MWHistorian wrote: I don't think AOS is for non competitive players, I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play. They don't want to agonize over every move and think strategies several turns in advance.
That just happens to be the opposite of what I want. I'm not a tournament going guy. Never been to one. It's the story that's most important to me.
But I need a good game that reflects the fluff behind it.
I don't think GW knows its player base or why people buy what they buy.
Not doing market research is unintelligent.
And as a 15 year player of WHFB (3+ armies) and 40k (5+) armies, I'd respectfully disagree on AoS. Played it with my Brets, and it "felt" like the Brets in the fluff. It included some thinking and consideration of when and when not to charge (some units work better on the defense), and the ebb and flow of the combats, the flexible movement, all felt much more natural than the square block, argue over a millimeter, let me get my protractor games of WHFB in the past (8th did some nice things for the "fiddly" in WHFB, but botched others). I play AoS more regularly than I did WHFB, and we're already making up a campaign between Empire, Orks, and Brets.
I'm not GWs target audience - I'm older, with discretionary income - but I still like their models, and games, and I still buy them. I also have 30+ sci-fi, fantasy, historical rulesets on my shelves, and keep coming back to GW for sci-fi and fantasy. The others don't scratch the itch, and none have the background and immersion I find with GW.
So, yeah, people are different, and some of us even like GWs product. Shocker I just don't post here or even lurk much anymore, because its the same old, same old GW bashing, over and over and over and over....yawn...
Talys wrote: It's actually amazing that after 30 years, nobody has unseated them as the largest game company. In many markets this would be quite unusual.
And yet GW isn't as big as it once was, and they have more competition than ever. Why aren't they destroying everything in their path? With their IP and their plastics technology and, yes, even their albatross retail network, nothing should be able to stand against them. Yet there they are - all these smaller fish, getting bigger and bigger as the big shark swims past obvious meals.
Azreal13 wrote: Other people send other users very different messages.
No kidding. You ain't special Talys (but you are entertaining). We're getting messages 'bout you too.
timetowaste85 wrote: In the case of Everyone vs. Talys, I find in favor of Everyone. Court of Dakka adjourned. Everyone wearing a white floured wig is awarded the "no contempt of court" award.
I like to imagine that in the Court of Dakka, every time Az or Blacksails or anyone replies to Talys the first thing Talys does is this:
I've actually answered this question (more than once), but here's the short version:
1. Smaller scale = less models = less revenue = less profit. GW wants you to own a collection of thousands of miniatures, not game with 30
2. Part of the attraction of 40k (to people like me) is that there is everything from grots to jets to titans in the same game. But that's terrible for balance. I see it. But I don't care. I like it. I would love to see a Reaver titan in a game, dying for my buddy to put his together; I don't care if it is totally unbalanced (or not). It's just cool.
3. Better internal balance = less scrambling after whatever the new meta is. That means less buying new models. GW switches up the rules every few years, presumably by fans and non-fans alike, so that you end up buying everything.
So their shrinking sales kinda started when they start pandering more to the casual crowd and less to the competitive crowd.
timetowaste85 wrote: In the case of Everyone vs. Talys, I find in favor of Everyone. Court of Dakka adjourned. Everyone wearing a white floured wig is awarded the "no contempt of court" award
lol thanks for quoting that HB -- I hadn't seen it
As much as I would like to take credit, my GW purchases last year didn't total to about $200,000,000. So I'm not quite "Everyone". It's just that most people who are happily playing their GW games and models are doing that instead of posting on threads that have become banal. As Cruentus put it, most everyone I know who is happy with GW doesn't post or lurk here because it's a lot of GW bashing, and they're having fun doing what they do.
The ratio in real life obviously isn't reflective of the online animosity, because if so, GW's sales would be much lower than they are. I still maintain that GW's revenue attributable to 40k has not decreased through the years, and likely has increased (with significant decreases in LoTR and Fantasy revenue). I also maintain that eventually, GW will get it right and get another game out there that is a hit, whether it's AoS or something else. It might take them another 30 years, but it'll happen eventually.
I didn't even have a Dakka account until last year (though I did lurk... very infrequently). I only popped one open because I went from working 100 hours a week to about 20 in a sort of semi-retirement and I have too much time on my hands.
I find it equally entertaining to see people cry repeatedly, year after year, that GW is going to go out of business, and the same gripes about prices and space marines, and all that. If I'm convinced of one thing, it's that GW has the means to survive for quite a long time, and that anyone thinking it will go out of business soon is just disconnected with reality
You may jest that I live in some alternate reality HBMC -- but I suspect that quite a lot of folks worldwide share such a reality where they actually... gasp... like GW stuff!
Kilkrazy wrote: 12 years ago GW sold £190 million of games. Last year they sold £119 million.
Right -- nobody has ever argued that GW is making less money now than it did at its peak (if they did, they'd be pretty silly). The question is, 12 years from now, will they sell £19 m of games, £119m of games, or £190m of games? I don't that think the answer is obvious.
Talys wrote: The GW40k model is highly profitable because (a) completeness for a faction runs into thousands of dollars and (b) completeness for multiple factions runs into TENS of thousands of dollars and (c) there are people willing to spend this. I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.
I think you are missing the point.
1. I don't understand why you would need to be "faction complete". There is no requirement to own everything available in the army before moving to a new army. (Nevermind that even in WM/H, faction complete is thousands of dollars).
2. Why would 40k as a competitive system generate less money? Players were buying like fiends when there were Grand Tournaments. Ask players in competitive WM/H whether they are faction complete. I think the response will surprise you. Instead of going faction complete, most go with the builds that they like in multiple factions.
Any sales should be good sales right? Not sure why GW uses the "Turn and Burn" strategy basically shooing veterans out of the system-and-don't-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out.
Evidence for this can be found in a much-disdained comparison with competitive trading card games. Tourney players are not strangers to laying down £50+ for a single deck-changing card with which to compete, even compared to a price of <£2 for a normal card (allowing for variation as I'm not an expert on card prices). Would they do this for a love of the card? Probably not. To win? Hellz yea.
But $100 is a drop in the bucket. There are people that spend 100 times that in a year on CCGs, that never play with their collector cards. Likewise, completionists (like myself) own, and usually have painted, at least a one of every model of the factions they collect, and as many of the models for units as are useful. You don't want to know how many drop pods I've painted since they've come out... and a blue drop pod is different from a red drop pod which is different from a grey one.. and a dark red one with black markings is different from a bright red one with silver markings... et cetera. Drop pod for a command squad? It's gotta look different. Calgar is going to be in it? OMG. Better make it epic.
The huge sales come not in wanting a functioning battle force, which is a few hundred dollars, but in complete collections, which start at thousands and go into $10,000+ over years -- and then multiples of those for each faction, and multiples of those for each reboot.
Incidentally, I never said that a competitive 40k would make less money; I said a competitive game in the scale of WMH (model count) would probably make less money, because if you take the game reason to build massive armies away, then some people (like me) won't.
Fair point, but what I think many 40k players find most attractive in 40k (besides the setting) is the spectacle of watching your personally painted collection beating the snot out of someone else's personally painted collection. The game has been edging slowly towards company-scale games, and it probably wouldn't hurt to have rules tailored to better suit 1500-3000 points battles.
And to cover the part of the market that consists of low-investing wargamers, make a ruleset that better fits the 250-1000 points area.
Kilkrazy wrote: 12 years ago GW sold £190 million of games. Last year they sold £119 million.
Right -- nobody has ever argued that GW is making less money now than it did at its peak (if they did, they'd be pretty silly). The question is, 12 years from now, will they sell £19 m of games, £119m of games, or £190m of games? I don't that think the answer is obvious.
We can reliably guess that in the next year or two, unless GW hits a nail (any nail) on the head, they're going to continue to fall.
Talys wrote: Incidentally, I never said that a competitive 40k would make less money; I said a competitive game in the scale of WMH (model count) would probably make less money, because if you take the game reason to build massive armies away, then some people (like me) won't.
Fair point, but what I think many 40k players find most attractive in 40k (besides the setting) is the spectacle of watching your personally painted collection beating the snot out of someone else's personally painted collection. The game has been edging slowly towards company-scale games, and it probably wouldn't hurt to have rules tailored to better suit 1500-3000 points battles.
And to cover the part of the market that consists of low-investing wargamers, make a ruleset that better fits the 250-1000 points area.
Right -- watching the spectacle of your models, the spectacle of your opponents models, and the terrain -- is a HUGE part of the game draw for me. And "company scale" is exactly where it's at; after all, look at Gladius (a full company), and even so, you have room to spare at 1850 points, 2000-3000 point games, which are not uncommon.
To cover the low end, there is Kill Team, which is actually a really decent set of rules for 200 point games played on a small surface. The same rules work really well up to about 500 points. Though I would argue that for games of that size, WM/H gives your commander (warcaster) a lot more interesting options, but KT is a lot of fun to play. Locally here, there is a group that plays it regularly -- but generally speaking, a lot of people don't even know about it, and GW does nothing to promote it.
In a way, think that GW is afraid that such scale games would become popular with 40k, because it takes away the motivation to build the larger armies for some people who are on the fence, and would *probably* be happier playing a small scale game, but like the 40k lore, models, or scene.
Regarding hitting some / any nail, I think AoS will be enough of a nail that the next half-year won't be at least a little better, but I also highly doubt it will be a raging success in 6 months. The real test is whether the game is popular enough with the folks that like it to be a revenue driver several years from now. If it grows, GW should be very happy.
There are also rumors of Horus Heresy later this year, which will almost certainly make GW a whole bunch of money; but if it's a great game unto itself, it could be a great long-term product line, too (essentially, to replace LoTR). The move to make FW more accessible will also generate a lot of income from its core customers; I believe that the #1 reason that most fans who are not price-sensitive that love but don't buy FW models comes from shipping fees, long deliveries, and customs brokerages.
I've actually answered this question (more than once), but here's the short version:
1. Smaller scale = less models = less revenue = less profit. GW wants you to own a collection of thousands of miniatures, not game with 30
2. Part of the attraction of 40k (to people like me) is that there is everything from grots to jets to titans in the same game. But that's terrible for balance. I see it. But I don't care. I like it. I would love to see a Reaver titan in a game, dying for my buddy to put his together; I don't care if it is totally unbalanced (or not). It's just cool.
3. Better internal balance = less scrambling after whatever the new meta is. That means less buying new models. GW switches up the rules every few years, presumably by fans and non-fans alike, so that you end up buying everything.
I think the scale part of your argument is a bit of misdirection, as most people are generally happy with the scale of an 'average' 40k game, in that it represents an over strength platoon or two, or under strength company. The issue that people have is then taking that and cramming in increasingly larger models into those standard games. So its not really that people want the scale to shrink, but to make the scale at least make sense (limit superheavies in some way, like the HH game).
It'd be fairly straightforward to balance the game from grots up to superheavy tanks anyways. Baneblades and their ilk are very reasonable, so it shows it can be done. What it would mean is that less of the more common superheavies would see the table as they'd be nerfed to be as scary as the baneblades, which I feel is probably the best baseline for the power level of a superheavy anything. Point is, its more than doable to balance the game much better than it currently is while retaining the ability to field anything from grots to massive battlewagons and a marine company with support. It'd take work, and it wouldn't perfect, but even a tested and updated point system would be very much welcome.
Better internal balance wouldn't mean a perfect internal balance. In fact, having better balance would mean the devs understand the game's meta and overall balance, thus allowing them to finely tune the game and shift it the right amount at the right time in order to keep it interesting but not so far and drastic as to invalidate armies. Plus, there's nothing stopping them from adding a new balanced unit that looks cool and/or adds a new unique ability or capability to the army. People would still scramble all over it. Besides, GW's current scheme isn't even a good representation of this idea, as many of their changes over the years have equally benefited old collections, or new units are released with terrible rules and no one will buy them except as a painting project.
I constantly read here that scale is an issue because it's a barrier to entry due to (a) cost and (b) time involved in buinding 70 - 100 or more models... for a start.
For me, I think the internal balance issues all have to do with force multipliers rather than putting the right number of points onto single units. Of course, GW could do a better job of assigning the right points to units, and perhaps buffing/debuffing some models. Nobody's gonna argue that one.
But the real game-breakers are for example: Draigo is not scary. Centurions are not scary. Draigo + Centurions are ZOMG GTFO. Tigurius with Invisibility isn't bad at all. But stick him with something that is really hard to kill? And that thing becomes mathematically nearly *impossible* to kill. There are and endless number of combinations where you take two reasonable units, stick them together and you have something that is just too good.
Now, take those all out, and the game is STILL about trying to squeeze more efficiency out of points. To me, in a perfect points system, the value of your army would be reflective of its holistic potential to perform in a specific environment. So 5 imperial knights in a really tight urban map with streets not wide enough for them to maneuver would mean the knight household would be of low value, for instance. But of course, we will never get this
So in lieu, when our group plays, we apply experience that takes in various factors (including player ability, terrain, and combinations of models) to try to even out the fight and get a good game going, rather than focusing on "my list is better than your list, HA!". Also, we are merciless in simply house ruling anything we don't like. Which, I totally understand, is untenable for pickup games with strangers.
jonolikespie wrote: Well they did just update forgworlds site to the same crappy one GW are using, so that's another point in the 'unintelligent' column.
Because they paid 4 million pounds for a site that every other company their size would pay 100,000 for. And let's not forget that they hired the then CEO and current Chairman's wife to oversee its development who has no executive IT experience unless you count her experience as an athletic club sponsor and secretarial work for said chairman's shell company.
Only a genius company makes those kinds of decisions!
agnosto wrote: Because they paid 4 million pounds for a site that every other company their size would pay 100,000 for. And let's not forget that they hired the then CEO and current Chairman's wife to oversee its development who has no executive IT experience unless you count her experience as an athletic club sponsor and secretarial work for said chairman's shell company.
Only a genius company makes those kinds of decisions!
agnosto wrote: Because they paid 4 million pounds for a site that every other company their size would pay 100,000 for. And let's not forget that they hired the then CEO and current Chairman's wife to oversee its development who has no executive IT experience unless you count her experience as an athletic club sponsor and secretarial work for said chairman's shell company.
Only a genius company makes those kinds of decisions!
Don't forget the horrible design of the website itself, some of the blame there has to lie with the management for approving it
agnosto wrote: Because they paid 4 million pounds for a site that every other company their size would pay 100,000 for. And let's not forget that they hired the then CEO and current Chairman's wife to oversee its development who has no executive IT experience unless you count her experience as an athletic club sponsor and secretarial work for said chairman's shell company.
Only a genius company makes those kinds of decisions!
Don't forget the horrible design of the website itself, some of the blame there has to lie with the management for approving it
That's what you get when you hire for attitude, well, relation in this case instead of ability. They hired a secretary with no background in IT for a job that required a Project Manager and/or Business Analyst. Granted the vendor more than likely had people doing that job but, big but here, a responsible company doesn't depend on a vendor to do all of the work without having someone internal able to check the work and make sure that they get what they want out of it.
I don't ask my secretary to do my bookkeeper's work or run HR and I certainly wouldn't ask her to run the network systems or design a website. It's not that she's not capable of doing these things, with proper support, it's that she has no background or training to do it.
jah-joshua wrote: going by my reading of the forums, if GW tried to please everyone, they would be so busy chasing all of the different ideas that each individual has of their perfect product that they would never acomplish anything...
Eh... You can't please everyone - true... but you could silence at least 80% of the critics just by fixing the gakky rules.
Talys wrote: By this, I mean that Age of Sigmar appeals to casual players in an extraordinary way: it ATTEMPTS to appeal to casual players to the exclusion of all other players, something that very few games have tried in the past.
I fixed that for you.
The main issue with AoS is that they replaced their fantasy tactical game with what is in essence a storytelling mechanism with models bolted on, disguised and marketed as a tactical game. Sandbox style environments are great for storytelling as they provide no limits for your imagination. The fact that to play AoSas a tactical game requires an undocumented house rules phase when joining the play group, and a negotiation phase before the game - The ruleset is not just sloppy... it's fething incomplete.
AoS out of the box is really "Fancy-Model-Mass-STORYTELLING-Battlefield-Melee". IMHO, its more suitable for those looking to recreate epic storytelling battles, and not those looking for a tactical experience. Casual or hardcore designations are totally irrelevant.
I've actually answered this question (more than once), but here's the short version:
1. Smaller scale = less models = less revenue = less profit. GW wants you to own a collection of thousands of miniatures, not game with 30
2. Part of the attraction of 40k (to people like me) is that there is everything from grots to jets to titans in the same game. But that's terrible for balance. I see it. But I don't care. I like it. I would love to see a Reaver titan in a game, dying for my buddy to put his together; I don't care if it is totally unbalanced (or not). It's just cool.
3. Better internal balance = less scrambling after whatever the new meta is. That means less buying new models. GW switches up the rules every few years, presumably by fans and non-fans alike, so that you end up buying everything.
I think the scale part of your argument is a bit of misdirection, as most people are generally happy with the scale of an 'average' 40k game, in that it represents an over strength platoon or two, or under strength company. The issue that people have is then taking that and cramming in increasingly larger models into those standard games. So its not really that people want the scale to shrink, but to make the scale at least make sense (limit superheavies in some way, like the HH game).
It'd be fairly straightforward to balance the game from grots up to superheavy tanks anyways. Baneblades and their ilk are very reasonable, so it shows it can be done. What it would mean is that less of the more common superheavies would see the table as they'd be nerfed to be as scary as the baneblades, which I feel is probably the best baseline for the power level of a superheavy anything. Point is, its more than doable to balance the game much better than it currently is while retaining the ability to field anything from grots to massive battlewagons and a marine company with support. It'd take work, and it wouldn't perfect, but even a tested and updated point system would be very much welcome.
Better internal balance wouldn't mean a perfect internal balance. In fact, having better balance would mean the devs understand the game's meta and overall balance, thus allowing them to finely tune the game and shift it the right amount at the right time in order to keep it interesting but not so far and drastic as to invalidate armies. Plus, there's nothing stopping them from adding a new balanced unit that looks cool and/or adds a new unique ability or capability to the army. People would still scramble all over it. Besides, GW's current scheme isn't even a good representation of this idea, as many of their changes over the years have equally benefited old collections, or new units are released with terrible rules and no one will buy them except as a painting project.
I would add ref number 3: this can easily be argued to cause the reverse. Sure imbalance and changing imbalance will cause some people to run out to get the latest hotness but what about all the people that are put off by such shenanigans? You just spent a lot of money on units x, y and z, build and paint them up and a new dex comes out that reduces x to a barely average unit at best and y and z get heavily nerfed so that either they are not effective in the game anymore or their abilities have changed enough they don't work in your army. For many gamers this happening a lot puts them off and they don't want to have to now buy units a, b and c to feel like they have a decent army. Maybe they would have been willing to buy new units to add to their army but don't what to have to replace their army so they stop buying. And GW's changes and new units don't always make people want to run out an buy it. Look at the pyrovore! When 5th ed nids were a rumour I had hoped for a heavy flamer/melta-stream type unit (for heavy armour) but the pyrovore had terrible rules. GW produced a new model (and I liked the model) and I expect they wanted to sell it and if the rules were good I would have bought one but like many others I did not. And after the 6th ed nid dex I did not again. The bad game balance and regularly shifting balance put me off buying more models, even if I liked them, and put me off 40k itself, so GW makes less or no money from people like me. With balanced rules for the game and dexes, people like me are happy and buy models to add to their army and start new armies while good game balance doesn't stop those that love everything GW from buying everything anyways. The only reduction may be those (and IMO not so many) that would be willing to dump most of an army (or the whole army) and buy up whatever they see as OP this year to win tourneys or whatever. But with a balanced game that does add new units and where the rules are updated after 4+ years - these people will still buy units to add to their armies to look for ways to find new strategies to win their games and find the best counters for other new units.
GWs lousy balance and their clear lack of concern for their customer ref the game has caused me to barely spend anything on GW product (absurd prices also put me off) when I was planning to not only add units to my armies but start another one. Fantasy was the same. I have a dwarf army but I wasn't a big fan of 7th ed and 8th ed put me right off with the horrible balance so I stopped playing when I was planning to build an ogre army - again lost revenue for GW. And seeing Fantasy turn into AoSIMO their strategy of not caring about game balance and happily burning customers that spent large amounts of money on their models trashed their own product. And with no market research/communication with their customer base to really understand what is going on, I think there is good reason to think GW makes a lot of poor decisions. Yes GW is still making money, though a lot less, but will it continue to decline? I think so.
Talys wrote: By this, I mean that Age of Sigmar appeals to casual players in an extraordinary way: it ATTEMPTS to appeal to casual players to the exclusion of all other players, something that very few games have tried in the past.
I fixed that for you.
