Frankly I think you've made an assertion that's both incredibly difficult to prove and highly suspect.
LOTR is a different scale, with different packaging, the minis will be painted in a different palette (broadly) and pursue a different aesthetic.
I also think you're doing a disservice to the younger kids, I've been impressed far more often than I've been disappointed when speaking to them on the odd occasion I drop into the local GW by their insight, understanding and enthusiasm to learn as much as they can. Probably (although I admit this is an assumption on my part) that it attracts the brighter, more intellectual kids, the sort who would likely get confused are already down the park doing their damnedest to kill the few spare brain cells they've got, one way or another.
Plus, you're not making account for how easy it is to correct any potential misunderstanding. "Why are those boxes blue?" "Where'd that giant elephant come from, which army can take those?" and any number of other questions that will happen naturally and lead to a discussion about how LOTR is a different rule set.
I really think it's as obvious as Fantasy was moved towards 40K in AoS because 40K sold much better, and lacking any sort of insight, GW just decided to make it more similar. Possibly for reasons no more sophisticated than they may get more crossover sales.
Bottle wrote: I think to a young mind who has never wargamed, the biggest difference out of those 4 will be 1 is armed with guns and 3 have swords/axes. Move away from orcs to elves and dwarves and they become even more similar.
I don't think any of those games are terribly similar. If someone is confused then they'd have to be daft or it would be a very bad salesman to let a customer get confused. People knew what LotR was back when the game came out coz, ya know, those 3 little movies that made out of it Individually speaking aesthetically WHFB models and 40k models are closer to each other IMO, as a whole GW always set up demo tables with the different games on them and WHFB was ranked models while LotR and 40k were individual models.
I'd really be surprised if many people interested enough in wargaming to give it a shot was confused sufficiently to be meaningful.
But either way, I stand by what I said earlier, which is that I think AoS is going to appeal more to existing 40k players and thus GW is competing with itself and reducing diversity and the benefit of having 2 core games.
But whatever, I don't see the point in continuing to discuss this.
Fine. My original point has has got twisted through the back and forthes. Someone said they thought AoS cannibalised 40k sales, and my opinion is that LOTR and WHFB were much more likely to cannibalise each other's sales than AoS does to 40K.
Well I don't really agree that LotR and WHFB did hugely cannibalise each other, though even if they did I'm not sure the relevance to the discussion of whether AoS cannibalises 40k sales. Diversity is good. Appealing to a wider range of audiences is good. There's always going to be some overlap between varying game systems, WHFB, AoS, 40k, LotR.... the point of having different game systems is to BOTH get money out of customers who want to buy a WHFB army and a 40k army and a LotR army AND also to appeal to a wider range of players who might only like LotR, or only like WHFB, or only like 40k. By removing WHFB and bringing AoS in to a place where it's going to appeal to 40k players more than anyone else is reducing the overall diversity of your customer base, you're narrowing your niche and becoming reliant on less people spending more money, which IMO has been a problem for GW for many years now.
Is anyone listening to what Bottle is saying? Instead of trying to prove him wrong, listen to what he is saying. SHEESH.
Good example when my parents were alive. They don't know science fiction much. They couldn't tell you the difference between a colonial viper on the Enterprise with the capitan holding a light sabre. To them it's a science fiction movie, to use, it's all wrong. That is what Bottle is trying to say, if nobody knows what wargaming is and goes into GW Fantasy and Lord of the Rings look the same.
Bottle wrote: With LOTR coming back, I see it more as widening the niche between their 2 fantasy ranges. I think AoS and LOTR will appeal to two different demographics largely - whereas I think WHFB and LOTR had a lot of crossover to who it appealed to and these players might have only bought an army for one system.
So you think there was more crossover between LotR and WHFB than there is between AoS and LotR? I disagree.
Davor wrote: if nobody knows what wargaming is and goes into GW Fantasy and Lord of the Rings look the same.
Is anyone listening to what we are saying? Instead of trying to prove us wrong, listen to what we are saying. SHEESH.
But yeah, we've talked about it not only from a mechanics perspective but also an aesthetic and perception perspective...
LotR is a well known franchise, even if people don't know what WHFB is they know what LotR is so it's not hard to dispel any confusion with "Yes that one is LotR, this one is a completely different Fantasy setting".
Aesthetically, model wise, 40k models and WHFB are similarly scaled and heroic proportions. LotR models are smaller and realistically proportioned.
Aesthetically, colour wise, LotR models were usually painted with a duller palette to match the movies, 40k and WHFB were typically painted with a brighter palette.
Aesthetically, army wise, demo tables for WHFB were set up with ranked regiments, LotR was set up in loose formations.
If there's any confusion whatsoever it's incredibly easy to dispel, if a new customer walks in it takes all of 30 seconds for a salesperson to say "This is LotR, the game based on the world you know and love from the books and movies, it's a game about loose formations of troops often revolving around specific powerful characters like Gandalf and Aragorn. This is WHFB, another fantasy game, based in a different setting that's not LotR but still has Elves and Dwarfs and Orcs, it's based around large regiments of troops. This other game is a futuristic setting, it's got alien races and genetically modified superhumans wearing incredible armour, it's a game based around loose formations".
If they're not listening after you've said that and pointed to the various miniatures set up on demo tables (or even the boxes on the walls which have always been visually distinctive) then they were probably never going to be customers in the first place.
If they happen across an online store where no one is there to explain it, they might get confused, but I'd suggest the number of people who get in to wargaming by randomly going on GW's website is bugger all. Most people are going to stumble in to a store or be introduced to a game by friends. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bottle wrote: With LOTR coming back, I see it more as widening the niche between their 2 fantasy ranges. I think AoS and LOTR will appeal to two different demographics largely - whereas I think WHFB and LOTR had a lot of crossover to who it appealed to and these players might have only bought an army for one system.
So you think there was more crossover between LotR and WHFB than there is between AoS and LotR? I disagree.
Funny how every time these sorts of threads come out there's always "We have to wait until next year to see if...". Godot ain't coming guys.
Selym wrote: TW tried to screw people over by making a faction that was guaranteed for release into a DLC
To be fair, that's not the fault of the people making the game. Creative Assembly's only major issues are crippling bugs, something that Warhammer Total War seems miraculously free of (compared to the last Rome, certainly). SEGA is the one fething with everyone over stupid DLC policies.
Nithaniel wrote: GW has almost returned to its routes of being a mailorder (web order) that substitutes advertising costs with the costs of its stores. Its business plan states that it relies on its stores to generate new business.
Thats insane. I think there are plenty of kids and even a few adults that would realy enjoy the hobby but they'll never know about it unless one of their mates plays and drags them into a store.
They need to market their product even if this is online only marketing.
Cost increases however are still roughly in line with inflation. They were a very expensive hobby in the 90's and they are now still a very expensive hobby!
I agree the shops Arnt enough they Arnt always in the best spot to catch attention, look at Manchester that's tucked away and your not going to stumble over it very often walking around when shopping.
They need to advertise but that would really cut into their profits which currently Arnt so hot, what's more any advert featuring the price would be a turn off.
The biggest issue is kids have no money and most parents won't shell out GW prices for toy soldiers, they need pocket money level kits like they used to have, when £5-10 can't buy you any model you've priced out your source for new blood.
Nithaniel wrote: GW has almost returned to its routes of being a mailorder (web order) that substitutes advertising costs with the costs of its stores. Its business plan states that it relies on its stores to generate new business.
Thats insane. I think there are plenty of kids and even a few adults that would realy enjoy the hobby but they'll never know about it unless one of their mates plays and drags them into a store.
They need to market their product even if this is online only marketing.
Cost increases however are still roughly in line with inflation. They were a very expensive hobby in the 90's and they are now still a very expensive hobby!
I agree the shops Arnt enough they Arnt always in the best spot to catch attention, look at Manchester that's tucked away and your not going to stumble over it very often walking around when shopping.
They need to advertise but that would really cut into their profits which currently Arnt so hot, what's more any advert featuring the price would be a turn off.
The biggest issue is kids have no money and most parents won't shell out GW prices for toy soldiers, they need pocket money level kits like they used to have, when £5-10 can't buy you any model you've priced out your source for new blood.
Thing is, GW made a lot of effort to go to hidden locations out of the way spots for one man stores. This I could never understand. How much money are you really saving if nobody knows where you are? Only people to know where you are is customers who already gone to a GW store. There is no way someone stumbling into a GW store out of the blue when it's out of the way in an industrial area or what not from what I read of some of the locations GW chose to go to.
GW isn't broke, isn't going broke, and won't die any time soon...barring a catastrophe. As an investor, I'll keep my money in.
That said, if you look at the financials, you can see that they're not really seeing an increase of sales revenue which is what they're in business for, to sell things.
I'll continue to say that their brick and mortar approach is a long-term fail, especially in the North American market, this assertion verified upon examination of revenue streams with a decline in mail-order and retail while witnessing an increase in trade sales. Look at the associated expenses; it cost 35,930,000 to maintain their B&M stores, contrasted with the 8,899,000 to develop trade channels. Diminishing the retail presence would have a benefit on the bottom line in that it would reduce operating expenses substantially. They actually lost 3,410,000 operating stores..and that's before tax (20%). Wow. Let's just go ahead and double-down on losing money with an antiquated system of service delivery and somehow expect it to magically produce profits...um, no thanks.
Another small issue is the growing dependency upon royalties to turn an otherwise lackluster performance into something relatively solid. That doesn't bode well for long-term growth as there are no guarantees that whoever picks up the IP will do a good job (snotling flinger app I'm looking at you). It also gets away from the core business model (selling physical goods). The decrease in pre-royalty profit is a mild concern but is in alignment with their slow decline over the past 5+ years.
Interesting but not overly important is inventories. There's an increase in finished goods and goods for resale of 758,000 pounds. This isn't necessarily a big deal but it can indicate unsold stock sitting in warehouses...not alarming or anything, just something I look at in retail companies. In the same section, you see this bit:
During the period, the Group utilised an inventory provision of £916,000 (2015: £1,189,000) and £1,805,000 (2015: £1,247,000) has been charged to the
income statement.
This indicates the destruction/liquidation of excess or obsolete inventory. Sorry Brettonian players, there go all your knights.
I like looking at these things. You can see some interesting stuff hidden in financial statements that give you a window into processes in the business.
So, final note. GW is a pretty efficient company with their money. I, personally, don't agree with some of their business decisions but I don't have to in order to make money from my stock ownership. I may not like their B&M stores as I see them as a financial lodestone but I'm not overly concerned because they turn a profit every year and as long as they continue to do so, they're a stable company in which to invest.
One major thing about The Lord of the Rings game - it brought in a new audience, not just cannibalizing Warhammer Fantasy.
It showed up in major book stores, and even at WalMart in the States.
People that have never been in a game store in their lives saw and sometime bought Lord of the Rings.
It was losing that new market that caused GW to suffer losses - instead of turning to other GW games they left the hobby (or the H-H-Hobby) completely.
As for AoS cannibalizing 40K sales... ... ... maybe? I have seen more AoS starters being used to make 40K armies than I have games of AoS itself being played.
Play wise, AoS looks closer to 40K than it does WHFB, so it would make sense to me that it is more popular with people that like the style of play from 40K than they do WHFB.
The problem with that line of thought is that it means that people that prefer the style of play from WHFB were forced to migrate to other games.
Properly handled, this would mean less than you might think - as I mentioned above, miniatures games are like razors and razor blades - the money is in the blades, not the razors themselves, or, in the case of miniatures gaming, in the models, not the rules.
In my primary group, more copies of Island of Blood were bought when we made the changeover to Kings of War than when the IoB was new and shiny.
People hated the rules for 8th edition - but they were buying the models.
AoS... kind of killed that - people are not gobbling up AoS models for KoW. (This may change, to some degree - one of the players has started a Varangur army.)
Make of it what you will.
The Auld Grump
Automatically Appended Next Post: One major thing about The Lord of the Rings game - it brought in a new audience, not just cannibalizing Warhammer Fantasy.
It showed up in major book stores, and even at WalMart in the States.
People that have never been in a game store in their lives saw and sometime bought Lord of the Rings.
It was losing that new market that caused GW to suffer losses - instead of turning to other GW games they left the hobby (or the H-H-Hobby) completely.
As for AoS cannibalizing 40K sales... ... ... maybe? I have seen more AoS starters being used to make 40K armies than I have games of AoS itself being played.
Play wise, AoS looks closer to 40K than it does WHFB, so it would make sense to me that it is more popular with people that like the style of play from 40K than they do WHFB.
The problem with that line of thought is that it means that people that prefer the style of play from WHFB were forced to migrate to other games.
Properly handled, this would mean less than you might think - as I mentioned above, miniatures games are like razors and razor blades - the money is in the blades, not the razors themselves, or, in the case of miniatures gaming, in the models, not the rules.
In my primary group, more copies of Island of Blood were bought when we made the changeover to Kings of War than when the IoB was new and shiny.
People hated the rules for 8th edition - but they were buying the models.
AoS... kind of killed that - people are not gobbling up AoS models for KoW. (This may change, to some degree - one of the players has started a Varangur army.)
Bottle wrote: Fine. My original point has has got twisted through the back and forthes. Someone said they thought AoS cannibalised 40k sales, and my opinion is that LOTR and WHFB were much more likely to cannibalise each other's sales than AoS does to 40K. Disagree if you want.
LoTR and WHFB co-existed for 15 years. It seems very unlikely that GW would have allowed this situation to continue if they were cannibalising each others' sales.
My previuos post with Tomb kings was to show that even teenager young lads are playing 8th edition ( what is the quality of it 8th I dont want to judge ). The thing that Total war is blockbuster could have refreshed WFB. Just look at google trends:
Also, if AoS is selling better then WHFB, why didnt they sell the out the limited edition releases for the game the "Gates of azyr" book has still 400 copies left at 20 pound price.....
And this is the case with most the limited edition AoS books. Where WHFB ones sold out in maximum days on higher price points.
On the last note its quite sad to see that they didnt made a free version WHFB rule- and armybooks, but atleast you can aquire the e-rulebook for 20 quid.
herjan1987 wrote: My previuos post with Tomb kings was to show that even teenager young lads are playing 8th edition ( what is the quality of it 8th I dont want to judge ). The thing that Total war is blockbuster could have refreshed WFB. Just look at google trends:
That's really more search results than outright popularity. The results are pretty close between fantasy and AoS up until they spike due to TW:W's release.
If we're going by "I wonder what this is about" as an equal to people playing it, then AoS had already came close to 40k popularity since by 1d4chan alone they got enough views on AoS to overcome the views on the 40k subjects which were far more viewed than anything fantasy.
I do agree though, it's a pity fantasy couldn't survive long enough to see total war's revival of it.
I can't really blame GW's decision not to wait three years to see if the failing product that was hemorrhaging profits would pull a complete 180 just because of one game which they had no idea if it would be successful or even be ready by 2016 where as AoS was started in 2013.
Also, if AoS is selling better then WHFB, why didnt they sell the out the limited edition releases for the game the "Gates of azyr" book has still 400 copies left at 20 pound price.....
True, but I think GW are more concerned with model sales than book sales.
The fact that Orruks, Sylvaneths and many older models like Lord Kroak are constantly being sold out as opposed to before in 8th when they hardly moved kinda makes up for the book sales in my view.
@TheAuldGrump, I actually see many KoW and 9th players talking about buying AoS models for their games.
Heck, I see conversations on both forums for making rules for Stormcast armies and the like.
The fact that Orruks, Sylvaneths and many older models like Lord Kroak are constantly being sold out as opposed to before in 8th when they hardly moved kinda makes up for the book sales in my view
Book sales still reflect interest in the universe overall, the Heresy series was regularly hitting the NYT bestsellers until they started fiddling around with the formats.
Also, "sold out" is meaningless in isolation. It could represent an increase in popularity. It could also mean they've cut production runs by 90% or started allocating a lot more to the retail and indirect channels and less to online. It's very easy to have a small number of things to sell, then hail the fact they're sold out as a great success.
We know AoS is doing better than FB, they've told us, and while there's much they can do to fluff the information, they can't outright lie.
I've yet to see a compelling argument that it's doing significantly better than FB though. Then one has to account for the fact that GW will measure success in revenue, and I've seen some very punchy prices for AoS stuff vs older FB pricing, so it's quite possible that it's seen an increase in revenue while still posting declining unit sales.
Total revenue fell despite a massive boost from Total War:Hammer. This means that revenue from games fell more, about 4.7% in fact.
Whatever the arguments about unit price of kits and AoS having high priced kits, it is impossible to split sales of AoS from sales of 40K. Looking at the aggregate figures, if we suppose that AoS is doing well, it simply means that 40K must be doing worse.
Kilkrazy wrote: Total revenue fell despite a massive boost from Total War:Hammer. This means that revenue from games fell more, about 4.7% in fact.
Actually this had me confused. It seems to me that the "Revenue" listed on the first page isn't actually total revenue but rather sales, it seems that figure doesn't include revenue from royalties. If you scroll down to page 9 where they have a better breakdown. They list
Adding it up, Revenue - cost of sales - operating expenses + royalties = 118069-37438-69710+5939 = 16,860 = operating profit
So that means the income from sources other than sales, including royalties, is not included in the "revenue" on the first page.
Which does make it look not as bad, that means they only lost 0.9% actual sales to customers and 0.8% if you take it at constant currency.
I'm not sure why they wouldn't list total revenue, as that would mean total revenue is up by 2.8%. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Whatever the arguments about unit price of kits and AoS having high priced kits, it is impossible to split sales of AoS from sales of 40K. Looking at the aggregate figures, if we suppose that AoS is doing well, it simply means that 40K must be doing worse.
It's all really hard to say, because we know they make more money from new releases than existing stock. If AoS took more release slots off 40k, then it could be that the non-new-release sales figures for 40k could be better, worse or unchanged, but the overall sales are worse because of less new releases.
That's also why the statement that AoS has made more money than WHFB has in the past several years is not meaningful because AoS has had more releases than WHFB has had in the past several years as well.
Throw the likes of BAC and Silver Tower and it's pretty much impossible to say anything meaningful about the breakdown of sales between the different games.
The tin-foil-hatter in me would say GW intentionally tweaks their release schedule to make it impossible for us to determine anything useful from it (making sure no half year report can be attributed to only 1 group of products).
Which does make it look not as bad, that means they only lost 0.9% actual sales to customers and 0.8% if you take it at constant currency.
All losses on year to year sales is bad. Maybe it's *only* 0.8% but that's enough to get a lot of people fired considering it's consistent by now.
But it's not nearly as bad as losing 4.7% in a single year
0.8% drop could be acceptable if they weren't expecting AoS to do as well as 40k to begin with.
The system of flogging 40k for all it's worth like previous years has limits, you might be willing to take a 0.8% drop in sales if it means a more stable future because you aren't relying solely on 40k for profits.
Though as I mentioned previously I think AoS was a bit of a wrong move in the sense I feel it's just going to be appealing to the same customers who already like 40k, a better move would have been trying to diversify, but it also would have been riskier. Given GW doesn't advertise to new customers, selling a new game that appeals to existing customers probably isn't a terrible outcome. Though to be fair, they have diversified a bit by investing effort in to BAC, Silver Tower and those sorts of games.
As people were saying when AoS first came out, it'll be a few years before we really understand how AoS impacts things.
I reckon some people in GW must grimace over the fact TWW pulled their arses out of the fire and it came from an IP they just killed
At a guess, it seems TWW might have pulled in more royalties than their 40k games.
hobojebus wrote: Given the change of statue and facings I think they expected it to explode right out the gate.
It's really hard to say what they were expecting. The statue could have just been a move to convince customers it was going to hang around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bottle wrote: I agree with your first two sentences, but the third also shows that AoS has picked up massively through the year compared to when it launched.
You're just guessing, it doesn't show anything, we don't have enough information to say anything beyond wild guesses. We don't know how well WHFB was doing, we don't know how they calculated that AoS was doing better than WHFB, there's no way to compare them based off the information we have to actually get a picture of how things are doing in absolute terms.
I agree with your first two sentences, but the third also shows that AoS has picked up massively through the year compared to when it launched. No doubt because GW proactively tried to right the wrongs (the GHB) and also released some fantastic new ranges.
We can't really say this. The only thing GW have stated is that "we finished the year with sales of Warhammer: Age of Sigmar at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years". The issue is that GW do not state what several years means (and what period of time "finished the year" means either). It could mean the last two years which hence is comparing sales just before AoS release (so inevitably low sales) and the previous year when we had what one/two factions so this shouldn't be too hard. However in the last few months we have had AoSQ and Generals compendium which can be picked up by all AoS players (hence giving a larger player base for these items); in addition sales of individual models might also be higher because of interest from TW (noting Karl Franz is still out of stock). The fact that they can't say that AoS is at least equalling WFB 8th edition release sales is not a good sign (on the basis that initial sales are always higher and then decline over time). Hence one rain storm does not make a flood - if they continue to maintain higher than WFB sales for a period of time then that is good, but peaks and troughs are to be expected; it's the long term trends that are important. That they mention AoS specifically is also telling; there is no mention of the Hobbit or 40k in a similar way. In effect they are defending a position else you wouldn't mention it at all.
Overall the report is "Ouch" for GW (or should be if they have any sense). They've had a massive profitability hit on their main core business. Royalties have saved their bacon else profits would have been down £4m. Their overall revenue is down only 1% (so again I think they have capped out the player's base purchasing power). However profitability is down 27%. But they also say that getting started sets are proving popular (which for the purposes of this report were all old models). Hence simply the new moulds they are making just aren't recovering the same level of profit that they use to and is being propped up by sales of older (capital recovered) moulds. It probably doesn't help that this is their policy
"We continued with our policy of only increasing the prices of our new releases (approximately 30% of our sales) to reflect the necessary investment in our product offer and the quality we have built into these new releases."
When base inflation is lower than this then in effect the cost of their product is increasing compared to the populations wages. In effect they are trying to prop up falling sales by increasing prices on new models to compensate.
This can be further evidenced by that all sales channels (constant currency) are down but this comment is even more scary under their mail order section..."Sales of our Forge World range grew by 28% offset by a 12% decline in our Citadel range". Effectively Forgeworld mail order sales are now about 33% of all mail order sales, considering this was meant to be a niche area at this rate of growth it won't be too long before Forgeworld exceed Citadel sales from a mail order perspective.
