Think this will get a bit outside the scope of the original thread...so, here goes (feel free to suggest a better thread title as well):
TheAuldGrump wrote: I think that the current lack of WD content is just another symptom - being a publicly held company is the disease.
Selling shares allowed them to expand quickly, but the share holders, for the most part, have little to no knowledge of the hobby.
What works for them is the Churn - folks in for the short time.
Not at all certain that there is a cure, outside of a buy back - which is unlikely in the extreme.
I have noticed none of the many companies that have been founded by ex-GW folks have gone public. Privateer, Mantic... both are doing okay, could be better, could be worse - but in the end they only have to answer to themselves and the folks buying their products.
The Auld Grump
I don't actually think the share holders are a problem. I would wager that the majority of them could care less about table top games, let alone how GW operates. They would no doubt prefer to see GW make a profit and pay dividends.
The disease is attempting to apply a lot of common MBA tricks to a company that can not operate like a regular business. For example, cost cutting in an electronics company is generally a good thing. Most people don't care who buys a Sony as they don't need to find other Sony users to watch TV with (unless they are having remote wars with a neighbor through their windows...). All the areas which are commonly on the chopping block and tactics which are used to maximize the profits for those companies kill the thing which drove GW from 10 million pounds a year in 1991 to 100+ million pounds a year in 2002 - community development.
From where I sit, the main changes began to happen in 2003 in terms of shifting from growing a community to focused on a traditional manufacturer philosophy of selling goods and moving on. Everyone will probably choose their own date, but for me - that is where it split most obviously. Prior to that, you had frequent GW sponsored tournaments and events which built the community and fostered interest in both new players and old alike. In particular, if you look at the man power numbers from their 2002 financial reports:
and the most recent figures:
Pardon the code blocks - but it is one of the easier ways to do formatted tables. You see drops in the production and design side of the house (2002 numbers combined the two groups while 2012 listed them as two distinct categories) as well as the actual number of retail/distribution employees. Administration and management - the bean counters and paper pushers have seen a dramatic upshot. That alone tells a story, especially considering that the company by and large is not significantly different now then it was then. They haven't had a dramatic shift in technology or products, and while there are probably fewer people working the spin casting machines - Finecast still keeps that as a large portion of their labor intensive production in place.
Since the management types who generally fill those types of positions, waiting for TPS reports and what not, generally are schooled in a particular train of thought of how a business like Sony or Ford should be run - they then attempt to apply those same tactics to a business like miniature gaming. The result is community discontent. As opposed to growing the community to grow their profits, they focus on attempting to find a maximum price point that will allow them to maintain the appearance of growth to satisfy share holders.
GW could very easily satisfy their shareholder and solve many of their current problems with the community by looking back at where they came from. Up until 2002-2003 period, they saw 10% growth minimum per year. Many years being much higher than that. After that, you had the LotR bubble and the subsequent panic of price hikes and the past 10 years since have shown no real growth (2003 FY at £129.1m and the 2012 FY closed out at £131.0m). 10 years, lots of price hikes and cost cutting (closing GW Canada, GW Spain and France...) and not even a £2m change in revenue. If it weren't for things like their DoW/FFG licenses and Black Library/Forge World doing exceptionally well (£10m plus for the combined FW/BL sales last year) GW would be doing even worse... Those two segments of their business though still operate in many ways like GW used to operate. They communicate as best they are able with their customers and manage to produce growth without running prices up.
I agree with pretty much all you've said there and it's what I've been trying to convey in a lot of the anti-GW threads of recent times.
People often make the argument that GW are a business and what they are doing is "good business" even if customers don't like it, which I think is just feldercarb (yes I said it ). IMO they are doing things that might be perceived as good business in the short term and artificially inflate numbers to show success, but in the long term are going to hurt them. The idea that any business practice that drive customers away is a good business practice is just silly IMO.
GW is interested in only one thing: selling minis and the accessories that go with them (i.e. paints, decals, books, etc.). They are a miniatures company, unlike Catalyst Game Labs which prints only the books, they get someone else to do the casting of minis. These numbers clearly show that yes, they need to "Get back to where they once belonged" to quote a Beatles song. But it's apt I believe in this case as it's what made them so successful in such a niche market.
What I'm tired of seeing is:
1.)New editions coming out ever four or so years that make pretty much my entire army obsolete, forcing me to buy a thousand dollars worth of stuff (or more) just to stay current.
2.)Army books that take forever to release, only to see the last book is coming out just about when the next edition of the game is to being announced and close to release.
3.)Price points that are, quite frankly, ridiculous. Most new players are kids that have mommy and daddy's money to spend and are usually spoiled-rotten little bastards I wouldn't entertain with a game if they paid me (with, of course, mommy and daddy's money).
4.)(And this seems to be a growing norm within the gaming community all around. No gaming company is responsible for bad behavior) aforementioned spoiled-rotten little bastards and the snot-nosed larger spoiled-rotten bastards they turn into. You know who you are and yes, I'm calling each and every one of you man-and-woman children out with this post. Get a life, get out of your parent's basement, and start acting like adults. You guys are despicable. I've tried getting friends who are interested in Warmachine and 40k to play, but when I took them to the local gaming store, the actions of these "children-in-adult-bodies" were enough to turn them off. Even after I tell them that not all gamers are like that, they still said no and wanted to leave the store just to get away from the man-children inside. None of them wanted to come back. Some of them like to call victory a turn before as they can "predict" how the turn will go, I've even had one guy show it to me. I screwed him up by simply smashing forward with everything in a game of 40k, dropping all tactical acumen. The s.o.b. then had the audacity to start bitching to the store owner. I'd won and he hated it. I sold my Chaos Marines stuff after that. I've got better things to do (and I'm not desperate enough) than to play a game that is actually quite useless (like jewelry useless) with a bunch of babies.
I see the core problem with Mr Kirby changing the operations at GW, to something that was easy to explain to shareholders, rather than define what they actually use to do.
'We developed an interesting and diverse set of game worlds that inspire people to play our games , and buy our associated minatures and other hobby products.'
Is what OLD GW actually did really well.
But apparently he could not be bothered trying to explain how developing an appealing game setting and good game rules drives AND sustains sales..
So changed it to '..we are in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children..'Which takes no explanation, but is about 1/10th of what GW used to be about.
The other 90% was attracting gamers of other age groups AND KEEPING THEM INTERESTED FOR LONGER.
I agree the shareholders are not the problem.
Just the short sighted focus on maximizing short term profit , with such a detrimental effect on long term viability of GW.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I agree with pretty much all you've said there and it's what I've been trying to convey in a lot of the anti-GW threads of recent times.
People often make the argument that GW are a business and what they are doing is "good business" even if customers don't like it, which I think is just feldercarb (yes I said it ). IMO they are doing things that might be perceived as good business in the short term and artificially inflate numbers to show success, but in the long term are going to hurt them. The idea that any business practice that drive customers away is a good business practice is just silly IMO.
I predict the next financial report will be GWs best yet, but within the next 3 years Kirby will bail and the company will implode because they simply won't have anything left to pad their numbers with.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I agree with pretty much all you've said there and it's what I've been trying to convey in a lot of the anti-GW threads of recent times.
People often make the argument that GW are a business and what they are doing is "good business" even if customers don't like it, which I think is just feldercarb (yes I said it ). IMO they are doing things that might be perceived as good business in the short term and artificially inflate numbers to show success, but in the long term are going to hurt them. The idea that any business practice that drive customers away is a good business practice is just silly IMO.
I predict the next financial report will be GWs best yet, but within the next 3 years Kirby will bail and the company will implode because they simply won't have anything left to pad their numbers with.
Looking at the various issues and events in the last year, I would actually expect this years FY report to be mildly better than the 2012 report...or almost exactly the same. Even with the large number of new releases in the past 9 months and what we believe will be coming in the next 3 months or so till the end of the FY, even with 9 licenses granted so far this year, even with a couple of major releases (The Hobbit, Flyers, 6th Edition 40K) the half year numbers were anemic - and they sort of have hit a wall in what they can do for generating revenue by traditional business management tactics.
You will no doubt see a rush near the cut-off for the new trade terms as some of the companies who may be loosing their suppliers stock up on goods. You will probably also see two or three more significant releases for each system between now and then - but the disease remains. Without putting a concerted effort back into developing their player base, they won't have the impetus behind them that they once had. Most the people who I talk to directly buy GW products begrudgingly, not because they are excited of the next new and shiney thing, rather because they feel they are boxed in and "have" to in order to keep up with the new rules.
1.)New editions coming out ever four or so years that make pretty much my entire army obsolete, forcing me to buy a thousand dollars worth of stuff (or more) just to stay current.
Which armies became obsolete with 6? Please, enlighten us.
2.)Army books that take forever to release, only to see the last book is coming out just about when the next edition of the game is to being announced and close to release.
They've clearly begun addressing this. 3 40k codeces (or did chaos come out in 4Q2012?) so far this year, with another in April. This point would be more relevant if it wasnt something they were directly working to change.
3.)Price points that are, quite frankly, ridiculous. Most new players are kids that have mommy and daddy's money to spend and are usually spoiled-rotten little bastards I wouldn't entertain with a game if they paid me (with, of course, mommy and daddy's money).
Angry much? While anecdotal, this isn't my experience at all. None of our 3 LGS ever seem to have anyone younger than 18 playing in store. Every time I've been In the local GW everyone there has been around 20ish. You're obviously bitter about something here.
4.)(And this seems to be a growing norm within the gaming community all around. No gaming company is responsible for bad behavior) aforementioned spoiled-rotten little bastards and the snot-nosed larger spoiled-rotten bastards they turn into. You know who you are and yes, I'm calling each and every one of you man-and-woman children out with this post. Get a life, get out of your parent's basement, and start acting like adults. You guys are despicable. I've tried getting friends who are interested in Warmachine and 40k to play, but when I took them to the local gaming store, the actions of these "children-in-adult-bodies" were enough to turn them off. Even after I tell them that not all gamers are like that, they still said no and wanted to leave the store just to get away from the man-children inside. None of them wanted to come back. Some of them like to call victory a turn before as they can "predict" how the turn will go, I've even had one guy show it to me. I screwed him up by simply smashing forward with everything in a game of 40k, dropping all tactical acumen. The s.o.b. then had the audacity to start bitching to the store owner. I'd won and he hated it. I sold my Chaos Marines stuff after that. I've got better things to do (and I'm not desperate enough) than to play a game that is actually quite useless (like jewelry useless) with a bunch of babies.
I dunno. Are you sure you have "better things to do?" Because from this, it looks like angry, petulant Internet whining is your "better thing ". Guess what---and this is going to sound crazy---you can actually play this game AT YOUR OWN PLACE if you don't like the people at your local store. Insane, right? Maybe instead of going on an Internet tirade, you should do some yoga or lift some weights as your "better thing" because you clearly need to vent some of that nerd rage.
@O'Brien - If you had to guess, what so you think the terms and $$ amounts is for the licensing? I have no idea what they typically are for tablet/mobile products.
Only issue I have with your numbers is you are basing them off the peak of the LOTR bubble. What were the 1999-2000 numbers and 2004-2005 numbers? You are showing revenues that were boosted by factors outside of Kirby's control for the most part.
@O'Brien - If you had to guess, what so you think the terms and $$ amounts is for the licensing? I have no idea what they typically are for tablet/mobile products.
All depends on how they want to work the contract. I would guess that GW will be wanting to front load license fees and take a smaller cut on the actual royalties after the fact if they are trying to do what I think they are doing. I would be surprised though if they managed to eek out more than a few hundred grand on upfront license costs from each of the licensees - so maybe an additional $2-3 million given that we are up to 9 licenses this year. Most of the time though, you don't see a whole lot of income for a license - the benefit is that you don't expend much to get that money.
A lot of licenses are written with weird tiered clauses, where the developer might pay a fee upfront to begin development and the ability to shop it around to publishers with the understanding that they have secured the rights for publication. Assuming that they complete the development cycle (an amazingly high number of video games never do) they then move to the next stage. In most cases it involves some form of either flat rate (licensor gets 5% of total revenue) or a formula like the licensor gets 1% of revenue until the company makes 100,000 sales and then 5% until their are a million sales and then 10% for all sales above one million (LucasArts tended to favor the tiered method - though now they are Disney, I am not familiar with their contracts).
Since so many of the new contracts are to mobile developers though, that will no doubt hamstring their potential. The other issue will no doubt be push back in the coming months as all these mobile developers look at what GW had done to them. It is pretty easy to make a game that is reasonably successful based on a property like GW's. It becomes much harder when the owner of that property floods the market with competing games.
They've clearly begun addressing this. 3 40k codeces (or did chaos come out in 4Q2012?) so far this year, with another in April. This point would be more relevant if it wasnt something they were directly working to change.
Like I said though, and then what? GW counts on their staggered release schedule to get them through year over year by normalizing their sales. The rush of releases breaks that practice, and it will no doubt result in a point that they can no longer sustain releases (either they run out of stuff in ready to go at GW or the consumer/retailer no longer feel the need to keep up). Because they are publicly traded, normalized sales are important since that is what the shareholders like to see. It is hard to explain that sales have dropped off by 30% for a year because all the Codices are up to date and it isn't time for a new edition of rules to be released.
The easy way to fix that issue of course would be to go to army lists and rules that are updated on the fly. You still do the core rules at new editions, and codex books for fluff and stuff - but by leaving things open and available online between releases, they can add products at a steady stream as opposed to pulses like they do now. With a little bit of imagination, they should be able to work that into the community development by doing event related releases (something like the Forgeworld Campaign book items) where you might have a global gaming event through the year and have new kits released for the various factions along the way.
Barring that though, they will probably end up having to put the breaks on releases in short order or risk hitting that zone where they haven't released anything new in 6-12 months near the end of an editions lifespan. That would cause investors to panic no doubt, which would be a bad thing.
Angry much? While anecdotal, this isn't my experience at all. None of our 3 LGS ever seem to have anyone younger than 18 playing in store. Every time I've been In the local GW everyone there has been around 20ish. You're obviously bitter about something here.
I am pretty sure we had covered this before - but you have to recall that there is a certain point where when enough anecdotal evidence is presented that you have to assume there must be some level of truth to that.
By GW's own words (don't have it handy - but you can find the site survey documents on the GW website where they call out their target demographic) they go after teenaged kids, generally in the 14-18 range. Even if you were to extend that to 20ish, the result tends to be the same. Most 20 year olds have limited money of their own, and tend to either be spending their parents money...student loan money...or my money (in the form of a Pell grant or other form of government income). True, some are working hard and have their own income - but if they are 20 and living at home, then mommy and daddy are still subsidizing their hobby (by allowing them to buy a Landraider as opposed to groceries, rent, utilities...).
Granted, the last half of his point did get a bit off the rails - but the general principle does apply.
Which armies became obsolete with 6? Please, enlighten us.
I have to admit, I have not been following GW rules for several years - so it is speculation, but the normal pattern is something like a particular format of a particular army list becomes obsolete - not the book as a whole. For example, special units (elites and fast attack) might have had a benefit in one edition of the rules while basic troops are somewhat pointless other than just being meat shields. The next edition, they might write a rule that requires troops in order for them to be scoring units. The next edition might emphasize vehicles over infantry.
While none of them actually make an army obsolete in the same way that...say...buggy wheels have become obsolete, they do make existing armies uncompetitive and are actually designed as an attempt to sell more miniatures. That is one of the biggest reasons that the rules are rewritten every few years. The mechanics of the game are not significantly changed from edition to edition - but what will work the best on the table does.
Sean_OBrien wrote: While none of them actually make an army obsolete in the same way that...say...buggy wheels have become obsolete, they do make existing armies uncompetitive and are actually designed as an attempt to sell more miniatures. That is one of the biggest reasons that the rules are rewritten every few years. The mechanics of the game are not significantly changed from edition to edition - but what will work the best on the table does.
silent25 wrote: Only issue I have with your numbers is you are basing them off the peak of the LOTR bubble. What were the 1999-2000 numbers and 2004-2005 numbers? You are showing revenues that were boosted by factors outside of Kirby's control for the most part.
2002 would have been the first FY report with any LotR impact (the movies came out in late 2001 which would have been after that years report was issued). Peak for the LotR was 2004 with just over 151 million pounds. Growth from 1996 to 2001 was an average of 15% per year. Growth during the LotR period (2002, 2003 and 2004) was 18% per year. Growth since they bottomed out in 2008 has been about 2% per year (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012).
Would you rather a different set of numbers be used instead?
ARMIES becoming Obsolete:
Sisters of Battle are but one of the armies which are fast becoming obsolete. much like the Squat before them, they being a at the time "new army for warhammer 40k" has been moved to the backbench (wheras the squat were removed largely on the most part, from 90% of BG fluff), in favour of the Tau (which for the most part has been mid-range in success), expanding the necrons and dark eldar ranges (of which came after the SOB in "new army/faction").
Codex's:
SOB 1st and only codex (1997), next time they had release ie codex inclusion was in codex witch hunters, as allies (before you actually could field allies and after they removed that "rule" from 2nd-3rd edition 40k). they recieved a Official update approx x2 times (x4 articles over a 10 year period),
TAU: released in 2001-2002: codex (1st), then waited 3-5 years for 2nd codex, which was atleast 2 editions seperated from the then current ruleset,
Dark Eldar: released 1998-2001, first codex, waited 9 years (til 2009-10) for 2nd which was used right up until 6th edition (but they did do a flyer wave of DE miniatures, some failcast, etc)
Space marines (this one is bad example, but read as EOT/Armageddon and other standalone chapter specific codex's).
Ork: this one is a fine example of an army/list becoming obsolete. evolving from the space ork codex released way back in 1994, to the thin piece of gak green ork codex (48 page) in 2001, then waited a full 6 years further for a new codex, which featured nerfed units.
there are others but they are warhammer fantasy.
each of the armies listed above haven't become obsolete in the proper sense rather tactically inflexible unless 1. you had the money and insight to buy hordes of mini's in that boom age from 1997-2004 or 2. have simply been priced out of the hobby and this no longer affects you (note this is a hotbed idea, some agree/disagree on exact term meaning)
Each army needs a new direction from time to time but where is the need to keep updating rulesets then having countless Q&A, updates, new expansions rinse then repeat. i for one have followed that for last 18-20 years. and have watched as countless codex's have been revised and then some more only a few short years later. it opens up opputunity for newbs but it sends veterans away (largely has been noted elsewhere in this thread already as such)....
i have tried to be clear and concise where i could afford to do so
I'm not sure you answered his question. He asked for an army (or more than one) that was made obsolete specifically by the change in the core rulebook between 5th and 6th edition.