The main issue with AoS is that they replaced their fantasy tactical game with what is in essence a storytelling mechanism with models bolted on, disguised and marketed as a tactical game. Sandbox style environments are great for storytelling as they provide no limits for your imagination. The fact that to play AoSas a tactical game requires an undocumented house rules phase when joining the play group, and a negotiation phase before the game - The ruleset is not just sloppy... it's fething incomplete.
AoS out of the box is really "Fancy-Model-Mass-STORYTELLING-Battlefield-Melee". IMHO, its more suitable for those looking to recreate epic storytelling battles, and not those looking for a tactical experience. Casual or hardcore designations are totally irrelevant.
Complete with making 'Pew! Pew!' noises during play... encouraged by the scrolls....
@Ventus - I can certainly sympathize with Tyranid players getting the short end of the stick. For that matter, I find that the vast majority of disaffected players play the "forgotten child" factions that seem to rarely get their day in the sun and get shafted either by bad codex or unfavorable edition (or both).
A lot of Imperial Guard players, Tyranid players, CSM; blood angels; that kind of thing. You see proportionately fewer Eldar and Space Marine players that are unhappy -- I'm not saying *none*, just, proportionately.
I must be a masochist, because the last two factions I spent time modelling and playing are Dark Eldar and Blood Angels At least nobody can call me TFG when it comes to list building.
With the "popular factions" most commonly, stuff comes out, there are good rules to support it, and eventually with an edition change, something else becomes better, and after many years, sometimes it comes back around. I mean, look at Space Marine / Dark Angel scouts -- who would have thought they'd be rebalanced to WS4/BS4 again?
With GW, they clearly play favorites in terms of factions. I mean, at least, it seems like that based on decades of observation. I don't think it's lack of concern for the customer, so much as it is, "we think this faction should be more powerful, and therefore, it is." Strange logic, I know.
On the other hand, since Codex Necron in January 2015, all the books have been pretty solid, and comparable with each other (except maybe Harlequins, but I always considered them an Eldar subfaction anyhow).
Just to clarify, the books have only been solid in that they're fairly well balanced externally with the best available power builds. Plenty of internal balance issues and obvious dead weight units, on top of the new codex format (model pictures everywhere).
The real question is if the recipe will be changed in the next few books.
I can only hope they stop putting so many fething pictures of models, both to save the massive amount of basically wasted pages, and devote their efforts to top quality art and fluff (and obviously rules, but who's holding their breath?).
Talys, I wasn't trying to suggest that most of their new units have lousy rules like what happened with the pyrovore. But GW is all over the place. Look at the models. GW makes a lot of beautiful models. When GW decided to make the hive tyrant into a plastic kit nids players everywhere rejoiced. Having wings included was awesome and IMO they are beautifully done. But this is a model that is designed to be used in their game of 40k. GW made devourers the goto weapon for a few editions for flyrants and they still are, yet they decided to not put in one set, let alone two. Now that might not seem like a big deal but paying an absurd price and not getting all the parts for a new kit is inexcusable. To top it off, if I wanted to make a legal build of arming my flyrant with bonesword and lashwhip and stranglethorn cannon I would have to convert the model out of the box - inexcusable. Why? Because the tyrant has two sets of sockets for biomorphs but the wings are made to take the upper set, leaving only one set for two different legal weapon options. This is a disgrace. It is their game and their model - the kit is new and the 6th ed nid dex is relatively new yet this doesn't work. Paying an absurd price I expect better.
When I buy a new car I expect all the parts - I don't expect to pick it up at the lot and find that two wheels are wooden (well there is a tire store down the road - get them there if you need them). Or the passenger seat is missing and there is an orange crate in its place (you can always install a seat yourself if you want).
And missing parts are common in many other kits - even space marine kits. I could excuse an old kit from more than a decade ago that hadn't been updated yet but all the new stuff should work out of the box with all the parts.
And ref different armies get different amounts of love - I agree with your point, but even SM sometimes don't get much new - there might be little to add and if you add too much one year than what room does that leave you in the future? Nids did get two lousy dexes in a row, but they did get dataslates and formations added (of course costing more for your rules)(and nids do have some strong units -dakka flyrant) but nids have gotten a lot of love with regard to new models (just not balanced and compiled in one dex rules). This is good and bad. Going from the 4th ed nid dex to the 5th ed nid dex GW added a huge amount of units. For example MCs went from 2 unit entries to about 10. that is 5 times! The 6th edition nid dex lost a few units (eg parasite, doom, pod) but gained others (eg haruspex, exocrine) and still more were added over the next year (toxicrene, maleceptor, pod back again with different entries), For modellers sure its great. But so many units completely unbalances the army when the philosophy behind the army; how it operates is confused and messed up. It leaves little room to add in future without further confusion when the units that are there have poorly balanced rules internally and their roles are unclear. Look at the last SM dex - did they even get one new unit? There needs to be some consistency and sense to what is being done. Just throwing out a new model does not make all the problems go away and if the new rules are a mess then sales will not be so good for it - I don't imagine the toxicrene sold many kits. This is not the sign IMO of a company that is making intelligent long term decisions on the viability of 40k.
Ya... But Ventus... the PP doesn't give customizable options for its units, and Corvus Belli doesn't have models for half the range! /usual apologist rhetoric. Ergo... Everything Is OK.
I wish the faction that I'm spending at least $5,000 on right now (Blood Angels -- and the final tally will probably be twice that) didn't suck so badly
I am genuinely envious talys.
That said, thus alone is proof you live in a completely different world to the rest of us talys. At least $5,000? Thst you sre so casual and so 'easy' with such sums just blows my mind, and suggests you are maybe a little bit out of touch with the concerns and realities of the average gamer. Christ man, to most people, putting 500 dollars or even pounds towards the hobby is a massive investment and often, can't get done because of other commitments. For me, the £100 odd pounds I put towards the usariadna starter is my wargaming budget for about two or three months, and I consider myself fortunate that I can do this.
I don't begrudge you your position (and apparent luck) in life, and I'd still genuinely love to meet you and play a game with you, but I've often thought that your own perception was so heavily skewed by your own situation that you failed to grasp the realities for a lot of us are quite different.
My view is this,
There are people who enjoy GW products DESPITE the 'lack luster rules'.
These people do not play . or think the rules are not all that important.(They just agree to play a game in a mutually acceptable way.)
These people are the only one currently buying GW products.
On any servey on any forum I have seen that asks why do you enjoy GW products, NO ONE ever said the rule sets were the most important factor in picking GW products.
Most say the inspiring back ground and art , got them inspired to buy in to GW plc.
And lots of posts over the last few years have made it quite clear people have quit GW plc because the rules are 'lackluster' and do not provide well defined balanced game play suitable for random pick up games. And those customer thought this was important .
(Or because of the falling sales volumes due to gamers leaving, and prices rising , they no longer see GW plc products as value for money.)
So perhaps if GW plc actually did meaningful market research, they might find that writing well defined rules that allowed better internal and external balance to provide enjoyable random pick up games.
Would actually attract more customers, and improve sales volumes.And reduce the need to raise retail prices every year.And result in growing their market share!
I believe GW plc is run in an unintelligent way, because they do no meaningful market research.
They have no idea who their customers are or who they could be.They have no idea what their customers actually want.
They have no idea how their chain of B&M stores affect their sales per channel.
Just that the B&M stores are loosing them EIGHTEEN MILLION POUNDS every year!
GW plc corporate management tell everyone they know best,but have NO DATA to back it up!
@Talys.
Most sensible financial comments on GW plc stated that if they continued to raise RRP to counter falling sales volumes . GW plc would start loosing profit in 5 to 10 years.This has happened.
The GW plc will be 'out of business next year' predictions were unfounded.
BUT were based on frustration with GW plc for not addressing core issues highlighted by the C.E.O/Chairman in 2007.
Essentially, taking what you say at face value, it instantly appears to me that the models, art and background are the priority in terms of recruiting new customers, but it's the rules which serve to retain them.
I wish the faction that I'm spending at least $5,000 on right now (Blood Angels -- and the final tally will probably be twice that) didn't suck so badly
This alone is proof you live in a completely different world to the rest of us talys. At least $5,000? Thst you sre so casual and so 'easy' with such sums just blows my mind, and suggests you are maybe a little bit out of touch with the concerns and realities of the average gamer. Christ man, to most people, putting 500 dollars or even pounds towards the hobby is a massive investment and often, can't get done because of other commitments.
I don't begrudge you your position in life, but I've often thought that your own perception was heavily skewed by your own situation.
I think thats a bit harsh, there are plenty of people out there spending thousands on this type of stuff, plenty of people earn a nice wage and have little to no outgoings and the number of millionaires out there is increasing all the time.
You only have to go to games day and these forge world events to see people spending more than some peoples cars cost on bags of resin and plastic.
On any servey on any forum I have seen...
...And lots of posts over the last few years...
I think the scope in which you're viewing the hobby might be a bit small. Dakka (and other forums) like to pretend they're such a mega-huge influence and metric for the hobby. There is an entire world of people out there who have never even heard of Dakka or care to browse the forums.
Anecdotal, but in my local gaming group I believe only myself and 2 others regularly go on the forums out of roughly 15 players.
You can see what happens in this thread when the circlejerking starts, people dog piling the lone dissident posters. I don't really agree or think either side is wrong here, just that this small pond of internet posters should not be the only source for gauging the Warhammer community.
How many thousands of people have signed that petition on change.org telling GW to get their act together at time of writing? 10k, 15k?
Say what you like about forums, but that has to represent a notable percentage, especially if you make the assumption that for every person who signed it, there will be others who would have but weren't aware of it.
Nobody dog piles, the Mods would step in if it were to be that sort of orchestrated behaviour (a bit of good natured teasing aside, and, for the avoidance of doubt, anything I post is intended this way, it seems to be a British thing where you'll call your best friend worse names than your worst enemy, not everyone seems to get this.) If there's one person offering an opinion and 10 others arguing against it, it's because they disagree with that opinion. That's what I like about Dakka, people are allowed to say what they think, as long as they're not douches doing it.
You are right that a relative minority actively post on forums, in my experience at least, but far more read, and regardless of this, nobody's playing GW games at my club right now.
Speaking of a minority of Wargamers being on forums, a minority can be a representative sample size. Most of us can only ever witness anecdotal events regarding Wargaming, but on Dakka, we can speak to hundreds of players from across the world.
As long as we can trust that we're not routinely lying to eachother (why would we), we can get a more global view.
I don't think everyone is basing their comments entirely on Internet Groupthink. Each person's opinion is greatly informed by their local meta situation. I hesitate to bring up local metas, because they are at best anecdotal evidence, and vary from area to area...
In Canada, there's this tiny village called Toronto. During 3rd/4th Edition... there used to be tons of pickup games available at the FLGS and the area was well served by a half dozen GW stores, with a gigantic bunker. If you went unannounced to a store on 40k night for a game... there was a fething WAITING LIST to get a game as the tables would be all full. Even on off days, the tables would usually be full. Today, there is a mini-bunker and two 1 man stores in off the beaten path places. The FLGS presence has been reduced to sporadic gaming at most FLGS with almost all the action located in the homes of players or at one FLGS which acts as the 40k hub of the area. The bunker tables are usually empty, and the few customers are clustered around the build/paint station. If you go unannounced to a FLGS for a pick-up... (if they still have a 40k night), there is a fething WAITING LIST to see IF AN OPPONENT WILL SHOW UP.
As I said... anecdotal, YMMV etc. so its hardly representative of the health of GW.... but it's my local reality, and it informs my opinion of GW's current direction more than any internet forum.
You're all just avatars me. At this point, I imagine Az sitting at his computer frustratingly trying to type with adamantium talons and cursing that he's broken his 7th keyboard this week. I don't how Talys manages to type with terminator gauntlets. Maybe a giant keyboard? A servitor he dictates to? I dunno.
I hear ya Azreal, and totally understand where your coming from on humor. I'm way nastier to friends than strangers on the best day, but that's how I've always figured I knew we we're good friends, ya know?
To be honest I signed the Change.org petition, and just saw the email update recently about the new surge in signatures. I'll defend GW in a more Devils Advocate sense, but have no false pretense that there is much that should be changed.
And lurkers do make up a large viewing base to any website, though a minority or small sample size is typically the opposite of what you want when gathering statistics. The type of person to play 40K and never look at an internet forum is a very different type of person that wants to stay connected to the game online. That's the chunk of community I think Dakka and other forums misses out on. Just something I try to keep in mind.
You're all just avatars me. At this point, I imagine Az sitting at his computer frustratingly trying to type with adamantium talons and cursing that he's broken his 7th keyboard this week. I don't how Talys manages to type with terminator gauntlets. Maybe a giant keyboard? A servitor he dictates to? I dunno.
I keep thinking that everyone speaks like their avatar, which means you are the only silent one
I keep changing my avatar due to the Avatars In A Room thread. My track record of survivability is... poor at best. Had two characters dedicated to being guardsmen, and by the end of it I was Col. Nigel Thornberry cluelessly trying to patch up Guardsman #140 who had been savaged by an Alien. I'm currently a Scottish Viking.
You're all just avatars me. At this point, I imagine Az sitting at his computer frustratingly trying to type with adamantium talons and cursing that he's broken his 7th keyboard this week. I don't how Talys manages to type with terminator gauntlets. Maybe a giant keyboard? A servitor he dictates to? I dunno.
This would probably be closer to the truth for my avatar than Wolvie..
If you really think that arguing with a person is a waste of time because of fundamentally different underlying assumptions, the best thing is probably to stop arguing with them.
There is the view that allowing statements to go unchallenged might lead people to adopt them, but you can counter a statement without arguing.
I constantly read here that scale is an issue because it's a barrier to entry due to (a) cost and (b) time involved in buinding 70 - 100 or more models... for a start.
I don't think the problem is the scale directly. People like company sized games. The problem is more than GW doesn't really know what it wants to be - It's priced as a low model count game, has detail like a low model count game (individual wargear) yet has stuff you'd only see is a mass battle game (aircraft, titans, superheavies). As such it's too finely detailed for a mass battle game, getting bogged down in minutaue, but doesn't quite have the depth for a skirmish game.
The pricing really doesn't help.
What would help is to split it into 3 games, all equally supported - Kill Team for genuine skirmish (it's currently a digital only thing?), included in the starter set, with extra skirmishy rules, then a company sized game with a bit of abstraction, and then Apocalypse with a bit more abstraction but allowing all sorts of crazy things.
I get the feeling at the moment they want us to be playing Epic in 28mm, fielding everything we can afford, rather than having a fun and challenging game.
@clamclaw.
If you can find a post any where on the internet where some one says .
''I bought 40k /WHFB(A,O,S,) because the rules are better than any other game out there, and the minatures and back ground are not a concern of mine.''
Or people saying'' I WANT to pay more money for the same GW product every year and I want rules to be poorly written, and have laughable levels of editing and proof reading''.
Then total them up and see how many posts have the opposing view.
''I like the art, sculpts and background of 40k /WHFB, they inspire me to buy and be creative with GW products.I am not too bothered about the rules quality, we can muddle through well enough.''
''GW have priced me out of their product range (hobby).''
''I am done with GW they still have not fixed the rules issues'.'
Look on as many different web sites as you like,not just the usual ones.. .
I think you will find the majority of complaints are with the poor quality of the rules ,are detracting value from the great minatures.
And very few people complaining about how the crappy minatures are detracting value from the great rules.
@Az.
Yes I was saying that the look and sound of 40k/WHFB(AOS) gets people inspired to start buying GW products.
And its the quality of the game play delivered by the rules that keep players interested long term.
As short sighted management at GW plc thought the churn and burn of new customers would sustain them, they basically told long term game players to mend it yourself or bugger off.
Now GW plc have realized that the game players have just buggered off.So GW pretend they only wanted to sell to ''collectors'' and ''story tellers''.
And the people who just wanted the rules to let them turn up and play a game , were some how 'too demanding' and not worth bothering with.
Which is good as all the other companies are bothering with these customers instead of GW plc.
And so GW plc has to tell their super fans how special they are, so they at least keep giving them more money for the same products every year.
I constantly read here that scale is an issue because it's a barrier to entry due to (a) cost and (b) time involved in buinding 70 - 100 or more models... for a start.
I don't think the problem is the scale directly. People like company sized games. The problem is more than GW doesn't really know what it wants to be - It's priced as a low model count game, has detail like a low model count game (individual wargear) yet has stuff you'd only see is a mass battle game (aircraft, titans, superheavies). As such it's too finely detailed for a mass battle game, getting bogged down in minutaue, but doesn't quite have the depth for a skirmish game.
The pricing really doesn't help.
What would help is to split it into 3 games, all equally supported - Kill Team for genuine skirmish (it's currently a digital only thing?), included in the starter set, with extra skirmishy rules, then a company sized game with a bit of abstraction, and then Apocalypse with a bit more abstraction but allowing all sorts of crazy things.
I get the feeling at the moment they want us to be playing Epic in 28mm, fielding everything we can afford, rather than having a fun and challenging game.
Agree with Herzlos. The game is a mess of scales that makes no sense. For the size of battle aircraft should only have been introduced as buying a blast marker of some type to represent an aircraft attack (no models). Flyers do not fit well with the small units where individual models wargear is selected. Superheavies should have stayed in APOC.
I think thats a bit harsh, there are plenty of people out there spending thousands on this type of stuff, plenty of people earn a nice wage and have little to no outgoings and the number of millionaires out there is increasing all the time.
.
Lol. It's harsh, but it's true.The number of millionaires is still dwarved by the number of people earning minimum wage, and scraping by on £15,000 a year. 75% of the uk earns less than 30k, and a lot of them sit on 20k or less. Those outgoings cost too mate. I have govt taxes, electricity, gas,council taxes, my car, my new mortgage, insurance, and several other responsibilities that I have to look after. Plenty others have kids. My point stands.
Let's be clear. I have 'a nice wage'. And spending $5,000 dollars on an army is still absurd and frankly, undoable for both me, and the vast majority of other people. If thsts the kind of thing that is 'normal' in your world, (a) you are extremely fortunate, and (b) have no appreciation for what the day to day realities for a lot of people are. £100 for shipping as an impulse buy, as was stated? Thsts our food and diesel bills for a week. I know where my priorities simply have to be. 'Things are fine, Gw is great. I like it and can afford it all, therefore no problem'. Uh huh, now for the rest of the masses...
Those same millionaires etc are often Also as guilty of being oblivious to the problems the rest of us have to deal with, struggling with crumbs, as it were.
You only have to go to games day and these forge world events to see people spending more than some peoples cars cost on bags of resin and plastic.
Uh huh, and when thry have to deal with the things that the rest of us have to deal with, when thry have to compromise their luxury hobby with what amounts to the day to day grind,then thry can talk. Until that point, their reality is a completely different bubble. Fair play, I wish I could do it. I know plenty of other people thst would like to be able to pop down the cost of a car on resin and other toys. Thing is for most people, thsts a dream. I'd rather put down the cost of thst car against my mortgage. Or fix the bloody boiler. Or repair the car. And for someone to insist that everything is ok becaus thryre currently living the dream, it's more than a bit condasdcending.
2. AoS is a huge risk. Do you know how much it costs to make all those miniatures? It's not just Sigmarites; there are a ton of books and investments into Other factions too. Ripping off WMH would have been low-risk.
I think the catching on of the brand in general is what's the risk, not what it costs to make any of the materials. GW is inflated so high over what it costs to make the minis and books it's not even funny. Lots of companies (some of which are quite smaller than GW) make product that would take similar capital to get produced for lower prices, both in minis and hardcover books.
If GW produced the Dreamforge Eisenkern, it sure as hell wouldn't be 20 figures for less than 5 terminators or Stormcast. Their nearest comparison is half the price for the same amount of figures.
People complain about stupidly expensive X-Wing products, but for the price that people are gladly paying for 5 Stormcast, that's the MSRP of the Ghost w/ Shuttle (large amounts of injection molded plastic), both prepainted at the cost that must incur, and with all the card materials involved, too...if all those included materials' manufacturing drives the MSRP to $50US, then the price of the Stormcast can only be attributed to years of grooming us for ever-more boutique prices.
I agree with alot of what he says, but that aside I find that lots of the majority of GW-defenders come from a higher monetary viewpoint than the "rest of us" and it colors their opinions of how GW is not being crazy at all over the years.
My wife and I will probably make close to 50k this year, and with a house and a child, some of the vocal minority's viewpoint on "normal" GW spending would be completely crazy to us. I was crazy happy to get to Gencon, so I could buy all my latest GW ideas from the Toledo "bits guy", at prices like 1.50 per plastic Skaven Stormvermin .
I'm not a high earner, and GW's prices certainly put me off buying more. But for many businesses, targeting higher earners is the best route.
I ran a small rock business, and it was a far more profitable venture to find one guy who'll spend big than 10 guys who can't even double your break even point.
When it comes to GW trying to foster a player base for their product, I can see why targeting higher earners would not be the best route. I don't know their numbers on the inside, so I can't make much further of a judgement.
