I originally posted this to another forum, and usually refrain from cross-posting, but another thread on Dakka made this relevant for discussion. I am curious what the Dakka community thought are to this.
There seems to be a LOT of discussion lately about the health of GW considering the disappointment of the last period financials (with a 10% drop in top line revenue and a hefty reduction of cash on hand) in spite a time of rapidly increased product release schedules. For someone who has been involved in gaming as long as I have (since 1977) the parallels with the decline of the previous industry behemoth, TSR, and GW of today just seem a bit to familiar.
Before going into those I see, let me clarify a couple of things. First, during the last years of TSR, I was one of those who blindly defended them despite all the warning signs around me and the discussions of my regular D&D gaming group of 8 people. Also, I currently own several 40k armies (Ultramarines, Imperial Guard, Tau, Tyranids, Necrons and a HUGE Eldar army), a few large Warhammer armies (Empire, Chaos and High Elf), a complete copy of Warhammer Quest with all expansions, including White Dwarf supplements, two large Epic armies, three Necromunda gangs, six Mordheim warbands, and three Battlefleet gothic fleets. So I in no way WANT to see GW go away, but the current parallels cannot be ignored.
So let's look at these parallels:
Named Designers leaving: In the last two years of TSRs existence, many of the names that made them famous moved on for greener pastures. Many of them were long term employees of TSR. GW has seen the same loss of Rick Priestly, Andy Chambers, Gaving Thrope, Jake Thornton, among others. These are the people close to what is going on, and an en masse departure is not a good sign. Warning sign number one.
Accelerated Release Schedule: TSR was cranking out stuff near the end, much as GW is doing today. Yet that still didn't stem the tide of mass exodus of customers.
Thinking they were more than they are: In the end, TSR products were drastically overpriced compared to competitive products because they believed it was D&D and people will pay anything for it. Coupled with the decline in quality, it didn't help. People began moving one. With GW we have a similar situation. Most competitors sell 256 pg, full color, hard bound rulebooks for the $40 US to $50 US range (or $0.15 to $0.19 a page) while GW sells a 104 pg, full color hardbound book (avg. Codex) at $49.50 (or $0.47/pg. or 161% more than comparable products). Likewise, most model paints today are running at about $0.15-$0.17/ml and are of better quality than GWs, while GW is running at $0.33/ml (101% more than comparable products). Like TSR, GW is putting WAY too much faith in their brand power (and D&D is a MUCH stronger brand than Warhammer ever was).
Drop in Product Quality: The quality of TSR products went down hill fast leading to rumors that Lorraine Williams, then CEO of TSR, had forbidden playtesting of products. Many employees from the final days denied this but did confirm that the relentless pace of getting products out the door did in fact lead to little getting playtested. The latest products from GW are showing the exact same thing. Did anyone test D-Weapons in standard 40k games? Why are they issuing FAQs only one week after a book is released?
Cramming stuff into an established paradigm that doesn't belong: TSR tried to put everything they could around the popular D&D title where they should have been there own games. Instead of Buck Rogers RPG, we got Spelljammer crammed into the fantasy universes. Likewise, GW is adding superheavies, mini-titans (Riptide, Wraithknight, and Imperial Knights) and flyers in a 28mm game where they do not belong.
Abandoning everything around one brand: TSR uses to have many RPGs - D&D, AD&D, Boot Hill, Star Frontiers, et al. In the last days, TSR thought that their other products were detracting from sales of core D&D, thus they abandoned all the other titles and focused on making D&D versions of them. So, as they abandoned Star Frontiers and went with Spelljammer in fantasy worlds, we had Traveller and a few other RPGs fill in the spot. GW has the same attitude. Focus around two core brands because our other products detracted from people buying for those brands and ignore that the competition is picking up (and growing) by this conscious decision to leave them an opening into the market). How shortsighted and stupid can anyone be about this. Did Apple stop selling the iPod because the have the iPhone, no. Because they realize there are different markets for these products.
Increased pricing: TSR started rapidly increasing prices in the end as their customer base dwindled. When coupled with the materials being absurd additions (Spelljammer) and the noticeable drop in product quality, people began to feel ripped off by TSR and started using other products. Once that happened, and they realized other companies could produce products of like or better quality, the acceleration away from TSR quickened. GW is facing the exact same thing today, yet continues to operate in a complete vacuum of ignorance like TSR did then.
View of customers being suckers: It is well known that Lorraine Williams held gamers (their customers) with high contempt, and she made no secret about it. She considered them blind sheeple who would buy and love anything that TSR put out and, ultimately in the end it showed in their products, but not in the sheeples buying attitude. GW has A LOT of customer and channel relation issues right now (not to mention their absurd pricing) and they, like TSR, seem to be sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "La, la, la, I don't hear you. Everything is fine..."
Soullessness leading to market disconnect: As the previous point mentioned about the CEOs attitude, TSR became soulless as a result when they used to have passionate people who designed good materials because they also played the game. Heck, Raistlin Majere, the famous wizard from the Dragonlance series, came about because of the active playing of the game. Likewise, GW seems to be all about the money today with no passion for the game anymore from the staff.
Ignoring and Enabling competition: White Wolf Studios benefited immensely from TSRs mis-steps. So did a few smaller publishers. Today, I give Hasbro/WotC credit for recognizing 4th edition D&D was a huge mistake (thus why they have stopped sales of 4th edition and haven't put out a new product in over a year) and have decided the wiser course was to focus on D&D Next to save the brand. Why did Hasbro recognize this? Because Pathfinder/Paizo has stolen marketshare by sticking to their old formula. In other words, they recognized the threat of competition. GW refuses to see the rise of Wyrd, Corvus Belli, Privateer Press, Cipher Studios, Hawk Wargames and Fantasy Flight Games during a global recession as any threat, or as a result of their mis-steps giving the competition an opening into the market.
Aggressive IP defense: TSR started going after fans and anyone they felt remotely came close to infringing on their IP, gaining them the moniker T$R. GW seems to have adopted the same policy that was proven in TSR's time to be stupid and damaging to the financial health of the company.
As an aside, it may come off in this post that I didn't like Spelljammer, that is not the point. Lorraine Williams family owned the IP around Buck Rogers and Spelljammer was the example of her trying to shoehorn her legacy into the established brand of D&D, thus messing the whole thing up.
TLDR: It is hard to ignore the similarities of a previous industry behemoth, TSR, to GW today. GW of today seems to be following the exact same patterns as TSR in the last days which eventually lead to TSRs demise in very quick fashion (it is safe to say it was an actual collapse). Could GW possibly suffer that same fate considering those parallels?
I agree with most of your post but TSR did not go bust because of any of what you are talking about. At the end of the day they went out of business so suddenly because they published too many hard cover fiction books in the previous year that did not sell well and when their publisher demanded they buy them back they did not have the cash on hand to pay off the debt.
Now certainly everything you pointed out contributed to the situation but without the forced buy back I would guess TSR would have been around for a lot longer. So my guess is unless GW has a similar issue pop up you will either see a very slow demise over time or a continued loss of sales until they finally get they need to change how they do business.
brettz123 wrote: I agree with most of your post but TSR did not go bust because of any of what you are talking about. At the end of the day they went out of business so suddenly because they published too many hard cover fiction books in the previous year that did not sell well and when their publisher demanded they buy them back they did not have the cash on hand to pay off the debt.
Now certainly everything you pointed out contributed to the situation but without the forced buy back I would guess TSR would have been around for a lot longer. So my guess is unless GW has a similar issue pop up you will either see a very slow demise over time or a continued loss of sales until they finally get they need to change how they do business.
What you pointed out was the "straw that broke the camel's back" so to speak. However, it did that because the company was already in very rough shape as a result of the behaviors and attitudes I mentioned in the above.
GW has a different, but similar issue. They have a massive commitment on the retail level, most likely in the form of leases. If sales do not stay high enough then these will be the same thing - a massive cash commitment without the cash to pay for them. In there last financials - 37%-39% of the companies costs are operating these retail channels (and that is after going to 1 man formats) - that is huge. So, another 15%-20% drop in sales will push these obligations up to 50%-60% of company costs and put them into dangerous territory like TSR. If the drop was to be 30%-40%, if could potentially put them into receivership.
Quite frankly, GW seems to be cranking out products in the last four months it what seems more desperation than anything. TSR did the same thing in the final year which lead to so much of this inventory issue. This puts a strain on the company at all levels but particularly in the rapid build up of unsold inventory. This can crush a company - any company. Right now, GW seems to be throwing caution to the wind and just are operating with the "get more revenue" mentality without thinking everything through on what this does to the organization as a whole.
Which leads to the second point. TSR had that happen because they were cranking out books too fast, which lead to a massive build up in inventory which the seller pushed back on them. If people can only buy and read 4 TSR books a month and you put out 12 a month, well now they have to decide which 4 and 8 remain unsold. TSR exceeded the customer base budget -so to speak. This is a very interesting phenomenon that all good businesses pay attention to. It goes like this:
Let's say your budget is $100 a month for video gaming. Your favorite video game continues to release $50 expansions once every three months (ala GW pre-2012). You are able to buy it and stay up to date with the game no problem. Now, the company wants to make more money, so they raise the price on these expansions to $100. You love the game and it still fits within your budget. Now they decide they need even more money, but know they can't raise the price any higher since they are already double what is on the market. So they release the $100 expansions on a monthly basis. With a groan, you decide to go for that because you love the game, but the pricing is really hurting at that point (ala GW in 2013) and you notice more mistakes slipping thorough because of the faster release cycle, so you feel the value is declining. Now the company decides they need even more money so they move to releasing an expansion once a week (ala GW this year). You buy the first one and miss the next three because it has exceeded your budget and the first one you buy doesn't look well thought out and you begin to feel you are getting less for your money than ever. Three months later, you have bought three of these weekly expansions and are behind by 9. Now, feeling you can't keep up, you decide to find another game that fits within your budget. Thus the company, in an effort to get you to spend more, instead has lost all your spending overall.
That is the point, you can exceed the available money of your customer base therefore causing frustration and, eventually, defection. This is why first-hand knowledge of your market and customers is so important to a business and why, like TSR, GW continues following down the same dismal path.
Your points are basically correct but they have been correct for a very long time.
The game designers that you mentioned have been leaving for years, Andy Chambers left/was sacked a decade ago. The majority of GW's competition have at least one member who used to work for GW, some of them highly placed (Rick Priestly and John Stallard at Warlord games for example).
Similarly GW killed of Specialist games in 2001(?) when they stopped supporting them and I don't think that GW has ever put much onus on playtesting.
I think the only really new thing is the accelerated release schedule and that seems to be a reaction to their poor mid year results. Its no where near at the point of choking up their supply chain yet though. Its just a shame that the majority of these releases are so poor.
GW's problem now is that their history of dubious decisions and protectionist practices are starting to reach a critical mass. We have seen the first public bubbles a few months ago and I predict that things will only get worse from here.
This was an interesting read. Especially since GW owe their initial success to D&D, yet later dropped it for their own products. Perhaps Wayland should take the leap into their own brand IP.
GWs releases certainly have been coming thick and fast lately. Some of them look great too... It's a shame I haven't bought any, but they have priced themselves out of my sensibilities.
That's not to say I'm not interested... I'd totally be down for getting some DA stuff, trying out GK, and I could certainly always use more landraiders. If things were about 20% cheaper I probably would spend hundreds (maybe thousands) on all that stuff. But at the moment I'm spending zero, because I don't personally feel that I'm getting good value from them anymore. I'm not just gonna give them that same amount of money for less stuff, I will spend it elsewhere. In fact I haven't bought anything from GW since Blood Angels came out, and that was back in 2010. The scary thing is, things were actually about 20% cheaper them. That's how quickly the prices are escalating.
Palindrome wrote: GW's problem now is that their history of dubious decisions and protectionist practices are starting to reach a critical mass. We have seen the first public bubbles a few months ago and I predict that things will only get worse from here.
This is a good point. Lorraine Williams helmed TSR for 10 years. But, at the end when their BS practices caught up with them, things unravelled very, very fast.
That is where I think GW is today. The unravelling has just started and I think it is worse than anyone imagines with the massive increase in product releases. They seem to be scrambling very quickly which is usually an indicator things are very close to collapse.
Few of your parallels have much content to them, they're based on internet noise.
Although it gets posted all the time, there's no real evidence GW treats its customers with contempt. The designers you're citing left years ago; in some cases they've launched their own unsuccessful lines since, so you can't realy theorise they took the secrets of success with them. Equally, there's no real evidence that quality has dropped. One could contend, say, that my new Hive Crone is not as nicely modelled as the old Carnifex... but go back to the golden era of the 90s and many models were simply horrible.
There is a deeper truth, though; Kirby, as the leader of the company, needs to have a visionary strategy, beyond simple cost-cutting. As his background in the Inland Revenue suggests, he's not a visionary, he's merely an accountant. GW needs to rediscover its sense of fun, to find its mojo. Its products are actually still pretty good... for instance, I personally reckon their model are distinctly superior to PP and others. But GW needs a corporate culture that cares more about quality, and less about money.
A lot of the problems I would suggest come from the Plc culture, of short-term profits. But Plc culture would often demand that an unsuccessful CEO is ejected by investors. That might be GW"s best chance for the future.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Few of your parallels have much content to them, they're based on internet noise.
Although it gets posted all the time, there's no real evidence GW treats its customers with contempt.
There was that time the head of.. I want to say sales(?) in North America got on facebook and told all us smelly nerds to shut up and buy more. I think that amounts to the majority of the contact we the customers have had with the upper level guys in the last decade.
*Edit*
On and while it's not contempt I greatly dislike the idea that GW thinks my favourite part of the GW hobby is buying product from GW or that I am buying 'toys'.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Equally, there's no real evidence that quality has dropped. One could contend, say, that my new Hive Crone is not as nicely modelled as the old Carnifex... but go back to the golden era of the 90s and many models were simply horrible.
Aesthetic quality of models is going to be almost entirely opinion but there was finecast and codexes that are entierly reprints of rules from other dexes with a little extra tacked on (Inquisition and Legion of the Dammed) as well as a codexes that cover one or two units (Legion of the Dammed again, as well as Knights). That is clearly a step down from real codexes. I'd also say that the new paints are a definite step backwards, the technicals are nice and whatever but the new base paints don't seem to be able to survive summer here.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: GW needs to rediscover its sense of fun, to find its mojo... But GW needs a corporate culture that cares more about quality, and less about money.
That I absolutely agree with.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Its products are actually still pretty good... for instance, I personally reckon their model are distinctly superior to PP and others.
Here I don't though. I don't think GW can compete with the likes of Corvus Bellie or Meirce on quality and can't compete with Mantic or Wargames Factory on price so what is there market outside of 'GW gamers'?
Just to reinforce that point about distinctly superior models, Knight models 35mm Gandalf compared to GW's 2 recent 28mm heroic ones:
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Although it gets posted all the time, there's no real evidence GW treats its customers with contempt.
There have been various comments by Kirby in his financial statements, and comments by GW's legal team during the Chapterhouse lawsuit that definitely suggested it.
Equally, there's no real evidence that quality has dropped.
The first codex released for 6th edition has a page and a half of errata.
This month, we've seen the release of a hardcover codex for 2 units (which are actually just the same unit with two different different guns) and another codex that gives you an army that will automatically lose the game on turn one.
And that's not even touching the whole 'Fine'cast debacle.
There seems to be more of this 'release a whole book with only a few pages of rules' thing that is definitely trying to spread the rules around to get people to buy more product.
But the digital releases are playing it very safe. They aren't investing in physical stock they then have to shift. If no one buys a digital copy then they have lost money but it's only staff hours on design and writing. If no one buys a codex they've wasted those costs and an entire print run and now have to face spending money on storage or disposal of remaindered stock.
Churning out out lots of digital releases with minimal game content seems a definite money grab that requires minimal investment.
There's a lot of rather selective reasoning going on here. For a start, the core of GW's business is its models. not the codexes. So arguing that the quality is declining just because of publications like the Knight codex is really missing the point - the Knight codex exists to sell the Knight model, which is a substantial investment and, it would appear, a popular model. So comparing GW with TSR is kind of pointless. It would make more more sense to compare it to Airfix, which occupied a similar position to GW in its time.
Interesting read.
The flurry of recent releases is my greatest concern too, not so much from a "GW is going dwon the toilet" point of view but more in terms of game balance, consistency and overall direction with armies/army interactions.
Its baffling.
Here I don't though. I don't think GW can compete with the likes of Corvus Bellie or Meirce on quality and can't compete with Mantic or Wargames Factory on price so what is there market outside of 'GW gamers'?
Just to reinforce that point about distinctly superior models, Knight models 35mm Gandalf compared to GW's 2 recent 28mm heroic ones:
The issue with this argument is that neither Corvus Bellie, Meirce nor Mantic produce Space Marines. That's really the beginning and end of the talk about GW models.
Doesn't matter if you agree with their quality all that matters is that GW is a company that produces Space marines and those other companies don't produce space marines
Long as players like Space Marines GW survives. That's all there is to it heh, and unfortunately GW is doing its best to make sure people don't like space marines lately..
Tailgunner wrote: There's a lot of rather selective reasoning going on here. For a start, the core of GW's business is its models. not the codexes. So arguing that the quality is declining just because of publications like the Knight codex is really missing the point - the Knight codex exists to sell the Knight model, which is a substantial investment and, it would appear, a popular model. So comparing GW with TSR is kind of pointless. It would make more more sense to compare it to Airfix, which occupied a similar position to GW in its time.
See, this points to another issue. Games Workshop grew it's business selling GAMES of which models were a big part of it. Now they exist to sell MODELS and write a lot of half-baked stuff in an effort to do that. As Rick Priestly eloquently said - games development is now a promotions department for a toy company.
Secondly, I would add, how well do you think GW would do if they were to completely stop selling rules and codexes tomorrow and only sell models?
Here I don't though. I don't think GW can compete with the likes of Corvus Bellie or Meirce on quality and can't compete with Mantic or Wargames Factory on price so what is there market outside of 'GW gamers'?
Just to reinforce that point about distinctly superior models, Knight models 35mm Gandalf compared to GW's 2 recent 28mm heroic ones:
The issue with this argument is that neither Corvus Bellie, Meirce nor Mantic produce Space Marines. That's really the beginning and end of the talk about GW models.
Doesn't matter if you agree with their quality all that matters is that GW is a company that produces Space marines and those other companies don't produce space marines
Long as players like Space Marines GW survives. That's all there is to it heh, and unfortunately GW is doing its best to make sure people don't like space marines lately..
And only TSR produced D&D (a much stronger brand than Warhammer fantasy or 40k ever was) and no other company did, yet TSR still failed. This is the same attitude the top management has and it is killing the company.
Here is another fact - Corvus Belli and all the other (Wyrd, FFG, Cipher Studios, Mantic, Warlord, etc.) all had growth last year - GW did not. So it appears Space Marines are not the go to to save the company anymore.
I made the exact same arguments defendeding TSR as they went down, and I ate crow on that one.
Tailgunner wrote: There's a lot of rather selective reasoning going on here. For a start, the core of GW's business is its models. not the codexes. So arguing that the quality is declining just because of publications like the Knight codex is really missing the point - the Knight codex exists to sell the Knight model, which is a substantial investment and, it would appear, a popular model. So comparing GW with TSR is kind of pointless. It would make more more sense to compare it to Airfix, which occupied a similar position to GW in its time.
GW spouting that it is a model company, not a game company is part of its problem. GAMES Workshop is a game company. Some customers purchase the models for painting and display, but Warhammer is priced, designed, marketed, and sold as a GAME. No if ands or buts. It is a game. That the knight codex is designed to sell the knight model demonstrates this point.
Customers are buying the model to use in a GAME. The product is priced based on its relative value in the GAME rules. Customers are interested in the model because they regularly connect with the fictional universe out of which the product comes through a GAME.
Games Workshop wants customers to PLAY its games because customers that play the game buy more and buy more regularly.
GAMES Workshop is a games company that makes most of its money selling game pieces. If everyone who plays GW games suddenly stopped buying GW products, GW would die.
WarGAMING. The playing of GAMES that simulate armed conflict. Not warPAINTING. Not warMODELING. WarGAMING. Painting, building, displaying, reading, writing, and all of the lovely immersive activities that generally go along with table top Wargaming are awesome and important, but the playing of games is critical to the hobby and a substantial driver of it.
In fact, what games workshop did to wargaming was to so overly emphasize the connection between it's models and it's fictional universe and its rules that once you were in the games workshop ecosystem you couldn't easily get out. Most historical wargamers generally use whatever rules they like at whatever time because models are models. The only inhibiting factors may be base size and scale. So if you dislike a game, you just play a different game with your collected game pieces.
Games workshop was one of the forerunners of fantasy wargaming, in which most particularly the models, being tied to the imaginations of the artists and game designers, don't translate well to other game systems. Games workshop absolutely wants it this way. As a business, games workshop is designed from the ground up to take maximum advantage of this.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Although it gets posted all the time, there's no real evidence GW treats its customers with contempt.
There have been various comments by Kirby in his financial statements, and comments by GW's legal team during the Chapterhouse lawsuit that definitely suggested it.
Equally, there's no real evidence that quality has dropped.
The first codex released for 6th edition has a page and a half of errata.
This month, we've seen the release of a hardcover codex for 2 units (which are actually just the same unit with two different different guns) and another codex that gives you an army that will automatically lose the game on turn one.
And that's not even touching the whole 'Fine'cast debacle.
On has only read the "Business Model" portion of GW's website to understand how they view their customers... here are some examples of what GW thinks of the customers:
"we will recruit lots of customers into our Hobby and they will enjoy spending their money on the products we make" - they are nothing but cash cows to us.
"people who are interested in collecting fantasy miniatures will choose the best quality and be prepared to pay what they are worth" - its just about the miniatures and paying anything we want. No one cares about the GAMES anymore.
And now the ultimate statement of being clueless:
Our continual investment in product quality, using our defendable intellectual property, provides us with a considerable barrier to entry for potential competitors: it is our Fortress Wall. While our 400 or so Hobby centres which show customers how to collect, paint and play with our miniatures and games provide another barrier to entry: our Fortress Moat. We have been building our Fortress Wall and Moat for many years and the competitive advantage they provide gives us confidence in our ability to grow profitably in the future. - look, it's really hard for competitors to sell games because of us.... Yeah right, tell that to FFG with X-Wing of PP with Warmahordes...
Tailgunner wrote: There's a lot of rather selective reasoning going on here. For a start, the core of GW's business is its models. not the codexes. So arguing that the quality is declining just because of publications like the Knight codex is really missing the point - the Knight codex exists to sell the Knight model, which is a substantial investment and, it would appear, a popular model. So comparing GW with TSR is kind of pointless. It would make more more sense to compare it to Airfix, which occupied a similar position to GW in its time.
Taking the Imperial Knight model as an example of Games Workshop's core business being models is a very poor one. While the Knight may be aesthetically pleasing, it utterly fails on an engineering level. One need only look at the design of the Dreamforge Leviathan or any number of Japanese Gundam kits to see how easily one can incorporate multiple points of articulation and swappable weapons for less than the cost of the Knight. For a $140 kit, GW (as the self proclaimed market leader) could, and damn well SHOULD, do better.
Today, I give Hasbro/WotC credit for recognizing 4th edition D&D was a huge mistake (thus why they have stopped sales of 4th edition and haven't put out a new product in over a year) and have decided the wiser course was to focus on D&D Next to save the brand. Why did Hasbro recognize this? Because Pathfinder/Paizo has stolen marketshare by sticking to their old formula.
Not really. There is a big argument among DND fans every time a new edition pops up and its called the "edition war". It has happened before. I could give some link from a forum back from 2000 when the 2nd to 3rd edition change happened and you will find people making the same arguments. One side liking the changes, the other side not liking them. The "old guard" talking how the new one isn't really DND blah blah blah.
Besides WoTC's mistake was not its failure in recognizing Paizo as a threat, it was giving up its IP with the System Reference Document and then doing what DND has done several times before. Release a new edition where they made certain core rules changes just like before (remember THACO?). Before there was only one DND because IP laws meant none else could take the old edition and change the name and then repackage it and resell it to the same people you already own of the old edition. That is all Pathfinder is, DND 3.5 with a different name, well and a few minor changes on every page to make you think that is a different game. Paizo just took advantage of DND during a vulnerable period of the "edition war" and gave the 3.5 fans what they wanted. The same old game with a few minor changes. If Paizo didn't do it some other company would have probably done it.
Besides I disagree that 4th edition was a mistake itself. If you step back for a moment and judge that game on its own merits you will find it is a rather good game.
The mistake here that WoTC made, and probably will never do again, is release anything like the SRD. 4th ed itself was not the problem. They may also be a hesitant to try new things, though that is not necessarily a good thing.
Getting this back to GW, I don't see GW giving up its IP or parts of its IP at any point.
Tailgunner wrote: There's a lot of rather selective reasoning going on here. For a start, the core of GW's business is its models. not the codexes.
The core of GW's business is a game called Warhammer 40000. Aside from to the minority who buy the models just to collect and/or paint them, the models sell because people play the game. So a decline in the quality of the game discourages model sales.
... - the Knight codex exists to sell the Knight model, ...