Goliath wrote: I'm not sure you answered his question. He asked for an army (or more than one) that was made obsolete specifically by the change in the core rulebook between 5th and 6th edition.
The answer is there...much the same as mine (though he did go into somewhat more detail). Obsolete isn't exactly the best word...or as he put it:
each of the armies listed above haven't become obsolete in the proper sense rather tactically inflexible
Which is a reality. New rules, new focus in the rules - generally requires a new list capable of fielding the units and picking up the new shiney stuff.
Orkimedes1000 wrote: ARMIES becoming Obsolete:
Sisters of Battle are but one of the armies which are fast becoming obsolete
You seem to have trouble understanding what obsolete means. Here's a hint - an army that has a current (albeit White Dwarf) codex, and a model range that is available, if only direct, is not obsolete.
The fact that anything at all is produced for Sisters, and they are a current, legal army, makes them literally not obsolete.
Orkimedes1000 wrote: much like the Squat before them, they being a at the time "new army for warhammer 40k" has been moved to the backbench (wheras the squat were removed largely on the most part, from 90% of BG fluff), in favour of the Tau (which for the most part has been mid-range in success), expanding the necrons and dark eldar ranges (of which came after the SOB in "new army/faction").
You use an army dropped 20 years ago for your proof GW makes armies obsolete?
Try picking one more recent. And again, Sisters of Battle are not them.
Goliath wrote: I'm not sure you answered his question. He asked for an army (or more than one) that was made obsolete specifically by the change in the core rulebook between 5th and 6th edition.
The answer is there...much the same as mine (though he did go into somewhat more detail). Obsolete isn't exactly the best word...or as he put it:
each of the armies listed above haven't become obsolete in the proper sense rather tactically inflexible
Which is a reality. New rules, new focus in the rules - generally requires a new list capable of fielding the units and picking up the new shiney stuff.
The answer is not there, because none of them have become obsolete between 5th and 6th. Maybe some new purchases were desirable, but obsolete?
Most assault based armies got a rather nice swift kick. Dark Eldar Wyches got a real nasty wake up call. Many units lost desirability like genestealers and other melee outflankers. Melee units can no longer hit what were classified as fast skimmers and now are flyers. I don't know about full armies, but sections of many armies became less attractive.
silent25 wrote: Only issue I have with your numbers is you are basing them off the peak of the LOTR bubble. What were the 1999-2000 numbers and 2004-2005 numbers? You are showing revenues that were boosted by factors outside of Kirby's control for the most part.
2002 would have been the first FY report with any LotR impact (the movies came out in late 2001 which would have been after that years report was issued). Peak for the LotR was 2004 with just over 151 million pounds. Growth from 1996 to 2001 was an average of 15% per year. Growth during the LotR period (2002, 2003 and 2004) was 18% per year. Growth since they bottomed out in 2008 has been about 2% per year (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012).
Would you rather a different set of numbers be used instead?
Very good points which also points to three other derivatives I see.
1.) LotR didn't really add a whole heck of a lot to normal growth patterns. 15% before then 18% with LotR.
2.) If I recall, around 2002/2003 time frame, GW also stopped the practice of releasing new games. In the 90s, they still kept the practice of expanding the hobby further with other games (Epic, Mordheim, Necromunda, Warhammer Quest, etc.).
3.) With a £2 change in actual in revenues from 2001 to 2012 - to stay FLAT with 2001 performance, with no growth whatsoever, given the rate of inflation, revenues would need to be £167 in 2012. Effectively, GW has been declining for the last decade. Before anyone comments that the rate of inflation doesn't matter, I have been investing for over 25 years and likewise have investors in my own company. Beating the rate of inflation every year is indeed a very important factor in investing, otherwise our money isn't growing and I might a well leave it in the bank to collect interest.
GW is showing all the signs of a company on the verge of imploding right now. They have forgotten how to grow the company so instead focus on growing the margins. This is always a temporary fix at best (just ask the management at Kodak how well this strategy works). I think it was encapsulated best above that they used to focus on growing the hobby when now their only focus is on selling toy soldiers. This changes the dynamic of the price competition as a result and GW is NOT in any way, shape, or form, competitive in the "toy soldier" business based on their current ludicrous price points.
Changes in the rules in a new edition change the way combat works.
Taken as a body of work, the codexes are on average an edition or more behind the current rules.
Thus it is inevitable that even fairly "new" armies like Wyches change in effectiveness.
Assault based armies got a big improvement in the change from 4th to 5th edition. And to be fair to them, there aren't really any assault armies which aren't also reasonably good at shooting. Whereas there are shooty armies which are crap at assault.
-Loki- wrote: You seem to have trouble understanding what obsolete means. Here's a hint - an army that has a current (albeit White Dwarf) codex, and a model range that is available, if only direct, is not obsolete.
The fact that anything at all is produced for Sisters, and they are a current, legal army, makes them literally not obsolete.
Sisters are a current, legal army?
Can you show me where on the website I can buy their codex?
-Loki- wrote: You seem to have trouble understanding what obsolete means. Here's a hint - an army that has a current (albeit White Dwarf) codex, and a model range that is available, if only direct, is not obsolete.
The fact that anything at all is produced for Sisters, and they are a current, legal army, makes them literally not obsolete.
Sisters are a current, legal army?
Can you show me where on the website I can buy their codex?
QFT
I can buy sisters models from GW but I can't get rules to play them, therefore that line is largely obsolete.
-Loki- wrote: You seem to have trouble understanding what obsolete means. Here's a hint - an army that has a current (albeit White Dwarf) codex, and a model range that is available, if only direct, is not obsolete.
The fact that anything at all is produced for Sisters, and they are a current, legal army, makes them literally not obsolete.
Sisters are a current, legal army?
Can you show me where on the website I can buy their codex?
QFT
I can buy sisters models from GW but I can't get rules to play them, therefore that line is largely obsolete.
They should just kick the whole SoB line over to Forgeworld, they'd get better treatment there.
Meanwhile, my Bretonnian's feel pretty out of date in 8th ed, especially with a codex written 10 years and 2 editions ago, especially since cavalry, the main focus of the army, got a kick in the pants in 8th. While not unplayable as a faction, my army (traditional cav heavy) needs about $400 of improvements just to make it into a reasonably playble force, and still wouldn't be able to play with the big boys. So instead it gathers dust, and I pursue other games.
Goliath wrote: I'm not sure you answered his question. He asked for an army (or more than one) that was made obsolete specifically by the change in the core rulebook between 5th and 6th edition.
The answer is there...much the same as mine (though he did go into somewhat more detail). Obsolete isn't exactly the best word...or as he put it:
each of the armies listed above haven't become obsolete in the proper sense rather tactically inflexible
Which is a reality. New rules, new focus in the rules - generally requires a new list capable of fielding the units and picking up the new shiney stuff.
It's a fair point I suppose. My Pre-Heresy army has become a nice staple in my display cabinet, but that's all at the moment. A couple of games of being carpet bombed by unpainted tomix toys has kind of damaged the enjoyment of the game for me. And I can't fight fire with fire; those SM aircraft have no place in a pre-heresy army fluff wise (which I guess should be important, as I've spent hundreds of hours converting and making the army so it 'looks' right) and even if they did, I wouldn't want such crappy models serving as a centrepiece for the army, which they would do if they were present.
The alternative of course would be to make a 'counts as' flyer and convert something, but I have to be honest the wind has been blown out of my sales a bit. The past 3-4 years of GW seemingly completely ignoring the world of conversion, of stifling artistic additions to miniatures on behalf of the player, has started to create an atmosphere of 'why can't you just use the models and colour scheme on the box?' kind of mentality amongst younger players. Those who can't remember the massive encouragement of adding your own twist to the force, and where conversions were the norm rather than the exception, made by that weird older guy in the corner of the store. Now that the company seems to be trying to crush the bits sellers, a consequence will be that this trend continues still further.
But, interesting OP in any case, and something I completely agree with.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW's metagame is to cycle armies in and out of popularity to stimulate purchase of more than one force.
SMs are the exception. They are always kept popular by the variety of codexes available for variants. This is to maintain their appeal to new users.
The business would stagnate without this strategy, as GW aren't interested in making other games.
Which leads to the question again...what is going to happen when they run out of armies to update in this new fast paced period of releases?
Sort of leads me back around to something which Wayshuba mentioned and I had forgotten to expound on.
While the LotR on their own would not have had a huge impact when the last of the movies was released, GW went ahead and put all their eggs in 3 baskets at the same time by moving Specialist Games from regular distribution...canceling magazines like Citadel Journal, Inquisitor, Epic...gutting White Dwarf. As a result, when the LotR games did drop off in popularity the impact was much greater than it would have been had the game been one in a larger pool.
I've included two different sets of data here - though unfortunately, I couldn't find my annotated data set for the half year results. You can plot significant events within the scope of a six month period and see how those events may have played a part in the overall health of the company.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do your charts show revenue adjusted for inflation?
No - but I have those, I didn't want to overwhelm things with the charts as I thought those two sort of illustrated the key issue (I also didn't want to load up too many images that are on the fringe of wargaming).
GW have introduced extensions to the core game in the form of the Cities of Death, Planetstrike and Fliers add-ons, with accompanying model kits.
Cities of Death and Planetstrike always seemed like half hearted attempts. The terrain which came following CoD was sort of a needed function without CoD, and they never bothered to fully capitalize on a lot of the things which they discussed in the text of the Codex.
The flyers are still a bit too new to say for certain. It is certainly a better start so far than what came from Apocalypse. That is another one where they could have shifted one kit from the Forge World Catalog per army over to plastic and made a lot of people happy. Instead, you have two Bane tank kits and a pile of Ork. It would also have provided legs for the expansion to continue on past the flurry at release.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Went ahead and tossed in the inflation adjusted chart. It uses inflation data from the "Office for National Statistics" from the UK since all the numbers are in GBP.
Kilkrazy wrote: And to be fair to them, there aren't really any assault armies which aren't also reasonably good at shooting. Whereas there are shooty armies which are crap at assault.
Genestealer Rush had near zero shooting (since a massive portion of the army had BS0) and is essentially useless in 6th.
Now, Tyranids gained significantly in other ways, but the 100 Genestealers sitting on my shelf make me sad.
Genestealer Rush isn't an army in the sense of it being the whole of what is capable with a codex.
Back to Sean_OBrien, I agree with you essentially. GW haven't supported CoD or PlanetStrike and probably won't support Fliers (which doesn't fit into 40K anyway except as a means for selling each faction one or two expensive models.) Apocalypse and Planetary Empires might well be added to the list while we are on the topic.
Inflation adjusted charts are important to judge whether GW are increasing their revenues.
Yep, as opposed to actually continuing to develop product lines - they tend to use anything other than Space Marines as a splash in the pan to get them from point A to point B.
The potential for sales though of something like CoD though is something that they miss out on when they don't attempt to capitalize on the sales. Apocalypse was probably the biggest missed opportunity for them, as I recall at the time that there was much clamoring from the non-Imperial players regarding the possibilities of what might come out in support of their chosen armies. Alas, no love for them - something that actually managed to drive some away as a result.
Kilkrazy wrote: Back to Sean_OBrien, I agree with you essentially. GW haven't supported CoD or PlanetStrike and probably won't support Fliers (which doesn't fit into 40K anyway except as a means for selling each faction one or two expensive models.) Apocalypse and Planetary Empires might well be added to the list while we are on the topic.
The data on the number of employees from the first post is interesting. I do wonder if some of the numbers reflect increased efficiency in production. As was pointed out, there is less spin casting today than in 2001. Further there is more plastic production. This could lead to some workers becoming redundant. I also wonder if some of the changes in sales staff versus administration are not a matter of the changing nature of business. Back in 2001 I imagine that GW was not particularly reliant on computers. They needed people to man the phone, or sell products in stores. Today, a fair amount of business is done over the net. They now need IT people and other administrators to make the company run rather than people on the phone.
All of this being said, I tend to agree with the OP's sentiment that GW went wrong when they stopped building the community.
GW strikes me as a company that pays for hosting rather than paying internal IT folks.
Even their internal sales software is probably web-driven, meaning they just have to support what - 5-600 desktops (not every full timer needs one or will interact with one on a daily basis). Even doubling that, it shouldn't take more than 10 people to manage them. (assuming they handle everything internally without things like SCCM or whatever Microsoft calls it nowadays).
A team of 5 managed ~4000 desktops at my last job.
silent25 wrote: Only issue I have with your numbers is you are basing them off the peak of the LOTR bubble. What were the 1999-2000 numbers and 2004-2005 numbers? You are showing revenues that were boosted by factors outside of Kirby's control for the most part.
2002 would have been the first FY report with any LotR impact (the movies came out in late 2001 which would have been after that years report was issued). Peak for the LotR was 2004 with just over 151 million pounds. Growth from 1996 to 2001 was an average of 15% per year. Growth during the LotR period (2002, 2003 and 2004) was 18% per year. Growth since they bottomed out in 2008 has been about 2% per year (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012).
Would you rather a different set of numbers be used instead?
No, the charts you posted speak more than enough to illustrate the points clearly. One thing that I think also caused the drop in sale, the end of the global events. 2004 was the Storm of Chaos and the last time GW had an event where they tried to create a feeling that the community could impact the game. There were huge events at my local game store and the owner told me how families would come in during these events, see all the people playing and immediately buy $400~500US of GW goods for their kids. People were excited, crazy ideas were coming out of the studio, and things were going good. The end of the SoC I think really marked the beginning of the decline. The studio did not like the outcome (Chaos got it's rear kicked) and Gav Thorpe spat out an end story that left no one happy. That was the last "grand campaign" that GW put on. There have been a couple more attempts, but none on that scale.
In interviews with Thorpe and Cavatore, they also mentioned there was a clamp down on the studio design shortly after that and the end of things like Chapter Approved and other experimental rules in WD. Thorpe had described the period leading up that as the studio dictated the releases.
spaceelf wrote: The data on the number of employees from the first post is interesting. I do wonder if some of the numbers reflect increased efficiency in production. As was pointed out, there is less spin casting today than in 2001. Further there is more plastic production. This could lead to some workers becoming redundant. I also wonder if some of the changes in sales staff versus administration are not a matter of the changing nature of business. Back in 2001 I imagine that GW was not particularly reliant on computers. They needed people to man the phone, or sell products in stores. Today, a fair amount of business is done over the net. They now need IT people and other administrators to make the company run rather than people on the phone.
All of this being said, I tend to agree with the OP's sentiment that GW went wrong when they stopped building the community.
The big changes in sales was slashing retail staff. They transitioned from regular stores with two or three employees to the one man store in many locations. Roughly half of all GW locations are now one man stores, and they intend to transition many of the remainder to that format. This allows them to eliminate the part time staff from retail (which is where you see the big drop).
In terms of essential administrators - I don't think the operations will have changed too much between 2001/2002 and now. Computers were already in place and GW was already doing a lot of business online. Anyone who is fielding orders through email or the web store are also categorized as "Selling and Distribution" so the administrators are the remainder of the company who generally get in the way of getting things done.
Considering that the drop in production/design is somewhat insignificant between the two periods (324 in 2002 compared to 286 in 2012) - that is likely based largely on things like efficiencies of plastic production and elimination of the bits service. The growth in administrators though is the problem for a company like GW. They have no contact with the game, they have no contact with the customers. I would not be surprised if half of them have never even collected miniatures themselves. The disconnect that you often see between managerial types and the products which they sell is not generally a problem if their product is paper clips or flat screen TVs. However, it becomes problematic when you have a greater degree of synergy between the products that you are selling and a growing community.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote: GW strikes me as a company that pays for hosting rather than paying internal IT folks.
Even their internal sales software is probably web-driven, meaning they just have to support what - 5-600 desktops (not every full timer needs one or will interact with one on a daily basis). Even doubling that, it shouldn't take more than 10 people to manage them. (assuming they handle everything internally without things like SCCM or whatever Microsoft calls it nowadays).
A team of 5 managed ~4000 desktops at my last job.
silent25 wrote: Only issue I have with your numbers is you are basing them off the peak of the LOTR bubble. What were the 1999-2000 numbers and 2004-2005 numbers? You are showing revenues that were boosted by factors outside of Kirby's control for the most part.
2002 would have been the first FY report with any LotR impact (the movies came out in late 2001 which would have been after that years report was issued). Peak for the LotR was 2004 with just over 151 million pounds. Growth from 1996 to 2001 was an average of 15% per year. Growth during the LotR period (2002, 2003 and 2004) was 18% per year. Growth since they bottomed out in 2008 has been about 2% per year (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012).
Would you rather a different set of numbers be used instead?
No, the charts you posted speak more than enough to illustrate the points clearly. One thing that I think also caused the drop in sale, the end of the global events. 2004 was the Storm of Chaos and the last time GW had an event where they tried to create a feeling that the community could impact the game. There were huge events at my local game store and the owner told me how families would come in during these events, see all the people playing and immediately buy $400~500US of GW goods for their kids. People were excited, crazy ideas were coming out of the studio, and things were going good. The end of the SoC I think really marked the beginning of the decline. The studio did not like the outcome (Chaos got it's rear kicked) and Gav Thorpe spat out an end story that left no one happy. That was the last "grand campaign" that GW put on. There have been a couple more attempts, but none on that scale.
In interviews with Thorpe and Cavatore, they also mentioned there was a clamp down on the studio design shortly after that and the end of things like Chapter Approved and other experimental rules in WD. Thorpe had described the period leading up that as the studio dictated the releases.
Yep, that is exactly the change that I was talking about.
When GW shifted away from driving sales by growing the community to attempting to drive profits by hiking prices and slashing costs - everything went sideways. Whether it was dropping specialist games, discontinuing bits services, gutting White Dwarf, no longer running grand tournaments (or even not so grand tournaments)... They all added up to the same result - a withering community and lack of enthusiasm.
On paper, when you are looking at places to streamline business - it might look good to drop something like a Global Event, after all - you don't sell anything that is specifically called a global event. However, the impact that it has by driving sales of current products is significant, not to mention that it creates buzz around the products.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW's metagame is to cycle armies in and out of popularity to stimulate purchase of more than one force.