Even lower earners have hundreds or thousands a year for their interests. The truth is a lot of low earners (and people in general) are poor budgeters. You could find hundreds/thousands of pure entertainment expenses in almost everyone's budget, except perhaps minimum wage workers/truly poor.
What is considered normal GW spending? A grand a year?
I think thats a bit harsh, there are plenty of people out there spending thousands on this type of stuff, plenty of people earn a nice wage and have little to no outgoings and the number of millionaires out there is increasing all the time.
.
Lol. It's harsh, but it's true.The number of millionaires is still dwarved by the number of people earning minimum wage, and scraping by on £15,000 a year. 75% of the uk earns less than 30k, and a lot of them sit on 20k or less. Those outgoings cost too mate. I have govt taxes, electricity, gas,council taxes, my car, my new mortgage, insurance, and several other responsibilities that I have to look after. Plenty others have kids. My point stands.
Let's be clear. I have 'a nice wage'. And spending $5,000 dollars on an army is still absurd and frankly, undoable for both me, and the vast majority of other people. If thsts the kind of thing that is 'normal' in your world, (a) you are extremely fortunate, and (b) have no appreciation for what the day to day realities for a lot of people are. £100 for shipping as an impulse buy, as was stated? Thsts our food and diesel bills for a week. I know where my priorities simply have to be. 'Things are fine, Gw is great. I like it and can afford it all, therefore no problem'. Uh huh, now for the rest of the masses...
Those same millionaires etc are often Also as guilty of being oblivious to the problems the rest of us have to deal with, struggling with crumbs, as it were.
You only have to go to games day and these forge world events to see people spending more than some peoples cars cost on bags of resin and plastic.
Uh huh, and when thry have to deal with the things that the rest of us have to deal with, when thry have to compromise their luxury hobby with what amounts to the day to day grind,then thry can talk. Until that point, their reality is a completely different bubble. Fair play, I wish I could do it. I know plenty of other people thst would like to be able to pop down the cost of a car on resin and other toys. Thing is for most people, thsts a dream. I'd rather put down the cost of thst car against my mortgage. Or fix the bloody boiler. Or repair the car. And for someone to insist that everything is ok becaus thryre currently living the dream, it's more than a bit condasdcending.
Fair enough, i wish I had 5k to spend on little plastic men.
I'm just not a fan of people who are in the unique situations (not anyone in particular- I'm not picking at anyone specific) where they can drop large loads of capitol whenever they want shrugging and saying "I just don't understand what you are all griping about". Exactly, they don't.
I used to love to splurge a 100 dollars a month, pretty reliably, on GW products, but then I started seeing a pretty drastically fast drop in what that 100 would give me- not compared to any other particular company, but against GW's own stuff because I love the GW universes. It might be an exaggeration, but I'd say it's about 40% of what it would have been 10 years ago.
For example, I won't buy Finecast, because even if it wasn't the consistency of fossilized shaving cream, I saw it reliably increase the price of what I used to buy in metal by 100%, sometimes more. Not over time, but immediately on those same exact models being recast in the new material. I can;t see how I can understand people who would defend a company who would do something increase prices on something by 100% overnight, in a medium that was supposed to solve the problem of volatility in the metal markets losing them so much profit on the metals.
Then plastic saw the same jumps and I just couldn't believe it.
But what's the argument? If a company sells to higher earners, so be it. Walmart sells to a different crowd than (inset higher end shop). If a company is very profitable selling luxury goods, who cares what people who can't afford them think?
10 years ago, I don't have stats at hand, but assuming 2-3% annual inflation, means $100 then is about $125 now. GW prices have, in my opinion, certainly outpaced inflation, but money not going as far is not relegated to the GW world.
If you're guessing an exaggerated 40% loss of purchasing power with your $100, that's not that far off of the 25% inflation rate.
No, a 60% loss in purchasing power was my estimate, probably a little short, as many GW things have gone up 100% over the last ten years. Or if not, the amount dropped by 50% but price remained, which is the same thing.
On topic, I think that makes GW pretty darned intelligent, because they still see a rabid fan base despite it.
they are complete A-Holes who seem to despise a good portion of their fanbase, but they are intelligent ones,
Right, my mistake. I agree though that prices have outpaced inflation. I like the Stormcast but I can't bring myself (yet) to buy a $45 character or $60 unit of 5 man-sized models (CAD).
If the argument is that lower prices would foster a larger player base and ultimately more sales, I understand that and it's possible. Hard to call without knowing the books on the inside. But if selling higher-priced goods works for a company, then that's all there is to say.
I don't know if lower prices would help as much as simply lowering the entry cost for getting into the game, ie. writing rules that are functional and balanced when doing games with a small number of models. Unfortunately GW would never allow this without charging an exorbitant price per model even in comparison to their "normal" prices.
burningstuff wrote: But what's the argument? If a company sells to higher earners, so be it. Walmart sells to a different crowd than (inset higher end shop). If a company is very profitable selling luxury goods, who cares what people who can't afford them think?
10 years ago, I don't have stats at hand, but assuming 2-3% annual inflation, means $100 then is about $125 now. GW prices have, in my opinion, certainly outpaced inflation, but money not going as far is not relegated to the GW world.
If you're guessing an exaggerated 40% loss of purchasing power with your $100, that's not that far off of the 25% inflation rate.
Well first of all, I don't know if you could call GW 'very profitable' when profits are dropping year after year, but that aside if you want to sell luxury goods to high earners, you have to actually produce high quality luxury goods. I mean GW is luxury goods in as much as you don't need it to survive, but it certainly doesn't make products of a high enough quality for the way they price them like boutique models. I mean the models are good, I don't like most of them aesthetically these days but quality wise they're good, but there's others that are equally as good if not better that offer much greater value for money. And past the models everything's pretty poor, £30/35 thin books with increasingly crappy art (in the few places they aren't just a catalogue for the models), horrible rules and shocking editing.
Marketing to high earners is a fine strategy, if your products actually live up to the price you charge for them, and increasingly, and it seems to an increasing number of people, GWs products don't. To use your analogy, it's like *higher end shop* selling Walmart level products but for higher end prices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haruspex wrote: I don't know if lower prices would help as much as simply lowering the entry cost for getting into the game, ie. writing rules that are functional and balanced when doing games with a small number of models. Unfortunately GW would never allow this without charging an exorbitant price per model even in comparison to their "normal" prices.
Agreed, the overall price isn't really the main issue, it's the amount you have to pay to even get started. AoS has moved away a bit with the free rules, but for 40k you're looking at £80 just for rules before you've even bought any models. I've spent as much on WMH/Infinity/Malifaux as I have on GW stuff, but getting started in all of them was much much cheaper.
^ I agree, and that's why I think I can't comment much more without seeing GW's real books. Marketing to high earners can work, but if it doesn't, then it doesn't.
burningstuff wrote: I find Talys makes logical arguments. Other people seem to want to assassinate his character to delegitimize what he's saying.
I have met Talys in person and he is the most sincere guy and giving guy. We met when my boyfriend and I were picking out models for Warhammer 40,000 and he introduced us to the store owner who then gave us a permanent 10% off.
Another time, he spent over an hour showing us some painting tricks and it was amazing. I had no idea that holding my model a little differently would help so much in painting straight lines, what a difference really clean paintbrushes make, or how to properly thin my paints until he showed me. They're not hard things to do, but they sure make a difference!
Anyways, I don't agree with everything Talys says, but he presents his reasons pretty rationally. Some people with opposing viewpoints also have very logical responses (which are interesting to read, too), but others just have silly personal attacks that just beg for a flame war.
For myself, I really enjoy Age of Sigmar. I played Warhammer 40,000 and Hordes before that, and Age of Sigmar is definitely the game for me. I know it's not for everyone and I know that I'm not a great gamer, so with games like Hordes and Warhammer 40,000, I forget rules all the time. That part is a little frustrating, but I'm sure I'd get over it if I played more. What really annoys me is that every time I want to get a model, someone tells me that this model is better or why I shouldn't do that unless I want to get steamrolled. I mean, I am so sick of it, LOL. With Age of Sigmar, I just buy the models I want to buy, and I can play with as many or as few of the models I own against my opponent. I have not yet met another player that is mean-spirited and just wants to pull the wool over my eyes with their super powerful army that I'm unfamiliar with, which is something I ran into in both Warhammer and Hordes.
With regards to price, I think Games Workshop models and books are definitely expensive toys. But the outrage I sometimes see here just feels like some people feel entitled to affordable luxury goods, and that is pretty strange. There are all sorts of things that I would like, that I either can't have or have to save up for, so I guess, as someone who isn't a super-high-wage-earner (far from it), sure, I would like cheaper prices, but I would like cheaper prices on lots of other things, too. I'm not going to get mad at Games Workshop because they price things however way they price it, and if it gets out of reach for me, I just won't buy it.
AegisGrimm wrote: No, a 60% loss in purchasing power was my estimate, probably a little short, as many GW things have gone up 100% over the last ten years. Or if not, the amount dropped by 50% but price remained, which is the same thing.
On topic, I think that makes GW pretty darned intelligent, because they still see a rabid fan base despite it.
they are complete A-Holes who seem to despise a good portion of their fanbase, but they are intelligent ones,
But are GWs decision intelligent if what you are saying is true? From many others we hear that tabletop wargaming has seen lots of expansion for some time now and there are many more competitors for GW out there, but GWs revenue seems to keep decreasing. If they are focused on the high spender fanboy that doesn't care how much is spent on models/rules and doesn't care about the quality of the game (I mean good game balance) then aren't the signs indicating that perhaps they have made some bad decisions? Would they make more money by making good rules and dexes internally and externally balanced (not perfect but a serious attempt and a real effort to correct errors with errata) so that they get the fanboys/high spender money anyways but can also get hold of/keep the average gamer? Over the last few years is seems to me, anecdotally to be sure, that many, many former GW customers are very unhappy and moved away from buying GW product due to combinations of high prices, GW shenanigans and poor rules/lack of care in making 40k as a good, balanced game. Why deliberately turn away a large chunk of gamers that would buy your product? Do they think there is an endless supply or easily tapped supply of fanboys/super high spenders that will buy whatever they produce? Will the next dexes have a personalized intro by Kirby to "insert name here" (yes you will have to write your own name in) costing GW pennies but a nice looking page so the dex price can go up another 10-12 dollars? Or a bookmark of a space marine giving you the finger (the powerfist finger!) which only ups the price of the dex by $12.
burningstuff wrote: ^ I agree, and that's why I think I can't comment much more without seeing GW's real books. Marketing to high earners can work, but if it doesn't, then it doesn't.
I hope that they reduce the prices a little. I disagree with the people that say a little discount wouldn't make a big difference, because even between retail, 15% off, and 15% off plus another 10% off the discounted total is a pretty huge difference for me.
Generally speaking, people who earn higher than average wages also have less than average time to spend on hobby pursuits.
Another factor to consider. Just because someone earns more money, doesn't mean that they find value in a higher priced product. Ask anyone with wealth how they attained their money and keep it; nearly universally, they'll say that they don't spend it frivolously. Factually speaking, lower-income people are more apt to be subject to impulse buying than people with wealth. This is part of the reason why GW is losing market share so rapidly, they have hit the price elasticity wall and are now paying the price with their customer base. Customers are turning to lower-cost rivals like Mantic who may not have as high a quality of product but are able to sell at a reduced rate.
Similar to this, GW may in fact value their product higher than even higher wage earners value it. Just because someone is able to afford their products does not mean that they value it at the same level as GW. I earn a healthy salary but have little hobby time, a $50 model kit from GW represents an additional cost in valuable time spent in assembling and painting it before I may benefit from my purchase. I can model or I can game; I believe there are more gamers than modellers out there in the market and GW believes differently. GW is losing market value and sales volume which indicates to me that they are likely wrong.
So, no. I don't believe that GW is intentionally targeting a wealthy audience. I believe that they are aware and mildly comfortable with continuing to lose market share to their smaller rivals for the time being which tells me that management isn't concerned about the long-term health of the company. Healthy companies create growth strategies not hide from their customers behind "moats" and "walls".
burningstuff wrote: ^ I agree, and that's why I think I can't comment much more without seeing GW's real books. Marketing to high earners can work, but if it doesn't, then it doesn't.
I hope that they reduce the prices a little. I disagree with the people that say a little discount wouldn't make a big difference, because even between retail, 15% off, and 15% off plus another 10% off the discounted total is a pretty huge difference for me.
I'd like to see prices go down with volume. That's a system that gets me. I always buy as close to the price that gets me free shipping as I can. If 2 boxes of unit X cost 90% of what 1 plus 1 box would cost, I'd splurge and make bigger purchases. That's just my buying preference though.
burningstuff wrote: I find Talys makes logical arguments. Other people seem to want to assassinate his character to delegitimize what he's saying.
I have met Talys in person and he is the most sincere guy and giving guy. We met when my boyfriend and I were picking out models for Warhammer 40,000 and he introduced us to the store owner who then gave us a permanent 10% off.
Another time, he spent over an hour showing us some painting tricks and it was amazing. I had no idea that holding my model a little differently would help so much in painting straight lines, what a difference really clean paintbrushes make, or how to properly thin my paints until he showed me. They're not hard things to do, but they sure make a difference!
Anyways, I don't agree with everything Talys says, but he presents his reasons pretty rationally. Some people with opposing viewpoints also have very logical responses (which are interesting to read, too), but others just have silly personal attacks that just beg for a flame war.
For myself, I really enjoy Age of Sigmar. I played Warhammer 40,000 and Hordes before that, and Age of Sigmar is definitely the game for me. I know it's not for everyone and I know that I'm not a great gamer, so with games like Hordes and Warhammer 40,000, I forget rules all the time. That part is a little frustrating, but I'm sure I'd get over it if I played more. What really annoys me is that every time I want to get a model, someone tells me that this model is better or why I shouldn't do that unless I want to get steamrolled. I mean, I am so sick of it, LOL. With Age of Sigmar, I just buy the models I want to buy, and I can play with as many or as few of the models I own against my opponent. I have not yet met another player that is mean-spirited and just wants to pull the wool over my eyes with their super powerful army that I'm unfamiliar with, which is something I ran into in both Warhammer and Hordes.
With regards to price, I think Games Workshop models and books are definitely expensive toys. But the outrage I sometimes see here just feels like some people feel entitled to affordable luxury goods, and that is pretty strange. There are all sorts of things that I would like, that I either can't have or have to save up for, so I guess, as someone who isn't a super-high-wage-earner (far from it), sure, I would like cheaper prices, but I would like cheaper prices on lots of other things, too. I'm not going to get mad at Games Workshop because they price things however way they price it, and if it gets out of reach for me, I just won't buy it.
Talys seems sincere about his views and as you say is a good guy. Some of his points are fine. I just find some things that are said almost seem like there are blinders on and it doesn't matter what arguments or evidence is provided the viewpoint will not/cannot be shifted. That is how it seems and why IMO some posters get exasperated, but I could be wrong.
I have tried AoS as well, bringing our the dwarfs which haven't seen the tabletop for years. Now locally this is only really possible because some people in our community have put together a comp system (since GW has decided 'balance' is not a real word) to try to provide some balance between units/armies. I find it odd that you would say you are sick of the 'model x is better so you should take it or you might get steamrolled' because AoS has the same issues. When you play how do you decide what to put on the table because you have to use some method to restrict/decide what will be played? You cannot bring 30 dwarf warriors and a regular lord and the other person puts 80 models with lots of multi-wound models on the table with 4 heroes, etc, etc, and you have a fair game.
With regard to price I also wish GW products were cheaper, but since they aren't I have drastically reduced what I buy which has been very little in the last 2 years.
Ventus wrote: I find it odd that you would say you are sick of the 'model x is better so you should take it or you might get steamrolled' because AoS has the same issues. When you play how do you decide what to put on the table because you have to use some method to restrict/decide what will be played? You cannot bring 30 dwarf warriors and a regular lord and the other person puts 80 models with lots of multi-wound models on the table with 4 heroes, etc, etc, and you have a fair game.
I'm not sure what other people do, but when we play, it just comes down to eyeballing it, guestimating, and both people taking a stab at what seems balanced. A lot of times, just looking at the models, without even knowing the special rules, you can sort of tell if you're going to be way out of the ballpark. That is, assuming that the other person isn't trying to trick you or they have one of these "I win in turn 1" things. But that's ok, I'll just punch them in the nose after if they do that.
I think the main difference is do you get bloodthirsty before the first turn or after? I am okay with after, even if I lose, because it just means I should have played better. But I am not really okay with before, because why bother playing if I can't ever win with the models that I want to play? So as long as my opponent will work with me a little and set up a table that seems decent, I am just fine with getting beat fair 'n square. In Warhammer 40,000, what am I going to do, ask my opponent to let me have more points because I think Burna Boyz look neat?
I mean, I do not go out of my way to pick the dumbest units in the game. But if I want to play an Ogre, I don't want someone to tell me that it's a bad unit because it's too many points, or that it's a bad unit because it works badly with Savage Orcs. Mostly because when I buy the Ogre, I am not checking the war scrolls first, I am buying what I think would be a neat monster and what would be something big and nasty to go with the Orcs. If it turns out really powerful, I am also happy to take something else out of my army to balance it out too.
Or, alternatively, you could have a better balanced game where people can honestly say "bring what you like" and it be true.
There's plenty out there where this is the case. Sure, some units in some games take more work than others to be really effective, but seldom is their such a disparity between power levels that the result almost a foregone conclusion, and most other games have a lot more in-game depth, meaning intelligent play can help overcome any imbalances there may be.
Nobody's asking for the moon here, basically what I think would be the top 3 most played non-GW games offer this, actually probably 4.
Ventus wrote: I find it odd that you would say you are sick of the 'model x is better so you should take it or you might get steamrolled' because AoS has the same issues. When you play how do you decide what to put on the table because you have to use some method to restrict/decide what will be played? You cannot bring 30 dwarf warriors and a regular lord and the other person puts 80 models with lots of multi-wound models on the table with 4 heroes, etc, etc, and you have a fair game.
I'm not sure what other people do, but when we play, it just comes down to eyeballing it, guestimating, and both people taking a stab at what seems balanced. A lot of times, just looking at the models, without even knowing the special rules, you can sort of tell if you're going to be way out of the ballpark. That is, assuming that the other person isn't trying to trick you or they have one of these "I win in turn 1" things. But that's ok, I'll just punch them in the nose after if they do that.
I think the main difference is do you get bloodthirsty before the first turn or after? I am okay with after, even if I lose, because it just means I should have played better. But I am not really okay with before, because why bother playing if I can't ever win with the models that I want to play? So as long as my opponent will work with me a little and set up a table that seems decent, I am just fine with getting beat fair 'n square. In Warhammer 40,000, what am I going to do, ask my opponent to let me have more points because I think Burna Boyz look neat?
I mean, I do not go out of my way to pick the dumbest units in the game. But if I want to play an Ogre, I don't want someone to tell me that it's a bad unit because it's too many points, or that it's a bad unit because it works badly with Savage Orcs. Mostly because when I buy the Ogre, I am not checking the war scrolls first, I am buying what I think would be a neat monster and what would be something big and nasty to go with the Orcs. If it turns out really powerful, I am also happy to take something else out of my army to balance it out too.
Vyxen, glad you have people you are happy playing with that sound reasonable. My area is pretty good as well but with a fair number of players you are getting pick-up games and each person has a different view on what is fair and balanced. I also like to be able to use the units I want, and I'm not interested in overpowered units anyways and would prefer they were good but not overpowered. The question is without a balance mechanism you might think you have a fair game and maybe you do - but maybe you don't and if so you are not necessarily getting beat fair and square (or vice versa). We are using wounds as a kind of point system for AoS and restrictions on certain things to try to keep armies somewhat balanced. And I do understand the appeal of ogres - back in 7th ed fantasy I was considering starting a second army and it would have been ogres as I really like the models, but never did as I wasn't a fan of 7th ed and 8th ed put me off completely. So I hope AoS works out and am glad our community has people working out a comp system otherwise from my perspective it wouldn't be very playable (using our Fantasy models - the AoS starter box might be balanced with the two forces in the box).
@vyxen - thanks very much. I was no trouble, really
I know what you mean about buying models without reading the rules first; I know a few people like that.
@ventus - I really don't think that GW is the most awesomest company ever. If I ran it, I would do so many things differently. But that doesn't change that 40k brings me the most happiness out of any hobby-related activity, and I've stuck with it for almost 3 decades, without any real period of dissatisfaction. I'm also pretty open about saying that I'm probably not representative of a lot of gamers or hobbyists.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with a models-first, games-second company, and I don't view RAW perfection as very important, and this seems to offend a lot of people. I also have a preference for GW models, but hey, that's exactly that, right? Preference. Nobody is ever going to convince me that PP makes more beautiful models, because it's my taste. On the other hand, I never try to convince anyone else to give up their PP, Wyrd, Malifuax or Gundam models.