Yes, that's the point.
A better codex will do a better job of selling the models. Conversely, a worse codex...
Smacks wrote: This was an interesting read. Especially since GW owe their initial success to D&D, yet later dropped it for their own products. Perhaps Wayland should take the leap into their own brand IP.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Few of your parallels have much content to them, they're based on internet noise.
Although it gets posted all the time, there's no real evidence GW treats its customers with contempt. The designers you're citing left years ago; in some cases they've launched their own unsuccessful lines since, so you can't realy theorise they took the secrets of success with them. Equally, there's no real evidence that quality has dropped. One could contend, say, that my new Hive Crone is not as nicely modelled as the old Carnifex... but go back to the golden era of the 90s and many models were simply horrible.
There is a deeper truth, though; Kirby, as the leader of the company, needs to have a visionary strategy, beyond simple cost-cutting. As his background in the Inland Revenue suggests, he's not a visionary, he's merely an accountant. GW needs to rediscover its sense of fun, to find its mojo. Its products are actually still pretty good... for instance, I personally reckon their model are distinctly superior to PP and others. But GW needs a corporate culture that cares more about quality, and less about money.
A lot of the problems I would suggest come from the Plc culture, of short-term profits. But Plc culture would often demand that an unsuccessful CEO is ejected by investors. That might be GW"s best chance for the future.
I'd love to see GW sold and removed from the market, I think it would work wonders for the company, take the strain of constantly pushing for shareholder profit out and enable long-term investment back into the company and it's products. It would also enable them to take risks on new product again.
Kirby, btw, had a stab at writing for TSR D&D modules. He left TSR UK to work at GW. He once claimed that artwork and design on the miniatures boxes was pointless and they would sell as well in soap powder boxes, which is why we saw the odd move to those big weird plastic clamshells back in the early 90s... which were a total failure. He also claimed he would retire 5 years after taking the throne of GW... which still has not happened. His words in some of the financial statements have been next to terrible in regards to the customers of the products he's supposed to be selling, as though the jokes of the boardroom are spilling through.
As I've said previously on this site, I know people who've been through upper middle sales in the UK, they have told me at senior level, the games, their subject matter and the people who play (and pay) are held in very poor regard and the subject of ridicule. We need people who give a gak about the product back in senior level discussion and consultation.
What I really find damning, from my own customer service/process improvement background, is the 'moat and wall' analogy Kirby really likes. It ties in with the refusal to engage with the media and insistence on self praise within the company's literature. It's all about barriers, bunkers, defensiveness, instead of openness, engagement, interaction and relationships. It's real 'ivory tower' stuff and will continue to harm the company over time, as well as create resistance and disinterest from those on the outside of that wall, the customer.
brettz123 wrote: I agree with most of your post but TSR did not go bust because of any of what you are talking about. At the end of the day they went out of business so suddenly because they published too many hard cover fiction books in the previous year that did not sell well and when their publisher demanded they buy them back they did not have the cash on hand to pay off the debt.
Now certainly everything you pointed out contributed to the situation but without the forced buy back I would guess TSR would have been around for a lot longer. So my guess is unless GW has a similar issue pop up you will either see a very slow demise over time or a continued loss of sales until they finally get they need to change how they do business.
What you pointed out was the "straw that broke the camel's back" so to speak. However, it did that because the company was already in very rough shape as a result of the behaviors and attitudes I mentioned in the above.
Exactly my point unless there is a straw that breaks their back it seems to me that GW will take a long time to go away which also gives them a lot of time to turn the ship around. TSR didn't get that chance after the forced by back because they were contractually forced to buy back unsold stock from their publishers. GW doesn't have that issue which for them is a good thing.
GW has a different, but similar issue. They have a massive commitment on the retail level, most likely in the form of leases. If sales do not stay high enough then these will be the same thing - a massive cash commitment without the cash to pay for them. In there last financials - 37%-39% of the companies costs are operating these retail channels (and that is after going to 1 man formats) - that is huge. So, another 15%-20% drop in sales will push these obligations up to 50%-60% of company costs and put them into dangerous territory like TSR. If the drop was to be 30%-40%, if could potentially put them into receivership.
Quite frankly, GW seems to be cranking out products in the last four months it what seems more desperation than anything. TSR did the same thing in the final year which lead to so much of this inventory issue. This puts a strain on the company at all levels but particularly in the rapid build up of unsold inventory. This can crush a company - any company. Right now, GW seems to be throwing caution to the wind and just are operating with the "get more revenue" mentality without thinking everything through on what this does to the organization as a whole.
Which leads to the second point. TSR had that happen because they were cranking out books too fast, which lead to a massive build up in inventory which the seller pushed back on them. If people can only buy and read 4 TSR books a month and you put out 12 a month, well now they have to decide which 4 and 8 remain unsold. TSR exceeded the customer base budget -so to speak. This is a very interesting phenomenon that all good businesses pay attention to. It goes like this:
Let's say your budget is $100 a month for video gaming. Your favorite video game continues to release $50 expansions once every three months (ala GW pre-2012). You are able to buy it and stay up to date with the game no problem. Now, the company wants to make more money, so they raise the price on these expansions to $100. You love the game and it still fits within your budget. Now they decide they need even more money, but know they can't raise the price any higher since they are already double what is on the market. So they release the $100 expansions on a monthly basis. With a groan, you decide to go for that because you love the game, but the pricing is really hurting at that point (ala GW in 2013) and you notice more mistakes slipping thorough because of the faster release cycle, so you feel the value is declining. Now the company decides they need even more money so they move to releasing an expansion once a week (ala GW this year). You buy the first one and miss the next three because it has exceeded your budget and the first one you buy doesn't look well thought out and you begin to feel you are getting less for your money than ever. Three months later, you have bought three of these weekly expansions and are behind by 9. Now, feeling you can't keep up, you decide to find another game that fits within your budget. Thus the company, in an effort to get you to spend more, instead has lost all your spending overall.
That is the point, you can exceed the available money of your customer base therefore causing frustration and, eventually, defection. This is why first-hand knowledge of your market and customers is so important to a business and why, like TSR, GW continues following down the same dismal path.
I'm actually not disagreeing just pointing out that being forced to buy back inventory that wasn't sold is what put TSR out of business and that GW doesn't look like it will have that problem...... which is a very important distinction.
If Games workshop actually wanted to make more money they'd turn their retail stores into actual Gaming and Hobby stores, allowing minitiature companies other than Games Workshop to sell their wares for a fee directly in relation to space provided. Time and again specialty retail stores beyond a few noticable differences such as Apple, fail. Look at Disney etc...
It'd reduce their overhead of leasing, they'd bring in new customers to the hobby. It sounds strange but honestly they're in such a small market share regardless.
They're not a "Apple" product store.
The next thing would be to have a player registery on their website similar to facebook where players could create profile and track their games W/L.
They could also use this as a customer database and feedback.
Hollismason wrote: If Games workshop actually wanted to make more money they'd turn their retail stores into actual Gaming and Hobby stores, allowing minitiature companies other than Games Workshop to sell their wares for a fee directly in relation to space provided. Time and again specialty retail stores beyond a few noticable differences such as Apple, fail. Look at Disney etc...
I strongly believe the GW retail stores are a millstone around GW's neck and, since moving from hobby centers to the one man model, relocated to isolated strip malls and quieter streets, no longer effect at recruiting as they once were.
I further believe they should be closed, GW should work to empower the independent retailer and ensure their product takes pride of place in those stores again, whilst also enabling further indy stores to open where they are no longer doing direct business. A huge saving in rent, utilities, wages, insurance, everything. They are then letting indy stores take all the risks, pay all the bills and promote their product for them. This should be a no-brainer, but it's held back by this now outdated idea they can own the entire market and treat stores they don't own themselves as the enemy, or at best a grudging obligation. GW used to be great at indy dealings in the US, enable the tournament scene again, bombard the store with advertising masking as free giant posters and display models...
The next thing would be to have a player registery on their website similar to facebook where players could create profile and track their games W/L.
They could also use this as a customer database and feedback.
This is an excellent idea, something I talked about years ago with bringing in the notion of taking the tournaments and making them 'legit', posting reports and interviews with gamers in White Dwarf, content and interaction.
Building community, enabling communication, establishing a legitimacy for the games... I think it would work wonders.
Palindrome wrote:Your points are basically correct but they have been correct for a very long time.
(...)
GW's problem now is that their history of dubious decisions and protectionist practices are starting to reach a critical mass. We have seen the first public bubbles a few months ago and I predict that things will only get worse from here.
Those points have been correct for a long time, but revenue growth has been below inflation for a long time as well.
It was above inflation, when pros from other companies made professional marketing (MB with Heroquest/Star Quest, DeAgostini with the LOTR magazine) recruiting thousands of new customers. None of this marketing was done by GW (although GW wrote the magazine to be fair).
So we have a steady decline for 8-9 years now, with GW infrastructure sold and sales staff fired to let the annual report look good. Now we seem to have reached the threshold where most infrastructure has been sold, most brains fired and only yesmen left who desperate hoping that doing more of the same will solve the problems. But last half year proved that it won't.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:A lot of the problems I would suggest come from the Plc culture, of short-term profits. But Plc culture would often demand that an unsuccessful CEO is ejected by investors. That might be GW"s best chance for the future.
1.) Tom Kirby is not the victim of Plc culture: He is the one who introduced it to GW and who profited the most of it (last financial year about 1.3 Mio GBP IIRC).
2.) Unsuccessful CEO Tom Kirby is backed by chair Tom Kirby and major shareholder Tom Kirby. But on 6th March, the hitherto biggest investor Nomad dropped out and sold most if not all of its shares.
insaniak wrote: This month, we've seen the release of a hardcover codex for 2 units (which are actually just the same unit with two different different guns) and another codex that gives you an army that will automatically lose the game on turn one.
The question is more what what, if there even is one, the straw that breaks their back will be.
I'm honestly wondering if it will be FLGS's. Both of the main FLGS's I frequent (which will remain nameless) cannot stand GW's policies in regards to how they treat stores. Especially things like forcing them to stock products like Lord of the Rings and Fantasy even if there is little interest.
I have a feeling that if either store I frequent thought they could get away with dropping GW products, they would do so in a heartbeat.
We've seen local stores get more and more fed up with GW over years, and products like Magic and X Wing probably pull in money far more easily than GW stuff does. We may reach a point where FLGS's start to see drop offs in 40k populations (similar to Fantasy) and just decide the hassle isn't worth it. All it takes with something like that is a few of the bigger name stores dropping GW, and then it could snowball from there. It would have to hit at just the right time, like say a really unpopular release (maybe a new Space Marine codex comes out and absolutely bombs, maybe 7th ed is just absolute trash, maybe we get another Finecast, etc) but it could happen.
That's the only big event I can think of that might possibly happen. There could always be some random thing out of left field that no one sees coming, like 7th ed just flopping in it's own right, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a large amount of FLGS's pulling their support of GW over the next decade causing a major blow to the company's profits.
I know that if I was considering opening a FLGS, I wouldn't bother with stocking GW after seeing all the hassle other stores have had with them.
Hollismason wrote: If Games workshop actually wanted to make more money they'd turn their retail stores into actual Gaming and Hobby stores, allowing minitiature companies other than Games Workshop to sell their wares for a fee directly in relation to space provided. Time and again specialty retail stores beyond a few noticable differences such as Apple, fail. Look at Disney etc...
I strongly believe the GW retail stores are a millstone around GW's neck and, since moving from hobby centers to the one man model, relocated to isolated strip malls and quieter streets, no longer effect at recruiting as they once were.
I further believe they should be closed, GW should work to empower the independent retailer and ensure their product takes pride of place in those stores again, whilst also enabling further indy stores to open where they are no longer doing direct business. A huge saving in rent, utilities, wages, insurance, everything. They are then letting indy stores take all the risks, pay all the bills and promote their product for them. This should be a no-brainer, but it's held back by this now outdated idea they can own the entire market and treat stores they don't own themselves as the enemy, or at best a grudging obligation. GW used to be great at indy dealings in the US, enable the tournament scene again, bombard the store with advertising masking as free giant posters and display models...
The next thing would be to have a player registery on their website similar to facebook where players could create profile and track their games W/L.
They could also use this as a customer database and feedback.
This is an excellent idea, something I talked about years ago with bringing in the notion of taking the tournaments and making them 'legit', posting reports and interviews with gamers in White Dwarf, content and interaction.
Building community, enabling communication, establishing a legitimacy for the games... I think it would work wonders.
I agree somewhat that the stores are Millstones, but having them be Gamesworkshop Gaming Centers similar to a FLGS , overall would be better for service. They could support their rental and agreement leases by contract to sell. Would the books be better? Most certainly and it would be better for the Hobby as a whole. Plus it would bring in more new customers. Especially if GW came up with some way to work with WOTC as a official outlet for their Friday Night Tournaments.
In the End it's a specialty store and will eventually probably fail. They've kept them going this long.
Interestingly , does anyone have the rate of expansion/ closing of GW stores at their height or are they at their height right now.
Having a supportive Tournament enviroment would go towards increasing new customers as well but unfortunately GW will never get in that. MTG does great with Casual vs. Tournament and is a driving force on why it's remained.
LotD, as if you take a pure army, they don't get permission to deploy normally and must still DS, and don't get exclusion from the auto lose if you've got no models on the table at the end of the turn rule.
Well done, we've just had 1 0000000 games, and we've simultaneously secured the records for the best and worst w/l ratios of anyone in the history of 40K!
Regarding the stores, I agree that moving to the one-man-store-in-less-traffic-areas was a Bad Move™. At least in the US, they should close most of their stores, keeping only the ones in the high traffic malls where they can still bring in new players on a consistent basis.
It's also interesting to note that Wizards of the Coast used to have their own stores, and they sold more than just D&D (they even sold GW products in them). Not sure what factors led to their closing down, though.
I personally believe that the straw will be the price break point. At the rate that new model costs are rising, I'm fairly sure GW will hit a point where people will simply refuse the cost, and GW will take a significant loss on having created the molds and other costs that starts to lead into a downward spiral.
I know for myself that once I have the Imperial Guard codex (and my guard army is primarily composed of Wargame Factory figures and early edition models I got way back when), I'm dropping purchasing any more GW product, and moving towards homebrewing/modifying the ruleset I have.
I do wish that GW would expand out back into the different games - Space Hulk, Bloodbowl, Epic, Man O' War, Battlefleet Gothic, Warhammer Quest, Dark Future, Necromunda, Mordenheim and all the other side games they used to experiment with. Unfortunately, since games wouldn't be the safe bets that 40K/Fantasy are, I don't think while we see Kirby at the helm that this isn't likely to happen. At best, small scale reprints and never any development into totally new ventures - which is sad.
Stormonu wrote: I personally believe that the straw will be the price break point. At the rate that new model costs are rising, I'm fairly sure GW will hit a point where people will simply refuse the cost, and GW will take a significant loss on having created the molds and other costs that starts to lead into a downward spiral.
I know for myself that once I have the Imperial Guard codex (and my guard army is primarily composed of Wargame Factory figures and early edition models I got way back when), I'm dropping purchasing any more GW product, and moving towards homebrewing/modifying the ruleset I have.
I do wish that GW would expand out back into the different games - Space Hulk, Bloodbowl, Epic, Man O' War, Battlefleet Gothic, Warhammer Quest, Dark Future, Necromunda, Mordenheim and all the other side games they used to experiment with. Unfortunately, since games wouldn't be the safe bets that 40K/Fantasy are, I don't think while we see Kirby at the helm that this isn't likely to happen. At best, small scale reprints and never any development into totally new ventures - which is sad.
I double this sentiment. I am more tempted to sell my IG, buy everything from Victoria's Minis, and use that as my IG. The new kits from GW look like complete crap. I know some people like the old look, but I don't.
I know many of you love the 40k IP , setting and that is fine and well, however I view this mostly too be fairly positive for wargaming as a whole. With 40k dominating the wargaming market we see a hudge lack in diversity as any independent company ends up creating very close copies or just 40k stylized miniatures and products so that they will sell for that game and setting. I know that wargaming as a whole industry needs to move towards more diversity and continue too create different games , genres and settings that are unique. This helps create more smaller groups of gamers which helps new gamers who may be turned off from certain aesthetics too see a style of miniatures and game that they enjoy and instead of not entering wargaming , do enter the industry which benefits everyone.
Also with GW gone I am sure someone will pick up the IP and you guys will be much more happy with a new company running it, however I just hope the market will now truly continue too diversify as it really will create a much more healthy and stable industry for companies and gamers. I just hope that when GW's downturn comes and they are no more ( with someone else picking up the IP) that the market is set in with gamers playing more than one game or enough diversity that we can avoid the one company dominating the market as with GW and TSR have shown with a capitalist economy system is never , ever a good thing for the market and the consumer.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Regarding the stores, I agree that moving to the one-man-store-in-less-traffic-areas was a Bad Move™. At least in the US, they should close most of their stores, keeping only the ones in the high traffic malls where they can still bring in new players on a consistent basis.
It's also interesting to note that Wizards of the Coast used to have their own stores, and they sold more than just D&D (they even sold GW products in them). Not sure what factors led to their closing down, though.
The Wizard Stores and Game Keeper chain were shut down after the Hasbro acquisition. Hasbro is not in the retail store business.
Tannhauser42 wrote: At least in the US, they should close most of their stores, keeping only the ones in the high traffic malls where they can still bring in new players on a consistent basis.
Stormonu wrote: I personally believe that the straw will be the price break point. At the rate that new model costs are rising, I'm fairly sure GW will hit a point where people will simply refuse the cost, and GW will take a significant loss on having created the molds and other costs that starts to lead into a downward spiral.
If you watch the numbers, you will see that this point has just been passed. Revenue was basically flat for years (meaning that price hikes barely compensated for loss in sales), now even crazy price hikes couldn't compensate and we got a 10% revenue decrease.
1.) Tom Kirby is not the victim of Plc culture: He is the one who introduced it to GW and who profited the most of it (last financial year about 1.3 Mio GBP IIRC).
CEOs tend to be booted out by institutional investors if the share price tanks and doesn't recover. There's no reason that shouldn't happen to him.
1.) Tom Kirby is not the victim of Plc culture: He is the one who introduced it to GW and who profited the most of it (last financial year about 1.3 Mio GBP IIRC).
CEOs tend to be booted out by institutional investors if the share price tanks and doesn't recover. There's no reason that shouldn't happen to him.
Nah, rarely happens. Look at Kodak. The CEO who ran it into bankruptcy, Antonio Perez, is still there. The problem you have today is if shareholders feel a company is going the wrong way, they just sell their stock and buy stock in a better run company. Unfortunate effect of the public stock markets.
How would people feel if GW just removed all the hardback versions of their rules and shifted them all to an online subscription based service?
Let's say you pay a yearly subscription for the main ruleset and you have the option to add other rules; codexes, escalation, etc for an additional fee.
The advantages would be: Rulesets can be updated dynamically - errors can be easily corrected and errata can be incorporated into a simple update of the online rulesets. All anyone needs to do is print off a new copy of the rules or update on their e-reader. Broken units and power creep are easily fixed too.
Fluff can still be produced by the Black Library: They can release hard copy 'history of the Space Wolves' books for all those who want to keep up with the lore.
It would streamline the game for people who end up having hardack rulests, an e-reader with their codex, and printed copies of errata'faq's floating around their deployment zones.
GW could even put out a hardback of the main ruleset once a year for convenience, or even offer print-to-order only copies of codexes for those who want them.
I'm sure i'm not the first person to suggest this; and I suspect i'm not the first person the think that, while this makes sense in terms of business and game balance, it does ultimately rely on GW taking it's fingers out of its ears and actually listening to feedback from its customer base :(
J.Black wrote: How would people feel if GW just removed all the hardback versions of their rules and shifted them all to an online subscription based service?
Let's say you pay a yearly subscription for the main ruleset and you have the option to add other rules; codexes, escalation, etc for an additional fee.
The advantages would be: Rulesets can be updated dynamically - errors can be easily corrected and errata can be incorporated into a simple update of the online rulesets. All anyone needs to do is print off a new copy of the rules or update on their e-reader. Broken units and power creep are easily fixed too.
Fluff can still be produced by the Black Library: They can release hard copy 'history of the Space Wolves' books for all those who want to keep up with the lore.
It would streamline the game for people who end up having hardack rulests, an e-reader with their codex, and printed copies of errata'faq's floating around their deployment zones.
GW could even put out a hardback of the main ruleset once a year for convenience, or even offer print-to-order only copies of codexes for those who want them.
I'm sure i'm not the first person to suggest this; and I suspect i'm not the first person the think that, while this makes sense in terms of business and game balance, it does ultimately rely on GW taking it's fingers out of its ears and actually listening to feedback from its customer base :(
No. Doing so would raise the bar of entry by requiring a reader of some sort, and some of us still prefer to read dead-tree books instead of squinting at a tiny screen.
If I'm paying a subscription, I expect to be getting something of value that requires a continuing service. I will not pay "subscriptions" to use a book instead of simply buying the book any more than I'll pay a company a subscription to use a standalone computer program. Besides, what will you do when GW decides that they no longer want to run their servers (or pay for hosting) and you can no longer access the rules? Do you think if they use such a model they'll allow you to actually download the rules instead of requiring a continuing connection to their server? Do you think that GW would actually give people a choice of paper or electronic if they went this route?
It will not increase the quality of the rules, and may make keeping up with changes even harder. Anyone care to comment on how (or if) GW alerts owners of the current electronic versions to changes to their books?
1.) Tom Kirby is not the victim of Plc culture: He is the one who introduced it to GW and who profited the most of it (last financial year about 1.3 Mio GBP IIRC).
CEOs tend to be booted out by institutional investors if the share price tanks and doesn't recover. There's no reason that shouldn't happen to him.
Nah, rarely happens. Look at Kodak. The CEO who ran it into bankruptcy, Antonio Perez, is still there. The problem you have today is if shareholders feel a company is going the wrong way, they just sell their stock and buy stock in a better run company. Unfortunate effect of the public stock markets.
Hey, whether it will happen with GW is an open question. Of course it depends on the board, and the shareholders. But it does happen, and pretty regularly, and there have been analyses which indicate a link between poor share performance and management changes.
No. Doing so would raise the bar of entry by requiring a reader of some sort, and some of us still prefer to read dead-tree books instead of squinting at a tiny screen.
I admit that is a problem, but as I pointed out, they could still release hardcopies of the rules every year and make codexes/supplements print-to-order.... you can still have your sheets of dead tree! Besides, even if online updates made some of your rules outdated; printing off the updates is not really so different to having to print out faq's/erratas and you don't need an e-reader for that, just access to a desktop and a printer.
If I'm paying a subscription, I expect to be getting something of value that requires a continuing service. I will not pay "subscriptions" to use a book instead of simply buying the book any more than I'll pay a company a subscription to use a standalone computer program. Besides, what will you do when GW decides that they no longer want to run their servers (or pay for hosting) and you can no longer access the rules? Do you think if they use such a model they'll allow you to actually download the rules instead of requiring a continuing connection to their server? Do you think that GW would actually give people a choice of paper or electronic if they went this route?
Well, yes and no... The idea is that it would work much like the current online codexes (which get updated for errors) except that it would be much easier for GW to correct imbalances and clarify rules. Simply have a mass update once a month for all the rules so people know when to check. This would lead to a much more balanced game which, as others in the thread have pointed out, would help them sell more stuff. Sadly, it is reliant on GW actually being rational and accepting that if they take this route there would be a few folks who would see online rules as a free lunch rather than say theft.
The questions you ask all come down to: Can GW be trusted to do something responsibly, for the good of their customers, rather than treat it as yet another cash cow. At the moment the answer is no. Remember i'm just throwing some suggestions out here, rather than trying to defend GW's business model
It will not increase the quality of the rules, and may make keeping up with changes even harder. Anyone care to comment on how (or if) GW alerts owners of the current electronic versions to changes to their books?
Again, if they actually listened to feedback (easy to gather in their stores/website) it would help make the game better..... Relies on them being more open and willing to engage with customers which 'sigh' doesn't look like it'll happen anytime soon!
J.Black wrote: How would people feel if GW just removed all the hardback versions of their rules and shifted them all to an online subscription based service?
Let's say you pay a yearly subscription for the main ruleset and you have the option to add other rules; codexes, escalation, etc for an additional fee.
The advantages would be: Rulesets can be updated dynamically - errors can be easily corrected and errata can be incorporated into a simple update of the online rulesets. All anyone needs to do is print off a new copy of the rules or update on their e-reader. Broken units and power creep are easily fixed too.
Fluff can still be produced by the Black Library: They can release hard copy 'history of the Space Wolves' books for all those who want to keep up with the lore.
It would streamline the game for people who end up having hardack rulests, an e-reader with their codex, and printed copies of errata'faq's floating around their deployment zones.
GW could even put out a hardback of the main ruleset once a year for convenience, or even offer print-to-order only copies of codexes for those who want them.
I'm sure i'm not the first person to suggest this; and I suspect i'm not the first person the think that, while this makes sense in terms of business and game balance, it does ultimately rely on GW taking it's fingers out of its ears and actually listening to feedback from its customer base :(
I think that might be an even worse solution that $50 codexes, unless the subscription cost was super cheap.
