Now it's no secret that Games Workshop have been getting worse and worse recently. White Dwarf, the once excellent hobby magazine, is little more than a product catalog (in their defense, the new layout did give it a brief burst of life, but not for long) and is getting really, really dull. GW have become more and more insular, shunning any kind of contact with the outside world (remember when White Dwarf actually talked about non-GW games? Remember when they would regularly recommend household bits and bobs and other model parts for conversions? The latter was actually something that disappeared relatively recently, in my recollection), making it impossible to buy OOP models or replacement parts (whereas they used to have a mail order service selling old models, and you could buy individual components), Finecast QC, whilst it has improved, is still not great, hobby centres just ain't what they used to be (although the staff are as friendly as ever, or at least in my experience), the prcies are just getting silly, and don't get me started on the lawsuits.

So, what could be done to help reverse this? I know that they CAN be a lot better, I remember when they were (despite only starting the hobby in 2009), the question is, what would make them better?

My personal thoughts:

Get rid of Kirby. I know, loads of people say this, but he's no good for the company. He panders to the shareholders, and I don't think he even cares about GW. I reckon he will bail soon on his parachute made entirely out of £50 notes and golden thread, but I fear he will only do so when the company folds.

A buyout. This could work, depending on who takes over. I personally would rather it was a British company, out of some misplaced patriotism, but a foreign company, as long as it knows what it's doing, would be fine. Wizards of the Coast could be a good bet, or even (from a modelling point of view) Bandai. WOTC do pretty solid rules and handle their business fairly well, and Bandai...well, they're Bandai. They make excellent model kits, their prices are reasonable, they don't feth around when it comes to quality or business, and they're one of the most well known and respected model producers on the planet. Provided they kept the original sculptors and bolstered them with new arrivals rather than completely replacing the team, I think it could work.

Return of the old hands. Rick Priestly, Alan/Michael Perry, Andy Chambers, we need you! I reckon if these guys (and of course some of the others who I'm too young to remember) came back, they could do the company miracles. Andy Chambers wrote fantastic rules, Rick Priestly was a great fluff writer, and the Perry twins are brilliant sculptors.


Anyway, enough of my bright-eyed, bushy-tailed, youthful optimism. What do YOU think?

There's like 5 different 'it's the end of GW as we know it...' threads already. Do we need another?

 pretre wrote:
There's like 5 different 'it's the end of GW as we know it...' threads already. Do we need another?

This was meant to be the opposite: A "GW could get better, the question is, how?" thread.

I tried.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

 pretre wrote:
There's like 5 different 'it's the end of GW as we know it...' threads already. Do we need another?

This was meant to be the opposite: A "GW could get better, the question is, how?" thread.

I tried.

Oh, I get it, but I think that point can be served by posting in one of those threads rather than starting this one and seeing it go the exact same route as the others.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Return of the old hands. Rick Priestly, Alan/Michael Perry, Andy Chambers, we need you! I reckon if these guys (and of course some of the others who I'm too young to remember) came back, they could do the company miracles. Andy Chambers wrote fantastic rules, Rick Priestly was a great fluff writer, and the Perry twins are brilliant sculptors.

I'm pretty sure all those guys are happy going off doing their own things...

Get back to supporting the hobby instead of screwing vets over and becoming a retailer instead of a hobby company.

It's a surprisingly short list tbh.

1: Have a frickin sale every now and then. The company is big enough, and whisper this, it might even make GW more money.
2: Interact with the community. It really wouldn't hurt and you'd be doing yourselves a huge favour. The miniatures are still cracking, as they have always been to be fair. Just let us when you plan on stopping a line of minis or a Game. Which brings me onto..
3: Don't, for the love all things holy, stop the Specialist line of games.
4: Lose the one man store nonsense. Have a couple of friendly hobby peeps inside who are willing to let you have a game and do some painting in store.
5: How about keeping price increases in line with inflation? Huh?
6: Be nicer to independent stockists. They are capable of reaching a whole new set of customers. Work with them, not against.

Plastic toy soldiers don't need to be $50 for a box of 10 army men. I can goto Toys R Us and buy a whole bucket of army men for like $20, although army men arn't for crap when it comes to WYSIWYG. Lower your damn prices and people can buy more product.

I no longer have strong feelings about GW "saving itself". I'm sure they'll continue to tick over doing dumb things on a biannual basis but making enough money to keep shifting the plastic.

And I'll continue to buy the stuff I like from ebay and independent retailers, while getting great hobby ideas from Dakka.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Now it's no secret that Games Workshop have been getting worse and worse recently.

If it's not a secret, why don't you have any evidence?

1. Pick a couple of "iconic" plastic kits from each army. Make them half price. Space Marines could get Tactical Squads and Rhinos; Imperial Guard, IG Squads and Command Squads; Dwarves, Warriors and Cannons. The idea would be that a new player could cheaply build a "pauper" army of basic units, then build upon that foundation by fleshing it out with less common units.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

 pretre wrote:
There's like 5 different 'it's the end of GW as we know it...' threads already. Do we need another?

This was meant to be the opposite: A "GW could get better, the question is, how?" thread.

I tried.

Don't worry about it. pretre would prefer if Dakka was just one big thread spanning hundreds of thousands of pages, with all the topics inevitably leading toward one of three subjects: rumors, Matt Ward or GW's eventual downfall.

 puma713 wrote:
Don't worry about it. pretre would prefer if Dakka was just one big thread spanning hundreds of thousands of pages, with all the topics inevitably leading toward one of three subjects: rumors, Matt Ward or GW's eventual downfall.

Or perhaps one topic: rumours that Matt Ward will cause GW's eventual downfall.

 puma713 wrote:
Don't worry about it. pretre would prefer if Dakka was just one big thread spanning hundreds of thousands of pages, with all the topics inevitably leading toward one of three subjects: rumors, Matt Ward or GW's eventual downfall.

4/10. Somewhat humorous so the factual misses can somewhat be forgiven.

In actuality, I would prefer that people actually looked around and searched for topics before posting the same thing over again. I do not like that all subjects lead to Ward; I just acknowledge that it is an inevitability. I do prefer that similar topics get grouped together rather than splitting them off, but not to the extent that you are indicating.

 AlexHolker wrote:
1. Pick a couple of "iconic" plastic kits from each army. Make them half price. Space Marines could get Tactical Squads and Rhinos; Imperial Guard, IG Squads and Command Squads; Dwarves, Warriors and Cannons. The idea would be that a new player could cheaply build a "pauper" army of basic units, then build upon that foundation by fleshing it out with less common units.

They already do this, it's called " one click bundles".... oh wait nevermind, that may actually cost more ..( read with lots of sarcasm)

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:


It's a surprisingly short list tbh.

1: Have a frickin sale every now and then. The company is big enough, and whisper this, it might even make GW more money.
2: Interact with the community. It really wouldn't hurt and you'd be doing yourselves a huge favour. The miniatures are still cracking, as they have always been to be fair. Just let us when you plan on stopping a line of minis or a Game. Which brings me onto..
3: Don't, for the love all things holy, stop the Specialist line of games.
4: Lose the one man store nonsense. Have a couple of friendly hobby peeps inside who are willing to let you have a game and do some painting in store.
5: How about keeping price increases in line with inflation? Huh?
6: Be nicer to independent stockists. They are capable of reaching a whole new set of customers. Work with them, not against.

My local GW runs a Mordheim night and says you can always play Specialist Games in store.

This is a list I wrote for a similar thread a few weeks ago, I still stand by it, and with the disappearance of Spec Games is perhaps more relevant..

 azreal13 wrote:
1) Reorganise the retail operation. Close the pokey one man stores and centralise the operation into larger multi staff destination stores open 7 days a week and well into the evening. Incorporate staff bonus schemes to include community growth as well as sales growth, linked to tournament entries, game night attendances etc. The staff would be responsible for organising these. Move to stock Forge World and FFG materials in store.

2) Produce a genuine one per faction starter that included a small but balanced force and codex for an appreciable discount.

3) Instruct the studio to produce a small, squad based skirmish game, using the core rules from the main games as their inspiration, with a two step structure allowing for a very basic intro game but with a more advanced level, a la Infinity. Box it with absolutely everything needed to play, get it into non specialist retailers and advertise it in mainstream media. Use this system as both a bridging game and a means to stimulate sales on some under performing lines. Imagine how good a DE Mandrake could be at skirmish level with rules allowing it to redeploy all over the table, make sneak attacks etc, as opposed to their decidedly mediocre 40k showing.

4) Accept the internet exists

5) Acknowledge that indys, employed correctly, are a valuable asset and not an irritation

6) Give the studio more control, only intervening if their ideas were genuinely too costly.

7) Realise that the demographic I was alienating (vets) had more money and were more likely to continue to stick around and adjust the company output to at least reflect the older players interests.

well, here's my thoughts as someone who was into the hobby when i was a young teenager in 90-94 and have started again in the last year.

1. miniatures are better than ever. but soooo expensive. i didn't get a lot of pocket money as a young lad but could still afford to buy boxes of plastic miniatures with a lot more miniatures for the money - for example the old boxes of rogue trader plastic beaky marines. now it's, at best £25 for ten, more often £15-20 for five. too much. you can drop the price, sell more, and still make lots of money. similarly many single miniatures, whilst beautiful, are £30 - 50. too much. i buy all mine off ebay now.

2. more paint sets offering the chance to buy 10 pots on a theme for a reduced amount. there used to be lots of different themed sets and these worked.

uh, actually, that's it. no, wait...

3. better quality paintbrushes. GW ones are gak.

oh, and

4. prune the quality of your writers. some are ace, some are so gak it makes me angy that are paid to write even genre fiction. yuk.

i think i am happy with everything else in the hobby. except the Necrons. what a gak idea that was, ffs. bring back the squats!

Well folks,
theres alot that CAN be done, the question is WILL it be done.
Based on experience, the more a company interacts with its customers, the better they are recieved and purchased.
I worked for our FLGS in the late 90's through '07.
The most successful sales were by far when there were campaigns wrapped around the release of new lines.
And MORDHEIM!! and BATTLEFLEET GOTHIC!!

Those two games got more kids into the 40k and Fantasy lines than ANY Outrider ever did!!

And I agree with one of the former posters about the REASONABLE entry level box set. And themed paint sets were a cool way to get a bunch of paints that worked well together.

In short, more first timer customer friendlyness.

Releasing a licensed MLP wargame.

I think liberal application of fire and salt would save GW.

Firing Matt Ward?

I'm sorry, it had to be said, no-one had done so already!

On a serious note, I really think the company just needs a complete change in how it's run. A lot of people say that GW will never lower their prices, but I'm not so sure. Whether you like it or not, GW are the leading company in tabletop wargaming and, to be frank, all the other companies can't match the scale (and often, I will say it, the quality) of GW. So, how do they compete? Well, they have lower prices, that's what. Most of the tabletop wargaming industry prices are based of GW's. That means that if a company's prices are X% lower than GW's, and GW go and put up the prices, that same company can afford to put up theirs and maintain the same advantage. The same goes for independent stocklists. Would I bother buying from GiftsforGeeks or Dark Sphere if they were only 5% cheaper than GW? Probably not. If GW put their prices down, so would the rest of the industry, and, GW may indeed start making more money as more people are encouraged to start the hobby or, rather, not quit it.

Secondly, I still maintain that a GW Reward Card would be great for both the consumers and GW itself. As for the consumers, we can get a decent amount of points on our card from buying from the company, and so can therefore save money and get stuff for cheaper. GW are also able to encourage sales of new releases by offering double, or triple, points on pre-orders (and we all know how much GW love impulse buys). They'd also be able to stick double points on starter sets, battalions and battleforces and army book and codexes, to better encourage people to start the hobby. A parent is probably going to be much more inclined to buy that expensive starter set if it's got a massive "Double Points" sticker on it.

 pretre wrote:


In actuality, I would prefer that people actually looked around and searched for topics before posting the same thing over again. I do not like that all subjects lead to Ward; I just acknowledge that it is an inevitability. I do prefer that similar topics get grouped together rather than splitting them off, but not to the extent that you are indicating.

I can understand that. But I'm sure you can also understand the limits of the search capability and not wanting to sift through 19 pages of a similar topic to see if they're talking about what you're talking about, or if it has even been brought up before. Then, when you do post in that 19-page thread, you risk someone popping off, "Jeez, that was brought up 10 pages ago! Lrn2read nub!"

At the end of the day, it is a discussion forum and no one makes you read any thread.

I agree with a couple of the previous ideas. I think a skirmish game / simplified version of Warhammer would help bridge the gap and bring new players in and allow old players the opportunity to show and teach the games basics to new players before they said "here's the 40k rule book" and drop a 200 page book on the table.

I have been playing for years but I still remember trying to learn and feeling like there was a ton of information to learn before I could play a single turn. That was back in 3rd edition and the game has evolved since then. How many times have you been talking to someone who is interested in the hobby and said "it's not as bad as it looks" or "it gets easier after you play a few games." It causes a lot of people to think about if they are really willing to spend the amount of money and time that is required to get into a game they won't understand until they play a few times.

The other suggestion I liked was the price reduction on kits. I have not bought a model from GW in years. I find everything in the swap shop or on Ebay. By lowering prices it may shift my purchases from 3rd party back to GW. While personally I am a fan of price cuts across the board I somehow doubt GW would do that. Cutting the prices of some of the basic, common, required kits(HQ choices, troop choices, troop transports, etc.) would allow players to bulk up their army and new players to get in. On top of that use seasonal or annual sales to offer the specialty kits at a reasonable price would allow vets to bolster their army. Part of those sales could be price reductions or even kit bundles. Take for example selling a Terminator Assault Squad and a Land Raider for X amount of money.

The last suggestion I have is not really a long term fix but more meant to give a boost to the short/mid term. Introduce a new army. GW did this in a way by introducing allies in 40k, but a new army would bring players to something they have never seen before. People would be buying whole armies rather than a kit here and there. Again though this eventually would fall into the same place that all of their current armies are in after the novelty wears off.

 puma713 wrote:
I can understand that. But I'm sure you can also understand the limits of the search capability and not wanting to sift through 19 pages of a similar topic to see if they're talking about what you're talking about, or if it has even been brought up before. Then, when you do post in that 19-page thread, you risk someone popping off, "Jeez, that was brought up 10 pages ago! Lrn2read nub!"

At the end of the day, it is a discussion forum and no one makes you read any thread.

I generally don't even search to find the duplicates. I go to the main page of the sub-forum the person posted it in. I look. I see three threads on the same topic. I shake my head sadly and click the little triangle.

 pretre wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
Don't worry about it. pretre would prefer if Dakka was just one big thread spanning hundreds of thousands of pages, with all the topics inevitably leading toward one of three subjects: rumors, Matt Ward or GW's eventual downfall.

4/10. Somewhat humorous so the factual misses can somewhat be forgiven.

In actuality, I would prefer that people actually looked around and searched for topics before posting the same thing over again. I do not like that all subjects lead to Ward; I just acknowledge that it is an inevitability. I do prefer that similar topics get grouped together rather than splitting them off, but not to the extent that you are indicating.

To be fair, the corollary to puma's statement is the admission that Dakka actually does consist almost entirely of those three topics.

For what it's worth, pretre has a valid point here.

 daedalus wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
Don't worry about it. pretre would prefer if Dakka was just one big thread spanning hundreds of thousands of pages, with all the topics inevitably leading toward one of three subjects: rumors, Matt Ward or GW's eventual downfall.

4/10. Somewhat humorous so the factual misses can somewhat be forgiven.

In actuality, I would prefer that people actually looked around and searched for topics before posting the same thing over again. I do not like that all subjects lead to Ward; I just acknowledge that it is an inevitability. I do prefer that similar topics get grouped together rather than splitting them off, but not to the extent that you are indicating.

To be fair, the corollary to puma's statement is the admission that Dakka actually does consist almost entirely of those three topics.

I think one could probably refine Draigo's Law to include that idea. That all threads on Dakka inevitably head towards Rumors, Ward or GW's Downfall.

Get back to what made GW great in the first place. Orks, Orcs and stormbolters.

 pretre wrote:
There's like 5 different 'it's the end of GW as we know it...' threads already. Do we need another?

Meh, all those threads talk about what would happen if GW fell, this is about what can be done to keep it from falling, technically it would be considered off topic to discuss this subject in those threads.

Yes a sale would really help, or better yet just lower the prices all together really.

More support for the shops, with the removal of some gaming tables and the closure on certain weekdays, it hurts their image.

 unmercifulconker wrote:

 pretre wrote:
There's like 5 different 'it's the end of GW as we know it...' threads already. Do we need another?

Meh, all those threads talk about what would happen if GW fell, this is about what can be done to keep it from falling, technically it would be considered off topic to discuss this subject in those threads.

But if I were to create a thread that is "What could cause GW to fail?" under the premise that it doesn't need saving, which is technically as off-topic as your example, it would surely be locked as a duplicate.

 AlexHolker wrote:
1. Pick a couple of "iconic" plastic kits from each army. Make them half price. Space Marines could get Tactical Squads and Rhinos; Imperial Guard, IG Squads and Command Squads; Dwarves, Warriors and Cannons. The idea would be that a new player could cheaply build a "pauper" army of basic units, then build upon that foundation by fleshing it out with less common units.

I particularly love this idea. It would be odd with orks because you could do a lot with the boyz at half price and a few bits.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Releasing a licensed MLP wargame.

It would just go like this

Rolling chart
1: you made friends with that pony
2: You picked out a pet
3: You didn't make friends with that pony, try again next turn!
4:Celestia needs you for important business no friends will be made this turn.
5:Oh no not again your pet ate that ponies mane and they now dislike you greatly, spend the next couple of turns trying to win them back (If you don't have a pet re roll)
6:You made best friends with that pony

Not that they'll actually do any of it until someone buys the company and fires all of the current management, but here's what I would do:

1) First, kill all the lawyers. Stop suing random authors over the use of "space marine" and sending DMCA warnings to fan sites, it just ensures that GW is constantly in the news for things that make them look really bad. There's no real benefit from it, and it damages the brand.

2) Stop believing your own propaganda. The idea that GW is its own Hobby™ is pure delusion. You have competition, and that competition is taking more and more of the market away from you. So start acting like it.

3) Get rid of finecast. It's a garbage product, and every time a customer has to exchange a model a dozen times to get one that isn't horribly miscast, or has a model break and/or melt under the slightest hint of harsh treatment, your brand image suffers more damage. And since those unhappy customers often tell their friends or post harsh reviews online a single bad model can cost you several customers, not just one.

4) Lower the barriers to entry. For a new player GW's prices are the highest in the industry, and that makes getting started in a GW game a pretty intimidating idea. The last thing you want to be doing is scaring away potential customers with a $500+ price tag just to get the basics.

5) Focus on long-term growth instead of one-purchase customers. The kids who beg their parents for space marines and then abandon it all a week later are good for immediate profits, but they don't build a healthy game and community that will continue to be appealing in the future. Obviously GW should continue to take their money, but they should not consider it a "success" when they have a ridiculously high turnover rate.

6) Accept that the internet and marketing are real things in 2013. Stop doing stuff like closing your facebook page because there were negative comments, or posting "preview" videos and pretending that you don't know what's coming when 90% of the people watching the video have already downloaded a pirated copy of the entire codex. Look at how WotC does marketing and previews for MTG, and follow their example.

6) Hire the worst WAAC TFGs to balance the game. Let them play with the rules, find every possible exploit and badly balanced unit, and then fix it. It's nice that there are more frequent FAQs now, but far too many of those issues never should have made it into the book in the first place. And while we're at it, playtest competitively and professionally like WotC does with MTG, don't just play a "fun" game occasionally with "cool" random events and "fluffy" armies. That's not what playtesting is.

7) Stop excluding "wrong" player types. Some people play casually. Some people play competitively. Some people like the art. Learn from WotC and sell to all of them. Don't just declare that you make a "beer and pretzels" game and write off an entire section of the market, that just makes competitive players take their money to other companies.

8) Accept that not all countries are the same. Having lots of retail stores apparently works great in the UK, but in the US the geographical factors are completely different and there are independent stores everywhere. Banning international sales to keep the internet from undercutting your Australian GW stores doesn't get people into your stores, it gets them to take their money to your competition. Etc. Get rid of the UK-focused management and have each regional branch run by someone familiar with their specific market, and accept that this will mean different regions have different strategies.

