Yes I know my opinion, but look there's a reason why most of the other big companies chose dropper bottles over pots.
Vallejo, Scale 75, Army painter, Reaper paints, Andrea paints and so on. How many horror stories can you read across
the net about paint drying in pots in less than a year.
There are hundreds of people transfering paint from pots to dropper bottles, there are not many who do the opposite.
Of course there's a reason, but you've no more idea than I have about what that reason is, I speculate, you're just using confirmation bias to assume it's the reason you think it is.
BTW Coat D'Arms still use flip tops, I believe, as do P3.
Nevertheless, this daft little tangent can now be drawn to a close? People prefer different things, stating your preference as a fact is stupid and doesn't advance the conversation, even if that preference reflects a majority.
That GW are expensive is not news, that their hobby range varies from the slightly pricey to the ludicrous isn't either. There really isn't much room in a thread discussing whether GW has really changed or not about an aspect of the range which has remained largely unchanged over the course of the timescale in question.
(PSFYI Coat D'Arms may lay claim to the longest existing miniatures acrylic line in existence, probably means they're not going anywhere, joke or not.)
Hi Folks.
Did I suggest GW just half the current retail prices now?No I did not.
I asked IF GW current prices were half what they currently were, would more people buy GW product?And the answer would be yes.
The ONLY reason GW hikes up its prices every year is because it is can not grow profits by increasing sustainable volume of sales .
Because they have a very weak link in their product range .The rules.
Tom Kirby simple followed the easiest path for the corporate management .Higher returns of diminishing sales.(''Keep putting up the prices, the true fans will buy them at any price''.)
Rather than invest in developing good rule sets to grow interest and good will by providing better value for money for gamers. Thus increasing sales and profit, of higher volume sales .(Economies of scale is the reason they invested in the plastic manufacturing facilities in Nottingham, if you are old enough to remember the WD article explaining the lowering the barrier of cost of entry. )
GW plc is the ONLY company in their market that has a very costly chain of B&M stores.This is primarily to isolate GW customers from the rest of the market .
Which would not be needed if their rules were not as crap as they currently are.
Lanrak wrote: Hi Folks.
Did I suggest GW just half the current retail prices now?No I did not.
I asked IF GW current prices were half what they currently were, would more people buy GW product?And the answer would be yes.
Then it was explained to you why halving prices wasn't a good idea and how they'd need to exceed double the volume to even consider it worthwhile. If you're not suggesting it happen and understand that doing it wouldn't be a good idea, what on earth is the point you're making? Because all I can see if that's the case is "making stuff cheaper means more people are likely to buy it" which is a statement so self evident one wonders why you bothered making it?
The ONLY reason GW hikes up its prices every year is because it is can not grow profits by increasing sustainable volume of sales .
No, there's such a thing as inflation, there's such a thing as overheads. There are many reasons beyond simply making more money that a company puts its prices up. There's also the fact that GW's growth would seem to be outstripping their % price increase, suggesting that your statement is objectively wrong, as the only reasonable way they could increase revenue faster than the rate of increasing prices is by increasing sales volume.
Because they have a very weak link in their product range .The rules.
Tom Kirby simple followed the easiest path for the corporate management .Higher returns of diminishing sales.(''Keep putting up the prices, the true fans will buy them at any price''.)
Rather than invest in developing good rule sets to grow interest and good will by providing better value for money for gamers. Thus increasing sales and profit, of higher volume sales .(Economies of scale is the reason they invested in the plastic manufacturing facilities in Nottingham, if you are old enough to remember the WD article explaining the lowering the barrier of cost of entry. )
GW plc is the ONLY company in their market that has a very costly chain of B&M stores.This is primarily to isolate GW customers from the rest of the market .
Which would not be needed if their rules were not as crap as they currently are.
Again, the evidence doesn't support your thinking. I agree that 7th 40K was a hot mess and I have little personal interest in AOS at this point, yet the improvement in financials corresponds more with model releases than it does rules (unless you want to include the vehicles they used alongside big box model releases like Prospero and Calth as "rules.")
Thankfully the change in thinking from GW seems to want to include exploiting the section of the customer base who care enough about the rules to be discouraged from spending if they're not at least reasonably engaging, because, believe me, the message we collectively sent them as customers was that Kirby was right all along, and a steaming gak of a system like 7th 40K pales into insignificance alongside the likes of new shinies like Magnus or GSC. It was, I've no doubt, these things that started the turnaround where it matters (actual cash in the tills) long before 8th started to make any impact. If you're GW, you're on your uppers, you then release a bunch of models without changing anything about either the rules or pricing structure and your financials start to significantly improve, what's the conclusion you're going to draw?
Sure, we're seeing an effort to improve the rules, but I can't see how GW can see this as an exercise in anything but mopping up the gravy, they've already eaten their steak.
If Roboute or Magnus hadn't sold a bajillion units, there'd be an argument for rules being the underlying issue, it may still be. But the remarkable lack of impulse control shown by many, many gamers, coupled with the not insignificant number of true believers who kept diligently buying the whole time anyway have been sufficient to turn things around for GW largely independently of any seismic change in rules.
I wish that weren't the case, and that collectively more wargamers had kept their powder dry for greater rules changes before dropping their wad, but it is what it is.
Warhammer fantasy died to make the game better. The thing is, how do we know that halving the prices wouldn't result in double the sales or more? Not saying that it would, but there would certainly be a number of potential customers that would consider buying if the prices weren't so crazy. Does NuGW still do not do market research?
I'm going to say it. I don't think GW is expensive. I'm sure you will get the usual "Compare like with like! Compare this model with that model!" blah blah blah I just don't think it's expense. A few hundred pounds gets you a lot of GW product. A few hundred pounds, in the scheme of things, is not a lot of money.
Hollow wrote: I'm going to say it. I don't think GW is expensive. I'm sure you will get the usual "Compare like with like! Compare this model with that model!" blah blah blah I just don't think it's expense. A few hundred pounds gets you a lot of GW product. A few hundred pounds, in the scheme of things, is not a lot of money.
Guess it depends where you live. Right now, google is telling me 1 pound equals 1.68 aud. Let's round that up to 2. I would happily spend several hundred pounds on a game (hell, it's cheaper than what i spend to keep my computer up to date). To buy a complete gw army here, would cost me a few thousand. That's a lot of money, in the scheme of things.
edit: lets say $2000 dollars. That's 1188 pounds. How's that sound now?
Torga_DW wrote: Warhammer fantasy died to make the game better. The thing is, how do we know that halving the prices wouldn't result in double the sales or more? Not saying that it would, but there would certainly be a number of potential customers that would consider buying if the prices weren't so crazy. Does NuGW still do not do market research?
We don't know, as I said, the only way you can know is to do it, and that's a pretty high risk manoeuvre. Plus it has to be more than double on a halving of prices otherwise you're simply working twice as hard for the same result, which makes no sense, especially considering you're putting twice the wear on your production facility.
I'm not convinced that GW has 50% or less market penetration, and I'm not convinced there's enough people staying way exclusively because of price to come back to increase the unit volume enough. I can't offer any proof, this is only opinion, but it's a difficult picture to accept from the largest player in the game. To put it in context though, they'd need to turn over more than a quarter of a billion pounds to maintain the same profitability as they've recorded in 2016/17, assuming all their costs are linear, if they halved their prices.
As to market research, you're unlikely to know unless you're involved, but there's no doubt that opening up social media is giving them a direct channel into what's popular or not, and there's no shortage of people on pretty much every post that's made telling them what they want to see made, so they're probably good in that regard. As to ex-customers, they're probably not worth the expense chasing, better off pleasing your existing base, looking for new people and if what you do as a consequence of that attracts people back, then that's a bonus.
Torga_DW wrote: Warhammer fantasy died to make the game better. The thing is, how do we know that halving the prices wouldn't result in double the sales or more? Not saying that it would, but there would certainly be a number of potential customers that would consider buying if the prices weren't so crazy. Does NuGW still do not do market research?
We don't know, as I said, the only way you can know is to do it, and that's a pretty high risk manoeuvre. Plus it has to be more than double on a halving of prices otherwise you're simply working twice as hard for the same result, which makes no sense, especially considering you're putting twice the wear on your production facility.
I'm not convinced that GW has 50% or less market penetration, and I'm not convinced there's enough people staying way exclusively because of price to come back to increase the unit volume enough. I can't offer any proof, this is only opinion, but it's a difficult picture to accept from the largest player in the game. To put it in context though, they'd need to turn over more than a quarter of a billion pounds to maintain the same profitability as they've recorded in 2016/17, assuming all their costs are linear, if they halved their prices.
As to market research, you're unlikely to know unless you're involved, but there's no doubt that opening up social media is giving them a direct channel into what's popular or not, and there's no shortage of people on pretty much every post that's made telling them what they want to see made, so they're probably good in that regard. As to ex-customers, they're probably not worth the expense chasing, better off pleasing your existing base, looking for new people and if what you do as a consequence of that attracts people back, then that's a bonus.
I've been told in the past (i've never really worked in retail) that it's easier/cheaper to maintain existing customers than it is to find new ones. Ex players are former existing customers who have been driven away for some reason (let's say price in this example). Trying to re-connect with former customers may not be as problematic as chasing new customers, assuming the reason they left is 'fixed'. A friend described the costs with GW as buying the 'brand name'. Sure, there are cheaper alternatives, but that's not the draw for some people. You paint an interesting picture, i'd be interested in knowing exactly where the line is on prices vs customers. I'll probably never know, but my gut feeling is that a reduction (not necessarily 50%), would see an increase. Based on personal experience with other people's reactions to the product and then the prices. This is where market research comes in handy. Is social media really that informative in this case? My experience with them was they delete the negative posts, and create an echo chamber around them. Not necessarily useful feedback (assuming they disregard the negatives).
Hollow wrote: I'm going to say it. I don't think GW is expensive. I'm sure you will get the usual "Compare like with like! Compare this model with that model!" blah blah blah I just don't think it's expense. A few hundred pounds gets you a lot of GW product. A few hundred pounds, in the scheme of things, is not a lot of money.
Guess it depends where you live. Right now, google is telling me 1 pound equals 1.68 aud. Let's round that up to 2. I would happily spend several hundred pounds on a game (hell, it's cheaper than what i spend to keep my computer up to date). To buy a complete gw army here, would cost me a few thousand. That's a lot of money, in the scheme of things.
edit: lets say $2000 dollars. That's 1188 pounds. How's that sound now?
Really? I just quickly ran through a 2000 point T'au list on the Aus website....
x2 Start Collecting
x1 Fire Warrior Team
x1 Commander
x1 Ghost
x1 Stormsurge
x2 Broadsides
(Which is actually closer to 2500 if you use all 6 XV8's)
Hollow wrote: I'm going to say it. I don't think GW is expensive. I'm sure you will get the usual "Compare like with like! Compare this model with that model!" blah blah blah I just don't think it's expense. A few hundred pounds gets you a lot of GW product. A few hundred pounds, in the scheme of things, is not a lot of money.
Guess it depends where you live. Right now, google is telling me 1 pound equals 1.68 aud. Let's round that up to 2. I would happily spend several hundred pounds on a game (hell, it's cheaper than what i spend to keep my computer up to date). To buy a complete gw army here, would cost me a few thousand. That's a lot of money, in the scheme of things.
edit: lets say $2000 dollars. That's 1188 pounds. How's that sound now?
Really? I just quickly ran through a 2000 point T'au list on the Aus website....
x2 Start Collecting
x1 Fire Warrior Team
x1 Commander
x1 Ghost
x1 Stormsurge
x2 Broadsides
(Which is actually closer to 2500 if you use all 6 XV8's)
That came to a total of 973 Dollars. Full RRP.
In good faith, I'll give you the prices/power i've got in my excel spreadsheet for looking at the armies that were interesting to me. Keep in mind that in points (which is what i'd be playing), 'value' will go down. I'm using the rough estimate that 100 power = 2000 points (roughly).
Primaris marines (not a full army, and not optimized) - $878 aud for 73 power points (excluding all other items, such as rules, paint, codexes, etc).
marine dreadnoughts - $963 aud for 56 points (lacking the power level of the forgeworld stuff, ironically forgeworld isn't that expensive compared to 'normal' prices) (again, exluding other items).
Yeah, there are 'discounts' to be had if you buy the 'get started' boxes. But those boxes aren't necessarily worth buying if you want a competitive army. And once you start adding the other stuff, it goes up. Paint costs ~6.5 pounds per tiny bottle. $2000 aud isn't an unreasonable figure. And that's assuming you buy a single optimized list and don't want to have alternatives available in your army.
edit: So 594 pounds for the most expensive version i've got listed so far, which isn't complete, is calculated in power, and is excluding other items. 1188 pounds isn't that far away.
Well yeah... If you buy more stuff, it will cost more money and if you factor in paints, those also cost more money. That's not what you originally said though. You originally stated that it costs $2000 to buy a GW army. Which is not really true.
Hollow wrote: Well yeah... If you buy more stuff, it will cost more money and if you factor in paints, those also cost more money. That's not what you originally said though. You originally stated that it costs $2000 to buy a GW army. Which is not really true.
If you factor in paints? That was all i factored in, there's still plenty more to go. Paints alone will run you a significant figure. Half the people on this forum will categorically deny you a game if you don't have your army painted with at least 3 paint colours per model. $2000 (1188) is a good ball-park figure for buying in to 40k in australia. It may cost me $100 less..... yay? It's expensive. If i could spend 600 pounds ($1000 aud) and be fully self-contained, it wouldn't be an issue. The next video card i'm looking at costs ~$1000. But gw lives in 'next car' territory.
Mitochondria wrote: Some people are just going to keep buying because they are in too deep to stop.
The fools.