Although it's not all doom and gloom GW really need to look at what they are doing. Despite everything they are still failing to draw in enough new recruits and relying on the older guard to keep buying expensive stuff (e.g. the FW sales). Their overheads are going up with slightly reduced sales resulting in a significant drop in profits. This isn't sustainable - simply if their profits continue to nose dive in the same way as this year then in three years their core business will no longer be profitable and they will be relying on their IP to keep them in profit. It's unlikely to happen this quickly because they will likely cull non-profitable areas first, but with Star Wars going to be a big thing and if Nintendo start capitalising on Pokémon again (and to put it into perspective last time Pokémon was massive GW really struggled) I think GW have a couple of hard years ahead of them. The Brexit issues could help here because with a poor exchange rate they could easily drop their foreign sales prices and try and encourage more sales - but my fear is that GW won't do this; they will keep the old exchange rate prices and try to maximise the profit from the foreign sales market.; this could allow more flexible companies to eat into their sales if they are clever.
I wish everyone would abandon the attempt to use the financial report to prove that AoS is a massive success/failure. It's impossible because the report does not split out AoS sales from other system sales.
Bottle wrote: It clearly states that AoS picked up through the year.
It says what it says. What you said it says is "...AoS has picked up massively through the year compared to when it launched." We don't know if it was massive, we don't even know if the sales per release picked up, we simply know they released more and we know that new releases tend to be the bulk of sales (30%).
All we know is they released more AoS products in the 2nd half of the year and they "finished the year" with sales higher than Warhammer "has enjoyed in the past several years", whatever the hell that means because they don't tell us how they determined that.
I agree with your first two sentences, but the third also shows that AoS has picked up massively through the year compared to when it launched. No doubt because GW proactively tried to right the wrongs (the GHB) and also released some fantastic new ranges.
We can't really say this. The only thing GW have stated is that "we finished the year with sales of Warhammer: Age of Sigmar at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years". The issue is that GW do not state what several years means (and what period of time "finished the year" means either). It could mean the last two years which hence is comparing sales just before AoS release (so inevitably low sales) and the previous year when we had what one/two factions so this shouldn't be too hard. However in the last few months we have had AoSQ and Generals compendium which can be picked up by all AoS players (hence giving a larger player base for these items); in addition sales of individual models might also be higher because of interest from TW (noting Karl Franz is still out of stock). The fact that they can't say that AoS is at least equalling WFB 8th edition release sales is not a good sign (on the basis that initial sales are always higher and then decline over time). Hence one rain storm does not make a flood - if they continue to maintain higher than WFB sales for a period of time then that is good, but peaks and troughs are to be expected; it's the long term trends that are important. That they mention AoS specifically is also telling; there is no mention of the Hobbit or 40k in a similar way. In effect they are defending a position else you wouldn't mention it at all.
Overall the report is "Ouch" for GW (or should be if they have any sense). They've had a massive profitability hit on their main core business. Royalties have saved their bacon else profits would have been down £4m. Their overall revenue is down only 1% (so again I think they have capped out the player's base purchasing power). However profitability is down 27%. But they also say that getting started sets are proving popular (which for the purposes of this report were all old models). Hence simply the new moulds they are making just aren't recovering the same level of profit that they use to and is being propped up by sales of older (capital recovered) moulds. It probably doesn't help that this is their policy
"We continued with our policy of only increasing the prices of our new releases (approximately 30% of our sales) to reflect the necessary investment in our product offer and the quality we have built into these new releases."
When base inflation is lower than this then in effect the cost of their product is increasing compared to the populations wages. In effect they are trying to prop up falling sales by increasing prices on new models to compensate.
This can be further evidenced by that all sales channels (constant currency) are down but this comment is even more scary under their mail order section..."Sales of our Forge World range grew by 28% offset by a 12% decline in our Citadel range". Effectively Forgeworld mail order sales are now about 33% of all mail order sales, considering this was meant to be a niche area at this rate of growth it won't be too long before Forgeworld exceed Citadel sales from a mail order perspective.
Although it's not all doom and gloom GW really need to look at what they are doing. Despite everything they are still failing to draw in enough new recruits and relying on the older guard to keep buying expensive stuff (e.g. the FW sales). Their overheads are going up with slightly reduced sales resulting in a significant drop in profits. This isn't sustainable - simply if their profits continue to nose dive in the same way as this year then in three years their core business will no longer be profitable and they will be relying on their IP to keep them in profit. It's unlikely to happen this quickly because they will likely cull non-profitable areas first, but with Star Wars going to be a big thing and if Nintendo start capitalising on Pokémon again (and to put it into perspective last time Pokémon was massive GW really struggled) I think GW have a couple of hard years ahead of them. The Brexit issues could help here because with a poor exchange rate they could easily drop their foreign sales prices and try and encourage more sales - but my fear is that GW won't do this; they will keep the old exchange rate prices and try to maximise the profit from the foreign sales market.; this could allow more flexible companies to eat into their sales if they are clever.
Where are you getting the numbers for mail order for Citadel vs Forge World? From what I can see they're lumped together in the revenue table.
Where are you getting the numbers for mail order for Citadel vs Forge World? From what I can see they're lumped together in the revenue table.
Page 6 under "Mail Order" section
"Mail order Sales fell by 1.8% (-1.6% at constant currency). Sales of our Forge World range grew by 28% offset by a 12% decline in our Citadel range. In the first half of 2016/17 we will be making a change to our home page; removing complexity and adding a deeper introduction to our worlds. We are committed to continuous investment in our web store shopping experience."
What's also interesting and not what I was expecting that (excluding mail order) both the UK and continental Europe have seen approx. £1m decrease in revenue sales. Only USA and Asia (negligible) have seen an increase in sales. I'm a little surprised at this given that GW have been reported as falling off the top games from third party reports. So either a) the hobby market in the USA is massively expanded and GW are losing out; b) GW are maximising sale values off the back of a weakening £ (which even before Brexit was happening) or c) simply the trade reports are incorrect.
I wouldn't necessarily trust the ICv2 reports that say 40k has fallen off the top spot in the USA, they're just broad guesses.
Also the ICv2 numbers say specifically that 40k fell off the top of the charts for fall 2015, I don't know if BAC is included in those numbers and you'd have to look at how many 40k releases there was over that period, if the focus had shifted from 40k releases to AoS releases it wouldn't be surprising if 40k lost some ground.
Critically, ICv2 doesn't include direct sales. Given the attempts GW has made via exclusives, LEs etc to drive traffic through the direct channel, it isn't impossible that 40K is simultaneously growing and shrinking, depending on who you ask.
Where are you getting the numbers for mail order for Citadel vs Forge World? From what I can see they're lumped together in the revenue table.
Page 6 under "Mail Order" section
"Mail order Sales fell by 1.8% (-1.6% at constant currency). Sales of our Forge World range grew by 28% offset by a 12% decline in our Citadel range. In the first half of 2016/17 we will be making a change to our home page; removing complexity and adding a deeper introduction to our worlds. We are committed to continuous investment in our web store shopping experience."
What's also interesting and not what I was expecting that (excluding mail order) both the UK and continental Europe have seen approx. £1m decrease in revenue sales. Only USA and Asia (negligible) have seen an increase in sales. I'm a little surprised at this given that GW have been reported as falling off the top games from third party reports. So either a) the hobby market in the USA is massively expanded and GW are losing out; b) GW are maximising sale values off the back of a weakening £ (which even before Brexit was happening) or c) simply the trade reports are incorrect.
So how are you getting that FW is 33% of sales? I tried some equations but can't see how I could define FW sales in terms of Citadel sales to come to the conclusion you're drawing.
"Sales" of course is units * price, and FW are notoriously expensive though in recent years the rapid increase of standard GW kit prices has brought many of them to a similar level.
It gives the impression that GW/FW are making a lot of sales to hardcore veteran customers.
It's also notable that retail sales fell despite a net 33 new stores, and that the "underlying performance" of -4,4% was only offset to -1,3% by these new stores despite them representing nearly an 8% increase in number of stores. I suppose it can be partly explained by that fact that out of those 33 stores, 31 were one-man stores, which naturally sell less than the multi-man stores, and the fact that new stores would probably take a while to establish themselves.
hobojebus wrote: Given the change of statue and facings I think they expected it to explode right out the gate.
Obviously a spectacular failure of foresight due to total ignorance of what their customers actually wanted.
All AoS selling more than wfb means is 40k sales dropped due to having very few releases this year.
I agree with your first two sentences, but the third also shows that AoS has picked up massively through the year compared to when it launched. No doubt because GW proactively tried to right the wrongs (the GHB) and also released some fantastic new ranges.
GHB didn't come out til just now, so that wouldn't account for AoS sales pickup in the statements.
Personally, I think it's the models and packaging. The store I mostly shop at tells me that their AoS sales are stellar compared to several previous years pass, and that even a reboxing to white boxes (like lizardmen) results in good sales. AoS books are also selling well for them, probably because mostly, they're a good price. Start Collecting has also done really well for them.
Some of the new models for AoS are just spectacular, IMO. I'm jealous, though. GIMME MORE 40K!!! Ok, actually, it's fine, because I'm way, way behind in 40katm and this is allowing me to catch up a little But I do think they've lost out on some retail sales, because my 40k buddies, like me, have spent quite a lot less sans new 40k releases.
Bottle wrote: Ah, so you interpreted my "massive" as me meaning it was doing well in comparison to say X-wing or something? No, I just meant it's doing a lot better than it had been.
No, I didn't misinterpret you at all, but you're clearly not comprehending what I've said.
You have no reference point to say it's doing "a lot better than it had been" or that "it picked up massively". The report just says they released more in the 2nd half of the year and they "finished the year.... at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years".
That's all it says, you're reading more in to it than it is actually saying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: Personally, I think it's the models and packaging. The store I mostly shop at tells me that their AoS sales are stellar compared to several previous years pass, and that even a reboxing to white boxes (like lizardmen) results in good sales. AoS books are also selling well for them, probably because mostly, they're a good price. Start Collecting has also done really well for them.
I highly doubt the white is of any significance
I imagine Lizardmen sales were good because the Lizardmen boxed set was good value. For the price of a Carnosaur you're getting a Carnosaur, 12 Warriors and 8 Cavalry.
I don't care about AoS in the slightest but as a retired WHFB Lizardmen player I was very tempted get the Lizardmen start collecting set for its value value, it's enough to offset having to buy square bases separately. But it put me off that in Australia it's not as much of a saving (in the UK and US the start collecting box is the same price as a Carnosaur, over here it's 40% more than the price of a Carnosaur).
The reboxing of the Saurus Warriors was also a slight improvement on price per figure.
But yeah, overall we really don't know how well AoS is doing other than they released more product in the 2nd half of the year and we know that new releases in and of themselves make money.
One interesting thing about this report is that we now know new releases make up about 30% of their sales. I don't think they've ever stated that in the past.
Bottle wrote: Ah, so you interpreted my "massive" as me meaning it was doing well in comparison to say X-wing or something? No, I just meant it's doing a lot better than it had been.
No, I didn't misinterpret you at all, but you're clearly not comprehending what I've said.
You have no reference point to say it's doing "a lot better than it had been" or that "it picked up massively". The report just says they released more in the 2nd half of the year and they "finished the year.... at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years".
That's all it says, you're reading more in to it than it is actually saying.
You can deduce that when it launched it didn't have sales at the rate Warhammer Fantasy had had previously but by the end of the year the sales rate had surpassed Warhammer Fantasy. That means it picked up.
Yay! You've finally brought your comments roughly in line with what it actually says
Bottle wrote: And we've had lots of sources state that AoS launched badly and the End Times sold well. Now that AoS is enjoying a higher sales rate than WHFB has been for the past several years (which includes the End Times), it should be fine to add value statements such as "it's doing a lot better".
Except we don't know how well ET sold, we don't know if those sales were included when the report stated "Warhammer" (you'll note all GW games are called "Warhammer"), if they were included we don't know if the ET sales were enough to offset the lull in WHFB in the 2nd half of the 2015 financial year, we don't know what "finished the year with a higher rate" means (is that the whole year, or just some period at the end of it?), we don't know what "several years" means, we don't know if they calculated the "rate" for that several years as an average or a year by year rate or a month by month rate. We do know new releases sell more than existing products and we know AoS released more in the 2nd half of the year, we don't know how healthy those releases were though.
To me, the statement that AoS is doing better than WHFB is extremely questionable, they avoided using definite language, the way it is worded is incredibly vague such there's there's several ways they could have fudged the numbers to make that statement while at the same time not actually meaning anything significant.
Bottle wrote: And we've had lots of sources state that AoS launched badly and the End Times sold well. Now that AoS is enjoying a higher sales rate than WHFB has been for the past several years (which includes the End Times), it should be fine to add value statements such as "it's doing a lot better".
Let's say that Warhammer Fantasy sold for £100 the year before the Endtimes and for £125 during the Endtimes. Now, Age of Sigmar could sell for £126 and it would still be perfectly true that it sold better than Fantasy did for the last couple of years. But it would not be true to say that it sold "a lot better".
It's a very childish example, of course, but I hope it gets the point across.
Personally, going by local anecdotes, I'm actually surprised that Age of Sigmar did better than Fantasy. The few people I know who's still interested in playing Fantasy hasn't got a single nice thing to say about it. But each to his own, of course...
Age of Sigmar seems to be targeting a different group of players. And it might very well be true that it's doing better than Fantasy because of that. But then we must also consider the possibility that the growth has come by cannibalising 40K sales. Either that, or it's an entirely new group of players that Games Workshop has gotten through to, in which case 40K must have lost more players than is readily apparent.
I suppose, on the whole, it's actually a bit of good news. Games Workshop needs to diversify their portfolio - trying to survive on just a single product line is hard at best, downright suicidal at worst.
We are never really going to know the exact breakdown of how well AoS is doing so we are always going to have to interpolate between the information we have. I think it's more useful to discuss the information we don't have and how that might influence the figures.
I for one would like to know how AoSQ was accounted for in the doing better than Warhammer figures (my suspicion is that it is). The reason is that AoSQ was a boxed set that could be sold to the whole of the AoSQ community and hence its market capture is broader (and also to those who remember WHQ too). Comparing to sales with more limited appeal is likely to mean that sales for AoS appear higher than Warhammer. However WFB never had it's own equivalent set in the last few years; hence to be a fair comparison you'd need to exclude these figures (remember there was a massive push by GW on retailers to stock up on lots by giving more significant discounts).
So we really need to look at the other data (rather than soft wording that could mean anything without the context).
We do know they have stated that 30% of sales is on new releases, but we also know that overall revenue is slightly down (circa 1%) but core profit is massively down (27%). Now some costs have gone up, retail in particular but they have made more savings from their internal processes such as probably more efficient stock management for example (which is why we see items out of stock more often now). However for the most part costs are fairly steady. As such we can probably infer that new models are recovering their capital costs at slower rate than they use to and this gets even worse if the "Getting Started" sets are considered 'new releases' as they are in the majority old models. In effect people are spending most of their hard earned money on the more cost effective models not the new models which have the high capital costs to recover. So is there any evidence that this is actually what is happening? Well possibly, both the latest Ogre, VC and Savage Orc releases have expanded the unit types from a single box set - the ogre large now can make 5/6 unit types from the one box and we had the new (buy)morboys unit. This would imply that GW are recognising that sales of capital new models aren't selling as well as they hoped and are trying to offset this by encouraging people to buy more of the older cost effective sets more often.
Naturally this strategy only works if people are buying for AoS in the majority. If a significant number of people are just filling out the last of their armies for 8th/9th then the risk is that this income will dry up as the new armies become more prevalent (which is something else we don't know in how much the last chance to buy helped overall this years profitability, as they were capital neutral so mostly all profit minus manufacturing costs which would have been accounted for in previous years for the most part). As a note I expect the same strategy to apply for 40k in the future, as I fully expect them to make smaller, but larger numbers of, factions, its just that in the last year new models have been AoS dominated. I fully expect next year 40K will get a lot of love and that is one reason we haven't seen a lot of 40k this year (other than 'expansion sprues' for existing models).
However overall I still don't think GW fundamentally know what is happening and they are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. Effectively consumers only have so much disposable income per month on average (say £150). That in reality if it's not staying the same is going down as a wider range of things grab the attention or if living costs increase. However GWs policy is to increase new models by approx. 3% each year regardless of market conditions. This inevitably means you drive consumers to the cheaper, older models. Hence you have less sales of the capital intensive new models - in essence your capital costs increase but you are recovering less of this and only propping it up from sales of older models where the capex has already been paid off. Effectively your revenue stays the same but your costs increase relatively hence profit slides which is exactly what they are seeing. On top of this as the very older/cheaper models disappear leaving the more recent expensive ones you push a few more people out of the GW market and revenue declines slightly. GW then increase prices to compensate and the cycle repeats.
hobojebus wrote:But GW has called themselves a post growth company.
Which, to be honest, is a bit strange for a company operating in a niche that's seeing year-by-year growth.
Bottle wrote:@f2k
I understand everything you're saying. My "a lot better" didn't mean a lot better than WHFB but a lot better than AoS at launch.
Now of course, (going by your example), AoS could have sold £124 in the first half and £126 in the second which as the grueling conversation with AllSeeingSkink points out may mean one couldn't really say "a lot better" because "marginally better" could also be true. But with the sources stating AoS had a bad launch, and is now doing better than WHFB (by whatever metrics they are using, granted), I feel like saying AoS is doing a lot better than it had been is going to be a roughly accurate assessment.
Ahh... Now I see where you're coming from.
Problem is, in my mind anyway, that Fantasy did really bad in the years leading up to Age of Sigmar. In effect, it had already been shut down and received little (if any) support. Given that, it's not hard for Age of Sigmar to do better after a year of dedicated support.
So yeah...
A lot better than it did on launch? I can accept that - though I frankly admit to being highly surprised.
But a lot better than Fantasy? That's where I have a few issues...
Bottle wrote: @f2k although WHFB had support right up to the very end. Lots of support in that final year. 5 campaign books, 4 giant centre piece models (Nagash, Glotkin, Thanquol and Bloodthirster) as well as numerous more kits for Chaos, Skaven and Undead Legions. Many of which made it to the top selling kits of 2015 which GW released.
Endtimes had support, yes. Fantasy didn't...
For those who weren't interested in having the Old World torn apart, Fantasy had long been dead with some armies having languished in limbo for years.
Bottle wrote: @f2k although WHFB had support right up to the very end. Lots of support in that final year. 5 campaign books, 4 giant centre piece models (Nagash, Glotkin, Thanquol and Bloodthirster) as well as numerous more kits for Chaos, Skaven and Undead Legions. Many of which made it to the top selling kits of 2015 which GW released.
You'd have to compare how many releases there were for WHFB in 2015 to AoS in 2016. If they're not similar, saying AoS outsold WHFB is meaningless.
And I still don't trust how they calculated their finishing the year at a higher rate than WHFB had done for several years.... that's way too open to different calculation methods which would bias the results. From the wording, they easily could have taken the last 6 months of AoS (with its high release density) and compared it to the average sales of WHFB over the past 4 years (which had very few releases).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bottle wrote: End Times supposedly sold well, and now GW are reporting that AoS is selling better.
1. We don't know for sure how well ET sold. 2. GW aren't reporting that AoS is selling better than ET, simply "Warhammer" for the last "several years" whatever that means.
I thought the same thing, frankly -- I figured that the reboxing, new artwork and faction names was (like Lizardmen to Seraphon) was just silly. However, I saw it with my own eyes -- before there were Start Collecting Seraphon, the Seraphon boxes flew off the shelves while the same models with the same sprues in Lizardmen boxes sitting right beside them -- on sale for 15% less -- did not move. It really did not / does not make any sense to me.
Once, I even pointed out to a guy in line that one of the old boxes of the same model he had in his hands was still on the shelf at 35% off (keep in mind that the new box was around 20% off), and he just shrugged it off, saying that the one he had in his hands was "nicer". It's kinda baffling, because I mean, does anyone actually keep the boxes after they build the model?
Personally, if I could get an extra 5% discount, they could give me all my models in plain the plain white weborder boxes... or FW Ziploc bags, lol.
That just sounds weird. Are you sure it wasn't just the 1 crazy person buying heaps of Lizardmen? I mean, sometimes you get that, I've seen people walk in to a store and walk out with 6 or 7 boxes of one army leaving nothing in stock.
Maybe he really loved AoS and wanted the round bases without having to go online and buy them, they aren't super cheap and you have to wait for them to come in.
For me I'd pay 10% extra just to get square bases seeing as how that's about how much it'd cost me to buy them separately.
New is a powerful thing. The bases thing is a very real practical consideration and white packaging can be very appealing (ask Apple.)
Even knowing a fair bit about retail merchandising etc, I still get suckered myself from time to time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've even handed a customer product in new packaging because I've found it more visually appealing in circumstances where the customer wouldn't have known there was new packaging!
Purely anecdotally I think the new white Tau packaging and livery looks cheap, nasty and rushed.
Back to AoS. I bought two Seraphon starter sets for the discount that someone mentioned earlier. (Get a Carnosaur plus 20 other figures for the price of a Carnosaur.) I ordered from the GW web site. I didn't see any pictures of packaging. I didn't see any old Warhammer Carnosaurs being discounted massively.
I'm not going to use these figures for AoS, but they count in the GW sales figures (for AoS, known only internally.)
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm not going to use these figures for AoS, but they count in the GW sales figures (for AoS, known only internally.)
I know I'm biased on this, but I reckon there's still a very large portion of sales going to legacy WHFB and KoW players. Most people I know buying "AoS" kits are people who had been building armies for years or were half way through an army in 7th but put it on hold during 8th and AoS prompted them to finish off their forces lest the models disappear.
Whirlwind wrote: We do know they have stated that 30% of sales is on new releases, but we also know that overall revenue is slightly down (circa 1%) but core profit is massively down (27%).
The core sales are 5% down, 5.5M£, as the license income has increased 4.5M£ while overall sales decreased 1M£. The 5.5M£ drop of miniature sales pretty much explains why the pre-royalty receivable is down 27%, or 4M£.
So, the 5% loss of sales is quite a big one, but was saved by increase in license income.
Whirlwind wrote: We do know they have stated that 30% of sales is on new releases, but we also know that overall revenue is slightly down (circa 1%) but core profit is massively down (27%).