9) Stop substituting price increases and cost cutting for making an appealing product and long-term growth. Hopefully this will be accomplished by the previous things (including firing everyone who just wants to keep stock prices up until they retire), but let's make it explicit: stop trying to run GW like a generic business and assuming that all you need to do is increase prices and improve "efficiency" (as defined by some generic rules for How To Run A Successful Business). Yes, that's the easy way to make the next financial report good enough to keep your stock prices high, but it's not how you get long-term success. Stop being lazy and invest the work required to make a successful business, not just delay the inevitable a bit longer.

Thought i'd pop my 2 pennies in here, as i gave up the hobby for about 10 years and before last month hadn't gone into a GW store since the end of 3rd edition, about 2003 i think.

I was only a young teenager and i used to love getting the bus after school, with the weeks saved lunch money to buy some models to build and paint for the weekend. the cost of squads of units and tanks must be well under half what the units cost now, not really sticking to inflation are you GW? If i recall i codex was £12, i just paid £30 for the new tau codex! (albeit it is a hardback) But the order of it inside is illogical compared to old codex's what does this do? oh i have to scroll through the book to see the cost.
And then there was blister packs, and the ability to go and buy individual units with individual weapons. All in stock and with a set price based on what letter they were rated. I used to love going in and just seeing what took my eye, to build and paint. Not because i needed it to battle. Just because it looked badass.

I went in recently for the first time in ages. and wanted to go in with the same starry eyed optimism (bearing in mind i'm in my mid 20's) staff were as friendly as i remember, built a good rapport instantly. When talking about my background/how much things had moved on rules wise since 3rd. We started looking at some units, none seemed to be in stock. And would have to be ordered in, and most individual models wern't being produced anymore. And it actually made me abit upset. that kids couldn't go in and experiance what i did when i was young.

Overall how things have got worse (in my humble opinion)

-Massive price inflation - seriously you younger gamers might not understand
-Lack of stock kept in store
-Lack of models made by gw in blister packs.
-Weird shop opening hours (i'm assuming this is nationwide)
-Paints, i seriously never thought i'd hate anything more than when screw tops were introduced, these are way worse. Dry paints are terrible. the lids are useless. And to top it off they changed all the names (again younger games might not understand how annoying that is)
- Flyers (purely because i'm old school and hate change, as do my buddies)
-Pre-measuring


How things have improved:

-6th edition plays SO much better.
- I'm going to be controversial and say i actually like finecast. so many days were wasted trying to get Abaddon the depoiler's sword and arm to stick on in my youth. Or fixing together a Wraithlord. And the quality of the casts were no way near as detailed. (IMO)

why do they need saving? They are making money faster than ever before.

tgf wrote:
why do they need saving? They are making money faster than ever before.

No they aren't.

feth saving GW, only the IP matters.

Just wait for them to topple over, and then someone will snatch it up because its certainly worth a small fortune. Then you can dust off your old models and get back into the game with better rules and gak

Does anyone know why exactly the stores carry so little stock relative to what they used to? The stores used to be rammed with stuff and there's a lot less now, especially blister packs. I know it makes sense to shorten the product line but I don't see why they can't always have at least one of every blister.

When I'm walking past I often go in to see if something catches my eye but it's always spam of the same ones I don't want. They can order it in but so can I, what's the point.

 Dakkamite wrote:
feth saving GW, only the IP matters.

Just wait for them to topple over, and then someone will snatch it up because its certainly worth a small fortune. Then you can dust off your old models and get back into the game with better rules and gak

You're assuming a tabletop company will pick it up.

As you said, it's the IP that matters, and that's not the game. It's just as likely someone like FFG will buy it, and you'll only ever see RPG's based in the universe, or a video game company like EA or Activision, who'll run it into the ground with yearly terrible video games.

The best case is someone like WotC picking it up, but there's plenty of worst cases as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

little bobby oppenheimer wrote:
Does anyone know why exactly the stores carry so little stock relative to what they used to? The stores used to be rammed with stuff and there's a lot less now, especially blister packs. I know it makes sense to shorten the product line but I don't see why they can't always have at least one of every blister.

Shelf space. Even GW stores have limited shelf space. Hell, some don't even have the shelf space to put one of every boxed product on the shelves. My local store, months after the VC release, had their Black Knights hidden away under a table with a bunch of other stuff because shelf space just wasn't there.

 Peregrine wrote:
*well-thought out post*

Yes, I agree with all of this. If you did even a few of these things, GW, I would probably start buying again.

Bubonic plague ravishing GW HQ. Or Zombie plague. Or Cybermen. I'm not picky.

 -Loki- wrote:
Shelf space. Even GW stores have limited shelf space. Hell, some don't even have the shelf space to put one of every boxed product on the shelves. My local store, months after the VC release, had their Black Knights hidden away under a table with a bunch of other stuff because shelf space just wasn't there.

TBH I don't think this is really the case. The local GW store has plenty of shelf space (and space to add more shelves), but they don't bother. It reminds me of the last days of a local independent hobby store: they couldn't afford to buy new inventory, so they started removing shelves and spreading everything out more to hide how empty the store was. Somehow they've managed to take barely more than the GW corner of the average FLGS and fill up an entire (small) store.

 Peregrine wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Shelf space. Even GW stores have limited shelf space. Hell, some don't even have the shelf space to put one of every boxed product on the shelves. My local store, months after the VC release, had their Black Knights hidden away under a table with a bunch of other stuff because shelf space just wasn't there.

TBH I don't think this is really the case. The local GW store has plenty of shelf space (and space to add more shelves), but they don't bother. It reminds me of the last days of a local independent hobby store: they couldn't afford to buy new inventory, so they started removing shelves and spreading everything out more to hide how empty the store was. Somehow they've managed to take barely more than the GW corner of the average FLGS and fill up an entire (small) store.

Yeah in my local GW there is a large amount of unused space, even the blister section is obviously half empty. Box sets don't lend themselves as well to an impulse buy (though I suppose they're about the same price these days)

DanFST wrote:
. the cost of squads of units and tanks must be well under half what the units cost now, not really sticking to inflation are you GW?

Prices have gone down. Or something.

 Peregrine wrote:

tgf wrote:
why do they need saving? They are making money faster than ever before.

No they aren't.

As long as you don't look at their recent profit figures, that is.

I'm loving this debate. Save a company (whose shares and profits are at a high, outperforming most if not of their competitors) by halving the prices. let's go!

 Peregrine wrote:
Not that they'll actually do any of it until someone buys the company and fires all of the current management, but here's what I would do:

1) First, kill all the lawyers. Stop suing random authors over the use of "space marine" and sending DMCA warnings to fan sites, it just ensures that GW is constantly in the news for things that make them look really bad. There's no real benefit from it, and it damages the brand.

2) Stop believing your own propaganda. The idea that GW is its own Hobby™ is pure delusion. You have competition, and that competition is taking more and more of the market away from you. So start acting like it.

3) Get rid of finecast. It's a garbage product, and every time a customer has to exchange a model a dozen times to get one that isn't horribly miscast, or has a model break and/or melt under the slightest hint of harsh treatment, your brand image suffers more damage. And since those unhappy customers often tell their friends or post harsh reviews online a single bad model can cost you several customers, not just one.

4) Lower the barriers to entry. For a new player GW's prices are the highest in the industry, and that makes getting started in a GW game a pretty intimidating idea. The last thing you want to be doing is scaring away potential customers with a $500+ price tag just to get the basics.

5) Focus on long-term growth instead of one-purchase customers. The kids who beg their parents for space marines and then abandon it all a week later are good for immediate profits, but they don't build a healthy game and community that will continue to be appealing in the future. Obviously GW should continue to take their money, but they should not consider it a "success" when they have a ridiculously high turnover rate.

6) Accept that the internet and marketing are real things in 2013. Stop doing stuff like closing your facebook page because there were negative comments, or posting "preview" videos and pretending that you don't know what's coming when 90% of the people watching the video have already downloaded a pirated copy of the entire codex. Look at how WotC does marketing and previews for MTG, and follow their example.

6) Hire the worst WAAC TFGs to balance the game. Let them play with the rules, find every possible exploit and badly balanced unit, and then fix it. It's nice that there are more frequent FAQs now, but far too many of those issues never should have made it into the book in the first place. And while we're at it, playtest competitively and professionally like WotC does with MTG, don't just play a "fun" game occasionally with "cool" random events and "fluffy" armies. That's not what playtesting is.

7) Stop excluding "wrong" player types. Some people play casually. Some people play competitively. Some people like the art. Learn from WotC and sell to all of them. Don't just declare that you make a "beer and pretzels" game and write off an entire section of the market, that just makes competitive players take their money to other companies.

8) Accept that not all countries are the same. Having lots of retail stores apparently works great in the UK, but in the US the geographical factors are completely different and there are independent stores everywhere. Banning international sales to keep the internet from undercutting your Australian GW stores doesn't get people into your stores, it gets them to take their money to your competition. Etc. Get rid of the UK-focused management and have each regional branch run by someone familiar with their specific market, and accept that this will mean different regions have different strategies.

9) Stop substituting price increases and cost cutting for making an appealing product and long-term growth. Hopefully this will be accomplished by the previous things (including firing everyone who just wants to keep stock prices up until they retire), but let's make it explicit: stop trying to run GW like a generic business and assuming that all you need to do is increase prices and improve "efficiency" (as defined by some generic rules for How To Run A Successful Business). Yes, that's the easy way to make the next financial report good enough to keep your stock prices high, but it's not how you get long-term success. Stop being lazy and invest the work required to make a successful business, not just delay the inevitable a bit longer.

LOL, most of these are quite true. However I can summarize it in just a few words "Pull your head out of your a$$"

Also,

Fire Mat Ward and everyone that agrees with him about rules and fluff.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

tgf wrote:
why do they need saving? They are making money faster than ever before.

No they aren't.

As long as you don't look at their recent profit figures, that is.

I'm loving this debate. Save a company (whose shares and profits are at a high, outperforming most if not of their competitors) by halving the prices. let's go!

It's not hard for your shares to outperform those of your competition when your competitors are privately owned, ie don't have publicly traded shares. On that basis, we also don't know whether or not GW's profits are outperforming any particular competitor, since private companies don't publish reports for shareholders.

What we can do is look at the wargaming industry as a whole, which is growing, and at GW's performance relative to that industry, which is stagnant. We can also look at trends in GW's income, which has been in a cycle for a few years now of one year up, followed by two years down. We can also compare the cost of products to their stated inflation-adjusted income, and from that infer that volume is declining. We can look at their various policies of late and explain the fact that profit is stagnant despite declining volume(which would imply falling profits) as being the result of cost-cutting and price rises, neither of which are sustainable in the medium to long term. If you want to argue that analysis argue it, but dismissing it out of hand as "hating" or "lulz basement MBA" is churlish.

Now, as to why people suggest cutting prices might be considered a positive move for the company, lets consider it. Those competitors you insist GW are outperforming(yet are somehow driving the growth of the industry, since GW aren't) often compete primarily with GW based on price - Mantic are a good example, with their two main selling points being tournament-friendly rules and comparatively cheap "not-Warhammer" models. By reducing their prices, GW either A; force Mantic and other price-based competitors to follow suit, narrowing their margins to the point that many will fold and thus cease competing with GW, or B; regain market share from those competitors by bringing their product's price to quality ratio back in line with what people are willing to pay. Another benefit of reducing prices would be the opportunity to substantially increase volume of sales, assuming the reduction is properly marketed of course, which allows GW to use another of its advantages against the competition; its size.

The issue is, GW have to compete somehow, and right now they don't appear to want to. They won't compete on price, they cede vast swathes of the wargaming community to their competitors without a fight(skirmish, mass-battle, naval combat, all game genres with lots of different options available because GW neglected(and are now eliminating) Specialist Games), they claim to compete on quality and exclusivity yet their designs become more toy-like with each release and boutique resin miniatures are available which far surpass GW models in technical and aesthetic prowess for equivalent or cheaper prices.

They're running out of options. When they run out of things to cut, and if they continue to refuse to compete, how exactly are they supposed to keep making money?

My remedy is very simple. Look at what made them successful before, learn from it, and play to your strengths.

1. Change the mission of the company. It should not be to "Make the best Toy Soldiers in the World" instead, I would change it to, "Make the best games using Toy Soldiers in the world." It is a subtle but very important difference. Change the culture.

2. Realize that "Cult Marketing" should be the focus. Word-of-Mouth is key. To do that, you have to give your followers the belief that they are being "part of the Hobby" and that gives you a look behind the curtain.

4. Compete across all niches of the Hobby. Being the biggest boy on the block should give you advantages in the market. Take advantage of it and use your muscle to force your smaller competitors to outperform you instead of letting them own the field of battle.

5. Lead, don't follow. GW invested heavily in the manufacturing side of the Hobby. Excellent, now make a similar commitment and reinvest in the Market Research side fo the Hobby. Stop thinking about what consumers want out of Warhammer, and start thinking about what gamers want the next evolution of Wargaming to be. Be the first to market.

6. Lots of stock buyback. Reduce the say of the Stock Holders and increase the value of each share. This by default increases the powe rof the company to control their product. Then, if capital is needed, you have something worth selling.

Kind of businessy and less 'Gamey" focused, but there you go.

Stop thinking about what consumers want out of Warhammer, and start thinking about what gamers want the next evolution of Wargaming to be.

Excellent point. GW is stuck reinventing the wheel currently whilst the competitors are pushing the hobby into new areas (or forgotten ones).

Not only that, but they've just scrapped all the interesting parts of the car (after letting them rust for 10 years) so they can continue working on the wheels.

On the other hand, there are still plenty of people lining up to buy GW's wheels, so they clearly see no reason to change yet.

What makes you think GWS isn't going in the direction that it wishes to be going; that it needs to be "saved"?

 Ouze wrote:
What makes you think GWS isn't going in the direction that it wishes to be going; that it needs to be "saved"?

That's what scares me. You see the direction it is going is to be bought out by some Private Equity group to boost Kirby's (and other board members) value for his retirement, and leave gamers high and dry when everything gets churned and dismantled.

So, I selfishly want GW saved for me!

Im tellin ya fellas...

When GW goes under I hope Privateer Press or Battlefront picks up the IP and RUNS with it!!
Let FFG take the RPG stuff.
40k would be super cool in 15mm -- imagine marines sculpted to the correct scale size-- Land Raiders in squadrons....oooohhh that would be AWESOME!!

little bobby oppenheimer wrote:
Does anyone know why exactly the stores carry so little stock relative to what they used to? The stores used to be rammed with stuff and there's a lot less now, especially blister packs. I know it makes sense to shorten the product line but I don't see why they can't always have at least one of every blister.

When I'm walking past I often go in to see if something catches my eye but it's always spam of the same ones I don't want. They can order it in but so can I, what's the point.

Last time I was in a GW store, quite a while ago now, I couldn't find the figures I wanted so asked a member of staff who told me it was direct-only, even though it was quite new. The suggestion that they don't have shelf space isn't true, they had a lot more stock in shops of the same size years ago. What's the point in having dedicated retail chain shops and not even stocking the new releases, but keeping them online and telling me that I'll have to mail order it and pay postage, or come back to the shop next week. Waste of time.

What is need in my opinion is better customer contact and improved marketing. Mainly by building up a relationship with some of the big gaming sites such as Beasts of War and giving more previews and information more than a week in advance.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Wizards of the Coast could be a good bet, or even (from a modelling point of view) Bandai. WOTC do pretty solid rules and handle their business fairly well

ROFLMAO to WOTC!!! No. Just... no.
WOTC are a hundred times worse than GW will ever be. They killed D&D minis, killed star Wars minis with power creep, killed Heroscape and are killing D&D RPG. Their errata is in volumes. Their rules wording is TERRIBLE (the word 'can' means 'must' in their CMGs). They're owned by Hasbro so are more money, money, money than any other games company and they treat they staff like dirt with annual redundancies at Christmas.

 Ugavine wrote:
WOTC are a hundred times worse than GW will ever be. They killed D&D minis, killed star Wars minis with power creep, killed Heroscape and are killing D&D RPG. Their errata is in volumes. Their rules wording is TERRIBLE (the word 'can' means 'must' in their CMGs). They're owned by Hasbro so are more money, money, money than any other games company and they treat they staff like dirt with annual redundancies at Christmas.

Meanwhile MTG has none of these problems and is doing far better than GW could even dream of.

 Peregrine wrote:
Meanwhile MTG has none of these problems and is doing far better than GW could even dream of.

MTG? That game that has one unified set of rules the size of a Chick Tract written by a cadre of authors updating it at once where the solution to dealing with kludgy parts of the system from 10 years ago is just to declare them disallowed? Quite.

They've done almost as good a job at keeping the rules reasonable as Hasbro has done on Candyland.

 daedalus wrote:
MTG? That game that has one unified set of rules the size of a Chick Tract written by a cadre of authors updating it at once where the solution to dealing with kludgy parts of the system from 10 years ago is just to declare them disallowed? Quite.

Err, lol? The only parts of the rules that have been banned have been ante cards (since nobody wanted to play for ante once the game became expensive), the "throw this on the table and destroy anything it hits" cards (for being a tournament nightmare), and the "play a sub-game" card (for being a tournament nightmare). That's a handful of irrelevant cards that nobody used anyway. Meanwhile, unlike GW, WOTC seems to be capable of making rules that work. There is no possible situation where you have to argue over how the rules work in MTG, everything is covered explicitly in the rulebook. And that's with a game that is much more complicated than 40k.

And of course there's also the fact that WOTC doesn't ignore the competitive tournament market, understands how to market a game, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
MTG? That game that has one unified set of rules the size of a Chick Tract written by a cadre of authors updating it at once where the solution to dealing with kludgy parts of the system from 10 years ago is just to declare them disallowed? Quite.

Err, lol? The only parts of the rules that have been banned have been ante cards (since nobody wanted to play for ante once the game became expensive), the "throw this on the table and destroy anything it hits" cards (for being a tournament nightmare), and the "play a sub-game" card (for being a tournament nightmare). That's a handful of irrelevant cards that nobody used anyway. Meanwhile, unlike GW, WOTC seems to be capable of making rules that work. There is no possible situation where you have to argue over how the rules work in MTG, everything is covered explicitly in the rulebook. And that's with a game that is much more complicated than 40k.

Then I suppose I don't really "get" MTG:

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/arcana/149
https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=judge/resources/banned
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/232

In addition, I was under the impression that only the latest core set and couple expansions were "valid" for play. I could be wrong. I haven't played MTG since Tempest.

I mean, friendly games, whatever, of course, but then again, I can still bust out my Codex: Catachans for anyone who's willing to put up with it, right?

Again though, I'm confused that you're surprised that a set of rules written by different authors spanning the course of three iterations of core rule revisions doesn't hold together very well. You might as well be pissed your 4th edition D&D character doesn't work in a Spelljammer game. All things considered, sometimes I'm impressed they keep it together as well as they do. Does that mean I don't want it to be better? Of course not. Always room for improvement.

And of course there's also the fact that WOTC doesn't ignore the competitive tournament market, understands how to market a game, etc.

Now that's an entirely different bag of worms. 40k doesn't hold up in a tournament setting because, for better or worse, GW is actively rallying against it.

Mtg cards are useful in different formats. Standard covers the most recent sets, modern about 10 years worth of cards and legacy which goes back the full way. You play the format that suits you, I'm a newer player so only do standard because I can't afford to buy into older discontinued card set, thus I only play with other people limited to using more recent cards, as a new player I can play on an even footing. Older players can play formats that allow older cards. Not everyone wants to play with all printed cards regardless of their age, the pool of cards is many thousands.

Why is this seen as a criticism of Wizards? The alternatives are to always allow use of any cards, which would make it impossible for new people to compete. Or to always ban all older cards from competitive play, which would let those with older collections go to waste.

Instead WotC offer events and supported play styles designed to cater for different types of players, but they are criticised for it. Why is that? The number of totally banned cards are few, and they're usually overpowered and no fun when used because they distort the game.

If you need a comparison to GW, how many figures from years ago have been removed from the game? Loads. If you want to use them, you need to make up rules or proxy them as a counts-as army. But the result is that there are no formats of 40K that allow you to use Zoats today. Either you make up rules (not legal outside the home/club) or you play an older edition like Rogue Trader, in which case you can't use your modern Dreadknight without a similar fudge.

With mtg cards, a Black Lotus from 1994 is completely compatible with the cards being printed today and is legal for competitive use in the Legacy or Vintage format, I forget which.