Well, if they're having fun then why not? The question is more of - could gw do better? Both in regards to their customer base, and their profits.
because they are having the wrong kind of fun and the intertubes won't stand for that, and remember the more you denigrate some random strangers the better the world gets....
given the uneven mess 8th currently appears to be I'm leaning towards GW only having learnt how to make newer and better mistakes, although there's a narrow chance it'll even out I'm not holding my breath
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Is this going to become one of those threads where we compare the miniatures hobby to random, more expensive hobbies and pretend that GW is cheap?
You say that, but is because you dont know how expensive is collecting illegal Albino Rhino's Horn-Made Chess Pieces. Dayum, for the cost of one pawn I could have two full GW armies!
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Is this going to become one of those threads where we compare the miniatures hobby to random, more expensive hobbies and pretend that GW is cheap?
You say that, but is because you dont know how expensive is collecting illegal Albino Rhino's Horn-Made Chess Pieces. Dayum, for the cost of one pawn I could have two full GW armies!
Only one side of the chess board needs to come from an albino rhino, silly.
I seriously just ran the numbers on weekly visits to the local* sex dungeon and compared them to finishing one GW army per year, and the results might surprise you.
*Well, local as in 100 miles away. Never go to the actual local sex dungeon.
Galas wrote: You say that, but is because you dont know how expensive is collecting illegal Albino Rhino's Horn-Made Chess Pieces. Dayum, for the cost of one pawn I could have two full GW armies!
You say that like you can play Chess without albino rhino horn pieces. That doesn't sound civilised at all.
@Azreal13.
''The ONLY reason GW hikes up its prices every year is because it is can not grow profits by increasing sustainable volume of sales . ''
I meant this statement to reference historical performance of GW plc.
(Nearly)every time a new edition of a GW game drops , and or GW do a 'sales drive', revenue increases in the short term.
However, when you look at the performance in the long term, is it apparent GW may be toddling a long nicely now.But it does not mean they are effective or efficient as they could be.
For example IF GW plc had kept their sales volumes from their highest, (2003-2004).At the current retail prices GW plc should have a turn over of £320M to 380M.
Yes GW plc are going to continue selling toy soldier to collectors, and will be in business for a while yet.
Carried along by veterans that believe in sunk cost fallacy.And new customers that are not aware of the wider war gaming market in general.
But if they had a great rule set to drive positive word of mouth, (like other companies in the same market.)The expensive B&M chain would not be needed, and prices could be lowered, and GW could make larger profits of the same turn over.
GW have learned how to get by , by appealing to the easiest to please.And not a great deal else.
I'd started to write a more detailed reply, but then realised the reasons I was finding your arguments familiar was because they're largely my arguments from about 4 or 5 years ago. I'm not accusing you of plagiarism, but you really need to update your thinking. Some things are still valid, but much has changed.
Plus comparing GW at peak LotR to any other period in their history, or likely any other period in their future, is almost akin to comparing two different companies for the purposes of a valid comparison. I'm also interested in your working on that one, how did you come up with the figure of "today's retail prices" or are you simply quoting the turnover adjusted for inflation, which isn't the same thing?
But would that offset the lost profit margin in increased sales? Likely not. Whilst I'm very much price elastic, I still only need/want to buy so much in a given financial year.
So whilst I may buy more, it's just as likely I'd spend less overall. And that cuts into the profit margin, unless they can somehow also half their overheads into the bargain.
And the deeper the discount, the more that's biting into their actual profits. So they'd need to sell far more than double the volume to maintain their profit margins.
Here's a rough example. I understand that GW's wholesale price is around 60% of retail. So a £100 boxed set would cost a FLGS £60 to buy in.
Now, if they halved the retail, they'd have to reduce their wholesale price as well. Would it be the same 60%? Well, who knows? If it did remain the same, that £100 boxed set retailing now for 50%, would have a wholesale price of £30, yes? Wholesale wise (one of their most profitable sale avenues) they'd need to flog double just to maintain the current level of income. And that does the same for the FLGS margins as well.
I dare say that in the long term they'd see an upswing in sales, possibly over and above the double needed to take in the same cash. But, in the short term? Until they increase the player base? Could they survive on such self inflicted drops in profit? How about FLGS? When they go from making £40 on a sale to £20 (not allowing for discounts, as not all B&M offer that), can they stay in business in the short to mid term? I mean, it's not as if they can magically halve their overheads to get the breathing space either, is it?
Would GW's own stores turn enough of a profit at half price to keep them open? You can't simply slash a single staff members wage in half after all. If they don't, they're a cash sink in danger of closing.
That reduces your number of available sales channels, be it GW stores or FLGS (including those FLGS who no longer turn enough profit on GW to keep stocking it).
It's.....it's almost as if you've not actually thought this through.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It gets even mor unfeasible to reduce their prices by a decent percentage when you look at their financials.
Whlist simpletons might point to a given sprue costing pennies to make, their actual profit margin shows not insignificant overheads.
Yes, they could close down all their stores just to save you a few quid, but there goes their main source of new blood. So that's going to reduce potential sales as well, and all but kill new blood, which is going to put a dent in the whole 'half price is the solution' argument, as they'd inherently lose sales volumes that way too.
Or you could just accept that clearly their price strategy is working out for them. They now offer varying price points, from relative bargains to three figure centrepiece models. Takings are up. Sales are up. Profits are up.
It's almost as if they know what they're doing better than you do
People can only paint so many miniatures in any given amount of time. It can take months or years to finish an army, during which the player may not buy anything else at all. That in itself is a severe limiting factor in volume sales for a company like GW.
Me, I'll buy kits I like the look of. But halving the price still isn't going to double my spending. I'm just as likely to spend the saved money elsewhere. Probably in the pub.
when customers say they don't buy GW minis because of the rules, you believe them. When they say they don't buy GW because of the prices, you don't? Let's not kid ourselves that the majority of purchases from GW are immediately assembled, painted, and then used in games. Customers with that kind of narrow focus and discipline were never going to keep GW profitable.
Luciferian wrote: People can only paint so many miniatures in any given amount of time. It can take months or years to finish an army, during which the player may not buy anything else at all. That in itself is a severe limiting factor in volume sales for a company like GW.
Yeah... about that... *looks at his grey pile of shame*
I know, I do it too. At the moment I have about three armies worth of stuff and none of them are 100% finished. Still, unless you're really compulsive there's a point where you'll stop making purchases, or at least slow down to only buying a kit here and there when it really strikes you.
Yeah, the moment I droped 300€ in 5 minutes with the release of 8th, after buying two weeks before Deatwatch: Overkill, the Triunvirate of the Imperium and two Start Collectings, was the point I said "Ok, maybe this is enough for 2017"
Would GW plc sell more product to more people if the current retail prices were half what they are now?
Not likely, as everyone in the “hobby” is already aware of GW. But for the sake of arguement, let’s say they do sell more product to more people. Do you realistically think that they’ll OVER DOUBLE their sales? Because they’d have to do that to break even with where they are now.
Actually, they'd need to sell a lot more than double. Double would get their turnover back to the same but not their profit.
Lets say (just for easy maths) that they make 75% profit. If you reduce the price of something from $10 to $5 then you've gone from making $7.50 profit to $2.50 profit. You've got to sell three times as much.
Would GW plc sell more product to more people if the current retail prices were half what they are now?
Not likely, as everyone in the “hobby” is already aware of GW. But for the sake of arguement, let’s say they do sell more product to more people. Do you realistically think that they’ll OVER DOUBLE their sales? Because they’d have to do that to break even with where they are now.
Actually, they'd need to sell a lot more than double. Double would get their turnover back to the same but not their profit.
Lets say (just for easy maths) that they make 75% profit. If you reduce the price of something from $10 to $5 then you've gone from making $7.50 profit to $2.50 profit. You've got to sell three times as much.
Well you can't talk about profit without talking about expenses. The cost of actually producing their models is trivial in the grand scheme of things. Traditionally their biggest expense has always been their stores. Regardless of whether or not you lower prices, getting rid of their stores and trying to reestablish a good relationship with indies to carry their line and operate in their stead would go a long way to increasing profits.
Would GW plc sell more product to more people if the current retail prices were half what they are now?
Not likely, as everyone in the “hobby” is already aware of GW. But for the sake of arguement, let’s say they do sell more product to more people. Do you realistically think that they’ll OVER DOUBLE their sales? Because they’d have to do that to break even with where they are now.
Actually, they'd need to sell a lot more than double. Double would get their turnover back to the same but not their profit.
Lets say (just for easy maths) that they make 75% profit. If you reduce the price of something from $10 to $5 then you've gone from making $7.50 profit to $2.50 profit. You've got to sell three times as much.
Well you can't talk about profit without talking about expenses. The cost of actually producing their models is trivial in the grand scheme of things. Traditionally their biggest expense has always been their stores. Regardless of whether or not you lower prices, getting rid of their stores and trying to reestablish a good relationship with indies to carry their line and operate in their stead would go a long way to increasing profits.
It's not just the cost of making the sprues - machine time, operator costs, packaging, warehousing, transportation is all pretty substantial. Everyone always forgets machine time and that's not cheap at all.
Regardless - a fundamental point of economics is that halving the price for twice the sales will always result in reduced profits.
Luciferian wrote: People can only paint so many miniatures in any given amount of time. It can take months or years to finish an army, during which the player may not buy anything else at all. That in itself is a severe limiting factor in volume sales for a company like GW.
Not many people operate like that though. Just look at my sig and you can see my poor purchasing record, and I'm not nearly the worst I know.
"Minis painted since Jan 1st 2017: 39
Minis bought since Jan 1st 2017: 106"
Would GW plc sell more product to more people if the current retail prices were half what they are now?
Not likely, as everyone in the “hobby” is already aware of GW. But for the sake of arguement, let’s say they do sell more product to more people. Do you realistically think that they’ll OVER DOUBLE their sales? Because they’d have to do that to break even with where they are now.
Actually, they'd need to sell a lot more than double. Double would get their turnover back to the same but not their profit.
Lets say (just for easy maths) that they make 75% profit. If you reduce the price of something from $10 to $5 then you've gone from making $7.50 profit to $2.50 profit. You've got to sell three times as much.
Well you can't talk about profit without talking about expenses. The cost of actually producing their models is trivial in the grand scheme of things. Traditionally their biggest expense has always been their stores. Regardless of whether or not you lower prices, getting rid of their stores and trying to reestablish a good relationship with indies to carry their line and operate in their stead would go a long way to increasing profits.
It's not just the cost of making the sprues - machine time, operator costs, packaging, warehousing, transportation is all pretty substantial. Everyone always forgets machine time and that's not cheap at all.
Regardless - a fundamental point of economics is that halving the price for twice the sales will always result in reduced profits.
To save too much back and forth on this, their cost of sales (the cost of designing and producing their products) has hovered between 20-25% of their turnover for the last several years (since they included the cost of design in the figure.) So the cost of a kit is roughly 23% of the RRP ex sales tax.
The difference between their gross and net profit is significant, but that's not unusual, and the low cost of sprues is why I've often advocated for including more content in their kits over cutting prices, as the impact on profit is minimised but the value to their customer disproportionately increased.
To save too much back and forth on this, their cost of sales (the cost of designing and producing their products) has hovered between 20-25% of their turnover for the last several years (since they included the cost of design in the figure.) So the cost of a kit is roughly 23% of the RRP ex sales tax.
The difference between their gross and net profit is significant, but that's not unusual, and the low cost of sprues is why I've often advocated for including more content in their kits over cutting prices, as the impact on profit is minimised but the value to their customer disproportionately increased.
Exactly so (I didn't pick the figure of 75% at random). Additionally, bumping content in the boxes or repacking into bigger sets avoids the perception of weakness on the part of investors/shareholders that would go with slashing prices.
To save too much back and forth on this, their cost of sales (the cost of designing and producing their products) has hovered between 20-25% of their turnover for the last several years (since they included the cost of design in the figure.) So the cost of a kit is roughly 23% of the RRP ex sales tax.
Anyone know how much they charge stockists, or what percentage of their sales are to independent retailers?
Would GW plc sell more product to more people if the current retail prices were half what they are now?
Not likely, as everyone in the “hobby” is already aware of GW. But for the sake of arguement, let’s say they do sell more product to more people. Do you realistically think that they’ll OVER DOUBLE their sales? Because they’d have to do that to break even with where they are now.
Actually, they'd need to sell a lot more than double. Double would get their turnover back to the same but not their profit.
Lets say (just for easy maths) that they make 75% profit. If you reduce the price of something from $10 to $5 then you've gone from making $7.50 profit to $2.50 profit. You've got to sell three times as much.
Well you can't talk about profit without talking about expenses. The cost of actually producing their models is trivial in the grand scheme of things. Traditionally their biggest expense has always been their stores. Regardless of whether or not you lower prices, getting rid of their stores and trying to reestablish a good relationship with indies to carry their line and operate in their stead would go a long way to increasing profits.
It's not just the cost of making the sprues - machine time, operator costs, packaging, warehousing, transportation is all pretty substantial. Everyone always forgets machine time and that's not cheap at all.
Regardless - a fundamental point of economics is that halving the price for twice the sales will always result in reduced profits.
To save too much back and forth on this, their cost of sales (the cost of designing and producing their products) has hovered between 20-25% of their turnover for the last several years (since they included the cost of design in the figure.) So the cost of a kit is roughly 23% of the RRP ex sales tax.
The difference between their gross and net profit is significant, but that's not unusual, and the low cost of sprues is why I've often advocated for including more content in their kits over cutting prices, as the impact on profit is minimised but the value to their customer disproportionately increased.
Talking about individual kits, yes. But when the Tactical boxs brings you 20 tacticals instead of 10, you are effectively halfing the purchases a player needs to do from you. One can talk about how the incrementation in sales and in players could help with that, but theres too things to have in account about puting more content in every box. (Obviously I'll love to see the number of models per box increased, I'm playing devil's avocado here)
To save too much back and forth on this, their cost of sales (the cost of designing and producing their products) has hovered between 20-25% of their turnover for the last several years (since they included the cost of design in the figure.) So the cost of a kit is roughly 23% of the RRP ex sales tax.