The core sales are 5% down, 5.5M£, as the license income has increased 4.5M£ while overall sales decreased 1M£. The 5.5M£ drop of miniature sales pretty much explains why the pre-royalty receivable is down 27%, or 4M£.
So, the 5% loss of sales is quite a big one, but was saved by increase in license income.
I addressed this a couple of pages ago. The "revenue" they list doesn't appear to be "total revenue" but rather "sales".
Kilkrazy wrote: Total revenue fell despite a massive boost from Total War:Hammer. This means that revenue from games fell more, about 4.7% in fact.
Actually this had me confused. It seems to me that the "Revenue" listed on the first page isn't actually total revenue but rather sales, it seems that figure doesn't include revenue from royalties. If you scroll down to page 9 where they have a better breakdown. They list
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I addressed this a couple of pages ago. The "revenue" they list doesn't appear to be "total revenue" but rather "sales".
That's weird
I automatically understood the Revenue as Turnover, Total revenue, or whatever. Because that's what I'd expect to see...
In Accounting, revenue is the income that a business has from its normal business activities, usually from the sale of goods and services to customers. Revenue is also referred to as sales or turnover. Some companies receive revenue from interest, royalties, or other fees.[1] Revenue may refer to business income in general, or it may refer to the amount, in a monetary unit, received during a period of time, as in "Last year, Company X had revenue of $42 million." Profits or net income generally imply total revenue minus total expenses in a given period. In accounting, revenue is often referred to as the "top line" due to its position on the income statement at the very top. This is to be contrasted with the "bottom line" which denotes net income (gross revenues minus total expenses).[2]
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I addressed this a couple of pages ago. The "revenue" they list doesn't appear to be "total revenue" but rather "sales".
That's weird
I automatically understood the Revenue as Turnover, Total revenue, or whatever. Because that's what I'd expect to see...
Yeah, I thought the same, "revenue" usually inludes all streams of income, the only reason I noticed they meant "sales" was because some of their statements didn't make sense so I added up the numbers myself, lol.
Kilkrazy wrote: "Sales" of course is units * price, and FW are notoriously expensive though in recent years the rapid increase of standard GW kit prices has brought many of them to a similar level.
It gives the impression that GW/FW are making a lot of sales to hardcore veteran customers.
FW is generally cheaper than GW itself in a lot of places round the world, and is actually cheaper than GW proper for some lines in the UK as well.
It'd be good to see a breakdown of FW sales - I assume there's a lot more Marine characters than the £90+ centrepiece kits.
That said, with the release of BaC (is it GW or FW sales?) I imagine sales of the upgrade kits have gone through the roof.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whirlwind wrote: However GWs policy is to increase new models by approx. 3% each year regardless of market conditions.
They say that the new item price rise is equivalent to a 3% price increase across the board, so new prices are going up by about 9% (since they make up 30% of sales).
Bottle wrote: @f2k although WHFB had support right up to the very end. Lots of support in that final year. 5 campaign books, 4 giant centre piece models (Nagash, Glotkin, Thanquol and Bloodthirster) as well as numerous more kits for Chaos, Skaven and Undead Legions. Many of which made it to the top selling kits of 2015 which GW released.
And by the time skaven book hit interest vaned a lot when people realized FB was going to be dumped. That basically killed interest to start any new projects for a lot of people. Why start new army for game that's going to be gone?
Not to mention models already diverged from FB look...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: New is a powerful thing. The bases thing is a very real practical consideration and white packaging can be very appealing (ask Apple.)
Bases are how? As it is getting new boxes with round bases is inferior move...Since in AOS bases are irrelevant you can have them in square bases and use same models in MULTIPLE games. With round bases issues comes in ranked games.
Square bases=ultimate flexibility. And as per AOS rules bases are irrelevant.
Bases are how? As it is getting new boxes with round bases is inferior move...Since in AOS bases are irrelevant you can have them in square bases and use same models in MULTIPLE games. With round bases issues comes in ranked games.
Square bases=ultimate flexibility. And as per AOS rules bases are irrelevant.
They may say bases don't matter but in reality they do; everyone measures from the base, and everything GW produces for AoS shows round bases.
Some as simple as the "new" bases being in the box can give the impression of the whole box being new or better.
I don't know why white packaging is better though.
The point of round of the round bases is firstly to make the game centred on individual models rather than units, then to allow the figures to be more ornate and dynamically posed, in order to justify higher prices. This allows a unit to be smaller than a WHFB unit while costing the same.
I don't mean there isn't a market for such models, in fact the concept is based on the supposition that there is such a market.
One benefit to GW is that it's cheaper to design, mould and stock these smaller units, so the profit per box sold should be higher. In fact we have seen that GW improved their COG from about 25% to about 20% over the past few years, reflecting the introduction of new models designed according to these new principles.
Kilkrazy wrote: One benefit to GW is that it's cheaper to design, mould and stock these smaller units, so the profit per box sold should be higher.
They have been going for slightly larger models in smaller numbers for new releases recently, but there's no reason they couldn't have put them in 30mm or 40mm square bases. And for whatever reason with reboxes they've actually increased the box sizes on some kits (Savage Orc Boarboyz gone from 5 to 10, Savage Orc infantry have gone from 10 to 20, Saurus from 16 to 20), so it's not really consistent to think they are trimming unit sizes.
Kilkrazy wrote: One benefit to GW is that it's cheaper to design, mould and stock these smaller units, so the profit per box sold should be higher.
They have been going for slightly larger models in smaller numbers for new releases recently, but there's no reason they couldn't have put them in 30mm or 40mm square bases. And for whatever reason with reboxes they've actually increased the box sizes on some kits (Savage Orc Boarboyz gone from 5 to 10, Savage Orc infantry have gone from 10 to 20, Saurus from 16 to 20), so it's not really consistent to think they are trimming unit sizes.
Anybody thinking GW is aiming for smaller game sizes is kidding. Just look at all the pictures with bazillion models and battle plans requiring big piles of models.
GW aims to sell models. They ain't reducing number of models they aim to sell per player.
Look at the new Made For AoS kits that have been released since launch. All of the Sigmarines are a maximum five figures per kit. Fyreslayers have a single 10 man kit, the rest are all much smaller. Ironjaws have one big kit, the rest are all much smaller.
The old kits like Skinks that have been re-released in AoS branding may have increased or decreased numbers, it depends on the number of figures per sprue and the number of sprues included, but that is irrelevant to my argument since these kits were not designed and produced for AoS using the modern technology.
The base size and shape is irrelevant to the manufacture of the kit. The bases are mass produced separately.
Bases are how? As it is getting new boxes with round bases is inferior move...Since in AOS bases are irrelevant you can have them in square bases and use same models in MULTIPLE games. With round bases issues comes in ranked games.
Square bases=ultimate flexibility. And as per AOS rules bases are irrelevant.
They may say bases don't matter but in reality they do; everyone measures from the base, and everything GW produces for AoS shows round bases.
Some as simple as the "new" bases being in the box can give the impression of the whole box being new or better.
I don't know why white packaging is better though.
This is all about beng cutting costs.
A 25 mm round base needs less material then the 25 mm square one.
The cost of the plastic is so little in relation to the overall cost that it's quite conceivable that the difference between square and round bases is barely measurable, certainly in fractions of a penny.
AOS is a game played on round bases, therefore any boxes with square bases are inherently 'wrong.' You only have to scan through any of the discussion boards to regularly to see how reluctant people can be to deviate from the mandated GW standard, so it's quite possible that there's a not inconsiderable number of customers who will go to some effort to conform to that standard. Especially those who play in GW stores or exist solely in the GW hobby ecosystem.
White packaging isn't cheaper. The cardboard is grey. White ink costs money too. The psychology of white in Western culture carries almost entirely positive connotations. Clean, bright, fresh, new etc etc. White has been the most popular car colour for three years in the Uk according to some sources, and there's no doubt a halo effect from Apple and other desirable tech brands using it extensively. For whatever reason, white is currently very fashionable with consumers.
The cost of the plastic is so little in relation to the overall cost that it's quite conceivable that the difference between square and round bases is barely measurable, certainly in fractions of a penny.
AOS is a game played on round bases, therefore any boxes with square bases are inherently 'wrong.' You only have to scan through any of the discussion boards to regularly to see how reluctant people can be to deviate from the mandated GW standard, so it's quite possible that there's a not inconsiderable number of customers who will go to some effort to conform to that standard. Especially those who play in GW stores or exist solely in the GW hobby ecosystem.
White packaging isn't cheaper. The cardboard is grey. White ink costs money too. The psychology of white in Western culture carries almost entirely positive connotations. Clean, bright, fresh, new etc etc. White has been the most popular car colour for three years in the Uk according to some sources, and there's no doubt a halo effect from Apple and other desirable tech brands using it extensively. For whatever reason, white is currently very fashionable with consumers.
You got me on the packing, part but I would counter on the bases. Now that all GW uses round bases you dont need to change the machinery to produce square, since "The hobbit", 40k and AoS uses round ones. With this you spare time to change out moulds. Also you dont need extra moulds for square bases to produce and maintain.
I might be wrong again, but this seems logical for me.
There is one thing that is very different about this annual report compared to those from the Kirby years.
They are investing more capital in the business. Their revenue and profit are mostly flat, but their return on capital is down because they are actually investing it back in the business.
And their dividend payment was relatively sane and might actually be sustainable. Unlike Kirby's looting of the company savings to pay more in dividends in a year than the company took in.
It looks like GW might be able to find the right combination of store locations and sales people to make their products work at a very high price. I've been of the opinion for quite some time that Forge World and Australia show what people can be willing to pay. They just need to find the subset of their potential customers who will pay it. It looks like they are at least partially succeeding at it.
Still no real plan to return to growth though. Just more treading water. We won't see if the increased deployment of capital will bear any fruit for a year or more, but it certainly can't bear less fruit than the nothing they were doing under Kirby. They actually have a person who's the head of marketing now. What a crazy idea.
Bases are how? As it is getting new boxes with round bases is inferior move...Since in AOS bases are irrelevant you can have them in square bases and use same models in MULTIPLE games. With round bases issues comes in ranked games.
Square bases=ultimate flexibility. And as per AOS rules bases are irrelevant.
They may say bases don't matter but in reality they do; everyone measures from the base, and everything GW produces for AoS shows round bases.
Some as simple as the "new" bases being in the box can give the impression of the whole box being new or better.
I don't know why white packaging is better though.
This is all about beng cutting costs.
A 25 mm round base needs less material then the 25 mm square one.
The white boxes uses less paint.
I am might be wrong but these are my thoughts.
As a large number of reboxed minis have gone from 25mm to 32mm I don't think that's it, and to my understanding with production methods paint is paint, white or otherwise.
But there's certainly an argument of fewer boxes having more purposes is a logistical saving.
You got me on the packing, part but I would counter on the bases. Now that all GW uses round bases you dont need to change the machinery to produce square, since "The hobbit", 40k and AoS uses round ones. With this you spare time to change out moulds. Also you dont need extra moulds for square bases to produce and maintain.
I thought GW outsourced bases to China these days? In any case, dropping half of their base range should result in a significant saving from an economy of scale / stock / packing point of view - They double production of the round bases, and there are less bins of bases for the packing staff to deal with. With the scale of base production that's probably a significant saving accross the company.
But their profit % went down, so something has cost them a lot more to do. Lower ROI on new AoS kits? More store overheads?
Herzlos wrote: I thought GW outsourced bases to China these days? In any case, dropping half of their base range should result in a significant saving from an economy of scale / stock / packing point of view - They double production of the round bases, and there are less bins of bases for the packing staff to deal with. With the scale of base production that's probably a significant saving accross the company.
I don't it'd be a significant difference in cost in changing bases. It's probably very little difference in price if they're outsourced and it probably doesn't save them a whole lot in the packaging stage, maybe a few dollars over thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars worth of kits.
But their profit % went down, so something has cost them a lot more to do. Lower ROI on new AoS kits? More store overheads?
They have a breakdown in their report if you read through. I'm doing this maths in my head so sorry if I make a mistake
Trade: Went up 950k, probably due to the distribution restructuring they talked about elsewhere in the report. Retail: Went up approx 2M, 1.8M of which went in to opening 48 new stores and refurbishing 20 of them. Mail Order: Went up approx 870k, these are apparently the start of changes which will be implemented next year. Tooling: They invested 2.6M in tooling, milling and injection moulding machines.
"Product and supply" went down 350k, "central costs" down 420k, "service centre" costs down 300k.
So it seems most of the money went in to beefing up their retail stores, trade distribution, new tooling and changes to mail order.
frozenwastes wrote: There is one thing that is very different about this annual report compared to those from the Kirby years.
They are investing more capital in the business. Their revenue and profit are mostly flat, but their return on capital is down because they are actually investing it back in the business.
And their dividend payment was relatively sane and might actually be sustainable. Unlike Kirby's looting of the company savings to pay more in dividends in a year than the company took in.
It looks like GW might be able to find the right combination of store locations and sales people to make their products work at a very high price. I've been of the opinion for quite some time that Forge World and Australia show what people can be willing to pay. They just need to find the subset of their potential customers who will pay it. It looks like they are at least partially succeeding at it.
Still no real plan to return to growth though. Just more treading water. We won't see if the increased deployment of capital will bear any fruit for a year or more, but it certainly can't bear less fruit than the nothing they were doing under Kirby. They actually have a person who's the head of marketing now. What a crazy idea.
Kirby is the majority shareholder he was paying himself near a million with each dividend payed, add on the stupid money he paid his wife for web design it's clear he was just padding his own wallet.
There no doubt this is a good screw, on top of his pay too, but to say he was the majority shareholder and forced the company to pay out dividends surely for his own benefit is wrong.
frozenwastes wrote: There is one thing that is very different about this annual report compared to those from the Kirby years.
They are investing more capital in the business. Their revenue and profit are mostly flat, but their return on capital is down because they are actually investing it back in the business.
And their dividend payment was relatively sane and might actually be sustainable. Unlike Kirby's looting of the company savings to pay more in dividends in a year than the company took in.
It looks like GW might be able to find the right combination of store locations and sales people to make their products work at a very high price. I've been of the opinion for quite some time that Forge World and Australia show what people can be willing to pay. They just need to find the subset of their potential customers who will pay it. It looks like they are at least partially succeeding at it.
Still no real plan to return to growth though. Just more treading water. We won't see if the increased deployment of capital will bear any fruit for a year or more, but it certainly can't bear less fruit than the nothing they were doing under Kirby. They actually have a person who's the head of marketing now. What a crazy idea.
Kirby is the majority shareholder he was paying himself near a million with each dividend payed, add on the stupid money he paid his wife for web design it's clear he was just padding his own wallet.
In Kirbys defence, it was about a million a year, not a million a dividend payment.
hobojebus wrote: Fine but no one's defending 4 mil for a site that at most should of cost 400k according to people who actually work in the industry.
Also wasn't there a 52p divided played out recently.
Shoulda woulda coulda, people say a lot of things when they dont have all the facts, plenty of companies pay over the odds for all sorts of services they know little about, not just GW.
There no doubt this is a good screw, on top of his pay too, but to say he was the majority shareholder and forced the company to pay out dividends surely for his own benefit is wrong.
The year total was 52p dividends, so Kirby made £1,109,776.
Whether he deliberately screwed the company to make share money I don't know, but GW has handed out more in dividends than it's made more than once, and he referred to GW as a cash generating machine (I think) in one of the reports.
hobojebus wrote: Fine but no one's defending 4 mil for a site that at most should of cost 400k according to people who actually work in the industry.
Also wasn't there a 52p divided played out recently.
Shoulda woulda coulda, people say a lot of things when they dont have all the facts, plenty of companies pay over the odds for all sorts of services they know little about, not just GW.
True, but you'd expect a progessional company to try and figure out if it was a fair price. Maybe they did, but since Kirbys wife was responsible for it, with no IT background, it doens't look good (plus I think she was paid about £100k for the consultancy)
Yes, it was 52p per share in total in 2015. However all the shareholders got that, not just Kirby, so 93% of the cash went to other people.
The involvement of Kirby's wife in the web site redesign does not look good, especially as only two or three years later they are now starting to redesign it again.
But for most of its history, GW has been a cash generating machine. It is a company whose profits are largely made of actual cash spent by customers, not only-on-paper increases in capital or debts, and so on. If the company makes a good profit after investing in machinery and so on, it's only right for some of that money to be paid in dividends.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, it was 52p per share in total in 2015. However all the shareholders got that, not just Kirby, so 93% of the cash went to other people.
Indeed, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the key (and only?) decision maker made £1.1 million from the stock dividend. That's quite a lot of incentive to push for dividend over everything else (after tax it's still like £550k)
But for most of its history, GW has been a cash generating machine. It is a company whose profits are largely made of actual cash spent by customers, not only-on-paper increases in capital or debts, and so on. If the company makes a good profit after investing in machinery and so on, it's only right for some of that money to be paid in dividends.
Indeed it is only right that any truly surplus cash is paid out as dividends, but I'm suspicious that GW can find so little to invest money in, and especially suspicious of the years where the dividend was larger than the earnings per share, so they had to borrow / lose capital on the dividend. It's maybe worth doing once or twice to shore the share price up, but it strikes me as a desperate move.
It's very sketchy and way out of line in terms of proven sustainable dividend strategies. It's a very good thing that GW has stopped paying out more than they are earning and actually deploying capital back into the business.
It's actually impressive that they were able to open so many new stores and in less than a year they're only losing such a tiny amount of money. Usually businesses take a while to build up their customer base. I expect by the half year report those locations will become profit making and GW's core business revenue may actually increase for a change.
They are investing more capital in the business. Their revenue and profit are mostly flat, but their return on capital is down because they are actually investing it back in the business.
Where are you getting that from, relatively speaking? Their operating expenses are up 2.5 million (small and primarily driven by store openings, purchase of equipment is down 1,487,000 year-on-year and product development costs are relatively flat (about 1,000 pounds less than last year). Sure, inventories are up but that includes unsold stock so not really anything to crow about.
If you considering reinvesting in the business, opening loss-leading stores, sure I'll grant you a difference of opinion but I call that doubling down on a stupid strategy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hobojebus wrote: Fine but no one's defending 4 mil for a site that at most should of cost 400k according to people who actually work in the industry.
Also wasn't there a 52p divided played out recently.
Not to mention they hired Kirby's wife as a contractor to run the website development; someone whose CV includes being the secretary for Kirby's tax-shelter, ghost business and organizing sports at the local club for kids. I know I shouldn't be concerned with that obvious sterling background in IT, but I'm just picky that way.
Edit:
Was looking at wrong entries so changed some stuff.
agnosto wrote: If you considering reinvesting in the business, opening loss-leading stores, sure I'll grant you a difference of opinion but I call that doubling down on a stupid strategy.
So from the report: We opened 48 new stores in the year including 7 relocated stores. These new stores generated £2.1million of sales and made a loss of £0.1 million.
My take: Opening a new store has the highest up front cost for the location. They have to recruit staff, set up displays, find a location and put in a ton of wages, transport of product and merchandising costs and their 48 stores still barely lost any money.
Report: Due to the under performance of some of our new stores in Continental Europe, we have paused any new store openings in this territory for 2016/17. Our main focus for store openings will be North America. This will allow us to focus on improving our existing store performance.
My take: It's also not that each store is coming up short one 48th of £100,000. Some stores (North America) are doing fine and others are losing money (Europe) with an average of a loss of £100,000 across all 48 stores. So from here all they have to do is stop doing what is not working (opening stores in Europe) and do more of what is (opening stores in North America). Since the economic crisis of 2009, the US has had the best recovery in the world. It is the smart place to open new stores.
Report: Retail sales fell by 1.3 % in the year (-0.4% at constant currency). Our underlying performance was -4.4%, which was mostly offset by the contribution from 33 net new stores and our new visitor centre delivering 100% growth.
Not great, but what they are doing now is working. The new stores are contributing towards a reversal of their retail trend and the revamp of their visitor centre is working. This isn't good news that their sales declined. I just think this new CEO actually has identified the problem instead of just blustering about how the miniatures are jewel like objects of magic and wonder and blaming legal systems meant to deal with the theft of pigs or any of the other crazy crap Kirby was on about.
Our underlying performance in our own stores to January 2016 wasn’t good enough. I made some changes in our in-country retail support structure to address the decline. Our flat management structure did not support the complexity of managing 149 stores across 14 countries in Continental Europe.
This is a direct reversal of Kirby's restructuring. Kirby flattened the management structure across the world so there was basically one guy between the board of directors and a given retail store for each region. Remeber the closing of GW Germany? This is Rountree acknowledging they went too far and is actually reversing some of Kirby's decisions.
The underlying performance in their own stores wasn't good enough. I think it's poised for improvement though as they have correctly identified where stores are losing money and where stores are making money. And now they have a better support structure in Europe to make sure the 149 stores in 14 countries don't have their issues misunderstood because of ignorance of local factors that can only be the result of a flat management system across multiple countries.
In January 2016 we moved to a country based solution. We now have four territory managers; Germany/Scandinavia, Netherlands, France and Spain/Italy. We are also piloting five training stores in North America. These training stores are run as profitable stores. To reduce travel time and cost we now send our new recruits for their initial training to one of these stores. We are launching a new skills based training programme at our August 2016 global retail workshops
Identifying what works and sending people to those stores to be trained to do those things makes sense. As does concentrating on skills based training rather than some sort of dumb Kirby-esque idea that conformity and attitude are all that matters is definitely a step in the right direction.
Mark Wells cut costs and successfully turned GW back to profitability after their loss making year. Kirby then took Well's cost cutting approach and scorched the earth. He did everything he could to cut costs and to improve margins to generate as much cash as possible for one last hurrah of looting through an unsustainable dividend ratio before retiring. Now it's up to Rountree to reverse Kirby's strip mining of GW to fill his own pockets. It's not going to be an immediate reversal. I think they're being far more intentional about their stores and the next report will show this change (which happened in January 2016) paying off.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This however, should be extremely troubling to GW:
Mail order Sales fell by 1.8% (-1.6% at constant currency). Sales of our Forge World range grew by 28% offset by a 12% decline in our Citadel range.
If they can't identify why Forge World is cannibalizing their citadel sales or identify what it is about Forge World people like and make their citadel range more like that, or identify what people were liking about the citadel range and the product no longer offers it, they will be in for a world of hurt.