As for the rules being like a book, the fact is that you can teach someone to play Magic in an afternoon. Most of the full ruleset is redundant to a new player because it deals with much older cards. The mechanics of play are very straightforward and the rules for certain abilities are printed on the card in full anyway so you don't need to look anything up. And if you do struggle with something, every card ever printed is on their website with various rulings by judges to clear up any confusion. And there's a discussion area for each card for people to rate it and make comments.

How do GW compare? Well their erratas are infrequent and incomplete, there's no interaction with the players on their website, they barely do organised events, they don't have any sort of release fanfare when new things are released in the manner of Wizards - when their new sets are supported by a weekend of events, games and promos. When WotC release a new set, it's a real event. When GW release a new codex it's about as lively as the latest Star Wars figures arriving in the toy shop. Exciting to see new figures, but there's no attempt to make it any more special than new stock being out on the shelves.

All interesting ideas, but all GW needs is a CEO with a brain

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Now it's no secret that Games Workshop have been getting worse and worse recently. the question is, what would make them better?

What do YOU think?

Keep giving them our money?

OP, you really don't understand how the share market works if you just want it to change management over. Share price has no effect on the company (with that being said, it's tripled since 2009 IIRC) at all besides raising capital, and the market could move positively or negatively to an announcement of takeover (let alone the fact that the shareholders, i.e. GW board of directors have to approve it and put themselves out of a job).

GW's best bet would be to invent a time machine to go back and take a better look at the 1990's to get a better idea of what made them such a juggernaut in this hobby in the first place. They could take a look at the games and material they used to put out, how they gave support to those games to make them popular, and how they interacted with the people who were buying their product.

I would give anything to go back and get even more involved in the hobby when I first started at age 13, back in the days of 2nd edition 40K, Gorkamorka, Necromunda, Battlefleet Gothic, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:
6) Hire the worst WAAC TFGs to balance the game. Let them play with the rules, find every possible exploit and badly balanced unit, and then fix it. It's nice that there are more frequent FAQs now, but far too many of those issues never should have made it into the book in the first place. And while we're at it, playtest competitively and professionally like WotC does with MTG, don't just play a "fun" game occasionally with "cool" random events and "fluffy" armies. That's not what playtesting is.

7) Stop excluding "wrong" player types. Some people play casually. Some people play competitively. Some people like the art. Learn from WotC and sell to all of them. Don't just declare that you make a "beer and pretzels" game and write off an entire section of the market, that just makes competitive players take their money to other companies.

Those two things are what drove me from the hobby. Too many people start calling people names if they don't play the 'right' way. If the game was more balanced and the rules tighter, a lot of the animosity in the community would go away, which would result in a more open and welcoming community which results in more players. Currently, we have a situation where people do their best to try to drive other people from the hobby.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Why is this seen as a criticism of Wizards? The alternatives are to always allow use of any cards, which would make it impossible for new people to compete. Or to always ban all older cards from competitive play, which would let those with older collections go to waste.

Instead WotC offer events and supported play styles designed to cater for different types of players, but they are criticised for it. Why is that? The number of totally banned cards are few, and they're usually overpowered and no fun when used because they distort the game.

My original point is that you can't really expect a game with rules spanning across multiple editions written by people who go out of their way to make it a "non-competitive" game to have as air-tight of a ruleset as one specifically designed to be competitively played with rules designed to fit into a single small booklet, and that can be taught in an afternoon.

Whether or not you agree with GW, or the way they do things, it's illogical to compare 40k to MTG because they're not similar games. 40k isn't a competitive game, no matter how much you or I want it to be.

 daedalus wrote:
40k isn't a competitive game, no matter how much you or I want it to be.

Well, you and I play different versions of the game then. Also, the point of a game is to be competitive, to strive to win. The most recent game I can think of that tried to disarm itself of its competitive side was Super Smash Bros Melee to Brawl. The game was a failure in most respects to anyone who enjoyed the game, even so much to a point that older players went back to Melee.

In short, this quoted statement is wrong. If you don't want something to be competitive, don't write a rules system for it. Then this becomes 'painting models and soldiers', which is -not- what got me into the game.

 daedalus wrote:
Whether or not you agree with GW, or the way they do things, it's illogical to compare 40k to MTG because they're not similar games. 40k isn't a competitive game, no matter how much you or I want it to be.

Saying that 40k isn't a competetive game is just an excuse. It is not a competetive game because GW doesn't want to put the effort into making the rules tighter. Making the rules tighter and balance better in no way takes anything away from being able to play casually.

Magic can be played competetively or casually. There are formats like EDH and similar that encourage a casual game. Pauper is also another format that can be played. Magic rules are tighter and simpler but the game has more breadth than GW games.

 daedalus wrote:


Whether or not you agree with GW, or the way they do things, it's illogical to compare 40k to MTG because they're not similar games. 40k isn't a competitive game, no matter how much you or I want it to be.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/competitive

 Squigsquasher wrote:


Get rid of Kirby.

Yep. That is a start.

This exact same thread has appeared many times over the past 10 years. Almost word for word. and yet...

Maybe we armchair economists and CEOs should leave the businessing to the businessmen, and just play whatever toy soldier games grab our fancy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
6) Hire the worst WAAC TFGs to balance the game. Let them play with the rules, find every possible exploit and badly balanced unit, and then fix it. It's nice that there are more frequent FAQs now, but far too many of those issues never should have made it into the book in the first place. And while we're at it, playtest competitively and professionally like WotC does with MTG, don't just play a "fun" game occasionally with "cool" random events and "fluffy" armies. That's not what playtesting is.

7) Stop excluding "wrong" player types. Some people play casually. Some people play competitively. Some people like the art. Learn from WotC and sell to all of them. Don't just declare that you make a "beer and pretzels" game and write off an entire section of the market, that just makes competitive players take their money to other companies.

Those two things are what drove me from the hobby. Too many people start calling people names if they don't play the 'right' way. If the game was more balanced and the rules tighter, a lot of the animosity in the community would go away, which would result in a more open and welcoming community which results in more players. Currently, we have a situation where people do their best to try to drive other people from the hobby.

Maybe in your local area. I have encountered nothing even close to this. Just a local scene of about 60 dudes all excited to get games in when they can.

Problem is that a group of incompetent managers not in touch with reality hijacked the company and destroyed every possible feedback loop in the company and fired almost every free mind. Every good dictator does this to secure his reign. For GW, no simple change is possible from within, the whole corporate culture has changed to a "yes-master-not-the-whip" company. So without a crash, no change will happen, as the shareholders don't interfere as long as they get dividends.

Otherwise basically what Peregrine and Easy E have said.

Making introductory products (selling Space Hulk, Bloodbowl, Necromunda and Mordheim at normal toy stores), advertising them in TV (including previews) and lowering prices to realistic levels would form the basis for a 50% customer number and sales increase within 1-2 years. Like it has done in the past.

 Peregrine wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
MTG? That game that has one unified set of rules the size of a Chick Tract written by a cadre of authors updating it at once where the solution to dealing with kludgy parts of the system from 10 years ago is just to declare them disallowed? Quite.

Err, lol? The only parts of the rules that have been banned have been ante cards (since nobody wanted to play for ante once the game became expensive), the "throw this on the table and destroy anything it hits" cards (for being a tournament nightmare), and the "play a sub-game" card (for being a tournament nightmare). That's a handful of irrelevant cards that nobody used anyway. Meanwhile, unlike GW, WOTC seems to be capable of making rules that work. There is no possible situation where you have to argue over how the rules work in MTG, everything is covered explicitly in the rulebook. And that's with a game that is much more complicated than 40k.

And of course there's also the fact that WOTC doesn't ignore the competitive tournament market, understands how to market a game, etc.

Ante cards were eliminated so they would not run afoul of jurisdictions where gambling is strictly prohibited.

Even though Peregrine had a good list of things GW is doing wrong, there is still the fact that I have been reading threads about the eminent demise for as long as there have been online forums and it hasnt happened yet. When I think back to the early nineties, there is so much more product and overall more going on with at least 40k, that it is hardly comparable.

Even if GW does diminish and say loses first place, that is still a long way from going out of business.

 scarletsquig wrote:
Releasing a licensed MLP wargame.

Sadly, that would probably bring in amazing amounts of income

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ugavine wrote:
WOTC are a hundred times worse than GW will ever be. They killed D&D minis, killed star Wars minis with power creep, killed Heroscape and are killing D&D RPG. Their errata is in volumes. Their rules wording is TERRIBLE (the word 'can' means 'must' in their CMGs). They're owned by Hasbro so are more money, money, money than any other games company and they treat they staff like dirt with annual redundancies at Christmas.

Meanwhile MTG has none of these problems and is doing far better than GW could even dream of.

Other than MTG of today being a boring competition game with no difference between colours and huge power creep, they're doing great.

 daedalus wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Why is this seen as a criticism of Wizards? The alternatives are to always allow use of any cards, which would make it impossible for new people to compete. Or to always ban all older cards from competitive play, which would let those with older collections go to waste.

Instead WotC offer events and supported play styles designed to cater for different types of players, but they are criticised for it. Why is that? The number of totally banned cards are few, and they're usually overpowered and no fun when used because they distort the game.

My original point is that you can't really expect a game with rules spanning across multiple editions written by people who go out of their way to make it a "non-competitive" game to have as air-tight of a ruleset as one specifically designed to be competitively played with rules designed to fit into a single small booklet, and that can be taught in an afternoon.

Whether or not you agree with GW, or the way they do things, it's illogical to compare 40k to MTG because they're not similar games. 40k isn't a competitive game, no matter how much you or I want it to be.

But MTG doesnt get new Editions'. And if you change the rules of the game even a little bit, then you can invalidate thousands of older cards and break the fine balance.

40k (or even fantasy) gets new editions every 4 years where they have the opportunity to completely re-write the rules. The previous editions don't have to mean anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ugavine wrote:
WOTC are a hundred times worse than GW will ever be. They killed D&D minis, killed star Wars minis with power creep, killed Heroscape and are killing D&D RPG. Their errata is in volumes. Their rules wording is TERRIBLE (the word 'can' means 'must' in their CMGs). They're owned by Hasbro so are more money, money, money than any other games company and they treat they staff like dirt with annual redundancies at Christmas.

Meanwhile MTG has none of these problems and is doing far better than GW could even dream of.

Other than MTG of today being a boring competition game with no difference between colours and huge power creep, they're doing great.

You dont have to play standard.

Backfire wrote:


Other than MTG of today being a boring competition game with no difference between colours and huge power creep, they're doing great.

No difference between colors? You're obviously not playing the same game I am.

 Xzerios wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
40k isn't a competitive game, no matter how much you or I want it to be.

Well, you and I play different versions of the game then. Also, the point of a game is to be competitive, to strive to win.

I find the point of the game is to have fun.

While I play to win I don't care who wins. Chatting and having a good time with mates is far more important to me, and that's how I play 40K.

And therein lies part of the problem. Different attitudes towards the game. Just refer to the thread about Rick Priestly games, he doesn't generally write competitive games, and 40K is just following on from his design. And to be honest, I like it and thoroughly enjoy the rules. But I play lots of games and have plenty to choose from if I want to play a tight rules system - not that I personally find much wrong with 40K to be honest.

Backfire wrote:

Other than MTG of today being a boring competition game with no difference between colours and huge power creep, they're doing great.

I dare you to count the number of cards finding their way into legacy or vintage play every edition. While I was still actively playing, I could count the interesting cards every edtion for those formats on two hands.
Then compare, say, the 4th Edition Era codices and the 5th Edition Era.
THAT'S huge power creep. Hell, going from a 16 points vanilla Marine to a 20 points Marine with a Storm Bolter, psi-weapons and special rules out the ass, THAT'S huge power creep.
Of course there's power creep in MTG. That's what keeps long running systems interesting. Who'd give a frick about the new edition if there isn't anything interesting in there?
But all in all, they managed to keep it pretty low. Not like a certain miniatures company.

As for the distinctions of the colour pie... Show me unconditional red card draw that generates card advantage. Or unconditional white single target creature destruction. Or black enchantment removal. Sure, there are a few oddballs, but I'd hardly call that "no difference."

But who died and gave you the power to determine what's fun and what isn't anyway?


The thing that amazes me times and times again is the stubborness with which some people defend their "fun beer and pretzels non competetive game." As if "working rules" and "fun" are mutually exclusive. Sure, you can laugh it off and throw a dice, you are just playing for fun anyway! But what is there to lose from creating a ruleset that doesn't break down if you give it a stern look? What do you gain from a ruleset that is riddled with holes?

Even though it seems like this thread is getting lost down a rabbit hole of MTG stuff, I am going the throw my 2 cents in here.


1) There are a lot of things that GW could do to make the game more fun for different types of players. The game should have multiple additional rules or formats to allow for different types of players to enjoy the game.

MTG has different formats and different rules to appeal to different types of players, and they all work. Casual play with MTG is fun. Commander is great for making silly or "themed" or "Fluffy" decks. Limited is for the casual competitor, constructed for the more serious competitor.

With 40k, there is always the issue of "I have a fluffy list, he has a Tournament list, this is not going to be a fun game for us". Magic gets around that by having different formats. 40k should have the same.


a) Casual rule set
Basically what 40k is in 6th edition, but perhaps a bit more simplified. These rules would the be more similar to introductory rules; Simple, fun, easy to learn and to pick up rules.

Then you would have 2 different additional rule sets you could add onto the "Casual" rules

b) Tournament rule set.
There is no reason for GW to completely ignore this demographic. There should be a set of rules which are very tight, not open to debate, and reasonably balanced. There should be strict rules on terrain placement, objective placement, and mission types. More consistency and less random events that swing the game one way or another.

c) Narrative rule set
More complicated than the Casual set of rules, but not intended for tournament play. Lots of random events that can swing the game; random terrain, random objectives, ect. More opportunities for characters to develop or show their personalities.


d) Scaling rule set
Lastly, there should be some ways that the rules can scale with the size of the game. Give the people who like to collect and paint a ton of stuff a way to play without having to take an entire weekend (IF THEY WANT TO). Maybe things like movement trays for open terrain, embarking into area terrain where movement trays don't fit, Faster rolling for blast weapons. Maybe even simplified wound allocation or something similar as well.

Also, make some rule for SMALL games as well. let us play a fun and balanced game with just the contents of a Battleforce. This would also be a great marketing move, as it would give players a quick way to get into the game without shelling out fora 1500 pt list where the game starts to get balanced.



These types of rules would not just be in the BRB, but also contained within each codex as well. Example: The random Daemon table thing would only be applicable in the "Narrative" format and not in "Casual" or "Tournament".

=================

2) Introductory Product
For a while I worked for a company that demoed remote controlled helicopters. The sales system was based on impulse sales. Get people excited by a demonstration, put a product in their hand, and they will buy it on their own. No need to be super pushy or aggressive. Impulse sales like this only really work when you have a price point that is not so high that it forced the customer to think about the purchase.

~$100 is not something you will just drop without thinking about it first, but spending ~$20 to maybe even $50 is going to be much less of an issue.

GW should redesign their rules and product such that each Battle Force is a true introductory product. One box, with a good price point for an impulse buy, that has everything in it you need to get started. Paint, Glue, Rules, Models, tools.

Right now, if you want to get going in a GW game, you need to buy a $100 bow, and then get a whole pile of paint, tools, brushes, glue, rules ect. If you are not stopping and thinking about the $100 box, you certainly are thinking about this whole pile of stuff. You are not going to make an impulse buy after all of that.

One box that you can put in someone hands, get them checked out, and get them hooked. Get people to have that first impulse purchase to get them into the hobby. Then you can market your other products as "expert" level or something like that. Everyone wants to be an expert and not just a scrub with the beginner set.

=========

3) Community building

MTG does this with Friday Night Magic. Every Friday there is some event, small tournament, draft, ect. that you can be a part of. WotC gives stores that run events like this some prizes (nothing huge, usually just some individual cards) to give players some incentive to show up. These prizes can even lead to further sales. (I won this Eldar farseer, guess I need to get an Eldar army now...)

GW should have some kind of similar events, both in their own stores and with FLGSs. It would not need to always be "competitive" in the sense of a tournament. Painting contests, narrative events, conversion contests, all kinds of things. The point is to have a set time and place where people meet, play together, and get to know each other.

This will be how you can get your introductory impulse buyers to become regulars and veterans. They come to the events and the other players there do all of the marketing for you. The company gets to look friendly and inviting, while the other players there show all all their cool models and convince each other to buy more product.

============

If you look at MTG, this is exactly what they are doing. They have only become a bigger and more popular game as time has gone on. They get you into the game with introductory, casual decks. They get you coming back week after week for Friday Night Magic, They get you to go deeper into the game by exposing you to the community. Their are formats and cards that appeal to all the types of players.

I do not really know enough about the business end of things to know if this is really feasible, but it is just what I would like to see from them. The biggest issue is that this would require GW to rebuild the game from the ground up. New rulebooks and all new codexes, new products, ect.

Yeah, I've long advocated such an approach, using Apcalypse as an example. That was clearly written with narrative and not competetive gaming in mind.

Now, let's have GW turn around and write a really tight Codex: Tournamanets type of supplement.

That's actually a really good idea svendrex.

 Easy E wrote:
Yeah, I've long advocated such an approach, using Apcalypse as an example. That was clearly written with narrative and not competetive gaming in mind.

Now, let's have GW turn around and write a really tight Codex: Tournamanets type of supplement.

you'd have to rewrite all the codexes of course. 130 point vendettas won't fit into any attempt at a balanced ruleset.

How to fix it, I will try my very best:

More connection with the customer.

As stated, they have withdrawn almost as if the customer is viewed as a distraction.

- Bring forums back that employees can openly participate.

- Bring events back that employees can openly participate.

- Create surveys with incentives for customers to get valuable feedback.

- Bring shining examples of the hobby to their facility to talk to their staff (loved the large remote control Landraider that had them all excited at GW).

- Anything that gets them outside the corporate culture so they do not run contrary to customer wants.

- Look at successful kickstarters to do with the hobby, they show in a measureable way what people want.

- Publish fan based works, they can easily turn out better than what GW can do.

Most companies are no longer "product based" we are just getting out of "service based" businesses and now getting into "social based / group funded / products" so they need this more personal connection to be successful.

My two cents.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Yeah, I've long advocated such an approach, using Apcalypse as an example. That was clearly written with narrative and not competetive gaming in mind.

Now, let's have GW turn around and write a really tight Codex: Tournamanets type of supplement.

you'd have to rewrite all the codexes of course. 130 point vendettas won't fit into any attempt at a balanced ruleset.

Nope, you create mini-lists in the Codex: Tournamanets, that are updates in newer versions of Codex: Tournaments. Therefore GW makes money all around!

Gw still need to build and maintain two separate rulesets, with the non competitive one having rules/points changes arbitrarily. There'd be no reason to play the fluff one, and arguments would ensue - why would I play against 130 point vendettas if I can argue to play in a ruleset where they're 180 points?

it is not that there would be 2 different sets of rules.


There would be the basic rules. The simple stuff you need to know in order to have a game. Preferably these rules would include list writing rules for very small point levels, so it would be very easy to pick up the game and get going. Also include rules for balancing games with unequal points. Put whatever you have on the table, and get playing.


Then you would have additional rules for competitive play. You don't change anything in the basic rules. simply add rules to help balance the game. How to have a balanced board set up, Additional rules for list writing, rules for balanced objectives, for example. Rules that make the game more consistent, and based more on competitive, tactical play.


Alternatively, you could have rules for narrative play. These would be additional rule for things like additional terrain effects, narrative mission types, rules for army lists that are consistent with the fluff, rules for more character customization. Include rules that add more "randomness" to the game.



All of the rules sets would all be based on the basic rules. Point costs would be consistent, as they are part of the basic rules. If a unit is too cheap or too expensive, then it should have a price adjustment in all types of play.

The competitive rules would have one set of list restrictions, based around gameplay balance.
The Narrative rules would have a second set of list restrictions based on representing the world of 40k/fantasy/LotR.


EXAMPLE:
40k space marine codex

Basic rules FOC: must have 1 troops unit. Other than that, you can take whatever you want. Contain options to balance armies of different points. (ie. stratagems or similar)

Competitive rules FOC: Basically the current way. 2 troops, 1 HQ minimum, ect. Some limitations on the number of copies of specific units you can take.

Narrative rules FOC: Half of your units need to be Tactical squads, certain equipment limited in number for the list (like plasma guns, terminators ect.) that are supposed to be rare.
Gain access to rules letting you build a custom Captain and Chapter Tactics.