@agnosto - I totally agree with you that many people who earn more work more hours. For nearly 20 years, I worked anywhere from 80-100+ hours a week, and took nearly no holidays. I still found time to play video games and play with miniatures here and there, though it is perfectly logical to conclude that time, rather than money, is the top constraint. And, that a good chunk of these potential customers aren't going to buy things just to shove into a closet BNIB, though some might have the painting commissioned out. There was someone at my local scene that recently paid a ton of money for such an Eldar army. As a comparative, people pay sometimes thousands for digital items in video games.
I wouldn't characterize a plurality of high income earners as being generally cheap though. Two things here. First of all, a good chunk of high income earners want to enjoy their life while they're young. But more significantly, if someone is making six figures, $50 or $100 here and there is just not a lot if it brings you happiness.
Finally, most luxury goods are purchased in higher quantities as disposable income increases. Every study of the price of luxury goods has found that their rate of inflation far exceeds CPI (which defines inflation of necessity goods).
@Az - You should suggest some games for Vyx. She's pretty adventurous in her gaming Just keep in mind she didn't like Hordes, has a pretty heavy interest in fluff/fiction and likes her models quite a lot. You get huge bonus points if there are green-skinned Orcish-looking critters
Though I agree with the gist of what you are saying, we'll have to disagree on GW as a luxury good. In economics, a luxury good is one where demand increases more than proportionally as income rises. Arguably, since demand for GW products has markedly decreased while the overall economic environment has improved, there leaves little doubt that GW does not fit in this category. Rather, I would categorize GW products as a normal good; one for which income and demand rise in proportion.
Irregardless of what type of good their products represent. I don't believe that they are intentionally targeting their "marketing" (laugh) at higher wage earners. They might like to but such people are actually not spending their money on stuff but rather on things that will build further wealth.
As families become richer, they spend a little bit more on entertainment, but significantly more on financial products such as insurance, annuities and retirement programs. The bottom 10% contribute 1.4% of their funds to these sources, or about $300. The top 10% allocate 17% to these sources, or a bit over $20,000 a year.
Sure, wealthy people could buy all the hottest toys but they don't, not as a representative percentage of their income at least. No, the people who spend a higher percentage of their income on entertainment are much lower down the income ladder. Companies don't succeed by targeting one potential population but by attempting to create broad appeal.
So, who does GW "target"? Well, it appears to me that their current model stresses the importance of "buy big and buy now" or the impulse buying crowd. Such people will be male in the 18-29 age range as these are the people most likely to drop large sums of money on a whim.
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/impulse-purchase-survey.php
It would be exceedingly stupid for a company to target its products at a tiny segment of a population. Yes, there are companies that do so successfully but these are real luxury or veblen goods, GW products are certainly not in this category or they would be increasing sales volume as the world economy improves, not the opposite. You seem to think that GW wants a minuscule population of "super-fans" who will buy everything that they make and are so price elastic that GW can charge whatever they like and purchases will still be made. I would argue that no company, anywhere in the world, will long survive if their mindset is such; not to mention that this belief runs counter to GW's own stated goals of expansion as you can't aggressively expand into a smaller market than you have been serving, that's called retraction, not expansion.
@agnosto - I really don't think we're actually very far apart, to be honest.
In recent years, a lot of wealth has been generated, but the income gap between the wealthy and the poor has become stunning. So what you have is more wealth in the world, but a much smaller middle class compared the 80s, particularly a middle class not really worried about money.
The problem is, GW's best customers in years past were the people who were "a little bit rich" -- in other words, they have paid everything they need and the things that dramatically improve their lifestyle (including a home, cars, kids' tuition, someone else to mow the lawn, whatever food they want, a reasonable amount of eating out, a plan to retire at 55, etc.) -- this demographic has shrunk dramatically. I would hazard to say, "almost to non-existence". It's limited to a small group of highly skilled professionals and successful entrepreneurs; whereas before it would have included many skilled labourers and technical workers. And like you said before, this group largely works long hours.
I think that you and I could probably agree on the above.
Now, regarding luxury goods --
There are only 2 types of goods (in economic terms): necessity goods and luxury goods, and toys of any type are definitely not necessity goods. Not all luxury goods increase in demand as income rises, but this is a characteristic of many luxury goods. Also, keep in mind, luxury goods don't necessarily imply quality.
There are all sorts of luxury goods. For example, Dyson vacuum cleaners are, what, $400-$600? But they're no more functional than a $60 Hoover (especially if it just sits in your closet). Channel handbags can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $50,000. Yet it is not any more functional than a $25 knockoff. But does GW fall into this category? I think not, because GW models are generally not status symbols.
I don't think the 18-29 crowd is the perfect fit for GW, because at that age, most will REALLY want other luxury goods, like a car, first. And a lot more people in that range who are professionals now have student loans -- some lawyers and doctors go into their FORTIES still paying off their loans, and they sure aren't going to spend $5,000 a year on 40k models.
Instead, I think 35-55 will yield much more success. People in the prime of their life, who are in comfortable jobs, have extra time and extra money, and have plotted out "the path". Particularly those who fulfill all of these criteria with extra TIME and who enjoy hobby, as opposed to, for example, sport. I think the issue is that this group is not large now.
For the group that is 18-29? I think a lot of them will wistfully look at spectacular dioramas and photographs, and think OMG, SWEET! but never be able to actually have the time or money to build something like that. And since 40k falls short for many as the type of game they want to play, they end up not liking GW very much.
The ones in that age category that will like GW more are the ones that place a heavier emphasis on the models, because I genuinely think that GW's relative price on models and quality of models is pretty good -- and it's well marketed (nice boxes, displays, etc), and reasonably accessible. They won't be able to enjoy the hobby the way GW envisions it, but they will still like the product and the game.
Edit -- incidentally, despite not conducting "market research" I think GW has a really good handle on the number of dedicated fans and what their ideal demographic is, because they have a good idea of what they sell, and they have information from when they were a virtual monopoly in the market. They can pair statistical information available today with their sales data. For instance, if you want to open an online account, you have to tell them your age, and obviously, they can mine purchasing trends from online purchases easily. As I've said before, it's entirely possible that they know pretty much who/what their fanbase is, and their current strategy is what they think is the equation to maximize profits (or minimize attrition of profits).
Of course, I'm making generalizations, and there will be many edge cases and exceptions. Also, sorry this is so long :(
Not sure what the background of the red shirts are?
In Berlin I've met a red shirt with a bachelor in Japanese. This guy is smart.
I guess most of the red shirts don't have a high school diploma.
The need attitude in the first place.
Recently I spoke to about 30 Magic the Gathering players that were once former GW40K/Fantasy players, but no more, why, because GW is too expensive to play, so I asked what would GW needs to do to get you back, they told me that GW needs to drop their prices, so I asked again by how much, and the consensus was about 35% off current prices would tempt these guys back.
Right here if GW dropped their prices by 35% they would get a 100% increase in sales.
But for some dumb decision they won't listen to folks, dumb, dumb, just dumb.
Drop prices is the consensus around here too. No one I know has bought any new product from GW for a few years now. We still look at it, then gently put it back on the shelf.
Achaylus72 wrote: Recently I spoke to about 30 Magic the Gathering players that were once former GW40K/Fantasy players, but no more, why, because GW is too expensive to play, so I asked what would GW needs to do to get you back, they told me that GW needs to drop their prices, so I asked again by how much, and the consensus was about 35% off current prices would tempt these guys back.
Right here if GW dropped their prices by 35% they would get a 100% increase in sales.
But for some dumb decision they won't listen to folks, dumb, dumb, just dumb.
I don't think GW can just lower prices by 35% and get more sales.
I can't remember how much it costs GW to make the models, but I thought it was around the 20% mark. So that means for every $1 they sell, they make $0.80. If they lowered the price by 35%, instead of selling for $1 it would be $0,65, but they'd only make $0.45. So they'd have to sell 78% more product to make the same amount of money, and that's not considering they'd have to spend more money holding on to larger amounts of stock and spend more on shipping.
I think what GW should do is offer bigger discounts the more you buy and offer more package deals that offer savings so that people buy in larger quantities. You don't want people buying 10 Orks and then deciding they don't like painting Orks and not buying any more of them. You want them to buy 100 Orks up front because they save 35% compared to buying them in packs of 10.
I reckon GW should be aiming to get the most out of each transaction by offering bigger discounts on packages rather than worrying about how much plastic they shift per $.
Selym wrote: "Buy 3 items, get the cheapest at 50% off"
Doesn't hurt them much, and I'd take it.
They used to do this at grand openings. One friend wanted to start a Khorne army so he showed up at the local GW's grand opening with 2 'buy 2 boxes, get one of equal or lesser value free' coupons and got 6 boxes of Berzerkers for the price of 4. Another friend grabbed 3 Eldar Battleforces for the price of 2. There was also the usual 20%, 30% off coupons and others.
The stores on these days were jam packed. It was basically a line out of the shop for a hundred meters or so, and all you could do was queue up and slowly trudge through and hand over your money. Went all day as people came later and jumped on the line. Games Workshop decided these sales devalued the product and stopped doing them.
Achaylus72 wrote: Recently I spoke to about 30 Magic the Gathering players that were once former GW40K/Fantasy players, but no more, why, because GW is too expensive to play, so I asked what would GW needs to do to get you back, they told me that GW needs to drop their prices, so I asked again by how much, and the consensus was about 35% off current prices would tempt these guys back.
Right here if GW dropped their prices by 35% they would get a 100% increase in sales.
But for some dumb decision they won't listen to folks, dumb, dumb, just dumb.
I don't think GW can just lower prices by 35% and get more sales.
I can't remember how much it costs GW to make the models, but I thought it was around the 20% mark. So that means for every $1 they sell, they make $0.80. If they lowered the price by 35%, instead of selling for $1 it would be $0,65, but they'd only make $0.45. So they'd have to sell 78% more product to make the same amount of money, and that's not considering they'd have to spend more money holding on to larger amounts of stock and spend more on shipping.
I think what GW should do is offer bigger discounts the more you buy and offer more package deals that offer savings so that people buy in larger quantities. You don't want people buying 10 Orks and then deciding they don't like painting Orks and not buying any more of them. You want them to buy 100 Orks up front because they save 35% compared to buying them in packs of 10.
I reckon GW should be aiming to get the most out of each transaction by offering bigger discounts on packages rather than worrying about how much plastic they shift per $.
This is an interesting take on it.
From my view, though GW did use to set their prices 35% or more lower a few years ago, and they at that point sold a lot more stuff than they do now. It's true that unit sales were starting to decline in the late 2000s after some savage price hikes on models, but the revenue graph tipped definitvely downwards after the 100% increase in army books and codex prices, and 60% rise of the rulebook price, in 2011-2012.
That said, maybe GW can't afford to turn the clock back. Players who abandoned GW games in the past five years might not flock back just because the price dropped 35%.
I'm not sure I'd flock back either, at least in terms of gaming. But I'd probably buy most of the larger plastic kits at 35% off (Knight, most of the fantasy altars and so on) just to paint up.
Achaylus72 wrote: Recently I spoke to about 30 Magic the Gathering players that were once former GW40K/Fantasy players, but no more, why, because GW is too expensive to play, so I asked what would GW needs to do to get you back, they told me that GW needs to drop their prices, so I asked again by how much, and the consensus was about 35% off current prices would tempt these guys back.
Right here if GW dropped their prices by 35% they would get a 100% increase in sales.
But for some dumb decision they won't listen to folks, dumb, dumb, just dumb.
I don't think GW can just lower prices by 35% and get more sales.
I can't remember how much it costs GW to make the models, but I thought it was around the 20% mark. So that means for every $1 they sell, they make $0.80. If they lowered the price by 35%, instead of selling for $1 it would be $0,65, but they'd only make $0.45. So they'd have to sell 78% more product to make the same amount of money, and that's not considering they'd have to spend more money holding on to larger amounts of stock and spend more on shipping.
I think what GW should do is offer bigger discounts the more you buy and offer more package deals that offer savings so that people buy in larger quantities. You don't want people buying 10 Orks and then deciding they don't like painting Orks and not buying any more of them. You want them to buy 100 Orks up front because they save 35% compared to buying them in packs of 10.
I reckon GW should be aiming to get the most out of each transaction by offering bigger discounts on packages rather than worrying about how much plastic they shift per $.
This is an interesting take on it.
From my view, though GW did use to set their prices 35% or more lower a few years ago, and they at that point sold a lot more stuff than they do now. It's true that unit sales were starting to decline in the late 2000s after some savage price hikes on models, but the revenue graph tipped definitvely downwards after the 100% increase in army books and codex prices, and 60% rise of the rulebook price, in 2011-2012.
That said, maybe GW can't afford to turn the clock back. Players who abandoned GW games in the past five years might not flock back just because the price dropped 35%.
The other problem with regaining lost customers is that GW has created a 'perfect storm' - rising prices, cheaper material, bad public relations, and awful rules.
There was little reason for people to stick with GW, and many reasons to leave.
I doubt that GW could get me back as a customer - there are other companies doing a better job for lower prices.
Mantic may not make the best minis in the world (though their undead are top notch) - but the rules are excellent. Perry Miniatures does not make fantasy figures or rules - but makes excellent historicals in the right scale and for the right period. If I use Perry Miniatures with Kings of War then I have better than GW miniatures and better than GW rules, at a much better than GW price.
Talys wrote: @agnosto - I really don't think we're actually very far apart, to be honest.
In recent years, a lot of wealth has been generated, but the income gap between the wealthy and the poor has become stunning. So what you have is more wealth in the world, but a much smaller middle class compared the 80s, particularly a middle class not really worried about money.
This much is true in the US, not so much in other countries; some countries like Japan have a very large middle class. Your home country, Canada, actually met and surpassed the US in terms of the strength of the middle class in recent years. The Luxembourg Income Study generates some interesting data for data nerds, check it out some time if you're inclined.
The problem is, GW's best customers in years past were the people who were "a little bit rich" -- in other words, they have paid everything they need and the things that dramatically improve their lifestyle (including a home, cars, kids' tuition, someone else to mow the lawn, whatever food they want, a reasonable amount of eating out, a plan to retire at 55, etc.) -- this demographic has shrunk dramatically. I would hazard to say, "almost to non-existence". It's limited to a small group of highly skilled professionals and successful entrepreneurs; whereas before it would have included many skilled labourers and technical workers. And like you said before, this group largely works long hours.
I think that you and I could probably agree on the above.
*moved this since it makes sense here.
I don't think the 18-29 crowd is the perfect fit for GW, because at that age, most will REALLY want other luxury goods, like a car, first. And a lot more people in that range who are professionals now have student loans -- some lawyers and doctors go into their FORTIES still paying off their loans, and they sure aren't going to spend $5,000 a year on 40k models.
Instead, I think 35-55 will yield much more success. People in the prime of their life, who are in comfortable jobs, have extra time and extra money, and have plotted out "the path". Particularly those who fulfill all of these criteria with extra TIME and who enjoy hobby, as opposed to, for example, sport. I think the issue is that this group is not large now.
Actually, I think we'll have to disagree with the above; I feel that GW has always marketed towards that age group, 18-29 year old males, as they are the people most likely to be interested in GW products. More discerning, older people would generally turn away from the cartoonish nature of GW's universes on average. That's not to say that there aren't people in the groups that you've indicated who are interested in GW products, it's just that they are not the larger bulk of GW's customers, traditionally. I would argue that whether they intend it or not, the 30+ middle-high income earner is who they're going to get but that is not a route I think that they should take because the number of people willing to purchase their products from that category are much, much smaller than the 18-29 bracket due to a number of economic reasons.
Depending upon when they entered the field, most lawyers and doctors have their college debt paid off very rapidly; sure, you said "some" but some is a very small number in this instance; even smaller in the case of doctors who have the opportunity to have others pay their debt for them by working in high-need areas for a few years. The average life of student loan debts for doctors in the US is about 12 years for those who do not take advantage of such systems, based upon an average of $176,000 in debt accrued.
Now, regarding luxury goods --
There are only 2 types of goods (in economic terms): necessity goods and luxury goods, and toys of any type are definitely not necessity goods. Not all luxury goods increase in demand as income rises, but this is a characteristic of many luxury goods. Also, keep in mind, luxury goods don't necessarily imply quality.
There are all sorts of luxury goods. For example, Dyson vacuum cleaners are, what, $400-$600? But they're no more functional than a $60 Hoover (especially if it just sits in your closet). Channel handbags can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $50,000. Yet it is not any more functional than a $25 knockoff. But does GW fall into this category? I think not, because GW models are generally not status symbols.
I'm sorry but this is not accurate. There are many types of goods; the most basic are Inferior, Normal and Luxury but there are also Complementary, Substitute, Giffen, Veblen, etc. I really don't understand where people arrive at GW products being a luxury good, it's a true head scratcher and a gross misuse of a real economic term. You simply cannot compare GW products to Chanel or Porsche or any other true luxury good. Why? Because GW products have proven to be price inelastic whereas luxury goods have a high price elasticity or elasticity of demand. Here's a test, as people earn more, do they spend a much higher percentage of their income on GW products? Some might but the majority won't because then they would wind up with a garage full of boxes that collects dust. People only have so much time in their lives and someone who is able to spend thousands on GW products likely will not spend every waking moment playing with plastic army men.
Let me try to explain how luxury goods work:
Someone picks up GW in college, they are earning $19,000 per year. They spend about $300/year that's about 1.6% of their income.
This person continues on and when they're in their 40s, they're now earning $50,000 per year and an army costs about $600 to build or 1.2% of their income.
So, did the percentage of their income spent on GW products go up disproportionately to their income? Nope. Sure there may be outliers here, these mystical "super-fans" that you like to talk about, but most people do not have limitless time to devote to piles of plastic army men. At some point, people have lives, families, work and other time commitments that will prevent them from buying 100 boxes of $50 kits.
True luxury goods would see demand go up disproportionately to increases in wealth. At $19,000 per year a student will spend $0 on Porsche but at $150,0000 per year, they'll spend a great deal more; going from 0% to some other percent.
No, GW products are normal goods (a real economic term) which means that demand increases at a like percentage to income. In my example above, there's really not that great a difference between percentage of income spending between 1.6% and 1.2%.
Someone may pay someone to build and paint their army but GW doesn't benefit from that and it has zero impact on what type of good is produced. After-market, 3rd party business are complementary goods and services, not the goods themselves.
Edit -- incidentally, despite not conducting "market research" I think GW has a really good handle on the number of dedicated fans and what their ideal demographic is, because they have a good idea of what they sell, and they have information from when they were a virtual monopoly in the market. They can pair statistical information available today with their sales data. For instance, if you want to open an online account, you have to tell them your age, and obviously, they can mine purchasing trends from online purchases easily. As I've said before, it's entirely possible that they know pretty much who/what their fanbase is, and their current strategy is what they think is the equation to maximize profits (or minimize attrition of profits).
Of course, I'm making generalizations, and there will be many edge cases and exceptions. Also, sorry this is so long :(
Nope. That's not how it works. If you were to have a direct line to the decision makers at GW and they told you this and you have a modicum of business or analytics experience/training and did not laugh at them, you should be ashamed. You don't base current decisions on 20 year old reality, in the case of knowing who their customers were way back when they had a veritable monopoly on mini wargaming and a company which bases their entire corporate strategy on the results of who is shopping in their online store (a relatively small proportion according to their financials) is doomed....doomed I say.
Note: I don't think any of this is actually happening. I believe your assumption of GW being supported nearly completely through "super-fans" to be incorrect, otherwise I would not own stock in GW because that's just bat-gack crazy talk in the world of business.
At this point if GW had a big 35% off sale, I'd probably just buy enough to finish off my WHFB Orc and Gobbo army and maybe enough to finish off my Bretonnian and/or Lizardmen armies. I have no interest in AoS and I have those half finished armies sitting on my shelf, but when I added up the price of filling out those armies my response was "feth it, not worth it for a game that isn't even supported". I guess they'll just sit there forever gathering dust now.
GW would have to make much bigger changes than just price to get me back as a regular customer though. Their games are thoroughly unappealing to me and if I'm painting models just to sit on my shelf, there's a lot of models I'd sooner buy than GW's bobble headed models.
agnosto wrote: Your home country, Canada, actually met and surpassed the US in terms of the strength of the middle class in recent years.
The earning power of the middle class in Canada is declining. Net worth is increasing due to ever skyrocketting (and dare I say unsustainable) value in real estate. Due to the rock bottom interest rates, average household spending is 163% of disposable income. The strength you describe is artificial.
agnosto wrote: Your home country, Canada, actually met and surpassed the US in terms of the strength of the middle class in recent years.