This is one area where they need to do some customer experience research. And not customer experience of the sales process. But of the product. They need a better understanding of why these spikes in Forge World and drops in Citadel are happening. And fast. If this trend in Citadel (their core product) continues, then any gains made in the retail sector through opening stores in profitable locations and supporting the European stores to move to profitability will be cancelled out by plunging online sales of their plastic miniatures.
agnosto wrote: If you considering reinvesting in the business, opening loss-leading stores, sure I'll grant you a difference of opinion but I call that doubling down on a stupid strategy.
So from the report: We opened 48 new stores in the year including 7 relocated stores. These new stores generated £2.1million of sales and made a loss of £0.1 million.
My take: Opening a new store has the highest up front cost for the location. They have to recruit staff, set up displays, find a location and put in a ton of wages, transport of product and merchandising costs and their 48 stores still barely lost any money.
Report: Due to the under performance of some of our new stores in Continental Europe, we have paused any new store openings in this territory for 2016/17. Our main focus for store openings will be North America. This will allow us to focus on improving our existing store performance.
My take: It's also not that each store is coming up short one 48th of £100,000. Some stores (North America) are doing fine and others are losing money (Europe) with an average of a loss of £100,000 across all 48 stores. So from here all they have to do is stop doing what is not working (opening stores in Europe) and do more of what is (opening stores in North America). Since the economic crisis of 2009, the US has had the best recovery in the world. It is the smart place to open new stores.
Report: Retail sales fell by 1.3 % in the year (-0.4% at constant currency). Our underlying performance was -4.4%, which was mostly offset by the contribution from 33 net new stores and our new visitor centre delivering 100% growth.
Not great, but what they are doing now is working. The new stores are contributing towards a reversal of their retail trend and the revamp of their visitor centre is working. This isn't good news that their sales declined. I just think this new CEO actually has identified the problem instead of just blustering about how the miniatures are jewel like objects of magic and wonder and blaming legal systems meant to deal with the theft of pigs or any of the other crazy crap Kirby was on about.
Our underlying performance in our own stores to January 2016 wasn’t good enough. I made some changes in our in-country retail support structure to address the decline. Our flat management structure did not support the complexity of managing 149 stores across 14 countries in Continental Europe.
This is a direct reversal of Kirby's restructuring. Kirby flattened the management structure across the world so there was basically one guy between the board of directors and a given retail store for each region. Remeber the closing of GW Germany? This is Rountree acknowledging they went too far and is actually reversing some of Kirby's decisions.
The underlying performance in their own stores wasn't good enough. I think it's poised for improvement though as they have correctly identified where stores are losing money and where stores are making money. And now they have a better support structure in Europe to make sure the 149 stores in 14 countries don't have their issues misunderstood because of ignorance of local factors that can only be the result of a flat management system across multiple countries.
In January 2016 we moved to a country based solution. We now have four territory managers; Germany/Scandinavia, Netherlands, France and Spain/Italy. We are also piloting five training stores in North America. These training stores are run as profitable stores. To reduce travel time and cost we now send our new recruits for their initial training to one of these stores. We are launching a new skills based training programme at our August 2016 global retail workshops
Identifying what works and sending people to those stores to be trained to do those things makes sense. As does concentrating on skills based training rather than some sort of dumb Kirby-esque idea that conformity and attitude are all that matters is definitely a step in the right direction.
Mark Wells cut costs and successfully turned GW back to profitability after their loss making year. Kirby then took Well's cost cutting approach and scorched the earth. He did everything he could to cut costs and to improve margins to generate as much cash as possible for one last hurrah of looting through an unsustainable dividend ratio before retiring. Now it's up to Rountree to reverse Kirby's strip mining of GW to fill his own pockets. It's not going to be an immediate reversal. I think they're being far more intentional about their stores and the next report will show this change (which happened in January 2016) paying off.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This however, should be extremely troubling to GW:
Mail order Sales fell by 1.8% (-1.6% at constant currency). Sales of our Forge World range grew by 28% offset by a 12% decline in our Citadel range.
If they can't identify why Forge World is cannibalizing their citadel sales or identify what it is about Forge World people like and make their citadel range more like that, or identify what people were liking about the citadel range and the product no longer offers it, they will be in for a world of hurt.
This is one area where they need to do some customer experience research. And not customer experience of the sales process. But of the product. They need a better understanding of why these spikes in Forge World and drops in Citadel are happening. And fast. If this trend in Citadel (their core product) continues, then any gains made in the retail sector through opening stores in profitable locations and supporting the European stores to move to profitability will be cancelled out by plunging online sales of their plastic miniatures.
There's a lot of good stuff in your post, things that I have noted in past threads as well. I'll readily admit that when I read earnings reports, I tend to look at hard numbers rather than executive-speak for why they think things are happening; I like to draw my own conclusions and it's saved me some money in the past by helping to drop stock without being convinced that a stinky stock wasn't stinky through creative wordsmithing.
That said, I still think that opening new stores is a costly, losing endeavor, no matter where they are opened. Loss producing stores cost them 562,000 pounds in FY16 compared to 236,000 in FY15, more than double; that's troubling. As old as this company is, they shouldn't be pursuing a shotgun approach to opening stores; whoever is placing these stores needs to be shown the door.
Let's look at this another way. You mentioned N.America being a hotbed of growth. While their retail sales in NA have grown 611,000, NA is still 3rd place in retail sales but 1st in Trade. Yes, yes, I know what ewas said in the report but the numbers tell a deeper story than depending upon what someone interprets as a "loss".
Bottom line. It costs 35,930,000 in operating expenses for retail stores versus 8,899,000 in trade and 5,002,000 in mail-order. Conversely, operating profit from each segment was -3,410,000 and +10,625,000, and +13,747 respectively. Retail stores cost them 3.4 million, more than double the previous year!, to operate last fiscal year while their other sales channels all made money. That should tell us something.
agnosto wrote: I'll readily admit that when I read earnings reports, I tend to look at hard numbers rather than executive-speak for why they think things are happening; I like to draw my own conclusions and it's saved me some money in the past by helping to drop stock without being convinced that a stinky stock wasn't stinky through creative wordsmithing.
It seems this time there's more useful information in the text compared to when Kirby was in charge. Aside from some less useful information, it does hint at how they are starting to acknowledge problems and address them instead of acting like they can do no wrong and there's also some interesting numbers in the text portion that aren't covered in the numerical summaries (things like new releases accounting for 30% of their sales, or FW growing by 28% and Citadel dropping by 12% and some other interesting stuff).
I hadn't actually considered Citadel dropping by 12%, that actually paints a much poorer picture of AoS because it's not like they managed to maintain sales with AoS, they actually lost quite considerable sales and FW picked up the slack.
It is the shops which are Games Workshop's main means of marketing and promoting Teh HHHobby. That's why GW are prepared to spend so much on their retail network when from an accounting angle, the web and indy shops look much more successful.
hobojebus wrote: Given the change of statue and facings I think they expected it to explode right out the gate.
Obviously a spectacular failure of foresight due to total ignorance of what their customers actually wanted.
And the haters expected it to be an epic failure. So much for that too.
Citation needed. We've nothing but a spurious statement, whose accuracy has already been thoroughly deconstructed as being vague and spurious, outlining the performance of AOS, in a document that by its very nature would never admit to failure in overt terms.
It could very well have been an epic failure by GW's hopes/projections, there simply isn't the evidence to refute that.
It is reasonable, given the actions around the games launch and lengthy period devoted to a majority of AOS releases to assume that GW has/had high hopes for the game however.
hobojebus wrote: Given the change of statue and facings I think they expected it to explode right out the gate.
Obviously a spectacular failure of foresight due to total ignorance of what their customers actually wanted.
And the haters expected it to be an epic failure. So much for that too.
Speaking as one of the haters - no, most of us were not saying that.
Most of us have been predicting that if GW did not start making some fairly massive changes that the company would be in a state of slow decline until a critical point was reached, and then collapse. With the time involved being around six to ten years.
GW is starting to make some changes, but is still losing market share - the slow decline is still happening, but is starting to show some signs of being turned around.
I support many of these changes - the getting started bundles are something that should have been done a decade ago - I like the idea.
But right now, GW doesn't have anything that I much want.
The Auld Grump - at this point if they had a Getting Started bundle for Tomb Kings... I would be a happy Grump.
40K needs rebuilt. 20 years of string and sellotape inexpertly applied to a ruleset designed for a different ethos (which was itself hammered out of the broken bones of a RPG) has created a legendary mess of rules bloat, player confusion, power creep and more than a little fluff mutilation (Khorne sorcerers, really?).
However to fix it GW will need to address, amongst other things, the explosion in the use of giant models. As there was a giant model explosion that suggests that they are particularly profitable so probably won't be touched.
I would love to see 40K split into a small scale skirmish game like it used to be and the big stompy robot game it is now.
40K needs rebuilt. 20 years of string and sellotape inexpertly applied to a ruleset designed for a different ethos (which was itself hammered out of the broken bones of a RPG) has created a legendary mess of rules bloat, player confusion, power creep and more than a little fluff mutilation (Khorne sorcerers, really?).
However to fix it GW will need to address, amongst other things, the explosion in the use of giant models. As there was a giant model explosion that suggests that they are particularly profitable so probably won't be touched.
I would love to see 40K split into a small scale skirmish game like it used to be and the big stompy robot game it is now.
I don't think GW wants to "fix" 40k. It still does exactly what they want it to do, which is sell models. And the big models are still selling, so they've got no real reason to change at this point. Until the sales stink as a result of their current path (similar to what happened in 8th edition when army size skyrocketed), I don't think they'll see a reason to change.
They've tried making some board games, and all that's done is show they don't have the in-house ability to make board games people want to play. Pretty much the only people who buy them are current customers who see the models as a good deal, or collectible for their uniqueness.
In my opinion they need to 1) get some new talent in (or outsource), and 2) get away from the "assembly required" for their board games, and go to straight already cut out miniatures in a box, similar to other board games. For their price point, they damn well ought to be painted as well in my opinion. X-Wing and a few similar games have shown what's achievable when you outsource model painting to dirt poor third world countries, and its going to be requisite for more market growth. While I personally I still enjoy that aspect of the hobby, but a lot of people don't, and GW is losing out on money from all the people that love X-Wing and the other similar product's ready to go nature.
If they sold fully assembled 5 color space marines, I bet they'd sell like hot cakes.
There's a lot of good stuff in your post, things that I have noted in past threads as well. I'll readily admit that when I read earnings reports, I tend to look at hard numbers rather than executive-speak for why they think things are happening; I like to draw my own conclusions and it's saved me some money in the past by helping to drop stock without being convinced that a stinky stock wasn't stinky through creative wordsmithing.
I wouldn't invest in GW at this point. Even if it does end up going up in the future, the risk is just too high compared to the possible reward.
Bottom line. It costs 35,930,000 in operating expenses for retail stores versus 8,899,000 in trade and 5,002,000 in mail-order. Conversely, operating profit from each segment was -3,410,000 and +10,625,000, and +13,747 respectively. Retail stores cost them 3.4 million, more than double the previous year!, to operate last fiscal year while their other sales channels all made money. That should tell us something.
It's actually kind of funny that their trade sales are the most efficient means of making money but they seem committed to getting as much direct sales as possible.
I think the industry as a whole is better the more irrelevant GW is, so I'm hoping that I'm wrong and that the stores don't become profitable and GW can continue its slow decline.
I don't think GW wants to "fix" 40k. It still does exactly what they want it to do, which is sell models. And the big models are still selling, so they've got no real reason to change at this point. Until the sales stink as a result of their current path (similar to what happened in 8th edition when army size skyrocketed), I don't think they'll see a reason to change.
They'll do it if they think a new they can market a new version as a product. The old new edition cash injection.
40K needs rebuilt. 20 years of string and sellotape inexpertly applied to a ruleset designed for a different ethos (which was itself hammered out of the broken bones of a RPG) has created a legendary mess of rules bloat, player confusion, power creep and more than a little fluff mutilation (Khorne sorcerers, really?).
However to fix it GW will need to address, amongst other things, the explosion in the use of giant models. As there was a giant model explosion that suggests that they are particularly profitable so probably won't be touched.
I would love to see 40K split into a small scale skirmish game like it used to be and the big stompy robot game it is now.
It doesn't need a rebuilt, just streamlining and balancing, They should go back to what they had in the past, standard rules and advanced rules. We will see with the 8th which way they will go, but i don't think they will change the basic system much.
Agnosto, the more I read the report, the more I'm coming around to your way of thinking on this. While I still think a good portion of the new stores will become profitable, it seems like a good bet that the existing stores are going to decline in profitability at an even faster rate.
I wonder if there's a saturation point. GW sets up a store and maybe 2-5 years later everyone in that particular neighbourhood who is interested in the sort of thing GW sells has checked it out and either bought or not and there's not much more in the way of people to reach. And if in that time a critical mass of customers hasn't formed to drive sales by word of mouth (which GW still relies on to a huge degree) the sales flat line and drop off.
I don't think GW wants to "fix" 40k. It still does exactly what they want it to do, which is sell models. And the big models are still selling, so they've got no real reason to change at this point.
Sale are down yet again. 40k obviously isn't selling like it used to and given that 40k is what keeps GW alive this is something that they will need to address.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I hadn't actually considered Citadel dropping by 12%, that actually paints a much poorer picture of AoS because it's not like they managed to maintain sales with AoS, they actually lost quite considerable sales and FW picked up the slack.
That makes me wonder where the "boxed games" element of revenue is sitting.
I assume that it's with FW (I remember rumours that the boxed games were being produced/managed by FW - but I'm not 100% on that), if that's the case then it's difficult to compare revenue streams to prior year, as a lot of "standard" 40k stuff will be mixed in with FW. It could be that 40k is far stronger than previous with AoS tanking, or it could be that AoS is relatively strong but "standard" 40k sales have tanked with people switching to boxed games & "proper" FW stuff? Or it could be that both are roughly in line with prior year...
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I hadn't actually considered Citadel dropping by 12%, that actually paints a much poorer picture of AoS because it's not like they managed to maintain sales with AoS, they actually lost quite considerable sales and FW picked up the slack.
That makes me wonder where the "boxed games" element of revenue is sitting.
I assume that it's with FW (I remember rumours that the boxed games were being produced/managed by FW - but I'm not 100% on that), if that's the case then it's difficult to compare revenue streams to prior year, as a lot of "standard" 40k stuff will be mixed in with FW. It could be that 40k is far stronger than previous with AoS tanking, or it could be that AoS is relatively strong but "standard" 40k sales have tanked with people switching to boxed games & "proper" FW stuff? Or it could be that both are roughly in line with prior year...
It might explain the numbers better if the boxed games are falling under FW, however on the webstore it says under the BAC description....
...command a force of beautifully detailed Citadel miniatures...
An impressive selection of detailed Citadel miniatures, including;
Silver Tower boasts a similar description.
Looking at a picture of the back of the box, it also claims they are "Citadel".
So they probably don't come under the FW heading unless there's some inconsistency in the labelling.
It's done by channel, so I think it's safe to say that FW only actually covers stuff sold via forgeworld.co.uk, the FW store, and any FW stalls/events.
The boxes sold via normal retail channels would be recorded against the channel.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I hadn't actually considered Citadel dropping by 12%, that actually paints a much poorer picture of AoS because it's not like they managed to maintain sales with AoS, they actually lost quite considerable sales and FW picked up the slack.
It could just be that the plastic HH has moved everyones spending over to FW (upgrade kits, filling out armies, general HH addiction) so aren't currently spending on AoS as much as they'd like.
It could also be indicative of pricing; quite a lot of FW stuff is cheaper than Citadel, especially if you're in a trade embargo country (DKK infantry being cheaper than Cadians in Japan, for instance).
On the AoS front, I think what isn't said is important - if AoS was doing well by any objective standard, or met expectations, they'd have said so. The annual report would have been the perfect place to trumpet how AoS is exceeding expectations and how they are seeing great things happen. In reality, all they've said is some vague statement about it doing better than a game that was canned for not doing well enough.
In other news, GW has just ensured the demise of yet another game system and fictional universe. But will somehow chug along as usual by doubling prices.
Collectors say that a £70 Leman Russ Battle Tanks with no in-game capability is still worth it, because GW is just so amazing.
The Auld Grump - at this point if they had a Getting Started bundle for Tomb Kings... I would be a happy Grump.
This any interest to you?
But yeah, I think GW are making the right moves now. It does mean that I'm going to be having a harder time finding some oppnents for alternative games though.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is the shops which are Games Workshop's main means of marketing and promoting Teh HHHobby. That's why GW are prepared to spend so much on their retail network when from an accounting angle, the web and indy shops look much more successful.
Very good point but also an example of an anachronistic approach to business. That almost 36 million in operating expenses on their retail chain could be partially redirected into a more successful marketing strategy. Rather, than hoping someone walks by these out-of-the-way stores and happens to walk in and buy something, they should, in my opinion, spend some money advertising and drumming up interest in their products.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: Agnosto, the more I read the report, the more I'm coming around to your way of thinking on this. While I still think a good portion of the new stores will become profitable, it seems like a good bet that the existing stores are going to decline in profitability at an even faster rate.
I wonder if there's a saturation point. GW sets up a store and maybe 2-5 years later everyone in that particular neighbourhood who is interested in the sort of thing GW sells has checked it out and either bought or not and there's not much more in the way of people to reach. And if in that time a critical mass of customers hasn't formed to drive sales by word of mouth (which GW still relies on to a huge degree) the sales flat line and drop off.
It's all my opinion but what you've outlined is mirrored in other industries. In my area, every time a new restaurant is opened, they have lines for a few months but then the curiosity is satisfied and the lines disappear with business normalizing. GW's niche market would have a higher chance of this type of experience occurring while the drop-off in interest would happen much sooner.
Generally what GW does, is they'll enter a local market where FLGSs already exist and attempt to draw customers to their store through events and other means (short of discounting). A strategy that seems to have served them well in the UK, in the past, but doesn't fit with the NA market, the large territory involved, and the strength of local stores in population centers. Applying a UK model to NA won't necessarily be as successful for a number of reasons but that doesn't seem to stop them from trying.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is the shops which are Games Workshop's main means of marketing and promoting Teh HHHobby. That's why GW are prepared to spend so much on their retail network when from an accounting angle, the web and indy shops look much more successful.
Very good point but also an example of an anachronistic approach to business. That almost 36 million in operating expenses on their retail chain could be partially redirected into a more successful marketing strategy. Rather, than hoping someone walks by these out-of-the-way stores and happens to walk in and buy something, they should, in my opinion, spend some money advertising and drumming up interest in their products.
I agree they should advertise more, however the thing is that Teh HHHobby is a very experiential sell. In the modern world children (I would say boys but it's a bit sexist) don't grow up building model kits, playing face to face board games, or creating model railway terrain, like they used to. WHFB and 40K also have particularly complicated rules to learn. All this means that the GW shop is not just a place to catch the eye of someone wandering past, it is a place where prospective customers can be taught the necessary hobby and game playing skills, and introduced to other players.
The network of veterans and clubs used to help with this by world of mouth, but GW did a lot to piss them off during the past 10 years, and I think this has had some effect on recruitment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: Agnosto, the more I read the report, the more I'm coming around to your way of thinking on this. While I still think a good portion of the new stores will become profitable, it seems like a good bet that the existing stores are going to decline in profitability at an even faster rate.
I wonder if there's a saturation point. GW sets up a store and maybe 2-5 years later everyone in that particular neighbourhood who is interested in the sort of thing GW sells has checked it out and either bought or not and there's not much more in the way of people to reach. And if in that time a critical mass of customers hasn't formed to drive sales by word of mouth (which GW still relies on to a huge degree) the sales flat line and drop off.
It's all my opinion but what you've outlined is mirrored in other industries. In my area, every time a new restaurant is opened, they have lines for a few months but then the curiosity is satisfied and the lines disappear with business normalizing. GW's niche market would have a higher chance of this type of experience occurring while the drop-off in interest would happen much sooner.
Generally what GW does, is they'll enter a local market where FLGSs already exist and attempt to draw customers to their store through events and other means (short of discounting). A strategy that seems to have served them well in the UK, in the past, but doesn't fit with the NA market, the large territory involved, and the strength of local stores in population centers. Applying a UK model to NA won't necessarily be as successful for a number of reasons but that doesn't seem to stop them from trying.
The mystery of GW is why they stopped helping FLGSs to help themselves. Mikhaila, who owns two shops in the US, used to be full of praise for the stuff he got from GW, racks, shelf-talkers, posters and kits for display or promotion. It pretty much vanished during Kirby's Crunch Time of the late 2000s. That can't have helped things. The US is simply too large and diffused for GW to be able to plant their own shops near all the FLGSs and take over their trade, like them managed in the UK.
Do we actually know US stores are doing worse than other countries, has it actually been stated somewhere? They specifically said European stores weren't doing great.
It seems they closed a bunch of stores and now under new management they are opening more, hopefully with a better strategy for it. GW obviously aren't entirely convinced the store method won't work in the US. You don't have to completely cover a country in GW's for it to be a good idea, you just have to focus on the areas of high population density and let FLGS's and mail order deal with the smaller towns.
Didn't the guys on Big Bang Theory play Settlers of Cataan on the show? Pay to have them play 40K, instant advertising. OR on a Nickelodeon teen show.
Or televise a tourney on ESPN2, like they did with M:TG back in the day. Rather than try to sell the same people redone versions of the same models and books, get it right and bring your product into the light. Make Space Hulk and Mordheim cheaper and stick them in standard stores with flyers inside advertising the main line games. Too easy.
Just Tony wrote: Didn't the guys on Big Bang Theory play Settlers of Cataan on the show? Pay to have them play 40K, instant advertising. OR on a Nickelodeon teen show.
Or televise a tourney on ESPN2, like they did with M:TG back in the day. Rather than try to sell the same people redone versions of the same models and books, get it right and bring your product into the light. Make Space Hulk and Mordheim cheaper and stick them in standard stores with flyers inside advertising the main line games. Too easy.
For whatever reason GW doesn't believe in advertising outside of their stores and word of mouth. It doesn't make sense to anyone but them
I guess you could argue that it's the sort of game you want an enthusiastic vet sitting opposite you who knows the rules so a new player doesn't have to get bogged down reading rules and painting and whatnot before they even touch a game.