========

Additionally, I think that if GW really wants to make their game balanced in some form, they need to abandon paper codex for their rules.

The rules would be digital in some form. The BRB could still be a big paper book that is updated all at once. Each codex really needs to be digitally distributed. If you look at any competitive video game (e-sports), the one thing they have in common is frequent patching. Game designers make mistakes. There is no reason for a game to suffer for the next 5 years, because of a design mistake. Digital codex rules would give the developers more tools to fix mistakes that they have made. Frequent patching of the rules is the only way to reach some kind of balance.

There are a lot of different models to monetize a digital rule set. pay for each file, subscription, ect. Maybe even give a player a free download of the rules for every $50 worth of models they buy for a given army. Give the customer an incentive to buy models for their old force in order to get the newest set of rules for them, for Free. Give the store a reason to track their sales, and give you a way to market to veteran customers. "There are new rules out for your Space Marines. You only need to spend another $15 to get those rules for free."

Digital rules would have another distinct advantage as well. You could include a "free copy" of the rules for a given force in each battle force. Get those impulse buyers to go to the GW website, see all of your products, learn about your events, and get deeper into the hobby.


While the rules for a given force would be digital, there is no need for the rest of the information in a codex to be digitally distributed. The digital codex would be nothing but rules. The paper codex would be Stories, Fluff, Art, Conversions, Painting examples, and a Strategy guide.

The big one is advertising. What got me into the hobby was an old TV ad for the Hero Quest board game. If I'd never seen that, all my money would likely be flowing into some other pastime.

 svendrex wrote:
Additionally, I think that if GW really wants to make their game balanced in some form, they need to abandon paper codex for their rules.

The rules would be digital in some form. The BRB could still be a big paper book that is updated all at once. Each codex really needs to be digitally distributed. If you look at any competitive video game (e-sports), the one thing they have in common is frequent patching. Game designers make mistakes. There is no reason for a game to suffer for the next 5 years, because of a design mistake. Digital codex rules would give the developers more tools to fix mistakes that they have made. Frequent patching of the rules is the only way to reach some kind of balance.

That really doesn't sound like a good idea. Some of us modern primitives still don't like to bring expensive gadgets to every game. And maybe people will buy an extra box of stuff in order to get the errata, but it's slightly more likely they'll just check it on the internet and get annoyed at being charged because the designers made mistakes.

A better model would be the Warmachine / Malifaux route, where you have starter books for each army, and there are regular supplements with new stuff for every army, and copies of any errata (and stat cards with the models when they're released). This also solves the problem of one faction not selling because they have outdated rules and having outdated rules because they're not selling.

 BryllCream wrote:
Gw still need to build and maintain two separate rulesets, with the non competitive one having rules/points changes arbitrarily. There'd be no reason to play the fluff one, and arguments would ensue - why would I play against 130 point vendettas if I can argue to play in a ruleset where they're 180 points?

Vendettas might not even BE in the Tourney lists. Since the GW Tourney Lists in Codex: Tournaments would need to be balanced, the Tourney lists would have to have a streamlned model selection so they could control the interaction of units better for improved game balance and to make everything even.

All the wierd, core mechanic breaking toys are for the narrative/fluff side of things. Part of the cost of doing business and having balanced competitive play. Sorry.

Most of what I would have written (e.g marketing: do it, stop treating the Internet like it'll bite you, take more care writing rules, be less litigious, and so on) has already been posted so I'll just say that I think the most important issue is pricing. I actually think that other complaints, for example those over unbalanced rules, would be much less vociferous (note that I don't think they'd go away entirely, and nor should they) if we weren't being charged such an astronomical amount for the products in the first place.

1) Stop trying to be a huge profit making organisation and remember what you are supposed to be; a wargaming manufacturer.
2) Treat customers better.
3) Listen once in a while.
4) Be more open.
5) Get a book on the internet and realise what it can do for you instead of pretending it does not exist.
6) Accept constructive criticism instead of going in the huff(re; the revamp of WD). You once did long long ago.
7) The car crash law suits really need to stop. They are not funny anymore.
8) Learn that the hobby is supposed to be fun, and not about how much money you can screw out of us.
9) Create a seperate divison to develop the rule and army books, they really need to stand apart from your main business of producing the finest model soldiers in the world!(it still makes me laugh tosay that after all these years!).
10) Bring back Rick Priestly and give him sole control over 40k.
11) Be a bit more helpful and supportive of the independents intsead of placing nothing but restrictions on them. After all they have helped your company grow over the years, surely they should be rewarded instead of punished?
12) Be nicer to your Australian customers. Like I said in (7), it is not funny anymore. Charging them even more than the rest of the world for all your products(how does an ebook cost more in Australia?) is taking the joke too far.

Rick Priestley is happy with life after GW. last time I heard the Perry twins were still working for GW. And as unpopular as I know this is going to be received by you all, GW are supportive of Independent retailers. We don't get any special treatment and are pretty happy with the relationship. Example, check out the GW gaming boards in our gaming centre, the link is in this post signature, all given to us by GW.

We're not happy with everything they do, but we are more unhappy with the things they don't do, like giving trade accounts to "shops" that are never open while we pay the overheads of running a real store 6 days a week.

The reports of GW's death are greatly exaggerated

Put your customers before your shareholders. Prices hikes are losing customers and making those who play the game question GW.

Make the hobby accessible to the working class and adults. You have a shop GW you have the luxury of opening it late for older gamers! Ask yourself Why not?

I myself have box's of models in my room... I hardly touch them and when I do i sigh... I remember when the old managers were at my store, we had so much fun having tournament nights and gaming days. I actually looked at my army and it felt so close to me, it didn't feel like I was supporting GW because I didn't need to... GW supported me, I had no worries of price hikes just an imaginary world I delved so deep into... I loved it... Then i met a nasty manager, held onto a non gw gaming store and then that closed. :( Oh and Grey Knights codex gripe...

This thread is honestly full of opinions that need to be shared with GW in some way. There are enough people with the same opinions, that even if communicating them to GW didn't institute an immediate policy change, would at least put the idea in somebody's mind. Say what you want about GW, but they're still a company, and their shareholders want sales. To get sales, they need to make customers happy. Complaining in a constructive way could actually go a long way, but not if it is limited to this forum and never makes it to GW.

I guess I should buy shares and go to the Shareholder's meeting.

And be ignored by Kirby , like every one else who wants a long term future for GW plc...

I'm lazy, but I saw this thread and felt i had to contribute:

a factory fire and an insurance claim. A mighty large insurance claim. That would probably save GW.

For me, the thing that annoys me the most is the fact I can no longer go into a store and do hobby stuff or play games unless its a booked lesson. My current store has gotten rid of most of their tables and just a huge empty space. They say to go to the nearest club, but I don't want to have to pay to play.

That annoys me more than the stock issues or the price rises, the shop feeling less like a community. Though of course the stock and money problems are frustrating too.

I'm going to weigh in on the MTG thing as well as it is very, very appropriate. I used to wonder why people would occasionally bring up MTG when talking about miniature gaming before I played it, but now that I do, I understand the points they were making. I'll do my best to present what I'm saying in a way that is relevant to improving a miniature wargaming experience.

daedalus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Meanwhile MTG has none of these problems and is doing far better than GW could even dream of.

MTG? That game that has one unified set of rules the size of a Chick Tract written by a cadre of authors updating it at once where the solution to dealing with kludgy parts of the system from 10 years ago is just to declare them disallowed? Quite.

MTG has a basic rulebook and a comprehensive rules document. Many, many GW players would love a set of rules as well codified as the MTG Comprehensive Rules document. The comprehensive rules document is an absolute dream for looking up things you are confused about. It's 199 pages, cross referenced and searchable and available for free in a variety of formats. It gets updated multiple times per year with each and every product release.

Furthermore Wizards understands that it's what you play the game with that sell so they don't charge for the rules. They offer scans of every card they've ever produced on their website and allow fan sites to post images of their cards as well. They know that people want the high quality physical cards they sell and are not at all threatened by a site like magiccards.info has great scans of almost every card from the history of MTG. GW on the other hand is litigious and controlling of anything. They even sent cease & desist letters to people over the URLs of their website.

daedalus wrote:
Then I suppose I don't really "get" MTG:

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/arcana/149
https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=judge/resources/banned
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/232

Did you actually click into the links you provided? You'll find NO banned cards in Standard, There are about 30 for Modern, And your link to a 2009 "all banned cards ever" article is super small when you remember that 10,000+ cards have been printed for MTG. Before I played MTG, I thought Wizards was banning cards willy nilly and doing their best to invalidate old cards to push people into buying the new stuff, but I quickly found out they are actually doing the opposite.

Wizards provides formats of play to support long out of print cards. GW has no care for supporting their previous products. They yanked all the articles from their website and each codex released is about selling the new kits rather than making the army list the best possible fit into the game as a whole. Wizards, on the other hand, develops cards in each set to support all the different formats that people play and has regular events that support the use of out of print product in a way that makes for the best gaming experience possible.

daedalus wrote:
Whether or not you agree with GW, or the way they do things, it's illogical to compare 40k to MTG because they're not similar games. 40k isn't a competitive game, no matter how much you or I want it to be.

On the contrary, it's very, very logical to compare MTG and 40k. It's relevant because Wizards is growing MTG through their smart behaviour and GW is stagnating in a growing industry through their practices. Also, for a lot of independent retailers here in North America, MTG is their main seller. It's what keeps the doors open for many game stores. The only reason 40k isn't a competitive game is design failure. GW simply has not figured out how to make their game balanced and competitive so they just admitted failure by giving up on even trying.

svendrex wrote:
I do not really know enough about the business end of things to know if this is really feasible, but it is just what I would like to see from them. The biggest issue is that this would require GW to rebuild the game from the ground up. New rulebooks and all new codexes, new products, ect.

This is what they need to do. They need to completely rethink the experience of their product from first contact to years in and have a roadmap for players moving from one stage to another. As it is, they try to get as much money as possible up front and expect the customer to quit shortly after.

WarGameStore wrote:GW are supportive of Independent retailers.

When GW finally opened up a local GW store here, the local stores started getting short shipped and getting new releases and pre-orders delivered late so the only place you could reliably get new stuff when it came out was the GW store. At the time there were five independent retailers in the city that sold GW. They are now down to one and the GW closed and was replaced with a one-man operation. Hope that doesn't happen to you.

The reports of GW's death are greatly exaggerated

You didn't read the first post in this thread did you? This thread is not about "saving" GW in terms of keeping the company profitable, but in terms of "saving" it in terms of customer experience with their product.

I do not use the exalt button lightly, but you sir have just received one!

The main thing that worries me about GW is the next generation of players.

I'm painting with a broad brush, but we've all heard that one of the "customer" groups GW coveted in the age when they had GW stores in the malls was to get some kid to buy a couple of kits and then have the kid lose interest (I'm not sure if this was ever their actual business plan).

If that was their plan, I'm not sure how their current prices are aligned with that idea.

Said, kid, could buy a video game for nearly the same cost as a box of space marines and likely get more utility out of the video game.

I think a copy of Call of Duty that said kid could buy in lieu of a tact squad is a better deal for the kid. Much less work to play with friends, lower barrier to entrance, hundreds of hours of fun, ...

Now as the prices go up and up, not only is the GW "hobby" more expensive to get into, it is more costly via opportunity wrt friends, time, availability, and skill.

When I was a kid in the '80's, it was difficult to find GW models and difficult to find players. The difference was models were much cheaper than computer games then.

What will "save" GW? Getting more of the next generation players interested in playing the games they make.

 frozenwastes wrote:
I'm going to weigh in on the MTG thing as well as it is very, very appropriate. I used to wonder why people would occasionally bring up MTG when talking about miniature gaming before I played it, but now that I do, I understand the points they were making. I'll do my best to present what I'm saying in a way that is relevant to improving a miniature wargaming experience.

Woah, this thread is still going? Is it the most current one of it's ilk? Fantastic to your point. I haven't played MTG since Ice Age or so. Comments to follow.

daedalus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Meanwhile MTG has none of these problems and is doing far better than GW could even dream of.

MTG? That game that has one unified set of rules the size of a Chick Tract written by a cadre of authors updating it at once where the solution to dealing with kludgy parts of the system from 10 years ago is just to declare them disallowed? Quite.

MTG has a basic rulebook and a comprehensive rules document. Many, many GW players would love a set of rules as well codified as the MTG Comprehensive Rules document. The comprehensive rules document is an absolute dream for looking up things you are confused about. It's 199 pages, cross referenced and searchable and available for free in a variety of formats. It gets updated multiple times per year with each and every product release.

Furthermore Wizards understands that it's what you play the game with that sell so they don't charge for the rules. They offer scans of every card they've ever produced on their website and allow fan sites to post images of their cards as well. They know that people want the high quality physical cards they sell and are not at all threatened by a site like magiccards.info has great scans of almost every card from the history of MTG. GW on the other hand is litigious and controlling of anything. They even sent cease & desist letters to people over the URLs of their website.

Yes, it is a basic rulebook and comprehensive rules document. It would be awesome if GW could do the same. Again, I don't think it's logistically possible without leaving things completely invalidated or stifling their ability to change things. Maybe that means they had poor game design from the get-go. Maybe they have poor design still. I've never denied either of those points. All I know is that when you have artifacts from over ten years ago still playable, "fixing" the rules now such that those would become invalidated would create more fallout than you see now. MTG has one rulebook to rule them all. Forty-kay has many. Note my inquiry below with the D&D material.

Also, I've not heard of C&Ds over URLs. It's news to me. Can you provide references? I would like to read further.

daedalus wrote:
Then I suppose I don't really "get" MTG:

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/arcana/149
https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=judge/resources/banned
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/232

Did you actually click into the links you provided?

 daedalus wrote:
All I know is that when you have artifacts from over ten years ago still playable, "fixing" the rules now such that those would become invalidated would create more fallout than you see now.

But MTG has cards from 1993 that are still playable, with rules that have been "fixed". There's no reason, other than laziness and/or incompetence, that GW couldn't do the same.

Does not even invalidating 30 cards in any particular setting not count?

Err, what? That's 30 cards spread across a huge range of sets, most of them done as a preemptive ban so the new format would play differently than other similar formats. Even if we assume that every one of those cards is game-breaking and overpowered (and will never be un-banned) that's still a much higher success rate than GW can manage.

Also, note that Modern (the tournament format we're talking about here) wasn't invented until years after many of the cards in it were printed. So WOTC assembled a tournament format from sets that had not been designed to be played together like that, and the inherent balance of the game was good enough that only a few cards had to be banned, most of them just to be safe rather than because they had broken the game.

Yes, but they don't have a rulebook for each color of mana that has to be adhered to. They have one unified ruleset, not, what, 14? Candyland has a pretty tight ruleset too. As does chess, and on and on. Not saying this is good or bad, but I'm appealing to the nature of what we're dealing with here, rather than some ideal.

But they do have huge numbers of cards, and an incredibly complex set of core rules. MTG's complexity may be organized differently than 40k's, but it's a far more complex game overall. The problem here isn't that 40k has more rules, it's that GW doesn't care enough to write good rules.

Is it fair to say they even TRIED to make the game balanced or competitive to begin with? Seems they've been declaring war on competitive gaming for a while now. Note the pictures in the rulebook of Ward, sipping his beer with a petulant smile toward the camera? I don't think they wanted a competitive game to being with. I think that's what everyone else wanted.

And only an incompetent idiot would deliberately write off competitive play when you can have a balanced competitive game that is also perfect for casual players. Unfortunately GW seems to be a company full of incompetent idiots.

Further, is it fair to say GW is stagnating?

Their annual growth in sales is less than their annual price increase + inflation. So every year they sell fewer and fewer models, in an industry that is expanding as a whole. So yeah, I'd say it's fair to say that GW is stagnating.

 Peregrine wrote:

Their annual growth in sales is less than their annual price increase + inflation. So every year they sell fewer and fewer models, in an industry that is expanding as a whole. So yeah, I'd say it's fair to say that GW is stagnating.

Oh, this again. I hope you never go into business if you think it's a good idea to sell as many things as possible regardless of profit margin.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Their annual growth in sales is less than their annual price increase + inflation. So every year they sell fewer and fewer models, in an industry that is expanding as a whole. So yeah, I'd say it's fair to say that GW is stagnating.

Oh, this again. I hope you never go into business if you think it's a good idea to sell as many things as possible regardless of profit margin.

And I hope you never go to business if you think selling less each year for 7 years in a row in a growing market is totally okay

It is if you're getting more money.

They're not getting more money. They're getting roughly the same amount.

But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about what people would like to see changed in order for their experience of GW's offerings to be better. The OP specifically stated that this thread isn't about GW's financial health, but about how things could be better. The thread title is definitely misleading.

As for my thinking about how could GW get better, they could go back to doing what they did in the 1990s. Lower model count games, more variety in games sold, more support for distribution so stores could get their products without jumping through all the hoops and regulations of their direct sales contracts, WD with real content, but also stick with a more modern aesthetic as while I love some of the 90s stuff, there's some that hasn't aged well at all.

 BryllCream wrote:
It is if you're getting more money.

They aren't getting more money though, they are getting about the same, and even if they were making more money they are losing players. There will come a point where no one plays, at which point they will sell NO models and make NO money.

 BryllCream wrote:
It is if you're getting more money.

No it isn't, since:

1) You're not going to continue to grow. Raising prices on a declining customer base might give you acceptable numbers for your next financial report, but it isn't a long-term strategy.

2) You're probably not making as much money as you could be making. If you're getting 5% annual "growth" while losing market share instead of 10% growth while putting your competition out of business I don't really see any reason to be happy with those numbers.

Do we actually know how much market share other games are actually taking? Because they're all privately owned, has anyone ever come across how much in sales/profit companies like Privateer or Battlefront are actually doing?

I mean, we can provide anecdotal evidence on "which games are growing" until we're blue in the face, but without any actual numbers from some of these smaller companies, isn't it effectively meaningless?

 cincydooley wrote:
Do we actually know how much market share other games are actually taking? Because they're all privately owned, has anyone ever come across how much in sales/profit companies like Privateer or Battlefront are actually doing?

I mean, we can provide anecdotal evidence on "which games are growing" until we're blue in the face, but without any actual numbers from some of these smaller companies, isn't it effectively meaningless?

Well, we have information that the market in general is up by 15%, and we know GWs revenue is largely flat, despite price rises, so that would suggest volume was down.

So, no, we cannot definitively say who is taking what market share, but its probably not unreasonable to speculate that non GW wargames now control somewhere around 15 to 20 percent more of the market than they have previously, and in a market this small, that's a hefty lump.

Where us the "up 15 %" from? Market publication I presume?

 cincydooley wrote:
Where us the "up 15 %" from? Market publication I presume?

I've seen it quoted, yes some official market index, I'm afraid I don't recall the name, no doubt someone else will remember.

I've heard from distributors that the market is growing quite rapidly. Wizards has been boasting about Magic The Gathering growing. Privateer is still expanding rapidly. And a huge variety of smaller companies are doing bigger and bigger things.

I think I'd go so far as to say that GW no longer has a majority of the hobby gaming market (they probably never did if you count Magic and other CCGs). And they might not have since the LOTR bubble. Since then their units sold have fallen at least in half and it doesn't appear that the customer they lost have necessarily all left the hobby.

Getting exact numbers is very, very difficult, but I don't see a decline in gamers-- in fact, gaming has become more popular, but I do see a decline in GW's units sold when you consider revenue stays about the same and prices go up.

For me, what really needs to change for me to like GW's stuff again is to unshackle the creative departments and stop having them be, as GW's founder described them, the marketing department for a toy company.

I've been hip deep in a few of these 'financial' threads and I've yet to see a link to where this metric is posted. Same with comparative market share. Any and all efforts to make a counterpoint regarding GW growth in their own industry/market in a general "stock market segment" sense have been derided as irrelevant nonsense. Draw your own conclusions.

 cincydooley wrote:
Where us the "up 15 %" from? Market publication I presume?

Jack_Death wrote:
I've been hip deep in a few of these 'financial' threads and I've yet to see a link to where this metric is posted. Same with comparative market share. Any and all efforts to make a counterpoint regarding GW growth in their own industry/market in a general "stock market segment" sense have been derided as irrelevant nonsense. Draw your own conclusions.

