engage with fans and get their opinions. Sure, not everything is useful, but a good marketing team knows how to sift through the crap and find the useful info. GW used to have those avenues for customer outreach, but they decided to close them. Get two or three staff members to manage the accounts, and you'd have plenty to go through. A change in tack could be disastrous, or it could be miraculous. For every Pizza Hut failure, there's a Domino's that saved the brand.
Sure, this is all conjecture on my part. I don't have the sales data, or the market research to make serious proclamations. I don't know if their customer demographics have changed, or if modern customers prefer skirmish games, or if price reductions would actually have a positive effect on the bottom line. My point is, as long as GW refuses to interact with their customer base, neither do they.
ClassicCarraway wrote: Can you honestly say that the miniature and table top game market has expanded or dramatically changed in the last 20 years?
Categorically and without reservation.
Just because there are more options for customers to choose from doesn't mean the target audience has really changed or grown significantly.
It very much has, much like video games, there is now a generation of customers who have grown up with Warhammer, customers old enough to now have children of their own. Tabletop gaming is now more popular than ever, and even if one argued that a good percentage of that market wouldn't be interested in a full blooded wargame, there's undoubtedly untapped potential there. Well, that which hasn't already been tapped by the likes of FFG.
GW knows there is competition, they don't need market research for that. However, because of GW's flawed view of itself as a "miniatures company", their way of addressing the competition is to increase the quality of their models (which its fair to say they have for the most part) instead of improving their rules writing (which is something many of us would like).
They know there's competition, what they need the research for is to discover why an apparently increasing number of people are buying their products, in many cases instead of GW it would seem.
GW does half of its business (or maybe even more, I don't know) direct with the customer, so they have the raw sales data they need to determine what their customers want. Its why WHFB is getting replaced. Its why Space Marines have their model ranged updated regularly while others are still using 2nd edition models. Its why the Specialty Games was shuttered. We may not like it as fans of some of those games, but from purely business perspective, these are all good decisions. Market research is nice and certainly has its uses, but ultimately, sales are what drive GW to make the decisions it makes, good or bad.
But sales only tell you what, not why. The reality SG got cut is probably nothing to do with lack of interest but lack of promotion. If your goal is to keep your customers totally within your ecosystem, and within your ecosystem is a game of fleet based, capital ship combat, but you don't sell the game in your store, don't talk about it, promote it or support it, and make it exclusively available in a tucked away corner of your website, what do you think the likely fate of that game is?
To continue the BFG example, have you seen the number of similar products being launched to fill that gap? I can think of 4 without trying.
For such a niche market, I'm not sure it would even be beneficial for GW to invest heavily in market research.
They don't need to invest heavily, just check this thread for a variety of low cost options they could employ.
For a publicly traded company that markets to a niche audience, every dollar spent has to have some kind of return to the bottom line.
Like £4m on a website that returns 2% growth on your smallest channel by percentage of revenue?
To get an idea of how useless, or even dangerous, market research can potentially be, look no further than the restaurant industry. McDonald's asked their customers what they wanted, and got a bunch of BS from the millenials about wanting fresh, all-natural ingredients, premiums options, more variety, etc. So McDonald's dramatically expanded its menu to include those things their customers claimed they wanted. Guess what, sales of those items were terrible, and has resulted in the closure of 100s of stores, all the while, the same old Big Mac and Quarter Pounder they've always had continue to keep their impressive sales numbers. Pizza Hut did the same thing, tried to go all artisan with their pizzas, and again, failed miserably. All because they listened too closely to market research and forgot their true audience (which largely has remained the same for decades). While a mistake like that is just a setback for a company as large as McDonalds or Yum!(owners of Pizza Hut), it would be catastrophic for a company the size of GW.
The information you get from market research is a tool to inform your decisions, if you blindly follow everything it tells you without accounting for other factors, then frankly you deserve everything you get. But the difference between doing it and not doing it is like aiming at your target rather than throwing some bullets down range blindfolded, neither is a guarantee of a bullseye, but one does your chances an awful lot more good than the other.
You're right. That market research would be totally relevant in todays market.
You're putting words in my mouth (fingers? keyboard?) - I never said that that was what I believed, merely what was possible from their perspective. All I said definitively was that "we don't know" because we don't work at GW.
People are drawing a line between, "we don't spend money on focus groups and market research" to, "we don't know or care about our customers, what they want, and our competitive landscape."
Ask someone who owns a vineyard, who makes toilets, manufactures roofing shingles, or grows cedar hedges. They all have a really good feel for their market, yet I'm sure none of them spend money on focus groups or formal market research. It doesn't mean they don't crack open a casket and ask people what they think. It doesn't mean they don't ask a seasoned roofer how he shingles looks and how it will hold up, or how much more people will pay for a hardier product.
If a vineyard decides to exclusively make fine wines or exceptionally sweet wines instead of a product with a broader appeal, that's a conscious decision. Maybe not the most profitable, but it's a decision as to what they want to do. They didn't do it because they're stupid and don't know what the biggest chunk of people want. Maybe, they think that one niche is underserved, or maybe the owner just likes making really sweet wines.
There are folks who seem to think that GW is clueless and don't understand that if they raise prices, or if they increase release cadence, that this will piss some people off. Quite to the contrary, I am certain that GW doesn't need to perform any market research on this subject, and they understand it just fine. I think they have a better pulse on their ideal customer than most people give them credit for; it's just that a lot of people don't fall into this demographic, and GW doesn't go out of its way to accommodate them.
Blacksails wrote: What makes you believe they understand the market fine? What makes you believe they don't need to perform market research?
Well, they have hundreds of stores, and they have hundreds of employees. A lot of those people are hired to understand the market, and they do sell a lot of product. They have a large structure which invites the sort of customer that they want to come and spend time and I'm sure they talk with these customers.
How much money did Dreamforge or Mantic or CB or Anvil spend on market research? Or Advertising?
I'm not saying that funding market research would be a bad thing; just that they probably know more about the miniature wargaming industry than any of us.
You're equating their current position with the potential for future success. Much of their financial reports in recent time has indicated they're shrinking. Hence why I'm questioning why you believe they understand the market. If they're losing market share, it stands to reason they don't fully grasp the market.
Blacksails wrote: You're equating their current position with the potential for future success. Much of their financial reports in recent time has indicated they're shrinking. Hence why I'm questioning why you believe they understand the market. If they're losing market share, it stands to reason they don't fully grasp the market.
But it doesn't mean that at all.
At one point, they were a virtual monopoly. With ANY entrants into the market, they must necessarily lose market share. I mean, that's the definition of an industry that matures from a monopoly to any other type of competitive landscape. As I have previously stated, for all you know, PP profits are stagnant, too, despite industry growth. It's possible that there are more manufacturers, a lot of them making a little bit of money, and all nibbling away at a bigger pie. Also, miniature wargaming has not grown at the same rate as "the hobby" in general, particularly when including CCGs.
It is not only possible but likely that that they project that their profit maximization occurs by selling as much stuff as possible to superfans, rather than by having as many average fans as possible. Perhaps they have internal data to support this; we don't know
You'd think that the near monopolistic position GW held with their massive (comparatively) financial backing, they'd be able to out maneuver any incoming company by understanding and producing what the market wants, no? Either way, regardless of whether GW actually knows what the market wants, they're doing a pretty poor job reacting to it, which as has been pointed out, is a rather poor way to run a business, especially given their operating costs. They simply can't afford to become a garage operation making only what the designers want.
As for your last point, the reports we've seen so far indicates their plan isn't working, which, again, leaves you scratching your head.
The next report will shed more light one way or another, and for all we know, they magically turned everything around and saw an increase in revenue and profit.
No, they can't comport themselves like a couple of artists working out of a garage, because they have a lot of mouths to feed, and at least some investors that care.
At the same time, it's not incumbent upon them to ONLY do what the market demands, either. There are many companies that purposely make products only for a niche of a niche; and there are many companies that have calculated that their profit maximization occurs at serving their best customers best, even if it means losing some others.
Frankly, I don't think GW has ever been about stomping out the competition -- except in the sense that they don't want any competition specifically in the Warhammer space (bits manufacturers, etc). This is actually not a bad thing. And anyways, people hate big companies that do that, whether it's through buying out the competition or snuffing them out through predatory pricing or through bundling and vendor strongarming.
For example, Games Workshop, in some jurisdictions, could have legally said, "We'll give you a 20% discount on everything if you don't sell Privateer Press", followed by, "If you sell Privateer Press, we won't sell you Warhammer.". Intel has done this very successfully. At one point, it would have mattered. But they didn't.
Games "Cease and Desist" Workshop aren't about stomping out the competition?
Just for clarity, you're talking about Games "we own 'halberd' and we'll sue any fether who dares to make money off something that requires a purchase from us first" Workshop?
That's Games "they're not competition, but they're using a term we can't prove we own? feth it, sue them anyway!" Workshop?
Azreal13 wrote: GW aren't about stomping out the competition?
Games "Cease and Desist" Workshop aren't about stomping out the competition?
Just for clarity, you're talking about Games "we own 'halberd' and we'll sue any fether who dares to make money off something that requires a purchase from us first" Workshop?
That's Games "they're not competition, but they're using a term we can't prove we own? feth it, sue them anyway!" Workshop?
Please reread what I wrote. I said, GW cares about people profiting off of Warhammer/40k IP, but not people who are competitors in the wargaming and miniatures space or in fantasy settings. Make a compatible part for a space marine (and advertise it as such) and they'll go after you. Make your Star Warrior miniature, and they could care less. Make an add-on for 40k, and they'll die trying to put you out of business, but write another scifi tabletop game, and they won't even acknowledge that you exist. Make a gun that happens to fit one of their 28mm miniatures, they don't care. Make a unique weapon that will fit a turret for a Rhino, but don't state it as such, and good on ya. But Make it look like an iconic 40k weapon, or say it's a las/plas turret for a Razorback and they'll care a lot.
They are par for the course for IP protectiveness, but they are not at all anticompetitive, from an antitrust perspective. They don't seek to kill off competitors, and they have never leveraged a monopoly position to win in another market. Really, they don't even care about the other markets.
Blacksails wrote: What makes you believe they understand the market fine? What makes you believe they don't need to perform market research?
Well, they have hundreds of stores, and they have hundreds of employees. A lot of those people are hired to understand the market, and they do sell a lot of product. They have a large structure which invites the sort of customer that they want to come and spend time and I'm sure they talk with these customers.
How much money did Dreamforge or Mantic or CB or Anvil spend on market research? Or Advertising?
I'm not saying that funding market research would be a bad thing; just that they probably know more about the miniature wargaming industry than any of us.
And those hundreds of stores are losing money. Not decreasing profits, like GW overall, but actually losing money.
Let's not devolve into the same old trenches of everything is either horrible or awesome. GW are not going out of business within the next few years, but simultaneously they clearly have no idea what they're doing. Almost halving in real size over the last decade, with enormous revenue decreases over the last two, is not something that happens to companies that are doing all the right things. Let's be real here.
And this whole "they're the big company, so they must know more than us, because they're the big company"-spiel is getting old. It's a business. Growth and profit is good. Decline is bad. Maybe they have all this elusive knowledge, that us peasants surely don't, but they do not have, or show, the necessary skills to successfully utilize it.
Azreal13 wrote: Spots the Space Marine didn't put a toe into the Warhammer IP.
GW are just a dog chasing cars WRT their IP, trying to assert otherwise is going to put a heavy burden of proof on you.
Yes, this was an overstretch of their IP. However, they're just not a big enough company to have won that one. Had they been Universal Pictures, the outcome would have been different.