The best thing might be to give local stores an advertising budget and maybe a marketing person who is in charge of advertising for a handful of stores for the purpose of local level advertising to get people through the doors. But even that's difficult to do with 1 man stores.
Footdar starter kit would have been nice. Much less likely to induce rage against new Eldar players.
Grump is Scots dialect for Grey Haired Man, so, no, it really isn't as much of an oxymoron as you might think. (I am an old grey haired man, go figure.... )
The Auld Grump, who has been a Grump since his thirties, but grumpy his entire life.
The Auld Grump - at this point if they had a Getting Started bundle for Tomb Kings... I would be a happy Grump.
This any interest to you?
But yeah, I think GW are making the right moves now. It does mean that I'm going to be having a harder time finding some oppnents for alternative games though.
Heh, yes it does, and I had it preordered about a week after first seeing the pretty pictures.
But they are lacking the serpent surfers and chariots that I want.
(I have been playing Kings of War since the first beta - and have my name in the first edition Kickstarter list.)
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Do we actually know US stores are doing worse than other countries, has it actually been stated somewhere? They specifically said European stores weren't doing great.
It seems they closed a bunch of stores and now under new management they are opening more, hopefully with a better strategy for it. GW obviously aren't entirely convinced the store method won't work in the US. You don't have to completely cover a country in GW's for it to be a good idea, you just have to focus on the areas of high population density and let FLGS's and mail order deal with the smaller towns.
I believe US retail is the only sector that grew last year in their retail chain; that still doesn't make it a winning strategy, especially when trade sales make retail look sad and pitiful.
Closing stores in one location and opening more in another is a hackneyed approach that shows poor corporate planning. I agree that they should focus on dense population centers but such stores should be in nice locations with ample display/gaming space, a real model approach as in the old battle bunkers. If you're going to lose money, you might as well present something nice to your customers and give those driving through from other locations a reason to stop in and look around rather than just buying from their local game store or ordering online. Seriously, why in the blue blazes would I walk into a tiny GW, 1/2 the size or smaller than every other FLGS in my city and pay full price when I can get a discount and better experience elsewhere? There is no benefit to visiting a GW branded store in most places. It's an antiquated approach to doing business in my opinion.
Just Tony wrote: Didn't the guys on Big Bang Theory play Settlers of Cataan on the show? Pay to have them play 40K, instant advertising. OR on a Nickelodeon teen show.
Or televise a tourney on ESPN2, like they did with M:TG back in the day. Rather than try to sell the same people redone versions of the same models and books, get it right and bring your product into the light. Make Space Hulk and Mordheim cheaper and stick them in standard stores with flyers inside advertising the main line games. Too easy.
For whatever reason GW doesn't believe in advertising outside of their stores and word of mouth. It doesn't make sense to anyone but them
I guess you could argue that it's the sort of game you want an enthusiastic vet sitting opposite you who knows the rules so a new player doesn't have to get bogged down reading rules and painting and whatnot before they even touch a game.
The best thing might be to give local stores an advertising budget and maybe a marketing person who is in charge of advertising for a handful of stores for the purpose of local level advertising to get people through the doors. But even that's difficult to do with 1 man stores.
I've always suspected the reason GW doesn't advertise is because the past couple decades of leadership has been ashamed of running a toy company. Reading their financial reports I get a real strong vibe of people who'd much rather be working in something they could be taken seriously for at the rich people parties they probably attend.
"Hi Harry, this is Tom. Harry runs an oil conglomerate over in Sweden, Tom. They're doing quite well." Bob says, introducing two of his friends to each other.
"Nice to meet you Tom, so what company do you run?" Harry says as he tosses his top hat aside and smokes his big cigar while fingering his monocle.
"Its a uh, a retailer, distributor, and manufacturer group," Tom says with a slight stutter.
"Oh really? Vertical integration! Very impressive. What do you sell?" Harry says with a nod as he grabs a glass of 10,000 champagne from a gold plated robot server.
"Uh, well, they're little plastic jewels of wonder. . . .you use them to play this uh, game. . ." Tom says as he starts to sweat in his fake silk suit.
The Auld Grump - at this point if they had a Getting Started bundle for Tomb Kings... I would be a happy Grump.
This any interest to you?
But yeah, I think GW are making the right moves now. It does mean that I'm going to be having a harder time finding some oppnents for alternative games though.
Are those models all hard plastic or are they metal add-on kits?
Back on topic, GW have me actually buying their stuff again.
I've picked up pretty much every boxed game they've made since Execution Force (only skipped Lost Patrol).
AoS also is a solid rule set that we've had fun playing.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I hadn't actually considered Citadel dropping by 12%, that actually paints a much poorer picture of AoS because it's not like they managed to maintain sales with AoS, they actually lost quite considerable sales and FW picked up the slack.
It could just be that the plastic HH has moved everyones spending over to FW (upgrade kits, filling out armies, general HH addiction) so aren't currently spending on AoS as much as they'd like.
I was thinking about this again, it could be that BAC saved them twice, boosting both Citadel sales and FW sales.
The Auld Grump - at this point if they had a Getting Started bundle for Tomb Kings... I would be a happy Grump.
This any interest to you?
But yeah, I think GW are making the right moves now. It does mean that I'm going to be having a harder time finding some oppnents for alternative games though.
Are those models all hard plastic or are they metal add-on kits?
Back on topic, GW have me actually buying their stuff again.
I've picked up pretty much every boxed game they've made since Execution Force (only skipped Lost Patrol).
AoS also is a solid rule set that we've had fun playing.
The basic skeletons and the catapult are hybrid kits using Mantic existing plastics with metal components, and the rest should be all metal (heroes, swarms, not-ushabtis)
For me what i took from this without things such like total war and even with price rise they are making a lot less money, nearly a 3rd of the profit came from Royalties. I mean GW is literally throwing out new release after new release and people are simply losing interest and/or not willing to invest in the hobby these days.
I always find this investors articles very interesting.
itsonlyme wrote: For me what i took from this without things such like total war and even with price rise they are making a lot less money, nearly a 3rd of the profit came from Royalties. I mean GW is literally throwing out new release after new release and people are simply losing interest and/or not willing to invest in the hobby these days.
I always find this investors articles very interesting.
Good read and some very astute points made. If their goal is to sell miniatures but they're dependent upon royalties to earn a profit, that should be telling them something.
I don't know how to take it. He seems like he is a gamer and loves 40K but hates the management as most 40K/Fantasy gamers have the love/hate relationship but loves collecting the money.
If he is not a gamer at all, not sure how he really knows how the Management team really is then and how he can't trust them. He sure trusts them enough to have GW stock. He sure trusts them enough when they are giving him money. Something about his article is off.
If some faceless entity kept handing you money, would you accept the money, or hand it back n case it needed it later?
As an investor it makes perfect sense, holding onto stock while it's making you a return and getting out before you incur a loss is pretty much the whole game. Accepting a dividend from GW while being acutely aware that the current trends mean it can't last forever and keeping a weather eye out for when it comes to time to bail out seems like perfectly sensible behaviour to me, and has nothing to do with trust.
Good read and some very astute points made. If their goal is to sell miniatures but they're dependent upon royalties to earn a profit, that should be telling them something.
Couldn't agree more however I don't feel the current management really understand the markets. At the moment they seem to be flinging sh*t at the wall hoping it will stick. What's very evident is that the IP in the right hands can make a lot of money. Sadly the old management made one good decision (buy the rights for lotr) and basically got lucky, sense the buzz of the film died down they have been slowly killing the business (very slowly). GW isn't a clothes store, you can't dictate the trends, you have to actually find out what people like and stop deciding you know what your core customer is.
Davor wrote: I don't know how to take it. He seems like he is a gamer and loves 40K but hates the management as most 40K/Fantasy gamers have the love/hate relationship but loves collecting the money.
If he is not a gamer at all, not sure how he really knows how the Management team really is then and how he can't trust them. He sure trusts them enough to have GW stock. He sure trusts them enough when they are giving him money. Something about his article is off.
He's not a gamer but one of the investors. I would read some of his other articles, they are very good reads mate.
If some faceless entity kept handing you money, would you accept the money, or hand it back n case it needed it later?
As an investor it makes perfect sense, holding onto stock while it's making you a return and getting out before you incur a loss is pretty much the whole game. Accepting a dividend from GW while being acutely aware that the current trends mean it can't last forever and keeping a weather eye out for when it comes to time to bail out seems like perfectly sensible behaviour to me, and has nothing to do with trust.
Indeed. I've owned GW stock during three separate periods and dumped it twice so far when it benefited me to do so.
Good read and some very astute points made. If their goal is to sell miniatures but they're dependent upon royalties to earn a profit, that should be telling them something.
Couldn't agree more however I don't feel the current management really understand the markets. At the moment they seem to be flinging sh*t at the wall hoping it will stick. What's very evident is that the IP in the right hands can make a lot of money. Sadly the old management made one good decision (buy the rights for lotr) and basically got lucky, sense the buzz of the film died down they have been slowly killing the business (very slowly). GW isn't a clothes store, you can't dictate the trends, you have to actually find out what people like and stop deciding you know what your core customer is.
This is something that the writer discussed in his article the whole apparent mindset at GWHQ that either there is no competition or the completely dismissing any competition that they deign to recognize. I recall the insane ramblings of Kirby decrying the passing fad that is Pokemon...yeah, how's that working out?
I've said this several times in previous threads. GW, whether they admit to it or not, is facing identity crisis wrapped in internal conflict. They seem to not be able to move beyond themselves and examine who they are and who they are trying to attract as customers. You read statements from upper management about how 70%-ish of their customers never play their games but just collect and then other statements that they're targeting children with their products. Though children do collect, they generally don't collect things that they don't use. I myself had a hat collection when I was younger but guess what? I wore hats.
I think they'll continue to experience slowly declining profits until they either are unable to pull out of their death spiral or manage to turn things around by a shift in corporate philosophy. This is not them suddenly dying off but rather the death of a thousand cuts as they lose market share to more progressive competitors (whether they admit they exist or not).
Games Workshop Group PLC announces that sales and profits in the four months to 2 October 2016 are ahead of the Board's original expectations.
Over the four month period of the year to date we have seen sales growth in constant currency terms. Sales have further benefitted from the favourable impact of a weaker pound. These have resulted in growth in reported sales for the period.
However, the Board is aware that this is early in the 2017 financial year and that there are a number of key challenging trading periods ahead.
A nice (for me at least) 5% share price jump on the news. Hopefully shows that the changes in direction Kevin Rountree has been making are bearing fruit.
Games Workshop Group PLC announces that sales and profits in the four months to 2 October 2016 are ahead of the Board's original expectations.
Over the four month period of the year to date we have seen sales growth in constant currency terms. Sales have further benefitted from the favourable impact of a weaker pound. These have resulted in growth in reported sales for the period.
However, the Board is aware that this is early in the 2017 financial year and that there are a number of key challenging trading periods ahead.
A nice (for me at least) 5% share price jump on the news. Hopefully shows that the changes in direction Kevin Rountree has been making are bearing fruit.
KR should send a thank you note to everyone who voted Brexit 'Yes'. That currency windfall is going to be bigger than anyone expects.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: Didn't the guys on Big Bang Theory play Settlers of Cataan on the show? Pay to have them play 40K, instant advertising. OR on a Nickelodeon teen show.
Or televise a tourney on ESPN2, like they did with M:TG back in the day. Rather than try to sell the same people redone versions of the same models and books, get it right and bring your product into the light. Make Space Hulk and Mordheim cheaper and stick them in standard stores with flyers inside advertising the main line games. Too easy.
I wonder if that 4 months starts just before or just after the brexit vote.
They say sales are up even at constant currency which is good.
For a company that gets roughly two thirds (from memory) of its revenue overseas, the drop in the pound was going to be a huge boost. They're making roughly 16% more on each overseas sale than they were last year.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I wonder if that 4 months starts just before or just after the brexit vote.
They say sales are up even at constant currency which is good.
For a company that gets roughly two thirds (from memory) of its revenue overseas, the drop in the pound was going to be a huge boost. They're making roughly 16% more on each overseas sale than they were last year.
GW's fiscal year started June 1, Brexit vote was June 23. Sterling got smacked immediately afterwards so they've enjoyed over 3 full months of sales with GBP down 15% vs USD alone.
Their stated increase in sales at constant currency is encouraging, but I'll wait until mid-year results to raise a glass.
I'm beginning to wonder if GW was right all along - their games don't really matter. My impression is that their games have taken a huge hit the last two years or so. Gaming nights at the store used to be packed with people playing Warhammer and 40k, and shelf space in the store was nearly 50% GW stuff. It's completely fallen off a cliff. Their shelf space has been slowly shrinking and I rarely see people playing their games.
Yet they seem to be cranking along at basically the same pace these past two years.... I guess most of their customers really are just collectors buying minis to paint and model. Frankly I'm impressed they've kept the wheels,on the bus this whole time, despite their actual games becoming less and less popular and competitors snatching up those people.
When AoS came i(after at least trying it which more than I can say for many old WFB players I knew), thought this really was the beginning of the end. I tried using the opportunity afforded by the death of fantasy to get back into 40k but... Yeah what a mess that is right now, and the player base just isn't what it used to be. I dunno, somehow the show goes on. Actual "gamers" like myself apparently really aren't what drives their sales.
It's important to take this statement in context. Unlike their financial reports, this sort of thing doesn't have any legal obligation to accuracy.
Firstly, we have no clue as to what the expectations were for this quarter, so "above expectations" could be code for "bad, but not as bad as we thought."
Secondly, their first half last year was pretty dire, according to their FYE report, only turning thing around in the post Christmas period. So sales being up YOY doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually any good.
Sales being up and a pleasant surprise for the board is in no way a bad thing, but it isn't necessarily particularly remarkable either.
dosiere wrote: I'm beginning to wonder if GW was right all along - their games don't really matter. My impression is that their games have taken a huge hit the last two years or so. Gaming nights at the store used to be packed with people playing Warhammer and 40k, and shelf space in the store was nearly 50% GW stuff. It's completely fallen off a cliff. Their shelf space has been slowly shrinking and I rarely see people playing their games.
Yet they seem to be cranking along at basically the same pace these past two years.... I guess most of their customers really are just collectors buying minis to paint and model. Frankly I'm impressed they've kept the wheels,on the bus this whole time, despite their actual games becoming less and less popular and competitors snatching up those people.
When AoS came i(after at least trying it which more than I can say for many old WFB players I knew), thought this really was the beginning of the end. I tried using the opportunity afforded by the death of fantasy to get back into 40k but... Yeah what a mess that is right now, and the player base just isn't what it used to be. I dunno, somehow the show goes on. Actual "gamers" like myself apparently really aren't what drives their sales.
I think it's really hard to pinpoint who buys the models when the game is such trash. I mean, there's a lot of people who will say the game is great because they play with like the same 2-3 people and they have fun, but for every situation like that there's the one you said where the GW groups have all splintered and gone to other games; other than the GW store itself, barely any store stocks anything besides the bare minimum for GW stuff, and I rarely see people play it.
I do think that a lot of it is the IDEA of collecting and playing. I can use myself as an example because the past few months that's what I've done. I've bought several hundred dollars of different things (few CSM things, started a Flesh Eater Court army for AOS) but I've barely used it. Yet I spend most days looking at Warhammer things, whether that's browsing forums, looking at pictures, watching Youtube videos, eyeing models, etc and I already have several ideas for other armies brewing in my head, despite playing like all of 2.5 games of AOS and not even having played 40k yet in some 16 years (first game is set for tomorrow though). So why is that? I don't even exactly have an answer, but I know I've already thought of buying several more things, for the sake of "Maybe this will be what I enjoy", and I can only imagine that's how it must be for other people too. It's the illusion of buying this cool army and painting it up and playing with it that keeps them going, and I know this because that's what has me thinking periodically of starting a Genestealer Cult army, or a Nurgle Chaos army, or maybe a Bonesplitterz or Necron or Eldar army, or maybe buying Calth to start playing 30k, all of which has happened in the past month or so (thinking about it, not buying it). Like, I can't even really explain it fully, and writing this makes me think it's just crazy but that's how it is. I spent most of today considering if I were to start a Nurgle army in AOS, how I might paint my models, and then reading some old Nurgle fluff. I don't own any Nurgle models, and I've barely played my Flesh-Eater Courts in AOS. But here I am thinking of doing another army and dropping a few hundred bucks on it, because the idea of collecting it sounds appealing. The IDEA. Not the game. The idea of collecting the army.
Reading Wayne's comment, I sometimes wonder if GW has hit some kind of "balance" point at this stage, in which they've basically burned all bridges that could be burned. Most new - prospective - players are scared away at the sight of their prices, many veterans have left after having been treated with pure contempt for years, so in the end GW is left with the "whales" (the kind of veteran who pretty much spends all their wargaming budget on GW and won't even have a look at other games/models).
What I mean is, perhaps at this point GW has managed to get themselves to a stage where they can more or less keep their profits stable despite sales still going down and their market share still shrinking in a bussiness environment (wargaming and miniatures) that according to all signs seems to be growing and growing. Obviously those profits are stable thanks to cost cutting measures and more price raises, policies which we know won't be sustainable on the long run. But between that and some lucky hits with royalties (Total War) they may be able to survive for a few more years without suffering internal turmoil.
When the machine eventually breaks down, it's not going to be pretty though.
Their main issues (terrible rules, crazy prices) show no sign of getting fixed anytime soon, in fact they're getting worse by the minute. I'll be probably starting a new project soon, a Fantasy mercenary army intented to play WHFB 5th, 6th or 7th edition, or perhaps any fanmade ruleset based on them. And it's likely I won't be buying anything from GW, because as things stand right now they're pretty much the worst option out there in terms of price/quality.
In fact, at this rate, the only thing I'll ever buy from GW again will be some Black Ark Corsairs because I really want to complete my Dark Elf Corsair force with models from 5th, 6th and 7th editions, and those guys are priced decently for a change (ten models, 21€).
dosiere wrote: Yet they seem to be cranking along at basically the same pace these past two years.... I guess most of their customers really are just collectors buying minis to paint and model. Frankly I'm impressed they've kept the wheels,on the bus this whole time, despite their actual games becoming less and less popular and competitors snatching up those people.
This is true in the short term, I think. The problem is with the picture several years out. No matter how good a game is people will eventually stop buying. They finish their collections, have life events that force a change of priorities, etc, and that's the end of the money you're getting from them. To stay alive you have to keep getting new customers to replace the ones you lose. GW used to have (and still does have, to some degree) a huge advantage in their market dominance: no matter where you went there were people playing GW games, so the first game a new person would be introduced to was almost always a GW game. And then maybe, once you were into GW games, you might have poked around at some of the non-GW options. But now GW is losing this "critical mass" factor. Fewer people are playing GW games, and more new customers are being introduced to GW's competition instead. So yeah, the dedicated collectors are going to keep giving GW revenue, but who is replacing them when they're gone?
I think GW rely heavily on their whales these days.
I've joked for years that GW's business practice is increasingly trying to squeeze as much money out of as few customers and as time goes on I think it becomes more true.
Thing is, there's a ton of people who are like that. I see it all the time (some are on this forum) where people only know GW, nothing else comes close to quality (so they say), no other game appeals to them because it doesn't look like a GW game, nothing else strikes their fancy but GW's over the top approach, so GW is it.
I've met a ton of people who still feel that the entire wargaming hobby is Warhammer; even now people seem to know like Warhammer, maybe Warmachine, sometimes X-Wing (but honestly I don't really consider X-Wing to be in that same category, even though it really is), and that's it. Anything else they are completely ignorant of. Mention something like Flames of War, or Bolt Action, or Frostgrave or some of those kickstarter type miniature games (names escape me now but there's like a Wild West one that looked cool, and a weird fantasy one, Dark Age I think? I don't know, there's tons) and you get blank stares followed by essentially ignoring that you just mentioned another game (as opposed to asking to know more about it). For me this is especially hard because I have a laundry list of games I've seen that looked cool and I might be interested in (to say nothing of the fact I like military history and as a result various historical eras), but not only does nobody around me play them, but nobody I've ever talked to knows/cares about them, because they aren't Warhammer/Warmachine/something you can readily buy in a game store and then proceed to play games only at that game store. Which usually leads back to my rant on how "game store culture" is awful and gaming club culture is much better, but I'll spare that particular rant again
I do see that mentality far more common in the GW crowd though; often any comment of another game is met with immediate reasons why said other game is inferior to Warhammer, or occasionally an "I used to play that game, but I left because <reasons> and went back to Warhammer" followed by saying how the game isn't as good as Warhammer because of XYZ (usually related to the lore and/or the models).
It's very weird, but I guess I can't bash it as much as I used to because I am essentially a "whale" right now. The idea of building a cool looking army and playing with it is enough to get me to want to spend money, sad as I am to say. I've spent more in the past like 2 months than I did in an entire year on Warmachine (which I haven't played since the new edition came out because I've been focusing on buying Warhammer stuff). Hell, if my 40k game goes well tomorrow and I like it, there's a solid chance the following week I'm going to drop like $300-400 on Genestealer Cults, and even if not there's a very good chance I'm going to spend at least $100 and maybe more on either stuff for my Flesh-Eater Courts or starting a new AOS army. Like I said, it's the idea of doing it, of having a very visually cool looking army (which I can no longer deny, the GW models ARE usually cool looking and have a very unique looking aesthetic to them, by which mean they have a very distinct look that, even though I do enjoy a lot of figures from other games, it's not the same. It's kind of like preferring the look of a Honda; a Toyota might be a great car, maybe even better than the Honda, but it doesn't quite look like a Honda) even in the face of the game (although truth be told I did enjoy Age of Sigmar and want to play it more).
I think a lot of forum dwellers either are or were at one time whales for GW, I remember a 40k poll a while back that asked how much people spend on 40k and the average was quite high even. I know I've been one in the past, but after a while the game just fails to capture me so even when I get excited about an army I'm left with the thought I'm never going to actually play a game with them so what's the point.
As such I haven't bought anything from GW in a while now, even though there are forces I'd like to experiment with.
I really hope I haven't said this in this thread already. - It's kinda one of the things when you do have long discussion threads but... I think it's a case of, "I always meant to post it but never did."
I do think that it'll end up being a combination of more prevalent gaming stores combined with licensed games that take down GW.
After all, a [strike]space marine[/strike]Adeptus Astartes is cool and all but, like the saying goes.
Always be yourself.
Unless you can be Batman
Then always be Batman.