The earning power of the middle class in Canada is declining. Net worth is increasing due to ever skyrocketting (and dare I say unsustainable) value in real estate. Due to the rock bottom interest rates, average household spending is 163% of disposable income. The strength you describe is artificial.
Nationally, Canada is in much better shape than other comparable countries in Europe and the US. It may be declining (though not in 2010) as you say but it is doing so at a less rate than other countries.
All of this though has little to do with the actual topic as I just used Canada as an example. I'm sure that if I had used Sweden, someone would have said the exact same thing as you.
Risking going further OT: However, trends in disposable income are relevant.
Two comments about Canada's performance in the recent years. You'll notice the tail end of the graph is flattening out. (Its awful small, but it looks like your graph starts at 1900???)
1. The graph shows increase against USD presumably? I'd be interested if this graph also takes into account the actual increase vs inflation.
2. I wonder if this graph takes into account fluctuations in currency. Canadian buying power growth in recent years would have been buoyed by the strong Canadian dollar (as a byproduct of oil prices). Our dollar has gone into the toilet (as a byproduct of gov't pro-oil policy), so it'd be interesting to see where this all stands in 2015.
Looking at the GW years in the graph... They are raising prices like crazy in the face of what I might be considered relatively stagnant increases middle class buying power.
I've been finding it very hard to afford the hobby anymore, I really wish GW would throw a sale once in a blue moon.
It's at the point where I am tempted to go completely FW, because if I am paying the same price I might as well get the company that I feel handles things better/has better quality. Ebay used to be my go to, I swapped to my FLGS to support the local economy but, frankly it is a huge waste of money for me to do so when I can buy new from FW or go on Ebay and get some cool OOP models.
I wouldn't complain but, this year alone the price of models has skyrocketed to where I feel like I couldn't even get into this hobby anymore. I also am getting sick of the pro-GW attitude at my shop. I'm not a negative nancy or "feth GW, down with GW," type person but, I find myself slipping more towards the latter than the former.
I don't have time to respond point by point in kind today, so I'll be (somewhat) brief --
I guess I look at GW products differently than you, since they're through the filter of my own spending habits. As my own income increased, I have proportionately spent more on miniatures & hobby, at least to a point (within a faction there's only so much stuff to buy), and owning more hobby stuff makes my happier. At points in my life, when I have had less income, I purchase fewer (or no) hobby products. So, I think this is pretty close to the definition of a luxury good.
You are right about there being other sorts of goods such as Veblen, normal, and inferior goods, though these terms are not all mutually exclusive -- a luxury good can also be a Veblen good, for example (where increasing the price increases the perceived value of the product, like a $50,000 Channel handbag). Another example of overlap is that GW products are a luxury good to me until I own everything in the collection in multiple quantities, and then, they become normal or inferior goods though only as they relate to me (at some point I hit pause until there is a new release I want).
With regards to Canada's economic middle class bursting with happiness and joy, studies can be very deceiving. Vancouver is second most expensive place in the world to buy real estate (second only to Hong Kong), and the cost of living here is extremely high, especially compared to our American counterparts.
I watch the 6pm news almost every day, and at least once every other week, there is an article on how unaffordable it is to live here -- how even renting has become unaffordable. To give you an idea, an 85 year old, condemned shack on a main road that has a bus stop in front of it and 30,000 cars drive within 20 feet of the front door every day, on a tiny lot cannot be had for a million dollars in Vancouver, today. If you put it up for sale at a million dollars, there would be 10 offers within hours, some offer for 1.5 million, and many of them with certified cheques attached and no sale conditions. It's literally nuts here, because it is perceived as a "great place to live" (it actually is, just really expensive). Most people, if they want to own a home, must live very far away from where they work; and to give you an idea, an average couple who make a combined income of $50,000 can't ever actually own a home here.
It's not just Vancouver, too -- other metropolitan centers like Toronto and Calgary have also gone gangbusters, and the cost of living has skyrocketed. Anyways, my point is: for people in this situation, owning a home and paying for things they need is more important than hobby, and even if hobby spending would constitute a tiny part of their income, a lot of folks around here spend almost everything they earn just to pay the bill.
For renters, it's a really scary picture. A 1 bedroom apartment in an old building without insuite laundry, and not even in the city core can be $1,300. An hour away from the city, a basement suite that's a couple bedrooms can cost even more than that. When 90% of household income goes towards housing costs:
That leaves not much in the hobby kitty. And by the way, that article was written in 2012; the housing situation in 2015 is even worse!
That's not to say that there aren't a lot of people who can afford GW products and meet GW's target demographic in Vancouver, though. Despite life being very tough for the average person, guess what -- someone owns those 1.5 - 25+ million dollar homes, and in fact, a ton of homes are purchased entirely with cash -- it's actually stunning, because the chances of buying a desirable home if you need to put a subject to sale of your old home, or subject to financing, is very low (or zero); if you want a good deal on a good home, you better have your million bucks or more in cash or equivalents and ready to go. So there are lots of super-rich people. Just proportionately, a lot more people who struggle to get by, which was my point about income disparities.
Its a little cheaper out here on the superior coast, but I still count myself as being pretty damn fortunate to own a house at my age. Friends of mine who only make a fraction less than I do are struggling to put aside a downpayment while paying rent, which is ~90% what I pay for my mortgage!
As for how that tangent relates to the topic, I have found my hobby budget to have dropped off to barely three figures annually due to having the house, two cars, a fluffy puppy, and the usual household expenses for a new build. So when I decide to commit to a wargaming purchase, the best value is what I aim for. Part of that is quality of the models, quantity of the models, and the quality of the game (or potential game in the case of 3rd party minis) attached to the models. My latest purchase was backing the Reaper Bones III for either 1 or 3 Sledgehammer arty pieces, because the price is simply excellent for such a beautiful, and gameplay wise, useful model.
As for how GW could get some of my cash, besides my usual points, more of those box sets with good deals and a variety of them too. If I could buy a bunch of models for 20-25% off because of a bundle deal, I'd be happy, especially if I could find a webstore deal on top of that.
I guess I look at GW products differently than you, since they're through the filter of my own spending habits. As my own income increased, I have proportionately spent more on miniatures & hobby, at least to a point (within a faction there's only so much stuff to buy), and owning more hobby stuff makes my happier. At points in my life, when I have had less income, I purchase fewer (or no) hobby products. So, I think this is pretty close to the definition of a luxury good.
That's actually not what the economic definition of a luxury good is. If your spending increases in a proportionate manner to your income, as in your income goes up 50% and your spending on the item goes up roughly 50%, then it is a normal good.
An item is a luxury good when spending upon that item rises in a disproportionately high rate relative to increases in income. For example, a person making $25,000.00 per year spends nothing on boats, or 0%. A person making $100,000 might buy a $15,000 bass or ski boat, financed over 3 years, paying about $6000 per year for it, or 6% of their annual income. A person making $1,000,000 per year might buy a $150K cruiser potentially paying cash, or 15% of their income. (Obviously, these are hypothetical examples to serve an illustrative purpose. I personally have no idea how people spend money on boats because they don't interest me.)
Actually... on an aside... since home ownership has come up... I've found that years of apartment living has really made me pare back my belongings. I've stubbornly hung onto my hobby stuff, but I've begun to start clearing the stuff out as of late. Space is really at a premium, especially in the hot housing markets of Toronto/Vancouver.
Those of us who live in small accommodations are pretty much reliant on game clubs / FLGS to game because we don't have enough room to host ourselves. When the FLGS / Clubs die... I find these players are forced from the hobby. I feel that GW is employing a one-size-fits-all approach to operating world wide. This might account for why the retail store model is not working as planned in the US, where there is strong home ownership and strong home gamer-ship... and why markets like Japan, where there is no room for anything might not fit into UK centric approach.
I lived in temporary mil housing for...almost 8 years. I'd move once every year on average, and every time I'd purge everything I didn't need. By the time I moved to my house, just about every single thing I owned fit in my hatchback (minus set of winter tires) and a box of lego my wife already had in her apartment.
Now that I have house, I don't even know what to do with all the space. The basement is empty, and one of our rooms upstairs is completely unused. Mrs. Blacksails is also behind the idea of turning the basement into a classy man-cave where I can have a table and terrain on hand for games of any kind.
keezus wrote: Risking going further OT: However, trends in disposable income are relevant.
Two comments about Canada's performance in the recent years. You'll notice the tail end of the graph is flattening out. (Its awful small, but it looks like your graph starts at 1900???)
1. The graph shows increase against USD presumably? I'd be interested if this graph also takes into account the actual increase vs inflation.
2. I wonder if this graph takes into account fluctuations in currency. Canadian buying power growth in recent years would have been buoyed by the strong Canadian dollar (as a byproduct of oil prices). Our dollar has gone into the toilet (as a byproduct of gov't pro-oil policy), so it'd be interesting to see where this all stands in 2015.
Looking at the GW years in the graph... They are raising prices like crazy in the face of what I might be considered relatively stagnant increases middle class buying power.
That graph's hard to see but it's 1990. Keep in mind that these studies are done considering differentiations in spending power relative to inflation and currency fluctuations but they're done infrequently due to the massive amount of data that it takes to do it properly. Still, interesting read. LIS is located in Luxembourg so no US bias as far as currency goes. The get the data for different years, depending upon when and how it's collected in the various countries and then do a comprehensive analysis for years where the stars align.
Talys wrote: @agnosto - thanks for the very detailed reply
I don't have time to respond point by point in kind today, so I'll be (somewhat) brief --
I guess I look at GW products differently than you, since they're through the filter of my own spending habits. As my own income increased, I have proportionately spent more on miniatures & hobby, at least to a point (within a faction there's only so much stuff to buy), and owning more hobby stuff makes my happier. At points in my life, when I have had less income, I purchase fewer (or no) hobby products. So, I think this is pretty close to the definition of a luxury good.
You are right about there being other sorts of goods such as Veblen, normal, and inferior goods, though these terms are not all mutually exclusive -- a luxury good can also be a Veblen good, for example (where increasing the price increases the perceived value of the product, like a $50,000 Channel handbag). Another example of overlap is that GW products are a luxury good to me until I own everything in the collection in multiple quantities, and then, they become normal or inferior goods though only as they relate to me (at some point I hit pause until there is a new release I want).
With regards to Canada's economic middle class bursting with happiness and joy, studies can be very deceiving. Vancouver is second most expensive place in the world to buy real estate (second only to Hong Kong), and the cost of living here is extremely high, especially compared to our American counterparts.
Spoiler:
I watch the 6pm news almost every day, and at least once every other week, there is an article on how unaffordable it is to live here -- how even renting has become unaffordable. To give you an idea, an 85 year old, condemned shack on a main road that has a bus stop in front of it and 30,000 cars drive within 20 feet of the front door every day, on a tiny lot cannot be had for a million dollars in Vancouver, today. If you put it up for sale at a million dollars, there would be 10 offers within hours, some offer for 1.5 million, and many of them with certified cheques attached and no sale conditions. It's literally nuts here, because it is perceived as a "great place to live" (it actually is, just really expensive). Most people, if they want to own a home, must live very far away from where they work; and to give you an idea, an average couple who make a combined income of $50,000 can't ever actually own a home here.
It's not just Vancouver, too -- other metropolitan centers like Toronto and Calgary have also gone gangbusters, and the cost of living has skyrocketed. Anyways, my point is: for people in this situation, owning a home and paying for things they need is more important than hobby, and even if hobby spending would constitute a tiny part of their income, a lot of folks around here spend almost everything they earn just to pay the bill.
For renters, it's a really scary picture. A 1 bedroom apartment in an old building without insuite laundry, and not even in the city core can be $1,300. An hour away from the city, a basement suite that's a couple bedrooms can cost even more than that. When 90% of household income goes towards housing costs:
That leaves not much in the hobby kitty. And by the way, that article was written in 2012; the housing situation in 2015 is even worse!
That's not to say that there aren't a lot of people who can afford GW products and meet GW's target demographic in Vancouver, though. Despite life being very tough for the average person, guess what -- someone owns those 1.5 - 25+ million dollar homes, and in fact, a ton of homes are purchased entirely with cash -- it's actually stunning, because the chances of buying a desirable home if you need to put a subject to sale of your old home, or subject to financing, is very low (or zero); if you want a good deal on a good home, you better have your million bucks or more in cash or equivalents and ready to go. So there are lots of super-rich people. Just proportionately, a lot more people who struggle to get by, which was my point about income disparities
I think you're still not getting the difference between normal and luxury goods but I'll leave off as it will be a distraction is just me being nitpicky about using actual definitions for things.
Anecdotally, I've lived in Seoul and Tokyo, I know what I can get for a similar amount of money (laundry on the balcony and a one-room apartment, not one-bedroom, one room). Big city living is expensive which is why suburbs exist around the world and the life of a commuter... *le sigh* My wife's parents could sell their plot of land just outside Tokyo and probably buy half of the state that we live in.
This is beside the point. People still buy cars, still buy homes, still spend money on entertainment expenses and food and all the other necessary and non-necessary things in life.
The point here is that smart companies market to the people who they know are able and willing to buy their products.
Smart companies realize such things as price and product elasticity exist and are real concepts that affect the bottom line.
Smart companies actively plan and pursue growth strategies and then perform research on the actions that they take to ensure effectiveness.
Smart companies react to retractions and market adjustments that negatively impact their revenues.
Smart companies adjust their company culture with the change in times and market environment.
Smart companies make you want to buy their products by drawing you in, becoming your friend and engaging you as a customer. People will buy your stuff if they feel it has value to them and studies have shown time and time again that relationships matter when it comes to selling stuff to people.
That's not to say that a company can't be dumb and still be profitable. But just being profitable doesn't make a company smart, sometimes it just means it's been lucky.
agnosto wrote: That graph's hard to see but it's 1990. Keep in mind that these studies are done considering differentiations in spending power relative to inflation and currency fluctuations but they're done infrequently due to the massive amount of data that it takes to do it properly. Still, interesting read. LIS is located in Luxembourg so no US bias as far as currency goes. The get the data for different years, depending upon when and how it's collected in the various countries and then do a comprehensive analysis for years where the stars align.
Its definitely eye-opening what after tax income the chart considers MIDDLE CLASS to be.
In 2010, the CAD was roughly at parity with the greenback. That suggests that $17.5k after tax earning is enough to be considered in the middle class! Assuming 20% tax rate, that's $21k pre-tax income. Prorated for a 40 hour week, if you made slightly more than minimum wage... you'd be "middle class". That seems to be setting the bar pretty low - I guess that says a lot about a country's level of prosperity I suppose. -edit- Median income was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $32k/year before tax in 2010.
Automatically Appended Next Post: -edit2- I think that the lowest bracket 2010 Canadian "middle class" would have difficulty participating in the GW hobby. The median income... no problems whatsoever.
Agonsto, I get everything you're saying -- and on many points I agree. I'm still not convinced the optimum point for profitability isn't to maximize prices to those who are price-inelastic and who want to buy a lot, versus having more customers that individually buy a little.
I can't recall the exact number, but let's just say, GW's US/Canada sales are $30m for the sake of argument, and that an "average gamer" spends $500 a year (I will admit I don't know if this is true, but it kind of feels right, based on what I and people I know spent in their youth, when we didn't have very much disposable income).
That would take 60,000 average fans, right?
But what if you had fans that spent $1,000 a month? That's only 2,500 customers that spend $12,000 a year!
I know that this is an achievable number, because within our gaming group of 6 people, 3 hit that number, with one person way, way over that because he buys Forge World stuff, and another who buys everything direct from GW's web store because he doesn't want to drive out to the hobby shop (he also doesn't live very close to one). The other 3 probably spend about $300 a month (or, around $4k / year).
I think appealing to this group is simply a lot easier than trying to sell multiple armies to the 30 model per army crowd and growing that crowd. In part, as the last half-year has shown, if you produce stuff these guys want, even at a crazy release schedule, they'll just buy it.
I know that this is an achievable number, because within our gaming group of 6 people, 3 hit that number, with one person way, way over that because he buys Forge World stuff, and another who buys everything direct from GW's web store. The other 3 probably spend about $300 a month (or, around $4k / year).
agnosto wrote: That graph's hard to see but it's 1990. Keep in mind that these studies are done considering differentiations in spending power relative to inflation and currency fluctuations but they're done infrequently due to the massive amount of data that it takes to do it properly. Still, interesting read. LIS is located in Luxembourg so no US bias as far as currency goes. The get the data for different years, depending upon when and how it's collected in the various countries and then do a comprehensive analysis for years where the stars align.
Its definitely eye-opening what after tax income the chart considers MIDDLE CLASS to be.
In 2010, the CAD was roughly at parity with the greenback. That suggests that $17.5k after tax earning is enough to be considered in the middle class! Assuming 20% tax rate, that's $21k pre-tax income. Prorated for a 40 hour week, if you made slightly more than minimum wage... you'd be "middle class". That seems to be setting the bar pretty low - I guess that says a lot about a country's level of prosperity I suppose. -edit- Median income was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $32k/year before tax in 2010.
Automatically Appended Next Post: -edit2- I think that the lowest bracket 2010 Canadian "middle class" would have difficulty participating in the GW hobby. The median income... no problems whatsoever.
I think in Canada it depends a lot on where you live. If you live in Lethbridge or Chateauguay, yeah, $32k / year lets you comfortably buy all sorts of fun stuff, maybe even think about a home. If you live in Victoria or Vancouver, $32k a year, and it's way, way harder.
I know that this is an achievable number, because within our gaming group of 6 people, 3 hit that number, with one person way, way over that because he buys Forge World stuff, and another who buys everything direct from GW's web store. The other 3 probably spend about $300 a month (or, around $4k / year).
Well, with a sample size of 6, how can I argue?
Well, surely we are not the only 6 people around like this Just look at signatures of people and their army sizes, or go look on the DCM forum at "how much did I spend". There's one fella there that blows me out of the water in terms of spending. He's bought every single release, and when it comes to codex, he buys LE, regular, and digital! Of every faction!
Talys wrote: I think appealing to this group is simply a lot easier than trying to sell multiple armies to the 30 model per army crowd and growing that crowd. In part, as the last half-year has shown, if you produce stuff these guys want, even at a crazy release schedule, they'll just buy it.
I think this is only correct if you look at it through the lens of "guys buying to collect", since more models = build more / paint more.
If you look at it it through the lens of "guys buying to play", as long as the rules are balanced and the models aren't crap, you'll get players branching into additional armies without any extra effort from the manufacturer, since multiple armies = multiple play styles = more play value. The GW model of trying to sell a lot for one army is hamstrung by the shoddy rules and generally results in: single army = meta optimized play style (regardless of units owned) = no increased play value... it's still only one way... just different. Say what you will about "play to win" vs "play for fun" - the reality is that in GW's systems, pretty much every armybook/codex boils down to one dominant build. AoS might have mitigated this problem by allowing everything (also, unlinking the customer's purchases from one particular army), but IMHO, as a result, the game isn't really suitable for organized play as a direct result.
@keezus - Philosophically, you're right. I'd rather invest in a game with better rules than worse rules, all other things being equal. There is the issue of aesthetics, genre, and lore too, but let's put that aside, because essentially, I agree with you.
Practically, however, people who *want* buy lots of models to play with can't do so unless a collection is large enough and unless the release schedule is at a fast enough cadence, no matter how much they love the game. At some point, they'll just own everything, and play with it, and buy a small amount of stuff as it trickles out, and the only thing they can do is buy another game, of which there are a limited number. Plus, not everyone wants to hop from game to game to game, because their play group settles on something and wants to stick with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the way, I would really like to add that as someone who loves both tabletop and PC gaming, I do not believe this is the right way to run a company, and were it up to me, I would almost certainly do many things differently.
All I'm doing is describing a possible path of least resistance (low hanging fruit, if you will) that might describe the thought process at GW. I'm also totally open to Agnosto's theory that I'm totally off base.
But just think about it... Between the US and Canada, GW needs less than 50 superfans per state to hit $30m in sales (and obviously, there will be some number of less avid customers too). That is just not a huge number, and speaks to how profitable that demographic is. It also jives with a lot of anecdotal 'i haven't seen people play 40k', because a lot of this demographic has little interest in public pickup games. It would take me 3 hours just to pack models and terrain to drag down to a store, and I'd probably damage some models, PLUS who knows if I'll enjoy the pickup game, so, I just play at home with friends.
Talys wrote: Practically, however, people who *want* buy lots of models to play with can't do so unless a collection is large enough and unless the release schedule is at a fast enough cadence, no matter how much they love the game.
I feel this is a false dilemma. GW has total control of what and how many models are in the game. Large-enough-collection only factors into it if the game rules require it, and completeness is a factor of how many unreleased kits exist at time of rules publication. There is nothing to stop a player from dabbling in another army while they wait. This occurred frequently in 3rd edition. It's not as likely now due to cost... but this is also entirely within GW's control. I'm not sure where you're getting the "leaving the game" part from. On the point about people who *want to buy lots of models*. I think you'll agree that the horde-army-gamer is a subset of the overall gamer customer base, and not representative of the demographic as a whole (other than the part about them playing games).