For instance, Sky networks won against Microsoft, for the use of "SkyDrive", because the word "Sky" is a their trademark. SkyDrive had absolutely nothing to do with the television network, and nobody in their right mind connected the two to each other.
how many C&D's have they actually sent out???
i know of the Bloodbowl website...
i'm sure there have been a handful that i don't exactly recall the names of...
do we have a list???
how many companies have actually been taken to court???
i know of Chapterhouse...
a company that was selling a female Striking Scorpions Exarch model...
i know that they requested Amazon take down Spots, but i don't believe anyone was sued there...
this is not a defence, just a fact finding question...
i do think GW Legal have been very heavy-handed, and lost a lot of community goodwill, as well as customers...
what doesn't seem to be mentioned here, is that competition in the market is a good thing...
the fact that people have more options is great...
the fact that people are able to take their experience in the design studio, and start their own successful companies is wonderful...
the GW monopoloy is dead, and that can only be to the good...
we are here talking about a company that has what, £12 million in profits, after all expenses are paid???
do i have that right???
again, just asking to know, myself...
it seems like the answer to the OP's topic is simple...
that people are still buying GW product is what keeps GW financially alive, and the fact that they make a profit at the end of the year is why they do not tank...
will they in the future???
not a single one of us knows the answer to that...
until the day they die, i will be buying the stuff they make that seems cool to me, and not buying the stuff i don't like...
until the day i die, i will still be struggling to make it through painting the pile of minis i already own...
We can't know about the cease and desists unless people speak about them publicly, and I'd imagine there's a non disclosure clause in most.
But, websites aside, there's stuff that went from Paulson's site (his not-Grotesques) which perhaps he can confirm about if he's lurking.
Then there was the Blighted Wheel event only model they got excited about because the sculpture resembled some of their drawn/painted work.
Many cite the heavy handed moderation on Warseer down to their getting hit with one back in the day.
I personally have had leaked images deleted from my Photobucket account back when the Knights were on their way.
Only Chapterhouse have made it to court because they secured pro bono representation, and the outcome of that suggests that many others who were served C+Ds may have won if they'd had the resources to stand their ground.
Legally, GW are a typical bully, big, ignorant and aggressive.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure Google would throw up more.
jah-joshua wrote: how many C&D's have they actually sent out???
i know of the Bloodbowl website...
i'm sure there have been a handful that i don't exactly recall the names of...
do we have a list???
how many companies have actually been taken to court???
i know of Chapterhouse...
a company that was selling a female Striking Scorpions Exarch model...
i know that they requested Amazon take down Spots, but i don't believe anyone was sued there...
this is not a defence, just a fact finding question...
i do think GW Legal have been very heavy-handed, and lost a lot of community goodwill, as well as customers...
what doesn't seem to be mentioned here, is that competition in the market is a good thing...
the fact that people have more options is great...
the fact that people are able to take their experience in the design studio, and start their own successful companies is wonderful...
the GW monopoloy is dead, and that can only be to the good...
we are here talking about a company that has what, £12 million in profits, after all expenses are paid???
do i have that right???
again, just asking to know, myself...
it seems like the answer to the OP's topic is simple...
that people are still buying GW product is what keeps GW financially alive, and the fact that they make a profit at the end of the year is why they do not tank...
will they in the future???
not a single one of us knows the answer to that...
until the day they die, i will be buying the stuff they make that seems cool to me, and not buying the stuff i don't like...
until the day i die, i will still be struggling to make it through painting the pile of minis i already own...
Azreal13 wrote: We can't know about the cease and desists unless people speak about them publicly, and I'd imagine there's a non disclosure clause in most.
But, websites aside, there's stuff that went from Paulson's site (his not-Grotesques) which perhaps he can confirm about if he's lurking.
Then there was the Blighted Wheel event only model they got excited about because the sculpture resembled some of their drawn/painted work.
Many cite the heavy handed moderation on Warseer down to their getting hit with one back in the day.
I personally have had leaked images deleted from my Photobucket account back when the Knights were on their way.
Only Chapterhouse have made it to court because they secured pro bono representation, and the outcome of that suggests that many others who were served C+Ds may have won if they'd had the resources to stand their ground.
Legally, GW are a typical bully, big, ignorant and aggressive.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure Google would throw up more.
Then there is BOLScon who were told by GW to change their convention name and threatened at least with withdrawing their prize support (not sure if there was a C&D there) because the ACRONYM was a term in their universe that GW had NOT even trademarked yet felt that they owned regardless. Ironically, the year they changed the name the website of the same name trademarked the term "bell of lost souls" later that same year.
it would be interesting to get the inide scoop fom Paulson about how things went down...
i can't really blame GW legal for jumping on the Blight Wheel Loxatl, as it was pretty much a perfect version of the artwork...
GW should have bought the mini, and released it, instead of going on the attack...
GW Legal's actions are way too heavy-handed, for sure...
i would never argue that alienating the fan base, and being overly litigious is a good thing...
that is crazy that pics got deleted from your Photobucket, Az...
i'm just happy that the company is still able to release awesome new models like the Tech-Priest and Terminator Librarian...
as long as they keep making more impressive models, i will keep buying them, but only if they are not in Finecast:(...
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps tabletop games, like computer games, have changed from being a niche to a mass market industry in the past 20 years.
I have to disagree. While tabletop games have made a ridiculous amount of progress in the past few decades it is still very much a niche market that doesn't come close to video games.
Whenever people unaware of wargaming's existence come into my FLGS or see some of my miniatures they react like they just entered the twilight zone. I've had an immense amount of trouble finding fellow 40k players and the mere act of explaining wargaming to the uninitiated takes a lot of effort.
Even then video games aren't even that popular when in the context of other past times. Pick any sport and odds are it has had made more money and made more of a cultural impact than any video game (even nintendo.)
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps tabletop games, like computer games, have changed from being a niche to a mass market industry in the past 20 years.
I have to disagree. While tabletop games have made a ridiculous amount of progress in the past few decades it is still very much a niche market that doesn't come close to video games.
Whenever people unaware of wargaming's existence come into my FLGS or see some of my miniatures they react like they just entered the twilight zone. I've had an immense amount of trouble finding fellow 40k players and the mere act of explaining wargaming to the uninitiated takes a lot of effort.
+1 to this.
For everyone who says to "prove that GW knows their market", I can equally ask the same question of "prove that GW doesn't know their market". Like I said before, you can't make claims about what information they possess unless you work for GW. For example, just because they don't conduct research on their own doesn't mean that they don't outsource or contract another company to do so, or get market insights from them, such as Frost & Sullivan, S&P Capital IQ, IBISWorld, BizMiner, etc.
I'd say that the troubles they're currently in speaks volumes about a company that's completely out of touch with not just their customers but reality itself.
For everyone who says to "prove that GW knows their market", I can equally ask the same question of "prove that GW doesn't know their market". Like I said before, you can't make claims about what information they possess unless you work for GW. For example, just because they don't conduct research on their own doesn't mean that they don't outsource or contract another company to do so, or get market insights from them, such as Frost & Sullivan, S&P Capital IQ, IBISWorld, BizMiner, etc.
1. They've stated they do no research. Interpret that how'd you like, but it indicates more that they do no research than the opposite. If you're going to claim they do in spite of their statement otherwise, you're the one who needs proof, otherwise the only logical conclusion from the facts is that they do not, in fact, perform market research or ask what the market wants.
2. Since cutting various specialist games, several companies have introduced games that are eerily similar that one could easily argue are filling the void left behind by GW. Had GW known what the market wanted, they would have been able to continue making SGs into bigger and better lines. Instead, they were left to stagnate unsupported until they pulled life supported.
3. Their revenue and profit is falling. Despite significant price increases, they are making less money, which means they're moving less product. If they're moving less product, it also stands to reason its because they don't know what the market wants; in this case with regards to value which is important.
4. The lesser of the points I'll make, but every bit of anecdotal evidence we have from stores, distributors, and gamers themselves through posts, polls, and petitions (I'm aware of the unscientific nature) all point to a growing crowd is dissatisfied customers moving on to other games for many reasons that would be apparent to GW should they only ask on twitter. Now, of course the internet is only a small representation of the customers. Of course the most positive people are less likely to post their support. Of course the polls and posts are not proper statistical sources. That said, it'd be hard to hand wave it all away without acknowledging that this is literally free market research full of rather simple ideas they could implement tomorrow if they wanted.
For everyone who says to "prove that GW knows their market", I can equally ask the same question of "prove that GW doesn't know their market". Like I said before, you can't make claims about what information they possess unless you work for GW. For example, just because they don't conduct research on their own doesn't mean that they don't outsource or contract another company to do so, or get market insights from them, such as Frost & Sullivan, S&P Capital IQ, IBISWorld, BizMiner, etc.
1. They've stated they do no research. Interpret that how'd you like, but it indicates more that they do no research than the opposite. If you're going to claim they do in spite of their statement otherwise, you're the one who needs proof, otherwise the only logical conclusion from the facts is that they do not, in fact, perform market research or ask what the market wants.
2. Since cutting various specialist games, several companies have introduced games that are eerily similar that one could easily argue are filling the void left behind by GW. Had GW known what the market wanted, they would have been able to continue making SGs into bigger and better lines. Instead, they were left to stagnate unsupported until they pulled life supported.
3. Their revenue and profit is falling. Despite significant price increases, they are making less money, which means they're moving less product. If they're moving less product, it also stands to reason its because they don't know what the market wants; in this case with regards to value which is important.
4. The lesser of the points I'll make, but every bit of anecdotal evidence we have from stores, distributors, and gamers themselves through posts, polls, and petitions (I'm aware of the unscientific nature) all point to a growing crowd is dissatisfied customers moving on to other games for many reasons that would be apparent to GW should they only ask on twitter. Now, of course the internet is only a small representation of the customers. Of course the most positive people are less likely to post their support. Of course the polls and posts are not proper statistical sources. That said, it'd be hard to hand wave it all away without acknowledging that this is literally free market research full of rather simple ideas they could implement tomorrow if they wanted.
Ironically, I think this discussion is coming to an end if I can state with certainty that I alone (not to mention countless others) have already addressed and offered rebuttal for all four points that you just raised (which other people have raised before this) in the 13 pages on this thread and the 21 pages in the "GW financials latest" thread. So, don't mind me if I just offer you to peruse the rest of the two threads instead of reposting my counter-points.
Blacksails wrote: What makes you believe they understand the market fine? What makes you believe they don't need to perform market research?
Well, they have hundreds of stores, and they have hundreds of employees. A lot of those people are hired to understand the market, and they do sell a lot of product. They have a large structure which invites the sort of customer that they want to come and spend time and I'm sure they talk with these customers.
How much money did Dreamforge or Mantic or CB or Anvil spend on market research? Or Advertising?
I'm not saying that funding market research would be a bad thing; just that they probably know more about the miniature wargaming industry than any of us.
Mantic does market research all the time.
They ask for feedback from their players.
They maintain a forum, and actually address their audience there - going so far as to admit when something isn't working.
They run Kickstarters - which act as advertising and market research in one.
Mantic is growing.
GW is shrinking.
There is a direct causal relation there....
Warpath has not yet seen a full release, in part because the market research that Mantic has done showed that the game was nowhere near being ready for a full release.
GW threw Dreadfleet on the market, then wondered why it didn't sell.
The GW stores are an anchor thrown to a drowning man - they are making less and less of GW's profit. Those hundreds of employees are being reduced to one man per store, and the store closes when he needs to eat.
For everyone who says to "prove that GW knows their market", I can equally ask the same question of "prove that GW doesn't know their market". Like I said before, you can't make claims about what information they possess unless you work for GW. For example, just because they don't conduct research on their own doesn't mean that they don't outsource or contract another company to do so, or get market insights from them, such as Frost & Sullivan, S&P Capital IQ, IBISWorld, BizMiner, etc.