@wayniac it's called the walled garden mate, companies like Apple and Sony both do similar things with proprietary tech to keep customers only buying their products.
Compel wrote: I really hope I haven't said this in this thread already. - It's kinda one of the things when you do have long discussion threads but... I think it's a case of, "I always meant to post it but never did."
I do think that it'll end up being a combination of more prevalent gaming stores combined with licensed games that take down GW.
After all, a [strike]space marine[/strike]Adeptus Astartes is cool and all but, like the saying goes.
Always be yourself.
Unless you can be Batman
Then always be Batman.
It'll be interesting to see if licensed games end up dominating. X-Wing certainly does well, but I think in general 40k is a universe designed around a game rather than a game designed around a universe and that makes for better gaming in the end. Where licensed games tend to hit walls when it comes to expanding the range, 40k can always invent new armies or new factions within existing armies and just write them in to the wider fluff.
I quit playing 40k in 5th edition and WFB at the end of 7th.
I was a big advocate of and actively demoed for Mantic for a couple of years. Over the past two years, I've bought back into GW because of the games. I like AoS (and I understand the rage over the points/force org not coming out with the game's release).
I've also bought into GW's board games and primarily because they are self-contained games that are actually pretty decent themselves (Execution Force, Warhammer Quest, B@C, Deathwatch Overkill). These games have solid rule sets and let me play in the 40k/Fantasy settings without having to buy into huge armies. I also don't have to rely on others to buy in since the games come with both sides.
GW have made some mistakes during the past couple of years, too. For example, I cancelled my sub to the new WD once the first issue screw-up became clear---and it looks like they're still jacking that up. But overall, they're doing better and I look forward to Blood Bowl and the Prospero game for the games themselves.
I've seen a solid resurgence in gw lately locally. It feels like manic squaneed their chance with kings of war and AoS with points has already started to push it out. Leagues are starting g again. When we haven't had them I the last 7 years for AoS and 40k seems to be on an uptick. And all of this is in Ffgs backyard where xwing is insanely popular.
I think gw is slowly righting the boat. The moment is going to be the release of 8th. So many want simplification but there is always backlash from diehards.
For me with the release of points for AoS and genestealer Cult they got me for a decent bit of cash this year outside of their boardgames.
Hulksmash wrote: I've seen a solid resurgence in gw lately locally. It feels like manic squaneed their chance with kings of war and AoS with points has already started to push it out.
According to data from reddit, which in my opinion is more a truthful reflection of actual numbers than anecdotal evidence and hearsay, AoS has left KoW behind a long time ago. The AoS community is now bigger than the old WHFB community, and growing:
Whales is a term mostly used in free-to-pay videogames (maybe it existed before, but that's mainly the context I've seen it) but has become more prevalent in describing customerbases in general.
Most of the frree-to-play users play for free or pay for just the occasional premium stuff. But a few players get hooked enough to put in vast sums of money, buying all of the skins, weapons and digital tat.
The companies make most of their money on those few "whales" , similar to how GW seems to become increasingly dependent on a smaller customer-base, purchasing big quantities of stuff.
Zywus wrote: Whales is a term mostly used in free-to-pay videogames but has become more prevalent in describing customerbases in general.
Most of the frree-to-play users play for free or pay for just the occasional premium stuff. But a few players get hooked enough to put in vast sums of money, buying all of the skins, weapons and digital tat.
The companies make most of their money on those few "whales"
Thank you, learned something new today. Greatly appreciate the explanation.
Hulksmash wrote: I've seen a solid resurgence in gw lately locally. It feels like manic squaneed their chance with kings of war and AoS with points has already started to push it out.
According to data from reddit, which in my opinion is more a truthful reflection of actual numbers than anecdotal evidence and hearsay, AoS has left KoW behind a long time ago. The AoS community is now bigger than the old WHFB community, and growing:
It would be nice to know, however, if it is simply 40k players looking at something different without getting out of GW games rather than new customers. If it is, and they're just cannibalising their own 40k sales, then it's not a win. It's not a loss either though.
The trick with having multiple games is you need each to have its own voice that appeals to different parts of the market. Crossover from people that like the universe (if shared) or the company are always going to happen, but you don't want that to be your overall goal since they're still likely spending the same amount of money on your product, just split between different properties.
-Loki- wrote: It would be nice to know, however, if it is simply 40k players looking at something different without getting out of GW games rather than new customers. If it is, and they're just cannibalising their own 40k sales, then it's not a win. It's not a loss either though.
The trick with having multiple games is you need each to have its own voice that appeals to different parts of the market. Crossover from people that like the universe (if shared) or the company are always going to happen, but you don't want that to be your overall goal since they're still likely spending the same amount of money on your product, just split between different properties.
Honestly I feel more inclined to the first possibility. Personally I can't bring myself to see AoS as a game with a high appeal to new customers, specially considering what it pretends to be: a skirmish game. The market already had several skirmish games and pretty much all of them (at least the ones I know: Frostgrave, Saga, etc.) have superior rules to AoS and are cheaper to play, both on the short and the long term. AoS may not require a huge number of models to be played but in the end it doesn't matter because the shiny units and characters are outrageously expensive.
As I see it, AoS may be enjoying some success among the usual crowd of GW "whales" and very GW-centric communities, mostly located in the UK and certain parts of the US. Among here, most people I know look at it with either contempt or indifference (or a mixture of both) and new players attracted to the hobby are mostly drawn to some old edition of WHFB and some of the newly appeared fanmade rulesets. But then again, AoS was dead on arrival here, so this was to be expected.
So in the end I think it's more whale-milking than anything else. And I doubt it's having much of an impact on sales anyway, seeing at how in the previous fiscal year GW was saved by Betrayal of Calth first and then by the royalties from Total War (overall sales continued to decline).
motski wrote: According to data from reddit, which in my opinion is more a truthful reflection of actual numbers than anecdotal evidence and hearsay, AoS has left KoW behind a long time ago. The AoS community is now bigger than the old WHFB community, and growing:
It's data, but you have to be very careful in how you interpret it. For example, the graph you directly linked to seems to be comparing the number of new subscribers added each day, which has the potential to be very misleading. If subreddit X has 10,000 subscribers but only adds 1-2 per day because everyone who is interested has already subscribed while subreddit Y has 1,000 subscribers and adds 10 per day that graph will show Y leading by a huge margin. But in the number that matters, total size of the community, X is the obvious winner. And then there are the problems with tracking subscriber count as your deciding factor: people who subscribe and then ignore it vs. a smaller number of people who are actively contributing, whether a low-activity subreddit means a small community or that the community just uses something besides reddit, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It'll be interesting to see if licensed games end up dominating. X-Wing certainly does well, but I think in general 40k is a universe designed around a game rather than a game designed around a universe and that makes for better gaming in the end. Where licensed games tend to hit walls when it comes to expanding the range, 40k can always invent new armies or new factions within existing armies and just write them in to the wider fluff.
I don't know, I think design space in the rules is more of a problem than running out of ideas in the fluff. X-Wing still has lots of EU stuff to draw from, but it's running into some big problems with not having enough room in the core rules/stat line/etc to make new ships without complexity creep and/or balance problems. FFG's biggest concern in expanding the game is (or at least should be) making sure that each new release has good rules, as long as they can keep doing that they'll be fine. And 40k has a lot of the same problem. Sure, the background has lots of stuff, but the tabletop rules are a bloated mess. We don't need 50 different space marine codices. Genestealer cults could have been done just fine with IG and Tyranid allies. Etc. GW can keep throwing out all these new armies with plenty of new fluff, but it's really hurting the game in the process.
Additionally, a lot of the big licensed properties - Star Wars, Star Trek, Batman, Marvel are very much living properties, just as much as a game universe is.
And these properties also live and die on their merchandising. Sure, they may not make things with games specifically in mind but they most certainly do make things with, "sell lots of stuff" in mind.
It's no coincidence that even in the Marvel film universe, Iron Man is now up to Mk44 in his armour suits... And Justice League is adding 2 new Batsuits to his repertoire.
Peregrine wrote: We don't need 50 different space marine codices. Genestealer cults could have been done just fine with IG and Tyranid allies. Etc. GW can keep throwing out all these new armies with plenty of new fluff, but it's really hurting the game in the process.
It's because that's how GW makes their money and keeps interest in the game. If GW released an awesome set of rules for 40k and then just didn't touch it for 2 years they'd probably go out of business.
GW made 30% of their money on new releases last financial year, if that doesn't include existing models in the same range as the new releases (eg. an uptick in tactical marines when a new SM codex comes out) then the influence of new releases is probably even bigger than 30%.
It's a bit of a catch 22, if you don't release models, you don't make money, interest in the game wanes and you lose critical mass and the game dies out. If you do keep releasing models, then at some point you're just bloating the game.
The solution in my mind has always been that GW should have diversified their lines years ago before they let 40k became bloated. It seems they're partly doing that now but it's too late to help 40k's bloat.
It's a bit of a catch 22, if you don't release models, you don't make money, interest in the game wanes and you lose critical mass and the game dies out. If you do keep releasing models, then at some point you're just bloating the game.
Not really - that just assumes you're selling to the same pool of players
Ideally want you want is a constant stream of new players buying older models - you don't then have to go through the costly business of creating as many new models to keep interest up.
It's a bit of a catch 22, if you don't release models, you don't make money, interest in the game wanes and you lose critical mass and the game dies out. If you do keep releasing models, then at some point you're just bloating the game.
Not really - that just assumes you're selling to the same pool of players Ideally want you want is a constant stream of new players buying older models - you don't then have to go through the costly business of creating as many new models to keep interest up.
I don't think you could sustain yourself as one of the larger gaming companies by just trying to get new players buying older models any more than a video games company could sustain themselves purely off selling games they've already made. Even scale model manufacturers like Tamiya, Airfix, Revell, etc are constantly releasing new models and dropping the old ones out of production.
While I do think GW could do a better job of getting new gamers in, I doubt they could make up for the 30% loss in revenue if they stopped releasing new models.
Wouldn't a constantly growing range of models also serve to bring in more people with different interests? I see alot of people entering AoS due to liking the look of a specific army.
motski wrote: According to data from reddit, which in my opinion is more a truthful reflection of actual numbers than anecdotal evidence and hearsay, AoS has left KoW behind a long time ago. The AoS community is now bigger than the old WHFB community, and growing:
It's data, but you have to be very careful in how you interpret it. For example, the graph you directly linked to seems to be comparing the number of new subscribers added each day, which has the potential to be very misleading. If subreddit X has 10,000 subscribers but only adds 1-2 per day because everyone who is interested has already subscribed while subreddit Y has 1,000 subscribers and adds 10 per day that graph will show Y leading by a huge margin. But in the number that matters, total size of the community, X is the obvious winner. And then there are the problems with tracking subscriber count as your deciding factor: people who subscribe and then ignore it vs. a smaller number of people who are actively contributing, whether a low-activity subreddit means a small community or that the community just uses something besides reddit, etc.
Definitely a good point on being careful on interpreting data but I've been a Reddit lurker since the beginning of this year and have seen the Reddit AoS community constantly growing, discussing and showing off their new armies.
I mean, isn't the fact that it's been constantly getting a dozen new posts per day that vary between "finished painting my army", "what army should I get" and "new AoS player here" a good sign? It's pretty frequent activity.
-Loki- wrote: It would be nice to know, however, if it is simply 40k players looking at something different without getting out of GW games rather than new customers. If it is, and they're just cannibalising their own 40k sales, then it's not a win. It's not a loss either though.
The trick with having multiple games is you need each to have its own voice that appeals to different parts of the market. Crossover from people that like the universe (if shared) or the company are always going to happen, but you don't want that to be your overall goal since they're still likely spending the same amount of money on your product, just split between different properties.
Honestly I feel more inclined to the first possibility. Personally I can't bring myself to see AoS as a game with a high appeal to new customers, specially considering what it pretends to be: a skirmish game. The market already had several skirmish games and pretty much all of them (at least the ones I know: Frostgrave, Saga, etc.) have superior rules to AoS and are cheaper to play, both on the short and the long term. AoS may not require a huge number of models to be played but in the end it doesn't matter because the shiny units and characters are outrageously expensive.
As I see it, AoS may be enjoying some success among the usual crowd of GW "whales" and very GW-centric communities, mostly located in the UK and certain parts of the US. Among here, most people I know look at it with either contempt or indifference (or a mixture of both) and new players attracted to the hobby are mostly drawn to some old edition of WHFB and some of the newly appeared fanmade rulesets. But then again, AoS was dead on arrival here, so this was to be expected.
So in the end I think it's more whale-milking than anything else. And I doubt it's having much of an impact on sales anyway, seeing at how in the previous fiscal year GW was saved by Betrayal of Calth first and then by the royalties from Total War (overall sales continued to decline).
Well, it can't be argued that AoS can be pricey but there's been alot of improvement this year with new sets like the Beastclaw Raiders who are about 1/3rd the price of the models bought together in seperate purchases, the Easy-to-build sets which are really cheap ways to test out if you like the game and Silver Tower hero packs which get you a awesome deal on heroes.
I don't think it can be denied that "whales" are a pivotal force for AoS as they are for 40k but it is a lower entry barrier that has given birth to quite a few stories on Reddit, Facebook and TGA of "starting the tabletop for the first time" and "AoS revived fantasy in my area".
There's certainly counter stories to those, like your own area, but the growing popularity is there regardless.
Baron Klatz wrote: Wouldn't a constantly growing range of models also serve to bring in more people with different interests? I see alot of people entering AoS due to liking the look of a specific army.
motski wrote: According to data from reddit, which in my opinion is more a truthful reflection of actual numbers than anecdotal evidence and hearsay, AoS has left KoW behind a long time ago. The AoS community is now bigger than the old WHFB community, and growing:
It's data, but you have to be very careful in how you interpret it. For example, the graph you directly linked to seems to be comparing the number of new subscribers added each day, which has the potential to be very misleading. If subreddit X has 10,000 subscribers but only adds 1-2 per day because everyone who is interested has already subscribed while subreddit Y has 1,000 subscribers and adds 10 per day that graph will show Y leading by a huge margin. But in the number that matters, total size of the community, X is the obvious winner. And then there are the problems with tracking subscriber count as your deciding factor: people who subscribe and then ignore it vs. a smaller number of people who are actively contributing, whether a low-activity subreddit means a small community or that the community just uses something besides reddit, etc.
Definitely a good point on being careful on interpreting data but I've been a Reddit lurker since the beginning of this year and have seen the Reddit AoS community constantly growing, discussing and showing off their new armies.
I mean, isn't the fact that it's been constantly getting a dozen new posts per day that vary between "finished painting my army", "what army should I get" and "new AoS player here" a good sign? It's pretty frequent activity.
I don't follow reddit, how long has the warhammerfantasy reddit existed? It says it had 76 subscribers at the end of 2012, which to me would suggest the metrics only started after WHFB started to die a couple of years after 8th was released.
I don't think anyone argues that WHFB was popular in 8th, whether or not you liked 8th rules, most people will agree that WHFB died out in 8th edition.
AOS definitely feels like the better game. I know I'm fully on it after doing a beginning 40k game yesterday (finally!) and finding it way too clunky and cumbersome and nowhere near as much fun. Also, whether true or not it does feel less expensive to jump into.
dosiere wrote: I'm beginning to wonder if GW was right all along - their games don't really matter. My impression is that their games have taken a huge hit the last two years or so. Gaming nights at the store used to be packed with people playing Warhammer and 40k, and shelf space in the store was nearly 50% GW stuff. It's completely fallen off a cliff. Their shelf space has been slowly shrinking and I rarely see people playing their games.
Yet they seem to be cranking along at basically the same pace these past two years.... I guess most of their customers really are just collectors buying minis to paint and model. Frankly I'm impressed they've kept the wheels,on the bus this whole time, despite their actual games becoming less and less popular and competitors snatching up those people.
When AoS came i(after at least trying it which more than I can say for many old WFB players I knew), thought this really was the beginning of the end. I tried using the opportunity afforded by the death of fantasy to get back into 40k but... Yeah what a mess that is right now, and the player base just isn't what it used to be. I dunno, somehow the show goes on. Actual "gamers" like myself apparently really aren't what drives their sales.
That may be the gamers in your area, but in my area 40k is stronger than ever and AoS has become hugely popular, especially with the release of the general's handbook. I agree that 40k is a mess rules-wise, but AoS is in a very good place with simple but solid core rules, fluffy AND mechanically sound unit abilities, rules complexity and special rules smartly relegated to individual unit warscrolls rather than spread through numerous books, and armies that play like they "should" (fluff-wise). It's much better than 40k currently IMO and I would bet most players who have been playing with the General's Handbook would agree that it solved most issues the game had.
-Loki- wrote: It would be nice to know, however, if it is simply 40k players looking at something different without getting out of GW games rather than new customers. If it is, and they're just cannibalising their own 40k sales, then it's not a win. It's not a loss either though.
The trick with having multiple games is you need each to have its own voice that appeals to different parts of the market. Crossover from people that like the universe (if shared) or the company are always going to happen, but you don't want that to be your overall goal since they're still likely spending the same amount of money on your product, just split between different properties.
Honestly I feel more inclined to the first possibility. Personally I can't bring myself to see AoS as a game with a high appeal to new customers, specially considering what it pretends to be: a skirmish game. The market already had several skirmish games and pretty much all of them (at least the ones I know: Frostgrave, Saga, etc.) have superior rules to AoS and are cheaper to play, both on the short and the long term. AoS may not require a huge number of models to be played but in the end it doesn't matter because the shiny units and characters are outrageously expensive.
As I see it, AoS may be enjoying some success among the usual crowd of GW "whales" and very GW-centric communities, mostly located in the UK and certain parts of the US. Among here, most people I know look at it with either contempt or indifference (or a mixture of both) and new players attracted to the hobby are mostly drawn to some old edition of WHFB and some of the newly appeared fanmade rulesets. But then again, AoS was dead on arrival here, so this was to be expected.
So in the end I think it's more whale-milking than anything else. And I doubt it's having much of an impact on sales anyway, seeing at how in the previous fiscal year GW was saved by Betrayal of Calth first and then by the royalties from Total War (overall sales continued to decline).
AoS has a much bigger appeal to new players than most other games thanks to 1) the simplicity of the rules (this is frequently cited as a reason people get into the game), 2) the ubiquity of GW as a company (new players would be unlikely to ever hear about the other games you mention, much less find other players) and 3) the fact that GW heavily supports the game with high-quality models and a rapid release schedule. On the other end of the scale you have something like 9th Age, which while by all acounts a great rules update for WHFB, has drawn zero new players over here, being played only by disgruntled WHFB players buying/painting no new models (even going so far as to simply swap the armies they already have with other players rather than buying or painting new stuff) and playing only each other. Higher up the scale, with probably the most appeal to new players of any game I could think of, would be something like X-Wing, which while having all the advantages of AoS also has 1) huge toy store retail prescense, 2) pre-painted models and 3) the Star Wars brand.
@Mymearan.
Anecdotal evidence of a particular area, is only relevant information for that particular area.
To get a true understanding of what is going on you have to look at the big picture.
If we look at war gaming in general.
About just over 10 years ago most forums would be..
40k.
WHB
Specialist games.
Non GW games.
(OR non GW fantasy games, Non GW Sci fi games , Historical.)
Most now have at least 4 non GW games with their own forums.And much more detailed categories for the large amount of great games out there.
If GW had not screwed up so badly in terms of rules development and support, most of the 'replacement rule sets' made by Ex GW employees at new companies , (like Warlord Games and Mantic Games, etc) would not have seen the light of day.
Also If you look at the financial statements, despite constant cost cutting and price rises above the rate of inflation,the turn over of GW plc has remained quite static.
This means sales volumes are down year on year.
Basically GW plc are selling less product , at higher retail prices.
And this can not go on indefinately. Every one has a point where the price GW charge can no longer be seen as acceptable.
This is GW plcs biggest problem, if they can not increase sales volumes, they are doomed to be relegated to insignificance.
Or it could be the fact with the start collecting boxes and the like that they're selling more products with less return in profits while still being the same cost to manufacture them.
I would imagine the mould costs for the units on the start collecting boxes have long been paid off so the literal manufacturing costs are probably pennies.
Compel wrote: I would imagine the mould costs for the units on the start collecting boxes have long been paid off so the literal manufacturing costs are probably pennies.
Which doesn't matter at all. All that matters is total costs and total revenue. Which particular pieces of metal are being used is irrelevant, a paid-off mold and a brand new mold each making 100 kits will have the same result for the company as two half-paid-off molds each making 100 kits at the same sale price. Once you have purchased the molds making 100 start collecting boxes with a set of old molds will cost exactly the same as making 100 start collecting boxes with a set of new molds, and the total revenue from each will be the same. The only time new molds vs. old molds matters is if you're making new molds specifically for a new product and you're calculating what price you have to sell it at for investing in the new molds to bring in more revenue than the cost. But this doesn't apply to any of the start collecting boxes because they're all using existing molds, whether those molds are from 2015 or 1995 is irrelevant.
In the case of the start collecting boxes all that matters is that GW is now selling X boxes at a lower price than if people purchased the same models* as multiple separate purchases. And the question is whether or not GW manages to sell enough additional boxes by lowering the price to make up for the smaller revenue per box.
*This is of course assuming that customers would buy the same kits individually if they didn't have to buy an all-or-nothing bundle, but it's probably a close enough assumption.
But I don't think most people would just buy the same thing separately for twice the price. People buy Start Collecting sets for armies they might like but never considered playing, with the discount they feel they're getting a steal so pick it up.
What I think matters most to GW is extracting maximum amount of money from peoples' pockets. Whether they sell 10 sprues or 15 sprues is less relevant compared to whether a customer spends $100 or $150.
Once the moulds are cut and the machines are set up, the cost to then cast another set of models is tiny. The costs are incurred from building the range and those aren't insignificant, but once you have that range casting more models isn't anywhere near as significant. There is also the cost of boxing and transporting them, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say those are probably a small percentage of total costs as well.
So what's important to GW is how much money they can get a person to spend in total, not what rate they sell each sprue for. If selling models cheaper entices people to spend more in total, they're a good scheme. I think for years GW took the approach that people desperately needed to buy X number of models and they'd pay huge amounts of money to get that X number of models. The Start Collecting boxes I think shows that GW is coming over to more conventional wisdom that a good way to part people from their money is to make people feel like they're getting good value for money and one of doing that is to raise the perceived value of their product and then come out with cheaper bundles to make people think they're getting an awesome deal.