-edit- $10k a year is pretty crazy. Most people I know who can afford that level of investiture don't have the time to mess with the hobby to that extent and this informs their buying. Those with time are either youth (can't afford) or retirees (ones who can afford, also a dying breed in this economy). Don't get me wrong... I met a retired guy with a basement full of Forgeworld... but I would expect that to be the exception rather than the norm. I think trying to rely on that type of customer is wise, or sustainable.
Talys wrote: Agonsto, I get everything you're saying -- and on many points I agree. I'm still not convinced the optimum point for profitability isn't to maximize prices to those who are price-inelastic and who want to buy a lot, versus having more customers that individually buy a little.
I can't recall the exact number, but let's just say, GW's US/Canada sales are $30m for the sake of argument, and that an "average gamer" spends $500 a year (I will admit I don't know if this is true, but it kind of feels right, based on what I and people I know spent in their youth, when we didn't have very much disposable income).
That would take 60,000 average fans, right?
But what if you had fans that spent $1,000 a month? That's only 2,500 customers that spend $12,000 a year!
I know that this is an achievable number, because within our gaming group of 6 people, 3 hit that number, with one person way, way over that because he buys Forge World stuff, and another who buys everything direct from GW's web store because he doesn't want to drive out to the hobby shop (he also doesn't live very close to one). The other 3 probably spend about $300 a month (or, around $4k / year).
I think appealing to this group is simply a lot easier than trying to sell multiple armies to the 30 model per army crowd and growing that crowd. In part, as the last half-year has shown, if you produce stuff these guys want, even at a crazy release schedule, they'll just buy it.
This is where economies of scale come in, producing (and selling) less product makes each item more expensive for GW. You have to remember that they've got that massive retail chain monkey riding shotgun on their back, or a loadstone ready to pull them down. In any event, ideally a company will hit a sweet spot where the per unit price reaches a sustainable level. Since there is a retail chain to begin with, it kind of discounts the concept that GW is around to support a handful of fans who spend massive amounts of money. If this were the case, they would close the retail outlets and just make an online buyers club or some such for these fans to interact with them; this would increase their profits exponentially overnight.
Since the retail chain exists, the assumption is that GW is a growth-minded company that wants to attract new customers, not simply maintain a steadfast core of current hobbyists.
I'll also disagree that catering to a select group would be sustainable for any length of time because if any of them dies or falls off, they're not as easily replaced as 1000 other people buying a few models each. Restricting your audience will result in a smaller consumer base that opens your company up to any of a myriad of issues that could result in its premature demise; it would only take one miscalculation to send the company into a death spiral so tight that there would be no escape. GW has avoided this due to strong cash reserves. I disagree with Kirby et al on a number of management decisions but I invest in the company because I know that, if nothing else, they know how to manage and manipulate the balance sheet to show a profit and continue to pay dividends. I shiver to think of a real gamer running the show up there, the company would truly die quickly then.
I would say that there should be a balance between gamers, hobbyists (p&m), and business folks at the helm. At the end of the day, you need to run the financial component competently (which I agree with you, they do well), and try to be the company that your core customers and peripheral customers want you to be (which I think they have less success in).
In the absence of products at least SOME people love, you wind up with HP: a company that doesn't make much that's cool anymore, and is run by corporate types that don't really connect with anyone other than Wall Street. Cough. Carly Fiorina. cough. I can't believe she's now running for US president and polling at 9% (among likely Republican voters).
I would say that there should be a balance between gamers, hobbyists (p&m), and business folks at the helm. At the end of the day, you need to run the financial component competently (which I agree with you, they do well), and try to be the company that your core customers and peripheral customers want you to be (which I think they have less success in).
In the absence of products at least SOME people love, you wind up with HP: a company that doesn't make much that's cool anymore, and is run by corporate types that don't really connect with anyone other than Wall Street. Cough. Carly Fiorina. cough. I can't believe she's now running for US president and polling at 9% (among likely Republican voters).
All very true. I've learned through my own missteps to let the creative types do their thing, within reason, while I keep the money and compliance stuff straight. Some painful lessons in there over the years.
Talys wrote: @
Practically, however, people who *want* buy lots of models to play with can't do so unless a collection is large enough and unless the release schedule is at a fast enough cadence, no matter how much they love the game. At some point, they'll just own everything, and play with it, and buy a small amount of stuff as it trickles out, and the only thing they can do is buy another game, of which there are a limited number. Plus, not everyone wants to hop from game to game to game, because their play group settles on something and wants to stick with it.
That point of view only really makes sense if you've got a very narrow hobby focus - i.e. you only collect army X from company Y.
With the boom of gaming at the moment, I could retire tomorrow with an infinity hobby budget and still never run out of things to paint without even touching GW or buying duplicate kits. For instance, I can buy pretty much any army from any era in 28mm currently (from the Sea Peoples of Biblical times, to Mayans, to White War Fins), most of it in plastic, there are dozens of sci-fi kits and factions, dozens of aircraft.
And that's only 28mm. I could more or less do the same again in 20,15,10,6,3mm.
Sure, If I only collected GW Blood Angels I'd have run out of kits within a year, or Guild from Malifaux I'd be done within a month, but that's a pretty unrealistic statement.
Herzlos wrote: That point of view only really makes sense if you've got a very narrow hobby focus - i.e. you only collect army X from company Y.
With the boom of gaming at the moment, I could retire tomorrow with an infinity hobby budget and still never run out of things to paint without even touching GW or buying duplicate kits. For instance, I can buy pretty much any army from any era in 28mm currently (from the Sea Peoples of Biblical times, to Mayans, to White War Fins), most of it in plastic, there are dozens of sci-fi kits and factions, dozens of aircraft.
And that's only 28mm. I could more or less do the same again in 20,15,10,6,3mm.
Sure, If I only collected GW Blood Angels I'd have run out of kits within a year, or Guild from Malifaux I'd be done within a month, but that's a pretty unrealistic statement.
Pretty close to that -- though I was talking about games, specifically, in my comment, and it's really hard to get your friends to just switch games. I can't get ANYONE in my group to give Infinity game time, not for lack of trying.
There are a lot of us who aren't interested in anything historical or real, though, and that limits it a lot -- this is me... if it exists or has ever existed, or even if it COULD exist, I have no interest in modelling it. If the person looks like a real person, my interest severely diminishes. I'd rather do a sorcerer or heroic warrior with an over-the-top magical weapon or winged angel wearing impossible armor, for example. If you further are interested primarily in either Fantasy or Science Fiction, that restricts the possibilities even more.
By the way... about your comment on GW Blood Angels... check my Gallery Everything for BA on there painted basically since the codex drop at the end of last year, plus lots of multiples (like, I didn't post up all 30 death company, or all 40+ tactical marines so far, all 6 razorbacks, etc.). In somewhere between 1 to 2 years, I'll have painted a LOT of Blood Angels, essentially exhausting the collection until GW's next refresh, and not to some cruddy 3-color standard, either. From there it will probably be Necron or Adeptus Mechanicus, then Space Wolves or Eldar, probably Tyranids after that, and then hopefully there will be cool new Ork releases. Keep in mind a lot of these are all factions that I own 5,000+ points of painted models for, that I just like to periodically refresh or totally reboot (like in the case of Blood Angels, where my army was 15 years old, not really playable, and disjointed in terms of modelling continuity).
In between, I'll do a whole bunch of terrain, and probably a whole lot of of Cyrix, Menoth, and Retribution, plus squeeze in Sigmarites for my wife, and paint up whatever models CB drops for Infinity. Or stare at them wishing they were plastic
I can't really fathom spending $1000 a month on GW models consistently. I mean if I had an unlimited amount of funds to spend on GW stuff, I still wouldn't do that even if I thought the rules were fantastic, wasn't married with kids and wasn't employed. Sure I would spend that much here and there, even significantly more on occasion. But even if I was spending most of every day building models and painting I don't know how I could keep up with new purchases. That's before I have to find the time to play actual games with the models. I don't know how I could find the time to play enough in a month with those $1,000 of new stuff that I would be ready to move on next month to more and keep up that pace month after month. Unless you're just hoarding boxes of models you never touch how do you spend that kind of money?
Even if I was having everything commission built and painted so I don't spend any time modeling, I have a hard time imagining averaging $1,000 a month in purchases over several years. There would just be piles of models I don't touch boxed up somewhere since displaying them all would take way too much space. I'm not interested in stashing away stuff I never touch.
I like the setting, models and broadly speaking the game system. I like most of the factions to some degree and if I could get everything I wanted I would have some of most if not all the factions. And there is no other game system that competes for my attention. Still I just don't see $1000 a month. There just isn't time.
Even if I did get that much stuff, I think I would sell it off on ebay or something or maybe give it away. I certainly wouldn't throw it away. If I was updating, someone would end up with my old stuff costing GW sales because that person isn't buying from them.
So the point of all that is that Talys situation, even assuming unlimited funds and removal of every source of restraint, is one I could never see myself in simply because I can't picture being ready to move on to the next thing at a quick enough pace to buy that much. I would want to spend a few months really getting to know each new army idea, before moving to the next. My interest doesn't wane that quickly.
--
Pricing I think is the least of the questionable intelligent things GW does. I am in a better financial position now than I was when I started this hobby, but had very little when I started so I can understand the difficulty of trying to build an army with few resources. It took me years to get the wraith guard I wanted. (Finally got some for a great price on ebay). Then I had to sell everything and step away from the game for a while. High prices are a drag, but GW is there to make money so they are going to keep them high if possible.
To me the biggest problem is lousy rules. Make solid rules and people will grudgingly dig into their pockets to buy stuff. Good rules make people across the spectrum of potential customers happy participents. They lead to good word of mouth free advertising. GW doesn't seem to care about making the best rules possible. That is not smart.
Talys wrote: By the way... about your comment on GW Blood Angels... check my Gallery Everything for BA on there painted basically since the codex drop at the end of last year, plus lots of multiples (like, I didn't post up all 30 death company, or all 40+ tactical marines so far, all 6 razorbacks, etc.). In somewhere between 1 to 2 years, I'll have painted a LOT of Blood Angels, essentially exhausting the collection until GW's next refresh, and not to some cruddy 3-color standard, either. From there it will probably be Necron or Adeptus Mechanicus, then Space Wolves or Eldar, probably Tyranids after that, and then hopefully there will be cool new Ork releases. Keep in mind a lot of these are all factions that I own 5,000+ points of painted models for, that I just like to periodically refresh or totally reboot (like in the case of Blood Angels, where my army was 15 years old, not really playable, and disjointed in terms of modelling continuity).
In between, I'll do a whole bunch of terrain, and probably a whole lot of of Cyrix, Menoth, and Retribution, plus squeeze in Sigmarites for my wife, and paint up whatever models CB drops for Infinity. Or stare at them wishing they were plastic
You have a separate private island property where this is all displayed right?
@Gwai - there is no question that I buy more stuff than I can paint. Partly, this is because I like to keep bits inventories. I have every space marine box broken down and sorted into cases with little trays of each part so that whatever I want to model is there. For example, when BA upgrades came out, I bought 12, so that I'd have 12 of each shoulder pad to build complete squads. I used up 11 each of 2 pads; so now that they are back in stock, I ordered 10 more. The remainder are all bits.
In part, this is practical. If you want to kitbash a particular pose, say, you want a hand that's holding onto a door, you can't check it without physically trying a bunch of hands. You can't choose a pair of legs from a catalogue; you need to bluetac it to the model to see how it looks. So, the ability to express creativity is constrained by the availability of parts (assuming that I want to minimize sculpting).
In part, it's because I dream of painting all of my models, and my wallet is more powerful than my brush But I am not unique in this.
Finally, you get a lot better and faster at painting and modelling if you paint and model a lot. If you look at my gallery and hit blood angels, every model but one was painted after the codex release, and representative of some significant squad numbers (I didn't post up all 30 death company, for instance, nor each razorback and each drop pod, etc.). They might not be international competition quality, but they're reasonably decent, I think -- and I'm certain I could paint up $5000-$6000 a year to this standard, painting about 3-4 hours a night, a little more on weekends.
It's very lucrative for GW because every now and then, like this year, I do a faction reboot (redo every model) and that's big bucks.
Regarding space, I agree it's a huge constraint. Until 4 years ago, I lived in a condo, and even though it was a good-sized, and most of my models were in cases. Since then, I've purchased a house, with ample gaming and modelling space (more than I will ever use).
By the way, a thousand bucks a month doesn't even cover things like expensive hobby tools. You can easily spend a few hundred bucks on an airbrush (or another airbrush), for example. You can easily spend a few thousand dollars on renovations for extracting fumes. Or a commercial drill press, or any number of other fancy tools.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that 'my way is the right way', just trying to shed light on how you get to that volume of hobby spending.
I know literally one person that buys like Talys says people do. And that guy doesn't buy GW because he thinks they're a rip off. "Cartoony proportions, skulls everywhere and a company that hates you." Is his quote.
MWHistorian wrote: I know literally one person that buys like Talys says people do. And that guy doesn't buy GW because he thinks they're a rip off. "Cartoony proportions, skulls everywhere and a company that hates you." Is his quote.
Yeah, that's totally fair. I know a historical guy like that, too. I joke with him at how mundane his models are (they're beautiful) and he jokes with me about how I my guys are all neckless superheroes
I can understand spending a lot on the hobby. One time not too long ago I used to spend around 1000 a month on hobby stuff. However not on GW most of the time.
Unlike Talys though I hate having too many projects and not enough time so I reduced what I spend hugely and just get what I "need". I am also not as wealthy as I was so that helps keep the spending down.
It is easy to spend heaps of money because not only are there endless lines of shiny models, but you can also purchase a lot of hobby tools, paints, scenic stuffs and other items im sure I missed to tinker with.
Personally I have had more fun with the hobby taking it slow than I ever had buying whatever I pleased whenever I pleased, but I cannot imagine buying all those Black Templar shoulder pads for example. I still value not being ripped off and often find the cheapest most efficient way of doing things in the hobby. But I can certainly see his mindset.
It's too easy to spend money on all these fancy models around.
Back on planet earth where the regular gamers live, my GW budget is $500 US. That is to say I will spend that much on their products before I'm done collecting GW permanently. I'm up to $300 so far, buying only used minis at 50% off retail or better. That's gotten me 2k points of one army and 1k points of another. I see no reason to own more than 2k points of an army because even 2k point games are unbalanced and tedious. I stick to 1000 point games because armies can't leverage their nonsense formations (decurion, gladius, etc.) and the arbitrary special rules don't stack up too high through "creative" use of allied formations the way they do in larger games. My group is talking about limiting our play to a campaign system using CA detachments only, no allies or formations, no fortifications, no unique characters, no lords of war and one heavy slot per army. Without this level of restriction you can tell who will win any given game before deployment even begins.
is not really hard to spend 500$ or 600$ a month at the hobby store, tho maybe not every month
still I blew 5000$ last year fi I had to guess
the hobby is very addictive lol. like swastakowey says there are so many shiny stuffs to buy and not just from GW but many other companies too and many tools that i would like to own
i think it is just what you can afford and what makes you happy and what your family is cool with
Haruspex wrote: My group is talking about limiting our play to a campaign system using CA detachments only, no allies or formations, no fortifications, no unique characters, no lords of war and one heavy slot per army. Without this level of restriction you can tell who will win any given game before deployment even begins.
To be fair, you still will be able to tell who will win before deployment. Moreso, actually. This is because not all armies are created equally. They all leverage different slots their own way. Some armies hurt when Heavy Support is restricted, some hurt when Fast Attack is restricted, some rely on Formations to have any teeth at all, and so on. By restricting so much, you're basically kicking some armies in the balls. Comp systems, well thought out, can work, outright restrictions rarely do. With those restrictions, I hope no one plays Tyranids.
Eldarain wrote: I think you're being too honest Talys. Kirby is going to have you abducted for cloning.
Though it would save the company...
On a serious note: Just having Talys' mentality is not sufficient. The clone (and or other customers of similar thought) need to have the same (or greater) financial means.
Talys wrote: @Gwai - there is no question that I buy more stuff than I can paint. Partly, this is because I like to keep bits inventories. I have every space marine box broken down and sorted into cases with little trays of each part so that whatever I want to model is there. For example, when BA upgrades came out, I bought 12, so that I'd have 12 of each shoulder pad to build complete squads. I used up 11 each of 2 pads; so now that they are back in stock, I ordered 10 more. The remainder are all bits.
In part, this is practical. If you want to kitbash a particular pose, say, you want a hand that's holding onto a door, you can't check it without physically trying a bunch of hands. You can't choose a pair of legs from a catalogue; you need to bluetac it to the model to see how it looks. So, the ability to express creativity is constrained by the availability of parts (assuming that I want to minimize sculpting).
In part, it's because I dream of painting all of my models, and my wallet is more powerful than my brush But I am not unique in this.
This does make sense. One other way that my personal idiosyncrasies differ from yours though is that I have no interest in GW chapters, craftworlds, etc. So I wouldn't collect a Wolves army, Blood Angels, Alaitoc, Ulthwe etc. I prefer to use my own paint scheme so I just have one Eldar army that depending on my tastes of the day will field an Iyanden style army one day and Biel Tann the next. Same with Marines. So I would have less incentive to get the various modifier sprues and a swarm of new tactical marines since the ones I already have would do the job. Not that I wouldn't get any. I like the Dark Angels shoulder pads so the whole army would have those even though I wouldn't be using their colors.
I can see the appeal of having a collection of different marine chapters, but if I were to go that route, it would probably be much more limited than what you appear to do.
Finally, you get a lot better and faster at painting and modelling if you paint and model a lot. If you look at my gallery and hit blood angels, every model but one was painted after the codex release, and representative of some significant squad numbers (I didn't post up all 30 death company, for instance, nor each razorback and each drop pod, etc.). They might not be international competition quality, but they're reasonably decent, I think -- and I'm certain I could paint up $5000-$6000 a year to this standard, painting about 3-4 hours a night, a little more on weekends.
That's why I mentioned that even if I was having everything commissioned, something I wouldn't do because I enjoy the painting and modeling even though I'm not that good and excruciatingly slow, I still don't think I'd keep up the spending pace of $1,000 a month on GW stuff.
By the way, a thousand bucks a month doesn't even cover things like expensive hobby tools. You can easily spend a few hundred bucks on an airbrush (or another airbrush), for example. You can easily spend a few thousand dollars on renovations for extracting fumes. Or a commercial drill press, or any number of other fancy tools.
But GW doesn't see all the ancillary spending. Sure they may get money for paint, brushes and some tools, but they aren't selling you the commercial drill press or sending workers and materials for renovating. And even a super fan doesn't really have a reason to use GW exclusively for cutters, sanders, brushes and whatnot if other stuff is available that is better.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that 'my way is the right way', just trying to shed light on how you get to that volume of hobby spending.
I get this. I'm not trying to argue against your way of doing things and I'm sure that you aren't the only one that does things like you. It's just that even if you remove every financial and temporal obstacle and thereby have the makings of a superfan, it still would be, at least for those who are similar to me, unlikely that GW could rely regularly on $1,000 per month.
And even if i had unlimited resources available to get GW stuff, flawed rules really detract from my enthusiasm and create the risk that I'll lose interest. For others it is a deal breaker entirely even if they otherwise prefer the setting to any other option. This is where GW is unintelligent if they really are just trying to keep the high volume purchasing super fan happy. I doubt bad rules just drive off the $500 per year guy. They are sure to drive off potential $10,000 a year guys. For some the game is the most important part. They'll buy huge quantities of models so they can try every aspect of the game system if the system is a quality one. But if there are only limited options that function well in the rules, they either limit themselves to those options, or lose interest and stop.
GW treating rules as something where quality doesn't matter surely costs them customers throughout the range of potential expenditures and that is an unintelligent thing to do. You may be happy with your garage group, but others would find playing the same core group loses its novelty after a while. Playing someone you don't know whose playstyle and tactics are unexpected is fresh and interesting. But with a bad ruleset, attempting that becomes problematic.
Maybe GW can stay profitable long term just going after guys like you, but by not courting others who could be lured into spending just as much as you do, as well as swarms of people who would contribute their own, lesser funds, GW seems to be making unintelligent decisions. Unless decisions that attract one group, necessarily repulse another, it makes no sense to not work to attract both.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: But GW doesn't see all the ancillary spending. Sure they may get money for paint, brushes and some tools, but they aren't selling you the commercial drill press or sending workers and materials for renovating. And even a super fan doesn't really have a reason to use GW exclusively for cutters, sanders, brushes and whatnot if other stuff is available that is better.