As much as I hate buying hardback books at a dollar a page, I do like having books I can hold in my hand and read on a nice rainy day.
I just think they should go back to the paperback codexes and make the starter box rulebooks easier to get a hold of. That would do a lot to make the community happy.
That, and playtesting their rules again so we don't need errata within a week of a book dropping, that would be nice too.
I just think they should go back to the paperback codexes and make the starter box rulebooks easier to get a hold of. That would do a lot to make the community happy.
That, and playtesting their rules again so we don't need errata within a week of a book dropping, that would be nice too.
Those are the things that I would hope changing to an online subscription would solve
Agreed about the price though... If the main ruleset was like £20 per year and codexes at about £5-£7.50 I could see it working. More likely their current management would give you an 'all or nothing' option at about £150 a year for everything!
Playtesting would be helped by community involvement... if they sponsored tournies again i'm sure they'd get some good feedback regarding the balance of their game.
The next thing would be to have a player registery on their website similar to facebook where players could create profile and track their games W/L.
I like the idea of a Wargaming finder thingy, but I have to say, what's with the online Wargaming community's weird obsession with wins and losses and keeping track of them? I've never kept track of my wins/losses in Chess, where a record like that would actually be a somewhat more proper signifier of skill, as there is no luck involved and no glaringly bad armies to play against.
Anyway, I actively hope GW goes under and a company with more transparancy and better fan interaction picks it up. Like, WOTC with the liscence would be phenominal.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:Hey, whether it will happen with GW is an open question. Of course it depends on the board, and the shareholders.
It depends on chair Tom Kirby and major shareholder Tom Kirby losing confidence in CEO Tom Kirby, a totally open question for sure
J.Black wrote:How would people feel if GW just removed all the hardback versions of their rules and shifted them all to an online subscription based service?
I am a Tyranid player. I don't want to wake up with another HQ deleted, another passable unit nerfed and another Apocalypse unit shoved down my throat each morning.
Their print media can't be doing that well either. The gaming store I went into just had racks and racks of White Dwarf. Print media is failing as well yet GW puts out a 4 dollar a week "magazine".
The next thing would be to have a player registery on their website similar to facebook where players could create profile and track their games W/L.
I like the idea of a Wargaming finder thingy, but I have to say, what's with the online Wargaming community's weird obsession with wins and losses and keeping track of them? I've never kept track of my wins/losses in Chess, where a record like that would actually be a somewhat more proper signifier of skill, as there is no luck involved and no glaringly bad armies to play against.
Anyway, I actively hope GW goes under and a company with more transparancy and better fan interaction picks it up. Like, WOTC with the liscence would be phenominal.
Hasbro with the license you mean, also the WOTC stores as someone stated did well as they supported multiple games and it was at the height I think of Magic.
The thing with a "facebook" style site for Wargaming is targeted audience, players being able to connect with other players. A fun way to track if there is a submission of army lists with games played what people are playing not just buying. It's instantaneous demographic that can be sold to other marketers such as WOTC etc.. in the form of advertising. It's just smart.
It just seems like GW is set up for failure, they don't really expand their IP at all. It's been 30 years how much media has been made on the GW IP. You would think by now we'd have at least gotten some sort of Mini series, Movie, Tele Novella, something.
No one in my area plays Dwarves, so there's all of those still just sitting up on the racks. A handful of the Imperial Knights ones sold, but that's it.
The issue with the way they do white dwarves now is they justified even more totally ignoring them if it's not a product you're interested in.
If you think print media is failing you need to come to the UK and look at a large branch of WH Smiths.
I counted seven different Tattoo magazines last time, four on wargaming including WD Monthly, four on astronomy, about seven on flight, six on boats, four on railway modelling, four on military modelling, etc, etc.
With all my respect.
I cannot believe how any wargamer can bo so fanatical in his relation with a product that is seriously worried about the company's health & profit margin.
This kind of brainwash is what makes GW survive after every money sucking decission they've made.
And I'm not trying to be offensive with anyone.
Please, forgive me. It's just my point of view.
BobbaFett wrote: With all my respect.
I cannot believe how any wargamer can bo so fanatical in his relation with a product that is seriously worried about the company's health & profit margin.
This kind of brainwash is what makes GW survive after every money sucking decission they've made.
And I'm not trying to be offensive with anyone.
Please, forgive me. It's just my point of view.
The tragic thing is that GW can't manage to find a way to use that perverse interest to its advantage.
BobbaFett wrote: With all my respect.
I cannot believe how any wargamer can bo so fanatical in his relation with a product that is seriously worried about the company's health & profit margin.
This kind of brainwash is what makes GW survive after every money sucking decission they've made.
And I'm not trying to be offensive with anyone.
Please, forgive me. It's just my point of view.
Well, firstly, believe it or not, some people find this sort of thing interesting, if that dovetails with a company that is heavily involved with an allied interest, then I don't see how it is difficult to understand how those people would take an interest?
Secondly, where is the fanaticism or serious worry? I suspect there may be projection on your part here, as all I'm reading is people drawing parallels between two companies that, superficially at least, have a lot in common, and speculating on how the eventual fate of one may be an indicator of the ultimate fate of the other, or not, as the case may be.
Additionally, if your company, or perhaps your company's main customer, was potentially under threat, and the resulting fallout may mean you losing your job, wouldn't you be interested in talking about it? Like them or loathe them, a wargaming industry without GW would be a very different place, and it may well put some people's ability to indulge their interest/passion/whatever in jeopardy. Now, this is a step removed from losing your livelihood, but it is still a situation that may interest or concern those involved.
Finally, I'm not seeing how this is in any way "brainwashing" or how it helps GW? For all the different opinions and interpretations on display in this thread or the ones like it, I've never once seen anyone arguing "oh nose, let's all start buying more from GW at full price to save them" which is frankly the only way I can see that these discussions would be of benefit to them? Assuming of course, that anyone but the occasional nut bar thought this, and it had a meaningful impact on sales.
If you're not interested in finances, or the wider implications of GW's conduct and what may result, fine, but I assure you, it is a very relevant topic for a board about wargaming.
And some of us are interested because it impacts upon the larger hobby (as opposed to the H-H-Hobby).
If GW were to fold tents tonight I would not shed a tear.
But if their leaving caused Victoria Lamb to close up shop? Kromlech? Maybe even Mantic? (Though Mantic is diversifying these days - the counts-as miniatures are becoming a minority, aside from KoW.)
Losing a market leader can have a bad effect on the industry as a whole.
TheAuldGrump wrote: And some of us are interested because it impacts upon the larger hobby (as opposed to the H-H-Hobby).
If GW were to fold tents tonight I would not shed a tear.
But if their leaving caused Victoria Lamb to close up shop? Kromlech? Maybe even Mantic? (Though Mantic is diversifying these days - the counts-as miniatures are becoming a minority, aside from KoW.)
Losing a market leader can have a bad effect on the industry as a whole.
The Auld Grump
While a legitimate fear of what will happen, I don't think it would be the end of those companies.
Victoria Lamb focuses on not IG, which are generic enough to fit in any sci fi range. I think she could survive just fine.
Tailgunner wrote: There's a lot of rather selective reasoning going on here. For a start, the core of GW's business is its models. not the codexes.
The core of GW's business is a game called Warhammer 40000. Aside from to the minority who buy the models just to collect and/or paint them, the models sell because people play the game. So a decline in the quality of the game discourages model sales.
... - the Knight codex exists to sell the Knight model, ...
Yes, that's the point.
A better codex will do a better job of selling the models. Conversely, a worse codex...
This is why the future is worrisome to me, if the nid codex was crap in order to sell the formation patches then it means GW is going full on EA and will attempt to milk every penny they can. Not to mention they haven't done a proper FAQ in almost a year.
Tailgunner wrote: There's a lot of rather selective reasoning going on here. For a start, the core of GW's business is its models. not the codexes.
The core of GW's business is a game called Warhammer 40000. Aside from to the minority who buy the models just to collect and/or paint them, the models sell because people play the game. So a decline in the quality of the game discourages model sales.
... - the Knight codex exists to sell the Knight model, ...
Yes, that's the point.
A better codex will do a better job of selling the models. Conversely, a worse codex...
This is why the future is worrisome to me, if the nid codex was crap in order to sell the formation patches then it means GW is going full on EA and will attempt to milk every penny they can. Not to mention they haven't done a proper FAQ in almost a year.
The people who do the FAQs probably are now the ones doing the dataslates.
I know of several companies that would want to buy GW, but the problem is none of them understand how much you need to be with the player and not against it to survive. They would probably learn from bad profit margins though.
To continue the parallel the OP has pointed out I look at my own behaviors:
I moved away from TSR and many of it's products because they seemed like such a grind: nothing new or different just a different version of the same at increased cost. White Wolf and even Palladium seemed to be far better in comparison and I never looked back and did not even notice when they went under. Cost WAS a factor but when quality was better AND it was cheaper it was an easy switch.
GW I am in a similar state: I am seeing different packaging of the same material. X-wing I have been investing in, even the "new" Batteltech is looking exciting to me. I invested in "Robotech" (still waiting), but it all boils down to that they are not offering anything exciting and everyone else is AND I AM BUYING ELSEWHERE.
I do not think I am all that different from anyone else so this is the canary in the coalmine for me: they are rehashing and repackaging the same material and I am actually getting bored.
The only things saving them I swear is the Black Library churning out 40k stories by very talented authors so their "universe" is alive and fires the imagination.
If they did anything to mess with the novels I guarantee they would be done in a year.
I doubt that, while their novels are good they are a small portion of income.
I just think that really GW as a whole is unhealthy and really is going to go the way of the dinosaurs, yes it has been around for 30 years but that doesn't mean anything and if it does close it will be a sad day for the hobby.
Tailgunner wrote: There's a lot of rather selective reasoning going on here. For a start, the core of GW's business is its models. not the codexes.
The core of GW's business is a game called Warhammer 40000. Aside from to the minority who buy the models just to collect and/or paint them, the models sell because people play the game. So a decline in the quality of the game discourages model sales.
... - the Knight codex exists to sell the Knight model, ...
Yes, that's the point.
A better codex will do a better job of selling the models. Conversely, a worse codex...
This is why the future is worrisome to me, if the nid codex was crap in order to sell the formation patches then it means GW is going full on EA and will attempt to milk every penny they can. Not to mention they haven't done a proper FAQ in almost a year.
The people who do the FAQs probably are now the ones doing the dataslates.
Not enough manpower to go around...
The Design Studio has 125 members. That's plenty of staff, especially considering a lot of the material is recycled.
TheAuldGrump wrote: And some of us are interested because it impacts upon the larger hobby (as opposed to the H-H-Hobby).
If GW were to fold tents tonight I would not shed a tear.
But if their leaving caused Victoria Lamb to close up shop? Kromlech? Maybe even Mantic? (Though Mantic is diversifying these days - the counts-as miniatures are becoming a minority, aside from KoW.)
Losing a market leader can have a bad effect on the industry as a whole.
The Auld Grump
While a legitimate fear of what will happen, I don't think it would be the end of those companies.
Victoria Lamb focuses on not IG, which are generic enough to fit in any sci fi range. I think she could survive just fine.
There's quite a lot of research around this issue; generally, if a market-leader fails, it is bad for the rest of the industry. It certainly happens in print media; when the News of the World folded, other newspapers anticipated bigger sales. But overall, sales are significantly down.
yes, if GW get bought by a competent , aggressive company this might be a good thing for the entire industry. But while GW's fall might delight some of the schadenfreude-addicts here, it will almost certainly be bad for the industry, and bad for gamers.
Well, obviously you can state it, but that doesn't make it true!
I think t depends why a market leader fell. If it was due to a generally dying market, like news papers, that's very different from failure to adapt. minis gaming is a growth industry, GW is simply losing share to more nimble competition.
And GW won't disappear. It's IP alone is worth too much.
I find it odd that GW totes itself as a company who is in the business of selling models, yet they only have two games. These games have high to insane barriers of entry due to cost and time needed to put a painted army on the table; I'll call it fully engaged in the hobby. It is also telling that the intro product is $100 and provides virtually nothing of any value unless you want to play one of the armies in it, even then you have to buy $100s of models to be at a standard game level.
For MtG, WotC is in the business of selling cards. They sponsor rules for just about anyway you want to play. There are at least 10 different WotC endorsed formats where the rules are free and WotC is at least amicable to people coming up with their own formats, not crushing them under the legal hammer when they post about it online. A set of dual decks is $30.
If GW added more games that involved the same models (Space Hulk, Necromunda, Mordeheim) they'd probably sell more models and sell the game rules as well if priced reasonably.
Barfolomew wrote: I find it odd that GW totes itself as a company who is in the business of selling models, yet they only have two games. These games have high to insane barriers of entry due to cost and time needed to put a painted army on the table; I'll call it fully engaged in the hobby. It is also telling that the intro product is $100 and provides virtually nothing of any value unless you want to play one of the armies in it, even then you have to buy $100s of models to be at a standard game level.
For MtG, WotC is in the business of selling cards. They sponsor rules for just about anyway you want to play. There are at least 10 different WotC endorsed formats where the rules are free and WotC is at least amicable to people coming up with their own formats, not crushing them under the legal hammer when they post about it online. A set of dual decks is $30.
If GW added more games that involved the same models (Space Hulk, Necromunda, Mordeheim) they'd probably sell more models and sell the game rules as well if priced reasonably.
They have 3 games. Proof that no one is interested in a Lord of the Rings game, eh?
Anyway I totally agree with you. The Kill Team tournament my FLGS has planned for next month has more people excited than anything else. The store is encouraging people to pick up at least one box of models they don't already own or were at least purchased in-store in 2014, and even then we'll be out $40, $50 bucks to field the 200 points necessary. I'm hoping it gets more people interested in the hobby as there's a good chance they'll hire me to run the stores on Saturdays as we (I say we like I'm part of the store already) are planning on having Saturdays as a hobbyist corner day, where people can come in to learn how to paint, assemble, make terrain, whatever.
Given that GW likes to say it's a model company and not a gaming company, why are Elites and such like priced so high? The usual response from a GW staffer is that such things cost so much because you can't field that many. Surely if you are truly a "model" company this wouldn't matter.... or is that too cynical?
SRSFACE wrote: They have 3 games. Proof that no one is interested in a Lord of the Rings game, eh?
I don't disagree people are interested, it's just not selling to the volumes of Fantasy, let alone 40K.
SRSFACE wrote: Anyway I totally agree with you. The Kill Team tournament my FLGS has planned for next month has more people excited than anything else. The store is encouraging people to pick up at least one box of models they don't already own or were at least purchased in-store in 2014, and even then we'll be out $40, $50 bucks to field the 200 points necessary. I'm hoping it gets more people interested in the hobby as there's a good chance they'll hire me to run the stores on Saturdays as we (I say we like I'm part of the store already) are planning on having Saturdays as a hobbyist corner day, where people can come in to learn how to paint, assemble, make terrain, whatever.
We did a Necromumnda at my FLGS and most people bought new models for their gang, mainly because of the customization of each model. People had fun until rules issues (getting too far behind) caused people to start not showing up.
Wolfstan wrote: Given that GW likes to say it's a model company and not a gaming company, why are Elites and such like priced so high? The usual response from a GW staffer is that such things cost so much because you can't field that many. Surely if you are truly a "model" company this wouldn't matter.... or is that too cynical?
If they were really a company in the business of selling models and not games they would have a wider range of models spread over multitude of genres (hasslefree?) in order to widen the customer base , but strangely they only make models solely for the purpose of supporting 3 games.
The only point I want to touch on is the one about GW's increase in product releases.
Back when TSR went out of business, the Internet was a fledgling thing.
Now, with people used to switching phones every year (or even 6 months in some cases) and ousting the old in favor of the new, you really can't afford to let a product sit as it is for a long period of time. You HAVE to speed up production.
The change in release format, with WD coming out every week and single kits and one-off dataslates coming out each of those weeks, this is not GW going under, this is GW ramping up their competitive game-face. They want to secure their portion of the market by keeping their brand at the front of peoples' minds. By releasing more, even in smaller doses, they're keeping things fresh, whereas before we would go a whole month without really knowing what was coming next, now, with the way rumors work, often we don't go more than 5 days before we know about a new thing being released.
For GW, that's a good thing. It keeps us freaking out about what's coming next. What dataslate will upset the meta, what mini-dex will change peoples' armies, what models (that are INCREASING in quality) are going to be released next?
And of course, by releasing more, and releasing more often, they're keeping things fresh for newcomers. If a newb comes in one week and doesn't like what he sees, well he's not going to see that same thing for more than a few days. He'll see something else, some other big model on the cover of WD or some new kit on the shelf. That's a GREAT thing for drawing in new people. It shows that the brand is alive and well, and that new things are coming out all the time, even if the releases are relatively small each week.
I don't think GW is down and out. Yes, price increases, yes, their paint sucks (but have you noticed the increasing quality in their painting tutorials?) and yes, there seems to be a disconnect between GW and the BEARDY players. But there is not a disconnect between GW and their TARGET AUDIENCE.
Let's be real here. We're 25-60 year old gentlemen playing a game that GW is trying to market to 14-20 year-olds. The way the novels are written, the way the release schedule is going, the way the WD is worded, the way the tutorials are detailed, they're aiming at a younger demographic.
I think GW is ramping up for something bigger and better, and I can't wait to see it.
Let's be real here. We're 25-60 year old gentlemen playing a game that GW is trying to market to 14-20 year-olds. The way the novels are written, the way the release schedule is going, the way the WD is worded, the way the tutorials are detailed, they're aiming at a younger demographic.
Not so sure on the novels front. I've been listening to a ton of the audio books recently and they are very much adult orientated. The Horus Heresy ones certainly take the background in to a more dark and gritty place. The rest... yep I can well believe that.
drbored wrote: there seems to be a disconnect between GW and the BEARDY players.
Accusing everyone who dislikes GW's current practices as being beardy?
Nice.
I made a generalized statement about GW seeming to have a disconnect with their veteran players that want the company to go in all sorts of other directions.
If the ONLY thing you want to take from that is offense, be my guest.
The problem I see with your argument is that you claim (as does GW) that the target is a younger group (say your 14-20) however that group does not have the income to drop $500 to START an army let alone get it painted and usable. Now you could say that parents are going to foot that bill but I see parents far more willing to spend 60 bucks on the latest xbox or ps game that won't require them to throw out the minis and paint and brushes (and their money) once timmy gets bored in a couple of weeks.
As to your other points, the new rapid release schedule has been to my experience (flgs and dakka) widely unpopular as the rules are overcosted, lacking depth, and copy/paste jobs that are not adding anything meaningful. These new releases are not "keeping things fresh" because they were already there. Inquisition cool but you didn't add anything. LotD oh wow its the same unit that is in C:SM but now I get to have my 1 wound sergeant a warlord trait.
This thread brings me enjoyment somewhat, like many of the anti GW threads, a strange sense of satisfaction that Gw is going from strength to strength, and its plain to see that a lot of posters just don't like this fact.
It stems from jealousy I think, the uk has the top spot in wargaming and some folk just cannot take it.
Bottom line is Gw is fine and IS the hobby to most people.
blingman wrote: This thread brings me enjoyment somewhat, like many of the anti GW threads, a strange sense of satisfaction that Gw is going from strength to strength, and its plain to see that a lot of posters just don't like this fact.
It stems from jealousy I think, the uk has the top spot in wargaming and some folk just cannot take it.
Bottom line is Gw is fine and IS the hobby to most people.
FirePainter wrote: Now you could say that parents are going to foot that bill but I see parents far more willing to spend 60 bucks on the latest xbox or ps game that won't require them to throw out the minis and paint and brushes (and their money) once timmy gets bored in a couple of weeks.
Most parents I know would prefer to have their kids playing something that's social and demands patience and motor skills. There's still strong word-of-mouth buzz about 40k at my nipper's school; if the percentage takeup is mirrored by the larger population, that age range would deliver the bulk of GW's UK revenue.
FirePainter wrote: Now you could say that parents are going to foot that bill but I see parents far more willing to spend 60 bucks on the latest xbox or ps game that won't require them to throw out the minis and paint and brushes (and their money) once timmy gets bored in a couple of weeks.
Most parents I know would prefer to have their kids playing something that's social and demands patience and motor skills. There's still strong word-of-mouth buzz about 40k at my nipper's school; if the percentage takeup is mirrored by the larger population, that age range would deliver the bulk of GW's UK revenue.
How does this work in connection to all this new stuff that GW is churning out? Surely a parent is going to buy little Timmy the intro stuff, squads, a vehicle and paints / glue. Are they really going to pay for a Knight or some "random" new bit of kit? Especially as the argument is that this investment will get little Timmy interacting with other children. What the hell is little Timmy going to do with a Knight? Not get a game that's for sure. This brings us back to the TSR comparison. Loads of releases and the limited budget of gamer's, which appears to be a valid concern (from gamer's that is)
FirePainter wrote: Now you could say that parents are going to foot that bill but I see parents far more willing to spend 60 bucks on the latest xbox or ps game that won't require them to throw out the minis and paint and brushes (and their money) once timmy gets bored in a couple of weeks.
Most parents I know would prefer to have their kids playing something that's social and demands patience and motor skills. There's still strong word-of-mouth buzz about 40k at my nipper's school; if the percentage takeup is mirrored by the larger population, that age range would deliver the bulk of GW's UK revenue.
I agree that it would be better to get kids doing things that are social and/or active. And as I am not a parent I really cannot say for certain I simply know what I see from parents around me and most are not knowledgable about miniatures and use tv/video games as a cheap babysitter. I am in a low population area in rural US and I will admit that I have no knowledge of the UK so everything I say is annicdotal.
I agree that it would be better to get kids doing things that are social and/or active. And as I am not a parent I really cannot say for certain I simply know what I see from parents around me and most are not knowledgable about miniatures and use tv/video games as a cheap babysitter. I am in a low population area in rural US and I will admit that I have no knowledge of the UK so everything I say is annicdotal.
Sure, my example is anecdotal too. Seven kids out of 180, age 11-13 play; HIve Fleet jr's nids, plus IG, Space Marines, Chaos, 2 x Necrons and Tau, plus one or two other kids who've played with their brothers' stuff. The bulk of them are spending a significant amount, let's say £100 plus a year, over aroud three years now. Space Marines kid has recently given up, Chaos is being badgered to do so by his parents.
I'm not suggesting this is necessarily a representative sample. But it does suggest that the notion of teenagers being the key purchasers is not at all ludicrous.
blingman wrote: This thread brings me enjoyment somewhat, like many of the anti GW threads, a strange sense of satisfaction that Gw is going from strength to strength, and its plain to see that a lot of posters just don't like this fact.
It stems from jealousy I think, the uk has the top spot in wargaming and some folk just cannot take it.
Bottom line is Gw is fine and IS the hobby to most people.
Shrinking sales, flat revenue (after a long period of deep cost cutting) and a falling share price in a growing niche market?
blingman wrote: This thread brings me enjoyment somewhat, like many of the anti GW threads, a strange sense of satisfaction that Gw is going from strength to strength, and its plain to see that a lot of posters just don't like this fact.
It stems from jealousy I think, the uk has the top spot in wargaming and some folk just cannot take it.
Bottom line is Gw is fine and IS the hobby to most people.
There is so much wrong with this comment I dont no where to start.
GW is not going from strength to strength. Their sales are down and so is their revenue this is after massive downsizing. They are in no danger whatsoever of folding anytime soon but from strength to strength seems to ignore everything we know about their financial situation.
What the hell has nationalism got to do with this? Do you really think peoples disappointment in GW's policies comes from some deep seeded hatred of the UK. Peoples complaints about GW are not some form of masked Jingosim.
The only part I agree with is the last part. GW is fine, weakening but fine and they are certainly the hobby to many people. But I have no idea where you got the rest of your post from.
FirePainter wrote: Now you could say that parents are going to foot that bill but I see parents far more willing to spend 60 bucks on the latest xbox or ps game that won't require them to throw out the minis and paint and brushes (and their money) once timmy gets bored in a couple of weeks.
Most parents I know would prefer to have their kids playing something that's social and demands patience and motor skills. There's still strong word-of-mouth buzz about 40k at my nipper's school; if the percentage takeup is mirrored by the larger population, that age range would deliver the bulk of GW's UK revenue.
Yes, like soccer, volleyball, tennis, or baseball.
In our area, there is a very distinct dearth of younger players. Right now, I can think of exactly one high-school aged regular who plays 40K and WHFB at the FLGS I regularly attend, and that store is by far the most popular in the metropolitan area. This is a change from a few years ago where we had lots of younger players. Many of those younger players are still active at the store, now in their early 20's, but the only younger players who come to the store are their for the CCGs, typically, MtG.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Most parents I know would prefer to have their kids playing something that's social and demands patience and motor skills.
One could describe playing X-box as exactly that. ... .
Yerss. One could also describe it as sitting all alone in a bedroom shooting imaginary people in the head and swearing at anonymous strangers on TeamTalk.
The parents comment by HiveFleet is interesting because I've seen the exact opposite behavior of parents.