SMs are the exception. They are always kept popular by the variety of codexes available for variants. This is to maintain their appeal to new users.
The business would stagnate without this strategy, as GW aren't interested in making other games.
Which leads to the question again...what is going to happen when they run out of armies to update in this new fast paced period of releases?
They may not be able to sustain the current pace of codex releases. There are still quite a few to be updated for both editions so if they slow down even to bimonthly they can still cover the period until the core rules are revised. There are already rumors that the O&G armybook will be revised in fantasy before all the fantasy books are updated for 8th edition.
In any event once they update all the books then in all likelihood they will simply start the cycle over again. People have been clamoring for decades for faster turnover of army books after all. I think we are all just surprised at the hardbacks and $50 price tag that came along with the granting of our wish.
How many 40K armies lack a 6th edition codex? I haven't kept careful track of it.
I don't think people want a fast turnover of new books. They just want their army to be up to date and competitive so they can play on a level playing field.
The reason I don't mention Fantasy is because I don't play it any more and have very little knowledge.
Kilkrazy wrote: How many 40K armies lack a 6th edition codex? I haven't kept careful track of it.
All of them except Chaos Marines, Demons, Dark Angels and Tau (in a couple of weeks)
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think people want a fast turnover of new books. They just want their army to be up to date and competitive so they can play on a level playing field.
Well the way that you get your army updated is with a new codex. Just ask all those players that bought flamers after the WD update if you dont believe me.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason I don't mention Fantasy is because I don't play it any more and have very little knowledge.
Probably get through about half the whfb army books for 8th by the end of this year.
You use an army dropped 20 years ago for your proof GW makes armies obsolete?
GW has (historically, at least) always made a big thing about avoiding obsoletion; every figure GW produces was valid in stores and tournaments even if replaced with a modern version. Essentially: "Buy this figure and be able to use it forever! How good a deal is that?"
So some people taking them at their word are a bit annoyed that they've invested into an army that they thought would get ongoing support to find it dropped. It also means the same may happen to any existing collections; they may get dropped / nerfed in their entirity, or it may just happen to units. So the only guarantee that the figures you buy can still be used is until the next codex / edition change. And when it seems that codex/rule changes are doing this intentionally to drive model sales (tanks good in one edition, infantry in the next, fliers in the next, etc), it just makes things more confrontational and frustrating for the vets who are heavily invested.
Whilst playing with a 20 year old army isn't the norm, it used to be perfectly acceptable, and regarded as pretty cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sean_OBrien wrote: On paper, when you are looking at places to streamline business - it might look good to drop something like a Global Event, after all - you don't sell anything that is specifically called a global event. However, the impact that it has by driving sales of current products is significant, not to mention that it creates buzz around the products.
But once you're already set on slashing retail head-count you strictly limit yourself in what you do. Even if they wanted to run a new global campaign, the one man stores wouldn't be able to take part without additional hiring, because they just aren't able to deal with any significant volume of gamers / customers.
I don't know about always. I've heard that in the past GW stores did require you to replace older models with new ones when they were released, but that the policy didn't last very long. May be wrong about that though, hearsay and all.
Sean_OBrien wrote: On paper, when you are looking at places to streamline business - it might look good to drop something like a Global Event, after all - you don't sell anything that is specifically called a global event. However, the impact that it has by driving sales of current products is significant, not to mention that it creates buzz around the products.
But once you're already set on slashing retail head-count you strictly limit yourself in what you do. Even if they wanted to run a new global campaign, the one man stores wouldn't be able to take part without additional hiring, because they just aren't able to deal with any significant volume of gamers / customers.
I agree, though I dont agree with them cutting their stores to one man shops. If they are going to have a retail arm, they should have a retail arm that is properly staffed to run a game store. If they cant do that without loosing money (which they seem to be incapable of doing) then close the store...dont hobble it.
With those unprofitable stores out of the way, they could revive the Outrider program and actually work to support LGS by coordinating the global events both in them and in their large bunker stores (of which they really only need a dozen or two world wide).
But...again, that goes against the MBA theory. I dropped into one of their stores a few months ago and it felt more like a cell phone store than a game store.
Lanrak wrote: Just the short sighted focus on maximizing short term profit , with such a detrimental effect on long term viability of GW.
This is a problem throughout the business community, and not just for GW. Do you really think a small percentage of people can take vast sums of money OUT of the economy decade after decade and NOT starve the economy of liquidity?
Everything business related I hear about GW cries out for me "wargamers that decided they are businessmen". So much incompetence and stupidity like it comes up in connection with that CHS lawsuit, someone there is completely out of his mind and lost reality grasp. No really, how can anybody claim rights to works of art he never secured, then send letters to the artists trying to convince them they have lost the notices, but rights were submitted all right, so pleas sign this form and don't bother the small printed lines...? Only people of the psychological classification "narcistic" would believe to come through with such stunts. Or people who are under influence of cocaine. Or both. This one anecdote tells so much...
Former Porsche head honcho Wendelin Wiedekind, before he choked on too big a chunk, while Porsche still was a paragon of a well led business, once said something about managers not understanding that the important thing about a healthy business is not the dividend, but the operative gain. Someone in GW did not understand that, or he understands all too well.
1. It is Kirby himself who botches it. Would not be the first businessman who thinks of himself as the smart one while in reality having no grasp on simple facts of life. That would mean the sharks should follow the CHS suit with interest, for there is one ripe and easy prey in the pond (not the wargaming industry, but the finance business). Bye bye GW, you are dead.
2. Kirby IS already the shark who recogniced he could outsmart those gamers in order to milk the cow to death. In this case he is indeed cleverer than his surroundings, but has no interest in the company's long-term wellfare, just in getting as much money out of it as he can. Bye bye GW, you are dead.
2. Kirby IS already the shark who recogniced he could outsmart those gamers in order to milk the cow to death. In this case he is indeed cleverer than his surroundings, but has no interest in the company's long-term wellfare, just in getting as much money out of it as he can. Bye bye GW, you are dead.
That seems to be the accepted theory among the 'not blatant haters but defiantly disillusioned with GW' camp.
On the updating of books, part of the problem ends up not being how often books get updated, but how often certain things got passed over for updates. If they would choose a pattern and update things in sequence - players would know that there time would come. With the scatter brained cycle, things get updated at random...players become dissillusioned and armies get left behind.
The other issue which is somewhat unique to 40K is how badly GW attempts to milk Marines for sales. They are now up to what, 6 Marine Codices? Of those, only 2 or 3 are really distinct in practical ways. The rest are distinguished by fluff and stuff, something which could be done through articles like the old Index Astartes in WD.
The graphic with inflation added does really show a clearer state of things regarding sales numbers... ouch!
SInce I'm unbiased towards the company I also think I should say that in the recession age we are in, for so many years in a row, the small profit ( even if padded with the cut offs etc) is nothing to sniff at.
As for the obsolete debate I believe some where expressing personal views about their own armies while others are talking in a wider sense... I mean If I run a spam list of a unit that has become crap well my list is obsolete and as such all of my spam army.... but on the general sense of things my army Nids is not obsolete. What everyone needs to understand is that GW philosophy towards is quite simple... 40k is not a competitive game, not aimed for tournaments circles but rather an excuse to sell GW minis.
Kilkrazy wrote: Back to Sean_OBrien, I agree with you essentially. GW haven't supported CoD or PlanetStrike and probably won't support Fliers (which doesn't fit into 40K anyway except as a means for selling each faction one or two expensive models.) Apocalypse and Planetary Empires might well be added to the list while we are on the topic.
Ditto Storm of Magic in Fantasy.
Rightfully so. Storm of Magic was complete trash, destroying any balance of a normal WHFB game and making the outcome of each game completely random.
NAVARRO wrote: What everyone needs to understand is that GW philosophy towards is quite simple... 40k is not a competitive game, not aimed for tournaments circles but rather an excuse to sell GW minis.
...this year.
40K's popularity was built on their Grand Tournaments. Throughout most of the 1990s all the way till the dramatic drop off on the charts. When GW started to stop trying to balance the game, and the most recent edition where they have completely given up on the concept...tournaments drove a lot of interest.
That is one of the reasons you saw an explosion for Magic the Gathering when it came onto the scene, and it is one of the big reasons for the growth in PP games. People like the idea of competing against each other. Even people who do not play in tournaments directly are impacted as tournament players tend to show up more often at game nights - and that helps to increase the availability of the products towards that critical mass point where the customers can actually take over the job of advertising the product.
I say this year though, as I have a hard time believing that no one at GWHQ can not see the correlation between the two issues. The next edition of the game may be wrapped up specifically with tournament play in mind.
SInce I'm unbiased towards the company I also think I should say that in the recession age we are in, for so many years in a row, the small profit ( even if padded with the cut offs etc) is nothing to sniff at.
It also isn't anything to champion. The long economic rough patch has created an odd situation for most companies. A large majority of them are actually doing quite well on paper. Hasbro for example has seen almost 12% gain on revenue and a 15% gain on income (effectively profits after expenses). Although they are not the same type of company as GW - they do deal in the same category of goods as GW.
NAVARRO wrote: What everyone needs to understand is that GW philosophy towards is quite simple... 40k is not a competitive game, not aimed for tournaments circles but rather an excuse to sell GW minis.
...this year.
40K's popularity was built on their Grand Tournaments. Throughout most of the 1990s all the way till the dramatic drop off on the charts. When GW started to stop trying to balance the game, and the most recent edition where they have completely given up on the concept...tournaments drove a lot of interest.
That is one of the reasons you saw an explosion for Magic the Gathering when it came onto the scene, and it is one of the big reasons for the growth in PP games. People like the idea of competing against each other. Even people who do not play in tournaments directly are impacted as tournament players tend to show up more often at game nights - and that helps to increase the availability of the products towards that critical mass point where the customers can actually take over the job of advertising the product.
I say this year though, as I have a hard time believing that no one at GWHQ can not see the correlation between the two issues. The next edition of the game may be wrapped up specifically with tournament play in mind.
If I was to express my personal view on this I would agree with you, tournaments are essential for 40K /fantasy and without them there is a huge ( if not the biggest) demographic of GW clients that are not catered.
I also believe if there is a game attached to the minis it should be built to the best competitive standards, as it is ( rejecting the competitive nature of the gaming) 40k falls short of what it could be.
The universe and the minis are good it is a shame that they take the investment shortcut of not balancing the game.
On codex updates. If GW were less concerned with selling overpriced books in the short-term; they would produce more, meatier Errata and FAQs to ensure that each army is competitive when they update the overall rules. They went this direction a bit with 6th but it for the most part it wasn't comprehensive enough to bring all armies onto a level playing field. They could really learn something from PP in this regard which is why I'm seriously considering making the jump over to their system and just play 40K/WHFB when the mood strikes me or when I feel the need to be reminded that there is no internal balance to the game...at all.
agnosto wrote: On codex updates. If GW were less concerned with selling overpriced books in the short-term; they would produce more, meatier Errata and FAQs to ensure that each army is competitive when they update the overall rules. They went this direction a bit with 6th but it for the most part it wasn't comprehensive enough to bring all armies onto a level playing field. They could really learn something from PP in this regard which is why I'm seriously considering making the jump over to their system and just play 40K/WHFB when the mood strikes me or when I feel the need to be reminded that there is no internal balance to the game...at all.
Since you mention PP, it would be soooooo interesting to see the charts regarding their sales... the only problem we do see populating threads a bit everywhere is the issues that they have maintaining stock levels to a degree that satisfies demand. We can speculate that this is a sign of outstanding sales numbers but it could be so many other reasons.
One thing of notice PP will be at salute with a speed painting comp... GW should d the same, creating awareness keeping people entertained is what a company in entertainment should aim for. And yes Sean_OBrien its nothing of champion the sales numbers but nevertheless it's above the water line.
Speaking of volumes lets see how the Kickstarters hoover also drained GW sales ( small companies are already complaining about it).
agnosto wrote: On codex updates. If GW were less concerned with selling overpriced books in the short-term; they would produce more, meatier Errata and FAQs to ensure that each army is competitive when they update the overall rules. They went this direction a bit with 6th but it for the most part it wasn't comprehensive enough to bring all armies onto a level playing field. They could really learn something from PP in this regard which is why I'm seriously considering making the jump over to their system and just play 40K/WHFB when the mood strikes me or when I feel the need to be reminded that there is no internal balance to the game...at all.
Since you mention PP, it would be soooooo interesting to see the charts regarding their sales... the only problem we do see populating threads a bit everywhere is the issues that they have maintaining stock levels to a degree that satisfies demand. We can speculate that this is a sign of outstanding sales numbers but it could be so many other reasons.
One thing of notice PP will be at salute with a speed painting comp... GW should d the same, creating awareness keeping people entertained is what a company in entertainment should aim for. And yes Sean_OBrien its nothing of champion the sales numbers but nevertheless it's above the water line.
Speaking of volumes lets see how the Kickstarters hoover also drained GW sales ( small companies are already complaining about it).
You bring up a good point; since PP is not publicly traded, it's nearly impossible to tell how much of those lost GW sales have gone their way. I was primarily thinking that their way of updating their product is more attractive to me than the GW method of "Let it sit on the shelf until we get around to it."
If GW would do something similar to packing unit rules with the boxes themselves, they would be in the situation where people are forced to download scanned images off of the internet if they want to play SoB or forced to have an iOS device to pay the exorbitant sums they charge for the Ork fliers and other items that came from WD.
agnosto wrote: On codex updates. If GW were less concerned with selling overpriced books in the short-term; they would produce more, meatier Errata and FAQs to ensure that each army is competitive when they update the overall rules. They went this direction a bit with 6th but it for the most part it wasn't comprehensive enough to bring all armies onto a level playing field. They could really learn something from PP in this regard which is why I'm seriously considering making the jump over to their system and just play 40K/WHFB when the mood strikes me or when I feel the need to be reminded that there is no internal balance to the game...at all.
Since you mention PP, it would be soooooo interesting to see the charts regarding their sales... the only problem we do see populating threads a bit everywhere is the issues that they have maintaining stock levels to a degree that satisfies demand. We can speculate that this is a sign of outstanding sales numbers but it could be so many other reasons.
One thing of notice PP will be at salute with a speed painting comp... GW should d the same, creating awareness keeping people entertained is what a company in entertainment should aim for. And yes Sean_OBrien its nothing of champion the sales numbers but nevertheless it's above the water line.
Speaking of volumes lets see how the Kickstarters hoover also drained GW sales ( small companies are already complaining about it).
Yes, one of the downsides of a private company is that they do tend to keep those things private and that makes it hard to make a real comparison with GW as they are the only publicly traded wargame company that I can think of.
5 years ago or so, I had heard from a friend who worked with PP that they were doing $15 million in sales. They seemed to be stuck there for a good bit though, but with their increased production capacity - I wouldn't be too surprised if they had doubled or tripled that number by now.
Not too sure about the impact KS will have on small companies - though I can imagine a chunk has been taken out of GWs sales. Small companies tend to be patronized by people who shop small companies for what ever reason. While they tend to make nice products, I have noticed that most small companies...especially small miniature companies always have something that they are certain is holding them back. Sort of their quirky nature like the Soup Nazi.
An ex-PP employee told me their total 2010 sales were about a quarter of GW's North American sales at that time. That would put it close to the $15 million Sean_OBrien is stating. While they have likely seen strong growth, it is safe to assume that it is not higher than GW at it's peak growth rates (15-18%). That would put them around $25 million in sales right now at best. As for increase in production, it doesn't sound like it happened. The ex-employee told me they had only three people in the casting department. They also fired the two more experienced ones and brought in two new people to replace them and have the third person train them. That fell apart when he quit and they had to scramble to meet demand.
Just to go back to one point Sean_OBrien and I are agreeing on.GW stopped the tournament and campaigns in the mid-00's and that is when GW's sales started to drop and have stayed relatively flat since. I feel LotR contributed a lot to the drop, but the lack of table presence in stores is contributing to their failed recovery.
The cutting of the global events and tournaments looked great on paper, but they failed to comprehend intangible benefits. A beer and pretzel game game can be fun to play at home, but it doesn't help spread the game when no one can see it.
In a different thread the issue of the ICv2 numbers came up (can't seem to find which one it was in though now for some reason) and someone had asked what the numbers were and how they might reflect the broader picture. Needed to wait till I got home to a proper computer where I could hammer such things out...but here goes the bits which I know to be certain.
The ICv2 survey is a survey of US game stores, comic book stores and other hobby related retailers. It deals only with the independent retailers - so GW's own sales figures do not reflect sales made directly from GW (online) or through GW stores. The number reflects dollars sold, not units. As I understand it it is fully impartial and well regarded among retailers in terms of accuracy and reflecting the situation on the ground.
We also know that GW does approximately 45% of its business in North America through independent stores (in terms of GW's sales in pounds. Roughly 45% is through GW stores and the remaining 10% is through direct sales. The reason why it is important to note that it is in GW's sales to retailers is done at a wholesale discount (which we will call 40% for sake of simplicity even though some are a bit better than that as I understand it). So, for every 5 items that are sold through an independent retailer...the GW store is selling 3 in order to add the same dollar (or pound) amount to the sales figures.
In North America, 40K outsells fantasy by roughly 3 to 1 in dollars.
In North America, 40K accounts for roughly half of all GW sales.
I am extremely confident in the veracity of that information. I came to it through people who worked for or with GW over the years, and recent revelations through the CHS case tend to confirm the general numbers. Other portions have been mentioned in either financial reports or the rare statement GW gives to a media source.
So...on back around to the ICv2 Survey:
1) Warhammer 40k - Games Workshop - $19.4 million
2) Warmachine - Privateer Press -
3) Warhammer Fantasy - Games Workshop - $6.4 million
4) Hordes - Privateer Press -
5) Malifaux - Wyrd Miniatures -
While the actual figures for the two PP games are still unknown, the figure that I had heard and the figure which Silent had heard are in agreement and would put them sort of in that sweet spot.
The position held by WFB seems to be on the lower side of the spectrum, as it has shown up as low as number 5 on the list on more than one occasion:
Hordes and Warmachine actually were quite close to the same sales figures in the 3-5 years ago period as the two games flip flopped back and forth from quarterly survey to the next.