1. They've stated they do no research. Interpret that how'd you like, but it indicates more that they do no research than the opposite. If you're going to claim they do in spite of their statement otherwise, you're the one who needs proof, otherwise the only logical conclusion from the facts is that they do not, in fact, perform market research or ask what the market wants.
2. Since cutting various specialist games, several companies have introduced games that are eerily similar that one could easily argue are filling the void left behind by GW. Had GW known what the market wanted, they would have been able to continue making SGs into bigger and better lines. Instead, they were left to stagnate unsupported until they pulled life supported.
3. Their revenue and profit is falling. Despite significant price increases, they are making less money, which means they're moving less product. If they're moving less product, it also stands to reason its because they don't know what the market wants; in this case with regards to value which is important.
4. The lesser of the points I'll make, but every bit of anecdotal evidence we have from stores, distributors, and gamers themselves through posts, polls, and petitions (I'm aware of the unscientific nature) all point to a growing crowd is dissatisfied customers moving on to other games for many reasons that would be apparent to GW should they only ask on twitter. Now, of course the internet is only a small representation of the customers. Of course the most positive people are less likely to post their support. Of course the polls and posts are not proper statistical sources. That said, it'd be hard to hand wave it all away without acknowledging that this is literally free market research full of rather simple ideas they could implement tomorrow if they wanted
.
Ironically, I think this discussion is coming to an end if I can state with certainty that I alone (not to mention countless others) have already addressed and offered rebuttal for all four points that you just raised (which other people have raised before this) in the 13 pages on this thread and the 21 pages in the "GW financials latest" thread. So, don't mind me if I just offer you to peruse the rest of the two threads instead of reposting my counter-points.
If people are still posting points you feel you've rebutted, I think it's fair to say you've not been as convincing as you'd like to think.
If people are still posting points you feel you've rebutted, I think it's fair to say you've not been as convincing as you'd like to think.
Not necessarily.
Playing devils advocate (I'm on the fence here personally - I think enigwolf raised some interesting points as well as a different narrative) azreal, but it is my experience that some of those people still posting points are also just as unwilling to accept any narrative that isn't 'all the negative, all the time' with regard to gw, as well as being unwelcoming of views from a different perspective, or playing games a different way.
If people are still posting points you feel you've rebutted, I think it's fair to say you've not been as convincing as you'd like to think.
Not necessarily.
Playing devils advocate (I'm on the fence here personally - I think enigwolf raised some interesting points as well as a different narrative) azreal, but it is my experience that some of those people still posting points are also just as unwilling to accept any narrative that isn't 'all the negative, all the time' with regard to gw, as well as being unwelcoming of views from a different perspective, or playing games a different way.
Well, that's every discussion forum on every topic anywhere on the Internet in essence!
But my issue is I feel I'm making points, and seeing others do likewise, based on evidence, be it financial reports, past behaviour or whatever, im then seeing counterpoints along the lines of "ah, but you don't know that they don't have some mystical book in the basement that tells them all the things" or "I feel that those figures somehow don't tell the whole story, it's all part of a bigger plan!"
If someone could take hard evidence and put together a compelling argument for a different narrative, I'd be more than willing to listen, but I just don't see that happening.
If people are still posting points you feel you've rebutted, I think it's fair to say you've not been as convincing as you'd like to think.
Not necessarily.
Playing devils advocate (I'm on the fence here personally - I think enigwolf raised some interesting points as well as a different narrative) azreal, but it is my experience that some of those people still posting points are also just as unwilling to accept any narrative that isn't 'all the negative, all the time' with regard to gw, as well as being unwelcoming of views from a different perspective, or playing games a different way.
Well, that's every discussion forum on every topic anywhere on the Internet in essence!
But my issue is I feel I'm making points, and seeing others do likewise, based on evidence, be it financial reports, past behaviour or whatever, im then seeing counterpoints along the lines of "ah, but you don't know that they don't have some mystical book in the basement that tells them all the things" or "I feel that those figures somehow don't tell the whole story, it's all part of a bigger plan!"
If someone could take hard evidence and put together a compelling argument for a different narrative, I'd be more than willing to listen, but I just don't see that happening.
Or some people haven't read the rest of the pages in the two relevant threads, mostly those who've joined half-way through, and thus didn't see them?
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps tabletop games, like computer games, have changed from being a niche to a mass market industry in the past 20 years.
I have to disagree. While tabletop games have made a ridiculous amount of progress in the past few decades it is still very much a niche market that doesn't come close to video games.
Whenever people unaware of wargaming's existence come into my FLGS or see some of my miniatures they react like they just entered the twilight zone. I've had an immense amount of trouble finding fellow 40k players and the mere act of explaining wargaming to the uninitiated takes a lot of effort.
Even then video games aren't even that popular when in the context of other past times. Pick any sport and odds are it has had made more money and made more of a cultural impact than any video game (even nintendo.)
I am talking about all tabletop games including wargames, boardgames, RPGs -- what might be called "hobby games" in general.
Here is some recent info about video games.
I would be surprised if tabletop games had that much penetration, but suppose 20% of people are playing tabletop games. Partication in TT games has increased a lot over the past 10 years. I can't find a major piece of research on it, which of course is indicative in itself.
Of course we don't have an agreed definition of mass market.
I don't think the relative popularity of sports is relevant to video games or tabletop games. One might as well talk about the popularity of cooking and eating out. It's something nearly everyone does, and I don't see that it precludes participation in video or tabletop games.
If people are still posting points you feel you've rebutted, I think it's fair to say you've not been as convincing as you'd like to think.
Not necessarily.
Playing devils advocate (I'm on the fence here personally - I think enigwolf raised some interesting points as well as a different narrative) azreal, but it is my experience that some of those people still posting points are also just as unwilling to accept any narrative that isn't 'all the negative, all the time' with regard to gw, as well as being unwelcoming of views from a different perspective, or playing games a different way.
Well, that's every discussion forum on every topic anywhere on the Internet in essence!
But my issue is I feel I'm making points, and seeing others do likewise, based on evidence, be it financial reports, past behaviour or whatever, im then seeing counterpoints along the lines of "ah, but you don't know that they don't have some mystical book in the basement that tells them all the things" or "I feel that those figures somehow don't tell the whole story, it's all part of a bigger plan!"
If someone could take hard evidence and put together a compelling argument for a different narrative, I'd be more than willing to listen, but I just don't see that happening.
Or some people haven't read the rest of the pages in the two relevant threads, mostly those who've joined half-way through, and thus didn't see them?
Or some read everything and CAN understand the GW reports. What do you use tro get your views?
There are facts not in dispute, but there's more than one set of narrative for those. If a hotdog stand sells 100 hot dogs on Monday, and 98 hot dogs the next week, and 96 the week following, are they doing something wrong? Is it a business in decline? If they sell 110 hot dogs the week after that, did they do something right?
Sometimes, things just happen. Anyone who's run a business for a long time knows that it's almost impossible to always do better than your last year, every year, for thirty years. At times you're going to have great years for all sorts of reasons, some totally out of your control, and other times, you'll make blunders that will leave you with decreased sales. Sometimes you'll make blunders, but your revenue numbers will be up.
Given that, we can all agree with this fact: The total sales of the wargames market has increased while GW's revenues and profits have decreased in the last couple of years.
But "why" is the quintessential question, and the honest answer is that we don't have the facts to support a conclusion.
There are things like the LOTR bubble, which made GW a lot of money and isn't anymore, the decline of Warhammer Fantasy Battle, the increase in competitors, people who are unhappy with GW, people who are happy with GW, increased release cadence, and pricing increases -- to name just a small number of factors.
How do you interpret that?
One scenario is that GW's policies are a failure and that people are leaving in droves, and GW is at the start of a death spiral. People who subscribe to this narrative feel that GW is just milking the last pennies out of their most loyal customers before they flee due to having nobody to play with.
Another scenario is that GW's sales volumes are re-aligning with pre-LoTR numbers; assuming that Fantasy is flagging (lots of anecdotal evidence of this, plus the big shift in Sigmar to reboot it), one must assume that 40k numbers have grown. People who subscribe to this narrative feel that GW is doing great, 40k is doing better than ever, and despite pissing off the some people, GW is doing better by pleasing the modelling-centric hardcore enthusiast (or GW superfan, or whatever you want to call them).
In one scenario, Games Workshop is foolish for raising prices and rapid releases because it pisses off a lot of players. In the alternate, this strategy has paid off, and has maximized their income by tapping vertically into the customers it deems most valuable.
In one scenario, Games Workshop is releasing tons of new models and rules because it's going out of business and this is all a last huzzah. In another scenario, Games Workshop is releasing tons of new models and rules because it's going stronger than ever, and they must do something with those profits, right?
Again, the honest truth is that nobody who's been posting on this forum has the information to nail it down, but we're all entitled to speculate.
I happen to think that Games Workshop is a successful, profitable company, and that although I might differ with them on how to do certain things, they're better at operating their hundreds-of-millions-of-dollar business than me; and also, that a decline in sales doesn't equate to a death spiral. I also happen to think that GW management actually cares about the health of their company, and not just the stock price for the next ring of the bell; and that Games Workshop writers and sculptors are talented folks who care deeply about their product. But that's all opinion, not fact.
There are facts not in dispute, but there's more than one set of narrative for those. If a hotdog stand sells 100 hot dogs on Monday, and 98 hot dogs the next week, and 96 the week following, are they doing something wrong? Is it a business in decline? If they sell 110 hot dogs the week after that, did they do something right?
Sometimes, things just happen. Anyone who's run a business for a long time knows that it's almost impossible to always do better than your last year, every year, for thirty years. At times you're going to have great years for all sorts of reasons, some totally out of your control, and other times, you'll make blunders that will leave you with decreased sales. Sometimes you'll make blunders, but your revenue numbers will be up.
Given that, we can all agree with this fact: The total sales of the wargames market has increased while GW's revenues and profits have decreased in the last couple of years.
But "why" is the quintessential question, and the honest answer is that we don't have the facts to support a conclusion.
There are things like the LOTR bubble, which made GW a lot of money and isn't anymore, the decline of Warhammer Fantasy Battle, the increase in competitors, people who are unhappy with GW, people who are happy with GW, increased release cadence, and pricing increases -- to name just a small number of factors.
How do you interpret that?
One scenario is that GW's policies are a failure and that people are leaving in droves, and GW is at the start of a death spiral.
Another scenario is that GW's sales volumes are re-aligning with pre-LoTR numbers; assuming that Fantasy is flagging (lots of anecdotal evidence of this, plus the big shift in Sigmar to reboot it), one must assume that 40k numbers have grown. So in this scenario, 40k isn't just healthy, but stronger than ever.
In one scenario, Games Workshop is foolish for raising prices and rapid releases because it pisses off a lot of players. In the alternate, this strategy has paid off, and has maximized their income from the customers it deems most valuable.
Again, the honest truth is that nobody who's been posting on this forum has the information to nail it down, but we're all entitled to speculate.
I happen to think that Games Workshop is a successful, profitable company, and that although I might differ with them on how to do certain things, they're better at operating their hundreds-of-millions-of-dollar business than me; and also, that a decline in sales doesn't equate to a death spiral. But that's an opinion, not a fact.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this. I'm just trying to present the two sides of the same coin. I'm willing to acknowledge the possibility of the scenarios unfavorable to Games Workshop, as are some of those who hold a positive opinion of GW. Likewise, some of the people who hold a negative opinion of GW are willing to consider the alternate narratives too.
The open-minded folks, even though they favor one narrative or another, who debate these points in a Socratic discussion are interesting for me to back-and-forth with.
There are facts not in dispute, but there's more than one set of narrative for those. If a hotdog stand sells 100 hot dogs on Monday, and 98 hot dogs the next week, and 96 the week following, are they doing something wrong? Is it a business in decline? If they sell 110 hot dogs the week after that, did they do something right?