You haven't seen an official number because no official number exists, GW's competition doesn't release the financial reports that GW is obligated to show as a publicly owned company. However, we do know three things:

1) GW's sales volume is stagnant or declining. They're required to publish their revenue numbers, and after a few years of decline GW's total revenue has been increasing a bit over the inflation rate. However, this is happening at the same time as price increases, and the increase in revenue isn't (or at least isn't significantly) more than the increase in prices. Therefore the total volume of sales (and, presumably, the number of customers) is dropping.

2) There is anecdotal evidence from distributors/store owners/etc that the miniature wargaming market as a whole is growing. These are people who have a direct interest in GW continuing to be a profitable business for as long as possible, so it's not very plausible that they'd just make stuff up to criticize GW. And "the industry is doing well" is a common enough statement that it's unlikely to be a case of the occasional town breaking the general rule, there probably is legitimate growth.

3) There have been successful kickstarter projects for new miniatures games/accessories/etc adding up to millions of dollars in sales, across a wide range of products. Yes, in theory these sales could all be coming from the same bitter vets in a dying community, but the more likely explanation is that there is strong demand for miniatures games and plenty of room to get new customers or launch new ideas.

So add those that all together and GW has declining market share and a business plan that is directly causing that decline, while GW's competition is thriving. And even the best-case scenario for GW is that they're declining, but everyone else is declining too.

The thing that would go at least somewhere towards redeeming GW would be to cut new players some slack. Have each battleforce box come with the mini rulebook included. Along with that, as special only available in Hobby Centres or via the online website would be a voucher for 5 free citadel paints of your choosing. On top of that, put a HQ choice in the battleforce sets already, geeze.

If they did something along those lines, the entry would still be around $200 but you wouldn't feel so nickel and dimed as a new entrant to the hobby. Yes, other hobbies are expensive, many much more so when you compare value time versus price but the problem with GW products is you have to do work before you can start getting some value out of your products. (<--- If you DON'T like to put together models/paint that much, but want to do it to play the game and look decent on the table.) Sure, maybe those aren't the types of customers GW really wants, but I think they'd get way more than enough of an increase in "starter" revenues to justify the opportunity costs, not to mention subsequent sales from those new customers.

Anything from distributors is going to be worthless. GW is the largest distributor of GW product. Alliance, etc aren't going to have any significant information to pass on regarding GW.

How many people buying into these KSers are doing so to use for 40k and like games? Anecdotally, it seems like a fair amount.

GWs competition is "thriving" seems like a massive overstatement. The only other game I'd, of course anecdotally, say is "thriving" is Warmahordes. Infinity is still tiny. I've never actually seen anyone play a game of Warpath or Kings of War. Flames of War seems pretty healthy, but I don't know that it's really competing for the same demographic that either GW game is. What other games are "thriving" our there?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Coldhatred wrote:
The thing that would go at least somewhere towards redeeming GW would be to cut new players some slack. Have each battleforce box come with the mini rulebook included. Along with that, as special only available in Hobby Centres or via the online website would be a voucher for 5 free citadel paints of your choosing. On top of that, put a HQ choice in the battleforce sets already, geeze.

Why should they give gak away?

If they did something along those lines, the entry would still be around $200 but you wouldn't feel so nickel and dimed as a new entrant to the hobby. Yes, other hobbies are expensive, many much more so when you compare value time versus price but the problem with GW products is you have to do work before you can start getting some value out of your products. (<--- If you DON'T like to put together models/paint that much, but want to do it to play the game and look decent on the table.) Sure, maybe those aren't the types of customers GW really wants, but I think they'd get way more than enough of an increase in "starter" revenues to justify the opportunity costs, not to mention subsequent sales from those new customers.

If you're getting into this hobby not realizing you're going to need paints, glues, and brushes, it's your own fault. Charging for those isn't nickel and diming. And GW doesn't force you to paint or glue with their products. Want to assemble your models? You'll need clue and clippers. Want to cook a meal? Chances are you'll need knives and a pot or two.

 cincydooley wrote:
Why should they give gak away?

Because it would serve them well to do so for Battleforces. I can't explain it any better than by using the words promotion and incentives.

 cincydooley wrote:
If you're getting into this hobby not realizing you're going to need paints, glues, and brushes, it's your own fault. Charging for those isn't nickel and diming. And GW doesn't force you to paint or glue with their products. Want to assemble your models? You'll need clue and clippers. Want to cook a meal? Chances are you'll need knives and a pot or two.

You are misunderstanding what I'm saying (partly my fault). Potential customers most likely know you need that kind of stuff, but honestly consumers can be turned off once they take a look at how much just a few paints are going to cost after they are already getting the battleforce, codex, and rulebook, if we are assuming it is the current situation. No, no one is forcing anyone to use their paint and their glue, but the new consumer isn't going to know good alternatives, or even that he can get quality brushes for 25% of what GW wants to charge for them. By nickel and diming I meant not so much charging for everything, but charging crazy prices for every little thing. So I used that expression incorrectly, so I understand where you're coming from.

Make the hobby supplies inexpensive in relation to what they are now. The models need to be where the action is in terms of cost, as they are often what draws new players in, everything else is ancillary, but subordinate to the models in the eyes of potential customers. There is no reason that a set of rules should cost as much as the 40k rules do. The hardback codices I actually like, the quality is high, but I can see why others don't like them and it certainly would be off compared to the rest of my scheme.

Despite all these kickstarters and alternative companies, I rarely encounter people not using GW models in games. The local tournaments do not require GW models but probably 99% of the models are GW.

One of the bigger FLGS even stocks some Kings of War stuff but you never see it in a tournament around here.

 Peregrine wrote:

You haven't seen an official number because no official number exists, GW's competition doesn't release the financial reports that GW is obligated to show as a publicly owned company. However, we do know three things:

1) GW's sales volume is stagnant or declining. They're required to publish their revenue numbers, and after a few years of decline GW's total revenue has been increasing a bit over the inflation rate. However, this is happening at the same time as price increases, and the increase in revenue isn't (or at least isn't significantly) more than the increase in prices. Therefore the total volume of sales (and, presumably, the number of customers) is dropping.

2) There is anecdotal evidence from distributors/store owners/etc that the miniature wargaming market as a whole is growing. These are people who have a direct interest in GW continuing to be a profitable business for as long as possible, so it's not very plausible that they'd just make stuff up to criticize GW. And "the industry is doing well" is a common enough statement that it's unlikely to be a case of the occasional town breaking the general rule, there probably is legitimate growth.

3) There have been successful kickstarter projects for new miniatures games/accessories/etc adding up to millions of dollars in sales, across a wide range of products. Yes, in theory these sales could all be coming from the same bitter vets in a dying community, but the more likely explanation is that there is strong demand for miniatures games and plenty of room to get new customers or launch new ideas.

So add those that all together and GW has declining market share and a business plan that is directly causing that decline, while GW's competition is thriving. And even the best-case scenario for GW is that they're declining, but everyone else is declining too.

All very excellent points, thank you. That said, making a series of perfectly reasonable assumptions, as you have done, is a very different ballgame than saying something like "the industry is growing at 15% and GW is not, therefore their market share is collapsing". We have seen variations on that argument in every thread. My point is that a. the 15% number is a fabrication, we have no verifiable data and b. a company with over a hundred million in revenues selling toy soldiers is not "collapsing".

I should probably point out that I AGREE that they could be better managed, should advertise, should be working towards operations that can be sustained at a lower gross margin, etc. I AGREE, I am not a GW apologist in any sense of the word. It does prompt me to reply, however, when the lack of engagement in these areas of potential improvement is projected forward into scenarios that include the imminent collapse of the company or various cloak and dagger scenarios about senior executives.

Just like to say that "people using GW models" aren't necessarily "people who bought from GW recently", ebay, 2nd hand shops, etc.. Or just hand-me-downs from quitting friends. Saying "I see plenty of people playing with GW models on GW games. " doesn't mean that GW is selling anything. But of course, this thread isn't about GW's financial situation...

Jack_Death wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

You haven't seen an official number because no official number exists, GW's competition doesn't release the financial reports that GW is obligated to show as a publicly owned company. However, we do know three things:

1) GW's sales volume is stagnant or declining. They're required to publish their revenue numbers, and after a few years of decline GW's total revenue has been increasing a bit over the inflation rate. However, this is happening at the same time as price increases, and the increase in revenue isn't (or at least isn't significantly) more than the increase in prices. Therefore the total volume of sales (and, presumably, the number of customers) is dropping.

2) There is anecdotal evidence from distributors/store owners/etc that the miniature wargaming market as a whole is growing. These are people who have a direct interest in GW continuing to be a profitable business for as long as possible, so it's not very plausible that they'd just make stuff up to criticize GW. And "the industry is doing well" is a common enough statement that it's unlikely to be a case of the occasional town breaking the general rule, there probably is legitimate growth.

3) There have been successful kickstarter projects for new miniatures games/accessories/etc adding up to millions of dollars in sales, across a wide range of products. Yes, in theory these sales could all be coming from the same bitter vets in a dying community, but the more likely explanation is that there is strong demand for miniatures games and plenty of room to get new customers or launch new ideas.

So add those that all together and GW has declining market share and a business plan that is directly causing that decline, while GW's competition is thriving. And even the best-case scenario for GW is that they're declining, but everyone else is declining too.

All very excellent points, thank you. That said, making a series of perfectly reasonable assumptions, as you have done, is a very different ballgame than saying something like "the industry is growing at 15% and GW is not, therefore their market share is collapsing". We have seen variations on that argument in every thread. My point is that a. the 15% number is a fabrication, we have no verifiable data and b. a company with over a hundred million in revenues selling toy soldiers is not "collapsing".

I should probably point out that I AGREE that they could be better managed, should advertise, should be working towards operations that can be sustained at a lower gross margin, etc. I AGREE, I am not a GW apologist in any sense of the word. It does prompt me to reply, however, when the lack of engagement in these areas of potential improvement is projected forward into scenarios that include the imminent collapse of the company or various cloak and dagger scenarios about senior executives.

It's taken me bloody ages to find a link to this, but here is a link to the 15% figure. Absolutely, definitively not a fabrication..

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/25373.html

You can also find from the links in the article that WHFB is the 4th placed miniatures game, behind 40k, X Wing and Warmachine.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of their rankings come from informal polls of distributors, right? For some reason I remember reading that and it was, in essence, misleading because they don't consider any GW direct sales.

They don't have to, as GW are legally obliged to tell us what they are.

Believe me, informal or no, there won't be one shop owner who won't have a pretty good idea what his shops performance is, year on year, or wouldn't be able to look it up off a spreadsheet in short order.

No, it's not a precise document like formal accounts would be, but its a reliable source and a good indicator. In my opinion its no less accurate than GW financial reports, which can be fluffed and spun to portray the message GW want to broadcast.

Simply put, independents are growing in a substantial way, GW is not keeping pace with this growth, so it must be coming from somewhere else. Now, that could be Magic, PP games, FFG games or whatever, but sector growth is outpacing GW growth, and that simply isn't good.

Sorry. Should have been more specific. I simply meant in terms of rankings for sales.

Oh, right.

Well, no, these wouldn't include those figures, but they can still be considered a useful indicator, especially as I believe the independent retail element is a much bigger part of the US market?

Like it or not, Kirby has fulfilled his obligations to the shareholders by increasing the value of their stock. Accordingly, the question is not "how to save GW", but how to improve their P.R. Goodwill goes a long way to a company's perceived health.

To that end, one of the best tools is customer interaction. I find it odd that people still complain about GW not engaging with the internet, when they have a "What's new today" section on their website, which regularly posts user content. It may not have the depth of the Dakka/Warseer/etc. forums, but its something. Perhaps a monthly Q & A would help gamers feel they are more involved, and overcome the dissatisfaction with the release secrecy? As a Facebook page for commercial enterprises are essentially advertisements, it is understandable to want to exclude any negative publicity. Using the monthly Q & A feature would establish and contain discourse with the consumers cheaply and effectively.

Several users clearly feel marginalized by the company. These range from WAAC players who want a more precise rule system, and 'veteran' players, who feel that the company is too focused on younger consumers.
Addressing the WAAC category is difficult; an select Beta is impractical, and runs the risk of piracy, however the company is (understandably) reluctant to make its ruleset freely available in a public Beta, before releasing the finished product. GW hosted Tournamnets, where rules are regularly discussed and evaluated is one possible solution. Yet, this seems like a quality control issue to me, with perhaps more rigorous playtesting, and acknowledgment of community contributions in FAQs, and amended Codex editions being a simple, but effective way of increasing P.R.

Tackling 'veterans' gripes is more difficult, as the category is by its very nature capricious and multifaceted. A system of advanced products, such as kits and books could be introduced, but this is already covered by Forge World. A subtle re-branding could perhaps be enabled to draw focus to this element, with more features incorporated on the main webpage. This coupled with 'Advanced' nights at clubs, where difficult techniques are demonstrated, and Advanced Kits are stocked would attract customers and increase sales of these more exclusive products. A 'traveling roadshow' distribution model could be an effective way of ensuring customers were aware of dates/availability.

A more minor complaint is the lack of variety in 'conversion' articles, with buying GW kits being the focus. Clearly advertising competitors products is counter-intuitive, but I can see no reason not to address this issue, when increased positive P.R. is available.

Litigation should be conducted in a more amicable matter. In the digital age, confidentiality is non-existent, and pursuing a claim is dangerous from a P.R. standpoint. A focus on mediation and the pre-trial process should be encouraged. Acceptance of reasonable settlements whilst protecting the company's legitimate IP would greatly assist the company's image.

Finally, the #1 complaint from the community appears to be prices. (N.b I've been playing for years, and have been all but priced out by the company). As the company is most likely unwilling to drop prices permanently, a system of discounts could be introduced, based on repeat custom. I.e, the more you purchase, the better your savings. A detailed breakdown of this system is beyond the scope of this discussion, but it would undoubtedly help connect with the community, and reward the most loyal customers. This has the added benefit of redressing the balance of focus between one-shot customers, and aggrieved 'veterans'.
Furthermore, periodic sales should be implemented to increase goodwill. A simple 20% reduction on the main lines twice a year (summer & Christmas) would boost sales, increase foot traffic in stores, and establish an image of a company more in-touch with its consumers in these economic times.
I am unsure how the price disparity in Aus. etc. can be addressed quickly, and without substantial cost to the company. Some sort of comparative advantage should be implemented to ensure customer retention however.


Just some ideas. If they were implemented, I bet there would be fewer 'the sky is falling' posts. Now whether their long term investment plans are economically sound is a different matter, and I leave that to wiser minds than my own.

You really shouldn't conflate Win at all costs with wanting a tight rules set.

 azreal13 wrote:

Jack_Death wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

You haven't seen an official number because no official number exists, GW's competition doesn't release the financial reports that GW is obligated to show as a publicly owned company. However, we do know three things:

1) GW's sales volume is stagnant or declining. They're required to publish their revenue numbers, and after a few years of decline GW's total revenue has been increasing a bit over the inflation rate. However, this is happening at the same time as price increases, and the increase in revenue isn't (or at least isn't significantly) more than the increase in prices. Therefore the total volume of sales (and, presumably, the number of customers) is dropping.

2) There is anecdotal evidence from distributors/store owners/etc that the miniature wargaming market as a whole is growing. These are people who have a direct interest in GW continuing to be a profitable business for as long as possible, so it's not very plausible that they'd just make stuff up to criticize GW. And "the industry is doing well" is a common enough statement that it's unlikely to be a case of the occasional town breaking the general rule, there probably is legitimate growth.

3) There have been successful kickstarter projects for new miniatures games/accessories/etc adding up to millions of dollars in sales, across a wide range of products. Yes, in theory these sales could all be coming from the same bitter vets in a dying community, but the more likely explanation is that there is strong demand for miniatures games and plenty of room to get new customers or launch new ideas.

So add those that all together and GW has declining market share and a business plan that is directly causing that decline, while GW's competition is thriving. And even the best-case scenario for GW is that they're declining, but everyone else is declining too.

All very excellent points, thank you. That said, making a series of perfectly reasonable assumptions, as you have done, is a very different ballgame than saying something like "the industry is growing at 15% and GW is not, therefore their market share is collapsing". We have seen variations on that argument in every thread. My point is that a. the 15% number is a fabrication, we have no verifiable data and b. a company with over a hundred million in revenues selling toy soldiers is not "collapsing".

I should probably point out that I AGREE that they could be better managed, should advertise, should be working towards operations that can be sustained at a lower gross margin, etc. I AGREE, I am not a GW apologist in any sense of the word. It does prompt me to reply, however, when the lack of engagement in these areas of potential improvement is projected forward into scenarios that include the imminent collapse of the company or various cloak and dagger scenarios about senior executives.

It's taken me bloody ages to find a link to this, but here is a link to the 15% figure. Absolutely, definitively not a fabrication..

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/25373.html

You can also find from the links in the article that WHFB is the 4th placed miniatures game, behind 40k, X Wing and Warmachine.

I stand corrected, sir. I will have to amend "fabrication" to "growth rate based on a distributor survey without links to the underlying data or methodology". For all we know, the growth category could be Games Workshop products;->

Except it can't be, because GWs inflation adjusted income is pretty much flat, despite widespread price increases.

GW is not growing, our best reference for the market sector suggests it is.

 CadianXV wrote:
Several users clearly feel marginalized by the company. These range from WAAC players who want a more precise rule system, and 'veteran' players, who feel that the company is too focused on younger consumers.

First off, bit dismissive there just labelling people who want more precise rule system to be WAAC, not to mention inaccurate. I'd say it's people who dislike WAAC who want more precise rule, go look up YMDC, tell me how many people are trying to argue the poorly written rules to their favour. Having more precise and better rules make it harder to WAAC/TFG the game. Playing by the rules isn't WAAC, it's called playing the god damn game.

 CadianXV wrote:
Addressing the WAAC category is difficult; an select Beta is impractical, and runs the risk of piracy, however the company is (understandably) reluctant to make its ruleset freely available in a public Beta, before releasing the finished product. GW hosted Tournamnets, where rules are regularly discussed and evaluated is one possible solution. Yet, this seems like a quality control issue to me, with perhaps more rigorous playtesting, and acknowledgment of community contributions in FAQs, and amended Codex editions being a simple, but effective way of increasing P.R.

I'm participating in D&D 5th ed beta, and I've joined some FFG RPG beta as well. There are probably MtG beta, and whatnot floating about as well, so no, select beta isn't impractical. Piracy? Trolls? Well, don't dismiss the majority of the fanbase as morons, that's probably the 1st step in PR. For every 1 troll/pirate, there are plenty more reasonable and honest players who'd like to see their favourite product grows, and they're the one GW should focus on, give them the chance to help. I can tell you that it feels good when I provide feedback for the game, then see in revised version, some part of it shows up, it made me more invested in the product as I've been a part of it since the conception stage. Also, on piracy issue, they don't have to release the full rule set, and all beta testers could be made to sign an NDA. Will some people break it? Sure, but they have enough lawyers to deal with that, I hope. If WotC, FFG and many other companies can do it, what is the reason that GW can't?

 azreal13 wrote:
Except it can't be, because GWs inflation adjusted income is pretty much flat, despite widespread price increases.
GW is not growing, our best reference for the market sector suggests it is.

Here we go, butting heads again. Self-reported sales figures from a single distributor do not have to correlate to GW's revenue at all. The hot products generating the increased sales could be quite literally anything in their catalog and those results do not necessarily have to align with other results in the same period, either manufacturer data or any other channel partner. Any vendor could have a bad year but be selling well in a particular market through a particular channel partner, it happens all the time. And not all players in the market have the same results, there are winners and losers in every group. Alliance could be the outlier for any number of reasons - maybe they offer bigger discounts or better terms. Who knows, the referenced article doesn't shed any light at all on the specifics. Here's one scenario, for example - GW sales through Alliance are going gangbusters but they are cannibalizing higher margin sales through GW's own retail stores and website. An Alliance partner cranking out GW stuff would report higher sales figures, but from the GW perspective it would be Volume+, Revenue-, Profit-. Of course that is just one possibility of many, but that is kinda my point. It is possible.

Where are you getting self reporting from a single distributor?

ICv2 stands for Internal Correspondence version 2 (see more about Internal Correspondence below in "History"). The ICv2 website -- www.ICv2.com -- provides news and information for pop culture retailers from "inside the world of pop culture products," with the only daily trade news, in-depth analysis, and product and sales information available anywhere. The ICv2 Guides provide bestseller lists, info on upcoming releases, market reports, previes, reviews and features to help retailers better manage their businesses and librarians better manage their collections.