Wyrd looks to be comfortable in 5th - though other companies have bumped it off a few times in the not so distant past:
So, taking all that in mind and using somewhat conservative numbers to project things based on the ICv2 figures, known numbers from GW, data from the CHS case, we can reasonably speculate that the PP games would fall somewhere like so:
1) Warhammer 40k - Games Workshop - $19.4 million
2) Warmachine - Privateer Press - $18.6 million
3) Warhammer Fantasy - Games Workshop - $6.4 million
4) Hordes - Privateer Press - $4.5 million
5) Malifaux - Wyrd Miniatures -
Malifaux is a bit harder to pin down though as it has fallen off the chart some a few times as I mentioned above. I would guess though that they are really close to the Hordes figure.
As with everything else, this information is really only reflective to the US market - though my experience in Canada would indicate that the numbers generally apply up there as well. Europe, the UK especially will probably have completely different observations - especially in light of the fact that PP hasn't localized their rules at all...so it is English or nothing.
So, taking all that in mind and using somewhat conservative numbers to project things based on the ICv2 figures, known numbers from GW, data from the CHS case, we can reasonably speculate that the PP games would fall somewhere like so:
1) Warhammer 40k - Games Workshop - $19.4 million
2) Warmachine - Privateer Press - $18.6 million
3) Warhammer Fantasy - Games Workshop - $6.4 million
4) Hordes - Privateer Press - $4.5 million
5) Malifaux - Wyrd Miniatures -
Malifaux is a bit harder to pin down though as it has fallen off the chart some a few times as I mentioned above. I would guess though that they are really close to the Hordes figure.
As with everything else, this information is really only reflective to the US market - though my experience in Canada would indicate that the numbers generally apply up there as well. Europe, the UK especially will probably have completely different observations - especially in light of the fact that PP hasn't localized their rules at all...so it is English or nothing.
Think that figure is a bit deceptive because you are showing PP's possible global sales when compared to GW's US sales. UK and Canada would likely be a decent fraction. There is a potential swing of $13 million in those numbers. But that could be made up for in international sales. Surprised that Hordes has so much smaller a following. Is there any basis to that breakdown?
Also, Fantasy has been #3 on ICv2's charts consistently since Third Quarter 2009. So I don't think you can say it fluctuates. Though it is interesting because the sales position seem to go against the prevailing internet logic that WHFB is a dying game. It's position went up to 3rd from 5th over half a year in 2009 and has stayed there since. It seems 8th helped the game more than hurt it. If 8th was as big a disaster as people claim, it would have dropped back down.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also just want to add, one other thing that helped GW's growth that PP currently does not have, easy access to capital. GW went public in 1994 and was able to leverage the influx of capital. PP is still dependent on banks for additional capital. Given the credit crisis of the last several years, I doubt getting cash was easy if any.
I'm not sure they have been able to take advantage of the game's increased popularity and increase production that much.
While I am a big PP fan and would dearly like them to be seeing growth, the estimate for Warmachine sales seem high. Here in Norway, it might rival 40k in size, but the U.S. is the hearthland of 40k...
1. It is Kirby himself who botches it. Would not be the first businessman who thinks of himself as the smart one while in reality having no grasp on simple facts of life. That would mean the sharks should follow the CHS suit with interest, for there is one ripe and easy prey in the pond (not the wargaming industry, but the finance business). Bye bye GW, you are dead.
2. Kirby IS already the shark who recogniced he could outsmart those gamers in order to milk the cow to death. In this case he is indeed cleverer than his surroundings, but has no interest in the company's long-term wellfare, just in getting as much money out of it as he can. Bye bye GW, you are dead.
So what happens to the games if "GW goes bye-bye"? Is the company closed down and farmed for the IP? Do the new owners try to farm th fans a big more? It cannot possibly be profitable to axe them completely?
Think that figure is a bit deceptive because you are showing PP's possible global sales when compared to GW's US sales. UK and Canada would likely be a decent fraction. There is a potential swing of $13 million in those numbers. But that could be made up for in international sales. Surprised that Hordes has so much smaller a following. Is there any basis to that breakdown?
There is some basis for the breakdown - mostly conversations with friends who own stores and one who works for a distributor in their warehousing department and one who did a development job for PP several years ago (and still does some upgrade work for them).
Regarding the number, it actually isn't representative of global sales. It is US sales + retail margin... Remember, PP does the majority of their business through distributors - so their $15 million in sales 3 years ago accounted for roughly $25 million of the market. Again, I have my reasons for believing the split is accurate in terms of how much of their sales are US versus the rest of the world - though it is hard to prove something based on hearsay. I believe it is accurate - if you don't that is fine.
The issue regarding WFB and 40K as well for that matter relates to price hikes. Since the positions are based on the dollar value of goods sold - more expensive products will rank higher based then less expensive products given the same number of units sold. If you recall, the larger price hikes became a regular occurrence for WFB and 40K in the 2008 time frame (would need to check to see the actual years and price hikes...might have been 2007, might have been 2009). While the other games are making gains in units sold - GW is holding their positions in terms of dollars sold due to higher relative prices (particularly astonishing when you see lines like Reaper's pop onto that list from time to time).
Hordes likely has a similar problem that WFB has in the US - which is to say that it doesn't quite fit with existing fantasy genre preconceptions. It seems as though we like D&D/Tolkien style orks, dwarves, elves and the like and the stylistic choices made by GW in that regard are a bit off putting. The lack of those tropes within the Iron Kingdoms setting seems to be a lagging point for sale and uptake beyond those who are current players. Warmachine manages to avoid this by focusing more on the Steam Punk nature of the setting which doesn't have as strong of an ingrained position in the average person when they first get into gaming.
When PP was still more actively marketing their d20 Iron Kingdoms setting, I understand that somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of the sales of figures went to RPG players who used the various miniatures for those games as opposed to their Hordes game. I would need to check the dates to be certain - but that would have also been around the 2008-2009 time period. They ended up resurrecting the RPG though late last year (after this last set of results from ICv2) so we may end up seeing a change in the ranking again if they can manage to draw the RPG buyers back in to pick up Hordes figures for their games. It was never a top selling RPG, even during the heyday of the d20 frenzy - but the numbers where solid and the following was just as rampant as you find in the other PP games.
Just another useful number which can put things into perspective. The US market for collectible card games (Magic, Pokémon...) is around $950 million (hard to tag that one, as they are also sold through a lot of big box stores like Walmart). The US market for collectible miniature games (Clix having the vast majority of that market now) is around $160 million. That is just US sales. The interesting bit about that is that Wizkids, which produces the Clix games, was sold to Topps in 2003 for around $30 million. When Topps was sold to Tornante for roughly $375 million, they shut down Wizkids in 2008 even though it was bringing in $54 million per year in global sales. NECA managed to buy the Wizkids brand and related Clix game from Tornante for a song (I don't know the exact number - but my source said they almost felt bad about it it was so low). I think it was back in December or January they announced that they had sold their 400 millionth miniature. Using that number, the MSRP of the sets, and somewhat standard wholesale discounting - it is reasonable to assume that Wizkids has made $500 million or so in sales on their Clix figures alone (and remember - they are a manufacturer only...so their actual retail sales figures would be much higher than that).
Kaptajn Congoboy wrote: While I am a big PP fan and would dearly like them to be seeing growth, the estimate for Warmachine sales seem high. Here in Norway, it might rival 40k in size, but the U.S. is the hearthland of 40k...
Not so much as you might think. This is really the market where PP provides the most competition for GW, and in many areas has completely eliminated GW. As I had said before, GW is pretty much a memory where I live. Others have mentioned that their local stores have also eliminated their products - or cut back on them significantly. I'll see if I can get more recent hard numbers by calling around some in the morning - but I really would not be surprised at all to see 40K drop from the number one position for US independent retailers.
1. It is Kirby himself who botches it. Would not be the first businessman who thinks of himself as the smart one while in reality having no grasp on simple facts of life. That would mean the sharks should follow the CHS suit with interest, for there is one ripe and easy prey in the pond (not the wargaming industry, but the finance business). Bye bye GW, you are dead.
2. Kirby IS already the shark who recogniced he could outsmart those gamers in order to milk the cow to death. In this case he is indeed cleverer than his surroundings, but has no interest in the company's long-term wellfare, just in getting as much money out of it as he can. Bye bye GW, you are dead.
So what happens to the games if "GW goes bye-bye"? Is the company closed down and farmed for the IP? Do the new owners try to farm th fans a big more? It cannot possibly be profitable to axe them completely?
See above for what happened to Wizkids, or look at what happened to FASA, or possibly TSR. In any case, the game will continue - some would argue that the new management would take better care of things and make corrections for the market. Others will swear they would attempt to cut it to the bone. Either could happen - but more often than not, properties are well served by having new management take a second run at things. The new Battletech and Shadowrun books from Catalyst are amazing. WotC brought a lot of new life to D&D. Wizkids under NECA is more successful than ever.
It would demand that a pretty big company - but not too big, in case they decide to recycle the whole IP in their preferred medium rather than a miniatures game aiming for building it for the long term- took an interest in a buyout, then.
A total rehash of the 40k and WHFB rules and business model would - at least in my optics - be a good thing. But the process would be traumatic, to say the least.
Kaptajn Congoboy wrote: It would demand that a pretty big company - but not too big, in case they decide to recycle the whole IP in their preferred medium rather than a miniatures game aiming for building it for the long term- took an interest in a buyout, then.
A total rehash of the 40k and WHFB rules and business model would - at least in my optics - be a good thing. But the process would be traumatic, to say the least.
Traumatic and probably devastating for the company. Besides, with the expansion into video games, they may actually bring in new blood. Personally I would love to see GW bring back Chapter Approved and maybe even start using WD to bring out limited ed models on occasion. I am actually enjoying the new stuff. I like the randomness of things like the Daemon world rules, the CSM codex, and even the new Daemons stuff. It adds more of that element of luck. With 5 new codexes since just before 6th dropped (7 if you include that crap they pulled with the SoB) then GW looks to be putting all the armies on the same footing.
Wayshuba wrote: GW is showing all the signs of a company on the verge of imploding right now. They have forgotten how to grow the company so instead focus on growing the margins. This is always a temporary fix at best (just ask the management at Kodak how well this strategy works). I think it was encapsulated best above that they used to focus on growing the hobby when now their only focus is on selling toy soldiers. This changes the dynamic of the price competition as a result and GW is NOT in any way, shape, or form, competitive in the "toy soldier" business based on their current ludicrous price points.
I work at a national professional photo lab, so I've had direct experience with Kodak. We actually dumped them several years ago. But a little while back I had the good fortune to be at a Kodak conference where one of the CEO's presented an amazingly detailed speech complete with nice quality presentation materials explaining how excited Kodak was that they were able to defer repayments to their massive loans by five years and that would give them time to come up with some ideas to make money. I don't know if they expected some applause, but after the presentation they were met with stunned silence. It was quite amazing to see how the entire corporate leadership had fooled itself into thinking it was somehow in a good position. Shortly after that Kodak started selling off it's trademarks in order to manage some sort of quarterly earnings...
The videogames must raise some kind of awareness and Penny Arcade shows that videogamers can make the cross-over from screen to tabletop.
However, GW's most sustained and successful expansion was in the era when they published a wide variety of games, not just two core systems with add-on bits.
That era was the late 80s to the peak of LotR. Warhammer videogames were published during that time, yet GW have published videogames faster in the post-LotR era and seen much less assured growth.
Thus I am not convinced that videogames are an important marketing tool for GW. The key tool is the retail chain, and they should make more use of it by publishing more different games, IMO.
GW reminds me of Hitler in his last days at the moment. Launching futile offensives that might gain some ground temporarily, but in the big-picture the situation is grim and only getting grimer due to his terrible decisions.
There is some basis for the breakdown - mostly conversations with friends who own stores and one who works for a distributor in their warehousing department and one who did a development job for PP several years ago (and still does some upgrade work for them).
Regarding the number, it actually isn't representative of global sales. It is US sales + retail margin... Remember, PP does the majority of their business through distributors - so their $15 million in sales 3 years ago accounted for roughly $25 million of the market. Again, I have my reasons for believing the split is accurate in terms of how much of their sales are US versus the rest of the world - though it is hard to prove something based on hearsay. I believe it is accurate - if you don't that is fine.
Then I have to ask how you got the 25.8 million US for GW sales in 2010? Their annual revenue from North America for 2010 was 36.8 million British Pounds. Going by the 45% independent sales, 3 -1 ratio, and exchange rate of 1.55, I get very close to the 25.8 million (25.7). However you don't seem to apply the total revenue sales factor to GW that you apply to PP. I remember being told that GW's wholesale number is 65% of MSRP. It might be lower, but based off that, the numbers should be:
1) Warhammer 40k - Games Workshop - $29.8 million
2) Warmachine - Privateer Press - $18.6 million
3) Warhammer Fantasy - Games Workshop - $9.8 million
4) Hordes - Privateer Press - $4.5 million
You also are assuming that all of PP's revenue is coming through distribution and is only sold at wholesale. You don't account for their non-WMH sales or their direct sales through their online store. That can swing the numbers a couple million.
silent25 wrote: You also are assuming that all of PP's revenue is coming through distribution and is only sold at wholesale. You don't account for their non-WMH sales or their direct sales through their online store. That can swing the numbers a couple million.
Given that Privateer only really sells parts on their online store, along with the occasional T-shirt and holiday sale, I doubt their online sales amount to all that much.
I agree, though I dont agree with them cutting their stores to one man shops. If they are going to have a retail arm, they should have a retail arm that is properly staffed to run a game store. If they cant do that without loosing money (which they seem to be incapable of doing) then close the store...dont hobble it.
With those unprofitable stores out of the way, they could revive the Outrider program and actually work to support LGS by coordinating the global events both in them and in their large bunker stores (of which they really only need a dozen or two world wide).
I think this is a great idea and frankly, there are many local game stores that have felt that GW has been squeezing them for a long time. Most privately owned game stores provide tables where you can play games - any game, not just a GW game - and feel a little betrayed when GW opens up a competing store nearby. They work hard to provide a friendly place to play, providing the community that GW refuses to supply, and they are rewarded by having to fight off a corporate chain. Your FLGS cannot survive if you buy your mini's online or from another GW store and just bring them to play on the tables at the FLGS. GW has treated these small businesses as the enemy for a long time when all along it has been the FLGS that provides the community.
If I read O'Brien's post correctly, the data he is reporting is solely for retail sales at independent retailers in the USA. GW's North American sales include sales to Canadian retailers. The data came from an ICv2 survey of independent hobby retailers; ICv2 is kind of like a professional group for the hobby industry in the USA, if I understand them correctly. The data he provided does not include direct sales or internet revenue or licensing revenue, etc.
Here's a link to find out more about who they are:
If I read O'Brien's post correctly, the data he is reporting is solely for retail sales at independent retailers in the USA. GW's North American sales include sales to Canadian retailers. The data came from an ICv2 survey of independent hobby retailers; ICv2 is kind of like a professional group for the hobby industry in the USA, if I understand them correctly. The data he provided does not include direct sales or internet revenue or licensing revenue, etc.
Here's a link to find out more about who they are:
I understand who ICv2 is. You are correct, I should have not mentioned Canada being left out. Mistake on my part. Still both numbers are North American sales values. The numbers he came up with are guess work based on certain inputs and assumptions. The GW numbers we got are from GW's annual report. The PP number is based off similar information both him and I have got of PP revenue being $15 million in 2010.
Also one source of revenue I forgot to also add in, convention sales. The ex-PP employee mentioned how GenCon was a major source of revenue for PP. It provides funding for all of PP's convention appearances, including a space smack middle of the San Diego Comic Convention. From dealer friend who have stopped going to SDCC because of costs, the spot PP gets in prime real estate right between Hasbro and Cartoon Network . A single dealers table at SDCC (simple folding table ) was $5000. And that was for a spot in the dead end of the hall.
Considering the growth of Warmachine and Hordes since 2010, I think we could expect a substantial boost to their sales figures today. 2010 was when the boom started - in Norway, we started with 4 players then. In January this year, 40 people attended the Nationals, a larger showing than the 40k Nationals held in the adjacent hall. The swedes barely got 20 people (if that) together for "large" tourneys in 2009...in 2012 their 90-seat tourneys get sold out in a couple of months. In the US, Lock & Load doubled its attendance number from 2012 to 2013 and as far as I know, Templecon also grew substantially.
Kaptajn Congoboy wrote: Considering the growth of Warmachine and Hordes since 2010, I think we could expect a substantial boost to their sales figures today. 2010 was when the boom started - in Norway, we started with 4 players then. In January this year, 40 people attended the Nationals, a larger showing than the 40k Nationals held in the adjacent hall. The swedes barely got 20 people (if that) together for "large" tourneys in 2009...in 2012 their 90-seat tourneys get sold out in a couple of months. In the US, Lock & Load doubled its attendance number from 2012 to 2013 and as far as I know, Templecon also grew substantially.
It is a different world these days,
Well I'm assuming PP has been growing at 18% a year based off of peak GW growth rates. But even that is unlikely. GW had an international distribution chain set up, multiple languages available, and the LotR boom when it saw that rate. That is where I get the assumption that PP is likely at $25 million in revenue right now. Prime Mk2 came out in 2010, so assume three years of great growth.
Basically the math is speculative to some extent - with some assumptions being made.
If we take as our starting point the 2012 FY Report we have £33,621,000 in sales in North America (US and Canada). We know from past reports that 45% of sales in North America (US and Canada) are through independent retailers...so that would drop that number down to £15,129,450. We know that Warhammer 40K accounts for approximately 50% of the total North American Sales applied ONLY to the US (so of that big number - half of it are the sales in the US, while the other half are WFB sales in the US and Canda, hobby supplies and the like), this is information from the CHS depositions regarding the value of the trademarks in US jurisdictions...so under oath and penalty of perjury, it has to be accurate. So we are now at £7,564,725 for Warhammer 40K sales in the US for independent retailers. We know that 40K outsells WFB 3 to 1 (again, from the depositions). I am assuming that that applies to GW stores, direct sales and independent stores...though there could be some variation there. Taking it at face value though, that would mean that WFB sells £2,521,575 in the US to independent retailers.