Sometimes, things just happen. Anyone who's run a business for a long time knows that it's almost impossible to always do better than your last year, every year, for thirty years. At times you're going to have great years for all sorts of reasons, some totally out of your control, and other times, you'll make blunders that will leave you with decreased sales. Sometimes you'll make blunders, but your revenue numbers will be up.
Given that, we can all agree with this fact: The total sales of the wargames market has increased while GW's revenues and profits have decreased in the last couple of years.
But "why" is the quintessential question, and the honest answer is that we don't have the facts to support a conclusion.
There are things like the LOTR bubble, which made GW a lot of money and isn't anymore, the decline of Warhammer Fantasy Battle, the increase in competitors, people who are unhappy with GW, people who are happy with GW, increased release cadence, and pricing increases -- to name just a small number of factors.
How do you interpret that?
One scenario is that GW's policies are a failure and that people are leaving in droves, and GW is at the start of a death spiral.
Another scenario is that GW's sales volumes are re-aligning with pre-LoTR numbers; assuming that Fantasy is flagging (lots of anecdotal evidence of this, plus the big shift in Sigmar to reboot it), one must assume that 40k numbers have grown. So in this scenario, 40k isn't just healthy, but stronger than ever.
In one scenario, Games Workshop is foolish for raising prices and rapid releases because it pisses off a lot of players. In the alternate, this strategy has paid off, and has maximized their income from the customers it deems most valuable.
Again, the honest truth is that nobody who's been posting on this forum has the information to nail it down, but we're all entitled to speculate.
I happen to think that Games Workshop is a successful, profitable company, and that although I might differ with them on how to do certain things, they're better at operating their hundreds-of-millions-of-dollar business than me; and also, that a decline in sales doesn't equate to a death spiral. But that's an opinion, not a fact.
Its not the total vacuum of information as you make it out to be
GW has had many major releases these past few years than at any time in their history. Two editions, two Space Marine books (their top sellers) Two Eldar books, IK's, Freaking Ad Mech too. Previously these have been huge boosts to their sales. So, currently, what they're doing now causes a decline in revenue.
Now, after more major releases than ever they're still declining in revenue.
Declining revenue is a trend.
1. They either do something different and pull up and get more sales.
2. Steady out and find a new normal.
3. Continue trend and go under.
To pull out of it and raise again, they will have to change what they're doing.
leveling out depends on the causes of decline as does going under.
Now, we have some evidence as to why GW has declining revenue, but it's not conclusive.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/653048.page From the financial reports we also know what money they're taking in and where it's going.
The brick and mortar stores are an anchor, costing more money than they bring in. Store locations also don't lend to advertising.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps tabletop games, like computer games, have changed from being a niche to a mass market industry in the past 20 years.
I have to disagree. While tabletop games have made a ridiculous amount of progress in the past few decades it is still very much a niche market that doesn't come close to video games.
Whenever people unaware of wargaming's existence come into my FLGS or see some of my miniatures they react like they just entered the twilight zone. I've had an immense amount of trouble finding fellow 40k players and the mere act of explaining wargaming to the uninitiated takes a lot of effort.
Even then video games aren't even that popular when in the context of other past times. Pick any sport and odds are it has had made more money and made more of a cultural impact than any video game (even nintendo.)
I am talking about all tabletop games including wargames, boardgames, RPGs -- what might be called "hobby games" in general.
Here is some recent info about video games.
I would be surprised if tabletop games had that much penetration, but suppose 20% of people are playing tabletop games. Partication in TT games has increased a lot over the past 10 years. I can't find a major piece of research on it, which of course is indicative in itself.
Of course we don't have an agreed definition of mass market.
I don't think the relative popularity of sports is relevant to video games or tabletop games. One might as well talk about the popularity of cooking and eating out. It's something nearly everyone does, and I don't see that it precludes participation in video or tabletop games.
The correlation between Video Games, Tabletop games, and sports is that all of them have extremely dedicated (but admittedly small) sects of participants that are in it for the competition and little else.
Look at the recent effort to get some video games to be classified as sports (which as someone who formerly identified as a "gamer" I must day is utter Crap) you see the same "take no prisoners" attitude in the more fanatical audiences of all 3 mediums. Look at some of the posts on this very forum and you'd think people were talking about real war when they fight over toy soldiers. The primary similarity is in the attitudes of the audiences.
And when you boil it down their all games generally involving point systems, teams and detailed rule sets.
Everyone is going to have their own opinions, or what you call "feelings". Since none of us work for GW, no one can definitively state the position the company is in financially. So till then, we speculate. And anything without perfect or near-perfect information is pure speculation.
Talys wrote:@Noir -
There are facts not in dispute, but there's more than one set of narrative for those. If a hotdog stand sells 100 hot dogs on Monday, and 98 hot dogs the next week, and 96 the week following, are they doing something wrong? Is it a business in decline? If they sell 110 hot dogs the week after that, did they do something right?
Sometimes, things just happen. Anyone who's run a business for a long time knows that it's almost impossible to always do better than your last year, every year, for thirty years. At times you're going to have great years for all sorts of reasons, some totally out of your control, and other times, you'll make blunders that will leave you with decreased sales. Sometimes you'll make blunders, but your revenue numbers will be up.
Given that, we can all agree with this fact: The total sales of the wargames market has increased while GW's revenues and profits have decreased in the last couple of years.
But "why" is the quintessential question, and the honest answer is that we don't have the facts to support a conclusion.
There are things like the LOTR bubble, which made GW a lot of money and isn't anymore, the decline of Warhammer Fantasy Battle, the increase in competitors, people who are unhappy with GW, people who are happy with GW, increased release cadence, and pricing increases -- to name just a small number of factors.
How do you interpret that?
One scenario is that GW's policies are a failure and that people are leaving in droves, and GW is at the start of a death spiral. People who subscribe to this narrative feel that GW is just milking the last pennies out of their most loyal customers before they flee due to having nobody to play with.
Another scenario is that GW's sales volumes are re-aligning with pre-LoTR numbers; assuming that Fantasy is flagging (lots of anecdotal evidence of this, plus the big shift in Sigmar to reboot it), one must assume that 40k numbers have grown. People who subscribe to this narrative feel that GW is doing great, 40k is doing better than ever, and despite pissing off the some people, GW is doing better by pleasing the modelling-centric hardcore enthusiast (or GW superfan, or whatever you want to call them).
In one scenario, Games Workshop is foolish for raising prices and rapid releases because it pisses off a lot of players. In the alternate, this strategy has paid off, and has maximized their income by tapping vertically into the customers it deems most valuable.
In one scenario, Games Workshop is releasing tons of new models and rules because it's going out of business and this is all a last huzzah. In another scenario, Games Workshop is releasing tons of new models and rules because it's going stronger than ever, and they must do something with those profits, right?
Again, the honest truth is that nobody who's been posting on this forum has the information to nail it down, but we're all entitled to speculate.
I happen to think that Games Workshop is a successful, profitable company, and that although I might differ with them on how to do certain things, they're better at operating their hundreds-of-millions-of-dollar business than me; and also, that a decline in sales doesn't equate to a death spiral. I also happen to think that GW management actually cares about the health of their company, and not just the stock price for the next ring of the bell; and that Games Workshop writers and sculptors are talented folks who care deeply about their product. But that's all opinion, not fact.
I think this pretty much nailed down the entire thread in a nut-shell.
Yeah, specially the "GW stronger than ever" scenario. Truly believable, with two editions for their best-selling game (2012-14) and two releases of their best-selling codex (2013-15) so far failing to counter a trend in declining sales and profits.
I wouldn't be surprised if, after a few years, we look back on 40k 6th edition as the shot in the foot that began to crumble a giant who was stepping on less solid ground than expected.
If the whole Fantasy reboot fails to make a strong impact, I don't think they will have much to celebrate in the next years.
Korinov wrote: Yeah, specially the "GW stronger than ever" scenario. Truly believable, with two editions for their best-selling game (2012-14) and two releases of their best-selling codex (2013-15) so far failing to counter a trend in declining sales and profits.
I wouldn't be surprised if, after a few years, we look back on 40k 6th edition as the shot in the foot that began to crumble a giant who was stepping on less solid ground than expected.
If the whole Fantasy reboot fails to make a strong impact, I don't think they will have much to celebrate in the next years.
Actually, this wasn't quite the scenario I put forward. I was positing that there are essentially three periods: pre-LoTR, LoTR, and post-LoTR. During the latter 2, I theorize that Fantasy Battle declined, but LoTR more than made up the difference. From that period until now, both LoTR and Fantasy Battle have declined. However, 40k most likely has increased in sales, or we'd see more severe revenue declines.
Therefore, my theory is that overall, GW's revenue has declined, but 40k's revenue is higher than it's ever been. Does that mean the 40k ecosystem is stronger than ever? Not necessarily. Taking an extreme example, if one superfan billionaire decided to buy $50 million in 40k models and fill up his 23 storey underground bunker so that he'll have models to paint during the zombie apocalypse, that wouldn't do anything for the ecosystem, right? On the other hand, a smaller number of more dedicated players might not be a bad thing, if they're actually playing the game, evangelizing the product, and bringing in new players who are also dedicated to the game.
Could the split be otherwise? Of course. Since GW doesn't show the outside world the profit split, we can't determine that.
Like I said, I'm happy to entertain alternative narratives; I just think that it's most likely that Fantasy and LotR have shrunk a lot, and 40k has grown, but not enough to make up the difference.
I'd argue 40k has also declined, though not to thr extent of wfb and lotr. IIrc, fantasy was 8% of their earnings. Space marines on their own sold more than all of wfb in better times. 40k has not grown, it has just grown in importance as everything else has shrank more.
It's the constant price hikes, constant churning of codices and editions and the whole dlc malarkey thst is masking and making up for a more severe decline across all their lines. If that's what you mean by 'grown in sales' you are right, but if you are arguing that more people actively play 40k now a opposed to ten years ago, then I can't agree with you.
Deadnight wrote: I'd argue 40k has also declined, though not to thr extent of wfb and lotr. IIrc, fantasy was 8% of their earnings. Space marines on their own sold more than all of wfb in better times. 40k has not grown, it has just grown in importance as everything else has shrank more.
It's the constant price hikes, constant churning of codices and editions and the whole dlc malarkey thst is masking and making up for a more severe decline across all their lines. If that's what you mean by 'grown in sales' you are right, but if you are arguing that more people actively play 40k now a opposed to ten years ago, then I can't agree with you.
I hypothesize 40k revenue dollars have increased between 2005 to 2015 -- with no conclusion drawn as to the change in playership or volume.
Maybe the number of players is down (though I have nothing to support this); and maybe volume sales are up or down (but I have seen nothing to support this either). I don't think the price increases are enough to entirely counter the decline in Fantasy, but again, I have no evidence to make an argument either way.
And as I've said, it's entirely possible that superfans are buying boatloads of stuff and hording it away on the shelves; which might be ok for GW's bottom line, but does nothing for the community or hobby. Or there could be lots of new players or returning players too. Who knows; maybe even GW is unclear, though I'm sure they could make a better guess with the data they have than us.
The problem that we have in this thread and other threads like it is that there's an echo chamber for both sides of the argument, and most folks have made up their mind, so either you hear something, and you say, "Amen!" or you hear something and say, "This person is delusional." It's like the Democrats debating the Republicans in Congress.
Personally, I've made my opinion clear. I'm more than willing to consider that I could be wrong, but until I see actual evidence of that, I don't think I can be convinced (though I'll listen).
Now, here's a thing, putting aside the revenue graph for a second, in the past ten years, their indirect sales haven't altered (point to point, I agent checked intervening years) yet their direct sales have increased and their stores have fallen.