We wouldn't have to keep butting heads if you just admitted I was right.

Baronyu wrote:
There are probably MtG beta

Nope. WOTC does all playtesting within the company, there's no open beta for non-employees to participate in. Of course this isn't a problem because WOTC actually does professional playtesting where former professional players and experienced game designers play countless test games in a structured process with defined testing objectives and constant connection with every other product in the MTG line being developed at the time.

Of course there's nothing stopping GW from doing the same and hiring the worst WAAC TFGs to find every problem with their rules (and then fix those problems), it just seems like GW's idea of playtesting is to play a "fun" scenario with "cool" special rules occasionally, as if playtesting is about having fun instead of being a full-time job.

Baronyu wrote:
I'm participating in D&D 5th ed beta, and I've joined some FFG RPG beta as well. There are probably MtG beta, and whatnot floating about as well, so no, select beta isn't impractical. Piracy? Trolls? Well, don't dismiss the majority of the fanbase as morons, that's probably the 1st step in PR. For every 1 troll/pirate, there are plenty more reasonable and honest players who'd like to see their favourite product grows, and they're the one GW should focus on, give them the chance to help. I can tell you that it feels good when I provide feedback for the game, then see in revised version, some part of it shows up, it made me more invested in the product as I've been a part of it since the conception stage. Also, on piracy issue, they don't have to release the full rule set, and all beta testers could be made to sign an NDA. Will some people break it? Sure, but they have enough lawyers to deal with that, I hope. If WotC, FFG and many other companies can do it, what is the reason that GW can't?

Breaking an NDA would also give them a valid reason to use their expensive lawyers. For once.

I remember saying years ago when the Blood Bowl Rules Council and the fan produced content for Epic: Armageddon was operating at its best that GW should take a similar approach for their main games. That their next hire should be a global volunteer coordinator who's job it is to organize playtest groups, take submissions for rules, do free proof-reading and the like. They should have leveraged their fanbase rather than hiding everything behind a veil of secrecy.

Baronyu wrote:First off, bit dismissive there just labelling people who want more precise rule system to be WAAC, not to mention inaccurate. I'd say it's people who dislike WAAC who want more precise rule, go look up YMDC, tell me how many people are trying to argue the poorly written rules to their favour.

A fair point; however it has been my personal experience that casual gamers are more willing to simply 'dice off' problems, rather than search for the true ruling. Of course YMMV when it comes to groups clamoring for a precise ruleset, which I agree is desirable, hence why I was speaking in very general terms.

Baronyu wrote:I'm participating in D&D 5th ed beta, and I've joined some FFG RPG beta as well. give them the chance to help. I can tell you that it feels good when I provide feedback for the game, then see in revised version, some part of it shows up, it made me more invested in the product as I've been a part of it since the conception stage. I hope. If WotC, FFG and many other companies can do it, what is the reason that GW can't?

Some more good points here, and I accept that Beta's are brilliant ways to improve products and involve the community. However, given the size and value of the IP I still believe a complete GW beta to be impractical. In a more tightly controlled setting, perhaps embracing your idea of select rules, rather than the full product, it could be made to work. Hence my suggestion for tournaments specifically designed to evaluate rules. Heck, you could even market it as "having the chance to influence the game you love". Throw in accreditation, and you cement participants loyalty.

Baronyyu wrote:Piracy? Trolls? Well, don't dismiss the majority of the fanbase as morons, that's probably the 1st step in PR. For every 1 troll/pirate, there are plenty more reasonable and honest players who'd like to see their favourite product grows... all beta testers could be made to sign an NDA. Will some people break it? Sure, but they have enough lawyers to deal with that,

Insulting the majority of the fanbase was not my intention when addressing company piracy concerns; however, under the established GW model, it is a real threat to the company. (Arguing the benefits of the model itself is another discussion entirely). Also, I do not share your conviction in the effectiveness of NDAs. If everyone conformed to the agreements, then it would be great, but there are already signatories who breach them. Opening up a wide Beta would increase the risk of leaks, and potentially harm the product. Granted the legal team could probably handle the extra work, but sending them after the very people who are vocal enough to leak information may result in wiping out any good P.R. created. It is a great shame that the actions of the few impact on the reasonable and honest players who want to see the product grow.
The best way to tackle piracy is to be more open about your product. Channel the innate curiosity down constructive routes, perhaps making it an open secret that during the (proposed) monthly Q & A there may be something in the background relating to a new release. I recall the intense speculation surrounding Planetstrike when the Bastion model appeared in the 5thed rulebook. Regaining that sense of wonder and excitement should be a priority for the company.

A last reminder: Baronyu and I are merely discussing how to address GW's P.R., not long term strategies for balancing the company accounts. All views expressed are personal, and YMMV.

 azreal13 wrote:
Where are you getting self reporting from a single distributor?

ICv2 stands for Internal Correspondence version 2 (see more about Internal Correspondence below in "History". The ICv2 website -- www.ICv2.com -- provides news and information for pop culture retailers from "inside the world of pop culture products," with the only daily trade news, in-depth analysis, and product and sales information available anywhere. The ICv2 Guides provide bestseller lists, info on upcoming releases, market reports, previes, reviews and features to help retailers better manage their businesses and librarians better manage their collections.

We wouldn't have to keep butting heads if you just admitted I was right.

Well, oops. On first read, I got the impression that the quoted magazine was published by Alliance. Taking a closer look, I'm not sure where I got that impression, but whatever. The reality is quite a bit less convincing than if the report were published by Alliance from their own sales data.

I went and bought a copy to take a look at the "marketing report" for myself - the reason I asked where the growth figure came from in the first place was not to formulate a nerd-fu passive aggressive thinly disguised ad-hominem logical non-conclusion (the old "where is your proof"!! "a-HA you have no proof, therefore my case is proven!!" but to see what the data consist of. The data are not exactly robust. The report consists of the table that has been reproduced here and a few "he said" references to interviews. No data about the survey, no list of questions, none of the detailed responses, no subtotals or tabulation, in fact no detail of any kind at all. It's not much of a "report", more like a gossip column. I won't be shelling out another 8 bucks to confirm, but I get the impression that this is a regular feature of the magazine. Maybe they do an annual report or only provide the full data to distributors or something, there is of course the possibility that there is an actual report out there somewhere validating the conclusions. I can say conclusively that the linked reference isn't it.

Full disclosure - my tongue in cheek "maybe GW products are driving the sales growth" is specifically refuted by the article in the magazine - all the quotes regarding GW take a big dump on them. Their prices have jumped the shark. The release schedule is not communicated far enough in advance. They compete with their partners. The comments could have been gleaned from this thread, in fact. Given GW's anti-reseller moves of late, hardly surprising ;->

Quite.

I bought a copy too, and no, it's not exactly empirical proof is it?

However, as you seem to have already outlined, this is pretty convincing anecdotal evidence. Although possible, its unlikely that the respondents would lie, and these people are best placed to see what's happening on the frontline, and are going to have a much broader view than us as consumers.

As I've already said, any businessman worth his salt will know approximately how his business is performing year on year, and those comments about GW are pretty unambiguous, so while one wouldn't want to bet the farm on this info, you would have to concede it is a very strong indicator of the state of the market and GWs place in it.

 azreal13 wrote:
Quite.

I bought a copy too, and no, it's not exactly empirical proof is it?

However, as you seem to have already outlined, this is pretty convincing anecdotal evidence. Although possible, its unlikely that the respondents would lie, and these people are best placed to see what's happening on the frontline, and are going to have a much broader view than us as consumers.

As I've already said, any businessman worth his salt will know approximately how his business is performing year on year, and those comments about GW are pretty unambiguous, so while one wouldn't want to bet the farm on this info, you would have to concede it is a very strong indicator of the state of the market and GWs place in it.

Yes, quite. Proof that we can agree on something!

I'm not sure I would go so far as "convincing" evidence. More like cheerleading as an indicator of on-field performance. Not that I think any of the anecdotes or the summary are falsified, just that there is no way of knowing what kind of fruits are in the basket in an apples-apples sense.

I know my sanity could be saved if these threads would just disappear.

 pities2004 wrote:
I know my sanity could be saved if these threads would just disappear.

Solofalcon is that you?!

 pities2004 wrote:
I know my sanity could be saved if these threads would just disappear.

Alternatively, you could just, you know, not read them since the title of this one is a fairly strong indicator of what is being discussed therein.

Only the resurgence of the God Emperor can save the company.

Bring back card board cut out Dreanought's and Killa cans.

 azreal13 wrote:

Some Other People wrote:
Growing market? [Citation Needed bro.]

It's taken me bloody ages to find a link to this, but here is a link to the 15% figure. Absolutely, definitively not a fabrication..

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/25373.html

You can also find from the links in the article that WHFB is the 4th placed miniatures game, behind 40k, X Wing and Warmachine.

You can also dig around a bit in Census Bureau data to get some information for what's going on in the US. Other countries probably have similar statistics, but I'm not as familiar with their statistical organizations.

The first number I found is related to that ICv2 link. Retail sales for "Hobby, toy, and game stores" increased from 11,251 million dollars in 1992 to 16,353 million dollars in 2011. For those who care, the following are annual estimates for 1992 through 2011 (one for each year.)

11,251 11,651 12,850 13,714 14,502 15,021 15,833 16,651 16,947 16,820 16,909 16,582 16,314 16,255 16,020 16,344 16,171 15,657 15,994 16,353

So, for those three things lumped together, retail sales have looked rather flat (if anything it looks like we had a peak around 2000) Unfortunately the Census Bureau doesn't break the data down into a finer level of aggregation (so hobby shops only.) If anyone feels like digging around they'd be looking at NAICS codes of '451120' for retail sales, and '3399330' for manufacturing... but both will have toys and games lumped in with them as well.

This data is only available in 5 year jumps (because of the frequency of the Economic Census,) but it compiles some information for the retail end: http://web1.rm.census.gov/TheDataWeb_HotReport2/econsnapshot/snapshot.hrml?NAICS=451120

As much as I love to rag on GW, I'm really not willing to put any faith in the ICv2 numbers without some sort of methodology document to support that their numbers aren't complete crap.

@CadianXV

Well, first off, I apologise if I sounded like I was insulting you, not my intention at all, but any case, sorry.

This is gonna be a short post, as I agree with a lot of what you've said, so there's no need to repeat. The only thing I disagree on is going after people leaking NDA beta information is bad PR, I personally think it is good PR, as Sidestyler has said, it'd be the 1st time they have a valid reason to use their legal ninja. I doubt the majority of their fanbase, should they decide to reach out and do closed beta, will react negatively if GW does go after anyone who breach the NDA.

Another way they could run these fantasy-beta(be honest, in this universe, GW would rather burn an orphan alive than to get in touch with their fanbase ) is to have it hosted at FLGS, give a specific build, similar to their DV boxsets, then let the community playtest it. I'm sure FLGS wouldn't mind running WH beta events. I'd say players have to supply their own models though, with the exception of new models. which they could probably sell a few to these local FLGS to be used during beta event, and have them agree not to sell those new models until a date GW has decided.

Which bring up another thing, from what I've read, GW's relation with some FLGS is turning sour? As well as reaching out to these consumers, they should also repair their relationship with these FLGS, I'd say.

 Icarusthepilot wrote:
Only the resurgence of the God Emperor can save the company.

Shhhhhhhh! Don't give them ideas, I like the fluff the way it is and don't want to see 7th ditch the grimdark in favour of 'look everyone, the Emperor is here to save us'.

 Icarusthepilot wrote:
Only the resurgence of the God Emperor can save the company.

Nah, we need Y2J to save us...

Baronyu wrote:
The only thing I disagree on is going after people leaking NDA beta information is bad PR, I personally think it is good PR, as Sidestyler has said, it'd be the 1st time they have a valid reason to use their legal ninja. I doubt the majority of their fanbase, should they decide to reach out and do closed beta, will react negatively if GW does go after anyone who breach the NDA.

Personally though I don't think opening up betas to the public would do any good. They'd actually have to be willing to listen to the players doing the testing and be willing to make changes if necessary, and from what I've heard back when they used to allow the public to help playtest, they essentially ignored everything and did whatever they wanted in the end anyway. I remember once someone was talking about the 4th edition Tyranid codex in particular, that the playtesters saw Nidzilla being a thing and warned GW, but I guess GW had a new carnifex kit to sell so we all know what happened there.

Pretty much. Commercial interests have been tainting the creative process at GW for quite a long time.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I remember once someone was talking about the 4th edition Tyranid codex in particular, that the playtesters saw Nidzilla being a thing and warned GW, but I guess GW had a new carnifex kit to sell so we all know what happened there.

I wonder which possibility is worse: that GW's "playtesting" honestly didn't catch that the Vendetta was way too cheap, or that everyone in game design knew it and GW management told them to make it overpowered to sell their expensive new flyer kit.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
I remember once someone was talking about the 4th edition Tyranid codex in particular, that the playtesters saw Nidzilla being a thing and warned GW, but I guess GW had a new carnifex kit to sell so we all know what happened there.

I wonder which possibility is worse: that GW's "playtesting" honestly didn't catch that the Vendetta was way too cheap, or that everyone in game design knew it and GW management told them to make it overpowered to sell their expensive new flyer kit.

And then after selling crap tons of valkyrie kits, deciding that they would never again port over a FW model into 40k as a plastic kit. Because while it was successful, it apparently wasn't as successful as if they had sold the same number of resin valkyries.

 Sidstyler wrote:
And then after selling crap tons of valkyrie kits, deciding that they would never again port over a FW model into 40k as a plastic kit. Because while it was successful, it apparently wasn't as successful as if they had sold the same number of resin valkyries.

Well, what they figured out was that they could have kept selling the resin Valkyrie and made an entirely new plastic IG flyer with overpowered rules and sold that too. That's why you have stuff like Riptides instead of XV9s in the new Tau codex.

I really can not understand why GW plc seems to think spending £Ms on new minatures to sell,at the detriment of all other minature ranges.
Is somehow more cost effective than promoting ALL minatures ALL the time?
And updating the minature line in a more inclusive way.(Eg updating stuff when the update is needed.)

What is GW plc supposed to be?
If it is a minature company first and foremost.Then it has to compete with ALL other minature companies effectively.
'GW plc is in the buisness of selling toy soldiers..' T.Kirby.

So EVERYTHING should be focused on maximizing sales and growing market share.

Currently GW plc seem to be operating on 'we think its good enough for our target demoghraphic.'

Yet everyone else in the market are trying to deliver the highest quality at the most competetive price to appeal to as many people as possible.

And this really shows IMO.

The other thing to remember is that Jervis mentoned a few years ago at UK games day 2009 that the majority of their customers never actually play the games. GW has long since decided that they just need the idea of a functional game to sell more models. So any and all money spent on playtesting or development beyond what is absolutely necessary is simply not going to happen.

Lanrak wrote:
I really can not understand why GW plc seems to think spending £Ms on new minatures to sell,at the detriment of all other minature ranges.

Their target market tends to be experienced GW collectors, who will already have the "core" troops. Unless it's the vanilla space marine box, the default troops really don't sell very well at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
I remember once someone was talking about the 4th edition Tyranid codex in particular, that the playtesters saw Nidzilla being a thing and warned GW, but I guess GW had a new carnifex kit to sell so we all know what happened there.

I wonder which possibility is worse: that GW's "playtesting" honestly didn't catch that the Vendetta was way too cheap, or that everyone in game design knew it and GW management told them to make it overpowered to sell their expensive new flyer kit.

I remember a post by yakface that said that by and large, rules are not decided by what the suits say, but that occasionally the game designers will be given a model and it's assumed that they will give it more powerful rules than otherwise. The vendetta is presumably an advantage of this, £60 for 130 points is bad enough until you realise how powerful the damn thing is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 frozenwastes wrote:
The other thing to remember is that Jervis mentoned a few years ago at UK games day 2009 that the majority of their customers never actually play the games. GW has long since decided that they just need the idea of a functional game to sell more models. So any and all money spent on playtesting or development beyond what is absolutely necessary is simply not going to happen.

And yet 6th edition is head and shoulders above 5th. The ruleset clearly works, and it works well.

6th (as was 5th and 4th) is just another rehash of 3rd. It's shocking it took them 3 more editions over 15 years to get it anywhere close to right.

 BryllCream wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
I really can not understand why GW plc seems to think spending £Ms on new minatures to sell,at the detriment of all other minature ranges.

Their target market tends to be experienced GW collectors, who will already have the "core" troops. Unless it's the vanilla space marine box, the default troops really don't sell very well at all.

And this info comes from where exactly?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
I really can not understand why GW plc seems to think spending £Ms on new minatures to sell,at the detriment of all other minature ranges.

Their target market tends to be experienced GW collectors, who will already have the "core" troops. Unless it's the vanilla space marine box, the default troops really don't sell very well at all.

And this info comes from where exactly?

Well, if it's accurate, the following suggests otherwise:

"I am amazed at the numbers of plastic space marines sold. I can't believe it, I keep expecting it to be a front for drugs."

Jervis Johnson, Gen Con 2005

 daedalus wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
I really can not understand why GW plc seems to think spending £Ms on new minatures to sell,at the detriment of all other minature ranges.

Their target market tends to be experienced GW collectors, who will already have the "core" troops. Unless it's the vanilla space marine box, the default troops really don't sell very well at all.

And this info comes from where exactly?

Well, if it's accurate, the following suggests otherwise:

"I am amazed at the numbers of plastic space marines sold. I can't believe it, I keep expecting it to be a front for drugs."

Jervis Johnson, Gen Con 2005

Ahh. There's nothing quite as relevant as an 8-year old sales anecdote

 cincydooley wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Well, if it's accurate, the following suggests otherwise:

"I am amazed at the numbers of plastic space marines sold. I can't believe it, I keep expecting it to be a front for drugs."

Jervis Johnson, Gen Con 2005

Ahh. There's nothing quite as relevant as an 8-year old sales anecdote

Well, it's either that, or we repeat the last three pages of what I'm now coining the Melissa Postulate:

 Melissia wrote:

Person 1: "[Spurious claim]"
Person 2: "Prove it."
1: "No. [Spurious claim.]"
2: "I'm waiting for you to prove it."
1: "You're wrong."

 daedalus wrote:

Well, it's either that, or we repeat the last three pages of what I'm now coining the Melissa Postulate:

 Melissia wrote:

Person 1: "[Spurious claim]"
Person 2: "Prove it."
1: "No. [Spurious claim.]"
2: "I'm waiting for you to prove it."
1: "You're wrong."

Oh that's good.

Why isn't the sales data made public in the CHS lawsuit case sufficient? It's GW's actual sales data for Memphis for a legal court case.

If I recall, things that you'd think of as core like tactical squads and battleforces sold quite well, but equally well was each new splash release, but with an overall trend of numbers for both slowly declining.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Why isn't the sales data made public in the CHS lawsuit case sufficient?

Why do you think?

Increase your whole-sale price by 5%-10% and then allow independent retailers to set market price. This way you make more money and increase volume whilst giving the illusion that prices have been decreased due to the lack of an "MSRP"

End brick & mortar stores.

Increase Independent retailer support.

End stupid "everybody gets a monstrous cav or giant walker" sales gimmick.

Start supporting tournaments again.

Establish social media presence. Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, their own forums, etc

Use White Dwarf as a marketing tool (cut sub price, send weeks ahead of new releases to build anticipation). Start using it to publish rules for new model releases, so you can provide older armies with some new candy. Make it a no-brainer for every GW hobbyist to have it.

Stabilize international pricing to be in line with exchange rates. Remove trade limitations from all independent retailers

Start taking in-codex balance more seriously. Make all units appealing and appropriately costed to sell all kits on a steady basis instead of under-costing newer kits. This will cause sales from each army line to be more steady and predictable.

If you can't sell a box of 10 plastic soldiers for less than $30 then you've massively fethed up your business somewhere along the way and you need to start cutting the fat.

Griever wrote:
Slash prices across the board. 25% across all lines

End brick & mortar stores.

Increase Independent retailer support.

End stupid "everybody gets a monstrous cav or giant walker" sales gimmick.

Start supporting tournaments again.

Establish social media presence. Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, their own forums, etc

Use White Dwarf as a marketing tool (cut sub price, send weeks ahead of new releases to build anticipation). Start using it to publish rules for new model releases, so you can provide older armies with some new candy. Make it a no-brainer for every GW hobbyist to have it.

Stabilize international pricing to be in line with exchange rates. Remove trade limitations from all independent retailers

Start taking in-codex balance more seriously. Make all units appealing and appropriately costed to sell all kits on a steady basis instead of under-costing newer kits. This will cause sales from each army line to be more steady and predictable.