Peregrine wrote: In the case of the start collecting boxes all that matters is that GW is now selling X boxes at a lower price than if people purchased the same models* as multiple separate purchases. And the question is whether or not GW manages to sell enough additional boxes by lowering the price to make up for the smaller revenue per box.
*This is of course assuming that customers would buy the same kits individually if they didn't have to buy an all-or-nothing bundle, but it's probably a close enough assumption.
Obviously bundling things together to sell more volume but at a lower cost per individual component means selling more product.
Otherwise no-one would do the "2 for 3" etc. offers that virtually every company in the world engage in. Or the fact that the bigger the bundle, the cheaper the individual component is.
A 1,5 liter bottle of soda doesn't cost 3 times as much as three 0,5 liter bottles.
So any discounted box sold to someone who would have bought the models separate otherwise means a lowering of profit. But everyone who gets one of those boxes who would have only bought a single box or nothing at all is an increase. Short term, I'd say we can quite confidently say the discounted boxes do increase GW's profit. Possibly they can take a hit long-term if it means a lot more product gets circulated on the second hand market though.
AoS has a much bigger appeal to new players than most other games thanks to 1) the simplicity of the rules (this is frequently cited as a reason people get into the game), 2) the ubiquity of GW as a company (new players would be unlikely to ever hear about the other games you mention, much less find other players) and 3) the fact that GW heavily supports the game with high-quality models and a rapid release schedule. On the other end of the scale you have something like 9th Age, which while by all acounts a great rules update for WHFB, has drawn zero new players over here, being played only by disgruntled WHFB players buying/painting no new models (even going so far as to simply swap the armies they already have with other players rather than buying or painting new stuff) and playing only each other. Higher up the scale, with probably the most appeal to new players of any game I could think of, would be something like X-Wing, which while having all the advantages of AoS also has 1) huge toy store retail prescense, 2) pre-painted models and 3) the Star Wars brand.
One thing I am curious about is how many players that start with X-Wing make the jump to 'hobby' wargaming?
Without GW, where would the new players come from?
''One thing I am curious about is how many players that start with X-Wing make the jump to 'hobby' wargaming?
Without GW, where would the new players come from?''
Well there are lost of other great games out there , from lots of great companies.It is more common for people to get into this (non historical)war gaming hobby without even knowing about GW plc. This would have been unheard of 15 years ago!
Most of our xwing community only plays xwing. They don't play any other game, and have never played any other game and most don't have any interest in playing any other game.
I wasn't saying that anything I said was beyond anecdotal. That I was referring solely to my community would make it purely anecdotal and obvious.
Considering that there is no global data repository that can answer the question "One thing I am curious about is how many players that start with X-Wing make the jump to 'hobby' wargaming", every answer you get will be anecdotal.
Not in the least. You offered something, I pointed out it didn't really have any value, you agreed, so I questioned why you bothered.
Whether X Wing inducts people into a wider hobby or people stop with X Wing (which I doubt, even if they just stay in the FFG ecosystem) isn't something we can answer, and certainly isn't something that needs to be answered in a GW Financials thread.
Thank you. It makes me feel a lot better knowing that you are around policing up the threads to make sure that posters are providing data that you consider valuable.
Azreal13 wrote: Not a single one of our X Wing players doesn't play at least one other game too.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.
Did they start with X-Wing though, and are they 'hobby' wargaming, as in building and painting their miniatures.
auticus wrote: Thank you. It makes me feel a lot better knowing that you are around policing up the threads to make sure that posters are providing data that you consider valuable.
StygianBeach wrote: One thing I am curious about is how many players that start with X-Wing make the jump to 'hobby' wargaming?
Without GW, where would the new players come from?
GW might have helped grow wargaming in to mainstreaming 10-20 years ago, but the hobby hasn't needed GW for quite a while now.
One of the local FLGS's has a tiny GW display, it's basically a stack of unorganised boxes. GW games don't feature on any of the tables you see as you walk in. When the shop keepers come over to have a chat they'll describe all the games they have and conveniently leave out GW games or just mention them in passing unless you specifically ask them about it. They'll tell you about Infinity, Bolt Action, Warmahordes, Malifaux, X-Wing, Flames of War, Kings of War, Dreadball or whatever else they have hanging around. The range is huge these days and the shop keepers try and identify the game a newbie might like.
The other FLGS has a larger GW range, and I've often seen the shop keepers working on GW models so they must like GW more than the first FLGS I mentioned. But still, you look at their events calendar and GW games barely crack it for a mention.
The hobby never needed GW to survive, over a decade ago GW helped thrust it in to the mainstream, but for the past decade even in that area GW has become increasingly irrelevant.
If you think I'm not following rule 1, report me, don't clumsily try and make the point yourself. Especially when what you quoted was an answer to a directly asked question, somewhat undermining what you were attempting to do.
Now, anything to say on the subject of GW financials?
auticus wrote: Thank you. It makes me feel a lot better knowing that you are around policing up the threads to make sure that posters are providing data that you consider valuable.
Cheers!
I haven't posted in a few days, he needs someone else to pick on.
One thing I am curious about is how many players that start with X-Wing make the jump to 'hobby' wargaming?
Without GW, where would the new players come from?
I think, overall, the question doesn't matters too much (as in: GW is not the entry point, GW was just the dominant end state for fantasy/SF war-gaming for a long time). Many people got into GW games through boardgames and even GW licensed board games that were actually advertised on TV. Similar for good (GW licensed) video games. The LotR bump even was caused by that game's popularity (and not because GW was making it, all these new customers didn't know what GW was), and an actual magazine that promoted the game on TV (again). Other found fantasy wargaming because it's a relative of historical wargaming, or tabletop RPGs, or other neighbouring hobbies. GW thinks (or thought?) advertising doesn't work in this niche and removed themselves from accessible games to focus on their three pillars strategy (40k, WHFB, LotR) while everybody else who worked with them showed that you can use advertisement and easy accessible boardgames to grow this niche and lure new people into the hobby.
It seems (to me at least) that many war-gamers were funnelled into this hobby by everything besides GW. GW has stores (although they seem to hide them in not as accessible areas these days) but their motivation seems to have been aimed at getting you (male/teenager) interested so you buy a big army and then not caring if you actually drop out again (that's a huge spike of sales in a short time by a yearly regenerating customer base of 13 year olds) and later transitioned into this thing that's aimed at collectors/whales when the old business model got too expensive for teenagers. Creating actual war-gamers is just a side effect for them and only interesting if they stay within the GW ecosystem (the rules are an indicator of that).
The question "Without GW, where would the new players come from?" only makes sense for people who only play GW games and even then it's only part of the solution as GW always relied on others to push people into the "GW hobby". Having their own stores without advertisement was never enough although it created some customers who for a while didn't know that there were other games/paints/tools/companies and thought the "GW hobby" was in some way an unique hobby.
I've seen people transition to GW/wargaming from MtG (they wanted something more solid for all the money they were spending) and who knows how many people will move to the wider wargaming market from X-Wing but GW is not the only connection from the "real world" to the wargaming world and their importance was been declining as alternatives have grown. There might be a big chunk of people for whom GW was the entry point before they found other games but that was more of a result of GW having been really dominant and not about their magical ability to reel in new customers.
The way I look at it is every game from Armies Of Arcana to X-Wing can be the only game a person plays or it my be one of many games a person plays.
A lot of these non GW games do no need the massive turn over to pay for a chain of expensive B&M stores like GW plc seem to prioritize .
So they can be seen as much better value for money by more people, than GW games appear to be.
The main difference seems to be games companies only have to sell the 'starter box' to enough people to get traction in the games market.A stable and or slightly growing customer base means they can grow steadily with their customer base, adding expansions and extra products over time.
GW plc on the other hand has to maintain high levels of turn over from a diminishing market share.
Not sure about the financials, but it seems there are a lot more games available within the past few years. As a company, you have to ask yourself how do you compete in a market so flooded with new products?
GW has a strategy of pricing themselves for the high end customer, and seem to be focusing on fewer players that spend more. It seems to be working well. They are fine.
Right now I am more interested in how all the other companies are doing. How will the smaller companies attract attention and keep a cash flow? I predict a bit of a crash at some point. While currently there seems to be endless demand for products, my own personal experience is one of "OK, my wants have been satisfied. I now have 100 hours worth of hobby products for each actual hour of free time."
Granted, I take some long detours in to other hobbies. The occasional video game catches my eye, etc. But there are way too many really nice products for me to give them the attention they deserve. And I have to say the stuff coming out is really nice.
As for GW- I stopped even window shopping with them. They have always made really nice stuff. I guess I fell down the economic scale too far to be a part of the hobby.
Full disclosure- I run a small company making bits for the industry. I started before kick starter with big ideas. After seeing what appears to be an infinite number of new companies launch I sort of changed gears a bit. I still make odds and ends that appeal to me, but it is not my principle source of income. More like just another aspect of the hobby.
Games Workshop Group PLC (LON:GAW) announced a dividend on Monday, October 17th. Investors of record on Thursday, October 27th will be paid a dividend of GBX 25 ($0.30) per share on Friday, December 2nd. This represents a yield of 4.57%. The ex-dividend date of this dividend is Thursday, October 27th. This is a positive change from Games Workshop Group PLC’s previous dividend of $20.00. The official announcement can be accessed at this link.
Shares of Games Workshop Group PLC (LON:GAW) traded down 0.59% during mid-day trading on Monday, reaching GBX 547.00. 250,310 shares of the company were exchanged. The company’s 50-day moving average is GBX 526.69 and its 200 day moving average is GBX 495.28. Games Workshop Group PLC has a 12 month low of GBX 420.00 and a 12 month high of GBX 625.00. The firm’s market capitalization is GBX 175.70 million.
Separately, Peel Hunt reissued a “buy” rating and set a GBX 680 ($8.29) target price on shares of Games Workshop Group PLC in a research report on Thursday, October 6th.
In related news, insider O’Donnell ,Elaine purchased 1,800 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Monday, August 15th. The stock was acquired at an average price of GBX 541 ($6.59) per share, for a total transaction of £9,738 ($11,868.37).
About Games Workshop Group PLC
Games Workshop Group PLC and its subsidiaries design and manufacture miniature figures and games, and distribute these through its own network of retail stores, independent retailers and direct through the Internet and mail order. The Company’s segments include sales channels, product and supply, central costs, service center costs and royalties.
Trading Statement
Thu, 1st Dec 2016 11:04
RNS Number : 7077Q
Games Workshop Group PLC
01 December 2016
PRESS ANNOUNCEMENT
GAMES WORKSHOP GROUP PLC
1 December 2016
TRADING UPDATE
Games Workshop Group PLC announces that sales and profits in the six months to 27 November 2016 are significantly ahead of those in the first half of the prior year and ahead of the Board's original expectations. Preliminary estimates indicate an operating profit of c.£13 million for the period.
Over the first half we have seen strong sales and profit growth in constant currency terms. Sales and profits have further benefitted from the favourable impact of a weaker pound. Royalty income is also expected to be ahead of the prior year.
However, the Board is aware that it is still early in the 2017 financial year and that there are a number of challenging trading periods ahead.
We will be announcing our half-yearly report for the six months to 27 November 2016 on 10 January 2017.
£13 million profit over the last 6 months is pretty crazy, they seem to be doing something right. A lot of that will be due to the weak pound, though the statement does say that sales and profit are up when comparing like for like currencies.
I think a lot of it is the HH/30K effect. There was always an 'unwritten rule' with GW that releasing Heresy material for 40K was their ace in the hole; to be used when they needed a sales boost and it would appear that is the case.
Edit: I should clarify that it isn't anything that GW have ever made public; either tacitly or otherwise. But I have heard from several reliable sources over the years that it was GW's official position when asked if they would consider releasing Heresy-era stuff - that it was their 'break glass in case of emergency' option. That position may well have changed now that Rountree has taken over - the fact that they are now releasing Heresy era stuff and it appears to be pretty darn popular would seem to vindicate that decision.
Some of the profit will be down to the collapse in the value of the GBP since the EU referendum.
About 60% of GW's sales are in foreign countries and the value of these sales will have gone up 20%, adding a useful 10% to the bottom line (taking into account it's only five months.)
Isn't .£13 million profit still down compared to what they used to get ?
So if i am not mixing the numbers that I remember, they are better than last year but have not (yet) climbed back what they lost since the release of AoS, this should be to the rest the rumours of AoS earning more than 40k (unless 40k is itself in freefall)
I wonder how much will have come from licensing and how much from the boardgames.
jtrowell wrote: Isn't .£13 million profit still down compared to what they used to get ?
So if i am not mixing the numbers that I remember, they are better than last year but have not (yet) climbed back what they lost since the release of AoS, this should be to the rest the rumours of AoS earning more than 40k (unless 40k is itself in freefall)
I wonder how much will have come from licensing and how much from the boardgames.
Bear in mind that this is £13 million over 6 months, not 12. Assuming they'll get £26 million over 12 months that's significantly more than in recent years:
2016: 13.5 million
2015: £12.3 million
2014: £8 million
2013: £16.3 million
2012: £14.7 million
It's impossible to judge without more information. Firstly, it's profits not revenue. Secondly.... brexit. The GBP is worth approx 20% on average less in the past 6 months than the same period last year. That's a huge difference. The GBP was around 1.55USD for the first 6 months of the 2015/16 FY, this year it was ~1.42 in June, dropping to ~1.31 for July, August, Sept, then dropping to the mid 1.20's for Nov.
So the vast majority of this FY they've been enjoying good exchange rates, even for June before it started tumbling it was still well below the 2015/16 exchange rate.
Efff... I'm not sure how they did the account but I doubt they had time to make the bloodbowl sales snug into their report, considering they were a week ago.
The numbers seem reasonable. If AoS is actually selling (not sure if Sylvaneth fall into the sales period but I think they do) which would make sense since the General's Handbook landed just before the start of the fiscal year then I'm not to shocked.
A fantasy game that is actually selling and the release of GSC and Deathwatch for 40k plus Burning at Prospero boxset is a recipe for actual good numbers. Add in the currency difference and it could account for almost yearly numbers in a 6 month period.
It's to 27th November. If BB went on sale on 26th, then the first two days sales (including all the pre orders etc) will be included.
It'll include all of the sales to independents as well, which will have make quite a bump to headline figures (my FLGS seems to have bought dozens). One could say that that's why BB was released on the 26th and not in December.
Highlights (formatted best I can quickly - which dakka then stripped out when I posted - gah):
Six months to Six months to 27 November 29 November 2016 2015 Revenue £70.9m £55.3m Revenue at constant currency* £62.7m £55.3m Operating profit pre-change in accounting estimates and royalties receivable £9.7m £4.7m Impact of change in accounting estimates £0.8m - Operating profit pre-royalties receivable £10.5m £4.7m Royalties receivable £3.3m £1.5m Operating profit £13.8m £6.2m Pre-tax profit £13.8m £6.3m Cash generated from operations £19.6m £8.6m Basic earnings per share 34.0p 14.9p Dividend per share declared in the period 25p 20p
Kevin Rountree, CEO of Games Workshop, said: “Our business and our Hobby are in good shape. We are pleased to report sales and profit growth in the period across all channels. This improvement was built on a considerable team effort across the business.” …Ends…
This is better than I was expecting. Sales on a constant currency up 13%. Sales in Trade, Retail and Mail Order are all up, even on constant currency. Royalties more than doubled (thanks to Total War I guess).
The numbers read as if GW is making more products that people want to buy (surely not???). The two specifically mentioned in the report are Blood Bowl and the new format White Dwarf.
El Torro wrote: This is better than I was expecting. Sales on a constant currency up 13%. Sales in Trade, Retail and Mail Order are all up, even on constant currency. Royalties more than doubled (thanks to Total War I guess).
The numbers read as if GW is making more products that people want to buy (surely not???). The two specifically mentioned in the report are Blood Bowl and the new format White Dwarf.
El Torro wrote: This is better than I was expecting. Sales on a constant currency up 13%. Sales in Trade, Retail and Mail Order are all up, even on constant currency. Royalties more than doubled (thanks to Total War I guess).
The numbers read as if GW is making more products that people want to buy (surely not???). The two specifically mentioned in the report are Blood Bowl and the new format White Dwarf.
Any mention of AoS?
No, nor 40k. Basically no mention of any specific game bar BB. They also mention that Made to Order and Last Chance to Buy have done well.
El Torro wrote: This is better than I was expecting. Sales on a constant currency up 13%. Sales in Trade, Retail and Mail Order are all up, even on constant currency. Royalties more than doubled (thanks to Total War I guess).
The numbers read as if GW is making more products that people want to buy (surely not???). The two specifically mentioned in the report are Blood Bowl and the new format White Dwarf.
Any mention of AoS?
None at all, as far as I could see. So the question of whether AoS sells better than WFB continues
El Torro wrote: This is better than I was expecting. Sales on a constant currency up 13%. Sales in Trade, Retail and Mail Order are all up, even on constant currency. Royalties more than doubled (thanks to Total War I guess).
The numbers read as if GW is making more products that people want to buy (surely not???). The two specifically mentioned in the report are Blood Bowl and the new format White Dwarf.
Any mention of AoS?
None at all, as far as I could see. So the question of whether AoS sells better than WFB continues
Welp, considering SoD sold out within the hour kind of supports the positive theory. But yeah, the debate still rages on.
El Torro wrote: This is better than I was expecting. Sales on a constant currency up 13%. Sales in Trade, Retail and Mail Order are all up, even on constant currency. Royalties more than doubled (thanks to Total War I guess).
The numbers read as if GW is making more products that people want to buy (surely not???). The two specifically mentioned in the report are Blood Bowl and the new format White Dwarf.
Any mention of AoS?
No, nor 40k. Basically no mention of any specific game bar BB. They also mention that Made to Order and Last Chance to Buy have done well.
I think BB, WD and Made to Order must have done exceptionally better than expected to deserve a statement in a financial statement.
Weboflies wrote: To my knowledge this would be the first time in 6 years the company had turned a profit at all. That would be an unambiguously good thing.
They've been turning profits consistently... forever. I don't think they've ever posted a loss over a full year.
They have but it was about 10 years ago. I don't remember the exact year.
2006/7 I think?
I was just before the global slump - by which point GW had already undertaken significant belt tightening, which perversely left them surprisingly 'ok' (not good, not great, just ok) at a time the rest of the UK High Street suffered ('member Woolworths? I 'member!)
El Torro wrote: This is better than I was expecting. Sales on a constant currency up 13%. Sales in Trade, Retail and Mail Order are all up, even on constant currency. Royalties more than doubled (thanks to Total War I guess).
The numbers read as if GW is making more products that people want to buy (surely not???). The two specifically mentioned in the report are Blood Bowl and the new format White Dwarf.
Any mention of AoS?
None at all, as far as I could see. So the question of whether AoS sells better than WFB continues
That was covered in their last one, where it was exceeding their expectations
Whichever way you butter it, that's a fairly storming turn around.
In case work blocked, here's the gist.
The Torygraph wrote:The Nottingham-based company, which is known for its model figures, saw profit before tax leap to £13.8m in the six months to November 27, compared to £6.3m for the same period in 2015.
Games Workshop also saw revenues jumped 28.2pc from £55.3m to £70.9m, with chief executive Kevin Rountree saying the business and the hobby is in “good shape”.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Bit more (missed half the article. Soz!)
Mr Rountree wrote:Our business and hobby are in good shape,” said Mr Rountree. “We are pleased to report sales and profit growth in the period across all channels. The improvement was built on a considerable team effort across the business
The Torygraph wrote:Games Workshop also sells its intellectual property to video game developers. Royalties from these sales more than doubled in the half year compared to the same period in 2015, from £1.5m to £3.3m.
So it's not all in the licensing revenue, it would seem (though doubling that income ain't hurting no-one).
So it'd be interesting to see what came out in those 6 months. In general I think GW's revenue is largely driven by what they release over that period, but I haven't really been following GW's releases to remember what came out in that period.
Yeah, so at a guess I'd say the big winners were Prospero Burns, BB, GSC and maybe Deathwatch (didn't part of Deathwatch come out previously? My memory is shocking).
Release things people want to buy and surprise surprise they'll actually buy it
Sylvaneth did very well to from what it seemed and I don't think the GHB release prior should be discounted for helping out the current report. But yeah, BB, Prospero Burns, and GSC were probably the killers.
Hulksmash wrote: Sylvaneth did very well to from what it seemed and I don't think the GHB release prior should be discounted for helping out the current report. But yeah, BB, Prospero Burns, and GSC were probably the killers.
GHB was actually published DURING the period, july or august I think.
I'd also wager that GHB played a significant role.
Sure, those already established in the game bought it at the outset, but it'd take time to 'bed in' and gain it's current mostly positive reputation, tempting others to AoS' manifold charms.
Hulksmash wrote: Sylvaneth did very well to from what it seemed and I don't think the GHB release prior should be discounted for helping out the current report. But yeah, BB, Prospero Burns, and GSC were probably the killers.
GHB was actually published DURING the period, july or august I think.
You're right, looking back I remember it was after the summer campaign. So I'd put GHB on the list of big deals.
Hulksmash wrote: Sylvaneth did very well to from what it seemed and I don't think the GHB release prior should be discounted for helping out the current report. But yeah, BB, Prospero Burns, and GSC were probably the killers.
GHB was actually published DURING the period, july or august I think.
You're right, looking back I remember it was after the summer campaign. So I'd put GHB on the list of big deals.
Don't forget beastclaw raiders as well and bonesplitterz.
Still considering all the changes that kevin has been doing it seems it has payed off I hope they keep this up.
Backspacehacker wrote: So skimming over this, what i got from is the GW profits are up, but are the up by a lot or just a little.
Er it's not just a little they got near double. In 6 months.
well that is good then, but then again, thats also with the Christmas sales which always will boost stocks, no?
I think the real teller is going to be the first half of 2017. My main concern is look how much they have put out in just 6 months, im kinda skeptical they will be able to keep up on the amount of stuff they are pumping out.
Not a GW doomsayer, just worried they might be pushing to much and will run out of stuff to sell.
As always though, im really interested to see if they will release sale of product lines.
Backspacehacker wrote: So skimming over this, what i got from is the GW profits are up, but are the up by a lot or just a little.