The wholesale multiplier varies some. GW uses a tiered program for their retail accounts - the more you sell, the better your discount. They also sell to distributors who sell to retailers. Most distributors are at 50%. Most retailers I have talked to who order from GW get a 40% discount off retail, some of them get 45%. The only ones I have talked to who get less of a discount in the US have been using distributors. The exact mix of those is a bit of a mystery though - I went with the 40% discount across the board though for simplicities sake, though if you wanted you could probably do some calculations to determine roughly how much is sold through trade accounts (and it is possible that that tidbit might have been mentioned in passing in an annual report and I am just forgetting about it).
So, moving on we take the £12,607,875 for 40K and £4,202,625 for WFB. We then take the constant currency exchange rate for the FY - in that year GW used 1.54 dollars per pound for balance sheet calculations and we get $19,416,127 for market size of 40K and $6,472,042 for market size for WFB.
On the PP, convention and online/direct sales issue. It is true - I discounted it. They sell very little direct throughout the year - and even if their convention sales amounted to $100,000 or so...it still wouldn't have a huge impact on their total sales numbers or where it might put them on the chart in relation to GW. I would be less willing to make that same assumption against a company like Wyrd as they do a lot of business online through their store - so those numbers are even a greater unknown.
OK, I understand your numbers now. But one thing bugs me with these numbers, if GW's 2012 North America numbers equaled $25.9 million in 2012 and PP was still second and fourth with under $25.9 million in sales. Working backwards, PP only has ~$16 million at most in revenue and sales have remained relatively flat since 2010 or sales have only increased in overseas markets and direct sales. Both which people seem to be discounting as being insignificant.
That means PP is unable to translate increased popularity into increased revenue or the increased popularity is not as significant as perceived.
OK, I understand your numbers now. But one thing bugs me with these numbers, if GW's 2012 North America numbers equaled $25.9 million in 2012 and PP was still second and fourth with under $25.9 million in sales. Working backwards, PP only has ~$16 million at most in revenue and sales have remained relatively flat since 2010 or sales have only increased in overseas markets and direct sales. Both which people seem to be discounting as being insignificant.
B
That means PP is unable to translate increased popularity into increased revenue or the increased popularity is not as significant as perceived.
...in the US. Remember, ICv2 (and the speculative math) is based on the US market.
Sean_OBrien wrote: Yep, as opposed to actually continuing to develop product lines - they tend to use anything other than Space Marines as a splash in the pan to get them from point A to point B.
The potential for sales though of something like CoD though is something that they miss out on when they don't attempt to capitalize on the sales. Apocalypse was probably the biggest missed opportunity for them, as I recall at the time that there was much clamoring from the non-Imperial players regarding the possibilities of what might come out in support of their chosen armies. Alas, no love for them - something that actually managed to drive some away as a result.
must admit this puzzled me too, as a returning player from 3rd i was like "oh wow this apoc stuff is cool, the battles must be so much bigger now" before realizing only imperials got anything. not really sure who you're supposed to fight with titans and minotaurs and stuff, other than chaos conversions. course that won't stop me from getting a banesword and finding something to shoot with it.
OK, I understand your numbers now. But one thing bugs me with these numbers, if GW's 2012 North America numbers equaled $25.9 million in 2012 and PP was still second and fourth with under $25.9 million in sales. Working backwards, PP only has ~$16 million at most in revenue and sales have remained relatively flat since 2010 or sales have only increased in overseas markets and direct sales. Both which people seem to be discounting as being insignificant.
B
That means PP is unable to translate increased popularity into increased revenue or the increased popularity is not as significant as perceived.
...in the US. Remember, ICv2 (and the speculative math) is based on the US market.
Yes, and I was arguing you were assuming too much for the North American market and not taking into account other revenue sources online, at cons, or abroad. Now that I turn the argument around, you quickly change your tune. Plus, people have stated here how a couple years ago there was no presence overseas. So that $15 million in 2010 likely was almost all of North America. This means PP has been growing less than 7% a year at most in North America. Hardly the 18% I was comparing to GW during its LotR years or the 15% leading up to it. If it had experienced a 15% growth, it should have been #1 and #3, not #2 and #4.
GreySkull wrote: GW is interested in only one thing: selling minis and the accessories that go with them (i.e. paints, decals, books, etc.). They are a miniatures company, unlike Catalyst Game Labs which prints only the books, they get someone else to do the casting of minis. These numbers clearly show that yes, they need to "Get back to where they once belonged" to quote a Beatles song. But it's apt I believe in this case as it's what made them so successful in such a niche market.
What I'm tired of seeing is:
1.)New editions coming out ever four or so years that make pretty much my entire army obsolete, forcing me to buy a thousand dollars worth of stuff (or more) just to stay current.
2.)Army books that take forever to release, only to see the last book is coming out just about when the next edition of the game is to being announced and close to release.
3.)Price points that are, quite frankly, ridiculous. Most new players are kids that have mommy and daddy's money to spend and are usually spoiled-rotten little bastards I wouldn't entertain with a game if they paid me (with, of course, mommy and daddy's money).
4.)(And this seems to be a growing norm within the gaming community all around. No gaming company is responsible for bad behavior) aforementioned spoiled-rotten little bastards and the snot-nosed larger spoiled-rotten bastards they turn into. You know who you are and yes, I'm calling each and every one of you man-and-woman children out with this post. Get a life, get out of your parent's basement, and start acting like adults. You guys are despicable. I've tried getting friends who are interested in Warmachine and 40k to play, but when I took them to the local gaming store, the actions of these "children-in-adult-bodies" were enough to turn them off. Even after I tell them that not all gamers are like that, they still said no and wanted to leave the store just to get away from the man-children inside. None of them wanted to come back. Some of them like to call victory a turn before as they can "predict" how the turn will go, I've even had one guy show it to me. I screwed him up by simply smashing forward with everything in a game of 40k, dropping all tactical acumen. The s.o.b. then had the audacity to start bitching to the store owner. I'd won and he hated it. I sold my Chaos Marines stuff after that. I've got better things to do (and I'm not desperate enough) than to play a game that is actually quite useless (like jewelry useless) with a bunch of babies.
Harharharharhar Please see my thread hear my friend. I wish you lived in my area......
I still am not seeing what you think is the disagreement. For PP growth in the US, I used an average of hobby game growth numbers which I obtained from industry white papers. Most of their growth in the past 3 years or so has been overseas...so while growth in the US was down around 6% per year, overseas growth was much higher.
The total PP sales figures are not really an issue with the lists or my numbers though as the list and the calculations only deal with independent sales for both PP and GW. Or I am missing something that you might think I am implying beyond that.
Sean_OBrien wrote: I still am not seeing what you think is the disagreement. For PP growth in the US, I used an average of hobby game growth numbers which I obtained from industry white papers. Most of their growth in the past 3 years or so has been overseas...so while growth in the US was down around 6% per year, overseas growth was much higher.
The total PP sales figures are not really an issue with the lists or my numbers though as the list and the calculations only deal with independent sales for both PP and GW. Or I am missing something that you might think I am implying beyond that.
Well you didn't list any "white papers" or other sources. You only used the $15 million both of us heard and translated that in ~$25 million in sales. When I state your total numbers are high, you downplay international, online, and other sources. When I point out that means PP is not growing that fast, you starting saying how your numbers are based on "other factors" and it actually all from overseas growth.
And now you are quoting "around 6%"? You didn't seem eager to divulge that information earlier. Plus if that is the industry average, that means PP is only growing with the rest of the industry and not seeing any exceptional growth in the US. Again, means all the talk of people playing it everywhere is the US bunk.
Sean_OBrien wrote: I still am not seeing what you think is the disagreement. For PP growth in the US, I used an average of hobby game growth numbers which I obtained from industry white papers. Most of their growth in the past 3 years or so has been overseas...so while growth in the US was down around 6% per year, overseas growth was much higher.
The total PP sales figures are not really an issue with the lists or my numbers though as the list and the calculations only deal with independent sales for both PP and GW. Or I am missing something that you might think I am implying beyond that.
Well you didn't list any "white papers" or other sources. You only used the $15 million both of us heard and translated that in ~$25 million in sales. When I state your total numbers are high, you downplay international, online, and other sources. When I point out that means PP is not growing that fast, you starting saying how your numbers are based on "other factors" and it actually all from overseas growth.
And now you are quoting "around 6%"? You didn't seem eager to divulge that information earlier. Plus if that is the industry average, that means PP is only growing with the rest of the industry and not seeing any exceptional growth in the US. Again, means all the talk of people playing it everywhere is the US bunk.
I can understand the reluctance, if any, to share out certain parts of information.
Sometimes you can only divulge certain amounts of information if you want to keep your sources viable. I collect data as well but I'm not going to give out everything that I know and have data mined for years on the interwebs. Just because of potential of said information to be used against me if I want to make an investment into a business.
Also as big as the gaming industry is there is not that big of a circle of influence. Go to GAMA and see for yourself. You can get first hand info there and have fun there as well.
Finally if you subscribe to Icv2 and NPD Group you can get a good amount of information about what market you are interested in.
Sean_OBrien wrote: I still am not seeing what you think is the disagreement. For PP growth in the US, I used an average of hobby game growth numbers which I obtained from industry white papers. Most of their growth in the past 3 years or so has been overseas...so while growth in the US was down around 6% per year, overseas growth was much higher.
The total PP sales figures are not really an issue with the lists or my numbers though as the list and the calculations only deal with independent sales for both PP and GW. Or I am missing something that you might think I am implying beyond that.
Well you didn't list any "white papers" or other sources. You only used the $15 million both of us heard and translated that in ~$25 million in sales. When I state your total numbers are high, you downplay international, online, and other sources. When I point out that means PP is not growing that fast, you starting saying how your numbers are based on "other factors" and it actually all from overseas growth.
And now you are quoting "around 6%"? You didn't seem eager to divulge that information earlier. Plus if that is the industry average, that means PP is only growing with the rest of the industry and not seeing any exceptional growth in the US. Again, means all the talk of people playing it everywhere is the US bunk.
I didn't list any specific sources for those numbers, though they are available - some in paper form (Internal Correspondence Magazine provides growth figures per quarter for each hobby game sector) as well as some which are distributed as part of investment groups research. Sources are also personal contacts, who I didn't name by name but I did mention...
Regarding the number, it actually isn't representative of global sales. It is US sales + retail margin... Remember, PP does the majority of their business through distributors - so their $15 million in sales 3 years ago accounted for roughly $25 million of the market. Again, I have my reasons for believing the split is accurate in terms of how much of their sales are US versus the rest of the world - though it is hard to prove something based on hearsay. I believe it is accurate - if you don't that is fine.
I don't think that that statement implies what you seem to think it implies. I didn't switch anything around at all. You seemed to think I was counting global PP sales versus US GW sales. I was not. The reason I chose to go with the average across the board is it is a conservative estimate for PP's sales figures. I assume that they are doing at least as well as the average since they are holding their position on the listings, as well as other information which I gather from conversations. If PP is growing with the rest of the industry, that would not mean that all the talk of PP being played everywhere is bunk (a statement I have not made...though it is inline somewhat with what I have seen). What it does mean is that it is holding its position relative to the rest of the games. 3 years ago they already had pretty good penetration - if they grew 6% per year since then that would mean they now have pretty good penetration plus roughly 20%. Up until about 2 years ago - they had production issues that were limiting their growth as well. None of that would mean that their popularity would need to be lower for any reason at all.
I am still not sure what the issue is with the $15/25 million is though. Those would have been global numbers in 2010 (based on your source - I think I mine would have put those numbers at 2009 or so though with the production issues they were running into...it is quite possible that they stalled out around that number for a few years). The portion of their global numbers which is US only is based on the hearsay which I mention above. I do believe it to be accurate - if you don't that is fine. None of that though points to high/low/down played international sales (I don't - in fact I purposely don't touch those issues as they are not within the scope of the information).
Sean_OBrien wrote: Yep, as opposed to actually continuing to develop product lines - they tend to use anything other than Space Marines as a splash in the pan to get them from point A to point B.
The potential for sales though of something like CoD though is something that they miss out on when they don't attempt to capitalize on the sales. Apocalypse was probably the biggest missed opportunity for them, as I recall at the time that there was much clamoring from the non-Imperial players regarding the possibilities of what might come out in support of their chosen armies. Alas, no love for them - something that actually managed to drive some away as a result.
must admit this puzzled me too, as a returning player from 3rd i was like "oh wow this apoc stuff is cool, the battles must be so much bigger now" before realizing only imperials got anything. not really sure who you're supposed to fight with titans and minotaurs and stuff, other than chaos conversions. course that won't stop me from getting a banesword and finding something to shoot with it.
Even more than just within their core market - they missed a huge potential market outside of gamers. I recall when they first released the Baneblade kit it was reviewed by a few different straight model sites and one magazine as a possible option for sci-fi (or non-historical) modelers. It was actually fairly well received too. However, they also speculated about the possibility of things like an Eldar or Tau super heavy in plastic as well. When those didn't come to pass a lot of their potential customers sort of faded back into piles of plastic from Tamiya and Hobby Boss. I know there was a fairly substantial mecha site that was contemplating the possibilities that it might mean for future titans in plastic as well. Again, just some variety to mix in with their regular flavors of Votoms, Patlabors, Valkyries and Gundam. Again, because it didn't happen - those potential new customers faded back into the background.
The chunky nature of their regular releases doesn't have much appeal in those markets, but things like a Warhound, Revenant, Orca or Scorpion were hoped for openly as their proportions were more inline with the oversized weapons.
OK, I think I see where I got your number mixed. Though 6% still doesn't sound like a company that should be blazing across the country. Still from your numbers you assumed that 2/3 of PP's sales were US based? Also, one error I believe you have in your numbers, isn't PP's wholesale price 50%, not 60% MSRP?
*edit* though that 15/25 seems to be other sources, not yours.
*edit2* And I'm referring to 25 million in sales would imply a 40% discount, not 50%.
I agree, though I dont agree with them cutting their stores to one man shops. If they are going to have a retail arm, they should have a retail arm that is properly staffed to run a game store. If they cant do that without loosing money (which they seem to be incapable of doing) then close the store...dont hobble it.
With those unprofitable stores out of the way, they could revive the Outrider program and actually work to support LGS by coordinating the global events both in them and in their large bunker stores (of which they really only need a dozen or two world wide).
I think this is a great idea and frankly, there are many local game stores that have felt that GW has been squeezing them for a long time. Most privately owned game stores provide tables where you can play games - any game, not just a GW game - and feel a little betrayed when GW opens up a competing store nearby. They work hard to provide a friendly place to play, providing the community that GW refuses to supply, and they are rewarded by having to fight off a corporate chain. Your FLGS cannot survive if you buy your mini's online or from another GW store and just bring them to play on the tables at the FLGS. GW has treated these small businesses as the enemy for a long time when all along it has been the FLGS that provides the community.
One point with this is that I have no problem buying online...I also have no problem with a store saying if you want to play here - you need to buy here (in the same way, I have no problem with GW stores saying you can only use GW minis to play in GW stores or officially sponsored GW tournaments). If we go back to WotC Adventure Game survey (I know...several years old, but it is the only source of this particular data that I know of) you see that miniature wargamers are about 2% of the US population. This ends up being somewhere around 4 million people who play miniature wargames every month (based on the 15-64 age range). It may have gone up...might have gone down - but it is a number we can work with. If you were to figure that each hobby store could maybe support 100 people who game their throughout the month (some being larger...most being much smaller - and only addressing people who actually game in store) you would need 40,000 independent stores to provide for all their gaming needs.
In the US there are roughly 26,000 hobby, game and toy stores in the US (IBSIS market survey) - and that includes stores like Toys'R US, Hobby Lobby and Michaels...there really are not enough local game stores to actually cater to the gaming needs of the whole gaming population...even if they were motivated to play in stores. I see absolutely no reason why a gamer who does not play in a store should need to pay higher retail prices to support that store. I would guess that many of those who game at home or other locations would tend to agree with that position as well. Limiting their ability to choose where their money goes doesn't actually do the hobby any actual service in terms of growing it - and more often than not would have minimal impact on the local game community health.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
silent25 wrote: OK, I think I see where I got your number mixed. Though 6% still doesn't sound like a company that should be blazing across the country. Still from your numbers you assumed that 2/3 of PP's sales were US based? Also, one error I believe you have in your numbers, isn't PP's wholesale price 50%, not 60% MSRP?
I believe their numbers to distributors is 50% and retailers is 60% - I am not sure on the exact split between direct accounts versus distributor supplied accounts for them. 50% would give them a slightly higher market share, but again - some of this is just defaulting to default settings.
I am not too sure why they should be blazing across the country though. If you were to rewind GW to about the same point in their business - it would have been back around 1990/91 time period. PP is likely dealing with a lot of the same issues that they had at that time in their growth and I wouldn't be surprised if PP did start blazing across the country (and the rest of the world) in the next year or two. Remember, GW/Citadel was already 13 years old in 1991 and they had quite a catalog of figures in the fantasy line up already. 40K was their second major miniature game release and it was only a few years old at the time. GW had just recently (late 1980s) opened their US location for distribution and casting. 1991 and 1992 were relatively slow in terms of growth, and my understanding is that that was comparable going backwards to the release of Rogue Trader (which gave them a pretty big bump - but then steady again).
Compare that to PP now, they have Hordes and Warmachine. They just recently opened a location in the UK to handle distribution and casting in Europe. The second major edition of Warmachine is only a few years old... Anything look familiar?
I believe their numbers to distributors is 50% and retailers is 60% - I am not sure on the exact split between direct accounts versus distributor supplied accounts for them. 50% would give them a slightly higher market share, but again - some of this is just defaulting to default settings.
I am not too sure why they should be blazing across the country though. If you were to rewind GW to about the same point in their business - it would have been back around 1990/91 time period. PP is likely dealing with a lot of the same issues that they had at that time in their growth and I wouldn't be surprised if PP did start blazing across the country (and the rest of the world) in the next year or two. Remember, GW/Citadel was already 13 years old in 1991 and they had quite a catalog of figures in the fantasy line up already. 40K was their second major miniature game release and it was only a few years old at the time. GW had just recently (late 1980s) opened their US location for distribution and casting. 1991 and 1992 were relatively slow in terms of growth, and my understanding is that that was comparable going backwards to the release of Rogue Trader (which gave them a pretty big bump - but then steady again).
Compare that to PP now, they have Hordes and Warmachine. They just recently opened a location in the UK to handle distribution and casting in Europe. The second major edition of Warmachine is only a few years old... Anything look familiar?