Anyone know how much they charge stockists, or what percentage of their sales are to independent retailers?
I think there may have been a small swing recently, but historically (i.e. the last 5 years or so) it's been roughly 40/40/20 GW stores/Indys/GW Online (incl FW and BL.) With slightly more cash coming from Indys than GW stores as a rule.
There's a couple of tiers of discount, I believe, but 60% of RRP is generally considered the norm (before VAT, so a £100 box would be £80 ex VAT, selling at wholesale at ~£48.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'd love to see the market research that suggests GW customers buy exactly the number of marines they need for their forces, and not one box more.
The reality is the same. If a player want 100 marines, he can buy 10 boxes of 10, or 5 of 20. One can discuss the fact that probably, if the boxes where 20-man boxes for the same price of 10-man boxes, he'll probably buy more than 100. But again isn't certain that doubling the content of you boxes will end with more profits.
But you are right, seeing the typical GW customer (Myself included ), that show no type of restrain, or keeps it at a minimun, probably that move would end with people having much biggers gray piles of shame, and more money for GW.
Would GW plc sell more product to more people if the current retail prices were half what they are now?
Not likely, as everyone in the “hobby” is already aware of GW. But for the sake of arguement, let’s say they do sell more product to more people. Do you realistically think that they’ll OVER DOUBLE their sales? Because they’d have to do that to break even with where they are now.
Actually, they'd need to sell a lot more than double. Double would get their turnover back to the same but not their profit.
Lets say (just for easy maths) that they make 75% profit. If you reduce the price of something from $10 to $5 then you've gone from making $7.50 profit to $2.50 profit. You've got to sell three times as much.
Well you can't talk about profit without talking about expenses. The cost of actually producing their models is trivial in the grand scheme of things. Traditionally their biggest expense has always been their stores. Regardless of whether or not you lower prices, getting rid of their stores and trying to reestablish a good relationship with indies to carry their line and operate in their stead would go a long way to increasing profits.
It's not just the cost of making the sprues - machine time, operator costs, packaging, warehousing, transportation is all pretty substantial. Everyone always forgets machine time and that's not cheap at all.
Regardless - a fundamental point of economics is that halving the price for twice the sales will always result in reduced profits.
To save too much back and forth on this, their cost of sales (the cost of designing and producing their products) has hovered between 20-25% of their turnover for the last several years (since they included the cost of design in the figure.) So the cost of a kit is roughly 23% of the RRP ex sales tax.
The difference between their gross and net profit is significant, but that's not unusual, and the low cost of sprues is why I've often advocated for including more content in their kits over cutting prices, as the impact on profit is minimised but the value to their customer disproportionately increased.
Talking about individual kits, yes. But when the Tactical boxs brings you 20 tacticals instead of 10, you are effectively halfing the purchases a player needs to do from you. One can talk about how the incrementation in sales and in players could help with that, but theres too things to have in account about puting more content in every box. (Obviously I'll love to see the number of models per box increased, I'm playing devil's avocado here)
If you're going to be literal about it, yes. But what about a box that still had 10 Marines but had a sprue of heavy and special weapons? Or Chapter icnonography? (In fact I think they've done that one?)
You'd probably have to go through each kit almost on a case by case basis, but I'm sure there's ways of offering the customer more while maintaining the prices and minimising the cost increase on most.
Oh yeah, that probably will work. And they have done that yes, like the limited run of boxes with a basic squad+Transport+Chapter Sprue for Dark Angels. GW should do more boxes like that, yeah, they make the separated boxes nearly obsolete. But just like SC!, they are great ways to increase volume of sales and make the game more accesible for new-comers.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'd love to see the market research that suggests GW customers buy exactly the number of marines they need for their forces, and not one box more.
The reality is the same. If a player want 100 marines, he can buy 10 boxes of 10, or 5 of 20. One can discuss the fact that probably, if the boxes where 20-man boxes for the same price of 10-man boxes, he'll probably buy more than 100. But again isn't certain that doubling the content of you boxes will end with more profits.
But you are right, seeing the typical GW customer (Myself included ), that show no type of restrain, or keeps it at a minimun, probably that move would end with people having much biggers gray piles of shame, and more money for GW.
That doesn't address all of the former- and never-customers who would buy 100 marines instead of zero if they saw the value in the boxes. The prices are a barrier to entry--if you lower the barrier, you'd have more entrants.
The question is, exactly what difference lowering prices would make to potential customers. 50% prices means they have to sell over (over) twice the models to make the same profit. And we're assuming that won't happen. Okay. Somewhere in between (say a 25% reduction bringing in twice the customers) is the ideal sweet spot where they can maximize sales v profit. While it's a potential gamble (especially without any market research), the possibility still exists. Still, every new release is more expensive than the last.
@Torga_DW.
If GW had not retained the high cost of B&M stores ,but used more cost effective marketing.(Internet sales and better rules .)
They would not have to use over half their gross profits to pay for this old fashioned and inefficient sales option.
Which would have allowed for lower prices without loosing gross profits.
The only way to add perceived value without dropping retail prices now would be .
A) Increase the quantity of plastic sprues in the boxes.
B)Write well defined rules that deliver the expected game play in an elegant and efficient way.
@Azreal13.
My argument has been GW plc may have got better at selling stuff to 'GW collectors'.But they appear have done very little to appeal to potential customers outside this narrow demographic.
This is why I am using the 'old arguments', as I believe they are still valid.
What radical changes has GW plc made to appeal to potential customers out side this core demographic of GW collectors?
I genuinely may have missed somthing.
Like more business minded posters have said across the board global prices cuts are a risky spin of the wheel but what if GW restarted limited time sales, maybe 20%/30% with Ltd Edition freebys for certain spends, maybe limited to GW stores, as Steam has proved people are suckers for the Anchor effect, and if it unduly messed with the money flow don't do it again
GW only sell GW goods. Steam sells all sorts of computer games, but nothing that's an actual physical product.
It would be nice if GW did the occasional sale, but I for one will take permanently discounted boxed sets over splash sales. Missing a sale due to lack of cash is a pain in the arse. But stuff like Start Collecting remains a relative bargain, one I can plan to purchase and pick up when I've got the spare money.
Of course, GW do on occasion offer splash savings, particularly around Chrimbo. One that springs immediately to mind are the two Mechanicus ones. One gave Robots and Heavy Servitors for a discount, the other a bit of everything.
Now there, I count myself lucky as I get part of my annual bonus at the end of November, so I'm usually quite well placed to pick those up. But if I miss them? Not so good.
Only thing I'd like them to sort out is the contents of the Start Collecting. Some are the sort you want two or three of, others not so much. Some armies (Undead particularly stick in mind) have multiple boxes, all of which are useful building blocks.
it was more the point about the anchoring effect, Steam just sprung to mind due to my personal Steam library packed with Sale games that ive never even downloaded let alone played...(and like many gamers my mini backlog is equally bad)
Apologies MDG.
I should have defined what I meant by 'GW collectors' .
I was referring to customers that mainly collect GW models for aesthetic reasons.And are not that bothered about game play.
Aesthetics are subjective,and so if you think a model is 'cool enough' to be worth the money, you will pay the amount asked for it.But other opinions may vary.
Minature collectors/painters buy models/minatures from a wide variety of companies.
'GW collectors' mainly or exclusively collect GW minatures.(And may not actually bother assembling or painting them in some cases. )
Gamers on the other hand DO care about game play, and well defined rule sets.And often view minatures for the game as playing pieces.So no matter how cool the model looks, if it has no value in a table top game they can not justify buying it.
I am not saying there are not enough GW collectors to keep GW plc going.Or GW plc has to attract gamers and customers from the wider war gaming market.
But the lessons learned by gaming companies, seem to be ignored by GW plc.
Not sure that really holds up though. I mean, just a glance at YMDC kind of shows 40k and AoS players both care about the rules.
That the rules are a wee bit shonky doesn't stop them playing.
Purely personal opinion, for me it's the minis that lead my interest. Even if a game has the best regarded rules, if the models don't appeal I see no point in picking it up. Some general aesthetics leave me cold.
The YMDC forum is just asking for common/officially accepted ways to interpret poorly defined rules within the rule sets.
(Which should not be there, for the most part, if GW actually bothered with professional levels of proof reading and editing. )
Its like properly proof read novels should have correct spelling and grammar .
It does detract from the narrative of the novel a bit if there are some spelling mistakes and grammatical errors scattered about.
In the same way a few poorly worded rules could detract from a well developed game play a bit.
However the game play is more akin to the story arcs in the novel. Its what keeps you interested long term .
AFAIK everyone gets hooked by the history/background and look of the particular minatures first.
However, the depth and diversity of the game play keeps gamers interested.Finding out all the different ways your force can work with different tactical options, to combat different forces, and play styles.
Its apparent GW like to keep the games tactically shallow (in game options) ,and strategically deep (pre game options) to promote more minature sales.
EG in general war games, units can perform several tactical roles on the table top.
In GW games a unit would be given a special rule to make it suited to one specific role.(Or developed to be a 'one trick pony'.)
And so to achieve a separate battle field role a completely different unit with a separate special rule, (or development focus,) would be needed.
As a gamer I might not like the look of the minatures, but I can recommend the game to some one who does like that visual style, if the rules are good.
GW just has the initial appeal of the art,(narrative and sculpt style.) With not a lot else to back it up.(Comparatively poorly defined rules and shallow game play.)
Something else I've just noticed....a reduction in Ltd Edition models.
Given my Facebook group (link in the wig), this is something I've been keeping better tabs on of late.
Before when GW did a celebration model of any stripe, a store might have a dozen on the peg. And if we were lucky, one could also order them in from the web store.
Which was.....not great. Typically, Your Unfriendly Neighbourhood Scalper would swoop in and buy up all the stock, before jacking it on eBay for triple the price.
Understandably, that got up people's noses. And rightfully so. With the exception of the 'odd choice' Primaris currently available, the models were desirable pieces.
But perhaps not anymore. Specifically, Store Anniversary Goodies seem to be a limitless supply at each event, and people can order as many as they want (pretty sure I hold the record for the Primaris Captain though...). And going on Warhammer Edinburgh's recent FB, that largesse has now been extended to the Eavy Metal dice (they roll beautifully!), brush case (erm.....yay? I guess), the Art Book, and Jes Goodwin's Eldar Sketchbook. All available for order in unlimited quantities.
Was I still living there, not only would it be 1991, but also I'd be up with a Group Order
And that to me is definitely a positive. Could this signal the end of enforced scarcity? Could it now just be a matter of joining a certain FB group and getting what it is you need?
@MDG.
Not exactly sure what we are disagreeing on?
You are not a gamer first and foremost,are you?
You are mainly interested in the minatures like practically all GW customers. And you play 40k/AOS despite the crap rules like most GW customers.(If they play at all.)
So we have different perspective on what makes purchases value for money to us.
My point is GW are not appealing to gamers who care about the quality of the rules and game play.
This is not GWs core demographic.(Lots of game companies have sprung up to cater to these customers.)
GW corporate deem it too much effort to bother with actual game development and appear happy to just target 'collectors.'
My point was GW should have learned that great rules add value to a minature range,Poor rules remove value from a minature range.
Gaming companies do not have to wast over half their gross profit on a chain of B&M stores.
Great game play sells their product by word of mouth.The more players having a positive experience, the more people they tell about it.
The higher volume of sales,increases the profit off each minature sold.(Plastic manufacture rewards economies of scale.)
Gaming companies do not have to wast over half their gross profit on a chain of B&M stores.
Great game play sells their product by word of mouth.The more players having a positive experience, the more people they tell about it.
The higher volume of sales,increases the profit off each minature sold.(Plastic manufacture rewards economies of scale.)
Someone has to have those B&M stores, and if it weren't for GW's bricks, most of these gaming companies wouldn't sell gak.
"Great game play sells their product by word of mouth." within a community of people who were brought together by GW games.
Exactly. The GW stores are a substantial expense but each box of product sold represents substantially more revenue than the same box sold via a 3d party.
Scott-S6 wrote: Exactly. The GW stores are a substantial expense but each box of product sold represents substantially more revenue than the same box sold via a 3d party.
More revenue, but less profit. Revenue doesn't pay the bills. Profit does.
More revenue, but less profit. Revenue doesn't pay the bills. Profit does.
Well...actually, revenue is what pays the bills. Profit is what's left over when all the bills are paid. If you're still paying bills with profit, its not really profit.
And you say more revenue, less profit....take the stores away, and you're looking at a lot less revenue. After all, where's your high street presence to tempt in new and lapsed blood alike?
It's an expensive proposition, sure. But GW are the only one with their own stores, and remain the biggest fish in the market. Now, do you think those two things could be at all linked?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Scott-S6 wrote: Exactly. The GW stores are a substantial expense but each box of product sold represents substantially more revenue than the same box sold via a 3d party.
Though this I disagree with.
Over a certain volume of sales in a single store, perhaps.
But, selling to 3rd party actually gives them the best outcome. They're not liable for VAT on those sales, and aren't the one footing the bill for getting it into the grubby mitts of a gamer.
VAT liability has absolutely nothing to do with anything. VAT is a cost neutral tax for a business, its passed on to the consumer, and the majority of the accounting in most modern businesses is largely automated, so it doesn't even represent a significant expense in administration.
Selling to a third party does not give them the best outcome, as they're selling it for almost half what they'd sell it for directly, and they're already paying the costs for their own direct channels, whether the sale goes through them or not.
In an ideal world, GW want to sell every item through their website at full RRP, full RRP through their stores is a compromise and selling at wholesale to another retailer the third option, but making something from a wholesale sale is better than not.