If you can't sell a box of 10 plastic soldiers for less than $30 then you've massively fethed up your business somewhere along the way and you need to start cutting the fat.

LOL! HAHAHAHAH AH AHAHAHA HAH HAHAH AH AH AH AHAHA HAH HA HA! YOU SO FUNNY!!!

everyone knows the solution is to build a GW b&m store beside every FLGS and have them police the FLGS for all naugthy conduct. And the product must be exclusive. They must feel like they are part of an elite, the prices must only go up. And white dwarf? useful? give me a break! People want high quality glossy toilet paper to use in secret. And tournaments suck anyway. You aren't supposed to play warhammer. GW is after all a collectible miniature manufacturer!

 poda_t wrote:

Griever wrote:
Increase your whole-sale price by 5%-10% and then allow independent retailers to set market price. This way you make more money and increase volume whilst giving the illusion that prices have been decreased due to the lack of an "MSRP"
End brick & mortar stores.

Increase Independent retailer support.

End stupid "everybody gets a monstrous cav or giant walker" sales gimmick.

Start supporting tournaments again.

Establish social media presence. Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, their own forums, etc

Use White Dwarf as a marketing tool (cut sub price, send weeks ahead of new releases to build anticipation). Start using it to publish rules for new model releases, so you can provide older armies with some new candy. Make it a no-brainer for every GW hobbyist to have it.

Stabilize international pricing to be in line with exchange rates. Remove trade limitations from all independent retailers

Start taking in-codex balance more seriously. Make all units appealing and appropriately costed to sell all kits on a steady basis instead of under-costing newer kits. This will cause sales from each army line to be more steady and predictable.

If you can't sell a box of 10 plastic soldiers for less than $30 then you've massively fethed up your business somewhere along the way and you need to start cutting the fat.

LOL! HAHAHAHAH AH AHAHAHA HAH HAHAH AH AH AH AHAHA HAH HA HA! YOU SO FUNNY!!!

everyone knows the solution is to build a GW b&m store beside every FLGS and have them police the FLGS for all naugthy conduct. And the product must be exclusive. They must feel like they are part of an elite, the prices must only go up. And white dwarf? useful? give me a break! People want high quality glossy toilet paper to use in secret. And tournaments suck anyway. You aren't supposed to play warhammer. GW is after all a collectible miniature manufacturer!

If you could edit the top line of your quote to reflect my more realistic take on pricing I would appreciate it. Otherwise people may be mis-lead.

I can see your point, it's hard to talk about this sort of thing in a serious manner because for people who have gone to school for business (aka myself) this all seems like a no-brainer.

I've been on the "abolish all GW shops" boat for about two years now. The tiny closet the locations occupy, being understaffed.... then targeting sales at kids who can't even legally work, well, small wonder that so many models just happen to go missing, and then that cuts into profits again... how many boxes of models need to be re-done and re-done again because the targeted audience either pockets the models or accidentally destroys them? Once this ex-GW employee told me that GW had to sell 10 monoliths a month, every month for an entire year out of every physical location, and then the molds would get paid off.... I don't know about you, but, are there really 120 necron players to every store? Obviously, selling to FLGS won't get the same profit out of it, so once you count all the FLGS into the fold, I really don't think there are that many players to any given city that can just shell out like that....

i also concur with your "every army must be the same" gimmick. When IG got the valkyrie, it really was what gave IG a nice edge and gave you a reason to play them. Tyranids have a reason to play them... chaos marines or loyalists?? well.... where's the reason? no distinction apart from the fact that one appears to exhibit an excessive fondness for covering everything in gratuitous quantities of sharp shiny pointy objects. The allies system completely screws over the point of playing a tau army....... i think you get where I'm going with this.

Griever wrote:
Use White Dwarf as a marketing tool (cut sub price, send weeks ahead of new releases to build anticipation).

So... hmm... you pay the same price for subscription as you would if you were to buy them each? And they don't arrive before street date?? Seriously?!

This is a list I wrote on another, similar thread, and reposted here earlier on in this thread.

I'm reposting this in light of recent comments, because, if you notice, I don't advocate price cuts.

My reasoning is simple. With one or two notable exceptions, which one could address on a case by case basis, the actual amount of money asked for their product isn't extreme. (Our Antipodean friends aside) The majority of their range is available for £30 or thereabouts or less.

The issue is the value, which would need to be addressed, not, IMO the actual RRP.

 azreal13 wrote:
1) Reorganise the retail operation. Close the pokey one man stores and centralise the operation into larger multi staff destination stores open 7 days a week and well into the evening. Incorporate staff bonus schemes to include community growth as well as sales growth, linked to tournament entries, game night attendances etc. The staff would be responsible for organising these. Move to stock Forge World and FFG materials in store.

2) Produce a genuine one per faction starter that included a small but balanced force and codex for an appreciable discount.

3) Instruct the studio to produce a small, squad based skirmish game, using the core rules from the main games as their inspiration, with a two step structure allowing for a very basic intro game but with a more advanced level, a la Infinity. Box it with absolutely everything needed to play, get it into non specialist retailers and advertise it in mainstream media. Use this system as both a bridging game and a means to stimulate sales on some under performing lines. Imagine how good a DE Mandrake could be at skirmish level with rules allowing it to redeploy all over the table, make sneak attacks etc, as opposed to their decidedly mediocre 40k showing.

4) Accept the internet exists

5) Acknowledge that indys, employed correctly, are a valuable asset and not an irritation

6) Give the studio more control, only intervening if their ideas were genuinely too costly.

7) Realise that the demographic I was alienating (vets) had more money and were more likely to continue to stick around and adjust the company output to at least reflect the older players interests.

 azreal13 wrote:
The majority of their range is available for £30 or thereabouts or less.

Maybe in your part of the world they are.

 cincydooley wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Well, it's either that, or we repeat the last three pages of what I'm now coining the Melissa Postulate:

 Melissia wrote:

Person 1: "[Spurious claim]"
Person 2: "Prove it."
1: "No. [Spurious claim.]"
2: "I'm waiting for you to prove it."
1: "You're wrong."

Oh that's good.

I am glad that I was able to help in the creation of this. It is a very useful thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, and I'm surprised at this, as I disagree with him on a number of things, but I second everything that azreal13 just said.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
The majority of their range is available for £30 or thereabouts or less.

Maybe in your part of the world they are.

Oi, I made a special exception for you colonials.

Needless to say, if I'm elected Tom Kirby, I will normalise pricing too (and NOT to Aus levels!)

 azreal13 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
The majority of their range is available for £30 or thereabouts or less.

Maybe in your part of the world they are.

Oi, I made a special exception for you colonials.

Needless to say, if I'm elected Tom Kirby, I will normalise pricing too (and NOT to Aus levels!)

Prices for everything are way higher in Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-22/apple-microsoft-grilled-over-high-prices/4587900

Toy story cost 2.5 times much in AUS as USA. How much more expensive are GW products? I gather they're around twice as much so that would be in line with other consumer products in Australia.

Googled "cost of living index". This says australia is 31% higher than the UK's.

 BryllCream wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
The majority of their range is available for £30 or thereabouts or less.

Maybe in your part of the world they are.

Oi, I made a special exception for you colonials.

Needless to say, if I'm elected Tom Kirby, I will normalise pricing too (and NOT to Aus levels!)

Prices for everything are way higher in Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-22/apple-microsoft-grilled-over-high-prices/4587900

Toy story cost 2.5 times much in AUS as USA. How much more expensive are GW products? I gather they're around twice as much so that would be in line with other consumer products in Australia.

Googled "cost of living index". This says australia is 31% higher than the UK's.

Minimum wage! OF COURSE!

Do you know what you can do if prices are too high in your own country? Buy from somewhere else!

Ok, there's a few things such as apps and DVDs which pose a few technical challenges, but buy and large, if you want to, you can.

Nothing breeds ill will better than getting caught ripping your customers off, and dress it up anyway you like, if you can sell for a profit in one territory, charging significantly higher prices in another is ripping off your customers. Lets not forget, GW have actively and aggressively pursued a policy to enforce this, despite the bad PR it generates. Most companies will ultimately bow to pressure if caught out, either with great fanfare or quietly without fuss. Not GW though, because that's how you really make money!

Edit

How do you explain the prices not being even higher in Norway or Switzerland? Or why the NZ prices aren't lower than the Aussie ones? Or is it just BS and GW pricing strategy is nothing to do with CoL and just because they can?

2nd edit That article you link to is basically a load of flimsy excuses from the companies in question and people calling it BS, doesn't really help your point.

If GW wanted to be fair, they'd charge everyone UK prices + shipping costs adjusted quarterly for exchange rates and then let the local independents price at whatever they need to to cover the 31% higher local costs instead of trying to enforce a ridiculous MSRP and make cross-continent sales more difficult.

 azreal13 wrote:
Minimum wage! OF COURSE!

D'ya think he resets at the start of each day and forgets everything he's read here before? I ask because he didn't just make that tired old argument did he. My eyes are actually deceiving me, right?

Hi again.
In my previous post, I said that GW plc was just making product 'good enough' for its 'target customers.'

My point was they KNOW who will pay for the product they want to sell.And they ARE NOT APPEALING to any other group of the POTENTIAL customer base.
(They are NOT maximizing sales volumes and market share.)

And all the areas of the market ,they are leaving to their own devices.Are being taken up by GW plcs competition.

EG .
Having a good rules set in terms of well defined intuitive rules, that delivers a good depth of engaging game play.Makes customer retention and WORD OF MOUTH marketing FAR easier and cheaper than a chain of B&M stores.
(GW plc spend over HALF their gross profit on B&M stores.The B&M stores are attempting to enforce isolation marketing in the age of the internet and it just does not work.)

A good rule set would promote ALL minatures ALL the time to a wider customer base!
That is why ALL other companies try to get the BEST rule sets they are capable of .GW plc just print ones they think are 'good enough' for their customers.


In short Mr Kirby and the corperate managment of GW plc are STILL being '...fat and lazy....'
All the things that are needed to grow GW market share are NOT being implemented.(GW do NOT have a marketing department ! )

GW plc are STILL just raising RRP to combat falling sales volumes.

I do not think that the existence of Brick and Mortar stores for GW are the issue, but rather that their current products are not appropriate for that sales setting.


GW wants their physical stores to bring new people into the hobby. The issue is that there is a huge barrier of entry to get into the hobby. a ~$100 starter set + 2 codexes + Paint, Brushes, Glue and tools is not an appropriate way to get people into the hobby. Also consider the fact that the game has moved into higher and higher point ranges in order to be more balanced. Keeping the physical locations as basically small demo station to sell starter sets is fine.

Then you could have a few "bunker" style stores that are multi-person, 7 days a week locations or simply have a better relationship with the FLGSs in the area. GW makes money if you buy from their store or from the FLGS or from their website. Keep the one man stores as the place to get people interested in the game. Once they are more veteran players, send them off to the nearest "bunker" or FLGS with a bigger community and play area.



To make another comparison to MTG fr a moment. Magic spent a lot of time and effort into researching their own game and how people play it. Timmy, Johnny, Spike, ect. They put in the long term research into their game, so now they only have to focus on making cards, and not focus on the basic rules for the game very much. GW has not put in this long term investment into their game. They make the game they want to make, rather than looking at their players and making a game that suits all of them. (the classic line of Ignoring the Competitive scene). They have not put in the effort of designing a long tern set of basic rules so they can focus simply on making new units and models. Instead, the GW team is forcing themselves to remake the entire game every 5 years or so.



For a long time GW has not had major competition in the market, but that is changing fast. They need to put in the long term investment into their rules design and put in the effort to have their product line fit their sales model. Their rules design is pushing a lot of people out of the game as they are not offering them what they want, and there are other competitors that do. Their product line is not working with their current sales model, so one or the other will have to change.

 svendrex wrote:
I do not think that the existence of Brick and Mortar stores for GW are the issue, but rather that their current products are not appropriate for that sales setting.


GW wants their physical stores to bring new people into the hobby. The issue is that there is a huge barrier of entry to get into the hobby. a ~$100 starter set + 2 codexes + Paint, Brushes, Glue and tools is not an appropriate way to get people into the hobby. ..............

So what $200USD then? That's not a huge barrier to GWs target market; the parents [of 12-16 year old boys]. These parents will invariable be average or above earners and $200 isn't jack at birthday or Christmas time. Hell I paid about that for the entertainer at my 4yo's party never mind the presents and food. A pair of shoes can cost half that and she goes through them at about 3 pair+ a year.

As to the stores, these are what made GW the industry leader it is today. While others retail chains are shrinking GW has grown it's retail locations. As it says in the Chairman's Preamble "our store are our castles moat". They thrive off of their dominating presence in the UK and they wish to recreate this effect globally. If we see the retail chain reducing then I would suggest GW will need saving. They can not maintain Turnover without it at this point.

Re bunker store in key locations, I'm pretty sure these exist, but commercially they make no sense just to provide gaming space to vets who will likely buy at discount online. Each location must sustain itself for the model to work. This is doubly true where gaming clubs exist.

...........Game design stuff........

Well that's all subjective stuff.

Can you play the rules? Does it sell? Yes on both counts I would suggest. From their PoV does GW have an issue here then? Of course not.

 notprop wrote:
While others retail chains are shrinking GW has grown it's retail locations. As it says in the Chairman's Preamble "our store are our castles moat". They thrive off of their dominating presence in the UK and they wish to recreate this effect globally. If we see the retail chain reducing then I would suggest GW will need saving. They can not maintain Turnover without it at this point.

So.. with the move to one man stores and the fact that in at least some parts of Australia GW are removing their relief managers and letting stores close when the designated manager is sick would suggest they need saving then?

Perhaps it has been mentioned and I just missed it, but what about GW franchises?

I would figure GW would love to put the risk is put on the individual and still be able to get their investment fee.

Btw, I know nothing about franchises or running/owning a small business, so I could have this all wrong.

Franchising is not really a common thing here in the UK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 notprop wrote:
While others retail chains are shrinking GW has grown it's retail locations. As it says in the Chairman's Preamble "our store are our castles moat". They thrive off of their dominating presence in the UK and they wish to recreate this effect globally. If we see the retail chain reducing then I would suggest GW will need saving. They can not maintain Turnover without it at this point.

So.. with the move to one man stores and the fact that in at least some parts of Australia GW are removing their relief managers and letting stores close when the designated manager is sick would suggest they need saving then?

I don't really see any evidence that that is the case from your news post.

There are many reasons why there aren't any suitable staff available.

Also high Australian minimum wage, for whatever reason its always the minimum wages fault in Oz!

aclive wrote:
Perhaps it has been mentioned and I just missed it, but what about GW franchises?

I would figure GW would love to put the risk is put on the individual and still be able to get their investment fee.

Btw, I know nothing about franchises or running/owning a small business, so I could have this all wrong.

It's actually a pretty good idea, I know a few redshirts around here who are actually pretty cool guys that I like talking too but cringe whenever they spout an obvious company line. I think that if they were given free reign they could do a lot better with their stores. The problem is that no matter how much it saves GW money, or increases sales, or any of that, GW would lose a great deal of control and that seems to be the most important thing to upper management at the moment.
WD isn't selling well and the idea of trying to make a magazine relevant in this day and age is somewhat silly but they like it because there is no danger of exposing their customers to other aspects of the hobby so they won't scrap it. FLGSs are growing the hobby and 3rd party advertisement has grow the 'GW hobby' quite a bit in the past but they would have to hand over control to someone else to do that, so they wont, instead they are trying to squash FLGSs and force people to buy from GW direct.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Minimum wage! OF COURSE!

D'ya think he resets at the start of each day and forgets everything he's read here before? I ask because he didn't just make that tired old argument did he. My eyes are actually deceiving me, right?

I guess I missed the opposition argument that amounted to anything other than 'gw should charge below market rates so I can buy more stuff'. And I have no idea where minimum wage comes from, I didn't mention minimum wage.

 BryllCream wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Minimum wage! OF COURSE!

D'ya think he resets at the start of each day and forgets everything he's read here before? I ask because he didn't just make that tired old argument did he. My eyes are actually deceiving me, right?

I guess I missed the opposition argument that amounted to anything other than 'gw should charge below market rates so I can buy more stuff'. And I have no idea where minimum wage comes from, I didn't mention minimum wage.

No, you didn't, and the fact you don't understand why I responded in the way I did shows your fundamental lack of understanding of the argument you're trying to make.

Feel free to explain why gw should do what Apple and Microsoft are not doing.

 BryllCream wrote:
Feel free to explain why gw should do what Apple and Microsoft are not doing.

Because emulating mainstream company business models who produce everyday appliances for both businesses and home when you're a fringe market company producing luxury goods makes about as much sense as a jeweler emulating the same business model as Burger King.

You can keep this on file, and if I'm wrong feel free to taunt me with it.

Apple and Microsoft will normalise their prices in the next few years (I'll say 3, just to put hard facts in) as pressure from their customer base grows on them to do so.

Customers will tolerate a modest price difference for logistic costs etc, but out and out gouging they will not. The only reason this is tolerated now is likely ignorance amongst the wider population. As more people become better informed, pressure will grow and prices will fall.

Just look at the video games situation over there, since public outcry, while still more expensive, the price has come a lot closer to the ROW.

Hell, even a number of recent GW releases have had some people surprised that the prices haven't been as disparate as before, so maybe its already happening.

 azreal13 wrote:


Customers will tolerate a modest price difference for logistic costs etc, but out and out gouging they will not. The only reason this is tolerated now is likely ignorance amongst the wider population. As more people become better informed, pressure will grow and prices will fall.

iiiiiiiiiiiii disagree. Most of the stuff I've handled that's produced by apple is utter garbage. The entire product line is overhyped and overpriced for what it really is: gadgets that don't even permit full functionality. Then, to even unlock something approaching full functionality, I have to pay even more for the services? Yeah, come on, give me a break. People still run screaming for the newest trash from crapple, utterly ignorant of the fact that the changes from the previous version of the product can really be chalked up to "cosmetic". I use crApple as an example because it's more easily accessible to me, though given a few minutes I could think of plenty of examples from macrohard that illustrate the same point.

Hell, even a number of recent GW releases have had some people surprised that the prices haven't been as disparate as before, so maybe its already happening.

Canadian wraithkniggit is $140, same thing in the states is $115. This is still in par with the usual price gap between US and Canadian prices. Plastic wraithguard are still as expensive as their resin/metal predecessors... I haven't checked prices in other countries, but seems to me like things haven't changed all that much. If anything, it seems to be getting worse. $90 for a land-raider? If GW wants the argument that they are a miniatures manufacturer, then they need to sort things out, because at that price, I'd rather go over to dragon models and spend on real models instead of a hollow brick of cartoony plastic.

 poda_t wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


Customers will tolerate a modest price difference for logistic costs etc, but out and out gouging they will not. The only reason this is tolerated now is likely ignorance amongst the wider population. As more people become better informed, pressure will grow and prices will fall.

iiiiiiiiiiiii disagree. Most of the stuff I've handled that's produced by apple is utter garbage. The entire product line is overhyped and overpriced for what it really is: gadgets that don't even permit full functionality. Then, to even unlock something approaching full functionality, I have to pay even more for the services? Yeah, come on, give me a break. People still run screaming for the newest trash from crapple, utterly ignorant of the fact that the changes from the previous version of the product can really be chalked up to "cosmetic". I use crApple as an example because it's more easily accessible to me, though given a few minutes I could think of plenty of examples from macrohard that illustrate the same point.
[

I think we're looking at slightly different things here, I wasn't so much commenting on the overall price, as difference of the same product in different parts of the world. Apple is an extremely poor example as they have a following that would make the most fanatical GW fanboy look like a reasoned and considered consumer.

Canadian wraithkniggit is $140, same thing in the states is $115. This is still in par with the usual price gap between US and Canadian prices. Plastic wraithguard are still as expensive as their resin/metal predecessors... I haven't checked prices in other countries, but seems to me like things haven't changed all that much. If anything, it seems to be getting worse. $90 for a land-raider? If GW wants the argument that they are a miniatures manufacturer, then they need to sort things out, because at that price, I'd rather go over to dragon models and spend on real models instead of a hollow brick of cartoony plastic.

Again, different things. I was specifically addressing Aus pricing, as Bryllopad was trying the minimum wage gambit.

Maybe it's Canada's turn to bend over? Time will tell.