This essentially means they've spent £4m on a website to get sales they'd already got..
@Az - If that's the case, I would surmise that Games Workshop would be pretty happy. Having worked with quite a few companies who have both Internet and (many) brick & mortar sales, every one I've worked with far prefers internet orders. Even with free shipping, the profits are better, there's virtually zero shrinkage (employee or customer theft), and very importantly inventory can be centralized.
Now, in GW's case, I'd argue that Internet sales are a lower quality sale (despite being more profitable), because people aren't in the store playing and all that. Plus, if FLGS revenue is down, they'll be inclined to treat GW in as valued a way as they would otherwise. And at independents, they buy chips, candy, pop, and non GW stuff that become lost sales (if people are playing in their basements). Though Costco and the grocery store will be happier
Sorry for bad English, tapping away on cell phone while in brutal long Ikea lineup
Deadnight wrote: I'd argue 40k has also declined, though not to thr extent of wfb and lotr. IIrc, fantasy was 8% of their earnings. Space marines on their own sold more than all of wfb in better times. 40k has not grown, it has just grown in importance as everything else has shrank more.
It's the constant price hikes, constant churning of codices and editions and the whole dlc malarkey thst is masking and making up for a more severe decline across all their lines. If that's what you mean by 'grown in sales' you are right, but if you are arguing that more people actively play 40k now a opposed to ten years ago, then I can't agree with you.
I don't know if you're pulling these numbers from historicals, but GW stopped reporting what % of each game system contributed to their revenue.
---
I also noticed this Trading Update that was posted on GW's Investor Relations on June 8th (emphasis mine):
We expect the Group’s profit for the year to 31 May 2015 to be broadly in line with market expectations.
Over the year we have seen modest sales growth, at constant currency, in our core trade and mail order channels. We saw a small decline in our own stores due to continued difficult trading in Continental Europe following our restructuring last year. We saw expected declines in some non-core activities that are grouped with core activities in our reporting. The effect of these non-core activities and the continuing effects of unfavourable exchange rates mean that our reported sales are likely to show small declines in retail (c.5%) and trade (c.3%). Mail order growth was c.5%.
This Trading Update statement implies that overall, we will see an overall decline in sales volume and revenues due to a greater decline in their non-core channels compared to the growth in core channels, however, the focus here should be on that their core channels has seen growth this year.
With this in mind, looking back at their financials for their sales channels from the last year, we have seen a year-to-year increase in "Export" and "Other" (look up the financials for full definitions of what these cover) with a decrease within the regional groupings. This implies a shift of focus from selling in their brick and mortar stores to selling direct to distributors, FLGS, and mail-/web-order, which as Talys has mentioned, carries a low cost-of-sale. It is further commented on in a December 8 Trading Update as follows that operating profits dropped due to the "continuing strength of sterling... against the US dollar and euro" (emphasis mine):
Games Workshop Group PLC announces that trading in the six months to 30 November 2014 at constant currency has been broadly in line with the Board’s expectations and 2013/14 first half performance.
The Company has been exposed to the continuing strength of sterling, particularly against the US dollar and euro in the period reported. The adverse impact in the six months to 30 November 2014 will result in operating profit at actual rates being approximately £1 million lower than 2013/14 first half performance.
Also, right after the most recent Trading Statement, the hedge fund Ruffer LLP (majority shareholder) increased its stake from 9% to 10.1% in the company. Take this how you will, but if I were a hedge fund manager with this much already invested in a company, I'd be dumping if the sales/revenue decreases overall were an ill-omen.
Is GW doing poorly compared to past years from a raw financial point? Yes. Does this mean the hobby is going to end? No. Their decrease in revenue is going to stabilize (and possibly even reverse) once their non-core channels even out, and if their core business channels continue to grow.
Equally, after the first, unexpected, report showing a drop in profits and paid no dividend, several of the institutional investors sold their stake. Others purchased these shares.
Some people are bears, others are bulls. GW will almost certainly pay a dividend so Ruffer will now get a bigger share of that. The share price has been basically flatlining for months, so it isn't like they're risking losing a chunk of their capital by buying a fee % more shares.
It's also important to bear in mind that the mail order channel is both the smallest and the one they've most heavily invested in in the recent past, so a return of 5% growth (which should equate to about 1% of revenue) is pretty disappointing. Whereas the drops in retail and third party equate to around a 6.5% drop in revenue.
It will be interesting to see the report, that's for sure.
Azreal13 wrote: Equally, after the first, unexpected, report showing a drop in profits and paid no dividend, several of the institutional investors sold their stake. Others purchased these shares.
Some people are bears, others are bulls. GW will almost certainly pay a dividend so Ruffer will now get a bigger share of that. The share price has been basically flatlining for months, so it isn't like they're risking losing a chunk of their capital by buying a fee % more shares.
It's also important to bear in mind that the mail order channel is both the smallest and the one they've most heavily invested in in the recent past, so a return of 5% growth (which should equate to about 1% of revenue) is pretty disappointing. Whereas the drops in retail and third party equate to around a 6.5% drop in revenue.
It will be interesting to see the report, that's for sure.
If you're confident about your company, the smart money, if the share price drops and there is excess capital, is for the company to buy shares back and decrease dilution, rather than pay dividends. It enriches every remaining shareholder.
That ship has long since sailed, the price dropped in Jan 13, it recovered a little and, like I said, has flatlined ever since.
Besides, dividends is real money, stocks are just rich on paper, and I don't think you have to look too hard to see Kirby isn't a fan of things he can't control directly, such as the stock market.
Azreal13 wrote: That ship has long since sailed, the price dropped in Jan 13, it recovered a little and, like I said, has flatlined ever since.
Besides, dividends is real money, stocks are just rich on paper, and I don't think you have to look too hard to see Kirby isn't a fan of things he can't control directly, such as the stock market.
That's a terrible (and not very professional) view of investing, though. Dividends are just one of many reasons to buy equity. No matter how terrible the company, buying stocks that are undervalued is a good way to make money (note that if the company is truly "doomed", as in bankrupt, its value is zero, and therefore can't be undervalued). Also, there's the issue of control.
Plus, as a company buys back its shares, its market capitalization will stay fixed while its price per share will rise. If the company is worth $100m today with 100 million shares, and the company buys back 50% of the shares outstanding, the company will be worth $100m tomorrow, with just 50 million shares, so those shares are worth (will sell for to an arms length buyer) twice as much. No different than if you do a split, the value of each share is worth half as much, but the value of the company stays the same.
Not to mention that if a company buys back a bunch of stock today, tomorrow, if the market thinks the company is worth more, it can put those stocks back on the market, and make a profit itself.
As you say, the share price of GW is pretty stable. It probably isn't severely under- or over-valued. But its trading volume is also tiny, and the company, in the grand scheme of professional investors, isn't even a speck in the wind. The way shares of GW are bought or sold in any volume are probably by some stock promoter who says to his clients, "you should buy (or sell) this stock!" and they do so, as a part of tiny percentage of a much bigger portfolio.
Azreal13 wrote: I think you're slowly coming around to the view that perhaps Kirby isn't the most gifted CEO/Chairman in history.
one thing i will say for the guy, he certainly seems to have done well for himself...
cheers
jah
Yep, at the expense of the game and company's health, he sure has. All set for a nice golden parachute at the end, suffering no consequences of his actions. Thus the business world goes on as it does.
Yeah, most people go into the civil service, sit there for years doing less and less constructive and more and more stuff to attempt to justify their existence, while their salary ticks ever upwards, until they retire on a nice fat government pension.
Kirby had the vision to get out and do it in the private sector!
Azreal13 wrote: I think you're slowly coming around to the view that perhaps Kirby isn't the most gifted CEO/Chairman in history.
I've never thought that he was. I don't think he's even close.
But Kirby has been there since 1986 (I think General Manager? I could be wrong), and he's earned his current position. I'm sure he's done some good things for the company; he's held a significant management position from the time he's been there til now, and in fairness, a lot of people who don't like GW now have liked GW at some point between 1986 and present.
A lot of small companies that turn into big companies have this issue; and a lot of good small-company leaders are not good big-company CEOs. But it isn't until all the old-timers have retired (or died) that the torch of Supreme Leader passes on to a non-insider and a professional CEO. Of course, there's a whole discussion about whether most professional CEOs are worth what they're paid, too; and a lot of professional CEOs drive awesome companies into the ground in record time.
I'll share a wee anecdote if I may as to why GW still has folk who think of them in a positive way rather than seeing all they do in a negative light. Their customer service. recently had a few problems with that purity spray stuff. It ballsed up the the metallics on a skyweaver a few months back and then totally frosted a squad of the chosen I'd just spent 50 odd hours on.
I emailed GW vs and explained. All I had in 'evidence' of the whole balls up was a single photo of one fig. Was so gutted I didn't photo the rest. No receipts. No proof of purchase. Plus I live in Korea so I haven't bought online or from a GW shop. They are replacing everything. 2 emails it took. For all the incessant whining I see about GW, I have to out that up against,imho, the best sculpts for the aesthetic and fantasy universe that I want and a seriously excellent customer service that is there when/if there is a problem. That's the frost time I've have to contact customer service since I started back into then 80's. Anyway that's my 2 shekels.
Januine wrote: I'll share a wee anecdote if I may as to why GW still has folk who think of them in a positive way rather than seeing all they do in a negative light. Their customer service. recently had a few problems with that purity spray stuff. It ballsed up the the metallics on a skyweaver a few months back and then totally frosted a squad of the chosen I'd just spent 50 odd hours on.
I emailed GW vs and explained. All I had in 'evidence' of the whole balls up was a single photo of one fig. Was so gutted I didn't photo the rest. No receipts. No proof of purchase. Plus I live in Korea so I haven't bought online or from a GW shop. They are replacing everything. 2 emails it took. For all the incessant whining I see about GW, I have to out that up against,imho, the best sculpts for the aesthetic and fantasy universe that I want and a seriously excellent customer service that is there when/if there is a problem. That's the frost time I've have to contact customer service since I started back into then 80's. Anyway that's my 2 shekels.
Oh, also Forge World has amazing customer service. A Tauros Venator arrived with a broken lascannon. They shipped me a whole new one, free-of-charge, after showing them a picture.
I agree to some degree with Talys's points about the three eras of GW, though I would argue with some of the details.
The pre-LoTR era was longer, more complex and contained a much wider variety of products that the big three we have now. It was also the era of best sustained growth for GW as they in 20 years grew from a small mail order operation to a substantial international publishing and retail company.
However all that is shrouded in the mists of time and since for most of the time they were not a public company, the financial records would be difficult to get hold of.
The LoTR era in my view ended much more abruptly than envisaged by Talys, or at least sales of the game declined very quickly soon after the last film came out. This is easily visible in the public financial reports, that show a massive drop in sales at that time. I cannot prove that it came from LoTR failing, but it is a logical assumption.
During the post-LoTR era, 40K certainly has been the mainstay of the company. I expected The Hobbit to be a major boost for the LoTR line, but there is no strong evidence in the results that that happened.
If you look at the sales and profit figures, things have been up and down over the past 10 years, but to generalise, things are worse in sales now than they were after the LoTR fall-off. Profit margins have improved significantly, due to rationalisation and efficiency gains. These of course cannot be continued indefinitely.
If it is assumed that increased 40K sales have replaced declines in LoTR and Fantasy, the past two and half years are disappointing since sales have continued to fall.
Clearly to have only one successful product line is a dangerous position. Hence the complete (?) reboot for Fantasy, coming when The Hobbit must be in terminal decline. Not to forget that Fantasy is thought to have declined a lot because of the unpopularity of 8th edition.