Something has changed in my area in the last couple of years regarding "new" kids getting into GW games. I've seen parents actively discourage their kids from buying GW boxes once they see the price. They usually go "whoa I can buy you a new (video) game for that! Why don't you get some cards and we'll get a game later" and then the kid puts it back. I've seen this happen repeatedly and I'm only a customer at the FLGS. I'm pretty certain a SM Tactical box at $20 the parents wouldn't even bat an eye over it and then a new kid is possibly hooked.
These parents are not poor, since the FLGS moved into my area these are parents I know of kids my own kids age and they probably make more than I do. They're not stupid but it's odd they'd rather their kid play video games than doing something "constructive and creative." Put another way they'd rather their kid play a video game than buy "expensive plastic crap" to use a term of one parent I know.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Most parents I know would prefer to have their kids playing something that's social and demands patience and motor skills.
One could describe playing X-box as exactly that. ... .
Yerss. One could also describe it as sitting all alone in a bedroom shooting imaginary people in the head and swearing at anonymous strangers on TeamTalk.
And we could describe 40k as pushing toys across a table making pew pew noises while imagining you are shooting imaginary people in a room full of strangers while swearing at dice rolls.
People constantly complain about the price of models, yet still pay the price to play. The only way that GW goes down is if enough people stop playing the game due to those prices. I don't think that we will ever see a drop in price on any product.
Take the video game industry for example. Back when I was young a video game (brand new) cost $20. When the average price of the game became $30, many players said OMG THAT IS CRIMINAL THIS INDUSTRY IS DEAD! Low and behold, the industry continued to thrive and thus game developers began charging $40 per game, then jumped dramatically to $60 per game. And now there are online subscriptions to contend with as well. Yet that industry still thrives despite the complaining about the price of the products. The games have gotten prettier, but on the whole there hasn't been anything really "new" in roughly ten years as far as a game goes. Sure we get new interactive ways to play the games, but they are really the same old, rehashed crap with new, fancy labeling and ways to play it.
Now with GW they are merely doing the same thing. And like the video game industry there are still a GREAT MANY people willing to pay those prices and hock $140 for the new Imperial Knight which says to GW, "How can we do more?" I'm sure their company is fine despite lower sales in recent years. They will be around for a long time yet.
Consul Scipio wrote: The parents comment by HiveFleet is interesting because I've seen the exact opposite behavior of parents.
Something has changed in my area in the last couple of years regarding "new" kids getting into GW games. I've seen parents actively discourage their kids from buying GW boxes once they see the price. They usually go "whoa I can buy you a new (video) game for that! Why don't you get some cards and we'll get a game later" and then the kid puts it back. I've seen this happen repeatedly and I'm only a customer at the FLGS. I'm pretty certain a SM Tactical box at $20 the parents wouldn't even bat an eye over it and then a new kid is possibly hooked.
These parents are not poor, since the FLGS moved into my area these are parents I know of kids my own kids age and they probably make more than I do. They're not stupid but it's odd they'd rather their kid play video games than doing something "constructive and creative." Put another way they'd rather their kid play a video game than buy "expensive plastic crap" to use a term of one parent I know.
I think a big part of it is the cost for a single game and the high rate which children get bored of things.
To play 40k you need to spent money on models, brushes, rulebook, codex etc. Sure with a video game you buy a console first which isnt cheap but then you £40 and get a brand new game every time.
No, it's not about brushes or paint or commitment. What I'm getting at is even the parents are noticing a lack of value with GW products. That wasn't the case maybe 5 years ago. Back then I remember seeing parents grudgingly buying GW stuff. But not now I haven't seen even that in years when I think about it.
Also, I should point out that any kid interested in GW product already has brushes and paints as they most probably have a plastic model airplane or even ship from a past present. Those are easy to buy. Easier to get than GW stuff. Cheaper too. Which leads to the value proposition problem of GW stuff for a parent.
Edit: I can't think of a way to tie this into a similarity with TSR though.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Most parents I know would prefer to have their kids playing something that's social and demands patience and motor skills.
One could describe playing X-box as exactly that. ... .
Yerss. One could also describe it as sitting all alone in a bedroom shooting imaginary people in the head and swearing at anonymous strangers on TeamTalk.
Sure. I simply found it amusing that his description of a virtue of table top wargaming was that it demanded motor skills. I think everyone knew that he meant the hobby/craft aspects of table top wargaming (assembling models, converting, sculpting, painting) and the intellectual aspects (reading, critical thinking, probabilities, imagination, creativity, etc.).
blingman wrote: This thread brings me enjoyment somewhat, like many of the anti GW threads, a strange sense of satisfaction that Gw is going from strength to strength, and its plain to see that a lot of posters just don't like this fact.
Strength to strength is that players who have a ton of their product from the days of old feel abandoned and can see the decline of the "quality" of the actual game and the fancy models are not making up for it.
The new players they are targeting know no better but do have to pay double what any other game to enter would require so I ask: how is a new player going to be convinced that GW is worth the "investment" of money and time to play?
Especially with us "old folk" grumbling about GW making things obsolete in the span of months.
X-wing is painted and good to go right out of the box.
It stems from jealousy I think, the uk has the top spot in wargaming and some folk just cannot take it.
Huh?
The top spot in wargaming in what way?
From experience you seem to have far less daylight hours so staying indoors and playing tabletop is a viable alternative.
There are no good numbers out there on full sales since most competitive game companies are not publically traded so what you mainly have to go by is GW data.
Top number of tabletop wargaming per capita I would agree, for country-wide sales I would not.
I can say easily "I can take it." and find precious little to find jealousy in.
If I cannot find players for games I want to play, we could talk later.
Bottom line is Gw is fine and IS the hobby to most people.
GW is fine as a viable company for now, but is trending downward: it is less than it was.
"Most people" is rather hard to nail down.
Historical war gaming is huge, there are tons of gaming systems out there.
Case and point, a local gaming convention GW games are there (not GW representation) but obviously IS NOT the hobby.
http://www.hotlead.ca/index.htm Happy as well to flog this event, I have so much fun with the insanely fun variety of gaming systems that work, with people who are passionate about them and acting as "ambassadors" of the hobby.
Murdius Maximus wrote: People constantly complain about the price of models, yet still pay the price to play. The only way that GW goes down is if enough people stop playing the game due to those prices. I don't think that we will ever see a drop in price on any product.
Take the video game industry for example. Back when I was young a video game (brand new) cost $20. When the average price of the game became $30, many players said OMG THAT IS CRIMINAL THIS INDUSTRY IS DEAD! Low and behold, the industry continued to thrive and thus game developers began charging $40 per game, then jumped dramatically to $60 per game. And now there are online subscriptions to contend with as well. Yet that industry still thrives despite the complaining about the price of the products. The games have gotten prettier, but on the whole there hasn't been anything really "new" in roughly ten years as far as a game goes. Sure we get new interactive ways to play the games, but they are really the same old, rehashed crap with new, fancy labeling and ways to play it.
Now with GW they are merely doing the same thing. And like the video game industry there are still a GREAT MANY people willing to pay those prices and hock $140 for the new Imperial Knight which says to GW, "How can we do more?" I'm sure their company is fine despite lower sales in recent years. They will be around for a long time yet.
I don't ever remember a AAA title costing less than $49.99 at launch. That's going all the way back to NES days. Even if my memory is fuzzy that far back, I know PS1 games retailed for that back in the late nineties. Almost 20 years ago. Given that the typical AAA game launches for 59.99 now they're probably doing better than inflation.
CaulynDarr wrote: I don't ever remember a AAA title costing less than $49.99 at launch. That's going all the way back to NES days. Even if my memory is fuzzy that far back, I know PS1 games retailed for that back in the late nineties. Almost 20 years ago. Given that the typical AAA game launches for 59.99 now they're probably doing better than inflation.
Now days you just put a game in your "Wishlist" on Steam and have them notify you when it is on sale...
Will GW ever have a sale?
Their idea of that is the "one click purchase" since I would get carpal tunnel from all the clicking to select all the models individually so I can get it all for the same price.
CaulynDarr wrote: I don't ever remember a AAA title costing less than $49.99 at launch. That's going all the way back to NES days. Even if my memory is fuzzy that far back, I know PS1 games retailed for that back in the late nineties. Almost 20 years ago. Given that the typical AAA game launches for 59.99 now they're probably doing better than inflation.
I was thinking the same thing. MtG packs may have gone up $1 in 20 years as well.
CaulynDarr wrote: I don't ever remember a AAA title costing less than $49.99 at launch. That's going all the way back to NES days. Even if my memory is fuzzy that far back, I know PS1 games retailed for that back in the late nineties. Almost 20 years ago. Given that the typical AAA game launches for 59.99 now they're probably doing better than inflation.
Now days you just put a game in your "Wishlist" on Steam and have them notify you when it is on sale...
Will GW ever have a sale?
Their idea of that is the "one click purchase" since I would get carpal tunnel from all the clicking to select all the models individually so I can get it all for the same price.
Wasn't their reasoning for that some BS about how a sale would reduce the perceived quality?
WayneTheGame wrote: Wasn't their reasoning for that some BS about how a sale would reduce the perceived quality?
Kirby speak for: "I think full price is what the market can bear and I do not want consumers holding off on a purchase waiting for a "sale" so I will not give it to them."
WayneTheGame wrote: Wasn't their reasoning for that some BS about how a sale would reduce the perceived quality?
Kirby speak for: "I think full price is what the market can bear and I do not want consumers holding off on a purchase waiting for a "sale" so I will not give it to them."
Wow... to quote Bugs Bunny: What a maroon. So instead, people hold off on a purchase forever (and, more likely, to to a competitor) since the sale will never come, even though a bundle is not the same as a sale.
Murdius Maximus wrote: People constantly complain about the price of models, yet still pay the price to play. The only way that GW goes down is if enough people stop playing the game due to those prices. I don't think that we will ever see a drop in price on any product.
Personally, I haven't bought a GW miniature in just over a year. That purchase was the first GW purchase I had made in 3+ years prior to that.
I'm working on a new Dwarf army for WHFB, and I don't expect more than one unit will be GW miniatures. I have the FLGS order stuff for me so I still support the store, but I can't justify the GW prices for what I get.
Murdius Maximus wrote: People constantly complain about the price of models, yet still pay the price to play. The only way that GW goes down is if enough people stop playing the game due to those prices. I don't think that we will ever see a drop in price on any product.
Take the video game industry for example. Back when I was young a video game (brand new) cost $20. When the average price of the game became $30, many players said OMG THAT IS CRIMINAL THIS INDUSTRY IS DEAD! Low and behold, the industry continued to thrive and thus game developers began charging $40 per game, then jumped dramatically to $60 per game. And now there are online subscriptions to contend with as well. Yet that industry still thrives despite the complaining about the price of the products. The games have gotten prettier, but on the whole there hasn't been anything really "new" in roughly ten years as far as a game goes. Sure we get new interactive ways to play the games, but they are really the same old, rehashed crap with new, fancy labeling and ways to play it.
Now with GW they are merely doing the same thing. And like the video game industry there are still a GREAT MANY people willing to pay those prices and hock $140 for the new Imperial Knight which says to GW, "How can we do more?" I'm sure their company is fine despite lower sales in recent years. They will be around for a long time yet.
I don't ever remember a AAA title costing less than $49.99 at launch. That's going all the way back to NES days. Even if my memory is fuzzy that far back, I know PS1 games retailed for that back in the late nineties. Almost 20 years ago. Given that the typical AAA game launches for 59.99 now they're probably doing better than inflation.
I've been gaming since the beginning of the NES days and they certainly were not $49.99. I remember buying SNES games brand new for $39.99 and thinking that was outrageous. But I loved to play games so I paid it. They steadily increased prices to the point they are now and each time somebody cried wolf and lots of other people threw fits but now we just accept it. GW has done the same. I haven't been playing for long (about a year now) but I understand prices have inflated a tremendous amount since the game started coming around. The point I was trying to make was that a raise in prices doesn't necessarily mean doomsday is coming for GW.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Most parents I know would prefer to have their kids playing something that's social and demands patience and motor skills.
One could describe playing X-box as exactly that. ... .
Don't know much about your life, but for most parents being social would generally involve meeting people.
Making models doesn't give instant gratification and the parents of those 6 other kids I mention probably all prefer it to xbox, which is banned in at least one household. Parents do of course not like the price; but in one secondary two kids have just moved to, the 40k club limits games to 500 points. One set of grandparents, parents and three or four aunties can get you a bigger army than that via one birthday and Christmas. Especially if you turn them on to Dark Sphere, and don't allow them to buy more figures before they've painted the ones they have already.
Whether you like the idea or not, it's pretty self-evident that kids are a major, and quite plausibly the major market for 40k. Dakkadakka is self-selecting and gives a biased view of who is actually buying stuff in the stores. That said, I did hear that the Young Bloods tournament last year had smaller numbers than the previous year, so it is possible that higher prices are having a detrimental effect on recruitment of younger players.
Murdius Maximus wrote: I've been gaming since the beginning of the NES days and they certainly were not $49.99. I remember buying SNES games brand new for $39.99 and thinking that was outrageous. But I loved to play games so I paid it. They steadily increased prices to the point they are now and each time somebody cried wolf and lots of other people threw fits but now we just accept it. GW has done the same. I haven't been playing for long (about a year now) but I understand prices have inflated a tremendous amount since the game started coming around. The point I was trying to make was that a raise in prices doesn't necessarily mean doomsday is coming for GW.
Doing a quick toys 'r us catalog search on Google I see prices of SEGA and SNES games averaged around $49.99- $59.99 for new games. I've seen these catalog images before and I always go "wow games were always that expensive?" but I guess that explains why my parents just had us rent games from Blockbuster.
Video games seem to have some sort of recognized price-threshold they don't move past for new video games. They go beyond this by selling collector's editions, pre-orders, and other paraphernalia that die-hard fans would enjoy.
GW has increased the prices on their kits way beyond inflation. They have done this through regular price increases, increases associated with dual-kits (which while more ubiquitous, function primarily to get more dollars per unit sold), and unit-reduction to mask increases (i.e. new Dire Avengers). None of these things means doomsday for GW, but I think there is an argument to be made that they are quickly hitting a purchasing cliff if they continue making these manner of price increases.
I've loved GW games and I've paid for quite a while (this doesn't make my opinion stronger, I'm just illustrating my position). The prices have increased, others have complained and I've thought "geez this stuff is getting expensive." for me personally, it's getting to the point that those Dark Eldar warriors, while beautiful and well-made kits, are only worth so much money before even I am asking myself "what the hell am I throwing all this money away for on a couple of models?"
blingman wrote: This thread brings me enjoyment somewhat, like many of the anti GW threads, a strange sense of satisfaction that Gw is going from strength to strength, and its plain to see that a lot of posters just don't like this fact..
The really interesting thing about these 'anti-GW threads' is that many of the people who complain about what GW does are not, in fact, anti-GW.
People complain when they see GW doing something stupid because they have an investment in what GW does. I've been playing 40K for 20 years now. I would like nothing more than for GW to do well and continue producing quality product.
The reason I complain now is that I see them releasing a lot of product that is not the quality I have come to expect from them. And because they've just spent the last couple of years implementing business changes that I can only see as damaging to the 40K-playing community.
There is no 'jealousy' involved here. I don't own a competing wargaming company, so have nothing to be 'jealous' about. If GW can turn their current apparent downward spiral around and go back to producing stuff I like, I'll be as happy as a happy thing in a little happy place of happiness.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Most parents I know would prefer to have their kids playing something that's social and demands patience and motor skills.
One could describe playing X-box as exactly that. ... .
I like how two different people have quoted my post, choosing to edit out the second sentence of a two sentence post. A sentence which, quite critically, indicates that the first sentence was intended to be somewhat sardonic.
I have to chime in on this thread. Mind you this is all my general opinion, but every aspect of the hobby and what it has become has tied together.
I've been buying and playing GW games for the better part of 8 years now. Not as long as some of the true vets on here, but a pretty decent amount of time. I used to predominantly play 40k back then ('Nids) and I had opponents who played Catachans, Tau, Space Wolves, and Eldar.
My friends have moved on, moved away. My younger brother is too "cool" for it now. But I have other friends who play. But we switched to Fantasy, the rich man's hobby and thinking man's game, imo. I have three armies, Skaven, Ogres, and Dwarfs. My opponents play High Elves, Dark Elves, and Lizardmen.
It is difficult - VERY difficult - to get friends who are interested to commit. They like the game, the models, the concept, but they see the prices of a 1,000 pt. army and they emphatically go "WHOAAAA, NOOOO." (and 1000 pts. is a relatively SMALL game/army!) and go spend their money on the latest garbage video game.
I think that, coupled with society's technological-based attitude as a whole (seriously, I never see kids playing outside anymore, they're all inside cursing at each other on Call of Duty.) makes wargaming in general kind of a niche hobby, unfortunately. I sound like an Old Grumbler, but nobody wants to use their imagination anymore. While geek culture is more accepted than it was, even sort of a pop movement now, people would rather watch Michael Bay-esque over-the-top explosions on an HD TV while controlling a superhuman, machine-gun toting action-hero, mowing down swathes of enemies in sprays of gore. They want to SEE it, not imagine it on a tabletop.
Let me paint a quick analogy here. It's like the comparison from the original Star Wars movies to the video game Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. One used clever puppets, cinematography, etc., to spark the imagination and portray the Force in a subtle but powerful manner. The other has Starkiller effortlessly ROFLSTOMPING the most powerful figures in the Star Wars universe, clinging to walls with the Force like Spider-Man, pulling Star Destroyers out of the sky, punting Jawas and cutting ATAT's in half. It's not only disgustingly over-the-top just for cheap thrills, it's slaughtering the lore utterly and peeing on it with steroid-soaked urine.
This is contributing, I think. Games Workshop not selling bitz anymore (I was SO disappointed when I came back to the hobby and found them all gone, the tutorials for terrain all gone, the online scenarios, all gone) and I wondered what had happened. Gone are the days where I can order a kit to make Ghoritch, Castellan of Hell Pit, and field his army of monstrosities using rules from White Dwarf. Their attitude towards the people who play their game has changed, and it has changed drastically. Newer players, I challenge you to go online to the wayback machine and look up the old GW website. It wasn't just a catalog like it is now.
Power creep is influencing the rules in a negative manner, D-Weapons in a regular 40K game, yay! Fortunately the power creep is not THAT bad for Fantasy. I don't know IF they playtest, or WHO playtests, but they fail as well. There are several units that are (depending on opinion) almost-broken or just flat out broken to the point where their rules should never have been released in that state. Geedub could benefit GREATLY from closer interaction with their own fanbase. When video games make a sequel, as a general rule if they want to succeed they need to listen to the fans and what they want, while still developing new IP. It's hard, but it can be done... Step 1 is LISTENING TO YOUR FANBASE.
As for GW going under, I'd still be terribly disheartened if it happened. I don't want to have to resort to Fandexes (good luck balancing THOSE when people can't agree on ANYTHING online) to play my army in a couple years, and with no updates, Warhammer will stagnate. I've looked into other games - X-Wing and Warmahordes, but they just flat out don't interest me like Warhammer. Far as I'm concerned nobody does fantasy armies like GW. Nobody. I don't want to lose that.
But something has to change. It has to. I'm hoping the CEOs and shareholders will eventually look towards longevity instead of squeezing the company dry before leaving the husk behind. Am I concerned with these parallels with TSR? Absolutely. OP makes valid points. I'm not ashamed to admit that for me wargaming IS Warhammer. It always has been. I need that creative outlet. Hell, to motivate my opponents, who have NO interest or patience with assembling/painting their armies, I even do that! Whatever gets them to play! I hate paying the prices. I hate it. But I want to play the game. The hobby, the painting, converting, I love all of it. Is my scope limited? Absolutely. I'd try other games, but while GW is still standing, those models and fluff are my unequivocal favorite and they take financial priority whenever I have some spending money.
Tl;dr: Games Workshops attitude to its customers has changed DRASTICALLY in just a few years. They've switched focus from selling and gaming to just SELLING SELLING SELLING. That is coupled with a shift into even higher focus from the imaginary to the pixellated hyper-explosion realm. GW needs to listen to its fanbase and return to being a gaming company if they want to pull themselves out of this hole they're in. I went on a bit of a tirade here, but I think everything is all related, contributing to wargaming's decline, and it makes me sad.
Murdius Maximus wrote: I've been gaming since the beginning of the NES days and they certainly were not $49.99. I remember buying SNES games brand new for $39.99 and thinking that was outrageous. But I loved to play games so I paid it. They steadily increased prices to the point they are now and each time somebody cried wolf and lots of other people threw fits but now we just accept it. GW has done the same. I haven't been playing for long (about a year now) but I understand prices have inflated a tremendous amount since the game started coming around. The point I was trying to make was that a raise in prices doesn't necessarily mean doomsday is coming for GW.
Doing a quick toys 'r us catalog search on Google I see prices of SEGA and SNES games averaged around $49.99- $59.99 for new games. I've seen these catalog images before and I always go "wow games were always that expensive?" but I guess that explains why my parents just had us rent games from Blockbuster.
Video games seem to have some sort of recognized price-threshold they don't move past for new video games. They go beyond this by selling collector's editions, pre-orders, and other paraphernalia that die-hard fans would enjoy.
GW has increased the prices on their kits way beyond inflation. They have done this through regular price increases, increases associated with dual-kits (which while more ubiquitous, function primarily to get more dollars per unit sold), and unit-reduction to mask increases (i.e. new Dire Avengers). None of these things means doomsday for GW, but I think there is an argument to be made that they are quickly hitting a purchasing cliff if they continue making these manner of price increases.
I've loved GW games and I've paid for quite a while (this doesn't make my opinion stronger, I'm just illustrating my position). The prices have increased, others have complained and I've thought "geez this stuff is getting expensive." for me personally, it's getting to the point that those Dark Eldar warriors, while beautiful and well-made kits, are only worth so much money before even I am asking myself "what the hell am I throwing all this money away for on a couple of models?"
Games have rised in price lower than inflation meaning in real terms we are paying less for them.
I have to chime in on this thread. Mind you this is all my general opinion, but every aspect of the hobby and what it has become has tied together.
I've been buying and playing GW games for the better part of 8 years now. Not as long as some of the true vets on here, but a pretty decent amount of time. I used to predominantly play 40k back then ('Nids) and I had opponents who played Catachans, Tau, Space Wolves, and Eldar.
My friends have moved on, moved away. My younger brother is too "cool" for it now. But I have other friends who play. But we switched to Fantasy, the rich man's hobby and thinking man's game, imo. I have three armies, Skaven, Ogres, and Dwarfs. My opponents play High Elves, Dark Elves, and Lizardmen.
It is difficult - VERY difficult - to get friends who are interested to commit. They like the game, the models, the concept, but they see the prices of a 1,000 pt. army and they emphatically go "WHOAAAA, NOOOO." (and 1000 pts. is a relatively SMALL game/army!) and go spend their money on the latest garbage video game.
I think that, coupled with society's technological-based attitude as a whole (seriously, I never see kids playing outside anymore, they're all inside cursing at each other on Call of Duty.) makes wargaming in general kind of a niche hobby, unfortunately. I sound like an Old Grumbler, but nobody wants to use their imagination anymore. While geek culture is more accepted than it was, even sort of a pop movement now, people would rather watch Michael Bay-esque over-the-top explosions on an HD TV while controlling a superhuman, machine-gun toting action-hero, mowing down swathes of enemies in sprays of gore. They want to SEE it, not imagine it on a tabletop.
Let me paint a quick analogy here. It's like the comparison from the original Star Wars movies to the video game Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. One used clever puppets, cinematography, etc., to spark the imagination and portray the Force in a subtle but powerful manner. The other has Starkiller effortlessly ROFLSTOMPING the most powerful figures in the Star Wars universe, clinging to walls with the Force like Spider-Man, pulling Star Destroyers out of the sky, punting Jawas and cutting ATAT's in half. It's not only disgustingly over-the-top just for cheap thrills, it's slaughtering the lore utterly and peeing on it with steroid-soaked urine.
This is contributing, I think. Games Workshop not selling bitz anymore (I was SO disappointed when I came back to the hobby and found them all gone, the tutorials for terrain all gone, the online scenarios, all gone) and I wondered what had happened. Gone are the days where I can order a kit to make Ghoritch, Castellan of Hell Pit, and field his army of monstrosities using rules from White Dwarf. Their attitude towards the people who play their game has changed, and it has changed drastically. Newer players, I challenge you to go online to the wayback machine and look up the old GW website. It wasn't just a catalog like it is now.
Power creep is influencing the rules in a negative manner, D-Weapons in a regular 40K game, yay! Fortunately the power creep is not THAT bad for Fantasy. I don't know IF they playtest, or WHO playtests, but they fail as well. There are several units that are (depending on opinion) almost-broken or just flat out broken to the point where their rules should never have been released in that state. Geedub could benefit GREATLY from closer interaction with their own fanbase. When video games make a sequel, as a general rule if they want to succeed they need to listen to the fans and what they want, while still developing new IP. It's hard, but it can be done... Step 1 is LISTENING TO YOUR FANBASE.
As for GW going under, I'd still be terribly disheartened if it happened. I don't want to have to resort to Fandexes (good luck balancing THOSE when people can't agree on ANYTHING online) to play my army in a couple years, and with no updates, Warhammer will stagnate. I've looked into other games - X-Wing and Warmahordes, but they just flat out don't interest me like Warhammer. Far as I'm concerned nobody does fantasy armies like GW. Nobody. I don't want to lose that.