A 20% drop in all prices.

 Sekai wrote:
A 20% drop in all prices.

Would be akin to trying to cure a headache by using a shotgun.

Unless you were absolutely certain that increased volume would offset the fall in revenue, a wholesale drop in revenue like this could well finish the company off.

 Sekai wrote:
A 20% drop in all prices.

Thought exercise: If Burger King dropped the prices on their entire dollar menu down 50%, would people buy twice as many hamburgers?

Why or why not?

20% is what an online retailer sells at, and those prices are more reasonable in my opinion. I would happily buy from GW at those prices.

 Sekai wrote:
20% is what an online retailer sells at, and those prices are more reasonable in my opinion. I would happily buy from GW at those prices.

While I agree with your thought process, if you give an inch, people want a yard. There will be a constant demand for lowering the prices further. But honestly, in the end, I DO think that a decrease by 20% would help a lot. Would they feel it right away? No, but it would surely see an increase in new entrants to the hobby.

 Coldhatred wrote:

 Sekai wrote:
20% is what an online retailer sells at, and those prices are more reasonable in my opinion. I would happily buy from GW at those prices.

While I agree with your thought process, if you give an inch, people want a yard. There will be a constant demand for lowering the prices further. But honestly, in the end, I DO think that a decrease by 20% would help a lot. Would they feel it right away? No, but it would surely see an increase in new entrants to the hobby.

Actually, I don't think 20% is enough of a drop to see a significant upturn in new entrants (at least those who are barred by price.) I think a better approach is to maintain current prices, but put out a 'loss leader' faction starter range. I use quotes, because I think a playable 750pt force, plus a codex, perhaps even a mini rulebook for around the cost of £60 could still actually make a small profit.

I don't think that's viable, if they were to decrease prices it would have to be done incrementally. GW don't operate on that great a margin, a short term drop in profits caused by a significant overnight price decrease could really hurt them and hit all the confidence in their stock value. Realistically the best way to reduce prices would be to freeze them and allow inflation to close the gap. Much as I think GW prices are just silly, it's the road they've chosen to go down (soaring prices to cover for decreased sales) and you can't just slam it into reverse, drop the prices and expect sales to shoot up to cover the difference.

If they were to reduce prices by 20+% they would need a surge in sales, which means they need to stock on hand and the infrastructure to distribute it. It requires investment up front and then the extra sales have to cover the reduced profits on sales and cover that investment. Given the issues with the Tau and Eldar releases especially, perhaps they're not in a position to do that. Their pricing structure is a rod they've made for their own back.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't think that's viable, if they were to decrease prices it would have to be done incrementally. GW don't operate on that great a margin, a short term drop in profits caused by a significant overnight price decrease could really hurt them and hit all the confidence in their stock value. Realistically the best way to reduce prices would be to freeze them and allow inflation to close the gap. Much as I think GW prices are just silly, it's the road they've chosen to go down (soaring prices to cover for decreased sales) and you can't just slam it into reverse, drop the prices and expect sales to shoot up to cover the difference. Their pricing structure is a rod they've made for their own back.

Actually, their gross margin on directly sold items is, IIRC ~70%. That's not too shabby. Their main issue is the high costs of maintaining a retail chain.

Saving? Who says GW needs saving? It's doing quite well for itself, but, hopefully, when they've destroyed both online retailers and FLGS and everyone is buying directly from GW (so they retain all of the profit from selling their products) they will lower their prices :/

Before anyone gets up in arms, not the word: 'Hopefully'

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
Saving? Who says GW needs saving? It's doing quite well for itself, but, hopefully, when they've destroyed both online retailers and FLGS and everyone is buying directly from GW (so they retain all of the profit from selling their products) they will lower their prices :/

Before anyone gets up in arms, not the word: 'Hopefully'

 daedalus wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Feel free to explain why gw should do what Apple and Microsoft are not doing.

Because emulating mainstream company business models who produce everyday appliances for both businesses and home when you're a fringe market company producing luxury goods makes about as much sense as a jeweler emulating the same business model as Burger King.

Would you like diamonds with that?

 notprop wrote:

So what $200USD then? That's not a huge barrier to GWs target market; the parents [of 12-16 year old boys]. These parents will invariable be average or above earners and $200 isn't jack at birthday or Christmas time. Hell I paid about that for the entertainer at my 4yo's party never mind the presents and food. A pair of shoes can cost half that and she goes through them at about 3 pair+ a year.

As to the stores, these are what made GW the industry leader it is today. While others retail chains are shrinking GW has grown it's retail locations. As it says in the Chairman's Preamble "our store are our castles moat". They thrive off of their dominating presence in the UK and they wish to recreate this effect globally. If we see the retail chain reducing then I would suggest GW will need saving. They can not maintain Turnover without it at this point.

Re bunker store in key locations, I'm pretty sure these exist, but commercially they make no sense just to provide gaming space to vets who will likely buy at discount online. Each location must sustain itself for the model to work. This is doubly true where gaming clubs exist.

I think that the issue is less to do with the price and more to do with the organization. Having one box that contains everything you need to get going, or one box with models and one hobby starter set (with paints, brush, glue, tools, ect. in small amounts to get you started) would go a long way toward making GW sales method more effective.

When doing a demo it is a lot easier to simply give the customer a box and say "buy this box and you are good to go" than it is to pile up a huge batch of products and convince them that they need to buy all of them.

Personally I would like to see that starter sets be smaller and cheaper. Partially because of the monetary investment, but also because of the investment of time. Making the starter sets smaller and making the game work better at smaller point levels would mean that you would not have to dedicate as many hours into painting and modeling before you get to a good game.

...........Game design stuff........

Well that's all subjective stuff.

Can you play the rules? Does it sell? Yes on both counts I would suggest. From their PoV does GW have an issue here then? Of course not.

On your 2 questions I would argue that the answer is not exactly yes.

Can you play the rules? Sort of. Lets compare to MTG for a moment.

If you want to play Magic in a casual environment, the game works well. You can take whatever cards you have, make some silly decks and have fun, close games.
If you want to play the game in a some what competitive way the game works well. Drafting is what comes to mind where you can be competitive without a huge investment. (time money, ect.)
If you want to play the game in a serious competitive way (ie. pro - level) the game works. There are multiple powerful deck options, a diverse metagame, and close and interesting games.

There are cards designed for the people who like huge powerful effects, there are cards for those who like to be creative with their decks, and there are cards made for the most competitive levels of play.

40K does not work in this same way.
Playing 40k casually works. You can have fun close games, there are lots of units to choose from, and it leads to fun close games.
As a narrative game 40k kinda works. For some armies, what you get on the table looks like what you get in the stories. For some other books, this is not the case.

As a competitive game 40k really falls apart. There is usually little variation within a codex in terms of competitive units, and there are usually a few codexes that are way above the power level of the rest, leading to the Flavor of the Month syndrome that you often see in the competitive scene. Also there are a number of rules disputes at any given time that are left to TO to sort out to have a working tournament.

40k has a serious case of "This is how you SHOULD play our game". Rather than giving different types of players stuff that appeals to them, GW has a sense of how they want the game to be played, and try to force you into that mind set. (ie, the word CINEMATIC comes to mind.) The game as a whole would be better if there was more variation in how it could be played; Simple casual rules, tight tournament rules, deep narrative rules.


Does it sell?

Honestly I do not have the sales data to speak for the business as a whole, but I simply speak for myself. A year and a half ago, I was playing 40k almost every week. After the release of 6th edition I have played less and less, to the point now where I have not played in some time, and have not bought anything for a while as well. 6th edition is simply less of the game that I like to play. I could go into detail, but there is no real purpose for that in this thread.

I think this is quite reasonable and also very realistic - given gross margins of ~%75 they can certainly afford a loss leader to get new players into the game. Dark Vengeance is IMHO good value, but they could afford to do similar deals, maybe a bit cheaper, for more factions.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Coldhatred wrote:

 Sekai wrote:
20% is what an online retailer sells at, and those prices are more reasonable in my opinion. I would happily buy from GW at those prices.

While I agree with your thought process, if you give an inch, people want a yard. There will be a constant demand for lowering the prices further. But honestly, in the end, I DO think that a decrease by 20% would help a lot. Would they feel it right away? No, but it would surely see an increase in new entrants to the hobby.

Actually, I don't think 20% is enough of a drop to see a significant upturn in new entrants (at least those who are barred by price.) I think a better approach is to maintain current prices, but put out a 'loss leader' faction starter range. I use quotes, because I think a playable 750pt force, plus a codex, perhaps even a mini rulebook for around the cost of £60 could still actually make a small profit.

Jack_Death wrote:
I think this is quite reasonable and also very realistic - given gross margins of ~%75 they can certainly afford a loss leader to get new players into the game. Dark Vengeance is IMHO good value, but they could afford to do similar deals, maybe a bit cheaper, for more factions.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Coldhatred wrote:

 Sekai wrote:
20% is what an online retailer sells at, and those prices are more reasonable in my opinion. I would happily buy from GW at those prices.

While I agree with your thought process, if you give an inch, people want a yard. There will be a constant demand for lowering the prices further. But honestly, in the end, I DO think that a decrease by 20% would help a lot. Would they feel it right away? No, but it would surely see an increase in new entrants to the hobby.

Actually, I don't think 20% is enough of a drop to see a significant upturn in new entrants (at least those who are barred by price.) I think a better approach is to maintain current prices, but put out a 'loss leader' faction starter range. I use quotes, because I think a playable 750pt force, plus a codex, perhaps even a mini rulebook for around the cost of £60 could still actually make a small profit.

Ooh, look at us! Agreeing on stuff! Next thing we will be picking out curtain fabric!

I agree, in terms of what you get, DV is pretty good, but its flawed in so much as, if you're not interested in either faction, then eventually, its largely a wasted investment. I think GW expect mum and dad to buy the set for the kids to play each other over the kitchen table, but in reality I doubt that happens often. A £60 investment into one force would get a single player off to a much better start in the game.

 azreal13 wrote:

Jack_Death wrote:
I think this is quite reasonable and also very realistic - given gross margins of ~%75 they can certainly afford a loss leader to get new players into the game. Dark Vengeance is IMHO good value, but they could afford to do similar deals, maybe a bit cheaper, for more factions.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Coldhatred wrote:

 Sekai wrote:
20% is what an online retailer sells at, and those prices are more reasonable in my opinion. I would happily buy from GW at those prices.

While I agree with your thought process, if you give an inch, people want a yard. There will be a constant demand for lowering the prices further. But honestly, in the end, I DO think that a decrease by 20% would help a lot. Would they feel it right away? No, but it would surely see an increase in new entrants to the hobby.

Actually, I don't think 20% is enough of a drop to see a significant upturn in new entrants (at least those who are barred by price.) I think a better approach is to maintain current prices, but put out a 'loss leader' faction starter range. I use quotes, because I think a playable 750pt force, plus a codex, perhaps even a mini rulebook for around the cost of £60 could still actually make a small profit.

Ooh, look at us! Agreeing on stuff! Next thing we will be picking out curtain fabric!

I agree, in terms of what you get, DV is pretty good, but its flawed in so much as, if you're not interested in either faction, then eventually, its largely a wasted investment. I think GW expect mum and dad to buy the set for the kids to play each other over the kitchen table, but in reality I doubt that happens often. A £60 investment into one force would get a single player off to a much better start in the game.

I keep saying, revamp the Battleforce sets and put the mini rulebooks in there.

 azreal13 wrote:


I agree, in terms of what you get, DV is pretty good, but its flawed in so much as, if you're not interested in either faction, then eventually, its largely a wasted investment. I think GW expect mum and dad to buy the set for the kids to play each other over the kitchen table, but in reality I doubt that happens often. A £60 investment into one force would get a single player off to a much better start in the game.

I disagree. I'm perfectly happy with a not-single army starter kit. I prefer the mixed starer kit as really, it's difficult to start the game if you're a newbie playing against a veteran, and it really does take 2 to play. More to the point, having that second army there is also nice, since it opens up my willingness to try out another army. I mean, I've already got it, so what's the problem if I don't give them a whirl on the tabletop since I already own them? I only have 2 wishes when it comes to GW starter kits:
1.) give me complete legally playable armies. 2x troops 1x hq, and 1x seasoning.
2.) don't create a themed starter set. Make the starter set variable, so, say, every year, or every six months, you swap out one of the armies with a different set. then, after the cycle is up, you swap out the other army. Keep things fresh, and entice older gamers with established armies to pick up new armies.

bah, I had other stuff I wanted to say, but, forgot, and really, i should get off my but and go home...

 poda_t wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


I agree, in terms of what you get, DV is pretty good, but its flawed in so much as, if you're not interested in either faction, then eventually, its largely a wasted investment. I think GW expect mum and dad to buy the set for the kids to play each other over the kitchen table, but in reality I doubt that happens often. A £60 investment into one force would get a single player off to a much better start in the game.

I disagree. I'm perfectly happy with a not-single army starter kit. I prefer the mixed starer kit as really, it's difficult to start the game if you're a newbie playing against a veteran, and it really does take 2 to play. More to the point, having that second army there is also nice, since it opens up my willingness to try out another army. I mean, I've already got it, so what's the problem if I don't give them a whirl on the tabletop since I already own them? I only have 2 wishes when it comes to GW starter kits:
1.) give me complete legally playable armies. 2x troops 1x hq, and 1x seasoning.
2.) don't create a themed starter set. Make the starter set variable, so, say, every year, or every six months, you swap out one of the armies with a different set. then, after the cycle is up, you swap out the other army. Keep things fresh, and entice older gamers with established armies to pick up new armies.

bah, I had other stuff I wanted to say, but, forgot, and really, i should get off my but and go home...

I have a couple of issues with what you're saying.

Firstly, why is it difficult to start if you're playing against a veteran? I would have thought a guy who knows the rules and has an extensive model collection is exactly who you'd be wanting to start with! Unless you mean a douche who likes stomping newbs, in which case, ok.

Secondly, the only reason you own that second 'army' is because you've been forced to buy it in the starter! Wouldn't you rather have all that cash go on the faction you actually want to collect first off? Of course, if you fancy another faction later, you can just buy the starter for that as well.

GW could get rid of the boxed starter altogether of course, just produce a starter kit, with dice, templates and mini rulebook, and just have a standing offer of 1 HQ, 2 x Troops plus one other box up to x value from the same faction for a set amount. Not only would that give new starters a real choice, but I bet there would be plenty of vets who would partake as well.

What would be cool if they had a "Pick Your Starter Set" function on the website.

You would click on a "Getting Started with ___ Army".
It would show every kit available for each selection
Start with the HQ, maybe even have a bit written about each individual.
Then you pick two troops choices you like, also with some info about them (play styles for instance).
Then an elite unit.
Next would be the codex.
Maybe you even get a small discount since you're buying a "Starter Package".
Before you check out, the usual impulse buys would appear: glue, clippers, army paint sets, etc.
Wait 2-3 weeks and bam! Your army arrives on your doorstep, ready for assembly!

Maybe they even include a flyer with the addy of the nearest GW, so you can take your supplies there for a free paint lesson or demo game.


Could do the same thing for a Vets. Have a "Expand Your Forces" section. Plug in what you already have they you get suggestions as what to add.

 daedalus wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Feel free to explain why gw should do what Apple and Microsoft are not doing.

Because emulating mainstream company business models who produce everyday appliances for both businesses and home when you're a fringe market company producing luxury goods makes about as much sense as a jeweler emulating the same business model as Burger King.

So what should GW set their price at?

Also it looks like GW may have been charging above market prices. If prices for new Aussie releases stimulate increased sales, expect to see prices drop to roughly what they are the rest of the world (maybe an extra dollar to cover shipping).

 BryllCream wrote:

So what should GW set their price at?

Higher than they are now.

GW needs to keep their revenue up, so they have to charge more to make up for the declining sales volume.

They're likely stuck on this path until they can figure out some means of actually growing unit sales to increase revenue in real terms.

 BryllCream wrote:
Also it looks like GW may have been charging above market prices

I think that's just to account for the minimum wage in Australia, which as I understand it starts at around $400 USD/hr.

I actually don't think, generally, GW should drop their prices (in the US, anyway). I think they should do a better job of marketing their product to a larger audience (actually, marketing it at all) and maybe tighten up their sculpts a little (they're pretty hit and miss as is recently), as well as making a quickstart/simplified ruleset for beginners that they give away.

 Ouze wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Also it looks like GW may have been charging above market prices

I think that's just to account for the minimum wage in Australia, which as I understand it starts at around $400 USD/hr.

I actually don't think, generally, GW should drop their prices (in the US, anyway). I think they should do a better job of marketing their product to a larger audience (actually, marketing it at all) and maybe tighten up their sculpts a little (they're pretty hit and miss as is recently), as well as making a quickstart/simplified ruleset for beginners that they give away.

$400/hr would be a godsend :(

I think it's like $38k/yr is our minimum, although on reddit someone worked out US minimum vs AU minimum as well as median wages and essentially we're getting screwed in all ways.

If they did drop their prices, they'd also die. No question. They're on something like a 10% net profit margin (after tax, obviously), and dropping the price as people slowly increase their volume to match (although they'd probably be pretty begrudging at this point) won't happen in time.

As for marketing, I couldn't agree more. In the USA you all talk of how busy your local clubs are and the likes, but here in Aus there may be 5 busy stores in Victoria which has a population of 3 million. I like in a metropolitan area and my nearest FLGS is 20mins, the next nearest to that (that does wargaming) would be over an hour away; nearest GW is 1h30m. Models just aren't popular here.

I had a GW near me when i was younger (which got me into the game) but they shut down within a year the sales were that abysmally low. In Australia they were making a loss here for ages until the 2011-2012FY (and their 2012-2013FY report isn't out yet AFAIK; I think it comes out late June).

Anyway, I buy models off ebay. $30 for a DP is good for me as I bloody love the model, and Land Raiders often go for $20 with a decent paintjob that I can strip down anyway, and people often sell their old armies for $30-40 that may include 5 termies a dreadnought and 3 dozen or so space marines.

This is where GW plc fail so badly.
They DO NOT HAVE A MARKETING DEPARTMENT!

They just guess at what price point is optimum.And then over reach to the point where they are forced in to over pricing to make up for falling sales volumes.
A marketing department would find out what customers want, what GW plc could do to grow interest and drive a growth in market share.

When a company has 76% gross profit , and a net profit of 12% the corperate management are not being very effective in developing the best buisness practices are they?
(Gross profit includes ALL costs apart from logistic and retail costs.And logistic costs run at less than 10%.)

Smaller companies have direct contact with their customers, and so can grow with customer support.

As already mentioned the periods of growth at GW have been when other company markets the products.(MB games, Diagnosti, etc.)

Shaozun wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Also it looks like GW may have been charging above market prices

I think that's just to account for the minimum wage in Australia, which as I understand it starts at around $400 USD/hr.

I actually don't think, generally, GW should drop their prices (in the US, anyway). I think they should do a better job of marketing their product to a larger audience (actually, marketing it at all) and maybe tighten up their sculpts a little (they're pretty hit and miss as is recently), as well as making a quickstart/simplified ruleset for beginners that they give away.

$400/hr would be a godsend :(

I think it's like $38k/yr is our minimum, although on reddit someone worked out US minimum vs AU minimum as well as median wages and essentially we're getting screwed in all ways.

If they did drop their prices, they'd also die. No question. They're on something like a 10% net profit margin (after tax, obviously), and dropping the price as people slowly increase their volume to match (although they'd probably be pretty begrudging at this point) won't happen in time.

As for marketing, I couldn't agree more. In the USA you all talk of how busy your local clubs are and the likes, but here in Aus there may be 5 busy stores in Victoria which has a population of 3 million. I like in a metropolitan area and my nearest FLGS is 20mins, the next nearest to that (that does wargaming) would be over an hour away; nearest GW is 1h30m. Models just aren't popular here.

I had a GW near me when i was younger (which got me into the game) but they shut down within a year the sales were that abysmally low. In Australia they were making a loss here for ages until the 2011-2012FY (and their 2012-2013FY report isn't out yet AFAIK; I think it comes out late June).

Anyway, I buy models off ebay. $30 for a DP is good for me as I bloody love the model, and Land Raiders often go for $20 with a decent paintjob that I can strip down anyway, and people often sell their old armies for $30-40 that may include 5 termies a dreadnought and 3 dozen or so space marines.

$38k a year is what you'd made on minumum wage in Oz?! That's more than tons of entry level salaried jobs in the US, including teachers. Wow.