True, but GW had been bought out at that point and had significant financial backing and went public in 1994 giving them access to further capital. PP is still privately owned by its founder. The exact formula isn't there yet. But I personally believe Wilson is actively looking to sell the company. Living in Los Angeles 1,100 miles away from PP means he is already checking out.
Also, Rick Priestly stated it was 4th edition WHFB that caused things to gang busters at GW, not 40k. The success caught them all off guard.
Back to GW, does any know who Ruffer LLP is? They appear to have taken a 8% stake in the company since after the 2012 annual report. They were not a listed share holder of note previously.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just to add, PP also has to contend with far more competition than GW did back in the 90's. I am actually seeing Mantic as launching a bigger challenge. They are working on mass production of quality figures at a cheap price. Their kickstarter gave them the funds to improve their line and figure quality significantly.
While PP is lower cost vs GW for a whole army, Mantic makes both look bad. Why buy a Colossus when you can get a whole army from Mantic for the same price.
Kickstarter in general has allowed a lot of small companies to get funding and start competing. PP is going to have to deal with the same termites that are eating away at GW.
Just to add, PP also has to contend with far more competition than GW did back in the 90's. I am actually seeing Mantic as launching a bigger challenge. They are working on mass production of quality figures at a cheap price. Their kickstarter gave them the funds to improve their line and figure quality significantly.
While PP is lower cost vs GW for a whole army, Mantic makes both look bad. Why buy a Colossus when you can get a whole army from Mantic for the same price.
Kickstarter in general has allowed a lot of small companies to get funding and start competing. PP is going to have to deal with the same termites that are eating away at GW.
I suppose it's poetic justice that several former GW employees are writing content for Mantic's games.
I suppose it's poetic justice that several former GW employees are writing content for Mantic's games.
It's not just Mantic; many companies and major releases are former GW employees (Warlord Games, Mantic Games, The Army Painter, Privateer Press [Mike McVey], games including Bolt Action, Dust Warfare, Hail Caesar, Black Powder, Deus Vult, Robotech Tactics, Kings of War, Warpath, and others... hell even Flames of War is Phil Yates who wrote Warhammer Panzer Battles for GW who didn't pick it up)
I find it amazing that Battlefront of "Flames of War" Fame, seem to be able to create a new book every 2 months, with several in development concurrently.
Some of these books are much bigger than current Codex size. Flames of War is one of the most balanced systems around. They are getting a little more corporate but their release schedule is much better than GW.
GW needs to shrink, cull the Middle management, chop off the High street Retail chain, in favour on 15-20 Regional centres with bigger premises and numerous tables and facilities (Ideally near the highstreet but maybe upper floors/ basements where rents are cheaper) and become more venue orientated. They also need to support the FLGS scene more. This is a slow, agonising Death - Finecast was a Fiasco it damaged the reputation for good quality products and the price hike was a final insult.
Games Workshop Customer Service Training - "Ah good sir, I see you buying a piece of mis-cast Crap from our Flavour-of-month-army-codex, I'll just add 15% to your bill. A recession you say? No I think you'll find the economy is doing wonderfully. Anything else today, nothing for little Johnny? Maybe a £200 Starter set? No, ok. But would sir kindly stand still in the doorway, it will assist me in my run up, otherwise how can I kick you accurately in the balls?"
Just to add, PP also has to contend with far more competition than GW did back in the 90's. I am actually seeing Mantic as launching a bigger challenge. They are working on mass production of quality figures at a cheap price. Their kickstarter gave them the funds to improve their line and figure quality significantly.
While PP is lower cost vs GW for a whole army, Mantic makes both look bad. Why buy a Colossus when you can get a whole army from Mantic for the same price.
Kickstarter in general has allowed a lot of small companies to get funding and start competing. PP is going to have to deal with the same termites that are eating away at GW.
I suppose it's poetic justice that several former GWand PP employees are writing content for Mantic's games.
Fixed that for you. McVey worked for both and was screwed over by both.
Just to add, PP also has to contend with far more competition than GW did back in the 90's. I am actually seeing Mantic as launching a bigger challenge. They are working on mass production of quality figures at a cheap price. Their kickstarter gave them the funds to improve their line and figure quality significantly.
While PP is lower cost vs GW for a whole army, Mantic makes both look bad. Why buy a Colossus when you can get a whole army from Mantic for the same price.
Kickstarter in general has allowed a lot of small companies to get funding and start competing. PP is going to have to deal with the same termites that are eating away at GW.
I suppose it's poetic justice that several former GWand PP employees are writing content for Mantic's games.
Fixed that for you. McVey worked for both and was screwed over by both.
And hope it doesn't turn into a third for him. Though talking with some people, it sounds like he ended up with the short end of the stick on the Sedition Wars Kickstarter.
Just to add, PP also has to contend with far more competition than GW did back in the 90's. I am actually seeing Mantic as launching a bigger challenge. They are working on mass production of quality figures at a cheap price. Their kickstarter gave them the funds to improve their line and figure quality significantly.
While PP is lower cost vs GW for a whole army, Mantic makes both look bad. Why buy a Colossus when you can get a whole army from Mantic for the same price.
Kickstarter in general has allowed a lot of small companies to get funding and start competing. PP is going to have to deal with the same termites that are eating away at GW.
I suppose it's poetic justice that several former GWand PP employees are writing content for Mantic's games.
Fixed that for you. McVey worked for both and was screwed over by both.
Laughing Man wrote: IIRC, it was a disagreement with Matt Wilson over art direction in the case of Privateer, although I'm not sure on the exact details. No clue with GW.
From what I heard it was tied to the paint line. McVey and his wife had been developing a paint line for several years after being let go by GW. Part of the reason for him joining PP was to give them a paint line to compete with GW. Shortly after the P3 paint line launched, the "friction" supposedly began and Mike was shown the door. The person telling me the story said the friction was more tied to Matt's wife who runs the business side. The McVeys did not receive any payment or royalties for their paint line. Take it for what it's worth.
The GW thing was just an unceremonious kicked to the street even though he was the face of 'Eavy Metal for years.
Yeah. It’d be a mistake to think the recent prices on everything from the Hobbit forward are some sort of odd jump above the normal prices. No, they’re what all the prices are going to be come the June/July hike.
EDIT:
From the WD pics I can see:
Riptide $100
Broadside $60
Crisis suit team $90
Sun shark $80
Pathfinders $40
What I can assume based on like prices:
Codex $62 to 65
Farsight $60 (very likely as the broadsides are the same price)
Hammerhead/Sky ray $65 to $80
Crisis commander $50
Oh by the by, I never even bought the 6th Edition Rule books. I looked at the trend of the last decade and went "NO THANK YOU".
It's pretty tragic really, I could afford it, I just don't think it offers value for money. I can buy alot of other stuff from many different manufacturers, or maybe support a couple Kick-Starter Projects and still have money left over to buy a whole new Flames of War Army or my own Cold War stuff.
A tactical Squad and Rhino gives little change from £50. I need a minimum of 2 just for troops, so thats £100, and that gets me 450 pts. I pay £108 for Battlefront Boxed army and I get a Complete Army of 1500pts.
So as a thrifty gamer, I'll still spend £200, but I'll spend more on Terrain and little odds and ends (like basing materials) or Cases. Overall I get more for my money from other Systems and Manufacturers.
I agree. I bought the intro game box for the softcover rulebook and sold the models. The main rulebook is too expensive and too heavy, too much of it is recycled fluff and so on.
mwnciboo wrote: I find it amazing that Battlefront of "Flames of War" Fame, seem to be able to create a new book every 2 months, with several in development concurrently.
Some of these books are much bigger than current Codex size. Flames of War is one of the most balanced systems around. They are getting a little more corporate but their release schedule is much better than GW.
GW needs to shrink, cull the Middle management, chop off the High street Retail chain, in favour on 15-20 Regional centres with bigger premises and numerous tables and facilities (Ideally near the highstreet but maybe upper floors/ basements where rents are cheaper) and become more venue orientated. They also need to support the FLGS scene more. This is a slow, agonising Death - Finecast was a Fiasco it damaged the reputation for good quality products and the price hike was a final insult.
Games Workshop Customer Service Training - "Ah good sir, I see you buying a piece of mis-cast Crap from our Flavour-of-month-army-codex, I'll just add 15% to your bill. A recession you say? No I think you'll find the economy is doing wonderfully. Anything else today, nothing for little Johnny? Maybe a £200 Starter set? No, ok. But would sir kindly stand still in the doorway, it will assist me in my run up, otherwise how can I kick you accurately in the balls?"
This. The company needs to be taken back to private ownership, it needs to cull the middle management as you say, and they need to alter the store model to be a mixture of a modest number of big "mini-Warhammer World" type locations, with something along the lines of the old Outrider programme and a more forgiving set of trade terms in order to ensure GW products feature prominently in indie stores. With the company in private hands rather than reliant on investors, decisions can be made which will drive long-term growth, rather than scrabbling around every year to scrape together enough money to pay dividends regardless of the effect on the company; GW might have needed to go public to get as big as it is today back in the 90's, but crowd funding means that niche companies no longer have to homogenise themselves and their products in order to appeal to the markets to ensure growth, and GW are possibly the best placed mini company to take advantage of it due to their existing production base and the ability to advertise the campaign in stores, WD, and their own website.
Sadly, without the first event(a return to private ownership), none of the others is likely to happen, and given the way that the company has been set up so that Kirby can either bleed it dry at his leisure, or will hoover up massive amounts of the company's capital if he's forced out, I doubt anyone will be able to take the company private again until after it's already sinking and the current crop of rats are beginning to flee.
Not too sure if it would require leaving the LSE to become whatnit could be. Though the most likely way that would happen also would keep it under the control of an investment firm, so you would still have profits being the primary factor.
However, what you often see happen in niche businesses like these (and part of GWs problem) is that the primary investors say to the management...
"We dont understand what you do, or your customers. We dont care what you do or how you do it, as long as you keep making us a profit."
Of course the current management is probably under similiar freedom from their major investors...of course, the problem ends up being that the current management sees GW corporate stores and price hikes as the best way to make that profit.
Cutting the retail back, working with LGS, conventions, online communities, 3rd party retailers and the rest would (IMO) turn the same or higher profits...and the investors will be happy all the same.
Sean_OBrien wrote: Not too sure if it would require leaving the LSE to become whatnit could be. Though the most likely way that would happen also would keep it under the control of an investment firm, so you would still have profits being the primary factor.
However, what you often see happen in niche businesses like these (and part of GWs problem) is that the primary investors say to the management...
"We dont understand what you do, or your customers. We dont care what you do or how you do it, as long as you keep making us a profit."
Of course the current management is probably under similiar freedom from their major investors...of course, the problem ends up being that the current management sees GW corporate stores and price hikes as the best way to make that profit.
Cutting the retail back, working with LGS, conventions, online communities, 3rd party retailers and the rest would (IMO) turn the same or higher profits...and the investors will be happy all the same.
I can't agree, listed companies have entirely different goals, methods, and cultures and very little of those are conducive to running a niche company who place high value on customer retention. GW is actually a perfect example of how going public, for want of a better term, "corrupts" the company over the long term; in the beginning, yes, the investors are typically hands-off, but eventually some of them do look into the business, and they see something completely alien to the way things are done in the City. Bit by bit, the culture in the company's management changes to meet the expectations of the investors, profit becomes a bigger and bigger motivator, until eventually either the company and product go fully mainstream and are bought out by a larger conglomerated entity, or the people in charge suck out every last dreg of money they can and leave the company to go under.
Once the process has begun, the best that the consumers who like the product can do is hope that either A; when the product goes fully mainstream, it retains enough of what made it special as a niche product that they can still enjoy it, or B; when the company does eventually get driven over a cliff, the remains can be bought up cheap and rebuilt into a niche company again by someone with a genuine passion for the task.
What about having Dakka set up a kickstarter of sorts, where members chip in money... and Dakka buys shares in GW. No time limit on it, just an ever-growing fund of money Dakka members chip in to acquire an ever-increasing amount of GW stock with the eventual goal of gaining a significant - or even a majority - share. Dividends would be shared back out to those who paid in in proportion to their investments, minus a fee to cover Dakka's costs in doing the footwork.
Yeah, I know, impractical as heck and probably wouldn't work. But it would be neat for Dakka to have REAL influence on where the game is going, wouldn't it?
liturgies of blood wrote: If you want to change GW put some money into a kickstarter to BUY GW.
Call it the GW fan trust or whatever.
Any attempts at a united front to a boycott with fail and gw won't notice.
And any attempts at a "GW fan trust" are going to be as pathetically disjointed as the current corporate management.
I cannot think of more than maybe ten people from this forum I would feel comfortable with having any kind of managerial position at a major corporation. I certainly would not want to see a corporation being run by a "collective" that cannot even make up their mind on whether or not a certain rule works as it is written or if there is some kind of "intention" for the rule.
Once the process has begun, the best that the consumers who like the product can do is hope that either A; when the product goes fully mainstream, it retains enough of what made it special as a niche product that they can still enjoy it, or B; when the company does eventually get driven over a cliff, the remains can be bought up cheap and rebuilt into a niche company again by someone with a genuine passion for the task.
Assuming GW dies, I think option B is probably where it will land. There certainly isn't a shortage of people who would love to take the WHFB / WH40K intellectual propety in their own direction. If and when GW ever does begin to circle the drain, they'll be able to sell that off and net the shareholders a tidy sum. Let's just hope that who-ever buys it doesn't ALSO cut out the independent retailers.
Why would anyone think a private buyout (management or otherwise) would make GW less focused on profitability and performance?
Given these are typically funded by debt there is an even greater incentive to wring every last cent out of the company in the short term - either to meet debt servicing costs or reduce gearing.
PLC wrote: Why would anyone think a private buyout (management or otherwise) would make GW less focused on profitability and performance?
Given these are typically funded by debt there is an even greater incentive to wring every last cent out of the company in the short term - either to meet debt servicing costs or reduce gearing.
Also, I don't trust any of you fethers to run it properly.
PLC wrote: Why would anyone think a private buyout (management or otherwise) would make GW less focused on profitability and performance?
Given these are typically funded by debt there is an even greater incentive to wring every last cent out of the company in the short term - either to meet debt servicing costs or reduce gearing.
Yup. I would argue that floating actually helped GW get out of the moribund, stereotypical, war gaming niche and enabled the development of their ranges to the point of adding plastic manufacture,expanded ranges and a larger presence. No matter what it has become now.
Without becoming so big GW could already have been rolled or swallowed up by a bigger entity. If this were the case I would hazard that a few obscure mentions of a game called Warhammer would be made during a game of D&D or some Civil War/WW2 game.
I'd like to think I'd make a decent job of running the business.
The 1st thing I would do, is give up the hobby altogether.
I know enough about miniatures etc, I don't need that clouding my judgement by getting down in the weeds with the products.
I would want to reduce costs massively, the overheads are far too high.
1. One Man stores would be annihilated,
2. Space Marines sell themselves, always have ,always will. Stop advertising them, advertise and market all the other systems and races. Reduce time spent on SM's by at least 1/3. Focus on 2 to 1 Codex Release, e.g Two races, then one SM one, no more Dark Angels followed by Space Pups etc .
3. Start a Specialist Games Studio that focuses on spin-offs and very popular games of yester-year.
4. Embrace community content by building a GW third Party Alliance (SRM model) - Offer third parties the chance to buy limited licenses or even grant IP amnesty/ free permission to Third Parties who produce very high Quality Products (Things like Chapter House or Anvil Industries). Offer to distribute their products through your retail arm (win-win)
5. Embrace Community and Media based Content, even helping fund things like FLASHGITZ.net or other things such as Fanbased game mods, or Things like the "INQUISITOR" film.
6. Build a Web-based content feedback system - E.g Imagine KICKSTARTER but everyone votes on possible GW products depending on Pledges or votes just what items GW make. (THIS WOULD BE KEY TO THE SPECIALIST GAME STUDIO SURVIVAL). It would be limited to stop everyone spamming it with endless "SPACE MARINES PLS".
7. Look to build bridges with Major Content Providers or Bastions of the Community "BOLS" "DAKKADAKKA" etc etc help them with their costs or offering other incentives but don't lock them into "Exclusive GW content only" this is counter productive.
8. Make Games Day Better, get all your third Party Developers involved, make it cheaper, add more content and get the Fanbase more involved. (Go to E3 and see how they roll - See if you can off-set costs by pairing up with another Company like BATTLEFRONT).
9. Get an In-house Video Game studio - Work on all kinds of titles (Simple one's for Smart Phones like an updated Final Liberation or complex Super MMO's).
It's all about the community, 40k is dying where I play and it's precisely because we are all drifting away from it. It's like Hornby Railways or Scalextric, there are a few die hard fans but most of us are moving on.
Ambivalence is the worst enemy, Hatred or anger shows Passion and at least you are engaged, ambivalence or apathy is the real killer.
Yodhrin wrote: I can't agree, listed companies have entirely different goals, methods, and cultures and very little of those are conducive to running a niche company who place high value on customer retention. GW is actually a perfect example of how going public, for want of a better term, "corrupts" the company over the long term; in the beginning, yes, the investors are typically hands-off, but eventually some of them do look into the business, and they see something completely alien to the way things are done in the City. Bit by bit, the culture in the company's management changes to meet the expectations of the investors, profit becomes a bigger and bigger motivator, until eventually either the company and product go fully mainstream and are bought out by a larger conglomerated entity, or the people in charge suck out every last dreg of money they can and leave the company to go under.
Once the process has begun, the best that the consumers who like the product can do is hope that either A; when the product goes fully mainstream, it retains enough of what made it special as a niche product that they can still enjoy it, or B; when the company does eventually get driven over a cliff, the remains can be bought up cheap and rebuilt into a niche company again by someone with a genuine passion for the task.
I really don't see their problems tied to their shareholders - rather the man at the top. While he might be motivated now more by creating a golden parachute for the next year or two when he retires - it isn't necessarily indicative of how publicly traded companies in the same class (niche industries - not necessarily games) are run. On the contrary, most of them which I have seen tend to have a hands off approach provided that they continue to make reasonable numbers year after year.
Kirby though seems intent on the idea that it is only the GW stores which grew the company throughout the 1990s and that new customers coming in through GW stores will continue to do so. The price hikes that happen year after year are a result of that strategy failing and needing to inflate the sales to maintain the numbers for the next year so that the share holders don't toss him out. Again, while I can understand how it might seem like that is a result of the pressures from the share holders - I think it is more an issue relating to the person and his wrong headed strategy.