But something has to change. It has to. I'm hoping the CEOs and shareholders will eventually look towards longevity instead of squeezing the company dry before leaving the husk behind. Am I concerned with these parallels with TSR? Absolutely. OP makes valid points. I'm not ashamed to admit that for me wargaming IS Warhammer. It always has been. I need that creative outlet. Hell, to motivate my opponents, who have NO interest or patience with assembling/painting their armies, I even do that! Whatever gets them to play! I hate paying the prices. I hate it. But I want to play the game. The hobby, the painting, converting, I love all of it. Is my scope limited? Absolutely. I'd try other games, but while GW is still standing, those models and fluff are my unequivocal favorite and they take financial priority whenever I have some spending money.
Tl;dr: Games Workshops attitude to its customers has changed DRASTICALLY in just a few years. They've switched focus from selling and gaming to just SELLING SELLING SELLING. That is coupled with a shift into even higher focus from the imaginary to the pixellated hyper-explosion realm. GW needs to listen to its fanbase and return to being a gaming company if they want to pull themselves out of this hole they're in. I went on a bit of a tirade here, but I think everything is all related, contributing to wargaming's decline, and it makes me sad.
That was well-said BrandedOne, I very much agree with you. I'm right there with you hoping the ship turns around.
carlos13th wrote:Games have rised in price lower than inflation meaning in real terms we are paying less for them.
Right, exactly, so using the comparison of game prices vs. 40k is even less valid, since they haven't seen these significant price increases that GW products have.
blingman wrote: This thread brings me enjoyment somewhat, like many of the anti GW threads, a strange sense of satisfaction that Gw is going from strength to strength, and its plain to see that a lot of posters just don't like this fact.
It stems from jealousy I think, the uk has the top spot in wargaming and some folk just cannot take it.
Bottom line is Gw is fine and IS the hobby to most people.
Yeah, sure. Everybody critizising the decisions of his holiness Tom Kirby is just jealous of the British Empire rising to world domination Must be a new low. Is there a "negative exalt" button?
Your apparent hatred of Spelljammer makes me a little sad and does make me question a few of your points even if the overall idea may be valid.
Spelljammer was awesome, despite a few rough points! I think i saw a comment by one of the designers (Jeff Grubb?) that it was intentionally an effort to get a bunch of cool stuff in under the management radar. It'd be kind of like if GW somehow produced a cool side-game or variant that had a lot of weird fan-appeal (which was pretty much how I heard Apocalypse described by some here when it first came out).
Buck Rogers products were pretty inevitably tainted at TSR (from what I've heard) as they got seen as a way to keep milking Lorraine William's family-owned IP instead of focusing on TSR's own properties.
I would like to second the sentiment of disappointment.
My first exposure to Games Workshop was the original printing of Talisman. If not for that, I'd never have purchased White Dwarf (there were nifty "free" expansions for Talisman in several of the issues). I never would have been enticed by WFB. I never would have read 'Into The Maelstrom' in Inferno! #4, from which I began playing 40K, Necromunda, BFG, Inquisitor...
Something I have enjoyed for almost twenty years has turned into something I can no longer afford to play. And it wasn't a tough decision. I just couldn't afford it any longer, so I had to let it go.
WayneTheGame wrote: Wasn't their reasoning for that some BS about how a sale would reduce the perceived quality?
Kirby speak for: "I think full price is what the market can bear and I do not want consumers holding off on a purchase waiting for a "sale" so I will not give it to them."
Wow... to quote Bugs Bunny: What a maroon. So instead, people hold off on a purchase forever (and, more likely, to to a competitor) since the sale will never come, even though a bundle is not the same as a sale.
Sales can often be a bad idea. Once a year, twice a year, maybe, but if you regularly hold sales, it devalues the whole industry. We can not like it, but it's true. Video Games with digital distribution is proof of that. It's gotten to the point game developers can't make money selling games, so they release unplayble products "for free" and require microtransactions. It's an unsustainable model as an industry and I don't see it lasting. Development costs are rising for video games faster than the rate at which it pulls money back in. "Freemium" games with AAA budgets can still flop, and often do.
So, I don't blame Kirby for something that's actually true.
Now, as you said, a bundle is not a sale. Bundling can be great business. Bundling is essentially "wholesale", on a retail level. Giving people incentives for buying in bulk often gets people to invest more than they would have total otherwise. Going back to the video games analogy, I've purchased Developers Bundles on Steam during holiday sales, and really only wanted 1 or 2 games out of the bundle that were less than the bundle price, but getting 3 other games for just a little bit more, even though some of them I still haven't and probably will never get around to playing, was enough for me. Technically, they get more money out of me than if they had got me on each one of them individually.
I think the proof for GW should be in the few bundles they actually have. How many people here have ever bought a Battleforce of some kind? I'm willing to bet most people with a sizable army did somewhere along the line.
carlos13th wrote: Tge cost of computer games really hasn't gone up much at all. Especially not compared to the budgets put into video games.
I remember snes games being around £40. PS1 games were about £40 on release too.
£35 if I recall it correctly. I worked for SCEE from 1996 until recently. The "Platinum" range was introduced at £20 when the N64 was launched.
A £35 game in 1997 would cost more now due to inflation, about £56 in fact, not including the increase in VAT, assuming 3% a year inflation, which is a reasonable Fermi estimation.
However this is all off the point. People will pay £100 for a game if it's worth it to them. The question is how quickly GW games stop being worth it to you and other people.
For me personally, the models got too expensive in early 2011, and the books got too expensive when they switched to hardcover to justify doubling the price after the launch of 6th edition (40K.)
Murdius Maximus wrote: People constantly complain about the price of models, yet still pay the price to play. The only way that GW goes down is if enough people stop playing the game due to those prices. I don't think that we will ever see a drop in price on any product.
Take the video game industry for example. Back when I was young a video game (brand new) cost $20. When the average price of the game became $30, many players said OMG THAT IS CRIMINAL THIS INDUSTRY IS DEAD! Low and behold, the industry continued to thrive and thus game developers began charging $40 per game, then jumped dramatically to $60 per game. And now there are online subscriptions to contend with as well. Yet that industry still thrives despite the complaining about the price of the products. The games have gotten prettier, but on the whole there hasn't been anything really "new" in roughly ten years as far as a game goes. Sure we get new interactive ways to play the games, but they are really the same old, rehashed crap with new, fancy labeling and ways to play it.
Now with GW they are merely doing the same thing. And like the video game industry there are still a GREAT MANY people willing to pay those prices and hock $140 for the new Imperial Knight which says to GW, "How can we do more?" I'm sure their company is fine despite lower sales in recent years. They will be around for a long time yet.
Don't know where you're getting this idea from. If anything, video game prices have gone DOWN over the years. Check out how much new N64 games were back then, and remember that inflation was nowhere near as bad.
They hit a low point in the Xbox and Ps2 era and then slowly climbed up by $10 for the 360. Of course, now they just nickle and dime with DLC.
GW has raised the price consistently over the years, AND started nickle and diming us on top of that with "DLC".People would be fine with these expansions if they were reasonably priced, but $50 for a knight codex with 2 units and roughly 30 pages of background? $140 for a knight model that is smaller, less posable, and roughly the same detail as a competitor's offering (dreamforge)? Plastic infantry models at literally DOUBLE the cost of competitors for minimal increase in quality? The only thing that keeps many around is the background and the fact that they already have models. If GW lost that, their game wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is. Imagine if you saw any other game charge $80 for a main book and $50 for an army book with minimal content, especially with rules "quality" on the level of GW. You would laugh and move on to the next game.
How is GW going from strength to strength these days? Their best releases are hit and miss and the bad ones are almost laughable.The only thing keeping it going is momentum and the fact that so many people are already in. GW has effectively had a monopoly for years, especially in Europe. And like any other monopoly, its the consumers that suffer for it. I'd imagine its part of the reason GW handles Indy stores so badly, it wishes it could just be the only stores around like its used to in England.
Let's be real here. We're 25-60 year old gentlemen playing a game that GW is trying to market to 14-20 year-olds. The way the novels are written, the way the release schedule is going, the way the WD is worded, the way the tutorials are detailed, they're aiming at a younger demographic.
And then pricing it so high it prohibits those 14 - 20s from buying consistently.
carlos13th wrote: Tge cost of computer games really hasn't gone up much at all. Especially not compared to the budgets put into video games.
I remember snes games being around £40. PS1 games were about £40 on release too.
£35 if I recall it correctly. I worked for SCEE from 1996 until recently. The "Platinum" range was introduced at £20 when the N64 was launched.
A £35 game in 1997 would cost more now due to inflation, about £56 in fact, not including the increase in VAT, assuming 3% a year inflation, which is a reasonable Fermi estimation.
However this is all off the point. People will pay £100 for a game if it's worth it to them. The question is how quickly GW games stop being worth it to you and other people.
For me personally, the models got too expensive in early 2011, and the books got too expensive when they switched to hardcover to justify doubling the price after the launch of 6th edition (40K.)
£35 sounds about right actually. Yeah I remember platinum being £20.
I made the same point earlier that games have risen in price lower than inflation too making them cheaper in real terms.
I totally agree with you that the important thing is what they are worth to you. I remember being told in another thread I was greedy because I probably would need a close to 50% price cut for me to seriously consider collecting GW models again(Or double the number for the same cost whatever). The people who called me that didn't seem to realise that this was what I felt they were worth for me and me alone not what I thought was a universal constant.
What the white knights constantly ignore is that there are many companies out there that have a better price/quality. The stuff from wargames factory may not be as detailed as GW's plastic but it is way cheaper then again the stuff from Dreamforge is easily at the same level as GW, Don't even start about the Kingdom of the dead stuff.
Metal/resin wise there are a lot of small companies that make good quality at reasonable prices. Anvil industries, Victoria miniatures, Curious constructs and so on.
And then there are GW's real competitors which they just seem to ignore, Mantic, Privateer press, X-wing, Bolt action etcetera.
GW must stop acting like they are the only one on the block they are losing markets share because of these "non-existing" threats.
Jehan-reznor wrote: What the white knights constantly ignore is that there are many companies out there that have a better price/quality. The stuff from wargames factory may not be as detailed as GW's plastic but it is way cheaper then again the stuff from Dreamforge is easily at the same level as GW, Don't even start about the Kingdom of the dead stuff.
Metal/resin wise there are a lot of small companies that make good quality at reasonable prices. Anvil industries, Victoria miniatures, Curious constructs and so on.
And then there are GW's real competitors which they just seem to ignore, Mantic, Privateer press, X-wing, Bolt action etcetera.
GW must stop acting like they are the only one on the block they are losing markets share because of these "non-existing" threats.
I have a theory they have noticed but can't admit it and don't really know how to respond.
A couple of years ago the phrase 'the GW hobby' seemed more prevalent and now I keep hearing 'we make the best models in the world'.
There is a subtle shif there from 'we are all' to 'we are best', which is not good from GWs perspective.
They continue to claim to make the world's best even after producing Finecast which gives them no credibility. They wouldn't even acknowledge the problems beyond producing the liquid green stuff to fill all the holes.
MrMoustaffa wrote: The only thing that keeps many around is the background....
GW doesn't seem to understand what makes its background good and continually seems to want to make it 'cooler' thereby turning it in a parody of itself (GRIM DARK!1!). FFG produce far better 40k fluff these days with its RPG range (which I have spent far more on than actual GW products in the last few years).
40k is a very interesting and deep setting but that is purely due to the efforts of past writers, GW is squandering that heritage.
I strongly suspect that the next 5 years will make or break GW.
It'll be interesting how long they renew a licence to FFG. Collaborations with GW don't seem to last long before GW decide they don't like someone else doing a better job than them and take their toys back.
Jehan-reznor wrote: What the white knights constantly ignore is that there are many companies out there that have a better price/quality. The stuff from wargames factory may not be as detailed as GW's plastic but it is way cheaper then again the stuff from Dreamforge is easily at the same level as GW, Don't even start about the Kingdom of the dead stuff.
Metal/resin wise there are a lot of small companies that make good quality at reasonable prices. Anvil industries, Victoria miniatures, Curious constructs and so on.
And then there are GW's real competitors which they just seem to ignore, Mantic, Privateer press, X-wing, Bolt action etcetera.
GW must stop acting like they are the only one on the block they are losing markets share because of these "non-existing" threats.
The thing is that the biggest company on the list of "competitor"s (PP) you list if at about 10% of GWs turnover and other pays GW hefty licence fees to produce RPGs based upon their IP, Mantic, Battlefront and Bolt Action are all run by former GW employees. Its hard to see how you wouldn't feel like be Jonny Big Bananas in that situation, I can't see why anyone would take offence at that.
As for market share I can't believe that GW are ignorant of lowering turnover. I don't think we will see GW sales; it's too desperate and would just cannibalise independent retailers without increasing profit enough to make up further lost indie turnover. I'm hoping they react with a return to some old Specialist lines once the LotRs/Hobbit licence expires.
Howard A Treesong wrote: They continue to claim to make the world's best even after producing Finecast which gives them no credibility. They wouldn't even acknowledge the problems beyond producing the liquid green stuff to fill all the holes.
It wasn't just Finecast in my opinion, GW is releasing a lot of stinkers design-wise. For every good sculpt like the knight (which is still not a great kit because of the lack of posability, and there's the price, too) there's at least one or two bad ones (like the taurox and new ogryns), and considering GW claims all of their models are the best and prices them accordingly, that's not really good. For the prices they're charging every model should be the highest-quality they're capable of and that just isn't happening. I've literally seen kids toys at Wal-Mart that look better than GW's $50 taurox that's coming out.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Whether you like the idea or not, it's pretty self-evident that kids are a major, and quite plausibly the major market for 40k. Dakkadakka is self-selecting and gives a biased view of who is actually buying stuff in the stores. That said, I did hear that the Young Bloods tournament last year had smaller numbers than the previous year, so it is possible that higher prices are having a detrimental effect on recruitment of younger players.
In my area, there has been a MASSIVE shift away from GW in just the last four months. Younger players (16-25 range) don't even get started with GW (more on that in a moment). Of the 16 veteran players in the area, only 2 remain (myself and 1 other). The others have already sold their armies and moved on to other systems, so they are out of GW for good. My local FLGS used to have 12 tables to accommodate games, and the majority of time 2/3 of that was 40k. Now there are 18 tables (so overall gaming has grown in our area) and a grand total of NONE are 40k or WHFB (those have to be done at home now or arranged in advance).
I know some will say that 40k has never been better in their areas, but it seems that is becoming the case with GW now - a few good pockets of veterans, but most of the pockets are losing players as evidenced by their financials. GW used to dominate in all areas, not just pockets. One has only to look at pictures online of 40k tournaments versus those of Warmahordes, Flames of War or others to see the GW base is a much tighter band of age group (30s-50s) than these other systems. In other words, the next generation of gamers is NOT starting with GW.
Now a quick personal example I encountered fairly recently. I was in my local FLGS one night on a Tuesday. There was myself, the store owner and a younger wargamer (probably around 19-21 years old). After an hour of talking and doing pretty much nothing, I asked if he wanted to play a game of 40k. I had two armies and would let him use an army. He had no interest whatsoever. I asked why and he offered to show me. He picked up a $30 plastic Space Marine Librarian and a nearby Hell Dorado character model priced at $10.99. He looked at me and said something to the effect "$11 for metal and $30 for cheap plastic?" This GW company is seriously whacked with what they charge for cheap plastic and I have no interest. You older guys waste your money on this junk, but it is your money. Me and my friends won't go near this game." I told him about it being a character model, explained how troops were cheaper, etc. How fun it was to play with such variety. All the typical drivel we have used for years. His response after my drivel was (and I will never forget this line), "Dude, no game is that good to pay so much money for cheap plastic models."
So, there you have it, the opinion of a young gamer and GW. No one cares about the wonderful fluff and IP if they can't get past that last line - no game being so good to pay such a premium for "cheap" plastic models. Which means, GW has little choice but to squeeze more money out of an ever dwindling customer base (ala TSR in the final days) until eventually they push that far enough to even exceed that. Once that happens, mark my words, the collapse happens fast as it did with TSR.
In the last decade, Kodak went from a $15 billion company to bankruptcy once film sales collapsed (and I do mean collapsed). They thought they had longer because it started as an 8%-12% decline. Quickly followed by a 30% quarter to quarter decline, then 70%, then finally them getting out of the film business. All this happened in less than two years. I see a similar situation with GW - but Kirby only needs to get another year or two out of it then he can leave the rotting husk that was once GW to some other poor soul to try and save.
WayneTheGame wrote: Wasn't their reasoning for that some BS about how a sale would reduce the perceived quality?
Kirby speak for: "I think full price is what the market can bear and I do not want consumers holding off on a purchase waiting for a "sale" so I will not give it to them."
Wow... to quote Bugs Bunny: What a maroon. So instead, people hold off on a purchase forever (and, more likely, to to a competitor) since the sale will never come, even though a bundle is not the same as a sale.
Sales can often be a bad idea. Once a year, twice a year, maybe, but if you regularly hold sales, it devalues the whole industry. We can not like it, but it's true. Video Games with digital distribution is proof of that. It's gotten to the point game developers can't make money selling games, so they release unplayble products "for free" and require microtransactions. It's an unsustainable model as an industry and I don't see it lasting. Development costs are rising for video games faster than the rate at which it pulls money back in. "Freemium" games with AAA budgets can still flop, and often do.
So, I don't blame Kirby for something that's actually true.
Now, as you said, a bundle is not a sale. Bundling can be great business. Bundling is essentially "wholesale", on a retail level. Giving people incentives for buying in bulk often gets people to invest more than they would have total otherwise. Going back to the video games analogy, I've purchased Developers Bundles on Steam during holiday sales, and really only wanted 1 or 2 games out of the bundle that were less than the bundle price, but getting 3 other games for just a little bit more, even though some of them I still haven't and probably will never get around to playing, was enough for me. Technically, they get more money out of me than if they had got me on each one of them individually.
I think the proof for GW should be in the few bundles they actually have. How many people here have ever bought a Battleforce of some kind? I'm willing to bet most people with a sizable army did somewhere along the line.
So much this. I've done the performance analysis at various high street retailers in the UK and it's very easy to get locked into a cycle with the customers whereby they expect certain sales at certain times of the year and if you don't do it revenue collapses for that time period.
Balance wrote: Your apparent hatred of Spelljammer makes me a little sad and does make me question a few of your points even if the overall idea may be valid.
Spelljammer was awesome, despite a few rough points! I think i saw a comment by one of the designers (Jeff Grubb?) that it was intentionally an effort to get a bunch of cool stuff in under the management radar. It'd be kind of like if GW somehow produced a cool side-game or variant that had a lot of weird fan-appeal (which was pretty much how I heard Apocalypse described by some here when it first came out).
Buck Rogers products were pretty inevitably tainted at TSR (from what I've heard) as they got seen as a way to keep milking Lorraine William's family-owned IP instead of focusing on TSR's own properties.
Sorry, didn't mean for Spelljammer to come off as a bad product, it was meant as an example of senior management forcing down their views ti the detriment of an established brand.
Lorraine Williams family owns the Buck Rogers IP. As a result, she forced it into the D&D world to promote more science fantasy - like Buck Rogers. Something that should have stayed very limited in D&D (like in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks).
Secondly, there is plenty of write ups how NO ONE at TSR wanted to work on the product. The designer eventually took the helm, but everyone knew the product was most likely going to fail (and it did).
WayneTheGame wrote: Wasn't their reasoning for that some BS about how a sale would reduce the perceived quality?
Kirby speak for: "I think full price is what the market can bear and I do not want consumers holding off on a purchase waiting for a "sale" so I will not give it to them."
Wow... to quote Bugs Bunny: What a maroon. So instead, people hold off on a purchase forever (and, more likely, to to a competitor) since the sale will never come, even though a bundle is not the same as a sale.
Sales can often be a bad idea. Once a year, twice a year, maybe, but if you regularly hold sales, it devalues the whole industry. We can not like it, but it's true. Video Games with digital distribution is proof of that. It's gotten to the point game developers can't make money selling games, so they release unplayble products "for free" and require microtransactions. It's an unsustainable model as an industry and I don't see it lasting. Development costs are rising for video games faster than the rate at which it pulls money back in. "Freemium" games with AAA budgets can still flop, and often do.
So, I don't blame Kirby for something that's actually true.
Now, as you said, a bundle is not a sale. Bundling can be great business. Bundling is essentially "wholesale", on a retail level. Giving people incentives for buying in bulk often gets people to invest more than they would have total otherwise. Going back to the video games analogy, I've purchased Developers Bundles on Steam during holiday sales, and really only wanted 1 or 2 games out of the bundle that were less than the bundle price, but getting 3 other games for just a little bit more, even though some of them I still haven't and probably will never get around to playing, was enough for me. Technically, they get more money out of me than if they had got me on each one of them individually.
I think the proof for GW should be in the few bundles they actually have. How many people here have ever bought a Battleforce of some kind? I'm willing to bet most people with a sizable army did somewhere along the line.
So much this. I've done the performance analysis at various high street retailers in the UK and it's very easy to get locked into a cycle with the customers whereby they expect certain sales at certain times of the year and if you don't do it revenue collapses for that time period.
There is a big difference between not wanting to do regular, predicable sales and believing ever allowing a single sale on your luxury, ferrari-of-wargaming products will utterly undermine the value of them.
jonolikespie wrote: There is a big difference between not wanting to do regular, predicable sales and believing ever allowing a single sale on your luxury, ferrari-of-wargaming products will utterly undermine the value of them.
Given that was the very first line of SRSFACE's post, and I'm endorsing his post........
Let's take it a step further:
What goals might GW achieve by holding a sale?
WayneTheGame wrote: Wasn't their reasoning for that some BS about how a sale would reduce the perceived quality?
Kirby speak for: "I think full price is what the market can bear and I do not want consumers holding off on a purchase waiting for a "sale" so I will not give it to them."
Wow... to quote Bugs Bunny: What a maroon. So instead, people hold off on a purchase forever (and, more likely, to to a competitor) since the sale will never come, even though a bundle is not the same as a sale.
Sales can often be a bad idea. Once a year, twice a year, maybe, but if you regularly hold sales, it devalues the whole industry. We can not like it, but it's true. Video Games with digital distribution is proof of that. It's gotten to the point game developers can't make money selling games, so they release unplayble products "for free" and require microtransactions. It's an unsustainable model as an industry and I don't see it lasting. Development costs are rising for video games faster than the rate at which it pulls money back in. "Freemium" games with AAA budgets can still flop, and often do.
So, I don't blame Kirby for something that's actually true.
Now, as you said, a bundle is not a sale. Bundling can be great business. Bundling is essentially "wholesale", on a retail level. Giving people incentives for buying in bulk often gets people to invest more than they would have total otherwise. Going back to the video games analogy, I've purchased Developers Bundles on Steam during holiday sales, and really only wanted 1 or 2 games out of the bundle that were less than the bundle price, but getting 3 other games for just a little bit more, even though some of them I still haven't and probably will never get around to playing, was enough for me. Technically, they get more money out of me than if they had got me on each one of them individually.
I think the proof for GW should be in the few bundles they actually have. How many people here have ever bought a Battleforce of some kind? I'm willing to bet most people with a sizable army did somewhere along the line.
So much this. I've done the performance analysis at various high street retailers in the UK and it's very easy to get locked into a cycle with the customers whereby they expect certain sales at certain times of the year and if you don't do it revenue collapses for that time period.
There is a big difference between not wanting to do regular, predicable sales and believing ever allowing a single sale on your luxury, ferrari-of-wargaming products will utterly undermine the value of them.
Yeah, that's the problem with corporate - they are just so full of themselves. These aren't top-of-the-line sports cars or jewels we're talking about; they're pieces of plastic. They are very well designed and crafted pieces of plastic, but that still doesn't warrant the whole "they are top of the line luxury goods, so they shouldn't be on sale!" mentality.
jonolikespie wrote: There is a big difference between not wanting to do regular, predicable sales and believing ever allowing a single sale on your luxury, ferrari-of-wargaming products will utterly undermine the value of them.
Given that was the very first line of SRSFACE's post, and I'm endorsing his post........
Let's take it a step further: What goals might GW achieve by holding a sale?
Increase of customers, and an excuse to get rid off all those OOP models they have stored, instead of throwing them away and losing money.
Increase of customers means new blood. New blood means more armies. More armies means even more money.
jonolikespie wrote: There is a big difference between not wanting to do regular, predicable sales and believing ever allowing a single sale on your luxury, ferrari-of-wargaming products will utterly undermine the value of them.
Given that was the very first line of SRSFACE's post, and I'm endorsing his post........
Let's take it a step further:
What goals might GW achieve by holding a sale?
Gathering some goodwill from a customer base that is abandoning them?
*edit*
Hang on why am I justifying why sales are a good thing in retail?
That seems to be an absolute fundamental of retail with very few exception. Selling product = good. If you do so at a lower price now and then but sale more units that you otherwise wouldn't have you're coming out ahead.