And you say more revenue, less profit....take the stores away, and you're looking at a lot less revenue. After all, where's your high street presence to tempt in new and lapsed blood alike?
It's an expensive proposition, sure. But GW are the only one with their own stores, and remain the biggest fish in the market. Now, do you think those two things could be at all linked?
Maybe, but not necessarily. The stores have been cost neutral, give or take, for many of the reports I've taken the trouble to look at over the last few years. Making £5m off £50m turnover without stores or £5m off £100m turnover but having to maintain a whole network of shops (figures example only) is largely moot. The only question is whether the presence of the stores generates sales that would never happen without their visibility, and that's highly debatable and almost unprovable, one way or another.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: After all, where's your high street presence to tempt in new and lapsed blood alike?
I don't know? Where is it in the US, where GW has been successful despite GW's own retail stores being so rare and irrelevant that they could disappear overnight and hardly anyone would notice?
There used to be a "high street" presence in my state; quite a large one, in fact. There were three or so GW stores in malls, with a flagship store in one of the most fancy and expensive malls in the state. All gone now, with only a one man store in a shady part of town to replace them.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: There's no high street here. If there were, the local GW's could not be considered to be on it.
This. . . however, in my area, the GWs are definitely present in suburban sprawl. My hangout shop is located in a shopping center with Target and a bunch of other stuff. . .Another near by is in the same lot as an Olive Garden, Chik-Fil-A (unless it's a popeyes. .. chicken place regardlesS), WinCo (grocery chain for those who don't know). . .
But this is probably more due to the decades of the traditional downtown neglect. . .and the recent resurgence being that more of the hipster shops and one-off type shopping.
Gaming companies do not have to wast over half their gross profit on a chain of B&M stores.
Great game play sells their product by word of mouth.The more players having a positive experience, the more people they tell about it.
The higher volume of sales,increases the profit off each minature sold.(Plastic manufacture rewards economies of scale.)
Someone has to have those B&M stores, and if it weren't for GW's bricks, most of these gaming companies wouldn't sell gak.
"Great game play sells their product by word of mouth." within a community of people who were brought together by GW games.
Problem, at least in the UK, is that GW went on a fairly successful crusade against smaller FLGS for reasons best known to Kirby and are now stuck with a B&M chain they can't let go of, and are in many cases claustrophobic broom cupboards so not great as play experience sites
I'm pretty sure that my "local" GW store (25miles) is run by 1 dude and has the craptastically crappiest hours possible. Theyre only open for 5-6hrs a day, with a 30min lunch break thrown in. I honestly don't understand how it is even remotely profitable. I would rather go to my FLGS that's open normal hours, has plenty of gaming space, and doesn't look like 1 person works there.
Their (brick n motar) business model isn't sustainable in the long term (at least here in Cali).
Seems like this thread has become about brick & mortar business practices, but in response to the OP:
Having left in 7th and come back in 8th, it really doesn't feel like much of a net improvement.
The game may be better, but not better enough. The rules are still packaged poorly, badly edited (the indexes had so many errors we were losing track of them the first night), and worst of all there's still countless examples of bad math and poor balancing. The points system is a trainwreck both from a balancing perspective and from an ease-of-use perspective.
The game plays simpler, but in my eyes that isn't necessarily an improvement, since it often feels like it lacks much space for actual strategy or decision making.
From a business perspective 40K is still a huge grift, and new models are priced even more outrageously than anything we've seen in the past. Models get increasingly massive, but the actual kit value goes down as many are monoposed and have so much junk on them they are virtually impossible to customize or convert (without a massive amount of effort, at least).
I could go on for hours, but the point is the GW renaissance is largely overstated.
Ventus wrote: Seems like this thread has become about brick & mortar business practices, but in response to the OP:
Having left in 7th and come back in 8th, it really doesn't feel like much of a net improvement.
The game may be better, but not better enough. The rules are still packaged poorly, badly edited (the indexes had so many errors we were losing track of them the first night), and worst of all there's still countless examples of bad math and poor balancing. The points system is a trainwreck both from a balancing perspective and from an ease-of-use perspective.
The game plays simpler, but in my eyes that isn't necessarily an improvement, since it often feels like it lacks much space for actual strategy or decision making.
Models get increasingly massive, but the actual kit value goes down as many are monoposed and have so much junk on them they are virtually impossible to customize or convert (without a massive amount of effort, at least).
I could go on for hours, but the point is the GW renaissance is largely overstated.
I give GW the benefit of the doubt that they're trying to make a great product.
However, it also feels like they're using every opportunity to squeeze pennies out of us. I think this has been a core quality of the company that has always left me a little salty.
Yes, businesses exist to turn a profit, they couldn't exist or grow without doing that, etc. etc.
The situation with the rulebooks really has left me salty. Like, if I spend $50 on a book, I'm done with that book for the entire edition. That's what I thought, anyway...
The stuff they're doing now will be projects begun a while back. GW have said their stuff typically takes three years from concept to shelf, but I suspect that's not a universal timescale.
But there's still a time lag between intent and outcome that's unavoidable.
And that will of course be the proof in the pudding. They've made an effort of late, and seem to be taking on board comments and criticisms. If it's 'same old same old' in a few years, we'll have our answer.
And it's not just rules for the game, but an effort at greater diversity in the background and the model range. We're getting different ethnicities in paintjobs on models, and even female sculpts slowly trickling through. Same with the artwork. Since ever I can remember, 40k has been pretty much an aryan sausagefest. Now? Much less so. There's still progress to made (model line lags quite far behind the background, especially AoS where female Stormcast show up ever more regularly, and in all ranks), but that they're bothering at all shows a change of thinking at the top.
It may not count much to you or I - but for others, it might mean an awful lot, without detracting from our enjoyment (well, unless you're an incredible jerk who somehow feels threatened by diversity and better representation for anyone Not You).
It's such a small simple thing, but it does matter. I just hope they follow it through.
Hi Folks.
I don't think anyone said GW has not made effort to engage with its core demographic of late.
I think it is more a chasing what the competition are doing , as well as listening to feed back in a limited way.(Rather than all of a sudden growing a 'customer conscience'.)
When it was just the customers expressing displeasure at various issues they had, GW did nothing much.(Put their finger in their ears, told everyone to drink the koolaide and put up the prices, basically.)
Only when OTHER companies started listening too and addressing the issues GW customers expressed.All of a sudden GW plc realized they had to do something or they would struggle.
I just wish GW would decide to commit to game development or give up on it.
Rather than just pay lip service to it.As this just detracts from the value for money they offer customers.
MDG is right the GW corporation moves slowly , (with the reactions of a dinosaur. )
I would like believe they are going to start sorting out the rules issues.But after not addressing core issues with the 40k battle game in nearly 2 decades.I am not that hopeful.
Are they, though? Acknowledging it, certainly, but for the most part GW will do what GW wants to do. The game is hardly designed by committee, and few of the major changes feel directly connected to feedback. In fact, it feels like we've been going BACKWARDS in many places (drop pods, ugh).
And it's not just rules for the game, but an effort at greater diversity in the background and the model range. We're getting different ethnicities in paintjobs on models, and even female sculpts slowly trickling through. Same with the artwork. Since ever I can remember, 40k has been pretty much an aryan sausagefest. Now? Much less so. There's still progress to made (model line lags quite far behind the background, especially AoS where female Stormcast show up ever more regularly, and in all ranks), but that they're bothering at all shows a change of thinking at the top.
Racerguy180 wrote: I'm pretty sure that my "local" GW store (25miles) is run by 1 dude and has the craptastically crappiest hours possible. Theyre only open for 5-6hrs a day, with a 30min lunch break thrown in. I honestly don't understand how it is even remotely profitable. I would rather go to my FLGS that's open normal hours, has plenty of gaming space, and doesn't look like 1 person works there.
Their (brick n motar) business model isn't sustainable in the long term (at least here in Cali).
That always baffled me. My local one closes for an hour for lunch, 1-2pm, at the weekend, so 90% of the time I walk past it, it's closed. The only other places I can think of which only have a single staffer are burger vans or those stalls in the middle of malls, and they usually have someone nearby to cover. I can forgive my local FLGS being closed for 30 minutes for lunch, because his cover couldn't make it, because it's a small operation. GW is a multi-million quid multinational so really should do better.
Wilfully ignoring that GW cannot retcon SMs to be female without huge fallout and it's perfectly possible to paint these models whichever way you want. And as for my local GW, yes it's tiny with only two tables, but the people there are great fun and it's open 10 till 6 on most days, and it turns over £140,000 a year which after running costs of £90,000 makes it profitable enough.
We know The Legionnes Astartes were a stopgap measure after the Primarch's disappeared.
It's very likely the whole 'male genome' thing was a simple matter of expediency. He needed his Warriors, and needed them now. No time to waste.
10,000 years later, who's to say Cawl doesn't have the next volume in 'Emperor Professor Frank 'N' Furter's Make You A Man Plan' series 'Emperor Professor Frank 'N' Furter's Make You A Woman'.
And you say huge fallout....amongst people who are pretty fragile anyway, so I say go for it.
It's never been a case of 'it's not at all possible to create Space Marines from wimmins evar', so much as 'the current geneseed is keyed to the male chromosomes'.
It's very likely the whole 'male genome' thing was a simple matter of expediency. He needed his Warriors, and needed them now. No time to waste.
If it's a matter of expediency and the emps could use both men and women, why limit yourself, more meat for the meat grinder and all that.
And it's not, "ew women," the fallout would be, "GW clearly doesn't respect long established fluff, even quite central fluff, and what does that mean for the rest of the setting?"
Also where does it say this?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It's never been a case of 'it's not at all possible to create Space Marines from wimmins evar', so much as 'the current geneseed is keyed to the male chromosomes'.
As far as I've been aware it has always been 'it's not at all possible to create Space Marines from wimmins evar'. Not saying I'm right i's just what I've understood the fluff to be since I got into 40k.
Anyone who has read the codices since 5th edition already knows GW has no respect for long-established fluff. besides, the introduction of Primaris marines is an obvious out if GW wants one. "Hey guys! I put a woman in the Primaris machine for science and giggles, and it still worked. She's a Space Marine now!"
Not that I feel GW needs to take such a tack. If they released SOB or female imperial guard or even a line of Inquisitors with henchpeople, that would certainly help reduce pressure on the female space marines front.
It's very likely the whole 'male genome' thing was a simple matter of expediency. He needed his Warriors, and needed them now. No time to waste.
If it's a matter of expediency and the emps could use both men and women, why limit yourself, more meat for the meat grinder and all that.
And it's not, "ew women," the fallout would be, "GW clearly doesn't respect long established fluff, even quite central fluff, and what does that mean for the rest of the setting?"
Also where does it say this?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It's never been a case of 'it's not at all possible to create Space Marines from wimmins evar', so much as 'the current geneseed is keyed to the male chromosomes'.
As far as I've been aware it has always been 'it's not at all possible to create Space Marines from wimmins evar'. Not saying I'm right i's just what I've understood the fluff to be since I got into 40k.
The background as stands is that the existing geneseed is keyed solely to the male chromosome. Why, to the best of my knowledge, has never really been covered.
Hypothetical? Emperor so far as we know is male. Primarchs have bits of him, Geneseed are bits of Primarch. Semi-clone, easier to stick with the same chromosomes for the 'first run'.
But that doesn't mean geneseed can't be treated or improved to be implanted in either gender. Look at the work Cawl has done. He's not only purified geneseed to rid it of flaws there since creation but has also created new organs.
It ain't impossible. And seemingly, it never actually has been. They've just not done it.
Azreal13 wrote: Now tie that back into "Smoke and Mirrors? Or has GW learned their lesson?" and you'll be into a winner!
GW do should femarines to encourage more females to play war doolies cos girls like girl things and that, (and now I've confused myself about progressive / regressive)
Azreal13 wrote: Now tie that back into "Smoke and Mirrors? Or has GW learned their lesson?" and you'll be into a winner!
Has GW improved at drawing in people other than pasty anglo manchildren and making a more wide ranging game that doesn't appeal only to them, or are they ready to do a dark eldar slaves part two electric barely clothed boogallo?
(I'm not sure what I just wrote but I feel like I need to go to confession and I'm not even Catholic.)
Azreal13 wrote: Now tie that back into "Smoke and Mirrors? Or has GW learned their lesson?" and you'll be into a winner!
I for one want to know if GW's new focus on cultural diversity and social reform in its fictional dystopian game universes is merely an act, or if they actually believe in the war against unequality and neo-facism.
Wilfully ignoring that GW cannot retcon SMs to be female without huge fallout and it's perfectly possible to paint these models whichever way you want.
It's been happy to retcon in Centurians, Primaris Marines and MurderFang McMurder-Murder. Some female Space Fantasy Soldiers should be pretty easy to manage. As mentioned, they don't need to be Astartes as such. SoB, or enhanced Militarum would presumably do, and may be easier to look a bit more feminine.
Does GW have anyone that can sculpt a human looking human at the moment?
Azreal13 wrote: Now tie that back into "Smoke and Mirrors? Or has GW learned their lesson?" and you'll be into a winner!
I for one want to know if GW's new focus on cultural diversity and social reform in its fictional dystopian game universes is merely an act, or if they actually believe in the war against unequality and neo-facism.
The background for AoS is more representative than Warhammer. Mind you, AoS isn't set in Fictional Germany, so that's an awful lot easier.
First Stormcast we saw sans skidlid had dark skin (WW Exclusive model), and the background has all sorts - including a decent stab at a gender fluid character in 'Godless'.
I am all for diversity. Diversity of ideas is just as important as diversity of physical differences.
I would like the ideas of people who care about game play to be just as valid , as those who are only interested in the minatures.
It sort of proved my point that GW are mainly appealing to minature collectors, as this thread sort of derailed into a conversation about minature options.