Er it's not just a little they got near double. In 6 months.
well that is good then, but then again, thats also with the Christmas sales which always will boost stocks, no?
I think the real teller is going to be the first half of 2017. My main concern is look how much they have put out in just 6 months, im kinda skeptical they will be able to keep up on the amount of stuff they are pumping out.
Not a GW doomsayer, just worried they might be pushing to much and will run out of stuff to sell.
As always though, im really interested to see if they will release sale of product lines.
Risks and uncertainties
The board has overall responsibility for ensuring risk is appropriately managed across the Group. As
discussed in the 2016 annual report, the top five risks to the Group are reviewed at each board
meeting. The risks are rated as to their business impact and their likelihood of occurring. In addition,
the Group has a disaster recovery plan to ensure ongoing operations are maintained in all
circumstances. The principal risks for the balance of the year are the same as those identified in the
2016 annual report and are discussed below:
So they might have some hidden release in the corner somewhere in case for emergencies?
Risks and uncertainties
The board has overall responsibility for ensuring risk is appropriately managed across the Group. As
discussed in the 2016 annual report, the top five risks to the Group are reviewed at each board
meeting. The risks are rated as to their business impact and their likelihood of occurring. In addition,
the Group has a disaster recovery plan to ensure ongoing operations are maintained in all
circumstances. The principal risks for the balance of the year are the same as those identified in the
2016 annual report and are discussed below:
So they might have some hidden release in the corner somewhere in case for emergencies?
Plastic Sisters, clearly. The way people I know eat up every new release GW puts out, almost blindly, they'd just have to do something like that and then watch as all the money rolls in.
Risks and uncertainties
The board has overall responsibility for ensuring risk is appropriately managed across the Group. As
discussed in the 2016 annual report, the top five risks to the Group are reviewed at each board
meeting. The risks are rated as to their business impact and their likelihood of occurring. In addition,
the Group has a disaster recovery plan to ensure ongoing operations are maintained in all
circumstances. The principal risks for the balance of the year are the same as those identified in the
2016 annual report and are discussed below:
So they might have some hidden release in the corner somewhere in case for emergencies?
Plastic Sisters, clearly. The way people I know eat up every new release GW puts out, almost blindly, they'd just have to do something like that and then watch as all the money rolls in.
Haha, now now, we all know that emergency button will release a horde of abhumans that were thought eaten by the Nids but will turn out to be wearing them as skinned disguises instead and will arrive by blowing up half of the hive fleet.
Anyway, really great to hear the report and pretty confident GW will keep pumping out amazing releases if the Tzeentch stuff is any indication.
In addition,
the Group has a disaster recovery plan to ensure ongoing operations are maintained in all
circumstances.
Um, that's not what you guys think it means if you are not kidding. A disaster recovery plan is put in place to continue operation in a disaster. Plant burns down, how do you make models? President of the company dies, who knows his role and can take over? Your distributor blows up, who can replace them to ship your stuff. The business I work for has a recovery plan down to every machine operator on our plant floor.
In addition,
the Group has a disaster recovery plan to ensure ongoing operations are maintained in all
circumstances.
Um, that's not what you guys think it means if you are not kidding. A disaster recovery plan is put in place to continue operation in a disaster. Plant burns down, how do you make models? President of the company dies, who knows his role and can take over? Your distributor blows up, who can replace them to ship your stuff. The business I work for has a recovery plan down to every machine operator on our plant floor.
In addition,
the Group has a disaster recovery plan to ensure ongoing operations are maintained in all
circumstances.
Um, that's not what you guys think it means if you are not kidding. A disaster recovery plan is put in place to continue operation in a disaster. Plant burns down, how do you make models? President of the company dies, who knows his role and can take over? Your distributor blows up, who can replace them to ship your stuff. The business I work for has a recovery plan down to every machine operator on our plant floor.
I think the chap that said it was Joking !
You can never tell around here What with all the armchair CEO's who couldn't sell a napkin
In addition,
the Group has a disaster recovery plan to ensure ongoing operations are maintained in all
circumstances.
Um, that's not what you guys think it means if you are not kidding. A disaster recovery plan is put in place to continue operation in a disaster. Plant burns down, how do you make models? President of the company dies, who knows his role and can take over? Your distributor blows up, who can replace them to ship your stuff. The business I work for has a recovery plan down to every machine operator on our plant floor.
I think the chap that said it was Joking !
I was indeed joking. Still as I said I hope they keep this up.
How does the lower of Britain's (or is it UK? I never remember) Pound consider into it. I thought reading that while sales increased substantially it was because of the lower Pound that gave double the profits.
Did I read or understand that wrong? Great to see an increase in sales but talking about dollar exchange just bamboozles my mind.
Davor wrote: How does the lower of Britain's (or is it UK? I never remember) Pound consider into it. I thought reading that while sales increased substantially it was because of the lower Pound that gave double the profits.
Did I read or understand that wrong? Great to see an increase in sales but talking about dollar exchange just bamboozles my mind.
It did indeed favour the profit but overall sales still got a big boost.
Davor wrote: How does the lower of Britain's (or is it UK? I never remember) Pound consider into it. I thought reading that while sales increased substantially it was because of the lower Pound that gave double the profits.
Did I read or understand that wrong? Great to see an increase in sales but talking about dollar exchange just bamboozles my mind.
It breaks it down to 'constant currency' as well. Whilst understandably less, it's still an impressive upswing.
El Torro wrote: This is better than I was expecting. Sales on a constant currency up 13%. Sales in Trade, Retail and Mail Order are all up, even on constant currency. Royalties more than doubled (thanks to Total War I guess).
The numbers read as if GW is making more products that people want to buy (surely not???). The two specifically mentioned in the report are Blood Bowl and the new format White Dwarf.
I am glad to see Games Workshop recover, but the new format should have been the format they went to instead of the weekly and the monthly visions magazine..
When other companies were cutting back on the paper side of print magazine publication; GW doubled down which boggled my mind.
Then the Age of Sigmar roll out that seem to destroyed most of the warhammer community; With years later its finally getting repaired and seeing small traction of
the hobby showing up in FLGS.
Magazine debacle and Train wreak Age of Sigmar roll out with no social media presence; there was only one way from there.. or maybe buyout /bankruptcy
For a while I thought they couldn't do any worse but they continued to shoot themselves in the foot..
But the said truth is .. just a few years ago I would drop large sums of money each month on Games Workshop stuff..
Then after all the mistakes I stopped cold, With the return to a competent company I have yet to return to buying things though is seems many others have.
I think you're making Fantasy a bigger deal than it was. It definitely hurt the Warhammer fantasy community but the 40k side was mostly shrugs besides the guys who liked saying 40k was next out of pure trolling.
And bankruptcy? The fact that Space marines sells were doing better than fantasy altogether was a good indicator that GW would've just dropped the fantasy stuff instead of having to go to those extremes.
Sorry to hear that you don't want to support them for taking steps on the right path of making themselves a even greater company but that's your choice.
I made a ton of purchases in the past and present because to me GW=Warhammer and I love Warhammer. Why wouldn't I praise them for making it easier to get into, bringing back alot of awesome things, allowing so many fun videogames to be made and listening to the community again?
Like you said though, many others have began buying from GW again because they're worth it and proved why that is.
In addition,
the Group has a disaster recovery plan to ensure ongoing operations are maintained in all
circumstances.
Um, that's not what you guys think it means if you are not kidding. A disaster recovery plan is put in place to continue operation in a disaster. Plant burns down, how do you make models? President of the company dies, who knows his role and can take over? Your distributor blows up, who can replace them to ship your stuff. The business I work for has a recovery plan down to every machine operator on our plant floor.
Then again who says they can't have both kinds? Horus Heresy was never intended to be used as a model line except in dire situation as per Rick Priestley's comments. That WAS "sales bad, we need something that sells stat" line. It got used. Question is do they have any more cards like that?
In addition,
the Group has a disaster recovery plan to ensure ongoing operations are maintained in all
circumstances.
Um, that's not what you guys think it means if you are not kidding. A disaster recovery plan is put in place to continue operation in a disaster. Plant burns down, how do you make models? President of the company dies, who knows his role and can take over? Your distributor blows up, who can replace them to ship your stuff. The business I work for has a recovery plan down to every machine operator on our plant floor.
Then again who says they can't have both kinds? Horus Heresy was never intended to be used as a model line except in dire situation as per Rick Priestley's comments. That WAS "sales bad, we need something that sells stat" line. It got used. Question is do they have any more cards like that?
Fortunately RP moved on sometime ago. HH was an obvious goldmine, an ideal 'new' property to be exploited. I'd think that its exploitation coincided with with declining sales, but that its time had come anyway.
Mr. Burning wrote: Fortunately RP moved on sometime ago. HH was an obvious goldmine, an ideal 'new' property to be exploited. I'd think that its exploitation coincided with with declining sales, but that its time had come anyway.
Yes it was goldmine. Which is why precisely it was kept 'till sales dropped enough they needed something that WOULD be quaranteed goldmine. That's the frigging point. You don't keep something in your backpockets for low sale periods if you don't expect it to be gold mine.
As I mentioned earlier (I think, might've been on another board) my only concern here is the simple matter of sustainability.
We've been spoilt rotten the past few months, and in a variety of ways. Long awaited armies released, and done right (seriously, Genestealer Cults are awesome, and an interesting army tactically), advancements to the story, lots of gorgeous models, superb community engagement out of nowhere.
For now, there's still Tin In The Mine - Sisters of Battle, Squats/Demiurg, Hrud et al, ready to be extracted and turned into something wonderful. Then there's the allegedly pending 8th Ed 40k (I say allegedly as I've long since found the rumour mill too erratic to rely on. Apologies to the more reliable rumour mongers, that's not a judgement on your character) which could be anything - though I'm just hopiing for mostly organisational changes to make stuff easier to find and carry (AoS app adapted for 40k would be lush)
Bottle wrote: For 40k all GW need to do is make the gold mine large enough that by the time one tunnel has dried up another has refilled and the game becomes arguably self-sustainable for the foreseeable future. I'll throw in Eldar Exodites, Nurgle Plague Marines and Long Coat Guard as more untapped resources. I am sure we could think of quite a lot more.
Various HH factions and subfactions as well. Then there's all the stuff between the HH and 40k like Vandire's Reign of Blood (Proto SoB?), Age of Apotasy and the Beast Series could probably made into a model range too.
I think Thousand Sons were the heralds of plastic Traitor Legions in general. Would be very odd for them to get love, but nobody else.
Spesh with the Black Crusade about to kick off.
For me? I want Khornate Red Butchers. Stylistically one of my favourite units in Heresy - World Eaters so far over the edge they're sealed in Terminator armour which can be remotely switched off, as it's the only way to stop them.
But yeah, plenty down the mine for now - but at their rate of release, there's sadly opportunity to bodge it in a variety of ways. No expectation they will like, just keeping a realistic streak amongst my frenzied frothing
Bottle wrote: I don't think it could be argued that branching into 30k was anything but a good idea. It's super popular with fans, has made them loads of money, and doesn't look like it will be drying up anytime soon (indeed it is picking up steam with the plastic boxes).
Who saying it wasn't good? Point is that was their trump card to help them out of rough time if they need quaranteed sales. Whether you can call that disaster plan is another but certainly trump card to be brought when needed.
Q is will they have another if they need one in future?
Bottle wrote: I don't think it could be argued that branching into 30k was anything but a good idea. It's super popular with fans, has made them loads of money, and doesn't look like it will be drying up anytime soon (indeed it is picking up steam with the plastic boxes).
Who saying it wasn't good? Point is that was their trump card to help them out of rough time if they need quaranteed sales. Whether you can call that disaster plan is another but certainly trump card to be brought when needed.
Q is will they have another if they need one in future?
Bottle wrote: For 40k all GW need to do is make the gold mine large enough that by the time one tunnel has dried up another has refilled and the game becomes arguably self-sustainable for the foreseeable future. I'll throw in Eldar Exodites, Nurgle Plague Marines and Long Coat Guard as more untapped resources. I am sure we could think of quite a lot more.
Various HH factions and subfactions as well. Then there's all the stuff between the HH and 40k like Vandire's Reign of Blood (Proto SoB?), Age of Apotasy and the Beast Series could probably made into a model range too.
In short, the possibilities are endless.
Yep, this !
At the open days and in social media, there are always people interested in whether new xeno factions ( from Hrud to Megarachnids ) will be released in the future, and whether certain historical events like the great crusades or the unification wars will ever be covered.
I think there are so many possibilities for future releases, there is plenty of gas left in the tank as yet.
On the other hand, the emergency gold mines only work on existing customers. Somebody coming into the GW hobby doesn't start with a want for 30k (they probably can't even see the differences between it and 40k in the beginning) or new and different High Elves. GW have recently (again) looked a bit into expanding their customer base with boardgames and other initiatives (even if they are "GW boardgames that need assembly" and not what regular board-gamers expect from a board-game). More of that would probably be better in the long term than focusing too much on nostalgia mining their existing customer base (even if we all like it very much).
Even then the board games don't seem to be gaining much traction outside of regular or lapsed GW customers.
Blood Bowl is selling well, to old and current GW gamers, as did Space Hulk and Warhammer Quest. But they don't seem to have taken over from the board game crowd.
All of the other games seem to be regarded as a good source of models, and provide a basic game that is alright at best. I've rarely heard of anyone playing them.
I think they've run out of old box games (Hero Quest is a bit of a grey area), and the rest were all wargames in some form (Gorkamorka, Necromunda, Epic, Manowar), and I can't think of any other aces they might still have hidden up their sleeves (plastic thunderhawk? That's still going to be expensive. Epic? That'll cannibalize their 40k sales)
And they pretty much all suffer from having better, cheaper, modern competition in the board game space, so don't appeal particularly well to people who don't know about GW.
Why would random dude chose Blood Bowl over Dread Ball or Guild Ball, with no context and sharing a shelf?
Well... Blood Bowl is fantasy football. Guildball is fantasy soccer. Dreadball is sci fi.
For me without knowing any of the above, I'd choose Blood Bowl because american football is my favorite sport and fantasy is my favorite genre over sci-fi.
Would you still choose the fantasy football over the sci-fi football even if it was more expensive?
I generally prefer fantasy over sci-fi, but I don't know if I'd pay an extra £15 for it. Plus Dreadball reminds me of that Speedball Brutal Deluxe Amiga game from the 90's.
Herzlos wrote: Even then the board games don't seem to be gaining much traction outside of regular or lapsed GW customers.
Blood Bowl is selling well, to old and current GW gamers, as did Space Hulk and Warhammer Quest. But they don't seem to have taken over from the board game crowd.
All of the other games seem to be regarded as a good source of models, and provide a basic game that is alright at best. I've rarely heard of anyone playing them.
I think they've run out of old box games (Hero Quest is a bit of a grey area), and the rest were all wargames in some form (Gorkamorka, Necromunda, Epic, Manowar), and I can't think of any other aces they might still have hidden up their sleeves (plastic thunderhawk? That's still going to be expensive. Epic? That'll cannibalize their 40k sales)
And they pretty much all suffer from having better, cheaper, modern competition in the board game space, so don't appeal particularly well to people who don't know about GW.
Why would random dude chose Blood Bowl over Dread Ball or Guild Ball, with no context and sharing a shelf?
Miniature games are a niche market even for board games. Seriously what's the most popular miniature board game? zombicide? It's such a tiny market you don't see many major board game companies invest much into them. I think you also forget there is a bloodbowl video game market that has many people who never touched a gw model before.
BFG (if tied for 40k campaigns), inquisitor 24mm, titanicus, and necromunda will all sell well. Mordhiem or hero quest can also sell well.
For 40k models primarchs, tons of metal figurines including many characters, tau auxiliary races, necron tomb king, eldar avatar, ork primus, speed freak codex, tyranid hive mind and gargantuan creatures, a new plastic great coat guard army, plastic sisters, vect, pretty much most of forgeworlds 40k figurines since they stopped producing rules or books that are all outdated for 7th let alone 8th or out of print, arbiters and their cyborg dog and hawks, combined and expanded ad mech, dark mechanism, lost and damned, 8th edition.
Sounds like a ton of content that will sell to me
Personally I'd buy the crap out of gorkamorka if they had plastic ork terrain and speed freak models.
For board games BFG, hero quest and or mordhiem can and will all sell well outside of 40k fan base. Taking out conjecture I know personally my game clunk is a solid non-40k, non-fantasy miniature club that mainly plays flames of war or historical games with some xwing, imperial assault and blood bowl is a huge hit for those guys and most don't play 40k. The main reason is that it doesn't compete with most miniature games and is quick to play.
Herzlos wrote:Even then the board games don't seem to be gaining much traction outside of regular or lapsed GW customers.
Blood Bowl is selling well, to old and current GW gamers, as did Space Hulk and Warhammer Quest. But they don't seem to have taken over from the board game crowd.
All of the other games seem to be regarded as a good source of models, and provide a basic game that is alright at best. I've rarely heard of anyone playing them.
I agree. Outside of Blood Bowl, who is buying those games for the game itself? I think most people are buying the games for the minis because it's a cheaper buy than getting them separately.
Outside of one thread on Goreschosen I think it was called for Age of Sigmar, I don't think I read anything about anyone playing the game. Even Deathwatch Overkill. I haven't read one thread about that game. I think we all bought it for the minis. This time I can say we ALL bought it for the minis. If anyone plays it's a bonus but I am sure NOBODY bought it for the game. The rest I can't say.
Herzlos wrote: Would you still choose the fantasy football over the sci-fi football even if it was more expensive?
I generally prefer fantasy over sci-fi, but I don't know if I'd pay an extra £15 for it. Plus Dreadball reminds me of that Speedball Brutal Deluxe Amiga game from the 90's.
Yes I would. Expense is not the first thing that I look at unless the expense was absurd, which for me would be a 12 model team costing $300 or something silly.
I'm not going to play a game that I'm not that into just because its cheaper by $20-$30.
If I chose expense as my first factor in playing games, I wouldn't be playing games because all the games I can get into are more expensive than the games I'd rather not play.
I agree though with the fact no one is playing these GW board games. I have integrated silver tower into our aos campaigns but other than that thats the only time i see it played. I don't think they are BAD games, but I think that the market is glutted and well over saturated and people will only play what other people are playing regardless of the quality of the game for good or ill.
Outside of one thread on Goreschosen I think it was called for Age of Sigmar, I don't think I read anything about anyone playing the game. Even Deathwatch Overkill. I haven't read one thread about that game. I think we all bought it for the minis. This time I can say we ALL bought it for the minis. If anyone plays it's a bonus but I am sure NOBODY bought it for the game. The rest I can't say.
GW don't have to worry about this. These games used previously or future individual models. That means once they have sold enough, boxing them up with a few pieces of card is effectively pure profit other than operating costs. This is why IoB will make them a killing. It has already paid for itself many times over. All you are doing is selling plastic and boxing/shipping/operational costs. There is no design/art/rule writing required. Easy money. That is why they are liking the made to order range as the only costs might be retooling the moulds (but note we aren't getting the plastic ones which are much more expensive).
----------------
However on their profits; it's not quite as rosy as GW are making out based on the operating profit by segment section (page 2). The interesting bit is the constant currency part:-
Trade has gone to 6.6 from 5.8m (8.8 from 5.8m actual). So at constant currency that's an 11% rise. The actual rate is almost certainly to do with the collapsing £ and GW keeping prices the same for people not in the UK
Retail has gone to -2.2 from -3.1m (-2.4 from -3.1m actual). That's a decrease in loss of about 0.9m. Given they have closed 8 and relocated others the majority of that is probably from decreased costs rather than any change in sales.
Mail Order has gone to 6.4m from 6.2m (6.7m to 6.2m actual). That's only a 3% rise and it looks like a fair chunk of this is non-UK. Given the decreasing £ that implies Forgeworld aren't really being able to exploit the drop in the £
Product and Supply has gone to 5.0m from 4.7m (6.1m from 4.7m actual). That's a 6.4% rise. Again it appears that the collapsing £ and keeping prices the same is boosting profits.
Royalties has gone to 2.6m from 1.2m (3.0m from 1.2m actual). That's a big 100%+ increase, almost certainly associated with Total War plus likely a few non-UK developers.
Other costs have gone to -8.1m from -8.6m (-8.4m from -8.6m). This one implies that more savings have been made in the UK (which makes sense).
We also know that 0.8m profit has arisen due to changing accountancy methods on depreciation. That's a one off bonus and won't happen again for a while.
So (assuming 50% of the retail 'increase' is due to sales). Then we can conclude that actual sales profit has only risen (at constant currency) by about 1.5m. It's only streamling, shop closures/relocation/Total War that have really contributed to increasing profits more substantially at constant currency (most of which are likely one off benefits). However the big ticket item is actually nothing to do with GW but rather the £. GW are milking this by making all non-UK countries pay the pre-collapse prices. That's an artificial boost in prices. Or to put it more bluntly GW are screwing over the Europeans and Americans. But it can't last.
You understand the concept of constant currency? An 11% rise in trade after adjusting for constant currency mean that the effects of the dropping pound have already been taken into account.
Herzlos wrote: Would you still choose the fantasy football over the sci-fi football even if it was more expensive?
I generally prefer fantasy over sci-fi, but I don't know if I'd pay an extra £15 for it. Plus Dreadball reminds me of that Speedball Brutal Deluxe Amiga game from the 90's.
Technically Dreadball is in some way closer to scifi soccer or maybe even basket.
And about Speedball2, well there is certainly an influence, as they made this special unique character during a dreadball kickstarter :
Hector spent many years playing a game in another reality called Speedball, which was similar enough to DreadBall that when he accidentally fell into this reality, he had a wonderful career opportunity. The rules may be a little different, but Hector has never looked back.
silent25 wrote: You understand the concept of constant currency? An 11% rise in trade after adjusting for constant currency mean that the effects of the dropping pound have already been taken into account.
Ermmm , yes that is why I wrote
"Trade has gone to 6.6 from 5.8m (8.8 from 5.8m actual). So at constant currency that's an 11% rise. The actual rate is almost certainly to do with the collapsing £ and GW keeping prices the same for people not in the UK"
I'm assuming you got to the second sentence and stopped reading and failed to note that in third sentence I stated "The ***actual*** rate" is to do with the collapsing £?
Individually speaking aesthetically 
But I do think they've lost out on some retail sales, because my 