If you look at a property like Magic the Gathering, it is still largely the same game as it was 20 years ago. They still host tournaments. Wizards of the Coast is left alone by Hasbro to make their own decisions (for better or for worse). Most investors understand when they don't understand something - but at the same time recognize when there is money to be made.
If the company were to go completely tits up though, it would likely be purchased by an IP clearing house rather than an individual who is interested in the game or miniatures. The license fees and potential license fees would make them more interested in it and likely put it out of the reach of most individuals.
If you look at a property like Magic the Gathering, it is still largely the same game as it was 20 years ago. They still host tournaments. Wizards of the Coast is left alone by Hasbro to make their own decisions (for better or for worse). Most investors understand when they don't understand something - but at the same time recognize when there is money to be made.
One major note that doesn't make that comparison work. MtG has a built in shelf life on their product. After 18 months, the vast majority of cards become worthless and are no longer useable except in open play. And that is not where the majority of tournament play is. WotC has been able to convince their player base that it is in their best interests to essentially completely reinvest in their game ever 18 months. Plus, playing the game recently, it is fairly different from when I played it in the early 90's. And WotC has changed the game a bit every expansion or else it would have stagnated and withered away like almost all other CCGs.
As for shareholders, we have all been saying how the changes GW does always look good to an MBA on paper. They are likely meant to calm the investment houses that have tens of millions invested in GW. If the top three investment houses were to lose faith in Kirby they would have the power to boot him and put someone in that they would think could do a better job. And having two retired family friends who worked in upper management at publicly traded companies, they openly talked about the pressure from investment houses on the need for short term gains. As it stands, Kirby is sitting on 2 million shares worth $20 million US. I don't exactly see how he is going to significantly pad his retirement further with a few more years of dividends. And if he is anything like these two, he isn't going to retire. He's going to keep working till they kick him out.
silent25 wrote: MtG has a built in shelf life on their product. After 18 months, the vast majority of cards become worthless and are no longer useable except in open play.
silent25 wrote: MtG has a built in shelf life on their product. After 18 months, the vast majority of cards become worthless and are no longer useable except in open play.
Just two, but there's 5 different dual lands like the latter card, the moxes, the black lotus... None of them are Standard legal.
Ok, you pointed to two cards. And as I bolded above, I'm not claiming all cards become worthless. Most do. At my local game store there is a section in back of $0.10 rares from out of print sets. Occasionally people leave some of the cards they are looking through and I see them remembering when they were $20 cards. Every expansion is another 100 plus cards. Out of each set how many retain their value once they leave standards play. Only a few I'm pretty sure.
And for cards that have kept their value, the original Alpha, Beta, and First set are the top money cards.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I will also note that I made a very nice penny selling off some of those cards from those sets. But there were also logs of cards that I ended up throwing away because they were worthless.
mwnciboo wrote: Oh by the by, I never even bought the 6th Edition Rule books. I looked at the trend of the last decade and went "NO THANK YOU".
It's pretty tragic really, I could afford it, I just don't think it offers value for money.
This is exactly the boat that I'm in. I've got tons of spare cash right now, but I didn't get a single thing from the new Chaos release respite having literally half a chaos army. I really dislike the aesthetics of the new stuff - it's all either very busy, or it looks all GI Joe toyish. I could live with the reduced aesthetics if they were cheap - I could chop them up and convert them - but there's no way I'm paying what they want for such ugly models.
It's not so much that I quit more that I'm simply waiting for something worth buying, and these guys really haven't been delivering. I think IA12 might be the last hurrah for 40K for me, if it looks good, and I was not impressed much with the Necron Bomber so far, though I remain hopeful.
Yodhrin wrote: I can't agree, listed companies have entirely different goals, methods, and cultures and very little of those are conducive to running a niche company who place high value on customer retention. GW is actually a perfect example of how going public, for want of a better term, "corrupts" the company over the long term; in the beginning, yes, the investors are typically hands-off, but eventually some of them do look into the business, and they see something completely alien to the way things are done in the City. Bit by bit, the culture in the company's management changes to meet the expectations of the investors, profit becomes a bigger and bigger motivator, until eventually either the company and product go fully mainstream and are bought out by a larger conglomerated entity, or the people in charge suck out every last dreg of money they can and leave the company to go under.
Once the process has begun, the best that the consumers who like the product can do is hope that either A; when the product goes fully mainstream, it retains enough of what made it special as a niche product that they can still enjoy it, or B; when the company does eventually get driven over a cliff, the remains can be bought up cheap and rebuilt into a niche company again by someone with a genuine passion for the task.
I really don't see their problems tied to their shareholders - rather the man at the top. While he might be motivated now more by creating a golden parachute for the next year or two when he retires - it isn't necessarily indicative of how publicly traded companies in the same class (niche industries - not necessarily games) are run. On the contrary, most of them which I have seen tend to have a hands off approach provided that they continue to make reasonable numbers year after year.
Kirby though seems intent on the idea that it is only the GW stores which grew the company throughout the 1990s and that new customers coming in through GW stores will continue to do so. The price hikes that happen year after year are a result of that strategy failing and needing to inflate the sales to maintain the numbers for the next year so that the share holders don't toss him out. Again, while I can understand how it might seem like that is a result of the pressures from the share holders - I think it is more an issue relating to the person and his wrong headed strategy.
If you look at a property like Magic the Gathering, it is still largely the same game as it was 20 years ago. They still host tournaments. Wizards of the Coast is left alone by Hasbro to make their own decisions (for better or for worse). Most investors understand when they don't understand something - but at the same time recognize when there is money to be made.
If the company were to go completely tits up though, it would likely be purchased by an IP clearing house rather than an individual who is interested in the game or miniatures. The license fees and potential license fees would make them more interested in it and likely put it out of the reach of most individuals.
Oh I do agree that Kirby is the main issue, I merely believe that a Kirby-alike figure rising to the top of the company like a floater in the sewer is an inevitable result of a company putting itself on the markets; in some sectors it happens almost immediately, in more niche sectors it sometimes takes longer, but it will happen eventually. You simply can't keep the City culture at arms length, it's like Chaos; insidious, and once you're in you're in all the way even if you don't recognise it yourself at the time.
You're right about the IP thing, I only said that an individual or small group with a passion for the IP buying out the company was the best that we could hope for if the company goes tits-up, I don't think its particularly likely to happen. Hell, at the rate they're devouring nerdy IPs right now, I wouldn't be surprised if GW gets absorbed into the amorphous blob that is Disney in a couple of years
Oh I do agree that Kirby is the main issue, I merely believe that a Kirby-alike figure rising to the top of the company like a floater in the sewer is an inevitable result of a company putting itself on the markets; in some sectors it happens almost immediately, in more niche sectors it sometimes takes longer, but it will happen eventually. You simply can't keep the City culture at arms length, it's like Chaos; insidious, and once you're in you're in all the way even if you don't recognise it yourself at the time.
You're right about the IP thing, I only said that an individual or small group with a passion for the IP buying out the company was the best that we could hope for if the company goes tits-up, I don't think its particularly likely to happen. Hell, at the rate they're devouring nerdy IPs right now, I wouldn't be surprised if GW gets absorbed into the amorphous blob that is Disney in a couple of years
Meanwhile, in the future...
And just to note, I don't think Kirby is doing a good job at all. All he is doing is keeping the share holders happy so he keeps his job. I doubt he want to quit though. He is likely a work-a-holic and realizes that he doesn't have any prospects outside GW.
If you look at a property like Magic the Gathering, it is still largely the same game as it was 20 years ago. They still host tournaments. Wizards of the Coast is left alone by Hasbro to make their own decisions (for better or for worse). Most investors understand when they don't understand something - but at the same time recognize when there is money to be made.
One major note that doesn't make that comparison work. MtG has a built in shelf life on their product. After 18 months, the vast majority of cards become worthless and are no longer useable except in open play. And that is not where the majority of tournament play is. WotC has been able to convince their player base that it is in their best interests to essentially completely reinvest in their game ever 18 months. Plus, playing the game recently, it is fairly different from when I played it in the early 90's. And WotC has changed the game a bit every expansion or else it would have stagnated and withered away like almost all other CCGs.
As for shareholders, we have all been saying how the changes GW does always look good to an MBA on paper. They are likely meant to calm the investment houses that have tens of millions invested in GW. If the top three investment houses were to lose faith in Kirby they would have the power to boot him and put someone in that they would think could do a better job. And having two retired family friends who worked in upper management at publicly traded companies, they openly talked about the pressure from investment houses on the need for short term gains. As it stands, Kirby is sitting on 2 million shares worth $20 million US. I don't exactly see how he is going to significantly pad his retirement further with a few more years of dividends. And if he is anything like these two, he isn't going to retire. He's going to keep working till they kick him out.
You are missing the point. It isn't that GW is equal to Magic. They are different games and have different purposes - as well as somewhat different methods of growing the IP.
The point is that not all corporations feel a need to meddle in the way that a niche company will do business moving forward. The way WotC handles magic now is the same way they handled it prior to the Hasbro buyout and is very much like the way that Richard Garfield intended it to be when he designed the game while at University of Pennsylvania. Issues relating to obsolescence or lack their of aren't really for this thread - but the core issue there has nothing to do with casual play (which is the vast majority of any game play) rather tournament rules. Tournaments where designed around the concept of limiting the cards which could be used in them in order to avoid shutting out new players who would have a harder time obtaining out of print cards. By making sure they used recent cards, anyone would have a reasonable chance to be competitive. Outside of competitive play though (and the few open tournaments they do) people still use cards that are 15-20 years old with some frequency.
There are plenty of other examples where corporations (or shareholders) are content to let a company do their thing - provided that their thing continues to turn a profit...or the chairman has a good reason as to why a profit was not made.
Regarding Kirby's holdings - shares are worth a bit, but can prove problematic for him to liquidate (selling off 6% of a company tends to have a negative impact on the stock price). However, every dividend check that goes out is money in the bank. When this next dividend check is cut in April, Kirby will have made roughly $1.8 million off the dividends. Whether or not he is specifically planning on retiring - based on other companies I have watched and studied, that is the pattern he seems to be following right now. Another year or two in dividends would provide cash on hand of a third the value of the stock he holds.
I wouldn't be surprised if GW gets absorbed into the amorphous blob that is Disney in a couple of years
There are plenty of other examples where corporations (or shareholders) are content to let a company do their thing - provided that their thing continues to turn a profit...or the chairman has a good reason as to why a profit was not made.
Regarding Kirby's holdings - shares are worth a bit, but can prove problematic for him to liquidate (selling off 6% of a company tends to have a negative impact on the stock price). However, every dividend check that goes out is money in the bank. When this next dividend check is cut in April, Kirby will have made roughly $1.8 million off the dividends. Whether or not he is specifically planning on retiring - based on other companies I have watched and studied, that is the pattern he seems to be following right now. Another year or two in dividends would provide cash on hand of a third the value of the stock he holds.
Oh I don't disagree that companies are safe as long as they are doing well. I have experienced that first hand. Difference is, GW is already recovering from a downturn. Once you stumble, they will always keep an eye on you and second guess you. Magic has been going steady since Hasbro bought them and there is no reason to second guess them.
Also, I'm not sure where you are getting the 1.8 from. The next dividend payment is 24p which will translate to about $820k for Kirby. Even assuming the second half of this year is the same, it will only mean about an 8% return on the value of the shares. No bad mind you, but at that level of income, he has full access to all brokerage houses funds that return far more. Plus other major firms have already dissolved their holdings since last summer of far more than Kirbys value and the stock has not changed much to reflect it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Will just add, that all my experience with "casual Magic play" and from those that still play. They only play tournament legal decks. That is the situation in my area. It may be different in yours.
Meant to say in the past year on the dividend. This one in April will be the third dividend in this calendar year. One for 24p, one for 18p and one for 16p.
Sean_OBrien wrote:Meant to say in the past year on the dividend. This one in April will be the third dividend in this calendar year. One for 24p, one for 18p and one for 16p.
agnosto wrote:Keeps me happy as an investor; though I sold some of my stock recently.
Yea, I sold mine after the January payment. Felt the Hobbit bomb was coming and was going to tank the stock. Cash in my gains because any significant drop would be more than what the dividend payment would be worth. Plus it was in my retirement account, so don't have to pay capital gains on it
Regarding Kirby's holdings - shares are worth a bit, but can prove problematic for him to liquidate (selling off 6% of a company tends to have a negative impact on the stock price). However, every dividend check that goes out is money in the bank. When this next dividend check is cut in April, Kirby will have made roughly $1.8 million off the dividends. Whether or not he is specifically planning on retiring - based on other companies I have watched and studied, that is the pattern he seems to be following right now. Another year or two in dividends would provide cash on hand of a third the value of the stock he holds.
Its also worth noting that kirby gave himself a 20% pay increase not to long ago. This guy is pretty much in absolute control of the company.
PLC wrote: Why would anyone think a private buyout (management or otherwise) would make GW less focused on profitability and performance?
Given these are typically funded by debt there is an even greater incentive to wring every last cent out of the company in the short term - either to meet debt servicing costs or reduce gearing.
Also, I don't trust any of you fethers to run it properly.
Yes you shouldent.. It would not be fun if I got my hands on it. If I could do what I wanted with GW.. I would sell of all the production equipment.. shut down all productions. Then make a Youtube Video with a gigantic bonfire, where I would burn every last mini still in stock.. as a public spectacal... Then I would hire laywers to bury, the IP.. so even after my death nobody could get their hands on it.. I would END the GW universe for good..... You might think of this as extreme but I would get off on the outcry... Its just to good to pass up, if given the chans to do it haha... Nothing of all the nasty gak I have pulled in EvE online could even come close to doing this.. It would propel me into global Infamay over night ... Little gamers would speak in hushed tones about the man who destroyed GW and burned the castle to the ground hahaha.. and Why? just because I could.. thats why... and I love the sound of weeping nerd tears in the morning..
Considering the growth of Warmachine and Hordes since 2010, I think we could expect a substantial boost to their sales figures today. 2010 was when the boom started - in Norway, we started with 4 players then. In January this year, 40 people attended the Nationals, a larger showing than the 40k Nationals held in the adjacent hall. The swedes barely got 20 people (if that) together for "large" tourneys in 2009...in 2012 their 90-seat tourneys get sold out in a couple of months. In the US, Lock & Load doubled its attendance number from 2012 to 2013 and as far as I know, Templecon also grew substantially.
It is a different world these days,
Warmachine/hordes is growing fast in the northen european countries. I think part of this has to do with that the driving force behind the scene here is competition. And when GW falls behind in that aspect people turn to other games to get that Tournament fix.. We also have a very large older population still playing these types of games, and we play at our local clubs more then we play at LGSs. And the association (could not find a better word in english, its called förening in swedish). Are sponserd by the state. So publicly founded groups of people, that do dont make a profit off the hobby(its not legal in sweden to do this).. are the driving force behind gaming here.. This I think makes a huge diffrence compared to the US, were capitalism dictates you have to make a profit. This means that my local clubb that has over 20+ members is run as a nonprofit and democratic organisation. We have our own gaming place with terrain, tables where our members can play table top games. We are not associated with any retail business, this gives us a more impartial view towards the games we play, because our survival is not dependent on sales. Our goverment gives us money instead because we fall under the same category as any other type of Sports or group activity preformed by a larger group of people. If you have a large enough group doing something here, the local goverment(kommun) has a legal obligation to provide us with a space/place to do it in also...
I think you have to take things like this into account when you see the growth of games.. If GWs local store would close it would have zero impact on the scene here, that Saff that mans the stores know this and have set an age limit on the people who play there. Going in there these days you see parents sitting reading a news papper or drinking coffy and talking, while there kidds play and paint miniatures... Its more like a kindergarten, then a gaming store these days..these 10-12 year olds do not participate in the local gaming scene.. And when they grow older, and if they still have the interest they end up in a club instead, and have to accept the games that are played there.. And these days those games are not often GWs..
40K's popularity was built on their Grand Tournaments. Throughout most of the 1990s all the way till the dramatic drop off on the charts. When GW started to stop trying to balance the game, and the most recent edition where they have completely given up on the concept...tournaments drove a lot of interest.
That is one of the reasons you saw an explosion for Magic the Gathering when it came onto the scene, and it is one of the big reasons for the growth in PP games. People like the idea of competing against each other. Even people who do not play in tournaments directly are impacted as tournament players tend to show up more often at game nights - and that helps to increase the availability of the products towards that critical mass point where the customers can actually take over the job of advertising the product.
I also find it interesting that you mentioned that GW is in a free fall in some places in the States. I thought it had a strong following all over the country. But you mentioned a few times in other posts Sean_OBrien that this is not the case. This was news for me. Also the things you mentioned above is the root of the problem i think.. Zero suport for Tournaments and the communites will kill of the GW side of the hobby. I think this relates back to the online gaming industry. Companies like Blizzard, Riot games, Steam and many others are pushing hard for E-sports. Computer gamers, and now i mean the younger crowed, that might want to get into Table-top gaming, cry out for balance and statistics. The younger generations are not like us old dudes, who played games for fun and to socialize with friends. They want the competition, there are endless internet sites with builds and strategies to help people maximize there potential in games. If the Table-top industry do not follow the general trend, they will be left behind. Companies like PP have realized this and are doing it, but GW has not cought up and are slowly getting left behind like, Books (people read on the pad now), Kodac(people want digital photos) The music Industry(people download for free live with it). The world has also become a much smaller place and things move alot faster then it did 20+ years ago.... GW either has to get with the times or become extinct, like the dinosaur's. That is just how i see it..
You're really not helping the perception that tournament-focused gamers are unpleasant people you know.
QFT - I don't go to Tournaments anymore because I had a epiphany last year and released that 90% of people at Tournaments are (to use that US phrase that fits so well) Douchebags...
I spent alot of money to play unenjoyable games with a bunch of people I wouldn't play if i had the choice, then I realized I enjoy games with my friends more and so gave up on Tournaments, it was the best thing I did, I now have more money for toys as I wasted money on Hotels, tickets, food and transport all to have a "Mediocre time". Tournaments aren't for me, but it took me along time to realize it.