To some extent 40K has also been rebooted with 6th and 7th editions. This is not in terms of the core rules but in the way they are marketed. The overall ethos and structure of the game has been changed, with an emphasis on more and pricier books and models with extensions to the rules (formations, flyers, etc).
This system offers an excellent amount of variety for people who are prepared to pay for the experience -- the super fans as we have called them. (I am not one of them.)
Given the continuing decline in sales, however, the key point for GW is whether a superfan community, together with the continual churn of cohorts of new joiners, is enough to stabilise the company at perhaps £110 million of annual sales, which I think would allow them to be reasonably profitable and successful.
There is also the possibility that the rebooted Fantasy will be a huge success and bring back many lost players into the fold.
These results will not be seen for another couple of years, of course.
That's a pretty excellent and well-thought out write-up, Kilkrazy. Exalted!
I agree that I probably oversimplified things a bit, and I think that your explanations and conclusions are right on the mark. I think Games Workshop would definitely like to be more than a 1-game company.
Since they're the underdog in the fantasy (and certainly fantasy skirmisher) market, it will be interesting to see how Games Workshop works to win over customers.
I'm eager to see how the WFB reboot goes, and my buddies who quit WFB years back that I've spoken to seem to be considering jumping back into the game, provided that "the price is right". Even if we won't see the full effects till a few years down the road, I can't wait for their half-annual report in December.
You're right to say, I think, that 40k has also seen a "reboot" in 6th/7th ed. Compared to 3rd/4th, which somehow felt more like small tactical battles, 6th/7th with the regularity of either super-large unit blobs or super-heavies and GCs (as well as formations like the triple Land Raider one) and LoWs being more accepted lends the game to have a more epic (not the game) and grand atmosphere. Thematically, there is quite a visible shift compared to the past.
And I use this example a lot, but I'd much rather pay a little more to buy a kit and have all the weapon options (and leftover bits) that I need (and ebay any more that I lack) rather than buy blister packs with random weapon combinations hoping for the one I want (a good comparison would be LCGs like FFG does versus CCGs like M:TG). My first pewter Chaos Terminator blister came with two left-hand lightning claws...
Talys wrote: Actually, this wasn't quite the scenario I put forward. I was positing that there are essentially three periods: pre-LoTR, LoTR, and post-LoTR. During the latter 2, I theorize that Fantasy Battle declined, but LoTR more than made up the difference. From that period until now, both LoTR and Fantasy Battle have declined. However, 40k most likely has increased in sales, or we'd see more severe revenue declines.
Therefore, my theory is that overall, GW's revenue has declined, but 40k's revenue is higher than it's ever been. Does that mean the 40k ecosystem is stronger than ever? Not necessarily. Taking an extreme example, if one superfan billionaire decided to buy $50 million in 40k models and fill up his 23 storey underground bunker so that he'll have models to paint during the zombie apocalypse, that wouldn't do anything for the ecosystem, right? On the other hand, a smaller number of more dedicated players might not be a bad thing, if they're actually playing the game, evangelizing the product, and bringing in new players who are also dedicated to the game.
Could the split be otherwise? Of course. Since GW doesn't show the outside world the profit split, we can't determine that.
Like I said, I'm happy to entertain alternative narratives; I just think that it's most likely that Fantasy and LotR have shrunk a lot, and 40k has grown, but not enough to make up the difference.
Oh, I'm pretty sure 40k must have experienced a significant growth (in both sales and players) during the days of 3th, 4th and 5th edition. It probably grew so much it managed to compensate for LoTR's quick decline after 2005 and Fantasy's slow decline since 8th hit the shelves.
Then came 40k 6th edition in mid 2012, and we know what's happened since then.
I agree the staff at GW , tend to be very good at dealing with faulty product complaint, on models and hobby supplies.
Mainly because they have such a high mark up is more cost effective for them to send free replacements than any other legal requirement for trading.
This why GW has always adopted a full 'replacement policy'.
If it cost you £36 to manufacture the items and pack them ready for retail.And the retail price of the items the customer paid was £150.
And you have the choice of sending a replacement set if items for £50 inc postage.Or returning the £150 retail price , what would you do?
Now I am not trying to detract from the good staff who provided excellent customer service.But more to point out why GW policy is like this.
Also how much GW 'give away for free' to a particular customer ,as some customers see it , depends on how much you spend at GW.
However, have you ever tried to get you money back on a rule book or codex book due to poor editing or proof reading issues?
If you look at the sales figures for prior to the LoTR boom.And compare them to last years figures.
They are broadly in line with the rise due to inflation over the same period.
So despite increasing the amount of models you need in the games significantly , and increasing retail prices over the rate of inflation significantly.AND making massive savings on re structuring ,(cutting costs.)
GW plc have not grown in a growing market, but have effectively shrunk back in terms of sales volumes.
If it looks like a turd,and smells like a turd , do you really need to taste it to prove a point?
Yes it COULD be a expertly disguised chocolate bar full of sweet tasting nectar.But lots of people are not prepared to take that chance.
The two things keeping GW plc going ,
1)Game players hooked on sunk cost fallacy.
2)Collectors with more value on GWs particular art style , than others.
However, as sales volumes continue to fall, both of these customers pools will shrink in the face of ever rising prices.
Just a quick point of reference.ALL the businesses with a good grasp of their market, and target demographic will communicate directly with them on every appropriate channel.
The fact GW plc do not, is a clear indicator they have not got a clue who their customers actually are or what they actually want.
And are terrified if they make it clear they are ONLY interested in a particular customer demographic.
The other customers might just stop buying into GW and they would tank overnight.
Wonderful post KK, I feel that my views line up perfectly with what you said. I suppose on top of that, I tend to have a pessimistic view of the future success of the reboots of WHFB and 40k- probably from a mindset of thinking that the changes made in the reboot are doing little to address what has been causing the root issues in the first place.
It's not that I want GW to fail (although I do want Tom Kirby and his Kroney Krew shot out of a cannon), I just don't feel they'll be able to/actually care to fix their issues in a meaningful way.
Lanrak wrote: I agree the staff at GW , tend to be very good at dealing with faulty product complaint, on models and hobby supplies.
Mainly because they have such a high mark up is more cost effective for them to send free replacements than any other legal requirement for trading.
This why GW has always adopted a full 'replacement policy'.
If it cost you £36 to manufacture the items and pack them ready for retail.And the retail price of the items the customer paid was £150.
And you have the choice of sending a replacement set if items for £50 inc postage.Or returning the £150 retail price , what would you do?
Now I am not trying to detract from the good staff who provided excellent customer service.But more to point out why GW policy is like this.
Also how much GW 'give away for free' to a particular customer ,as some customers see it , depends on how much you spend at GW.
However, have you ever tried to get you money back on a rule book or codex book due to poor editing or proof reading issues?
If you look at the sales figures for prior to the LoTR boom.And compare them to last years figures.
They are broadly in line with the rise due to inflation over the same period.
So despite increasing the amount of models you need in the games significantly , and increasing retail prices over the rate of inflation significantly.AND making massive savings on re structuring ,(cutting costs.)
GW plc have not grown in a growing market, but have effectively shrunk back in terms of sales volumes.
If it looks like a turd,and smells like a turd , do you really need to taste it to prove a point?
Yes it COULD be a expertly disguised chocolate bar full of sweet tasting nectar.But lots of people are not prepared to take that chance.
The two things keeping GW plc going ,
1)Game players hooked on sunk cost fallacy.
2)Collectors with more value on GWs particular art style , than others.
However, as sales volumes continue to fall, both of these customers pools will shrink in the face of ever rising prices.
Just a quick point of reference.ALL the businesses with a good grasp of their market, and target demographic will communicate directly with them on every appropriate channel.
The fact GW plc do not, is a clear indicator they have not got a clue who their customers actually are or what they actually want.
And are terrified if they make it clear they are ONLY interested in a particular customer demographic.
The other customers might just stop buying into GW and they would tank overnight.
Great points here.
I cannot see how GW can sustain its currents business model with their current business practices.
We have a niche hobby, and GW is a (large) niche within that. Even with the two groups of fans I see anecdotally, again, I can't see it as giving them sustained profits. The super-fans and competitive players make up a percentage of the market, along with the 'basement' gamers (such as myself). Competitive players, the minority IMHO, will buy new kits and codices to stay current, while the casual players buy only a few pieces a year (if that). I don't see how this is going to keep GW afloat for the next 5 to 10 years
I would argue that Wargames, more zpecifically, tabletop gaming isn't as niche as people seem to think or parrot from Mr. Kirby. Everybody and their beloved canines seem to own at least one magic deck and xwing models. If you are referring to GW as a hobby, there's a dead horse outside with that tired old mantra tatooed on it's carcass. GW produces tabletop games, they are not so different from the myriad other retail companies as to be classified as a hobby unto themselves.
That said, the "niche" thing gets thrown around quite a bit as a sort of handwaving exercise to explain why the company is so small. The company is small because they are so risk averse that they haven't tried something that could be mass marketed to the world at large like XWing. Xwing's not even that great a game but is selling like hotcakes because it's being aggressively marketed and supported by FFG. Seriously, they can't manufacture the game in sufficient quantities to satisfy demand.
GW should have done something like a hero clicks version of 40k and fantasy eons ago but the company is run by a people that spout tripe about noone being able to remember what Pokémon or D&D are; honestly, I'm surprised he didn't do something as ludicrous as lump MtG in with the other "forgotten" games.
No, GW games are "niche" due to the fact that company is run by bean counters and not people with vision. Heck, I'm a bean counter and I'd do quite a bit of what Kirby has done but luckily for me I have people working for and with me who are more creative AND I know to listen to them.
I remember during the high point of the LotR boom, you could buy starter boxes at Barnes and Noble, actual GW product being offered outside of a dedicated game store. What people fail to realize is that in most organizations there's a trickle down effect; when the company is making great money, there's more money for side projects or boutique items but they have to get there first (or get back there) which requires thinking outside the box and, yes, some risk in order to find that crossover hit that brings in the big bucks and gets the company name out into the wider world. GW tried card games, they tried board games widely marketed but they always do something silly like charge too !much for it or make it a limited release so it flops and they're justified in not trying again or learning from the experience.
What the company needs is less dividends and more long term reinvestment of revenues to engage the wider market (shock, advertise). They need to stop acting like a Lilliputian hermit kingdom, pull Kim Jong Kirby down and let the creative side of the company call some shots. There's no excuse for repeated financial reports showing falling sales volume from a company that is part of a sector that's showing expansive growth.
agnosto wrote: I would argue that Wargames, more zpecifically, tabletop gaming isn't as niche as people seem to think or parrot from Mr. Kirby. Everybody and their beloved canines seem to own at least one magic deck and xwing models. If you are referring to GW as a hobby, there's a dead horse outside with that tired old mantra tatooed on it's carcass. GW produces tabletop games, they are not so different from the myriad other retail companies as to be classified as a hobby unto themselves.
To say that everyone and their dog owns at least one magic deck and Xwing model is untrue, and even in the spirit in which I think you intend, I think it's a gross exaggeration. My mom, 29 yr old sister, her husband, my wife, my grandparents... actually, all of my relatives have never owned either. Out of all of non-gaming friends, a tiny number have played MtG; none even know xwing exists. Probably less than half have played a PC or console game in the last 5 years, not including Solitaire or phone/tablet apps. If you go to a random restaurant, casino, bingo hall, racetrack, charity event, office building, or nightclub, I assure you a lot or people will have no idea what you're talking about.
Compare that with playing cards, soccer, television, movies, coffee makers, toasters, smartphones, tablets, etc -- these things have general appeal (as opposed to niche market).
Maybe the niche is larger than some people think, but it's still tiny compared to movies, for instance, where ONE film can make a billion dollars.