That's just the way the retail world seems to work and I don't understand why GW would be an exception.
jonolikespie wrote: There is a big difference between not wanting to do regular, predicable sales and believing ever allowing a single sale on your luxury, ferrari-of-wargaming products will utterly undermine the value of them.
Given that was the very first line of SRSFACE's post, and I'm endorsing his post........
Let's take it a step further: What goals might GW achieve by holding a sale?
Working to eliminate the feeling of being cheated? When you offer a "one click bundle" and it is the same as retail it leaves a sour taste in a customer's mouth since it literally saves nothing but a few seconds.
Gathering some goodwill from a customer base that is abandoning them?
Also this. GW acts like they're the only company that sells miniatures, and while that might have been true 20 years ago it's not anymore, so they can't keep pretending like they're the only ride in town and that gives them the ability to charge what they want because people will buy it. Besides, they used to have sales years ago so it's not like they never had them, they used to (when the company was more profitable, what a surprise?) and only recently have gone with this line of crap to justify not doing it. I could see their line of BS if they had never offered deals or sales ever during their history (although I'd still think it was asinine).
Since they HAVE offered deals in the past (and pretty good ones at that) I don't believe for a minute that rubbish Kirby says. But then again they also claim to market to a target demographic that could never conceivably pay the luxury prices associated with the game in the first place.
Increase of customers, and an excuse to get rid off all those OOP models they have stored, instead of throwing them away and losing money.
Increase of customers means new blood. New blood means more armies. More armies means even more money.
Is there any real evidence of this? I understand our desire, as consumers, to get stuff cheaper, but most businesses that shift product via sales either deal in time-sensitive items - clothes that are replaced each season - or do so to shift excess stock after seasonal humps.
In contrast, GW seem to have shifted to bigger bulk battleforces, like the Eldar set that according to our FLGS sold in large numbers. It will be intriguing to see if this has any effect on revenues over the Christmas period.
Increase of customers, and an excuse to get rid off all those OOP models they have stored, instead of throwing them away and losing money.
Increase of customers means new blood. New blood means more armies. More armies means even more money.
Is there any real evidence of this? I understand our desire, as consumers, to get stuff cheaper, but most businesses that shift product via sales either deal in time-sensitive items - clothes that are replaced each season - or do so to shift excess stock after seasonal humps.
In contrast, GW seem to have shifted to bigger bulk battleforces, like the Eldar set that according to our FLGS sold in large numbers. It will be intriguing to see if this has any effect on revenues over the Christmas period.
The question of a good selling price depends on various factors. Like you say, "sales" are appropriate for shifting stuff that is time limited in appeal. Go to a supermarket at the end of the day to see the staff putting the reduced price stickers on food that is about to hit its sell-by date.
Non-perishable and high quality goods are different.
When I worked at Sony, we used to sell the PlayStation at a particular price and we didn't ever discount because it would have devalued the brand. What we did was make bundles like some other member said about the Battleforces, which are a way of selling the customer a cheaper overall package without specifically discounting your core product.
Sony also used to drop the base price of the console, which always stimulates more sell-through and there is a very clear link between reduced price and increased sales of consumer electronics. These price reductions were usually co-ordinated with the introduction of a reformed chassis that was cheaper to manufacture. We also used special editions -- different colours and the like -- to stimulate sales.
A lot of what GW are doing is similar. New editions of the rules, new format of the rulebook and codexes, new kits to buy and new add-on rules to support them. Battleforces. But never, ever, clearance sales.
They don't even need "clearance sales" just some common sense of if you have a "special" where you can buy 5 things at once, then there's no way it should be at full retail value. The battleforces are a good example of a discount (although still too expensive IMO), and their bundles should follow the same logic. Basically they should have looked at the reasons why most people bought via online retailers: Because they offered a 20% discount. That should have been an indicator that price is a major factor, and people are more likely to buy where they feel like they are getting a deal than a place that says "No deals, ever. Retail or GTFO", especially when coupled with price increases for any reason or no reason at all, while at the same time lowering costs.
Of course in typical GW fashion they instead felt insulted and have tried ever since to remove independent sellers from stocking anything useful, to force people to pay retail. The issue with that is that nobody likes being forced to do anything, so you have basically the underground "How to get around GW's trade restrictions" from most of the retailers, and GW gets criticism for trying to curb it - they lose out on both fronts: They ticked off the independents by trying to cut off their supply (forcing them to basically circumvent it), and they ticked off their customers by acting like a baby to force people to pay retail (which many still don't). GW gained nothing and lost a lot of respect.
GW is a textbook example of how short sighted and short-term decisions can harm you overall. All they care about is profit so they cut costs and raise prices, take away free and helpful articles to charge for them, take away the hobby aspect to sell plastic terrain, revamp their paints but never offer value, etc. Everything they do has two goals: Cut costs and raise prices, which while they are a business generally when you cut your own costs, you don't also raise prices since you're making more profit by virtue of lowering your cost.
Numbers totally made up but will illustrate my point.
The current cheapest way to buy product.
- GW sells to a distributor at 40% of MSRP
- Distributor sells to FLGS at 60% of MSRP making 20% to cover operating costs and some profit.
- FLGS sells to individual at 100% of MSRP making 40% to cover operating costs and some profit. Online retailer sells at 80% of MSRP because they can do higher volume and lower overhead.
In this scenario, GW makes 40% to cover operating costs and profit.
GW direct, the most expensive way to buy product
- GW sells directly to the customer at 100% MSRP, putting the extra 60% into their pocket that they wouldn't normally get. However, they must spend an additional portion of the 60% to support direct sales to the customer via web or at their store.
GW ends up making more profit per unit, at least in theory
Why should GW hold sales? If GW has a 20% off sale, then there is no incentive to go to online retailers and thus GW can in roads in to that space. While they don't get the extra 60% they do at MSRP, they do get the 40% that they would otherwise NEVER see.
The lord of skulls has bloodcrusher heads decorating for no reason other than its a quick and easy way to add details in CAD if you already have the heads.
Perhaps, but actually casting it is a different matter.
Those LoTR trolls are pretty terrible though. I guess from a technical standpoint it's decent, since they have wrinkles and stuff, but it still looks shoddy.
Now, if you were talking about the quality of their written material, I'd be inclined to agree.
I don't think GW needs sales, but bundling products are not sales. They are a good way to get people to buy more product because they feel they are saving.
Imagine if Mercedes (a true luxury brand) did what GW did. Say ten years ago, an E-class sold for $50k and a top of the line S-class sold for $100k. Let's say, for sake of the example, there is no inflation so 10 years later it should be the same price. What GW has done over time is raise the E-class to $100k, eliminate the S-Calss while also lowering the quality to a C-class $25k car (i.e., going to 10 minis to 5 while also moving the price up) and all the while believing they are still selling an S-Class.
I'm going to say it outright - GW are killing themselves and the management, especially Kirby, are some of the WORST business people I have ever seen in my life (and I have seen some doosies). I am trying to remember a time when there was a company so full of themselves that they literally have done all the idiotic things that GW has done, especially in the last few years. GW management are truly legends in their own minds.
Spaghetti against the wall product release techniques (i.e., just throw a bunch of half-baked stuff out there and hope something sticks) are a historical sign of companies in much deeper trouble than people realize. Apple did this in the Gil Amelio days (just before Jobs came back) and it failed - like it always does. When Jobs came back to Apple, he thought they had a few years to turn it around. He was shocked on his very first day back when he found out they were less than six months from complete insolvency - and thus one of the reasons he demanded the resignation of the entire board at that time. Kodak was doing the same thing two years prior to going into bankruptcy. Microsoft has been doing the same thing for the last ten years - how did that work out for Steve Ballmer? Finally, TSR did it in the last eighteen months of their existence and look where that lead.
Let me give a recent example on the IK codex. While many GW supporters are saying it is nice - no a single one I have read have failed to mention how little there is to the product for the price. 6 pages of rules, 2 units (technically one since it is just a weapon swap, but hey let's fill out that codex). In other words, people are beginning to feel ripped off by what GW is producing. Typical in a spaghetti against the wall environment.
Someone above said GW maybe has five years at this rate... history has shown, as to my OP, that if they make two it will be an accomplishment.
I ignored the trends with TSR. With history repeating itself at GW, I don't see the outcome being any different. All the exact same trends are there just before the collapse of TSR.
I'll preface this by saying that I'm firmly in the "GW sucks balls ATM" camp, both in terms of the quality of product (mainly rules) they put out and some pants-on-head stupid strategic decision making that's going on, GW has lots of problems, not running sales isn't one of them. This isn't white knighting, this is I-do-this-gak-for-a-living.
Increase of customers
Increasing customers? Or increasing transactions? Are these new customers? Returning customers? Or just the same customers altering their behaviour because you offered a discount?
If your customers are primarily collectors in some way (as GW's are), will the majority of them buy the same stuff at full price anyway in the near future?
and an excuse to get rid off all those OOP models they have stored, instead of throwing them away and losing money.
Now we're dealing with a targeted promotion, rather than a sale, and this one may have some merit. It really depends on what GW thinks it's ratio of customers who want one for nostalgia reasons is versus customers who want a bargain/want to make money on the second hand market. The first lot are good (as they'll also buy current/new versions of models), the second lot is just cannibalising their own sales.
That being said, looking at recent events, simply having the news that some things are disappearing forever seems to be sufficient to make people go crazy for them without discounting them at all eg Specialist Games.
Increase of customers means new blood.
For a product like GW it probably doesn't, at least not in significant amounts. More likely it leads to increased transactions with existing customers and pull-forward and devaluing of future sales.
Gathering some goodwill from a customer base that is abandoning them?
Working to eliminate the feeling of being cheated?
No one does this. They might say they're throwing you a deal because they're nice/want to reward loyalty or all that other guff, but that's just a marketing spiel, there will be a financial objective behind it.
And really, if price is an issue (which I believe it is), this is pissing in the wind, that problem can only be addressed by recalibrating the pricing across the range.
Hang on why am I justifying why sales are a good thing in retail?
That seems to be an absolute fundamental of retail with very few exception. Selling product = good. If you do so at a lower price now and then but sale more units that you otherwise wouldn't have you're coming out ahead.
That's just the way the retail world seems to work and I don't understand why GW would be an exception.
Because no one sits down and goes "let's have a sale today"? Sales and promotions are all designed to specific things (and not always by the shops selling the product, big corps like Unilever and P&G can dictate promotions down the chain for example). GW has no interest in selling more units for the sake of selling more units, that's what you do when you want market penetration. GW doesn't, they're a mature player in a market they dominate, their goal is to sell whatever units they think will maximise profit across the range of prices they can offer. That means that any revenue they generate from a sale has to be truly incremental (or more accurately, truly incremental revenue has to be greater than the revenue they gave away to customers who would have bought anyway but bought right now because of the sale).
and only recently have gone with this line of crap to justify not doing it.
There's a moral obligation to hold sales now?
EDIT1: bundle deals are not sales, I think maybe less anger and more clarity would help you illustrate your point better.
EDIT2: barfolomew - GW can't just go round and undercut retailers it's sold it's product too by holding a sale, that's anti-competitive practise that it's prevented from doing as a result of being both the manufacturer and the retailer of the product.
jonolikespie wrote: The lord of skulls has bloodcrusher heads decorating for no reason other than its a quick and easy way to add details in CAD if you already have the heads.
They are not exactly bloodcrusher heads, they are about 50% smaller, and they have guns in their mouths. Clearly they were not a quick copy and paste. Plus, even taking the detail from something else is not a "snap" in CAD or any other program, so I'm not sure what your point is here.
1 GW only says that their customers are primarily collectors. GW also doesn't do market research.
2 the marketing spiel was EXACTLY the point I was making. At the moment GW seem to be at war with their fans, sending out C&D letters to fan sites, saying derogatory things about us on Facebook and closing down lines of communication, etc.
3 hell yes GW needs market penetration. Right now they are in very serious danger of losing their position as the default game in the next couple of years. In fact this has already happened in more than a few places.
jonolikespie wrote: The lord of skulls has bloodcrusher heads decorating for no reason other than its a quick and easy way to add details in CAD if you already have the heads.
They are not exactly bloodcrusher heads, they are about 50% smaller, and they have guns in their mouths. Clearly they were not a quick copy and paste. Plus, even taking the detail from something else is not a "snap" in CAD or any other program, so I'm not sure what your point is here.
Are you arguing that resizing something in a CAD program is hard?
Or that making an inset to put a gun muzzle in a previously existing hole is also somehow hard to do in CAD?
jonolikespie wrote: The lord of skulls has bloodcrusher heads decorating for no reason other than its a quick and easy way to add details in CAD if you already have the heads.
They are not exactly bloodcrusher heads, they are about 50% smaller, and they have guns in their mouths. Clearly they were not a quick copy and paste. Plus, even taking the detail from something else is not a "snap" in CAD or any other program, so I'm not sure what your point is here.
CAD is all about copy and paste and rescaling a model is only a matter of a couple of clicks and fusing a gun in a mouth is only as involved of having the model for the gun and positioning it.
I use Solidworks at work and it really is that easy.
The hard part is making the original model, anything after that is far easier.
Not much different on how they used to do it: hack up a prior model and glue/sculpt the fiddly gaps, cast what you made, then spam the details on the bigger model.
jonolikespie wrote: 1 GW only says that their customers are primarily collectors. GW also doesn't do market research.
I'm saying that GW customers behave as collectors, that is, broadly speaking they will continue to accumulate models over time, and as such sales (in general) just amount to throwing away money that they're going to give you anyway.
If the company has a strong cash flow position, there's just no need.
jonolikespie wrote: 2 the marketing spiel was EXACTLY the point I was making. At the moment GW seem to be at war with their fans, sending out C&D letters to fan sites, saying derogatory things about us on Facebook and closing down lines of communication, etc.
Right, but the answer is to a) stop being a douchemuffin and b) conduct value-add/customer service activities that engage customers and help them have fun with the hobby (or HHHobby ). Bunging them a one-off or irregular discount doesn't make a dent in changing that view, it's just throwing away money instead of addressing the root cause.
jonolikespie wrote: 3 hell yes GW needs market penetration. Right now they are in very serious danger of losing their position as the default game in the next couple of years. In fact this has already happened in more than a few places.
Nah, GW's nearest competitor is not much more than 10% of GW's turnover, to hit 25% of GW's turnover, the next 9 biggest would all have to be averaging around £2m annual turnover, which I suspect is a quite bullish requirement.
GW's declared focus is growing the market (ie dragging new gamers in), it's failing miserably (because it's pricing strategy is wrong). If it improved that and customer retention it would naturally achieve penetration (but as a side-effect, not a focus).
The original poster made some very good points and I do agree that Games Workshop is in trouble to some degree.
In my humble opinion, GW has become a victim of it's own creation and much like TSR they've become infamous at packaging up the same material over and over again for customers to purchase. Why would I spend $100 and buy a limited edition codex that will be obsolete in less than 4 years? At what price point do you cease the cannibalization of your customers?
The sad part is, at least from my perspective, Games Workshop has abandoned any sort of game balance with it's highest grossing product. (AKA- Warhammer 40,000) Starting with 6th edition 40k, GW shifted gears and began a focus to capture more model sales (Which make up their highest profit margin.) They did so by introducing allies, fortifications, Forge World, super heavies, ect... They all point towards one direction - Increase model sales to capitalize on those who already own existing armies. Because, once you an army, your codex, and a set of the rules what more do you need to purchase?
Wizards of the Coast makes money hand over fist by pushing Magic the Gathering CCG cards, because they've discovered the formula to continued sales is by keeping their price point relatively low and support a friendly, but competitive structure. Where GW has abandoned all support for tournaments, game balance, and their initial price point.... It used to be that a logical progression as a young gamer who played CCG's that enjoyed competition, but wanted something more into the hobby than buying cards could grow into a Warhammer player. That player could bring his strategy and tactical skills from deck building into army list construction and hopefully modeling and painting at the same time....
The problem is that players want balance. All the beautiful models and all the awesome Black Library fluff mean nothing in game terms if nobody wants to play your game. Almost 4 years ago GW started producting these beautiful hard-bound army books with full color pictures and jacked up the price to $50 each with limited edition copies going for $100. Most everyone agreed that the new books are beautiful and some say they are worth the price, however we haven't hit a point yet where one of those is replaced with a new edition meaning that your beautiful hard-bound book is no more than re-printed fluff and pictures like all the older ones. When you have a game that cycles on a new edition every 4 years, you are basically over-paying for a product with a limited shelf life....
To the point that the original poster made with the comparison of TSR to GW, I actually wonder more about the comparison of D&D to Warhammer and 40k. Basically, at what point will players cease playing the new edition in favor of an older one?
Wolflord Patrick wrote: Basically, at what point will players cease playing the new edition in favor of an older one?
There is also the aspect of they just quit for good instead of continuing to play. It would be nice to be able to play past editions, but the majority of people play the latest edition because that's the easiest to get a game with. Only those with continuously populated clubs have the option to play older editions at any real level of consistency.
Murdius Maximus wrote: People constantly complain about the price of models, yet still pay the price to play. The only way that GW goes down is if enough people stop playing the game due to those prices. I don't think that we will ever see a drop in price on any product.
Take the video game industry for example. Back when I was young a video game (brand new) cost $20. When the average price of the game became $30, many players said OMG THAT IS CRIMINAL THIS INDUSTRY IS DEAD! Low and behold, the industry continued to thrive and thus game developers began charging $40 per game, then jumped dramatically to $60 per game. And now there are online subscriptions to contend with as well. Yet that industry still thrives despite the complaining about the price of the products. The games have gotten prettier, but on the whole there hasn't been anything really "new" in roughly ten years as far as a game goes. Sure we get new interactive ways to play the games, but they are really the same old, rehashed crap with new, fancy labeling and ways to play it.
Now with GW they are merely doing the same thing. And like the video game industry there are still a GREAT MANY people willing to pay those prices and hock $140 for the new Imperial Knight which says to GW, "How can we do more?" I'm sure their company is fine despite lower sales in recent years. They will be around for a long time yet.
I don't ever remember a AAA title costing less than $49.99 at launch. That's going all the way back to NES days. Even if my memory is fuzzy that far back, I know PS1 games retailed for that back in the late nineties. Almost 20 years ago. Given that the typical AAA game launches for 59.99 now they're probably doing better than inflation.
I've been gaming since the beginning of the NES days and they certainly were not $49.99. I remember buying SNES games brand new for $39.99 and thinking that was outrageous. But I loved to play games so I paid it. They steadily increased prices to the point they are now and each time somebody cried wolf and lots of other people threw fits but now we just accept it. GW has done the same. I haven't been playing for long (about a year now) but I understand prices have inflated a tremendous amount since the game started coming around. The point I was trying to make was that a raise in prices doesn't necessarily mean doomsday is coming for GW.
Remember, a video game that cost $50-60 in 1990 costs much, much more now.
Spoiler:
As a point of comparison, GW's prices have not only increased, but usually increased far more then is immediately noticeable, as boxed kits have frequently had their contents substantially decreased with the prices remaining the same.
Murdius Maximus wrote: People constantly complain about the price of models, yet still pay the price to play. The only way that GW goes down is if enough people stop playing the game due to those prices. I don't think that we will ever see a drop in price on any product.
Take the video game industry for example. Back when I was young a video game (brand new) cost $20. When the average price of the game became $30, many players said OMG THAT IS CRIMINAL THIS INDUSTRY IS DEAD! Low and behold, the industry continued to thrive and thus game developers began charging $40 per game, then jumped dramatically to $60 per game. And now there are online subscriptions to contend with as well. Yet that industry still thrives despite the complaining about the price of the products. The games have gotten prettier, but on the whole there hasn't been anything really "new" in roughly ten years as far as a game goes. Sure we get new interactive ways to play the games, but they are really the same old, rehashed crap with new, fancy labeling and ways to play it.
Now with GW they are merely doing the same thing. And like the video game industry there are still a GREAT MANY people willing to pay those prices and hock $140 for the new Imperial Knight which says to GW, "How can we do more?" I'm sure their company is fine despite lower sales in recent years. They will be around for a long time yet.
I don't ever remember a AAA title costing less than $49.99 at launch. That's going all the way back to NES days. Even if my memory is fuzzy that far back, I know PS1 games retailed for that back in the late nineties. Almost 20 years ago. Given that the typical AAA game launches for 59.99 now they're probably doing better than inflation.
I've been gaming since the beginning of the NES days and they certainly were not $49.99. I remember buying SNES games brand new for $39.99 and thinking that was outrageous. But I loved to play games so I paid it. They steadily increased prices to the point they are now and each time somebody cried wolf and lots of other people threw fits but now we just accept it. GW has done the same. I haven't been playing for long (about a year now) but I understand prices have inflated a tremendous amount since the game started coming around. The point I was trying to make was that a raise in prices doesn't necessarily mean doomsday is coming for GW.
Remember, a video game that cost $50-60 in 1990 costs much, much more now.
Spoiler:
As a point of comparison, GW's prices have not only increased, but usually increased far more then is immediately noticeable, as boxed kits have frequently had their contents substantially decreased with the prices remaining the same.
One also has to factor in the quality - a game made today is a lot more advanced; both in terms of programming and graphics, than a game made back then.
Howard A Treesong wrote: It'll be interesting how long they renew a licence to FFG. Collaborations with GW don't seem to last long before GW decide they don't like someone else doing a better job than them and take their toys back.
Well, if GW can afford to lose the licensing revenue, I'm sure they will pull the FFG license. I don't think they can afford to cross it off of their balance sheet at the moment.
jonolikespie wrote: 2 the marketing spiel was EXACTLY the point I was making. At the moment GW seem to be at war with their fans, sending out C&D letters to fan sites, saying derogatory things about us on Facebook and closing down lines of communication, etc.
Wasn't that just one manager though? I'd hardly say he speaks for everyone in the company, if you are referring to the same post I am thinking of.
Baragash wrote: Nah, GW's nearest competitor is not much more than 10% of GW's turnover, to hit 25% of GW's turnover, the next 9 biggest would all have to be averaging around £2m annual turnover, which I suspect is a quite bullish requirement..
If you are talking about PP, yeah I'd agree. I had worked for both PP and GW and from my experience GW makes more product to fulfill orders in one week than PP does in an entire month. PP is a very small company, most people just don't realize that because it's privately owned and we can't see their numbers.
jonolikespie wrote: 2 the marketing spiel was EXACTLY the point I was making. At the moment GW seem to be at war with their fans, sending out C&D letters to fan sites, saying derogatory things about us on Facebook and closing down lines of communication, etc.
Wasn't that just one manager though? I'd hardly say he speaks for everyone in the company, if you are referring to the same post I am thinking of.
There was one facebook quote, from an individual manager, as far as I remember on his personal feed, which was recanted and apologised for soon afterwards.
Of course, this one personal line, from one employee out of thousands, has been taken as official company policy, and has grown like Chinese whispers, by the schadenfreude addicts to the point it's now treated as if it were an official press release.
Kirby might well be an ass but plenty of the bad things he's 'done' exist only in fevered imaginations.
Wayshuba wrote: He picked up a $30 plastic Space Marine Librarian and a nearby Hell Dorado character model priced at $10.99. He looked at me and said something to the effect "$11 for metal and $30 for cheap plastic?" This GW company is seriously whacked with what they charge for cheap plastic and I have no interest. You older guys waste your money on this junk, but it is your money. Me and my friends won't go near this game." I told him about it being a character model, explained how troops were cheaper, etc. How fun it was to play with such variety. All the typical drivel we have used for years. His response after my drivel was (and I will never forget this line), "Dude, no game is that good to pay so much money for cheap plastic models."
I have to agree with him. The only reason I still play/paint GW games and miniatures is because I'm so invested into the games (I'm a fan of Lord of the Rings, and Raven Guard Space Marines). But if I was a fresh faced newcomer today in 2014, I wouldn't even consider GW with the current price gouging.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: There was one facebook quote, from an individual manager, as far as I remember on his personal feed, which was recanted and apologised for soon afterwards.
Of course, this one personal line, from one employee out of thousands, has been taken as official company policy, and has grown like Chinese whispers, by the schadenfreude addicts to the point it's now treated as if it were an official press release.
It is interesting though, at least in the USA, that companies have a clause in their handbooks (GW had this when I was there) stating that an employees actions/demeanor/speech/behavior/etc represents and reflects on the company as a whole and that the company has the right to control/monitor such behavior at work and off work.
But when an employee actually says or does something that does reflect poorly on the company, suddenly that employee doesn't speak for the company or doesn't represent the company, we can't control what he says, etc, etc.
jonolikespie wrote: 2 the marketing spiel was EXACTLY the point I was making. At the moment GW seem to be at war with their fans, sending out C&D letters to fan sites, saying derogatory things about us on Facebook and closing down lines of communication, etc.
Wasn't that just one manager though? I'd hardly say he speaks for everyone in the company, if you are referring to the same post I am thinking of.
There was one facebook quote, from an individual manager, as far as I remember on his personal feed, which was recanted and apologised for soon afterwards.
Of course, this one personal line, from one employee out of thousands, has been taken as official company policy, and has grown like Chinese whispers, by the schadenfreude addicts to the point it's now treated as if it were an official press release.
Kirby might well be an ass but plenty of the bad things he's 'done' exist only in fevered imaginations.