Would anyone be interested in discussing the core issues with he 40k game play.(That still have remained untouched for 5 editions and 19 years of 40k.)
As it is in this area GW seem to have learned nothing.IMO.
I think 8th has shown that they want to care about game play and balance (they're definitely trying) but has highlighted, yet again, that they simply do not have game designers that are up to the job.
Scott-S6 wrote: I think 8th has shown that they want to care about game play and balance (they're definitely trying) but has highlighted, yet again, that they simply do not have game designers that are up to the job.
that's my take too, they have a good idea (ie removing templates) but bogde the fix by falling back on D6 ideas, and then double down trying to fix that with double tap rules involving more dice, why not give the weapons fixed values with free mortal wounds on high rolls, it just smacks of not trying
Its why I'm not touching Shadespire, they are touting it as 'serious competitive', but it'll turn out like all those 90's/00's subpar Magic CCG knockoffs
@Scott-S6.
Even when they had good game designers, GW corporate managers over ruled them.
GW corporate changed the game size from large skirmish game to battle game at the 11th hour for 3rd ed 40k. (According to Rick Priestley.)And the game play was compromised.
GW over ruled the game devs every time they tried to over haul the core rules ,to correct the oversights that crept in in 3rd ed.(Until 7th ed when game devs just gave up , apparently.)
40k 8th edition appears to have followed the same design brief as 3rd ed.''Make it look simple and sell more minatures...''
Unfortunately the same mistakes have been made IMO.
The core rules are not robust enough to cover the wide diversity of units and tactics that people expect to be in a game like 40k.
And so before too long the core rules will be buried under layers of poorly explained special rules.
I am not advocating for complicated rules, just straightforward rules that cover the expected/intended game play elegantly and efficiently.(EG the way good game companies develop rules. )
Diversity could be the hill Gw dies on, look at marvel comics their sales are worse now than after the 90's crash, this is a time with three movies a year and multiple TV shows but they can barely sell 40k copies of their lead titles, comic shops are closing down as a result.
People don't like Sjw's or the things they push and Gw adopting that will end up the same way.
I'm all for more female models where appropriate like sob, guard and eldar but if they start pushing regressive nonsense I'll boycott all their products, no end of other games to play.
hobojebus wrote: Diversity could be the hill Gw dies on, look at marvel comics their sales are worse now than after the 90's crash, this is a time with three movies a year and multiple TV shows but they can barely sell 40k copies of their lead titles, comic shops are closing down as a result.
People don't like Sjw's or the things they push and Gw adopting that will end up the same way.
I'm all for more female models where appropriate like sob, guard and eldar but if they start pushing regressive nonsense I'll boycott all their products, no end of other games to play.
hobojebus wrote: Diversity could be the hill Gw dies on, look at marvel comics their sales are worse now than after the 90's crash, this is a time with three movies a year and multiple TV shows but they can barely sell 40k copies of their lead titles, comic shops are closing down as a result.
People don't like Sjw's or the things they push and Gw adopting that will end up the same way.
I'm all for more female models where appropriate like sob, guard and eldar but if they start pushing regressive nonsense I'll boycott all their products, no end of other games to play.
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]
Classy really classy
If 8th turn out as unbalanced as 6th and 7th, that might kill it for many people, and it's starting to look that way.
Has GW learned anything, yes throw your customers a few bones, and they'll come running back tails wagging.
hobojebus wrote: Diversity could be the hill Gw dies on, look at marvel comics their sales are worse now than after the 90's crash, this is a time with three movies a year and multiple TV shows but they can barely sell 40k copies of their lead titles, comic shops are closing down as a result.
People don't like Sjw's or the things they push and Gw adopting that will end up the same way.
I'm all for more female models where appropriate like sob, guard and eldar but if they start pushing regressive nonsense I'll boycott all their products, no end of other games to play.
You're an absolute misery of a human being anyway, they won't miss you.
Classy really classy
If 8th turn out as unbalanced as 6th and 7th, that might kill it for many people, and it's starting to look that way.
Has GW learned anything, yes throw your customers a few bones, and they'll come running back tails wagging.
Yeah the balance between codex and index is pretty big and as some armies still have a year to wait its not going away anytime soon, I'm thinking of knocking 40k on the head until all the codex releases are done.
Didn't expect to be here less than six months from release.
HI folks.
The lack of balance in the codex/index lists.Can appear to be superficially down to the need to boost the short term sales.
However, the core rules are incapable of covering the intended and expected game play in 40k.
So the way GW patches the game play with special rules makes the game play impossible to balance long term.
All table top war games abstract the process of interaction to allow for game play flow.
However, 40k seems to abstract the results of the interaction , because it removes important parts of the interaction in the drive to simplify the rules.
loki old fart wrote: If 8th turn out as unbalanced as 6th and 7th, that might kill it for many people, and it's starting to look that way.
Has GW learned anything, yes throw your customers a few bones, and they'll come running back tails wagging.
40k has gone from the most popular wargame I know to even more popular with 8th. Many people came back after leaving during earlier edition, but there were also those who got armies out to try it and realised that the 40k isn't the game for them anymore. GW seem to have chosen a direction and style that works for them, which is good. Just means you might want to reflect on if 40k offers what you want to get from a wargame. Noting wrong with it either way.
I don't think GW intend to make either warhammer more balanced than it is now. Frankly, I don't think they need to or should either; it's not a focus of the way GW make games. Other things have a higher priority. If people wanted to play a very balanced competition orientated game they would and do.
Balance does not seem to be key to a game's success (unless that's a selling point); as evident by 40k being hands down the most popular wargame ever made, even during 7th.
FFG's new ground combat game will soak up the players seeking a more balanced game, I wouldn't be surprised to see 40k slip down to 4th place after its release.
hobojebus wrote: FFG's new ground combat game will soak up the players seeking a more balanced game, I wouldn't be surprised to see 40k slip down to 4th place after its release.
hobojebus wrote: FFG's new ground combat game will soak up the players seeking a more balanced game, I wouldn't be surprised to see 40k slip down to 4th place after its release.
If it's unreleased, how would you know if it's going to be balanced?
The release of 8th's rules and the indexes was a welcome breath of fresh air. Overall, it was a decent ground floor that could be tweaked upwards. It's not without its faults, but with such a basic game it would be easy enough to add modules for people who wanted more detail or a different way of handling things for certain parts of the game (like terrain).
However, I think the codexes are pushing the game quickly back into the old form. Ofr one thing, stratagems are the new formations, and GW is willy-nilly dropping them without concern for about how strong they should be - for one thing, in not taking into account unit size for what the Strategem will be used on, nor the relative points worth they should be. We WILL see creep, and by the time we see the full range of codexes, everyone will be clamoring the game has become once again too complex and overbalanced.
And GW will happily sell everyone 9th edition and start the cycle all over again, laughing all the way to the bank.
hobojebus wrote: FFG's new ground combat game will soak up the players seeking a more balanced game, I wouldn't be surprised to see 40k slip down to 4th place after its release.
How is Runewars doing btw? If FFG were big on balance X-Wing would be, is it?
Not to mention, there are already games soaking up players who want more balanced games (or just prefer a different game play experience). Infinity and King of War/Malifaux (for Sci-Fi and fantasy respectively) around here. Neither are more popular than the respective Warhammer though, which is why I don't think having a well balanced game is as important to success as I wish it were and many here suggest.
hobojebus wrote: FFG's new ground combat game will soak up the players seeking a more balanced game, I wouldn't be surprised to see 40k slip down to 4th place after its release.
How is Runewars doing btw? If FFG were big on balance X-Wing would be, is it?
Not to mention, there are already games soaking up players who want more balanced games (or just prefer a different game play experience). Infinity and King of War/Malifaux (for Sci-Fi and fantasy respectively) around here. Neither are more popular than the respective Warhammer though, which is why I don't think having a well balanced game is as important to success as I wish it were and many here suggest.
I think HJ is referring to Legion rather than Runewars, It'll most likely take a nip out of 40k but not do any real damage and it'll most likely be fairly balanced for a while till power creep spoils it
hobojebus wrote: Diversity could be the hill Gw dies on, look at marvel comics their sales are worse now than after the 90's crash, this is a time with three movies a year and multiple TV shows but they can barely sell 40k copies of their lead titles, comic shops are closing down as a result.
People don't like Sjw's or the things they push and Gw adopting that will end up the same way.
I don't think it's the diversity that's killing Marvel; it's the poorly thought out and heavy handed way they are doing it. I doubt the majority of fans are upset that there are more female characters, just that the canon has been retconned in a really transparent manner. GW has the ability to include more diverse characters without much retconning.
GW can do lots to have more female models in 40k without even having to touch the female space marine issue. Guard, Eldar, Necromunda gangs, Chaos cultists etc are all groups which are probably going to get new models over the next few years, and could easily have some female models on the sprues with no great outrage or retcons. In fact I suspect everyone would welcome as such. Would anyone be upset if House Cawdor was 50/50 gender wise?
hobojebus wrote: Diversity could be the hill Gw dies on, look at marvel comics their sales are worse now than after the 90's crash, this is a time with three movies a year and multiple TV shows but they can barely sell 40k copies of their lead titles, comic shops are closing down as a result.
People don't like Sjw's or the things they push and Gw adopting that will end up the same way.
I don't think it's the diversity that's killing Marvel; it's the poorly thought out and heavy handed way they are doing it. I doubt the majority of fans are upset that there are more female characters, just that the canon has been retconned in a really transparent manner. GW has the ability to include more diverse characters without much retconning.
Yeah, it's diversity for the sake of diversity. The characters are all paper-thin, poorly-written and mostly come out of nowhere, and are obviously meant to "replace" the older ones. Or like with Iceman they've made pretty drastic and sudden changes to existing characters for no real reason, taking a character that's been straight for his 60 or so years of existence and just deciding he's gay now because every existing Marvel character needs to be gay/lesbian, female, trans, or an ethnic minority (or all at once).
If they insist on doing it this way, instead of just making new, more diverse characters to sell people, then it needs to be something that's slowly built up to or introduced over time, not a rush job like it has been. But I guess that would require better writing talent or sane editors to reign the bullgak in and I don't think Marvel currently has either.
As for GW and diversity...I don't really feel GWneeds to do anything too drastic on that front. The game already feels diverse enough without needing to resort to major retcons, like trying to squeeze in female Marines to appease some group which probably still wouldn't buy them anyway (which is Marvel's problem, they're scoring lots of "diversity points" but the product doesn't sell and it's hurting retailers to the point where some of them have either gotten out of comics or just closed down), the main problem is just that it isn't represented well on the tabletop. Some armies do it okay, like Eldar and now Tau (though it isn't quite as obvious when you're looking at a female Tau unless the helmet is off), but Guard don't have any of that representation even though realistically they should, and likewise Sisters have been almost completely ignored for, in my opinion anyway, no good reason. We don't really "need" female Space Marines because the Sisters basically already fill that role, and they also fit perfectly into the background as-is; GW just needs to get off their asses and make a plastic range for them like yesterday. Why they haven't already, especially when they've been investing money in exploring even more "risky" niche armies like Harlequins and Genestealer Cults the past couple years, blows my mind. It's also not very hard to start introducing more female characters, like they've done with Inquisitor Greyfax and Yvraine recently. They could easily add more diversity without really "ruining" the setting or making it feel forced at all, and I feel like most people playing the game would be all for it.
Anyway, I'd say it's hard to tell whether or not GW have "learned their lesson". They definitely seem to be making at least an effort to turn the ship around, and it seems like it's working out pretty well for them financially. I've heard people claiming that the company is more successful now than they've ever been, even during the LotR bubble. They still have a long way to go though, and hopefully if that's true then it means they'll be more receptive in the future and continue a more customer-friendly trend. Personally I'm still put off by their prices, and sadly I don't think that will ever change. They've kinda tried to address that with the Start Collecting boxes and the odd discounted bundle here and there, but individual kits are still insanely priced, especially characters. $35+ for a single, infantry-sized model is just completely ludicrous to me, that's even more than "boutique" pricing usually is, for mass-produced plastic at that.
hobojebus wrote: Diversity could be the hill Gw dies on, look at marvel comics their sales are worse now than after the 90's crash, this is a time with three movies a year and multiple TV shows but they can barely sell 40k copies of their lead titles, comic shops are closing down as a result.
People don't like Sjw's or the things they push and Gw adopting that will end up the same way.
I'm all for more female models where appropriate like sob, guard and eldar but if they start pushing regressive nonsense I'll boycott all their products, no end of other games to play.
@DarkBlack.
GW are not interested in game balance.GWs core demographic are not interested in game balance either.
My point has been that ifGW were interested in game balance, they would offer more value for money to gamers , and therefore grow sales .
GW just cant be bothered.
How did this thread get back to talking about diversity in models again?
I would rather the core rules covered the diversity in the models already found in the game,before demanding more female models. (Which are much harder too get to 'look right' ,with heroic proportions of the GW style.)
hobojebus wrote: FFG's new ground combat game will soak up the players seeking a more balanced game, I wouldn't be surprised to see 40k slip down to 4th place after its release.
How is Runewars doing btw? If FFG were big on balance X-Wing would be, is it?
Not to mention, there are already games soaking up players who want more balanced games (or just prefer a different game play experience). Infinity and King of War/Malifaux (for Sci-Fi and fantasy respectively) around here. Neither are more popular than the respective Warhammer though, which is why I don't think having a well balanced game is as important to success as I wish it were and many here suggest.
I think HJ is referring to Legion rather than Runewars, It'll most likely take a nip out of 40k but not do any real damage and it'll most likely be fairly balanced for a while till power creep spoils it
As much as I love Star Wars, i don't think Legion will have too much of an impact on 40k. I'm interested in it, but not enough to make me buy it over 40k.
GW has "come a long way, baby", but still a fair amount to go before they're "fixed".