In terms of the 'GW hobbyist' -- how about the MtG hobbyist or WMH hobbyist? it's just a term to describe someone not really interested in other companies, and in the absence of their vendor would do something other than hobby.
5 of the 8 people in our group are like this. They have no interest in anything in hobby other than 40k, other tan maybe terrain and general hobby supplies for 40k. They have lots going on in their lives, and absent 40k, they'd do non-hobby shop hobbies, anything from kayaking to oil painting.
By definition, by the way, niche means to have specific appeal, or to be a segment of a market.
My point, since we're being literal, is that many more people outside of GWs usual audience will be more aware of those examples than anything GW makes. A large reason being because they do no advertising outside of licensed products or their own magazine. You can literally find more people aware of xwing than a GW game simply because it's more widely available. I may not purchase a model but I can certainly find them at Barnes and Noble and even Walmart. The odds of a grandmother or someone picking up a set, even accidentally for a kid or loved one's bday or Christmas gift is much higher than these people stumbling into the darkened alley that the local
GW has been moved to since the great restructuring. In rebuttal to your anecdotal evidence, I'll present my own and simply say that there are 4 non gamers in my family who know about xwing because they have young, male, children who wanted to try it. Two coworkers asked me about it because of the upcoming movie and the fact that they saw the miniatures at Target. Sure, GW games can be found similarly but you can't actually see their products without the extra effort involved in locating a GW (one in my entire state) or a specialty store (some of which carry minimal GW merch or none at all). The point being that it is impossible to stumble upon GW merchandise as readily as even xwing, not to mention magic or Pokémon or d&d.
Since we're being sticklers for words, let's also be more accurate as to what hobbies we're discussing; magic, Pokémon and the like are CCGs, board games are just that and games like WM, 40k, etc are miniature wargames. Those are hobbies, more accurately sub-categories of the tabletop game hobby/passtime/leisure pursuit.
When dealing with people you know well, please use whatever jargon you desire but in the interest of clarity on an internet board with strangers, let's try to use commonly accepted terms.
1. The majority of people in first world countries aren't interested in stuff sold in hobby shops. In the next decade their hobby purchases (however you define it) will total zero. Of course many will have heard about hobby related product, but that doesn't make them hobbyists.
2. The amount of revenue from hobby (meaning stuff traditionally sold at hobby shops, wherever it's actually sold) is really, really, really tiny. Like, Sanrio (Hello Kitty) is worth more than $5 billion per year, which is probably more than all hobby sales combined. Hello Kitty!
My parents bought me D&D stuff when I was a kid, too. But they could not have known the difference between The World of Greyhawk and a Choose Your Own Adventure.
I really do think our hobby is a niche. And if someone wants to self-identify as just one subcategory of that niche... well, whatever. You could call them, "hobbyist only into 40k" instead of "40k hobbyists" or whatever, sure.
1. Regarding players returning to Fantasy. IMHO, GW's current pricing strategy is a strike against them. Unless they are "superfans" who are price inelastic, there is a good chance that anyone who's left the hobby for a long time will find the price for re-entry beyond the pale. This is just anecdotal: but at my FLGS, the ex-GW gamers have this game where we guess the price of new releases. Being steeped in the GW hobby, they KNOW what kind of prices are usually set, and the rate at which they have gone up in the time that they've not been playing... and they still manage to guess too low most of the time. In particular, minds were blown when the witch elves were released and there was much humming and hawing at the price of the ironstriders. We'd all agreed that at $45 they would have been a definite will-buy.
Even if they have all the necessary models to play. Using myself as an example, I own a reinforced marine company with pretty much all the basic pre-6th Ed kit. My basic price to get back in the game, buying no models is: $170 for the core rules and codex book.
2. About a page back, it was posited that GW's network of staffers is sufficient to give management the low-down on the pulse of the market. I'd like to point out two problems with this idea:
(a) GW's staffers may not be the most accurate barometer of the state of the hobby due to their role as GW staffers. While many of them play the other "games that must not be mentioned", their very role as GW staffers (fans AND employees) biases their views towards GW.
(b) More worryingly... when has GW actually listened to their staffers. They are more likely to be censured for showing initiative rather than being used as a valuable source of information.
1. The majority of people in first world countries aren't interested in stuff sold in hobby shops. In the next decade their hobby purchases (however you define it) will total zero. Of course many will have heard about hobby related product, but that doesn't make them hobbyists.
2. The amount of revenue from hobby (meaning stuff traditionally sold at hobby shops, wherever it's actually sold) is really, really, really tiny. Like, Sanrio (Hello Kitty) is worth more than $5 billion per year, which is probably more than all hobby sales combined. Hello Kitty!
My parents bought me D&D stuff when I was a kid, too. But they could not have known the difference between The World of Greyhawk and a Choose Your Own Adventure.
I really do think our hobby is a niche. And if someone wants to self-identify as just one subcategory of that niche... well, whatever. You could call them, "hobbyist only into 40k" instead of "40k hobbyists" or whatever, sure.
OK, to forestall any more divergent conversation on the topic, please call it whatever you like. My main point, and I'll admit here that I went off-track a bit with the whole spiel about defining hobby, is that if GW were a hobby unto themselves AND if they are only a niche, the size of that niche is completely determined by their lack of attempting to expand their customer base by creating/maintaining a product with broad(er) appeal. I think it'd be cool to be able to walk into a book store or large retail outlet and see GW products.
@agnosto - It was cool walking into Toys 'R Us or local bookstores and buying AD&D RPG books when I was young.
I think that the main motivating factor for Games Workshop is wanting to control the distribution chain and to lock in the discounting, particularly online. I know a lot of people have a negative view of this. On the other hand, a lot of RPGers I know buy their stuff online, because they can get a big discount over the best discounts at brick & mortars. While this is great for them, it's terrible for hobby/gaming shops. It doesn't take much to see both sides of that argument pretty easily.
I think that Sigmar is an attempt to capture a larger audience, though in my totally unsubstantiated opinion, it went something like this in a board room... "Fantasy isn't selling anyways, wanna try something new?" Reply: "Sure, what have we got to lose? Let's see what happens."
While I'm all for inclusiveness, I actually like 40k as it is right now (particularly post 2015). I don't mind things that would bring in more players, but I wouldn't want them to change things in a way that would detract from my fun. I like that there will soon be a full set of 7e rulebooks. I HATED that some factions took 5+ years to get a refresh, going through a whole edition or more without a codex. I love the rapid release cycle, and the formations/superformations are just fun to play, or at least try out.
The new 40k-esque styling and skirmish style game-play =may= end up cannibalizing hobby dollars from the GW die hards. Hard to say without seeing the rules. Depending on how existing models from the range are going to slot into this, my gut feeling is that you're still looking at not insignificant coin to buy in:
The "Forces of Azeroth" seem to contain, one big thing, three infantry units, a flying unit and a character model.
The "Forces of Chaos" seem to contain, one big thing, three infantry units, some gribbly solo dudes and a character model.
Going by the contents of the starter??? box: To play something other than the forces provided look to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $200-250 beyond the core ruleset. Thats a bit of coin for a "gateway" mode game - though its super cheap compared to Fantasy on the whole.
Final judgement with-held until rules are reviewed of course.
Talys wrote: @agnosto - It was cool walking into Toys 'R Us or local bookstores and buying AD&D RPG books when I was young.
I think that the main motivating factor for Games Workshop is wanting to control the distribution chain and to lock in the discounting, particularly online. I know a lot of people have a negative view of this. On the other hand, a lot of RPGers I know buy their stuff online, because they can get a big discount over the best discounts at brick & mortars. While this is great for them, it's terrible for hobby/gaming shops. It doesn't take much to see both sides of that argument pretty easily.
I think that Sigmar is an attempt to capture a larger audience, though in my totally unsubstantiated opinion, it went something like this in a board room... "Fantasy isn't selling anyways, wanna try something new?" Reply: "Sure, what have we got to lose? Let's see what happens."
While I'm all for inclusiveness, I actually like 40k as it is right now (particularly post 2015). I don't mind things that would bring in more players, but I wouldn't want them to change things in a way that would detract from my fun. I like that there will soon be a full set of 7e rulebooks. I HATED that some factions took 5+ years to get a refresh, going through a whole edition or more without a codex. I love the rapid release cycle, and the formations/superformations are just fun to play, or at least try out.
I understand what you're saying but you usually don't see massive sales on things at Barns and Noble, Toys R Us and other places. I agree that it appears that GW would like to have as tight a control as possible on distribution so as to protect their own B&M stores BUT that's a very out-dated way to run a business, especially an international one. I've said many times that the best thing for GW to do would be to get the loadstone of B&M GW stores off of their books, engage their distributors and FLGSs and aggressively market themselves.
As to your other point. There's something to be said for simple, pre-paints with easy rules that can be picked-up as an impulse buy by a kid with his/her allowance. A company like GW CAN do this AND still maintain their "advanced" products.
The fantasy reboot seems to be closer to this BUT they've priced it at $120 USD which kills impulse buying by kids, most parents and anyone looking for a cool gift for a loved-one. A 4-page set of rules with the complexity being tied to the units is a great way to go about things but I think they need now to sell it as a skirmish game like their competitors are doing successfully. A 3-man unit of Ogres for $20-30 would hit a sweet spot for example if you only need 1 unit of them combined with maybe 2 other units and a hero of some sort. Keep the prices reasonable, the rules simple and fun and they may be on their way to something more widely marketable. A $120 starter is just too much but maybe they're initially offering this and then will come along later with a one-player version for much less; say $50 for just the chaos or $50 for just the sigmar forces. Requiring someone to buy two armies forces people to partner up or then think about reselling on ebay; that inconveniences consumers and reduces sales.
keezus wrote: The new 40k-esque styling and skirmish style game-play =may= end up cannibalizing hobby dollars from the GW die hards. Hard to say without seeing the rules. Depending on how existing models from the range are going to slot into this, my gut feeling is that you're still looking at not insignificant coin to buy in:
The "Forces of Azeroth" seem to contain, one big thing, three infantry units, a flying unit and a character model.
The "Forces of Chaos" seem to contain, one big thing, three infantry units, some gribbly solo dudes and a character model.
Going by the contents of the starter??? box: To play something other than the forces provided look to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $200-250 beyond the core ruleset. Thats a bit of coin for a "gateway" mode game - though its super cheap compared to Fantasy on the whole.
Final judgement with-held until rules are reviewed of course.
$250? That's balls, a £65 battalion box will be a fully gameable army in AoS. If you can download the rules, and they continue to include the rules in boxes, fantasy is about to get a lot cheaper. Which is the point the relaunch.
Massawyrm wrote: Garage gamers, the silent majority. There exists a large group of gamers who only play with a friend or two in their basement or garage. If they buy from a store at all, they show up once every few months, buy several hundred dollars worth of kits and are rarely seen again. They don't typically frequent forums, they don't play in tournaments, they don't always even stick with the most recently updated rules. They just drink a few beers, roll some dice and shoot the breeze with their buddies. They're the reason GW has shifted away from the tournament scene and towards "Play how you want," and why GW employees refer to the forums as the loud 1%. Balance isn't an issue with these players; for them COOL is king. They're the market GW is chasing, as they're the ones keeping the lights on.
JamesY wrote: $250? That's balls, a £65 battalion box will be a fully gameable army in AoS. If you can download the rules, and they continue to include the rules in boxes, fantasy is about to get a lot cheaper. Which is the point the relaunch.
I was under the impression that the Battalions are being phased out in favor of the new box sets. Some army battalions are no longer available through GW Can. The Dark Elf box is $200cdn and the Wood Elf box is $275. I agree that the old boxes are good value for as long as they last.
JamesY wrote: $250? That's balls, a £65 battalion box will be a fully gameable army in AoS. If you can download the rules, and they continue to include the rules in boxes, fantasy is about to get a lot cheaper. Which is the point the relaunch.