You're really not helping the perception that tournament-focused gamers are unpleasant people you know.
QFT - I don't go to Tournaments anymore because I had a epiphany last year and released that 90% of people at Tournaments are (to use that US phrase that fits so well) Douchebags...
I spent alot of money to play unenjoyable games with a bunch of people I wouldn't play if i had the choice, then I realized I enjoy games with my friends more and so gave up on Tournaments, it was the best thing I did, I now have more money for toys as I wasted money on Hotels, tickets, food and transport all to have a "Mediocre time". Tournaments aren't for me, but it took me along time to realize it.
I think you are over generalizing. The only consistent bad tournaments I have experienced were the ard boyz and that exercise in failure was designed to attract the worst players and worst kind of play. I will say that I have had more immature 40k opponents than fantasy opponents but did experience a couple of rotten apples at one major whfb tournament. Overall I have had more good tournament game experiences in 40k and whfb by far than bad ones.
No I'm not over-generalising, people turn into uber-competitive nonces at tournaments. Rules lawyers, little deft of hands, trying to pull the wool over others eyes etc.
I've been to about 20, I've enjoyed maybe 2 or 3.
Tournaments by definition attract the worst kinds of players because they are "Competitive". If you don't want to win why are you there? To be stomped on by everyone else and used as a tournament Whipping boy? For the experience of having your ass handed to you ? To be part of Community? To say you've been to one? To try and improve your game, but to what end (To be come one of the Uber-Competitive nonces?).
Anyway we are way off topic here.....Games workshop is in rocky place - Based on my Club we are abandoning GW in droves for Warma-Hordes and FOW.
mwnciboo wrote: No I'm not over-generalising, people turn into uber-competitive nonces at tournaments. Rules lawyers, little deft of hands, trying to pull the wool over others eyes etc.
You are over-generalizing. You just said that everyone that goes to a tournament does these things.
mwnciboo wrote: No I'm not over-generalising, people turn into uber-competitive nonces at tournaments. Rules lawyers, little deft of hands, trying to pull the wool over others eyes etc.
You are over-generalizing. You just said that everyone that goes to a tournament does these things.
If you don't want to win, why do you play a game?
So by your definition I cannot game for fun? For the spectacle, the social side, the chance to meet friends and enjoy a bit of fun or to share in a bit of drama? If I don't want to win I shouldn't play games?
The whole point of competition e.g Tournaments is that some has to win, and in my experience they all want to win otherwise they wouldn't be at the tournament - But don't confuse Winning with Fun. That's a major turn-off for me, some of the best games I've had is when I have lost and it has been close, or even funnier a complete fluke based trouncing based on failing 2-3 or three critical ones. I've had pretty epic draws too.
I don't care about winning or losing, I care about enjoying my social time. For me tournaments are poor return on investment, unless your idea of fun is winning then all power to you. But for me most people at tournaments are far too serious about winning something that means nothing whatsoever.
mwnciboo wrote: No I'm not over-generalising, people turn into uber-competitive nonces at tournaments. Rules lawyers, little deft of hands, trying to pull the wool over others eyes etc.
You are over-generalizing. You just said that everyone that goes to a tournament does these things.
If you don't want to win, why do you play a game?
This just in: entire videogames industry in shock after discovering that they have, in fact, been "doing it wrong" by including co-op modes in games
You play a game to have fun, and if you can only have fun when you win, you're going to spend an awful lot of time unhappy.
mwnciboo wrote: No I'm not over-generalising, people turn into uber-competitive nonces at tournaments. Rules lawyers, little deft of hands, trying to pull the wool over others eyes etc.
You are over-generalizing. You just said that everyone that goes to a tournament does these things.
If you don't want to win, why do you play a game?
This just in: entire videogames industry in shock after discovering that they have, in fact, been "doing it wrong" by including co-op modes in games
That's not a straight comparison. Co-op modes in video games means multiple people working together to beat the game. That'd be the same thing as a multiplayer wargame with more than one player ON THE SAME TEAM. And even then, you're playing against the other side in order to 'defeat' them.
mwnciboo wrote: No I'm not over-generalising, people turn into uber-competitive nonces at tournaments. Rules lawyers, little deft of hands, trying to pull the wool over others eyes etc.
You are over-generalizing. You just said that everyone that goes to a tournament does these things.
mwnciboo wrote:I don't care about winning or losing, I care about enjoying my social time. For me tournaments are poor return on investment, unless your idea of fun is winning then all power to you. But for me most people at tournaments are far too serious about winning something that means nothing whatsoever.
I play pretty much only in tournaments and rarely get a "normal" game in anymore. I've had 1 game that wasn't fun, ever. You over-generalized and said that everyone at a tournament is like that and its demonstrably false.
Yodhrin wrote:This just in: entire videogames industry in shock after discovering that they have, in fact, been "doing it wrong" by including co-op modes in games
You play a game to have fun, and if you can only have fun when you win, you're going to spend an awful lot of time unhappy.
News Flash - games don't sell nearly as well if the only multiplayer is co-op. it also has nothing to do with what I said.
My point is - if you're not playing a game to win and just want the social aspect, why play a game at all? Why not just sit around a table, kick back and relax with your friends?
Or is the contest on the table actually fun? Meaning that you do try to win?
Playing to win does not mean you aren't having fun when you lose. It means you're playing to win.
judgedoug wrote:Not a historical gamer, are you?
Not recently because I moved away from the historical minis club I played in. We did a lot of napoleonic, wwI, and wwII scenarios.
Even in the scenarios where one side was essentially guaranteed to be destroyed there were objectives to meet.
And again, even when losing it can be fun. But saying you don't play to win is saying that there's no reason to play at all - you might as well show up, not bother unpacking your army, roll some dice and just relax.
mwnciboo wrote:I don't care about winning or losing, I care about enjoying my social time. For me tournaments are poor return on investment, unless your idea of fun is winning then all power to you. But for me most people at tournaments are far too serious about winning something that means nothing whatsoever.
I play pretty much only in tournaments and rarely get a "normal" game in anymore. I've had 1 game that wasn't fun, ever. You over-generalized and said that everyone at a tournament is like that and its demonstrably false.
Agree. Not everyone at tourneys is in it to win it. They are very social, and a great use of time as it is organized gaming with usually people who actually know the rules. They are a lot of fun and usually these false ideas of what tourneys are are held by people who have never been, or they are the person who is the 'problem' and they can't tell.
Getting multiple quality games on good tables in one or two days? Yes please. Seeing a bunch of cool models and meeting new people, even better. Anything *BUT* tourneys is a poor use of my time as it is now.
I can't speak to tournaments specifically as I've never participated in one, but in general when I play with my friends we couldn't care less who wins; I have to imagine there is a sizeable contingent of like minded folks at tournaments.
mwnciboo wrote: No I'm not over-generalising, people turn into uber-competitive nonces at tournaments. Rules lawyers, little deft of hands, trying to pull the wool over others eyes etc.
You are over-generalizing. You just said that everyone that goes to a tournament does these things.
If you don't want to win, why do you play a game?
This just in: entire videogames industry in shock after discovering that they have, in fact, been "doing it wrong" by including co-op modes in games
That's not a straight comparison. Co-op modes in video games means multiple people working together to beat the game. That'd be the same thing as a multiplayer wargame with more than one player ON THE SAME TEAM. And even then, you're playing against the other side in order to 'defeat' them.
I disagree, most of the 40K games I play are played like an RPG, with the players working together to tell a story regardless of what force they control on the tabletop, and the same is true of co-op computer games; multiple players working together to advance a story.
I am not trying to "win", the commander of the army I'm playing is; I am trying to have an enjoyable experience with a friend, which of us wins the game is unimportant.
The objective of a game is to win, either that victory comes from crushing your opponent or fulfilling designated objectives before your inevitable demise, it depends on the game itself, but the objective is still to win and no one, no matter what rhetoric they display on the forums, plays a game without trying to win it.
The purpose of a game is to have fun, despite the fact that you may win or loose the objective of the game, you still need to have fun doing it, otherwise, why bother?
PhantomViper wrote: The objective of a game is to win, either that victory comes from crushing your opponent or fulfilling designated objectives before your inevitable demise, it depends on the game itself, but the objective is still to win and no one, no matter what rhetoric they display on the forums, plays a game without trying to win it.
The purpose of a game is to have fun, despite the fact that you may win or loose the objective of the game, you still need to have fun doing it, otherwise, why bother?
Again: Wrong. The objective of a game is what the rules/players decide the objective is; if me and my mates design a scenario which makes it literally impossible for one of the two forces to win as part of a campaign, because the storyline of the campaign requires that side to lose a major battle, then how can my objective be to win the game? One of my mates used to play SWG exclusively to mess about with the housing system, his character never once crafted anything, engaged in combat with anything, or did any of the NPC-given quests, literally all he did was log into the game and decorate other players' homes for them; how is he supposed to "win"?
Even in guaranteed loss scenarios there should be something for the losing side to do - special units to destroy, hold past a certain turn, etc. if there isn't then there's no point in even putting minis down - the exact same result could be had by saying "I attacked, you lost. Want to play the next game in the campaign?"
And you can't "win" in MMORPGs because there's no end. If your goal is to play with housing, then play with housing.
IMO playing a war game is like a journey.
The players have an enjoyable and interesting trip to their destination, who arrives their 'first' is not so much of an issue.
If however, the trip is boring uninspiring and a bit of a chore,then there is a STRONG motive to get to the end as soon as possible.And who finishes first becomes the main focus.
IMO, 40k has such 'bland' game play, players feel compelled to add a ton of flavorful narrative/senarios, to make the journey more interesting.
OR focus solely on the ONLY game play element left , the end result.(W/L/D.)
Other games with more game play focus, that deliver a more interesting playing experience,do not seem to suffer from this player base dichotemy.
I admit it is a broad generalization, but I hope you can understand the fault is with GW plc, and not with your fellow gamers.
rigeld2 wrote: Even in guaranteed loss scenarios there should be something for the losing side to do - special units to destroy, hold past a certain turn, etc. if there isn't then there's no point in even putting minis down - the exact same result could be had by saying "I attacked, you lost. Want to play the next game in the campaign?"
And you can't "win" in MMORPGs because there's no end. If your goal is to play with housing, then play with housing.
YOU don't think there's a point, stop pretending that your opinion is anything more than that. The point is to play the game, to tell the story; "I attacked, you lost" is not a story. Not playing means nobody gets to experience the heroic last stand of C Platoon, 5th Co. at the ridgeline; it means nobody ever fondly remembers the time their character, all set for his own heroic last stand, got killed in the opening moves of combat by a lowly Guardsman. If you need to have rigid objectives, a "go here, do this, win" system in order to enjoy the experience of playing a game, fine, some of us have more imagination.
If all you're doing is telling a story and the game can have zero outcome on the story... What's the point of playing again? Why not just write a story?
Whatever - your version if fun is better than mine. Does that make you feel better?
And you can't "win" in MMORPGs because there's no end. If your goal is to play with housing, then play with housing.
This isn't really true, you can win multiple times over in MMORPGs, from a PVP battle to a successful raid. I can assure you as someone who's played mmos for years until quite recently, there is a great deal of winning or losing from raiding high end, it's quite the rush to successfully orchestrate a 20-strong raid and it work, kill the big bads, take their shiny stuff and earn the envy of your peers.
It's the same as tabletop RP in that regard, your game is potentially infinite, but the story arcs can be wins or losses.
rigeld2 wrote: When I played we didn't consider them "wins" because its repeatable. They're goals to meet, but not "wins".
Unless you were in one of the top 3 guilds where you were racing for a server/game first. That'd be a win I guess.
If you've gone at an instance a few times and wiped and been locked out and finally, your guild gets it together, finally you're all organic, everyone working hard, coordinated and ready and you actually take down the end mob and get that cheering over the ventrilo, sense of unity and sweet loot, yes, that's a win.
If you're playing 40k, you don't just play till you win, you win a game and then look forward to the next game you can try to win. Just as organic and just as potentially infinite. Just like expansions, new editions and new codices force you to reequip and change your tactics. Same thing.
That's evasive and also false. You complete an instance, you've 'won' it. You complete a mission and get the reward, you've 'won' it. Achieving a goal is a type of winning. You win a game of 40k, you don't 'win' 40k overall in doing so, you win multiple games of 40k at a tournament, you win the tournament, you can't 'win' 40k though.
Generally speaking the cycle goes a bit like this:
Person A is potentially inclined to like some obscure activity (in this particular case...miniature wargaming).
Person B is "hardcore" (for miniature wargaming - that generally means tournament playing).
Persons C through Z also know Person B but not person A and they are casual gamers (might play more often and spend more than Person B but are more interested in other aspects than winning).
Person B tracks down Person A in some manner - they tend to be pretty good at finding them, not sure why - but anecdotally they do.
Person A gets interested in the game and plays a few games with Person B who teaches them the rules.
Person A meets a couple of the people in Persons C through Z at a local game event (either held at a club, store, VFW or perhaps a GarageCon tournament that Person B holds).
Person A mentions to Person D that he likes the game - but Person B seems a bit ate up about it. Person D replies, true enough - that is why on Thursday nights we all game at Person I's house but we don't tell Person B since he thinks we don't take our casual games seriously enough.
And that is how a new stranger is brought into the fold.
How does that stick to the topic? Well, as I have mentioned - I do think that competitive play is important for building games in general - but specifically these types of games. I do not think that competitive players make up a large portion of the gaming population or even a large portion of the sales of games or their related materials. What they are though is always on the prowl for someone else that they can beat. While you might just walk past Bob in accounting - when Steve the Übermensch tournament gamer walks by...he notices the PC Gamer magazine sticking out from under his briefcase. He then grabs a hold of that bone and won't let loose until Bob agrees to play a game of Warhammer with him.
That adds new blood to the hobby - now whether or not winning is important or not...well, that is irrelevant and it has been opposing points of view between casual gamers and tournament gamers since the middle ages I would guess (long before I started gaming and I've been gaming for nearly that long). An answer won't come here, and won't come anywhere else - but it is also the reason why so many casual gamers move away from gaming in stores and even a lot of clubs to gaming in smaller more relaxed groups at home (which is why I don't put much emphasis on game stores as a source of new gaming blood either).
My friend and I played a few rounds of Pike & Shotte yesterday evening to teach a new group member the rules. We played a few turns and stopped, no one won, but I had much more fun playing P&S for just a few turns than the full game of 40k I had played earlier in the day. Just anecdotal.
How does that stick to the topic? Well, as I have mentioned - I do think that competitive play is important for building games in general - but specifically these types of games. I do not think that competitive players make up a large portion of the gaming population or even a large portion of the sales of games or their related materials. What they are though is always on the prowl for someone else that they can beat. While you might just walk past Bob in accounting - when Steve the Übermensch tournament gamer walks by...he notices the PC Gamer magazine sticking out from under his briefcase. He then grabs a hold of that bone and won't let loose until Bob agrees to play a game of Warhammer with him.
That adds new blood to the hobby - now whether or not winning is important or not...well, that is irrelevant and it has been opposing points of view between casual gamers and tournament gamers since the middle ages I would guess (long before I started gaming and I've been gaming for nearly that long). An answer won't come here, and won't come anywhere else - but it is also the reason why so many casual gamers move away from gaming in stores and even a lot of clubs to gaming in smaller more relaxed groups at home (which is why I don't put much emphasis on game stores as a source of new gaming blood either).
This is an interesting analysis. I do think competitive gamers often have a willingness to prosyletize for their game, although it's not generally just for the sake of recruiting newbs we can beat. It's for growing our competitive community, which increases the variety and quality of competition. It's also because, having invested so much time and effort into our hobby, we genuinely believe it's fun and rewarding and think more people should be into it.
While I won't make a point of recruiting Bob at work who has PC Gamer magazine, I will talk up the game to any random onlooker at a tournament or in a game store who seems curious. I've often seen non-gamer or casual parents and kids in stores, or walking into/checking out big events held in hotels (or malls- like The Conflict and Battle for Salvation GTs), and explained the game in simple terms to them. I often explain to parents how it's a competitive but social activity, and how the painting & modeling side helps cultivate patience and artistic/hobby interests in kids.
I'll also keep an eye out for Find a Game posts in my geographic area, and try to steer interested players to stores and communities around them. And I'll arrange to meet folks for a game; in those games I do try to win, but I also make a point of fielding an army chosen more for its appearance (fully painted, of course) than for pure competition, and with a variety of units. That way regardless of who wins, hopefully the new guy will enjoy the experience and have a bit of a showcase of the joy of facing a fully-painted force on a nice table. This is one of the big hooks of the hobby, of course.
Competitions have always been popular in historicals. There are various well-established events such as Sheffield Triples have been going for decades. The WRG ancients rules, which ruled the world from the mid 70s to late 90s, were written first for competition play.
That said, historical players have always been interested in recreations and campaigns too.
I don't know if 40K players number more "teenage minded" competitive players who are in it only for the win and the bragging rights. Something to do with the psychology of the game, perhaps.
I've enjoyed the three 40K tournaments I have attended. They were all small, friendly events with not much of a prize at stake. I don't think big prizes are appropriate for wargames tournaments.
Yes, the 'so they can beat them' bit was a bit of tongue in cheek pointed upstream in the thread.
The core of it was as you followed along. Casual gamers (in any game) tend to be more laid back about their recruitment. Normally they pull from the friends and family sphere of influence (which is significant). Competative gamers are the ohes who are most likely to pull from outside that group...though quite often their new recruits ehd up not being nearly as competative. That is where it is nice to have some cross over between the casual and competative groups of gamers...so that the new blood can move into a more relaxed environment if it suits them better and not get burned out dealing with tournament related issues.
By doing so, you might have a competatife gamer get one completely fresh gamer per year, but then that fresh gamer is able to draw on their friends and family for another two or three. If one of those ends up being competative...they then pull another stranger, who brings in some friends and family...so on, and so forth.
You often see this happen with rulesets. If they are not 'tournament ready' they get a small but strong following of people who quite often all know each other (might have played a demo game at a convention for example). However, tournament games tend to grow outside that realm faster...even if the rules are objectively lacking in other ways. Of course you need to make it to the level where competative gamers are able to sustain themselves in a given area (12 seems to be the magic number that I have been able to narrow in on).
). 
Plus, people have stated here how a couple years ago there was no presence overseas. So that $15 million in 2010 likely was almost all of North America. This means 