And for the sake of everybody, can we stop talking about diversity in relation to the original topic. Please start another thread so this one doesn't get locked! (since nobody can be civil to one another)
And for the sake of everybody, can we stop talking about diversity in relation to the original topic. Please start another thread so this one doesn't get locked! (since nobody can be civil to one another)
Now now, everyone is being very civil, and i do think it's an area that is covered by the original question as regards changes or lack thereof in GW's actions and aims.
And I agree with Sidstyler, it shouldn't be forced, but don't think anyone would have any problems with more representation of pre-existing parts of the universe like SOB or cults.
And linking back to the question, as my A-Level teachers are quick to remind me, (end my suffering please) it seems GW have learned their lesson in that regard. They've said they're working on getting better representation, with no hinting at female marines or anything similarly forced. (At which point I'd probably give up the hobby, I don't want political messages with my plastic fanatic space monks wielding automatic rocket launchers.)
hobojebus wrote: Diversity could be the hill Gw dies on, look at marvel comics their sales are worse now than after the 90's crash, this is a time with three movies a year and multiple TV shows but they can barely sell 40k copies of their lead titles, comic shops are closing down as a result.
People don't like Sjw's or the things they push and Gw adopting that will end up the same way.
I'm all for more female models where appropriate like sob, guard and eldar but if they start pushing regressive nonsense I'll boycott all their products, no end of other games to play.
This leads me to believe that GW wouldn't have a huge problem with this, [qoute/]
They had a meeting a few weeks back with their major distribution stores, during a store owner stood up and asked them when they were going to reverse the current state and go back to classic characters because the new stuff does not sell, he said he has kids coming in after watching the movies looking for comics about the avengers and captain america who leave empty handed because they arnt there anymore.
Do you have twitter? If so look up what the "milkshake crew" say about the fans or how they plan to beat up their critics at comicon.
Marvel comics hired based on ideology not skill or experience which is why you get messes like squirrel girl.
I'm a marvel fanboy but I haven't bought anything from them in years because of this nonsense, I'm not alone in this boycotts are our only option these days because you can't have a logical discussion with the alt left because you committed the unforgivable offense of being white, male straight or dark gods help you all three.
Its happened with comics, films and videogames all with disastrous results, it can happen with wargaming too unless you actively say no which you can't because they are banning people left right and centre who dare say anything on social media.
I wish I was some lone crank out in the woods but this is a real concern, going far left is death for companies look at twitter zero growth makes no money and yet they keep putting more and more fascist restriction driving people away all in the name of social justice.
Lanrak wrote: @DarkBlack.
GW are not interested in game balance.GWs core demographic are not interested in game balance either.
My point has been that ifGW were interested in game balance, they would offer more value for money to gamers , and therefore grow sales .
GW just cant be bothered.
How did this thread get back to talking about diversity in models again?
I would rather the core rules covered the diversity in the models already found in the game,before demanding more female models. (Which are much harder too get to 'look right' ,with heroic proportions of the GW style.)
There are certainly people who only collect, but are there people who play 40K that are not gamers?
hobojebus wrote: Diversity could be the hill Gw dies on, look at marvel comics their sales are worse now than after the 90's crash, this is a time with three movies a year and multiple TV shows but they can barely sell 40k copies of their lead titles, comic shops are closing down as a result.
People don't like Sjw's or the things they push and Gw adopting that will end up the same way.
I'm all for more female models where appropriate like sob, guard and eldar but if they start pushing regressive nonsense I'll boycott all their products, no end of other games to play.
This leads me to believe that GW wouldn't have a huge problem with this,
They had a meeting a few weeks back with their major distribution stores, during a store owner stood up and asked them when they were going to reverse the current state and go back to classic characters because the new stuff does not sell, he said he has kids coming in after watching the movies looking for comics about the avengers and captain america who leave empty handed because they arnt there anymore.
Do you have twitter? If so look up what the "milkshake crew" say about the fans or how they plan to beat up their critics at comicon.
Marvel comics hired based on ideology not skill or experience which is why you get messes like squirrel girl.
I'm a marvel fanboy but I haven't bought anything from them in years because of this nonsense, I'm not alone in this boycotts are our only option these days because you can't have a logical discussion with the alt left because you committed the unforgivable offense of being white, male straight or dark gods help you all three.
Its happened with comics, films and videogames all with disastrous results, it can happen with wargaming too unless you actively say no which you can't because they are banning people left right and centre who dare say anything on social media.
I wish I was some lone crank out in the woods but this is a real concern, going far left is death for companies look at twitter zero growth makes no money and yet they keep putting more and more fascist restriction driving people away all in the name of social justice.
I posted an analysis of sales data, you posted an entirely unsubstantiated rant. Come on.
hobojebus wrote: Diversity could be the hill Gw dies on, look at marvel comics their sales are worse now than after the 90's crash, this is a time with three movies a year and multiple TV shows but they can barely sell 40k copies of their lead titles, comic shops are closing down as a result.
People don't like Sjw's or the things they push and Gw adopting that will end up the same way.
I'm all for more female models where appropriate like sob, guard and eldar but if they start pushing regressive nonsense I'll boycott all their products, no end of other games to play.
This leads me to believe that GW wouldn't have a huge problem with this, either.
Well that was a misleading title. The article itself admits that "diverse" comics sell worse on average and that the diversity gimmick hasn't been able to turn tide of shrinking sales, but I guess you get to be technically correct (which we all know is the best kind of correct )
It's like none'a y'all even saw what they did to poor Mockingbird on her 8 issue and very quickly cancelled comic.
Talk about character assassination.
Anyway...
Necromunda is coming up. It is my fav GW game of all time. It's the type of game that would make me have rose-tinted nostalgia goggles embedded in my eye sockets... but then I have to consider that this box, which will have 2 boxes of miniatures and cardboard tiles, is going to be AUD$250-280 when it comes out, and I just can't get behind that.
It's scary enough when they release fantastic new pieces of terrain that, individually, cost about as much as the bundle boxes from last real major 40K terrain release. Now there's a whole game where these types of buildings, that I love, will be a requirement.
hobojebus wrote: Diversity could be the hill Gw dies on, look at marvel comics their sales are worse now than after the 90's crash, this is a time with three movies a year and multiple TV shows but they can barely sell 40k copies of their lead titles, comic shops are closing down as a result.
People don't like Sjw's or the things they push and Gw adopting that will end up the same way.
I'm all for more female models where appropriate like sob, guard and eldar but if they start pushing regressive nonsense I'll boycott all their products, no end of other games to play.
This leads me to believe that GW wouldn't have a huge problem with this, either.
Well that was a misleading title. The article itself admits that "diverse" comics sell worse on average and that the diversity gimmick hasn't been able to turn tide of shrinking sales, but I guess you get to be technically correct (which we all know is the best kind of correct )
Please read the whole article and its points instead of being a snide ass. Of course diverse comics haven't been able to turn the tide, because Marvels sales aren't dependent on diverse comics existing or not. That's the entire point of the article.
On your other Point, comics with non-white male leads do indeed sell (slightly) worse on average, but two of them are also Marvel's absolute top sellers, while the other top-10 comics sell less while still having primarily white male leads. The point of the article isn't to prove that diverse comics are the best and sell the most, it's that they didn't "kill Marvel's sales" which is a popular myth.
hobojebus wrote: Diversity could be the hill Gw dies on, look at marvel comics their sales are worse now than after the 90's crash, this is a time with three movies a year and multiple TV shows but they can barely sell 40k copies of their lead titles, comic shops are closing down as a result.
People don't like Sjw's or the things they push and Gw adopting that will end up the same way.
I'm all for more female models where appropriate like sob, guard and eldar but if they start pushing regressive nonsense I'll boycott all their products, no end of other games to play.
This leads me to believe that GW wouldn't have a huge problem with this, either.
Well that was a misleading title. The article itself admits that "diverse" comics sell worse on average and that the diversity gimmick hasn't been able to turn tide of shrinking sales, but I guess you get to be technically correct (which we all know is the best kind of correct )
Please read the whole article and its points instead of being a snide ass. Of course diverse comics haven't been able to turn the tide, because Marvels sales aren't dependent on diverse comics existing or not. That's the entire point of the article.
On your other Point, comics with non-white male leads do indeed sell (slightly) worse on average, but two of them are also Marvel's absolute top sellers, while the other top-10 comics sell less while still having primarily white male leads. The point of the article isn't to prove that diverse comics are the best and sell the most, it's that they didn't "kill Marvel's sales" which is a popular myth.
Exactly, you are technically correct in that diversity didn't kill sales. What you and the article writer are trying to obfuscate though is that the diversity gimmick has failed to turn the tide of shrinking sales (and therefore has failed in it's primary purpose) and comics that have tried the diversity gimmick sell less on average then comics that dont.
hobojebus wrote: Diversity could be the hill Gw dies on, look at marvel comics their sales are worse now than after the 90's crash, this is a time with three movies a year and multiple TV shows but they can barely sell 40k copies of their lead titles, comic shops are closing down as a result.
People don't like Sjw's or the things they push and Gw adopting that will end up the same way.
I'm all for more female models where appropriate like sob, guard and eldar but if they start pushing regressive nonsense I'll boycott all their products, no end of other games to play.
This leads me to believe that GW wouldn't have a huge problem with this, either.
Well that was a misleading title. The article itself admits that "diverse" comics sell worse on average and that the diversity gimmick hasn't been able to turn tide of shrinking sales, but I guess you get to be technically correct (which we all know is the best kind of correct )
Please read the whole article and its points instead of being a snide ass. Of course diverse comics haven't been able to turn the tide, because Marvels sales aren't dependent on diverse comics existing or not. That's the entire point of the article.
On your other Point, comics with non-white male leads do indeed sell (slightly) worse on average, but two of them are also Marvel's absolute top sellers, while the other top-10 comics sell less while still having primarily white male leads. The point of the article isn't to prove that diverse comics are the best and sell the most, it's that they didn't "kill Marvel's sales" which is a popular myth.
Exactly, you are technically correct in that diversity didn't kill sales. What you and the article writer are trying to obfuscate though is that the diversity gimmick has failed to turn the tide of shrinking sales (and therefore has failed in it's primary purpose) and comics that have tried the diversity gimmick sell less on average then comics that dont.
see my previous post. Oh, and diversity is not a gimmick, unless, you know, diversity in actual real life is also a gimmick. An actual gimmick would be, for example, having a disproportionate amount of heroes of a certain race, gender and sexual orientation solely to cater to a certain crowd. Now let’s see... which race, gender and sexual orientation is incredibly overrepresented in Marvel comics in order to cater to a certain demographic? Hmmm, I wonder...
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's like none'a y'all even saw what they did to poor Mockingbird on her 8 issue and very quickly cancelled comic.
Talk about character assassination.
Anyway...
Necromunda is coming up. It is my fav GW game of all time. It's the type of game that would make me have rose-tinted nostalgia goggles embedded in my eye sockets... but then I have to consider that this box, which will have 2 boxes of miniatures and cardboard tiles, is going to be AUD$250-280 when it comes out, and I just can't get behind that.
It's scary enough when they release fantastic new pieces of terrain that, individually, cost about as much as the bundle boxes from last real major 40K terrain release. Now there's a whole game where these types of buildings, that I love, will be a requirement.
The entry price is too damned high!
Hasn't every kind of GW price been too high in Australia since the dawn of time?
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's like none'a y'all even saw what they did to poor Mockingbird on her 8 issue and very quickly cancelled comic.
Talk about character assassination.
Anyway...
Necromunda is coming up. It is my fav GW game of all time. It's the type of game that would make me have rose-tinted nostalgia goggles embedded in my eye sockets... but then I have to consider that this box, which will have 2 boxes of miniatures and cardboard tiles, is going to be AUD$250-280 when it comes out, and I just can't get behind that.
It's scary enough when they release fantastic new pieces of terrain that, individually, cost about as much as the bundle boxes from last real major 40K terrain release. Now there's a whole game where these types of buildings, that I love, will be a requirement.
The entry price is too damned high!
I really hope they release the rulebook separately so we've got wider options. Some will still have their old setups, so just need the new rules.
Mymearan wrote: Now let’s see... which race, gender and sexual orientation is incredibly overrepresented in Marvel comics in order to cater to a certain demographic? Hmmm, I wonder...
You mean a business catered to a demographic that bought their products? Ain't that business 101? And when attempting to cater to a different demographic didn't boost sales, they stopped.
That sounds like prudent business practices to me.
hobojebus wrote: Diversity could be the hill Gw dies on, look at marvel comics their sales are worse now than after the 90's crash, this is a time with three movies a year and multiple TV shows but they can barely sell 40k copies of their lead titles, comic shops are closing down as a result.
People don't like Sjw's or the things they push and Gw adopting that will end up the same way.
I'm all for more female models where appropriate like sob, guard and eldar but if they start pushing regressive nonsense I'll boycott all their products, no end of other games to play.
This leads me to believe that GW wouldn't have a huge problem with this, either.
Well that was a misleading title. The article itself admits that "diverse" comics sell worse on average and that the diversity gimmick hasn't been able to turn tide of shrinking sales, but I guess you get to be technically correct (which we all know is the best kind of correct )
Please read the whole article and its points instead of being a snide ass. Of course diverse comics haven't been able to turn the tide, because Marvels sales aren't dependent on diverse comics existing or not. That's the entire point of the article.
On your other Point, comics with non-white male leads do indeed sell (slightly) worse on average, but two of them are also Marvel's absolute top sellers, while the other top-10 comics sell less while still having primarily white male leads. The point of the article isn't to prove that diverse comics are the best and sell the most, it's that they didn't "kill Marvel's sales" which is a popular myth.