Absolutely true. The most GW gets from me in hobby tools are paint and occasional brushes, which they share that with Vallejo, Winsor & Newton, Liquitex, and that kind of stuff. A lot of the modelling supplies, even when they're for GW models are not from GW, too -- like Woodland Scenics shakers, Tamiya stir sticks, generic 100-count knife blades, etc.
I should probably qualify it as an annual average, rather than an absolute, because I'm sure there's months where I don't spend that much, but other months when I spend much more. For example, I've probably only spent a few hundred dollars this month (I bought the sigmarites and the fantasy terrain, plus the 2 books), plus a GBP100 purchase at Forge World (the centurion and a sicaran) and I probably won't buy anything else, because I'm not really a Fantasy or Chaos person -- it has to do with GW's releases and what interests me, plus of course, any projects that require more models.
From month to month, it really depends what I want to paint/model and what new releases GW launches. If it is 28mm troops like tacticals, $150-$300 would keep me really busy. But if they're hundred dollar tanks and jets that are airbrush-heavy, I can blow through a thousand bucks like nobody's business. If GW releases nothing I want (most of the WHFB months in the past), I buy almost nothing; if GW releases something like Deathstorm or Stormclaw, I'll buy 5 boxes. What GW did really well (in terms of getting money out of me) in the last year was launch a lot of products that I wanted.
Regarding the ruleset -- the reason 40k works for me is that I play with a fixed group of friends at my home (previously, at a friend's home). It makes house ruling anything you don't like very easy, plus you're always playing with the same people who enjoy the game the same way that you do, so you don't get nasty TFG surprises or games that are excruciatingly slow. We are all pretty reasonable guys, and the focus is more "build a scenario and play it out" than "surprise me with your 1850 points". Quite often, the models on the play table are not symmetric in point values to compensate for model deficiencies. Sometimes, we want to play terminators to defend a wall, and recognize that they suck, so we field more. But other times, we want to put a good model in a tight jam. For example, *scouts* with light weaponry must hold a fortification for x turns.
A huge part of the desire to play not at a local club is transport: when I was a teenager, I carted off models to a gaming club every week, but back then, I could do it with an armload of models and 1 trip to the car. Now, I think it would take 3 hours to pack my models and terrain that I want to use, and the latter would fill up my trunk. Plus stuff would get damaged because how exactly do you pack a bunch of Raiders? Even a well-painted drop pod is not easy to transport, because I avoid closing the doors (it rubs paint off the hinges). I mean, forget it.
In our group, in the last 15 years or so that we've been gaming privately, whoever is the volunteer host also provides storage for a reasonable number of models, particularly stuff that is just hard to move back and forth. In this respect, 40k has become much less friendly as a "games night at the local store game", I think. But the big models that are hard to transport are also very popular among fans (ie they sell well).
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Price wasn't what put me off the games. Them becoming crappy games is what put me off.
Same here.
QFT. I have both an entirely metal IG army (Steel Legion @ +25,000 points) and Sisters of Battle (@ +10,000 points) and then my CSM (Khorne Based @ +5000 points) along with a couple thousand solely in Inquisition as well. I still have more things I'd like to purchase of each of my armies, but it is not the price of models that stops me. It is the now, IMO, crappy rules/games associated with those models. I was quite happy playing in 3rd, 4th and 5th edition despite each of those editions drawbacks. They were still at least mostly playable for PUG's and FLGS tournaments. Feth, GW even used to sponsor some of those events. I had fun playing in 'ard Boyz.
Since we were so pleased with 5th, most of my local play group and I were really looking forward to 6th. Needless to say we were a bit disappointed. But not at first, no, we still had hope. But as 6th edition continue, we became more and more disinterested in 40k because of how the game was playing, or rather not playing. Several of us even bought into the whole limited edition hard bound 6th BRB. At lease 5 of us, myself included. When we learned that 7th would be coming out not even 2 years into 6th's life cycle, that was the final straw for most. Not because of the money spent on said rule book (although that was the case for some) but because we felt very burned by GW as customers. Maybe had GW offered an even slight discount on a 7th BRB for those that had purchased the limited edition 6th BRB, that might have gained back some good will. But once 7th actually dropped and many of us saw how much worse it was than 6th was (which we didn't think was possible at the time) and how 7th was supposed to fix the mistake that was 6th and it wasn't.
Our 40k days used to take up most to of all the tables in our FLGS, and now they maybe take up two tables, with the rest now divided between WM/H and Bolt Action and FoW and Star Wars X-Wing. There are still people that come into paint 40k models, but regular play has tanked. I would love to revive 40k, but without the game/rules improving, I couldn't and wouldn't even begin to do so. I am actually looking forward to 8th and if there is change for the better then GW will start getting $1000's of my money again. If not, then I guess I will sell off what I have and continue to take my money elsewhere, mostly to MTG these days.
Incidentally, I agree that during the whole period from late 2012-2014 GW fell flat on rules-writing.
For us, it wasn't really that we disliked 6e or 7e or any particular rule, it's just that it felt like GW changed course too many times in too short a period of time (and never finishing a cycle).
On the other hand, what we like to call 7.5 has been quite good -- essentially everything post 2015, including and after Codex: Necron -- in terms of external balance, providing a reason to play fluffy combinations of models, and a genuine attempt towards internal balance. Codex: Harlequins is the only faction that felt weak, mostly attributable to a low number of models and the feeling that it belongs as an adjunct to Eldar or Dark Eldar. However, being a huge fan of Harlequins, I'm still happy with it, because of how much was added.
Our group loves formations, and the way it equalizes suboptimal models with bonuses, rather than making the factions and models feel "same-y". Eldar, AdMech, Space Marines, Dark Angels and Necron are all on very close footing for us (nobody plays Daemonkin in our group, so I can't speak for it), and Harlequins are a worthy add-on to Eldar.
Taking faction and balance issues aside, I don't think 7e is inferior to 5e in terms of core rules at all.
If GW would finish off all the factions with the "Necron treatment", I think a lot of people would be a lot happier with the rules.
-Loki- wrote: They used to do this at grand openings. One friend wanted to start a Khorne army so he showed up at the local GW's grand opening with 2 'buy 2 boxes, get one of equal or lesser value free' coupons and got 6 boxes of Berzerkers for the price of 4. Another friend grabbed 3 Eldar Battleforces for the price of 2. There was also the usual 20%, 30% off coupons and others.
The stores on these days were jam packed. It was basically a line out of the shop for a hundred meters or so, and all you could do was queue up and slowly trudge through and hand over your money. Went all day as people came later and jumped on the line. Games Workshop decided these sales devalued the product and stopped doing them.
That's how my mechanised Guard got started. Bought 6 Chimeras for the price of 4.
Talys wrote: I guess I look at GW products differently than you...
That much has been pretty clear since you showed up here. You view things through the lens of someone who seemingly has no money troubles whatsoever (£100 "impulse buys" and $5k "current projects"), so the problems that most of us suffer from when it comes to GW products in no way impact you (hence "Don't care. Got mine.").
That arrogance and, worse, indifference to how other people live is probably why so many people are coming up against you. Well, that and you keep moving the goalposts whenever someone shatters your arguments.
-Loki- wrote: They used to do this at grand openings. One friend wanted to start a Khorne army so he showed up at the local GW's grand opening with 2 'buy 2 boxes, get one of equal or lesser value free' coupons and got 6 boxes of Berzerkers for the price of 4. Another friend grabbed 3 Eldar Battleforces for the price of 2. There was also the usual 20%, 30% off coupons and others.
The stores on these days were jam packed. It was basically a line out of the shop for a hundred meters or so, and all you could do was queue up and slowly trudge through and hand over your money. Went all day as people came later and jumped on the line. Games Workshop decided these sales devalued the product and stopped doing them.
That's how my mechanised Guard got started. Bought 6 Chimeras for the price of 4.
Talys wrote: I guess I look at GW products differently than you...
That much has been pretty clear since you showed up here. You view things through the lens of someone who seemingly has no money troubles whatsoever (£100 "impulse buys" and $5k "current projects"), so the problems that most of us suffer from when it comes to GW products in no way impact you (hence "Don't care. Got mine.").
That arrogance and, worse, indifference to how other people live is probably why so many people are coming up against you. Well, that and you keep moving the goalposts whenever someone shatters your arguments.
Exactly, it's like he doesn't believe that there are those of us who do enjoy the hobby, yet we have to live paycheck to paycheck, I literally haven't personally bought anything NIB since April 2012, I've had to trade stuff in to the LGS to buy new kits (trade magic cards that I got for a steal for kits - paid $1 for a $25 rare, traded in for 12.50 credit, 1250% profit, stuff like that) I literally just now bought a box of Skullcrushers (that I plan to convert to 40K Bloodcrushers because I want my bloodcrushers to be Marines riding Juggys) and I only paid $32 for it because it was 50% off (The shop I went to was marking down stuff that had been sitting there for a while, 30% gaunts, 50% off Zombie dragon, 30% off 5th ed. SM Battleforce.) I wouldn't have purchased those crushers if they were full priced, and now i'm basically hunting for more discounted crushers because I don't want to pay $60 a box for 3 guys when I need like, 12...
Talys wrote: I guess I look at GW products differently than you...
That much has been pretty clear since you showed up here. You view things through the lens of someone who seemingly has no money troubles whatsoever (£100 "impulse buys" and $5k "current projects"), so the problems that most of us suffer from when it comes to GW products in no way impact you (hence "Don't care. Got mine.").
That arrogance and, worse, indifference to how other people live is probably why so many people are coming up against you. Well, that and you keep moving the goalposts whenever someone shatters your arguments.
HBMC,
I wonder if you are this hostile to all people who have experienced more success in life than you. Your attacks are consistently highly personal, in a way that almost no other posts are. Moreover, your posts addressed to me are nearly universally devoid of meaningful thought or discussion.
Most everything that I have is self-earned, and I have had periods in my life when I had no money for any luxury goods, certainly not GW products and had to take out loans to pay for the necessities of life. Never did I feel animosity to GW, nor resented that I couldn't afford their next release (it's a game, not medical care or police assistance!). I've worked hard, and even in retirement, I probably work more hours than the average person. Yes, I have considerable disposable income, which I enjoy spending on hobby, and I am unapologetic about that.
As for your assertion that I am unable to comprehend other, younger or less fortunate people's perspectives, you could not be more wrong. It's just patently untrue. Should all people who can afford nice things hide in shame as they secretly enjoy things? Should I let that temper my enthusiasm for the next box of cool models? Why should I? I never felt entitled to such when I wore the other shoe. I feel neither resentful nor jealous of people who can afford things that I cannot that I would like. I think to do so is a pointless gesture, because no matter what your situation, there are always people more fortunate and people less so.
I certainly am not arrogant. I do not walk around going, "haha, I can buy this and you can't, sucks to be you", which is what you imply. But you are welcome to your perception of my posts, of course. Did you notice that I started a long, well-thought out and well-received thread on how to maximize a FLGS discount? I have received emails on how that actually worked for some people.
You post with such temporal hostility ('since you showed up here') that I feel that like you are afraid that I'll ruin your paradise of GW-bashing heaven. I find that pretty laughable. I do understand a lot of people don't like GW, and that this site is home to many. The day that a site owner or moderator tells me that a person who loves GW products and is passionate about painting, modelling, and gaming with them is not welcome to post that point or view here, I will never return, and you may have your anti-GW paradise back.
Until then, I will provide meaningful, thoughtful posts about something I really like, a perspective that is different than yours. It's also a point of view shared by some other people, perhaps a minority. Neither perspective is wrong; I respect, and even understand, yours. I hope that you would try to do the same. I am also happy to engage in Socratic debate and intelligent discourse. Snarky back and forth, not so much.
At a minimum, I hope that you can keep the personal attacks to a minimum: attack my positions, rather than my person. If you do the latter, the only one you diminish is yourself. I would also point out that your open hostility is a violation of Rule #1 (be polite). I will concede that in the past, I've responded to you in kind, and will not do so in future, regardless of what you post. Though, you may have noticed (or perhaps not) that I engaged you in a constructive, friendly way in another thread.
Good gaming to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote: Exactly, it's like he doesn't believe that there are those of us who do enjoy the hobby, yet we have to live paycheck to paycheck, I literally haven't personally bought anything NIB since April 2012, I've had to trade stuff in to the LGS to buy new kits (trade magic cards that I got for a steal for kits - paid $1 for a $25 rare, traded in for 12.50 credit, 1250% profit, stuff like that) I literally just now bought a box of Skullcrushers (that I plan to convert to 40K Bloodcrushers because I want my bloodcrushers to be Marines riding Juggys) and I only paid $32 for it because it was 50% off (The shop I went to was marking down stuff that had been sitting there for a while, 30% gaunts, 50% off Zombie dragon, 30% off 5th ed. SM Battleforce.) I wouldn't have purchased those crushers if they were full priced, and now i'm basically hunting for more discounted crushers because I don't want to pay $60 a box for 3 guys when I need like, 12...
PLHS, if I've written something that you find insensitive to your situation, or if I come off as snobbish, please PM me and tell me what it is, and I promise to give it thoughtful introspection. On the other hand, if you just don't like me and what I post because I generally like and support GW and express that, there's not much I can do.
Please keep in mind the context of these threads. For example, In DD, these basically come down to, "Why is GW still in business when their s*** is so expensive and their rules suck so bad?". I'm providing a *possible* explanation with context of my personal situation (and I add almost every time that I could be wrong). Would you prefer I simply didn't share that? If this forum is limited entirely to people who refuse to buy GW because it's too expensive or hate its ruleset, then there will never be an answer as to why they sell a lot of stuff, because obviously, everyone in the world doesn't share that view.
As I said, if the owners and operators of this site don't want GW fans here anymore, that's okay, too, and I can leave. I picked Dakka as my retirement forum home because there are lots of cool P&M posts and people's galleries (which contain a lot of GW product) are fun to look at. I like them all, including the work by first time painters and non-super-duper pro paintjobs. I like a front page that features stuff that isn't just competition-worthy.
With regards to HBMC's comment about me saying that a GBP100 could be an "impulse purchase", again, consider context: it was in a FORGE WORLD thread, for heaven's sake. The average vehicle kit there is *hundreds* of pounds. Buy almost anything and you hit GBP100. And it was in the context of free shipping going from GBP250 to GBP100, which is a huge drop.
With regards to my current project costing $5,000. It's a planned, *18-24 month project* that I've talked about here on Dakka in a zillion posts (and shared tons of photos of in my Gallery and in the P&M showcase -- 100+ in less than a year) that involves rebuilding a Blood Angels army -- that is, replacing every single model -- that hasn't been touched in nearly 15 years. It's something I've wanted to do for more than a decade, and never had the time for until recently. Notwithstanding that my hobby spending is a lot more than that, I'm certainly not going to feel embarrassed that I'm going to be painting up 200+ blood angels models to the best playable-model standard that I'm capable of, given time and model count constraints. Quite to the opposite: I'm proud of it. Frankly, the $5,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to what I value the time I'll have spent to paint them up (I'm going to guess 2,000 hours -- but it will probably end up being quite a bit more). Heck, if I worked minimum wage, for all those hours, I'd make multiples of that.
If you look at threads that don't basically boil down to "please explain why GW isn't bankrupt" -- for example in P&M or 40k, I speak *nothing* of subjects like these. Frankly, at the end of the day, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I don't really care about whether other people love or hate GW. I have my circle of 40k friends, I am not looking for more people to play with, and I'm happy for people who play other games that suit them better. I am very happy that the industry has games that fit all scales and genres. Mostly, I just happen to post something on one of these threads, and I can't let go, and keep on coming back to post more.
Talys, your continued notion that $5000 isn't a lot to spend on plastic figures is appalling at best, and mortifying at worst. And then having the gall to insinuate that you're the "average, normal GW customer" No, you're not the average customer, you're in that higher tier of people who can afford to drop $5K on a single purchase, and not blink an eye... $5000 is roughly *half* of my yearly salary (yeah, being poor sucks ass, it's nice I have a hobby I can retreat to when real life sucks - oh wait, my hobby has nearly doubled in price since I started...)
Yeah, when I started playing/modelling, Land Raiders were $50 a box, which is *completely fair* for that model. now they're $75+... Marines were $25 for a box of ten, now it's $45... And the quality hasn't really gone up, the marines back when I started playing look quite similar to the ones put out earlier this year. a few new bits, but still quite the same level of detail. $20 assault squads became $45... no real sense of justification other than "SHINY NEW BOX! NEW POSES!"
Yeah, and people wonder why I have a problem with the way GW treats its' customers... GW keeps getting greedy and raising their prices, Anyone remember when the Stormraven came out? $60, guess what it is now? $80+, and that model only came out 5 years ago... so it's price increased *faster* than that of the Land Raider.
GW needs to rewind their prices about 6 years to get them back to a fair price point.
This thread is pretty funny. Been reading it on my phone today, but too hard to post on mobile.
Plaguelord hobby services, do you provide, like, hobby services? As in commission stuff? If so, you should be happy that there are people who buy GW models, because they pay a lot for commissions. It costs me more than $1,000 to get a small WMH army painted.. no, not junk quality.. so I can only imagine what a 40k commission would cost. Ok feel free to flame me, last year, I probably paid $5,000 just to my commission guy. Around 40-50 models? Though there were a few jacks and 1 colossal. Plus most commission painters just charge more for painting 40k models. Another reason not to play 40k!
By the way if you make $10,000 a year, that's less than minimum wage. You shouldn't blame other people for that. Like... get a job... don't get a job... whatever, bro, but giving someone gak because they spend half your salary just make you look like you're flaming red with jealousy if you make less than the guy who lives in mom's basement and works at McDonalds.
But anyways sorry to hear. Hope you make more, coz put hobby aside, you still need to eat and live somewhere. Assuming your flag is right, not much places you can live in the US with that kind of wage.
Talys, you sound like a smart guy. But why the hell do you play 40k? Put the cost aside, it's a terrible game. But I think you win the award for most words posted. You write enough to fill a novel, man.
Come to WMH, you will like it better, I guarantee it. You can still paint your space marines for your hobby and have the best of both worlds, amirite?
MWHistorian... WORD. You nailed it.
Keezus, you are funny as gak.
H.B.M.C., dunno what to say dude, you just come off as a whiner. I'd say more but you don't, haha.
Marlov wrote: This thread is pretty funny. Been reading it on my phone today, but too hard to post on mobile.
Plaguelord hobby services, do you provide, like, hobby services? As in commission stuff? If so, you should be happy that there are people who buy GW models, because they pay a lot for commissions. It costs me more than $1,000 to get a small WMH army painted.. no, not junk quality.. so I can only imagine what a 40k commission would cost. Ok feel free to flame me, last year, I probably paid $5,000 just to my commission guy. Around 40-50 models? Though there were a few jacks and 1 colossal. Plus most commission painters just charge more for painting 40k models. Another reason not to play 40k!
By the way if you make $10,000 a year, that's less than minimum wage. You shouldn't blame other people for that. Like... get a job... don't get a job... whatever, bro, but giving someone gak because they spend half your salary just make you look like you're flaming red with jealousy if you make less than the guy who lives in mom's basement and works at McDonalds.
But anyways sorry to hear. Hope you make more, coz put hobby aside, you still need to eat and live somewhere. Assuming your flag is right, not much places you can live in the US with that kind of wage.
I said "roughly" half, as in not directly half my annual salary, but pretty dang close to it. I'd have to starve myself for at least 5 months to net $5000 of takehome pay....
And I do more than just paint miniatures, I try not to charge people absurd amounts of money, If this were 2009, yes, i'd charge a bit more for my services, because the models were less expensive back then, now, they've nearly doubled in price for most, and had 30% increases across the board. Like, I literally saw a 5th edition SM battleforce today, and realized, it had nearly *double* the amount of models that the current SM battleforce has, for about the same base cost...
As for the other services I provide, one of them is altering Magic The Gathering cards for a profit. If i'm lucky, I can take a random card, charge cost of card +$15 for a regular border extension. However, I've been swamped with a 40K commission, so I haven't been able to do any Magic stuff.
@Plaguelord - Look, man, I'm not trying to make you feel bad. I have never said, by the way, that $5,000 isn't a lot of money -- people commit heinous crimes for far less every day. It's many mortgage payments for lots of people. Food on the table for families. Fresh water or a school for a village in Africa for a long time.
But surely, you must realize that there are many people who paint up collections of GW models. Especially since you do this as a job.
So, I have no idea how you'd like me (or people like me) to be more sensitive to you. NOT share my hobby projects? >.< That sounds absurd on a site about hobby.
I'm not trying to flaunt my hobby purchases; I'm simply putting perspective on a thread about GW's ideal customer (not an average customer, as you say). And keep in mind, there are people who spend WAY more than I do on GW stuff. Right here on Dakka!
Also, I'm not trying to be offensive here, but if you make, whatever, about $12,000 a year (and I'm not saying that in a derogatory way!), it would seem to me that whether a land raider is $50 or $75... either would be a very large percentage of monthly disposable income.