Someone with a better memory than me will no doubt be able to recall his name, but he wasn't an "individual manager" (at least not at store level) IIRC but had served at the executive level. (He also had a somewhat sordid history with accusations of sexual assault while a serving police officer too if I'm thinking if the right guy.)
Besides, these rumours have been around a lot longer than that (this happened last year or the latter part of 2012) and there's been more than one ex employee that has confirmed the attitude is certainly present in an element of senior management, so whether it is a few individuals or more endemic is probably up for debate, but that the attitude exists within the corporation probably isn't.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The Lord of Skulls and the Gyrocopter are high quality, actually. They have a great amount of detail.
'High quality' and 'Has lots of detail' are not synonymous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Of course, this one personal line, from one employee out of thousands, has been taken as official company policy, and has grown like Chinese whispers, by the schadenfreude addicts to the point it's now treated as if it were an official press release.
This just in: Statements made by company representatives are treated as representative of the company.
Someone with a better memory than me will no doubt be able to recall his name, but he wasn't an "individual manager" (at least not at store level) IIRC but had served at the executive level. (He also had a somewhat sordid history with accusations of sexual assault while a serving police officer too if I'm thinking if the right guy.)
Besides, these rumours have been around a lot longer than that (this happened last year or the latter part of 2012) and there's been more than one ex employee that has confirmed the attitude is certainly present in an element of senior management, so whether it is a few individuals or more endemic is probably up for debate, but that the attitude exists within the corporation probably isn't.
IIRC, someone posted that the individual in question didn't work for GW at the time and also, IIRC, it sounded as if he was blowing off, trying to show he was a big shot and more important than was in fact the case.
Every large company has its share of prats. One post doesn't constitute compelling evidence that the company culture is one of contempt for its customers.
I think GW would have to have a big failure to make them fall any time soon. Big shops like HMV get into trouble when they can't get credit to buy stock, which means the shelves end up empty. This problem feeds into itself because you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you need credit to pay the bills and buy stock and get rolling.
Do GW have any big bills that they need to cover? They manage their own production, they can manage stores that become a burden. Unless they invest heavily in a product that flops and costs them a huge amount of money, there's no reason for them to sudden crash, just continually decline. From what I recall of investor reports, they're sitting on cash and assets even if their profit doesn't look good.
I've said for a while that GW only make their big three because they don't have the competence or confidence to release much else. Space Hulk was a re-release, Dreadfleet an embarrassment. If they were to release a whole new edition of Fantasy or 40K that flopped big time they would be in big trouble. But to be honest they can be pretty sure there will be people wanting to buy Marines. The only disaster that could be looming is from the Hobbit. How much does the licence cost and how long are they tied into paying it? How well is it actually selling and is it pulling them down? Only time will tell, if the Hobbit is a time bomb waiting they'll keep quiet as long as possible.
Someone with a better memory than me will no doubt be able to recall his name, but he wasn't an "individual manager" (at least not at store level) IIRC but had served at the executive level. (He also had a somewhat sordid history with accusations of sexual assault while a serving police officer too if I'm thinking if the right guy.)
Besides, these rumours have been around a lot longer than that (this happened last year or the latter part of 2012) and there's been more than one ex employee that has confirmed the attitude is certainly present in an element of senior management, so whether it is a few individuals or more endemic is probably up for debate, but that the attitude exists within the corporation probably isn't.
IIRC, someone posted that the individual in question didn't work for GW at the time and also, IIRC, it sounded as if he was blowing off, trying to show he was a big shot and more important than was in fact the case.
Every large company has its share of prats. One post doesn't constitute compelling evidence that the company culture is one of contempt for its customers.
Someone argued tooth and nail he no longer worked for GW but his LinkedIn page said he still was. And he was the head of either sales or marketing in north America if memory servers.
And I get what your saying about it being just 1 guy but that one facebook post is the only time we have been addressed by senior level staff in years. The next closest thing to that in terms of comunication is reading Kirbys intro on the shareholder reports where he talks about selling toys to kids or the guys at the chaptethouse trial telling the court GWs customers favourite part of the hobby is buying things from GW.
You will never know what GW really think of their customers since they never deign to communicate with them. But here is some info from several former GW sales managers, who were quite high up the GW food chain at one point:
filbert wrote:...GW call their customers things like "Geek, Gomer, Sheep, and Pleb"....
Obviously, this sort of terminology doesn't crop up in public but it does give some insight into just how the upper echelons of GW really feel about the people that buy their games.
Someone with a better memory than me will no doubt be able to recall his name, but he wasn't an "individual manager" (at least not at store level) IIRC but had served at the executive level. (He also had a somewhat sordid history with accusations of sexual assault while a serving police officer too if I'm thinking if the right guy.)
Besides, these rumours have been around a lot longer than that (this happened last year or the latter part of 2012) and there's been more than one ex employee that has confirmed the attitude is certainly present in an element of senior management, so whether it is a few individuals or more endemic is probably up for debate, but that the attitude exists within the corporation probably isn't.
IIRC, someone posted that the individual in question didn't work for GW at the time and also, IIRC, it sounded as if he was blowing off, trying to show he was a big shot and more important than was in fact the case.
Every large company has its share of prats. One post doesn't constitute compelling evidence that the company culture is one of contempt for its customers.
I would argue that the proof is in the pudding, and the actions of the company over the past 3-4 years could only come as a result of contempt. Or, perhaps that is too strong a word - really, I think it just an indifference to the long-term fanbase.
If it means anything at all, I heard the word 'sheep' used years ago while I was in the company - although yes that may have been a singular instance.
Someone with a better memory than me will no doubt be able to recall his name, but he wasn't an "individual manager" (at least not at store level) IIRC but had served at the executive level. (He also had a somewhat sordid history with accusations of sexual assault while a serving police officer too if I'm thinking if the right guy.)
Besides, these rumours have been around a lot longer than that (this happened last year or the latter part of 2012) and there's been more than one ex employee that has confirmed the attitude is certainly present in an element of senior management, so whether it is a few individuals or more endemic is probably up for debate, but that the attitude exists within the corporation probably isn't.
IIRC, someone posted that the individual in question didn't work for GW at the time and also, IIRC, it sounded as if he was blowing off, trying to show he was a big shot and more important than was in fact the case.
Every large company has its share of prats. One post doesn't constitute compelling evidence that the company culture is one of contempt for its customers.
Someone argued tooth and nail he no longer worked for GW but his LinkedIn page said he still was. And he was the head of either sales or marketing in north America if memory servers.
And I get what your saying about it being just 1 guy but that one facebook post is the only time we have been addressed by senior level staff in years. The next closest thing to that in terms of comunication is reading Kirbys intro on the shareholder reports where he talks about selling toys to kids or the guys at the chaptethouse trial telling the court GWs customers favourite part of the hobby is buying things from GW.
He had been my Director for Growth. I worked for him when he was let go. I know people want to say he was a part of the company when he said that, but he wasn't. I can't on dakka prove it I guess. But it is the truth. The scandal what people chose to believe so I guess this will continue to be brought up again and again. As to why his Facebook said he worked for GW? I have no idea as it said that for a year or more after he was let go.
Well, unless he was groped by a nerd at some point between leaving GW and posting that/those comment/s, isn't it a little irrelevant whether he was employed by GW at the time or not with regards to his attitude?
I really don't see how the obvious contempt could have been completely absent until his post GW career.
While we will never see a statement from GW to the effect of "anyone over 16 who buys any of out products is a gullible gakker" one can't ignore the smoke that wafts out of Lenton every so often, and there's only so far one can blame short termism PLC disease for all the stuff that happens that just feths those of us with a few extra winters under our belts off.
What baffles me is that they don't even have to know or want to know how to keep Vets happy, just look around at companies in the sector with a better track record, rip off a bunch of their ideas, pocket a load of extra cash from customers who don't feel exploited any more? Who loses in those circumstances?
Kilkrazy wrote: They could renegotiate the licence for The Hobbit if they had to.
Right, and this is the most likely scenario.
They just aren't making money off the Hobbit miniatures, not ones that people don't use as conversions for 40k and Fantasy at any rate. I know exactly one person who does Hobbit miniatures, and it's not for the game's sake.
However, they wouldn't just up and abandon their own stock. GW has proven this in the past. It took them how many years to abandon their excessive backstock of pewter miniatures? And they still sell Cypher and a handful of models they produced way too many of, like all the other Dark Angel special character types.
Anyways, re: customer contempt;
It's bizarre to me how GW seems to actively hate it's fans. Ever notice on White Dwarf daily the names they feature seem to cycle around? They don't grab random fan photos. I know for a fact some of those people are GW employees at some of their one-man shops. It also amazes me how one of their subsidiaries in Forgeworld actively loves the fanbase and has great customer service. They respond to rules questions e-mails in, like, two days as opposed to literally not issuing an FAQ/Errata in about a year and never directly responding to customer rules question emails. The people I know who've been to both Warhammer World events hosted by G-Dub and the Forgeworld Opens say there's a night and day difference when talking to the designers. Seems like the guys making the codices and rulebooks are worn thin and tired of the hobby while the guys designing for Forgeworld can't wait to tell you about the stuff they're working on.
I work for a small FLGS in the UK and I can truthfully say if GW went bust, I would be out of a job. So would a lot of other people and I for one hope GW never go out of business. I just hope they can change for the better.
We sell PP, Mantic, Bolt Action, Spartan Games, X-Wing and Magic. GW outsells all of these together on an average month. We've sold around 30 Knights just from in-store alone. Bolt Action and Spartan (Firestorm) have done brilliantly recently and we are really pushing these games at the moment as they have a low cost entry, good profit margins and solid rules that are constantly updated and FAQ'd. We still have more 40k players on our gaming nights but this is changing slowly. The whole attitude is changing in our players too, they are getting more annoyed at GW for certain things BUT love the new models. It's actually the rules that are pissing people off more and more. Especially once they've had a game of Bolt Action or Firestorm to see how a balanced rule set is played. A lot of this is down to "Deathstar" units too. From watching a lot of games we have certain players who will continually use these units and it becomes frustrating as you have to hard counter them. In other games there are less of these deathstar units and it comes down actually playing the tactical side of the game. I still love 40k and my Tau and it will always be my number one game but I am personally tired of getting moaned at by opponents for playing ONE Riptide as it's "cheese" etc.
The Hobbit has been GWs biggest loss in recent times.
Murdius Maximus wrote: People constantly complain about the price of models, yet still pay the price to play. The only way that GW goes down is if enough people stop playing the game due to those prices. I don't think that we will ever see a drop in price on any product.
Take the video game industry for example. Back when I was young a video game (brand new) cost $20. When the average price of the game became $30, many players said OMG THAT IS CRIMINAL THIS INDUSTRY IS DEAD! Low and behold, the industry continued to thrive and thus game developers began charging $40 per game, then jumped dramatically to $60 per game. And now there are online subscriptions to contend with as well. Yet that industry still thrives despite the complaining about the price of the products. The games have gotten prettier, but on the whole there hasn't been anything really "new" in roughly ten years as far as a game goes. Sure we get new interactive ways to play the games, but they are really the same old, rehashed crap with new, fancy labeling and ways to play it.
Now with GW they are merely doing the same thing. And like the video game industry there are still a GREAT MANY people willing to pay those prices and hock $140 for the new Imperial Knight which says to GW, "How can we do more?" I'm sure their company is fine despite lower sales in recent years. They will be around for a long time yet.
I don't ever remember a AAA title costing less than $49.99 at launch. That's going all the way back to NES days. Even if my memory is fuzzy that far back, I know PS1 games retailed for that back in the late nineties. Almost 20 years ago. Given that the typical AAA game launches for 59.99 now they're probably doing better than inflation.
I've been gaming since the beginning of the NES days and they certainly were not $49.99. I remember buying SNES games brand new for $39.99 and thinking that was outrageous. But I loved to play games so I paid it. They steadily increased prices to the point they are now and each time somebody cried wolf and lots of other people threw fits but now we just accept it. GW has done the same. I haven't been playing for long (about a year now) but I understand prices have inflated a tremendous amount since the game started coming around. The point I was trying to make was that a raise in prices doesn't necessarily mean doomsday is coming for GW.
Remember, a video game that cost $50-60 in 1990 costs much, much more now.
[spoiler]
As a point of comparison, GW's prices have not only increased, but usually increased far more then is immediately noticeable, as boxed kits have frequently had their contents substantially decreased with the prices remaining the same.[/spoiler]
One also has to factor in the quality - a game made today is a lot more advanced; both in terms of programming and graphics, than a game made back then.
Yes but programming has become a lot easier, there are programming tools, graphic engines etcetera, back then they had to figure out a lot for themselves, most work now goes into the design of the game.
Back on topic, If GW think they are really the Ferrari of miniature manufacturing, they are going the same way? limited editions, if you are not falling in our customer profile then we will not sell to you.
The exception being that Ferrari can genuinely lay claim to making some of the best road cars available today, continually push the boundaries of what is achievable in a production car, have massive worldwide brand recognition and caché, and, even then still don't make the most expensive cars it is possible to buy.
If you're going to run your business like Ferrari you better damn well have the stones to justify it. GW at this moment in time simply do not.
The mentality of 'we sell to this customer profile, if that's not you we don't care' is another huge problem. Ferrari can afford to do that because owning a Ferrari is a status symbol. People see you driving it and assume you're rich, which makes everyone want one just because its got the Ferrari logo on it.
GW thinking they have that kind of reputation is nothing but laughable.
Instead GW should be worried about the people they are pricing out and trying to net as many customers as they can. This would mean doing market research to find out who buys their products and what those people want.
Funnily enough TSR wasn't doing any market research in their final days either, they were pumping out anything and everything and assumeing people would by it because it had their name on it.
jonolikespie wrote: The mentality of 'we sell to this customer profile, if that's not you we don't care' is another huge problem. Ferrari can afford to do that because owning a Ferrari is a status symbol. People see you driving it and assume you're rich.
GW thinking they have that kind of reputation is nothing but laughable.
Instead GW should be worried about the people they are pricing out and trying to net as many customers as they can. This would mean doing market research to find out who buys their products and what those people want.
Funnily enough TSR wasn't doing any market research in their final days either, they were pumping out anything and everything and assumeing people would by it because it had their name on it.
When I worked for the great enemy the higher ups always compared themselves to Porsche, saying things like "Well you never see Porsche having sales, and we are the Porsche of miniatures". And funny enough its echoed to this day from red shirts from time to time.
They are high on their own farts. The fact that their stock tanked and they don't understand why and just jack up prices proves that there is nothing we can do to stop GW from driving itself into the ground, clearly they have taken our wallet votes as a sign of aggressive from their enemies (their customers).
That or they are just sitting around scratching their heads, wondering why we aren't thanking them for allowing us the privilege of buying their product, while everything comes crashing down around them.
I always say its because they destroyed the love of the game.
With art be it movies or anything, you need to put the time in and not expect money, if it happens then great. If not then do something else. The second you do it with money in mind is setting yourself up on the path to ruin and soullessness.
GW sold its love for money. They need to get Kirby out, drop prices and balance the fething game. Allies, super heavies, double force org and formations should have never seen the light of day in games under 3000pts.
Ravenous D wrote: When I worked for the great enemy the higher ups always compared themselves to Porsche, saying things like "Well you never see Porsche having sales, and we are the Porsche of miniatures". And funny enough its echoed to this day from red shirts from time to time
When I was at GW they used to compare themselves to Mercedes. The ones who drank the Kool-Aid would say "GW is the Mercedes of the miniatures industry".
Oddly enough when they used to say that it would indicate they acknowledged GW was part of a larger industry and not self-contained in the "GW Hobby".
Ravenous D wrote: When I worked for the great enemy the higher ups always compared themselves to Porsche, saying things like "Well you never see Porsche having sales, and we are the Porsche of miniatures". And funny enough its echoed to this day from red shirts from time to time.
Kirby used that line in his financial report one year, which is what spawned the 'I'm a Porsche!' Pumbagore meme...
CaulynDarr wrote: I don't ever remember a AAA title costing less than $49.99 at launch. That's going all the way back to NES days. Even if my memory is fuzzy that far back, I know PS1 games retailed for that back in the late nineties. Almost 20 years ago. Given that the typical AAA game launches for 59.99 now they're probably doing better than inflation.
Now days you just put a game in your "Wishlist" on Steam and have them notify you when it is on sale...
Will GW ever have a sale?
Their idea of that is the "one click purchase" since I would get carpal tunnel from all the clicking to select all the models individually so I can get it all for the same price.
Those one-click bundle things for the exact same price are infuriating to me - what kind of moronic, idiotic, stupid idea is that? Do they truly think customers can't add, multiply, or divide to see that there are no savings to be had? When will this insanity stop?
gr1m_dan wrote: I work for a small FLGS in the UK and I can truthfully say if GW went bust, I would be out of a job. So would a lot of other people and I for one hope GW never go out of business. I just hope they can change for the better.
We sell PP, Mantic, Bolt Action, Spartan Games, X-Wing and Magic. GW outsells all of these together on an average month. We've sold around 30 Knights just from in-store alone. Bolt Action and Spartan (Firestorm) have done brilliantly recently and we are really pushing these games at the moment as they have a low cost entry, good profit margins and solid rules that are constantly updated and FAQ'd. We still have more 40k players on our gaming nights but this is changing slowly. The whole attitude is changing in our players too, they are getting more annoyed at GW for certain things BUT love the new models. It's actually the rules that are pissing people off more and more. Especially once they've had a game of Bolt Action or Firestorm to see how a balanced rule set is played. A lot of this is down to "Deathstar" units too. From watching a lot of games we have certain players who will continually use these units and it becomes frustrating as you have to hard counter them. In other games there are less of these deathstar units and it comes down actually playing the tactical side of the game. I still love 40k and my Tau and it will always be my number one game but I am personally tired of getting moaned at by opponents for playing ONE Riptide as it's "cheese" etc.
The Hobbit has been GWs biggest loss in recent times.
You also exist at the heart of GW's penetration. The rest of the world is much more spread out. From what I understand, England's hobbyists are largely GW, losing GW would leave a distinct vacuum. This would certainly kill many indies, but the market would likely recover and enter a healthy ecosystem of companies competing within a year or two after some of the dust settled. The reliance on GW hurts the hobby as a whole and everyone in it. I honestly don't want to see another GW type company where they control a large chunk of the market as it is bad for new companies and can hurt healthy competition.
Ravenous D wrote: I always say its because they destroyed the love of the game.
With art be it movies or anything, you need to put the time in and not expect money, if it happens then great. If not then do something else. The second you do it with money in mind is setting yourself up on the path to ruin and soullessness.
GW sold its love for money. They need to get Kirby out, drop prices and balance the fething game. Allies, super heavies, double force org and formations should have never seen the light of day in games under 3000pts.
filbert wrote: You will never know what GW really think of their customers since they never deign to communicate with them. But here is some info from several former GW sales managers, who were quite high up the GW food chain at one point:
filbert wrote:...GW call their customers things like "Geek, Gomer, Sheep, and Pleb"....
Obviously, this sort of terminology doesn't crop up in public but it does give some insight into just how the upper echelons of GW really feel about the people that buy their games.
And thus what happened with TSR. Lorraine Williams despised gamers. Thought they were lonely geeks with poor hygiene. GW has the exact same attitude now. It shows, and it will lead them to the same place as TSR.
Ravenous D wrote: When I worked for the great enemy the higher ups always compared themselves to Porsche, saying things like "Well you never see Porsche having sales, and we are the Porsche of miniatures". And funny enough its echoed to this day from red shirts from time to time
When I was at GW they used to compare themselves to Mercedes. The ones who drank the Kool-Aid would say "GW is the Mercedes of the miniatures industry".
Oddly enough when they used to say that it would indicate they acknowledged GW was part of a larger industry and not self-contained in the "GW Hobby".
Except the difference is, Mercedes will actually sell you an S-Class Mercedes for the $125k price ticket. GW wants to sell you a C-Class Mercedes ($40k) at an S-Class price and tell you how wonderful they are for having ripped you off.
gr1m_dan wrote: I work for a small FLGS in the UK and I can truthfully say if GW went bust, I would be out of a job. So would a lot of other people and I for one hope GW never go out of business. I just hope they can change for the better.
We sell PP, Mantic, Bolt Action, Spartan Games, X-Wing and Magic. GW outsells all of these together on an average month. We've sold around 30 Knights just from in-store alone. Bolt Action and Spartan (Firestorm) have done brilliantly recently and we are really pushing these games at the moment as they have a low cost entry, good profit margins and solid rules that are constantly updated and FAQ'd. We still have more 40k players on our gaming nights but this is changing slowly. The whole attitude is changing in our players too, they are getting more annoyed at GW for certain things BUT love the new models. It's actually the rules that are pissing people off more and more. Especially once they've had a game of Bolt Action or Firestorm to see how a balanced rule set is played. A lot of this is down to "Deathstar" units too. From watching a lot of games we have certain players who will continually use these units and it becomes frustrating as you have to hard counter them. In other games there are less of these deathstar units and it comes down actually playing the tactical side of the game. I still love 40k and my Tau and it will always be my number one game but I am personally tired of getting moaned at by opponents for playing ONE Riptide as it's "cheese" etc.
The Hobbit has been GWs biggest loss in recent times.
And your in the UK where GW has a more dominant street presence and this is happening. Imagine what it is like for everywhere else in the world where GW does NOT have that kind of presence. Hate to tell you this, but it is the point of this thread. The fall does NOT happen slowly, it never does. People always assume it will take a long time once the turning happens. It doesn't - it happens fast. Just in my area, there were still 16 regular 40k players at my local FLGS in November. Fast forward four months later and there are now 2 and the other 14 have all already sold all their 40k stuff and moved on from GW for good. Happens, very, very fast.
The same comments about GW being here a long time based on their size were very similar to those about TSR in it's final days. "They have the brand". "They will never go away." etc. Less than two years later, they were completely gone.
My bet is GW turned this corner the second half of 2013. I would also bet, it is going to accelerate a lot faster from here.
Don't worry about being out of a job. If GW collapses, what is spent on them today will move to other systems to fill the gap. Always does, always will. People spend a certain amount on wargaming and will continue to do so, with or without GW.
Wayshuba wrote: He picked up a $30 plastic Space Marine Librarian and a nearby Hell Dorado character model priced at $10.99. He looked at me and said something to the effect "$11 for metal and $30 for cheap plastic?" This GW company is seriously whacked with what they charge for cheap plastic and I have no interest. You older guys waste your money on this junk, but it is your money. Me and my friends won't go near this game." I told him about it being a character model, explained how troops were cheaper, etc. How fun it was to play with such variety. All the typical drivel we have used for years. His response after my drivel was (and I will never forget this line), "Dude, no game is that good to pay so much money for cheap plastic models."
I have to agree with him. The only reason I still play/paint GW games and miniatures is because I'm so invested into the games (I'm a fan of Lord of the Rings, and Raven Guard Space Marines). But if I was a fresh faced newcomer today in 2014, I wouldn't even consider GW with the current price gouging.
I'd buy a PS4 or a PC instead.
And the lesson I learned from that was: GW believes they are Ferrari. Unfortunately, the younger gamers of today view them as a Chevy - and you are NEVER going to sell a Chevy at a Ferrari price tag.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
drbored wrote: ...snip...But there is not a disconnect between GW and their TARGET AUDIENCE.
A 10% drop in sales, despite a market that grew by over 15% last year and a massive increase in product releases during that time says there is a MASSIVE disconnect between GW and it's audience. They are so concerned about how they can fleece current players that they have completely boxed themselves out of getting NEW customers. In effect, GW was off trends of where they should have been by almost 35%-40%. That is more than a disconnect, it is utter ignorance and, looking at those FACTS, it shows a company very, very close to collapse. This is where TSR was once, and it is where GW is today.
Stupid business all around. In all honesty, if I ever were to run GW from a CEO perspective, the first things I would do on my first day there is fire all of the senior management except for operations (the only part that runs well).
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The Lord of Skulls and the Gyrocopter are high quality, actually. They have a great amount of detail.
'High quality' and 'Has lots of detail' are not synonymous.
Isn't detail a part of quality? What counts as high quality?
Nope. Appropriate use of detail is a sign of quality, merely slathering everything in skulls/filling open spaces with superfluous detail is not.
There is a separation between technical quality, which GW largely does have, and quality of concept and execution, which is where they've been off the mark quite frequently in the last year or two IMO.
gr1m_dan wrote: I work for a small FLGS in the UK and I can truthfully say if GW went bust, I would be out of a job. So would a lot of other people and I for one hope GW never go out of business. I just hope they can change for the better.
We sell PP, Mantic, Bolt Action, Spartan Games, X-Wing and Magic. GW outsells all of these together on an average month. We've sold around 30 Knights just from in-store alone. Bolt Action and Spartan (Firestorm) have done brilliantly recently and we are really pushing these games at the moment as they have a low cost entry, good profit margins and solid rules that are constantly updated and FAQ'd. We still have more 40k players on our gaming nights but this is changing slowly. The whole attitude is changing in our players too, they are getting more annoyed at GW for certain things BUT love the new models. It's actually the rules that are pissing people off more and more. Especially once they've had a game of Bolt Action or Firestorm to see how a balanced rule set is played. A lot of this is down to "Deathstar" units too. From watching a lot of games we have certain players who will continually use these units and it becomes frustrating as you have to hard counter them. In other games there are less of these deathstar units and it comes down actually playing the tactical side of the game. I still love 40k and my Tau and it will always be my number one game but I am personally tired of getting moaned at by opponents for playing ONE Riptide as it's "cheese" etc.