Exactly, you are technically correct in that diversity didn't kill sales. What you and the article writer are trying to obfuscate though is that the diversity gimmick has failed to turn the tide of shrinking sales (and therefore has failed in it's primary purpose) and comics that have tried the diversity gimmick sell less on average then comics that dont.
see my previous post. Oh, and diversity is not a gimmick, unless, you know, diversity in actual real life is also a gimmick. An actual gimmick would be, for example, having a disproportionate amount of heroes of a certain race, gender and sexual orientation solely to cater to a certain crowd. Now let’s see... which race, gender and sexual orientation is incredibly overrepresented in Marvel comics in order to cater to a certain demographic? Hmmm, I wonder...
If you dont wanna engage the point thats fine
Regarding diversity and gimmicks, of course all possible uses of diversity isn't a gimmick, but in this specific case I think it's quite clear that Marvel are using it as a gimmick. It's a long tradition in the superhero industry to use various gimmicks in an effort to pull in readers, like issues where the protaginst "dies" only to come back next issue. It's just a small part of a bigger picture where corporations tries to use diversity to as marketing tool, see rainbow doritos
But this is getting quite off-topic, So if anyone wants to continue this discussion I will be in the off-topic section
I hadnt bought any comics since middle school. But now that they did some gender swaping, added people of color, and sexual orientation. Now i have thousands of books
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's like none'a y'all even saw what they did to poor Mockingbird on her 8 issue and very quickly cancelled comic.
Talk about character assassination.
Anyway...
Necromunda is coming up. It is my fav GW game of all time. It's the type of game that would make me have rose-tinted nostalgia goggles embedded in my eye sockets... but then I have to consider that this box, which will have 2 boxes of miniatures and cardboard tiles, is going to be AUD$250-280 when it comes out, and I just can't get behind that.
It's scary enough when they release fantastic new pieces of terrain that, individually, cost about as much as the bundle boxes from last real major 40K terrain release. Now there's a whole game where these types of buildings, that I love, will be a requirement.
The entry price is too damned high!
I really hope they release the rulebook separately so we've got wider options. Some will still have their old setups, so just need the new rules.
All about a variety of entry costs.
I don't mean to be all gloomy and doomy, but after Blood Bowl and Shadespire require you to have the boxed set (league play and various other things in the season books; I'd consider buying skeletons for Shadespire but I really need someone else to provide the boards, plus there may be generic cards of use to my band in the starter box) I'm going to assume that you need the starter box of Necromunda for the basic rules and campaign play on a normal tablet top is the only thing added in a separate book rather than a choice between starter set with tunnel fights and single, complete rulebook.
I hope that's not the case, but I expect November to be unnecessarily expensive.
I hope that's not the case, but I expect November to be unnecessarily expensive.
I know. Man, i just cant keep up!
New Codex for my armies every other month (Eldar for my Ynnari this week), Shadespire, and everything else. Its an awesome time to be a gamer, but, I hope I can just buy the kit w/o the figs. I only play Skaven and Dark Elves, and have little to no desire to paint Sigmarines or lame ass chaos humans.
@TangoTwoBravo.
''Gamers'' play games without minatures.(Good games do not need 'fancy 'minatures . )
The minatures simply improve the visual appeal of the game play.
In the same way ''Collectors' are happy collect minatures without rules or games to use them in.
And if there are games /rules to allow collectors to show off their minatures with like minded people, then that adds to their enjoyment of collecting.
As Jervis Johnson put it,''.. the (GW) games are just the 'icing on the cake', for (GW minature )collectors...''
GW customers play 40kdespite the 'lackluster rules.'
Gamers do not bother playing 40k because of the 'lackluster rules.'
Just because some people put paint on a minature to meet a minimum standard.(EG minimum of 3 colours for some events.)
Does not mean they really care what the minature looks like at the end.
In the same way GW sell you rule books and army lists.It does not mean they care what the game play ends up like.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's like none'a y'all even saw what they did to poor Mockingbird on her 8 issue and very quickly cancelled comic.
Talk about character assassination.
Anyway...
Necromunda is coming up. It is my fav GW game of all time. It's the type of game that would make me have rose-tinted nostalgia goggles embedded in my eye sockets... but then I have to consider that this box, which will have 2 boxes of miniatures and cardboard tiles, is going to be AUD$250-280 when it comes out, and I just can't get behind that.
It's scary enough when they release fantastic new pieces of terrain that, individually, cost about as much as the bundle boxes from last real major 40K terrain release. Now there's a whole game where these types of buildings, that I love, will be a requirement.
The entry price is too damned high!
Has the cost of the Necromunda box been confirmed? I tought they only said that it was gonna be less than 100€, so probably something similar to the Bloodbowl box in cost?
Lanrak wrote: @TangoTwoBravo.
''Gamers'' play games without minatures.(Good games do not need 'fancy 'minatures . )
The minatures simply improve the visual appeal of the game play.
In the same way ''Collectors' are happy collect minatures without rules or games to use them in.
And if there are games /rules to allow collectors to show off their minatures with like minded people, then that adds to their enjoyment of collecting.
As Jervis Johnson put it,''.. the (GW) games are just the 'icing on the cake', for (GW minature )collectors...''
GW customers play 40kdespite the 'lackluster rules.'
Gamers do not bother playing 40k because of the 'lackluster rules.'
Just because some people put paint on a minature to meet a minimum standard.(EG minimum of 3 colours for some events.)
Does not mean they really care what the minature looks like at the end.
In the same way GW sell you rule books and army lists.It does not mean they care what the game play ends up like.
I hope that makes my point a bit clearer?
Crystal. I consider myself a bit of a gamer, and I also play 40K. Maybe I'm the exception that proves the rule?
What are the people that put three colours on their models?
I think that people who play 40K are gamers - they are playing the game. Not all gamers play miniatures or by extension play 40K, but I figure that somebody who builds a list, moves the models around the table and rolls dice to determine outcomes is a gamer. I like to think that the gaming tent is a big tent.
3 colour is the normally accepted minimum paint level for lots of events, particularly in GW. So something with 3 colours on tends to imply someone who's done the minimum to get in because they either don't have time (me) or don't care enough about the minis.
There are lots of gamers who also play 40K, but that doesn't mean that 40K's rules are any good. I played 40K despite the rules, rather than because of them, and prefer various other games based on the rules.
Even collectors tend to have gaming in mind - GW claim that a lot of their customers don't actually play, which is reasonable enough - it's a time consuming game. But the rules usually provide a framework - lots of collectors or lapsed gamers still collect armies as bound by the rules with the intention of being able to play them at some point.
Whether that's collecting things to an army list, or painting them in squads, or only having appropriate allies in your collection and so on, it's still based in the rules.
If the rules didn't exist, the sales from collectors would be far lower. If the rules were better, everyone would benefit.
Don't get my wrong, I like playing 40K. But then I also like Sharknado. It's possible to accept that something is garbage and still enjoy it.
@TangoTwoBravo.
I will acknowledge that you are a 'bit of a gamer'.Is it the smaller 'bit' of your hobby that is not minature collecting /painting to a list.
How many hours do you spend collecting assembling painting, and list building?
How many hours do you spend playing the game?
If these values are roughly equal, or you spend more time playing than anything else, you are a ''gamer'', who collects and paints minatures to play games.
If you spend more time collecting painting and list building you are a ''collector'' who plays games.
People who identify as gamer first and collector second, do not see much value in 40k, because the rules are crap.
Basically gamers are prepared to play a game without minatures, (using bits of paper/card board)IF the rules are good enough.They play because they love the tactical depth and challenge of the game play.
Would you play 40k without minatures?No, neither would anyone else.
There was a time when some people would field armies of grey plastic. So some organized events enforced a 3 colours minimum painting standard.
Some of the results were the same minimal begrudging effort, that GW puts into game development.
I am not having a go at the current GW customers.But minature collectors really are not that interested in game play .
If GW sold you a minature with awesome artwork on the packaging.But when you opened it up , you just got a bare bones wire frame(TM) and some green stuff (TM) and had to sculpt the minature yourself.
Thats how gamers feel about the GW rules.Overpriced poorly shaped bare bones you have to flesh out and re shape yourself.
Its just neglecting a big part of the hobby, the game play.
This is effecting the traction GW games have, limiting the size of the player pool ,and positive word of mouth.
If these values are roughly equal, or you spend more time playing than anything else, you are a ''gamer'', who collects and paints minatures to play games.
If you spend more time collecting painting and list building you are a ''collector'' who plays games.
Who made you the arbiter of who is and isn't a gamer??
If a person considers themselves to be a gamer, then they are. End of. For many, if not most 40k gamers, the collecting, painting, and list building aspects are extensions of gaming, as is creating a character for PnP RPGs.
Though feel everything they did right with AoS, they abandoned for 40k 8th. Having the unit rules available via pdf has was great and allowed for quicker adjustment of rules when there would be a FAQ or update due to a new rulebook. Now we're running back into the problem with people not knowing changes what the latest rules are because everything is in the army books.
If these values are roughly equal, or you spend more time playing than anything else, you are a ''gamer'', who collects and paints minatures to play games.
If you spend more time collecting painting and list building you are a ''collector'' who plays games.
Who made you the arbiter of who is and isn't a gamer??
If a person considers themselves to be a gamer, then they are. End of. For many, if not most 40k gamers, the collecting, painting, and list building aspects are extensions of gaming, as is creating a character for PnP RPGs.
I can consider myself to be a doctor or an artist but it doesn't mean that I am. Everyone judges and evaluates everyone around them.
He absolutely has a point - there is a big portion of the 40K customer base for whom playing the game is a relatively small portion of the hobby. Other games with tighter rules attract people for whom playing is a larger part of the hobby (and fail to attract that first audience because in many cases the models, background, scope for army customisation, etc. is lacking in comparison). There is a lot that 40K does right, it's a shame that the GWdev team can't find it in themselves to produce a tight, robust ruleset.
My point is it would not take much to appeal to a wider audience, if GW could be bothered to engage in actual game development.
It would be a fine thing indeed but it would still be heck of a struggle to lure back players they've driven away, and 8th proves there is a rut the devs are unwilling or unable to climb out of, granted that might be wider 40k issues
Lanrak wrote: @TangoTwoBravo.
I will acknowledge that you are a 'bit of a gamer'.Is it the smaller 'bit' of your hobby that is not minature collecting /painting to a list.
How many hours do you spend collecting assembling painting, and list building?
How many hours do you spend playing the game?
If these values are roughly equal, or you spend more time playing than anything else, you are a ''gamer'', who collects and paints minatures to play games.
If you spend more time collecting painting and list building you are a ''collector'' who plays games.
People who identify as gamer first and collector second, do not see much value in 40k, because the rules are crap.
Basically gamers are prepared to play a game without minatures, (using bits of paper/card board)IF the rules are good enough.They play because they love the tactical depth and challenge of the game play.
Would you play 40k without minatures?No, neither would anyone else.
There was a time when some people would field armies of grey plastic. So some organized events enforced a 3 colours minimum painting standard.
Some of the results were the same minimal begrudging effort, that GW puts into game development.
I am not having a go at the current GW customers.But minature collectors really are not that interested in game play .
If GW sold you a minature with awesome artwork on the packaging.But when you opened it up , you just got a bare bones wire frame(TM) and some green stuff (TM) and had to sculpt the minature yourself.
Thats how gamers feel about the GW rules.Overpriced poorly shaped bare bones you have to flesh out and re shape yourself.
Its just neglecting a big part of the hobby, the game play.
This is effecting the traction GW games have, limiting the size of the player pool ,and positive word of mouth.
I consider myself a wargamer. I have played boardgames such as Squad Leader and miniatures wargames starting with Chainmail since I was a teen. The boardgame world for me has shrunk due to computer games, but the miniatures wargaming side has continued. Not every wargamer likes boardgames such as Squad Leader, and not every wargamer has the inclination for miniatures. That's OK - they are all wargamers and then gamers. Wargaming with miniatures involves having to make judgements on things like ranges, LOS and fitting models on the terrain. Some folks may not be comfortable with this level of looseness, preferring the iron-clad rules lawyering of map/counter-based wargames like Advanced Squad Leader where judgement and discernment are not required. Its all good.
I think that the proportion of time spent assembling/painting vs time spent playing is a misleading metric. I paint my Norman cavalry, T72s and Dark Angels on weeknights at times when I would not be gaming. I game on Saturdays and the odd Wednesday. While I do have a bit of a collector thing going (like when I expand a force well beyond a playable size), they are not things to sit in a cabinet. They are meant to fight on the tabletop.
The continued success of GW games has been that they are a lingua franka for wargamers, at least on the miniatures side. We all have our niche game that we admire, but we know that we can get a game of 40K. So yes, I agree in part that GW game design involves some form of compromise to keep the enterprise going. I don't think that they would ever win over folks who lack the inclination for miniatures wargaming. Perfect rules are not going to attract people who do not like miniatures wargaming.
They do, of course, need to have rules that wargamers find suitable. 40K players do care about the rules and game design, and I think that the designers do make the effort to make clean rules. They don't always succeed!
Lanrak wrote: My point is it would not take much to appeal to a wider audience, if GW could be bothered to engage in actual game development.
After being burned by 7th Ed I was more willing to give 8th a go, but the Death Guard Codex persuaded me otherwise.
The Chaos Lord, Sorcerer and Possessed not getting Nurgle-based rules simply because GW don't make specific Death Guard Lord/Sorc/Possessed models just left me cold. It showed to me that they have zero interest in creating a set of rules to make cohesive armies that exist within the great setting for their game, but rather rules that service nothing but the exact miniatures they sell.
I mean, there is literally no reason outside of "They don't make a super-specific Nurgle-based model for it!" to not give Death Guard Possessed T5 and Disgustingly Resilient. The player would still be buying their Possessed miniatures, so why make an incongruous -normal- unit in a DG Codex?
The fact that the artwork is beginning to only show the miniatures (pay close attention to all the recent Thousand Sons artwork - matches a lot of miniatures exactly!) just shows me that they are strangling themselves creatively for the purposes of the miniatures first/everything else last approach.