Incidentally, Overpriced, unaffordable, and undesirable are three very different things. I think often, on this forum, some or all of these are conflated.
@Marlov - Sorry, man. I have tried WMH. Not my thing, though I own Cyrix, Menoth, and Retribution armies
You don't have to stop posting hobby stuff, not once did I ever say such a thing, all we're looking for is a little empathy, which, as it would seem from your "too bad, got mine" posts, is impossible to get from you. You continually denounce that prices for this game have gotten to the point of unaffordable entry for many newer gamers, who are all primarily school kids, college students, etc (at least in my area, this is the target demographic to pander to for long time sales, the 60 year old man probably isn't going to be around much longer, and barring medical problems, likely won't have much funds to spend on the hobby, but they don't spend nearly as much as the competitive crowd or the new blood)
New blood is what this hobby needs if it's going to survive, but when your company keeps pricing out the new blood into other games, and you keep putting the blame on your customers "You didn't buy enough, WE"RE RAISING PRICES!" you can't expect to stay afloat for much longer. This is the telltale sign of an incompetent company. IE unintelligent.
GW have been lucky to have remained afloat all these years, it doesn't take intelligence to be lucky, but it does take unintelligence to not take advantage of every possible avenue to make profit. Especially some really easy ones like lowering prices, offering sick deals (buy two get one free is a sweet deal) half off flash sale (1 hour only) is a great way to generate business. GW is also hindering itself by not conducting market research, "Market research is otiose", well, no, it's not, it's very much necessary for intelligent companies to remain profitable by building a relationship with their customers and making the customers feel wanted. Right now, I don't feel wanted as a customer by GW. They really don't care that their prices are absurd for the amount of material involved. They really don't care that the quality has stagnated and in some cases, lowered (i'm looking at the chaos range, it's lower quality now than it was in 3rd/4th edition, sure the Bloodletters are nice, but everything else sucks...) If they conducted a little research, it might help to dispel this unintelligent stigma that has surrounded them.
It's not unintelligent to segment the market and aim for particular segments. In fact most companies do that because no firm can address the entire possible market.
We as individuals might not be in GW's target market segments.
The question is whether GW have intelligently targetted the correct segments. The proof of that is their healthy sales.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's not unintelligent to segment the market and aim for particular segments. In fact most companies do that because no firm can address the entire possible market.
I always thought GW did that with FW and the snap-fit starter sets. Now the snap-fits are expensive, where they exist, and for a lot of GW' customers, FW is the cheaper option (including some kits in the UK, but pretty much everything East of Europe).
PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote: You don't have to stop posting hobby stuff, not once did I ever say such a thing, all we're looking for is a little empathy, which, as it would seem from your "too bad, got mine" posts, is impossible to get from you. You continually denounce that prices for this game have gotten to the point of unaffordable entry for many newer gamers, who are all primarily school kids, college students, etc (at least in my area, this is the target demographic to pander to for long time sales, the 60 year old man probably isn't going to be around much longer, and barring medical problems, likely won't have much funds to spend on the hobby, but they don't spend nearly as much as the competitive crowd or the new blood)
I don't say this "too bad, got mine" thing that you speak of, though. I think HBMC started it when I was lamenting the great disparity between Australian prices and Canadian prices, I commented that I wasn't going to stop buying GW product because they seemingly overcharge Australians. Which is a TOTALLY unfair way to twist my comment, into "don't care, got mine" because I never said I didn't care (just that I wasn't going to stop buying GW product), and, evidently, a lot of Australians are buying GW products notwithstanding higher prices (so much so, that Australian sales actually grew when Europe fell, last year).
What HBMC wants is for me to be outraged at GW because Australians are being overcharged. And preferably not buy from them. But that's not going to happen, even though I *care* about Australians, and they have my sympathy, I don't apply that standard to every other product that Austrians are seemingly overcharged for -- from Xboxes to iPhones.
Look, I get that the hobby is expensive for a lot of people. I thought it was expensive when I was a kid and in high school. I barely bought GW models at all between college and several years after. And, I've posted (I think in THIS thread) problems about income gaps and a diminishing middle class and upper middle class, which I have always perceived as GW's sweet spot (including the children thereof). I get that a lot of people *wish* they could be involved in the hobby, but can't. I get that the slice of pie that GW can get out of potential customers is diminishing based on its pricing.
But that doesn't factually change that GW's price per model doesn't differ a lot from PP or Wyrd or Infinity's, or that Age of Sigmar isn't a lot more expensive to play than other games. It doesn't change that GW appears to favor its ideal customer, and that this *might* be a profit optimization formula -- or, it might be that they're serving people who are like minded with them, or it might be neither.
Is it unintelligent for GW to make its products unaffordable for a big chunk of people who look at their stuff and say, "gee, I'd love that"? The obvious answer is "yes", but that's not necessarily the correct answer. It might be heartless and cold, but the correct answer is that it's intelligent if it maximizes GW's profit, and it's unintelligent (or at least, less intelligent) if it does not.
@Talys.
We understand that some people have more disposable income than average.And some people like to collect and paint minatures, more than play games with them.
However, there are some people who have high amounts of disposable income , who buy cars just to own them .
And JUST look at, and sit in them in their massive garage of collected cars.
They NEVER drive them themselves, some do not even have a driving licence!
Now if you are a SUPER HIGH END LUXURY CAR MANUFACTURER .
That sell cars in the £200,000 to £2,000,000 price band.
You KNOW SOME prospective buyers will never drive your cars.
So would you think these companies intelligent if they did not bother developing the engine and drive train to make the driving experience as awesome as the look and feel of the luxury car when you sit in it?
I think the last time they did a break down of income , it showed the massive decreases in customers as retail prices rose across wage bands..
EG
30 of workers are on minimum wage.
30% of workers are between minimum wage and average wage.
25% of workers are between average wage and 1,5 times average wage.
10 % of worker are between 1,5 times average wage and 2 times average wage.
5% of workers are over double average wage.
So pricing for wage bands between minimum and average wages gets you 70% of available customers.(Where I am)
Pricing for just over average wage get you 40% of available customers.
Pricing for 1.5 to 2 times average wage gets you 15% of available customers.
Pricing for over double average wage gets you 5% of available customers.(Where you are I presume.)
So as GW plc raises its prices it is actually loosing customers at an accelerated rate due to 'wage band threshold crossing' .
I would put GW plc pricing as crossing the 1,5 times average wage threshold very soon.
So this means they have to nearly triple prices just to stay at constant revenue!
And when they get to over double average wage band pricing they will have to triple them again!
Just out of curiosity.What price would be too expensive for you Talys?
£100 per minature?
£500 per ,minature?
£1000 per minature?
If GW plc were right and there were enough collectors like you ,and they did not need 'average gamers' .
Then they would NOT have to keep raising prices and cutting costs and still loose revenue and profits.
If GW plc just kept pace with inflation from 1999, before the LoTR boom hit.
They should have a turn over of about £130 M.
Taking price rises into account and the increased game size , it should be closer to £170M
So IF GW plc had an annual turn over of £150M + and stable prices , I would admit they got it right and gamers were not a large proportion of their demographic.
But with falling sales volumes and profits , an ineffective retail chain, no market research , no effective marketing , and masses of ill will and negative views of GW plc corporate management.
I feel confident GW plc have got it very wrong.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's not unintelligent to segment the market and aim for particular segments. In fact most companies do that because no firm can address the entire possible market.
We as individuals might not be in GW's target market segments.
The question is whether GW have intelligently targetted the correct segments. The proof of that is their healthy sales.
I don't think falling profits year after year is particularly healthy. Especially when other companies are very much growing. Infinity grew something like 80% in the last year, and 75% a for a couple of years on the trot before that.
Please keep in mind that I have said over and over again that if GW were my company, I would do things differently, because I personally believe that in the long term, the greatest profit is achieved by having :
1) a maximally inclusive customer base, 2) a growing customer base, and 3) as much goodwill as is reasonable
My position of "GW seems to be doing things that benefit ideal customers at the expense of alienating nearly all other customers" is an observation, not a preference. My position that this may maximize profits is a hypothesis, not a fact.
As a generality, in terms of pricing for models, I think that GWmodels, on a price per model basis, should be in the same pricing strata as PP, Wyrd, and CB Infinity models. I don't think they need to be cheaper, just because 40k is a game that has more models. I think most reasonable people can understand that a game that requires more models will cost more than a game that requires fewer models, and not be angry at GW for that.
Specific to myself, the question of "what price would be too expensive for a model" depends on so many things. How much do I love the model? How important is that model to my army/collection? What kind of model is it?
Personally, pricing is NOT inelastic for me. I probably won't buy the $28 Deathbringer (big axe guy next week) next week because I'm not a generally Chaos fan. But if he were half that price, $14, I wouldn't think twice. On the other hand, I bought every Sigmarite release, just because I really like them. So my point is price matters more for some minis than others.
Is there an absolute maximum? I just bought the FW Centurion at GBP 20 (I loved the model, and it's LE) so obviously it must be higher than that. Would I have bought him at GBP 100? No. I probably wouldn't even have *considered* him at GBP 50. But I have thought about some of the primarchs. A part of the equation is how much time will I spend on the model? If I'm going to spend 10 hours on the model, that's one thing. If I'm going to spend 100, 200, 300 hours on the model, that's quite another. I will spend more for a perfect model for me to turn into a really special masterpiece, and at that point, the price of the model is simply an investment in my time.
GW makes big models too, and if I wanted a Baneblade or an Imperial Knight, or Wraithknight, those prices seem fair to me. By that, I mean that relative to the number of parts, complexity, run size and number you'd have in an army, they seem like a reasonable price.
What about FW stuff, like a Sicaran, Reaver, or Thunderhawk? Yes, these are expensive models! But they are low run, boutique items. So I think the price is fair, too. After all, how many will they sell, ever? I don't own a Thunderhawk, but one day I might -- I think it's an awesome model. I'd certainly *think* about the price, but it would be more like the purchase of a digital camera or a good tablet, rather than like a model.
The whole thing about GW having annual turnover of GBP150m -- I think largely, it's irrelevant to whether people like or hate it. In 3 years, if GW somehow turns things around and has GBP 200m in sales, the people who hate it will still hate it. Because it will do so while still having products that are pricey, and rules that don't cater to the competitive crowd.
At the end of the day, no matter how much money it makes, you can't love a company if you're not it's target customer AND you think they're stuff is overpriced AND you think their game sucks, right? If anything, the more money they make, the more people will likely resent their success, because they're successful *in spite of* targeting a different segment., which I personally think is, in large part, why the, "why won't they die already?" sentiment that some people have.
Edit -- By the way, I personally think that while GW's direction is not an optimal one, a resentful attitude is also not healthy. To take your rich-person-car example, I think it would be really cool to have a garage showroom with all sorts of exotic cars. I can't afford this, but guess what... I am not the least bit jealous of the people who can, nor do I despise Maserati. Now, I get that GW has *moved out of affordability* for a lot of people, which is a different thing all together. But taking a sports example, I probably couldn't justify to myself spending the bucks to go to hockey games anymore (playoff tickets are a thousand bucks or more...), when they were very affordable in my youth. But I don't hate the NHL. Nor could I justify Superbowl tickets, but I don't resent those who snap them up for $20,000, when once they were a tiny fraction of that.
@Talys.
I was trying to show no matter what the hobby, there are people who buy a lot just because they like to own it.
And there are those that need more functionality , to get the value for money they want.
You seem like a genuinely nice person ,and I am happy you enjoy your hobby.
A intelligent company makes INFORMED decisions, based on market research and adopting best practices.To identify its core market and how to expand on it.
GW plc seems to follow the course of least effort for the corporate management, who do not have the skill set to grow GW plc as a business.
They make decisions, based on what they want to believe is true, to follow self serving motives.
Here is GW plc chairman preamble from eight years ago.
Note how he said that GW corporate management had become fat and lazy on the back of easy success.
(They just made stuff and expected people to buy it.And when people stopped buying so much they just put up retail prices , and cut costs to compensate.)
And in the 8 years since the 'restructuring to focus on sales.'What have they done differently ?
Nothing , this is why people are frustrated with GW plc.And may be that why some have a bit of misplaced hostility?
Just because GW plc is run badly , only a smaller group of customers still buy GW product.Its NOT the fault of the customers still buying .
Blaming other people for the poor business decisions of GW plc is what GW plc do.We really should not join in!
A quality rule set that allows enough balance for random pick up game appeals to everyone.Adds value for the majority of average games, and does not prevent GW plc from releasing narrative campaign books to cover those wanting more wild and wonderful game set ups, when they have time to agree to this type of play.
To address the OP: "Why do you think GW Is somehow unintelligent?"
Because they waste millions of pounds revamping their website every couple of years and still somehow end up with something worse than the previous iteration.
Just logged on to GW.com to see if they still sell the Steel Legion infantry set (IIRC they brought it and other classic sets like Valhallans and Mordians back into production a couple years ago), and now the site is completely unrecognizable. It looks more like an Ipad app. They seem to have done away with all the old tabs (or more accurately, check box filters) and replaced them with just Price and A-Z filters. If you want to browse through the range of Imperial Guard, you have to browse through the ENTIRE range, You can't filter it by HQ, Elite, Troops etc.
You poor, naive children. You actually believe that executives are interested in the overall well-being of the company that employs them. People who run businesses are trying to make money. That means personal money, not company profits. The company doesn't even have to earn a profit. Just skim off of the sales and pay yourself a big bonus every now and then. The shareholders will keep you because you're such a highly paid executive, because this is really how people in the corporate world think. If you don't skim off the top you're not a top-earning executive, so you'll probably get fired.
Meanwhile you need to keep marketing, not for the sake of customers but to impress the shareholders. The shareholders couldn't possibly understand the game, so all they want to see is cool toys and cool commercials for toys. They want new books coming out regardless of content and regardless of their impact on the gaming community. These guys at the top, their job is not to make a good game. Their job is to make stuff that looks like it will sell.
That's the answer to the thread's question in a nutshell. People think GW is dumb because they think smart people want to build successful companies. This isn't how business works in the real world. If you're smart, you'll often make more money by deliberately sinking your company. If you're smart you try to fill your pockets. Growing and sustaining the company means hard work and personal sacrifice, which are for dumb people. Smart people know how to be good parasites.
Kilkrazy wrote: The question is whether GW have intelligently targetted the correct segments. The proof of that is their healthy sales.
I believe that GWhas targeted the correct segment. Guys like Talys are spending huge sums of money, where as the rest of us complainers are spending next to zero. I'm not sure whether the question is a matter of targeting - rather one of sustainability. Games have a critical mass. When they reach this critical mass - pickup games are easy to find, and word of mouth / player presence acts as a form of advertising. For the longest time, GW had a player base far above this critical mass. Now with their shift away from "gaming" to "collectables", the visible player base is down significantly of what it was during the 3rd Edition - 4th Edition days. In fact, in my neck of the woods, GW is well below critical mass in that you can not find players for pickup games at every store. Part of this is that customers have been priced out. Part is that customers wanting better rules have many alternatives. Part is that the demise of the retail stores / rogue trader network has shifted the die hard superfan base towards a more adeptus-basementus private-battle-bunker type setup... which is great for them... but not so great for growing the hobby.
We had a new guy come into our store looking for cool gak he and his wife could paint. She's primarily a painter, but the husband wanted value added in his purchases... i.e. usability game wise. If it was a matter of painting only... Age of Sigmar starter would have been awesome for them... (Seems shocking, but I did recommend it!!!). It turns out he'd played some demos, and read some reviews - the wonky rules are the issue that pushed him away from the GW system entirely. The price is a problem, but the bad word of mouth on the rules is increasingly a barrier to entry. The most visible veterans for GW (those that play other systems) are no longer the singular ambassadors for GW that they once were.
Sure... GW's targeting of the superfan is great for short term profits... but every customer they alienate as a result is going to shrink the customer pool, and increase word of mouth against the hobby - especially since the superfans have retreated away from the public scene (due to size of collections and lack of support).
I think one of the biggest bone head moves from GW over the years was to end the outriders. These where the guys and girls that helped build your local communities. All other companies have these volunteers that help grow your communities which in turn makes the company more money. A health community is good for the buisness.
I think one of the biggest bone head moves from GW over the years was to end the outriders. These where the guys and girls that helped build your local communities. All other companies have these volunteers that help grow your communities which in turn makes the company more money. A health community is good for the buisness.
I'd argue that this makes more sense and is more "intelligent" than running their own, costly retail stores.
I think one of the biggest bone head moves from GW over the years was to end the outriders. These where the guys and girls that helped build your local communities. All other companies have these volunteers that help grow your communities which in turn makes the company more money. A health community is good for the business.
I'd argue that this makes more sense and is more "intelligent" than running their own, costly retail stores.
Unfortunately, you are both right....
Getting rid of Outriders was a boneheaded move.
Maintaining their brick and mortar stores is even more so - at least in their current incarnation. (I think that GW stores could do very well by diversifying - seeking to become the FLGS instead of shoving them aside and trying to make an area GW only.)
Keezus, Chute82, and agnosto, all of your last posts have been exalted. It would seem the trademark of unintelligence of GW to abandon the LGS in favor of their limited and dismal retail outlets...
Almost like they forgot how they got started up in the first place... GW came first, making games systems, then, *after* a while, they absorbed Citadel Models into their range. Now, they've abandoned the game, and focused on the models... a really poor thing to do. Without the game, there isn't any added value to the models, which are *game pieces* meant to be played with (nothing is stopping you from displaying them, well, maybe space is, but still, they are game pieces)
You, on the other hand, never participate in any thread that I've seen, other than to tell other people that you think bad things about them.
That's worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yep, just had a quick scan and I reckon fully half your posts are just attacking other posters, and not providing any sort of counter point.
Marlov wrote: This thread is pretty funny. Been reading it on my phone today, but too hard to post on mobile.
Oh look, another fresh-faced new user who just happened to show up in a thread with Talys. Happens a lot these days...
If you're implying that I support Talys, you couldn't be more wrong, because I disagree with almost everything he says. Still, he writes interesting stuff that's worth reading, even though I think he's wrong. So does Azrael13, by the way, who posts some thoughtful things from the opposing point of view. Not that I agree with him completely either, but his viewpoint is pretty similar to mine.
You on the other hand post nothing of value. Most of the time not even an your opinion FFS. By the way you showing up on Talys threads too.
Intelligence isn't an all or nothing attribute. Most people are not brilliant or stupid and most companies aren't either. GW like any other company falls somewhere in between. Also, smart people and smart companies do dumb things, too. But must be at least a little bit intelligent because they make money and stay in business. They must be at least a little unintelligent because they are pissing off a large number of people who could buy their stuff and spend money with them by having gak rules.
MWHistorian wrote: Let's get back to discussing arguments and not people.
Please >.<
Back to the topic: if I had to nail it to two things that GW falls short on that cause unhappy customers to characterize them as "unintelligent", that would be:
1. High price for models (or the perception thereof) 2. Poor rules for competitive play
Who would be satisfied if GW fixed *one* of those? In other words, if GW's model prices were around the same price as PP/Wyrd/CB Infinity per model, and it had good competitive rules; OR GW had cheaper prices than PP/Wyrd/CB, but had poor competitive rules?
I think #2 might be fixable; while I think GW might slightly lower the price of models or create attractive bundles, 40k won't ever be cheap enough to be "cheap" to the people for whom price is the main issue -- if there is a fix for #1, it will be through a reduction in the number of models and free rules, a la AoS (or some future 30k GW game), rather than in 40k.
With regards to #1, what do you think the ideal price is, for the models alone, for a miniature-based game that where "average" players will have 30, 50 , 100, and 200 model collections?
Either is a good fix, because it fixes the value of the product. I'm more willing to accept a low quality game if the price matches that quality, and vice versa.
Likewise, I don't necessarily need GW to lower prices, but having box sets with more value or including more options in each box (4x of each heavy weapon in a dev box for example, not things like an extra helmet or slightly different squatting pose legs). As a Guard player, a box set of 3 tanks along the line of 'buy two, get one half off' would be welcome. Same thing for a platoon box (say a command squad plus 3 infantry squads [again with all weapon options included] where the command squad is more or less free).
*Edit* Oh, and if GW were a more pleasant company in that they interacted with the community and did things all other miniature companies do, I'd be more inclined to pay a little more to support a company that supports me. I'm willing to pay a premium for my Guard army at a small boutique company because I can interact with the people behind the models and that they actively seek feedback and release news, updates, and previews of upcoming projects.
*Second Edit* Oh, and yeah, what Burning said below. The rules aren't good for anything really. They could stand some work to benefit even the most casual player (dare I say, especially for the casual players).
It seems we've reached the point where people are more interested in insulting those with different viewpoints instead of addressing the actual discussion... so I think we're done here.
I just don't post here or even lurk much anymore, because its the same old, same old 
.
.