I was under the impression that the Battalions are being phased out in favor of the new box sets. Some army battalions are no longer available through GW Can. The Dark Elf box is $200cdn and the Wood Elf box is $275. I agree that the old boxes are good value for as long as they last.
feth all that, they've abolished points, factions and army structure. In the space of an evening I've gone from quite keen to utter disinterest. (Not a small amount of incredulity at the utter ridiculousness that is the pantomime of GW either.)
Equally, this week was the second week in over three years since it was founded that my club had not one GW game being played.
The first was last week, read into that what you will.
WayneTheGame wrote: Doing away with points? What the feth are they thinking???
That's... Pretty normal for historicals. Read through the Hail Caesar rules recently, and it's got all the stats for legionnaires, barbarian warbands, phalanxes etc, but no points costs.
They're generally not really part of the structure.
It's not as shocking a move as you make it out to be. I might have to look into the new fantasy rules and see what they're like.
There are lots of historical rulesets that have army lists and points values. There are lots of historical rulesets that have army lists and no points values.
Historical rulesets without army lists are rare because obviously we know more or less what historical armies consisted of, and if you play with armies that aren't similar to the originals, you aren't playing historicals any more, you are playing some kind of alternative historya or fantasy campaign. Which can be fun.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are lots of historical rulesets that have army lists and points values. There are lots of historical rulesets that have army lists and no points values.
Historical rulesets without army lists are rare because obviously we know more or less what historical armies consisted of, and if you play with armies that aren't similar to the originals, you aren't playing historicals any more, you are playing some kind of alternative historya or fantasy campaign. Which can be fun.
Well, we know that tge Roman army would have had legions/cohorts/centuries of legionnaires, limited cavalry and whatever auxiliaries to hand. Thry would look odd with phalanxes - agreed. What we don't know will be the precise disposition for whatever 'army' is to hand (I can imagine with the Romans, depending on time period and location, the nature of what gets fielded will change dramatically) and whatever time period.
in my experience, historicals are a bit more 'free form' in what you take, in terms of the size of battles/armies and in how you play.
I agree with you - armies tend to be representative of historical sources, but how they get played is less 'organised play' and more 'garage gamer approach'. Hence my point about a lot of them not really using points systems - you field what is appropriate rather than to a defined 'limit'.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are lots of historical rulesets that have army lists and points values. There are lots of historical rulesets that have army lists and no points values.
Historical rulesets without army lists are rare because obviously we know more or less what historical armies consisted of, and if you play with armies that aren't similar to the originals, you aren't playing historicals any more, you are playing some kind of alternative historya or fantasy campaign. Which can be fun.
I would like to replay Thermopylae. I want my opponent to bring all 30,000 Persians (or however many it actually was, but I think the historical accounts vary) so that I can see how many muh Greeks I can slaughter before I lose . Could even proxy it with sigmarites vs chaos! Just need 600 or so boxes of AoS.
Them Greeks musta had some great invulnerable save mechanic!
At Thermopylae the Spartans had several thousand allied hoplites as well as the Spartiates, in a fortified position with a narrow frontage and totally secure flanks. The Persians had lighter armed and armoured troops and were unable to make use of their superior numbers. If they dropped back to shoot arrows, the Greeks could hide behind their fortification and shields.
All the Greeks needed to do was to rotate their troops into and out of the front ranks to let them rest. There wasn't room and time for the Persians to tire out the Greeks in one day. The battle of course went against the Greeks when the Persians discovered a path through the hills and were able to get round behind them.
I played Persians versus Spartans as a fair, open field battle once, with WRG 6th edition rules.. I won, thanks to the amount of bow fire I was able to put down on the Spartans as they advanced, which badly disrupted their charge. But it wasn't easy.
Kilkrazy wrote: At Thermopylae the Spartans had several thousand allied hoplites as well as the Spartiates, in a fortified position with a narrow frontage and totally secure flanks. The Persians had lighter armed and armoured troops and were unable to make use of their superior numbers. If they dropped back to shoot arrows, the Greeks could hide behind their fortification and shields.
All the Greeks needed to do was to rotate their troops into and out of the front ranks to let them rest. There wasn't room and time for the Persians to tire out the Greeks in one day. The battle of course went against the Greeks when the Persians discovered a path through the hills and were able to get round behind them.
I played Persians versus Spartans as a fair, open field battle once, with WRG 6th edition rules.. I won, thanks to the amount of bow fire I was able to put down on the Spartans as they advanced, which badly disrupted their charge. But it wasn't easy.
NO!!! I've seen the movie. Just 300 Spartans! The farmers didn't count, coz Leonidas said so. And he killed 10,000 Persians all by himself. With a single spear throw!
But yea, I know that the Greeks numbered a few thousand (depending on who was counting); but the Persians numbered a lot more -- many tens to hundreds of thousands, depending on who was counting. But all I REALLY wanted to do... was see someone fill a gymnasium with miniatures of Persian soldiers
Kilkrazy wrote: At Thermopylae the Spartans had several thousand allied hoplites as well as the Spartiates, in a fortified position with a narrow frontage and totally secure flanks. The Persians had lighter armed and armoured troops and were unable to make use of their superior numbers. If they dropped back to shoot arrows, the Greeks could hide behind their fortification and shields.
All the Greeks needed to do was to rotate their troops into and out of the front ranks to let them rest. There wasn't room and time for the Persians to tire out the Greeks in one day. The battle of course went against the Greeks when the Persians discovered a path through the hills and were able to get round behind them.
I played Persians versus Spartans as a fair, open field battle once, with WRG 6th edition rules.. I won, thanks to the amount of bow fire I was able to put down on the Spartans as they advanced, which badly disrupted their charge. But it wasn't easy.
NO!!! I've seen the movie. Just 300 Spartans! The farmers didn't count, coz Leonidas said so. And he killed 10,000 Persians all by himself. With a single spear throw!
But yea, I know that the Greeks numbered a few thousand (depending on who was counting); but the Persians numbered a lot more -- many tens to hundreds of thousands, depending on who was counting. But all I REALLY wanted to do... was see someone fill a gymnasium with miniatures of Persian soldiers
And then move them all 6"...
I'd rather see King Pyrrhus and his phallanx vs the Roman Republic's legions....
sorry, way off topic.
But yes, there should be a way to balance the game out for equal strength forces and then have the imbalanced scenarios run off of those. It's easier to have a fair imbalanced game when there's already a baseline of what balanced is.
Azreal13 wrote: [
Equally, this week was the second week in over three years since it was founded that my club had not one GW game being played.
Interesting. Similar movement in our club and the two other ones we usually play with. Significantally less GW games, mostly 40k and a rare comped 8th WHFB, but a LOT of X-Wing. Which is good, because it's awesome.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I expected The Hobbit to be a major boost for the LoTR line, but there is no strong evidence in the results that that happened.
Cost. LoTR was a very affordable miniatures game, especially compared to their regular systems. People who never got into contact with tabletop before could easily pick up a few Warrios of Minas Tirith for a very fair price and have them all painted (read: drybrushed) in a single afternoon. Since GW decided to increase the box price by more than 200% (!!!) the game quickly lost its appeal. It's a shame as the rules are vastly superior to any other GW ruleset. Dare I say, they're actually good.
But yes, there should be a way to balance the game out for equal strength forces and then have the imbalanced scenarios run off of those. It's easier to have a fair imbalanced game when there's already a baseline of what balanced is.
I'm not sure how good a gauge the club scene is of GW trends. Most players are not in formal clubs or on forums. They just play or paint a little read a few books. They can afford more expensive kits because they don't need or crave vast quantities of the stuff they just buy what they want...
No, I'm sure you couldn't use the club scen to definitively measure the health of GW.
The interest comes by the comparison of what was with what is though, it isn't saying "nobody plays at our club, therefore 40K is dying" it's "everybody used to play at our club, and now hardly anyone does."
Azreal13 wrote: No, I'm sure you couldn't use the club scen to definitively measure the health of GW.
The interest comes by the comparison of what was with what is though, it isn't saying "nobody plays at our club, therefore 40K is dying" it's "everybody used to play at our club, and now hardly anyone does."
Things change, like the seasons. A new game might come and grab everyones attention; a blood bowl league might do the same. Sometimes people go back to the games they always played (like background noise) and sometimes they don't. It also depends on the gaming circles that you are a part of. And who you know. What gets played needs to be looked at over a 5 year basis I think before you can talk trends.
I don't see 40k disappearing. What I do see is fewer people in some clubs playing 40k, and the same amount elsewhere. It's true for other games too. I was playing a game of warnachine in Edinburgh a few months back; guy pops in sees us playing and pops over to look and chat. Apparently he'd never seen anyone playing warmachine in Edinburgh. Never mind the fact there are a lot of players playing for a long time; if you'd asked him - he'd say 'wmh doesn't exist in Scotland'... Ask us and we'd point out that yes it exists and where to go to go to get involved.
Like I said, things change like the seasons. Wmh went underground for a while here, but a few of us are kicking off things again and getting casual 'gaming days' organised and everyone seems to be coming out of the woodwork for it.
I'm not saying it's gone never to return, but specifically using our club as an example, 3 years ago it was de facto GW exclusive, it wasn't a rule, it was just that was all anyone chose to play, and 40K was definitely king.
Fast forward 3 years and there's been two successive weeks where no GW product has been used.
The very definition of anecdotal, but, to my mind, telling nonetheless.
What I find interesting is that I would put myself in the "Hobbyist" market segment as none of my friends have an interest in miniature games and the closest store is 45 minutes away. I feel like GW is gunning for my segment, but I can't get behind these models. Barring the fact they destroyed the old lore (which is a deal breaker for me anyway) I don't see anything that really makes me want this. Other companies create just as detailed miniatures. I'm confused as to who this is targeted at I suppose.
Coldhatred wrote: What I find interesting is that I would put myself in the "Hobbyist" market segment as none of my friends have an interest in miniature games and the closest store is 45 minutes away. I feel like GW is gunning for my segment, but I can't get behind these models. Barring the fact they destroyed the old lore (which is a deal breaker for me anyway) I don't see anything that really makes me want this. Other companies create just as detailed miniatures. I'm confused as to who this is targeted at I suppose.
It's just in the model aesthetic, I guess. I will buy the starter box set because I think the models are pretty spectacular, the aesthetic is exactly what I enjoy (though I would prefer guns ), and the price, considering that there are some large models in there too, is awesome. I don't really care that if the game is great or crappy, because likely, I won't have anyone to play it with anyways (my whole gang is 40k). But in the same way, I paint Infinity models and PP models, even though I almost never play those games.
Putting aesthetic aside, I don't think a lot of companies produce as good miniatures as the Sigmarites -- most resin character model manufacturers don't do multipart, or they're minimally multipart, so you end up with a lot of undercuts (which I despise), and some poses/positions are just impossible to cast without multipart models. And, personally, I much prefer plastic as a material to work with and for a finished product than resin (besides, I like vehicles, and plastic is WAY better for vehicle models).
Comparatively, in cost, you have to admit that from a model perspective only, those models are really cheap. Of course, if you don't like the aesthetic, it's totally worthless.
Going entirely to aesthetics... if they made 40k Sigmarites... I would go crazy I mean, it would be my next 10,000 point project. Yes, they are space-marine-inspired, but I actually like the Sigmarite aesthetic better -- the way the shoulder pads are sculpted, the knee pads, the gauntlets, are just *better* (just preference I'm talking about here). But they just need Grav cannons, lightning claws, bolters, chainswords, plasma guns and meltaguns. Hmmmmmm.... conversion? A new chapter!
Then it's just about where you spend your extra money. Do you buy a new army, or do you go on a trip?