@TangoTwoBravo.
I was simply trying to point out that those people who care most about game play are not best served by GW plc lack of interest in actual game development.
There is indeed a wide spectrum of people in the war games hobby.In specific the table top minature games hobby,
There are those that begrudgingly assemble /paint to minimum standards just to play games.
All the way to those that turn up to games just to show off their cool paint jobs on their minatures.
The former is not that interested in sculpt quality or painting to ''Eavy Metal'' standards.
The latter just wants to push their cool minatures around the table and roll some dice to see what happens.
Most are some where in between.As long as they get enjoyment from the hobby that is all that matters.
''The continued success of GW games has been that they are a lingua franka for wargamers, ONLY on the miniatures side.''
There fixed that for you.
GW are known for quality minatures, (apart from the 'Finecrap' debarcle.)Coupled with crap rules and overpriced hobby supplies.
You posted..
''They do, of course, need to have rules that wargamers find suitable. 40K players do care about the rules and game design, and I think that the designers do make the effort to make clean rules. They don't always succeed! ''
Many wargamers would not go anywhere near 40k, because of its awful rules, poor game design /balance,and lack of direction from a game play point of view.
40k players, play 40k despite the rules, not because of them.
The game developers at GW towers work to their design brief.(Set by GW Corporate Managers.)
Their design brief is to write inspiring rules to support short term minature sales.
(Change enough to allow re selling of the same stuff to the customers, but keep it familiar enough not to alienate anyone.)
If they were asked to write a war game rule set for a ''company level'' battle game in the 40k setting.Using the most appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods.I am quite sure it would look completely different to the 8th ed 40k rules GW published.
Better rules from actual game development would benefit everyone. GW plc, still has not learned that lesson.
While pricing is overpriced you don't seriously expect to get character model for same price as rank&file trooper? Not many companies do that. GW, PP, Warlord. All have character/leader models more pricey than basic guys which actually makes sense business wise if you think how price of models is formed and how much of each you expect to sell.
But if you disagree call when you see GW selling chaplain for price of tactical marine
@Jetbike price differences
Isn't that the point H.B.M.C. was making? We know they're more expensive because they're heroes, but the sheer difference is cost is ludicrous. A unique character has every right to cost more than a line trooper, but these aren't characters in the sense that you can only include one per force. The existence of the bundle is proof in itself that you're not only able to, but even to a degree expected to, take more than one of them in an army. And it's the same bike, from the same template; the only difference between the standard Jetbike troopers and the Farseer/Warlock versions are the riders, who make up at most 40% of the overall miniature. More than double the price for 40% of a miniature is insane, regardless of the established norm for pricing heroes.
Tim the Biovore wrote: @Jetbike price differences
Isn't that the point H.B.M.C. was making? We know they're more expensive because they're heroes, but the sheer difference is cost is ludicrous. A unique character has every right to cost more than a line trooper, but these aren't characters in the sense that you can only include one per force. The existence of the bundle is proof in itself that you're not only able to, but even to a degree expected to, take more than one of them in an army. And it's the same bike, from the same template; the only difference between the standard Jetbike troopers and the Farseer/Warlock versions are the riders, who make up at most 40% of the overall miniature. More than double the price for 40% of a miniature is insane, regardless of the established norm for pricing heroes.
Yes and I agree price difference is ridiculously high but still you really expect them to sell SAME AMOUNT of character bikes as regular bikes?
There's difference between selling 9 regular bikes and 1 character bike and selling 9 regular bikes and 5 character bikes. Here character bike still needs to cost more to ensure they make same amount of money after expenses.
Tim the Biovore wrote: @Jetbike price differences
Isn't that the point H.B.M.C. was making? We know they're more expensive because they're heroes, but the sheer difference is cost is ludicrous. A unique character has every right to cost more than a line trooper, but these aren't characters in the sense that you can only include one per force. The existence of the bundle is proof in itself that you're not only able to, but even to a degree expected to, take more than one of them in an army. And it's the same bike, from the same template; the only difference between the standard Jetbike troopers and the Farseer/Warlock versions are the riders, who make up at most 40% of the overall miniature. More than double the price for 40% of a miniature is insane, regardless of the established norm for pricing heroes.
Do you think that makes any difference at all? They're two completely different moulds.
Yep. Different moulds and 2 rather than 1 for normal jetbike for added fun. And even if they shared bike sprue(which does not exist) they would need to recoup cost of new rider sprue so unless they sell equal amounts of characters as grunts(somehow I doubt that...Scatbikes sure seemed to be more numerous than seer council) they need to factor in price of that sprue into price of model.
As it is character bike requires TWO new sprues. Now that is annoying. Guess they didn't want to offer complete regular biker sprue + additional sprue for biker character.
The ONLY good reason to move to plastic production is to maximize the economies of scale.
GW originally stated they wanted to lower the cost of collecting armies by making rank and file out of plastic.(Higher sales volumes maximizes the economies of scale.)
The upfront cost of the metal mould for plastic production can be prohibitive.However, the cost of metal mould production has has fallen dramatically over the years.
So GW has found it more cost effective to move most production to plastic.
It is understandable that characters etc, are not going to same volumes as standard troops.
However, if GW appealed to a wider audience , the sales volumes would increase and therefore GW would not have to charge so much per minature.
(Especially if they had not got the debt the chain of B&M stores generate.)
I would totally buy farseers by the squad and use them as troops and bikers if it were less economically punishing. They are great sculpts, great characters by fluff, and have options.
My god, GW is still doing the same old thing again. Having a bundle and it's the same cost if bought separately. So no change there in GW still thinks insta buys and there is a sucker out there every minute is still a think among that organization. I thought part of the problem we had with GW was we didn't want to feel like we were stupid because we bought one click bundles.
While the changes are nice it does seem the attitude of GW is still the same towards their customers. They just hide it better now sadly I feel.
That said to end it on a positive, I do like the changes made and while it is still a bit sour in some areas, over all I am having more fun in the hobby and that is what that counts.
Thing is those are just one click purchases. Yes it only saves some clicks but then again if you are going to buy all it\s some use. And not like web site is limited on number of items on sale.
GW doesn't try to claim it's saving. It's not even really a bundle box. Those have specific own cover and box. These comes in bunch of different boxes.
Yes no saving but overall pretty harmless so what's the problem? You don't plan to buy all don't buy it. If you want to buy all it's handy.
I have in other shops used similar. Albeit that's for larger number of items but sure is nice to have ONE item to buy rather than add 60 items to cart at once.
Galas wrote: Thats not a bundle. Is like going to steam and clicking on the button of "Buy all DLC" for a game.
The general assumption with someone using the verbiage of "bundle" is there is some kind of discount involved....
Of course term "bundle" is only used by Davor here. Even if we take assumption that it's illegal to say something as a bundle without discount...Well GW isn't claiming this as bundle. Instead name is "This Week’s Shadespire Pre-orders"
And if you try to search you'll find there is NO word bundle in the entire page.
Again it's just small time saver for those who want to buy them all. No harm done. You don't need all you don't buy it. It's not even cash grab as there's nothing there that encourages buying stuff you don't want. There's no special rules only available there(well and soon in internet...). No model only available through there. Indeed in a weird way bundle with discount is MORE of a grash grab as it encourages buying stuff you might not need(like I got the forge world sons of horus box with dread, justicaerin and FA squad. FA squad is of dubious usage but discount + pretty models=sold it to me ).
Yes it's not that useful(too few items to really be major time saver like other one click bundles elsewhere I have bought) but no harm either. Seems rather silly complain really. GW can't provide small time savers?
Outwardly they appear to have changed, but in reality, it feels more like they've just improved the Joseph Goebbels aspect of the business.
The only real changes I've seen is;
1. Releasing Shadow War Armageddon rules as a seperate book when the internet seemed to complain at them on every fb page. Big shame that the game was DOA and hasn't been touched by GW since. The book thing just appeased a load of people and made GW a swift buck.
2. Trying to copy FFGs successful marketing and game style with Shadespire.
Galas wrote: Thats not a bundle. Is like going to steam and clicking on the button of "Buy all DLC" for a game.
The general assumption with someone using the verbiage of "bundle" is there is some kind of discount involved....
The product is "This Week's Shadespire Pre-orders". It doesn't have any indicator of any kind of discount. If it was "This Week's Shadespire Pre-Orders Bundle" then maybe one could have a point.
buy me these 15 things often doesn't go down as well as buy me this 1 thing even if the total cost is the same
so GW makes a collection of stuff you can order with one click for people to show their parents, grandparents, partners etc so they can say 'that's what I want' and the people actually buying the things can remember what it is as 1 page on a website is a lot easier to save a link to than 15.
GW sells more and wins The gamer gets more and exactly what they want and wins
The gift buyer makes the person they're buying for happy (and probably spends more than they would have done otherwise) and breaks even
Gimgamgoo wrote: Outwardly they appear to have changed, but in reality, it feels more like they've just improved the Joseph Goebbels aspect of the business.
The only real changes I've seen is;
1. Releasing Shadow War Armageddon rules as a seperate book when the internet seemed to complain at them on every fb page. Big shame that the game was DOA and hasn't been touched by GW since. The book thing just appeased a load of people and made GW a swift buck.
2. Trying to copy FFGs successful marketing and game style with Shadespire.
I actually consider the second a real negative. Selling tiny little packs at inflated prices, worthless custom dice, cards and other junk. Means they're maxing profits, and offering less and less to the consumer. The shadespire expansions look absurdly overpriced for 4 orcs and 7 skeletons, all of which look fairly generic.
On the AOS side of things, I can't even tell what they're trig to sell people anymore, but it isn't new armies or models. Just increasingly bizarre boxes of random models and a map and sticker pack, or something,
On the 40k side of things, the 8th edition release seemed like a step up, but the codex releases... It seems like they're doubling down on wrecking the game at the codex level, only now with subfaction special rules rather than codex special rules.
And whatever is going on with their production, when it comes to product, they've got less and less of it, and what they have produced is over designed, under thought rubbish.
From my perspective, 'New GW' actually seems to be aimed at new lows
Tim the Biovore wrote: @Jetbike price differences
Isn't that the point H.B.M.C. was making? We know they're more expensive because they're heroes, but the sheer difference is cost is ludicrous. A unique character has every right to cost more than a line trooper, but these aren't characters in the sense that you can only include one per force. The existence of the bundle is proof in itself that you're not only able to, but even to a degree expected to, take more than one of them in an army. And it's the same bike, from the same template; the only difference between the standard Jetbike troopers and the Farseer/Warlock versions are the riders, who make up at most 40% of the overall miniature. More than double the price for 40% of a miniature is insane, regardless of the established norm for pricing heroes.
Do you think that makes any difference at all? They're two completely different moulds.
It sounds like bad design if they are 2 different moulds, unless I misunderstand. Surely the character is the troop mould + the alternative bits, since the bike & torso are identical?
Tim the Biovore wrote: @Jetbike price differences
Isn't that the point H.B.M.C. was making? We know they're more expensive because they're heroes, but the sheer difference is cost is ludicrous. A unique character has every right to cost more than a line trooper, but these aren't characters in the sense that you can only include one per force. The existence of the bundle is proof in itself that you're not only able to, but even to a degree expected to, take more than one of them in an army. And it's the same bike, from the same template; the only difference between the standard Jetbike troopers and the Farseer/Warlock versions are the riders, who make up at most 40% of the overall miniature. More than double the price for 40% of a miniature is insane, regardless of the established norm for pricing heroes.
Do you think that makes any difference at all? They're two completely different moulds.
It sounds like bad design if they are 2 different moulds, unless I misunderstand. Surely the character is the troop mould + the alternative bits, since the bike & torso are identical?
No they don't. They are completely unique sprues.
Of course not that it really cuts down on number of sprues here unless they make character bike to have regular biker as well:
Bike sprue
rider sprue
hero sprue
Now it's 2 sprues for farseer, 1 sprue for basic grunt biker. Either way 3 sprues. Now if you had bike+regular rider in same sprue AND you had that in character sprue that's different. Of course that would add up to price of character bike likely as it would have extra sprue in it.
Another reason they might have went is character bike doesn't seem to have other weapons than catapult+what rider carries. Regular has heavier guns. So with GW's new policy it means either yet another sprue for weapons for regular bikers or farseer/warlock could take shuriken cannon or scatter laser as well.
The farseer/warlock is a tweaked version of the foot version, so its a different set of sprues rather than just variations of the standard rider, £20 is still steep, £15 might have been more reasonable but the the footseer would look (even more) overpriced
Tim the Biovore wrote: @Jetbike price differences
Isn't that the point H.B.M.C. was making? We know they're more expensive because they're heroes, but the sheer difference is cost is ludicrous. A unique character has every right to cost more than a line trooper, but these aren't characters in the sense that you can only include one per force. The existence of the bundle is proof in itself that you're not only able to, but even to a degree expected to, take more than one of them in an army. And it's the same bike, from the same template; the only difference between the standard Jetbike troopers and the Farseer/Warlock versions are the riders, who make up at most 40% of the overall miniature. More than double the price for 40% of a miniature is insane, regardless of the established norm for pricing heroes.
Do you think that makes any difference at all? They're two completely different moulds.
It sounds like bad design if they are 2 different moulds, unless I misunderstand. Surely the character is the troop mould + the alternative bits, since the bike & torso are identical?
The bikes arent identical and a quick look at the sprues makes it very obvious that the sprue isnt shared.
)
)
)
see my previous post. Oh, and diversity is not a gimmick, unless, you know, diversity in actual real life is also a gimmick. An actual gimmick would be, for example, having a disproportionate amount of heroes of a certain race, gender and sexual orientation solely to cater to a certain crowd. Now let’s see... which race, gender and sexual orientation is incredibly overrepresented in Marvel comics in order to cater to a certain demographic? Hmmm, I wonder...