The Hobbit has been GWs biggest loss in recent times.
And your in the UK where GW has a more dominant street presence and this is happening. Imagine what it is like for everywhere else in the world where GW does NOT have that kind of presence. Hate to tell you this, but it is the point of this thread. The fall does NOT happen slowly, it never does. People always assume it will take a long time once the turning happens. It doesn't - it happens fast. Just in my area, there were still 16 regular 40k players at my local FLGS in November. Fast forward four months later and there are now 2 and the other 14 have all already sold all their 40k stuff and moved on from GW for good. Happens, very, very fast.
The same comments about GW being here a long time based on their size were very similar to those about TSR in it's final days. "They have the brand". "They will never go away." etc. Less than two years later, they were completely gone.
My bet is GW turned this corner the second half of 2013. I would also bet, it is going to accelerate a lot faster from here.
Don't worry about being out of a job. If GW collapses, what is spent on them today will move to other systems to fill the gap. Always does, always will. People spend a certain amount on wargaming and will continue to do so, with or without GW.
Wayshuba wrote: He picked up a $30 plastic Space Marine Librarian and a nearby Hell Dorado character model priced at $10.99. He looked at me and said something to the effect "$11 for metal and $30 for cheap plastic?" This GW company is seriously whacked with what they charge for cheap plastic and I have no interest. You older guys waste your money on this junk, but it is your money. Me and my friends won't go near this game." I told him about it being a character model, explained how troops were cheaper, etc. How fun it was to play with such variety. All the typical drivel we have used for years. His response after my drivel was (and I will never forget this line), "Dude, no game is that good to pay so much money for cheap plastic models."
I have to agree with him. The only reason I still play/paint GW games and miniatures is because I'm so invested into the games (I'm a fan of Lord of the Rings, and Raven Guard Space Marines). But if I was a fresh faced newcomer today in 2014, I wouldn't even consider GW with the current price gouging.
I'd buy a PS4 or a PC instead.
And the lesson I learned from that was: GW believes they are Ferrari. Unfortunately, the younger gamers of today view them as a Chevy - and you are NEVER going to sell a Chevy at a Ferrari price tag.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
drbored wrote: ...snip...But there is not a disconnect between GW and their TARGET AUDIENCE.
A 10% drop in sales, despite a market that grew by over 15% last year and a massive increase in product releases during that time says there is a MASSIVE disconnect between GW and it's audience. They are so concerned about how they can fleece current players that they have completely boxed themselves out of getting NEW customers. In effect, GW was off trends of where they should have been by almost 35%-40%. That is more than a disconnect, it is utter ignorance.
Stupid business all around. In all honesty, if I ever were to run GW from a CEO perspective, the first things I would do on my first day there is fire all of the senior management except for operations (the only part that runs well).
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't detail a part of quality? What counts as high quality?
Detail doesn't automatically mean quality, no.
Those 'Corpsehammer' models that popped up on Kickstarter a while back where covered in detail. So is the Pumbagore, and the original Chaos Obliterators.
Detail that adds to the overall aesthetics of the model can be a sign of a quality sculpt. Detail for the sake of detail, not so much... and even the former doesn't entirely excuse other flaws in the model.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The Lord of Skulls and the Gyrocopter are high quality, actually. They have a great amount of detail.
'High quality' and 'Has lots of detail' are not synonymous.
Isn't detail a part of quality? What counts as high quality?
Nope. Appropriate use of detail is a sign of quality, merely slathering everything in skulls/filling open spaces with superfluous detail is not.
There is a separation between technical quality, which GW largely does have, and quality of concept and execution, which is where they've been off the mark quite frequently in the last year or two IMO.
Ah yes, that is true. Technical wise, GW models are high quality. Conceptually though...yeah, it can get silly.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The Lord of Skulls and the Gyrocopter are high quality, actually. They have a great amount of detail.
'High quality' and 'Has lots of detail' are not synonymous.
Isn't detail a part of quality? What counts as high quality?
Detail is a part of quality, but is not, in and of itself, an indicator of quality.
A Ducati motorcycle is an incredibly understated machine in terms of appearance, especially as compared to something like a Harley Davidson, yet few would argue that Ducati doesn't make some of the greatest motorcycles in the world in terms of quality.
In terms of miniatures, GW made the Razorgor and (more recently) the Skull Cannon. These are two highly detailed and incredibly ugly (ie., low quality) models.
And, personally, I would never call the Gyrocopter model "high quality" in terms of appearance. I play Dwarfs, and I'll never put one of those GW flying bathtubs on the table.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The Lord of Skulls and the Gyrocopter are high quality, actually. They have a great amount of detail.
'High quality' and 'Has lots of detail' are not synonymous.
Isn't detail a part of quality? What counts as high quality?
Detail is a part of quality, but is not, in and of itself, an indicator of quality.
A Ducati motorcycle is an incredibly understated machine in terms of appearance, especially as compared to something like a Harley Davidson, yet few would argue that Ducati doesn't make some of the greatest motorcycles in the world in terms of quality.
In terms of miniatures, GW made the Razorgor and (more recently) the Skull Cannon. These are two highly detailed and incredibly ugly (ie., low quality) models.
And, personally, I would never call the Gyrocopter model "high quality" in terms of appearance. I play Dwarfs, and I'll never put one of those GW flying bathtubs on the table.
I don't think design aesthetic is quality, but more preference.
As for quality, I would rate GW plastic kits higher than soft chinese plastics but lower than the high-durability plastic used by Lego. As for their kit quality, they are no better (or worse) than DreamForge, Wyrd or Privateer Press. Them including "options" on a sprue doesn't make the kit any higher quality.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ah yes, that is true. Technical wise, GW models are high quality.
As games pieces? Sure.
As models? Not particularly. Some of the metals were, but their plastics suffer from the choice of a softer grade of polystyrene to that normally used by model companies, to make the models less brittle and this more durable on the table. As a side effect of the softer plastic, though, they lack the crisp definition that is only possible in a harder plastic, and parts have to be chunkier so you lose the superfine detailing available with harder plastic (stuff like aerials and banner poles and spears that have to be ridiculously thick so they don't snap during use). Because they have to factor in ease of assembly, they sacrifice detail and make design choices around fitting the models into a given box rather than around what makes the best model. And their intermittent moulding issues (I've had some absolutely appalling mould misallignments on Marine sprues) add a whole extra layer of fun.
GW has some awesome designs. But the actual execution of those designs is hindered by the intended function as a game piece, rather than a display piece.
gr1m_dan wrote: I work for a small FLGS in the UK ... We still have more 40k players on our gaming nights but this is changing slowly. The whole attitude is changing in our players too, they are getting more annoyed at GW for certain things BUT love the new models. It's actually the rules that are pissing people off more and more. Especially once they've had a game of Bolt Action or Firestorm to see how a balanced rule set is played.
I think this portion is the key statement in the post. In the UK, a place where GW is the dominate table top game and has been so for years, the FLGS operators are seeing a change in people who traditionally love GW. I think that speaks volumes. People aren't forging a narrative or doing house rules, the slowly starting to look else where.
I remember when Warmachine came out and was introduced at my store. One guy got it and was talking to us about it. At first, most of us looked down our noses at it, but eventually some of use gave it a try. I think for about 6 months, only two people in the store played Warmachine, with everyone else playing 40K. 3 months later, 8 of the 10 regulars had Warmachine armies, with the only hold outs being a guy who didn't play a lot anymore and someone who had other things come up in his life, so he was extremely busy. 40K was still played occasionally, but most people played Warmachine and Fantasy basically went completely way. Point being that when it transitions, it will be fast. All it takes is for people to have back to back bad 40K games and consistently good experiences with another game to get people interested.
I don't know where your store stands on it's relationship with GW, but you guys could push the crowd to new games. Offer up a tournament with a new game system that people seem to like at a low points value. Offer a discount to buy in with some prizes at the end. Organized play is a good way to get people into new game systems because people will play them once they know they can get consistent games. My FLGS did this with Star Trek Attack Wing and basically doubled the number of players.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The Lord of Skulls and the Gyrocopter are high quality, actually. They have a great amount of detail.
'High quality' and 'Has lots of detail' are not synonymous.
Isn't detail a part of quality? What counts as high quality?
Detail is a part of quality, but is not, in and of itself, an indicator of quality.
A Ducati motorcycle is an incredibly understated machine in terms of appearance, especially as compared to something like a Harley Davidson, yet few would argue that Ducati doesn't make some of the greatest motorcycles in the world in terms of quality.
In terms of miniatures, GW made the Razorgor and (more recently) the Skull Cannon. These are two highly detailed and incredibly ugly (ie., low quality) models.
And, personally, I would never call the Gyrocopter model "high quality" in terms of appearance. I play Dwarfs, and I'll never put one of those GW flying bathtubs on the table.
I don't think design aesthetic is quality, but more preference.
As for quality, I would rate GW plastic kits higher than soft chinese plastics but lower than the high-durability plastic used by Lego. As for their kit quality, they are no better (or worse) than DreamForge, Wyrd or Privateer Press. Them including "options" on a sprue doesn't make the kit any higher quality.
Options can increase value, but they have to be something the customer actually wants. What GW has done with its combo kits is transparent and sort of annoying.
To save money you make a dual kit, meaning that the design is constrained by having to share common parts between two different models in such a way that one cannot use the spares to make extra models. Then, you increase the price of that kit, telling me that it has more value because it is a "dual" kit. You get to have fewer product codes, less inventory taking up space, and fewer molds, and in return I have to pay good money for plastic parts that I have no earthly use for. Thanks GW, good thing I'm a moron or I might be upset by that!
weeble1000 wrote: Options can increase value, but they have to be something the customer actually wants. What GW has done with its combo kits is transparent and sort of annoying.
To save money you make a dual kit, meaning that the design is constrained by having to share common parts between two different models in such a way that one cannot use the spares to make extra models. Then, you increase the price of that kit, telling me that it has more value because it is a "dual" kit. You get to have fewer product codes, less inventory taking up space, and fewer molds, and in return I have to pay good money for plastic parts that I have no earthly use for. Thanks GW, good thing I'm a moron or I might be upset by that!
Yes, I can see your point and agree.
I cannot help thinking they really had an opportunity to make good with their customers in this regard and messed up.
I still remember a "Mach 1" car model I bought for the same price as all the other model kits out there and was overwhelmed with all the options:
-2 rim sets.
-2 tire sets.
-4 options for hood scoop / cut-out.
-4 intake / carb options.
- 2 interiors (racing or street).
- 3 options for spoilers.
When I was done I had 2 extra engines, I wish I knew then about magnets I do now.
As pointed out, with the adjustment to the Baneblade kit, we now are able to make any of the Super Heavy tanks.
They could save huge money on one kit fits all and do a modest price increase or not at all but they chose not to.
The extra bits alone I am sure I could put to good use (Fortress with mounted Shadowsword gun anyone?) but it is irritating .
We are now overly attuned that EVERY change GW makes is ALWAYS a disproportionate price hike which just makes us all the more upset each time.
I truly am glad I bought my two tanks before the change, the cost savings in comparison I could have bought a third tank.
weeble1000 wrote: Options can increase value, but they have to be something the customer actually wants. What GW has done with its combo kits is transparent and sort of annoying.
To save money you make a dual kit, meaning that the design is constrained by having to share common parts between two different models in such a way that one cannot use the spares to make extra models. Then, you increase the price of that kit, telling me that it has more value because it is a "dual" kit. You get to have fewer product codes, less inventory taking up space, and fewer molds, and in return I have to pay good money for plastic parts that I have no earthly use for. Thanks GW, good thing I'm a moron or I might be upset by that!
Yes, I can see your point and agree. I cannot help thinking they really had an opportunity to make good with their customers in this regard and messed up.
I still remember a "Mach 1" car model I bought for the same price as all the other model kits out there and was overwhelmed with all the options: -2 rim sets. -2 tire sets. -4 options for hood scoop / cut-out. -4 intake / carb options. - 2 interiors (racing or street). - 3 options for spoilers. When I was done I had 2 extra engines, I wish I knew then about magnets I do now.
As pointed out, with the adjustment to the Baneblade kit, we now are able to make any of the Super Heavy tanks. They could save huge money on one kit fits all and do a modest price increase or not at all but they chose not to. The extra bits alone I am sure I could put to good use (Fortress with mounted Shadowsword gun anyone?) but it is irritating .
We are now overly attuned that EVERY change GW makes is ALWAYS a disproportionate price hike which just makes us all the more upset each time. I truly am glad I bought my two tanks before the change, the cost savings in comparison I could have bought a third tank.
Sometimes the bits are useful, but plenty of times they just aren't. Options that add value are fantastic, but there's also a question of how much value they really add. Does the added value of the extra bits and options justify a price increase? I absolutely think models should come with all available unit options. As an IG player, it was always super frustrating that you had to hunt down special weapon bits. If you can't build the unit in a way that corresponds to the game rules, that's a huge problem.
The most annoying thing with dual kits is when you can use it to build one of two entirely different units, and when assembled as one type of unit, the bits that you would use for the different unit are both superfluous and used to justify a price increase. It is one thing when you buy an IG squad and don't use the flamer because you decided to build a squad with a grenade launcher. It is another thing when you buy a unit of Witch Elves and have to pay extra for Sisters of Slaughter bits.
If instead of Sisters of Slaughter bits you got half a dozen variant heads for your Witch Elves, bits to WYSIWYG every possible Witch Elf unit option, and a variety of optional aesthetic bits to customize the look of your individual Witch Elf models, that would be great and add some value to the kit, possibly only in helping it compete with kits from competitors at a similar price point. But that kit, for example, only includes variant heads and weapons that make a unit of Sisters of Slaughter if you use them. So now you can't use them if you follow GW's WYSIWYG game rules because your Witch Elves might be confused for Sisters of Slaughter. So they are literally useless in the context of the kit itself and space on a sprue that could have included swanky options for your Witch Elves is eaten up by useless crap you are forced to pay extra for.
It reminds me of Andy Jones in the Chapterhouse case, belligerently insisting that a product that contains one bit that you want and 10 bits you don't want means that GW sells the bit you want.
You can't buy just a power fist from Games Workshop, can you?
Sure, you can buy this accessory pack. You get the power fist and a whole bunch of bits for your bits box along with it!
But GW doesn't just sell a power fist product, correct?
In this accessory pack you can buy the power fist.
But you have to buy the other parts to get the power fist, correct?
You GET the other parts along with the power fist! You buy the power fist and it comes with these other extra parts that you can use later.
Let's not forget in your example, and I don't think it's isolated, or will be given a few more release waves, that the basic WE choice is priced at the Elite price of the Sister's too.
You can tell they're not as concerned with their WHFB as if they sold their precious Marines as a dual ten man Tactical/Sternguard squad for £50 there'd be hell to pay.
azreal13 wrote: Let's not forget in your example, and I don't think it's isolated, or will be given a few more release waves, that the basic WE choice is priced at the Elite price of the Sister's too.
You can tell they're not as concerned with their WHFB as if they sold their precious Marines as a dual ten man Tactical/Sternguard squad for £50 there'd be hell to pay.
Lol, yea, I forgot about the pricing issue. No wonder WHFB is dying.
My big concern is that if GW does go under are there still going to be people playing the game? I have over 12,000 points of Eldar and I would hate to not be able to play the game anymore.
Xerics wrote: My big concern is that if GW does go under are there still going to be people playing the game? I have over 12,000 points of Eldar and I would hate to not be able to play the game anymore.
Nope. Everyone knows that GW inscribes runes into all the hardback covers. When GW goes under, all Kirby needs to do is sacrifice a goat at the alter in his office and all the hardback books will self-immolate.
Seriously, you've still got your models. You can still use GW's rules if you want to, or even find a new set. Plenty of free generic sci-fi rules to adapt 40k to.
Barfolomew wrote: I remember when Warmachine came out and was introduced at my store.......I think for about 6 months, only two people in the store played Warmachine, with everyone else playing 40K. 3 months later, 8 of the 10 regulars had Warmachine armies,........40K was still played occasionally, but most people played Warmachine and Fantasy basically went completely way. Point being that when it transitions, it will be fast. All it takes is for people to have back to back bad 40K games and consistently good experiences with another game to get people interested.
See this is exactly the opposite of what I see in my area. The only tabletop games I regularly see played around here are 40K, SAGA and Flames of War. I see the occasional Star Wars and Firestorm Armada being played, but that's pretty rare. When I do see a game of Warmahordes being played one of the players is almost always a PP staffer.
There are so many game systems out there that have their own miniatures line it's (IMHO) been hard to find players for them. That's why I spend most of my time now just painting.
I own several other game systems, but never get to play them because there just aren't any players in my area or they just don't go to the same stores I do or not at all. I spent a lot of money on the Ogre Kickstarter, but haven't been able to find anyone to play it yet. Same thing with Sedition Wars and Pike & Shotte. I have a lot of painted miniatures and armies, most of which have never seen the tabletop due to lack of players.
I think GW has the market is has simply due to it being easy to find players. If I'm going to spend money on an army I want to use it.
IF Gw suddenly went belly up and disappeared The popularity of the main products will ensure that both 40k and fantasy will continue to be played and will be expanded upon, by fans.
Hobbyists who have invested in these two systems will still be able to play for years to come.
And I have to say, even though I have moved on from GW, that there will be a gaping black hole should GW go. I posit that a swathe of hobbyists will not pick up another system. and, as above, players invested enough will continue with the game they love.
PP, Corus, Battlefront, mantic, et al, are all fighting for the same pool of hobbyists and those who drop GW as their main hobby/game focus.
Xerics wrote: My big concern is that if GW does go under are there still going to be people playing the game? I have over 12,000 points of Eldar and I would hate to not be able to play the game anymore.
Nope. Everyone knows that GW inscribes runes into all the hardback covers. When GW goes under, all Kirby needs to do is sacrifice a goat at the alter in his office and all the hardback books will self-immolate.
Seriously, you've still got your models. You can still use GW's rules if you want to, or even find a new set. Plenty of free generic sci-fi rules to adapt 40k to.
Sure, you'll be able to, in the strictest sense. All currently published material will continue to exist. But the community will die off, precipitously. It will get harder and harder to find pick-up games at the FLGS, and other games will become the new norm. So yeah, you'll be able to play, but it'll get a lot harder.
On topic, a sudden collapse would be terrible for the wider wargaming community. Thankfully, that isn't happening. GW isn't going to fold up this year, or even next year. The year after that? Maybe. Depends on whether they can turn things around. Wayshuba has a pretty compelling case here. The similarities are undeniable.
i am sure GW sold close to 10,000 knights this month so they are moving nearly $1 million of product in a month. I know my local store ran through 50 knights this month. do they have issues sure. will they crash in burn in the next 10 years. No. I have $30k betting that they do ok this year.
If GW went away, I think PP would be the next big dog. They're slowly but constantly growing and now that they're getting a stable of best selling authors on their team more people will become acquainted with them.
prplehippo wrote: See this is exactly the opposite of what I see in my area ... There are so many game systems out there that have their own miniatures line it's (IMHO) been hard to find players for them. That's why I spend most of my time now just painting. I own several other game systems, but never get to play them because there just aren't any players in my area or they just don't go to the same stores I do or not at all ... I have a lot of painted miniatures and armies, most of which have never seen the tabletop due to lack of players.
Probably pushing too many games. When my store picked up Warmachine, it was really the only other game that was being played. Flames of War was introduced later, but no one really picked it up because having 3 games was a bit steep for many people. Also, almost no one had more than one 40K army, which meant games got to be repetitive.
I'd recommend getting two small armies (or proxy) for whatever game system you like the best and presenting that as an option.
People also don't like playing games they can't immediately get engaged in. I'd like to try dropzone commander, but no one has it and even if they did, I don't know of any stores in my area that carry it. Chances of me actually purchasing it are about zero, where I can pick up Star Wars X-wing very easily.
LotD, as if you take a pure army, they don't get permission to deploy normally and must still DS, and don't get exclusion from the auto lose if you've got no models on the table at the end of the turn rule. [/q
I heard the rule for first turn deep strike was in the glossary only. NOW I "HEARD" THIS... so I maybe wrong. But the codec is rife with typos and errors.
MWHistorian wrote: If GW went away, I think PP would be the next big dog. They're slowly but constantly growing and now that they're getting a stable of best selling authors on their team more people will become acquainted with them.
PP are in not a "Big Dog". They are actually pretty small. PP is still smaller than GW was back in the early 90's. PP is also a very poorly managed company.
Yes they are very good at community relations and game creation, but the overall management of the company is horrible, especially in the manufacturing/packing area. They are bleeding money and don't even know enough about the manufacturing process to even know it.
Every person they hired with experience in those areas has quit or been fired. When staff had complaints (and moral was really low) about the problems they were having, management's answer was basically to tell them "Shut up, stop complaining, or else".
I like Warmachine and Hordes, I like their models as well. Much of the management staff I had to work with I wish would get hit by a truck and die.
MWHistorian wrote: I guess you missed the part where I said, the next "big dog" as in, they're not the big dog yet but they appear to be growing, not shrinking.
Not at all. But after working there for several years and seeing how poorly that company is run (and continues to be run) I'd put money they'd be more likely to go under before they hit anywhere near GW's level of business.
Xerics wrote: My big concern is that if GW does go under are there still going to be people playing the game? I have over 12,000 points of Eldar and I would hate to not be able to play the game anymore.
Hell, with 12,000 points you could split your army up into multiple armies, lend them to friends and have yourself an Eldar Civil War.
MWHistorian wrote: I guess you missed the part where I said, the next "big dog" as in, they're not the big dog yet but they appear to be growing, not shrinking.
Not at all. But after working there for several years and seeing how poorly that company is run (and continues to be run) I'd put money they'd be more likely to go under before they hit anywhere near GW's level of business.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I see a lot of people talking about how the demise of GW = the end of 40K.
Why do people think 40K needs GW to survive?
^This.
Just take a cursory glance at the first 10 pages or so in the Proposed Rules section. You'll see tons of stuff people theorize into injecting into the game, if not straight up creating their own new entire fan codices.
If GW goes under, Warhammer 40k might actually flourish. I think Disney will do a better job with the Star Wars liscence than George Lucas did this past decade, as an example of a beloved IP changing ownership.
Even if no one picked it up, with no one to defend the rights of the IP anymore, it'll be easier and easier for places like Chapterhouse to not produce "compatible with" parts but straight up make their own "official" 40k stuff. The universe is alive and well and might actually progress for the first time in 30 years once GW bellies up in the next decade.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ah yes, that is true. Technical wise, GW models are high quality.
As games pieces? Sure.
As models? Not particularly. Some of the metals were, but their plastics suffer from the choice of a softer grade of polystyrene to that normally used by model companies, to make the models less brittle and this more durable on the table. As a side effect of the softer plastic, though, they lack the crisp definition that is only possible in a harder plastic, and parts have to be chunkier so you lose the superfine detailing available with harder plastic (stuff like aerials and banner poles and spears that have to be ridiculously thick so they don't snap during use). Because they have to factor in ease of assembly, they sacrifice detail and make design choices around fitting the models into a given box rather than around what makes the best model. And their intermittent moulding issues (I've had some absolutely appalling mould misallignments on Marine sprues) add a whole extra layer of fun.
GW has some awesome designs. But the actual execution of those designs is hindered by the intended function as a game piece, rather than a display piece.
Exactly. The recent Imperial Knight is an excellent example. While it is very aesthetically pleasing (it looks awesome), the model itself is an utter failure of model design. The two weapons apparently share too many parts to be able to be swapped, and the model has extremely limited articulation. One need only look at the Dreamforge Leviathan or any number of Japanese Gundam kits to see what can be done with a model's design. Especially for $140, GW (as the self proclaimed market leader) could, and absolutely should, be doing better.
These doom and gloom threads make me sad inside. Like a couple people pointed out, the trickle down from GW going down would likely crush a portion of the table top market.
Though, GW has such a valuable IP, whether it survives or not, Warhammer 40k will, and that is all that matters to me.
side note: Why are so many people keen on Victoria's Minis but rage at GW? I love the look of some of those minis over there, I really do, I'd LOVE to make an IG army using them. It is also $50 for 10. I know they why its $50, I get it. But why on earth are people so keen on them but a $35 pack from GW is like GW is killing your children?
Saevus wrote: side note: Why are so many people keen on Victoria's Minis but rage at GW? I love the look of some of those minis over there, I really do, I'd LOVE to make an IG army using them. It is also $50 for 10. I know they why its $50, I get it. But why on earth are people so keen on them but a $35 pack from GW is like GW is killing your children?
The people who complain about GW's prices aren't necessarily the same people who are happy with Vic's prices.
And even if they are, some people are willing to pay more for better sculpts. It's not solely the price that is the issue with GW - it's the price for the specific product.
There's also the fact that VIC doesn't charge different prices depending on where you're from. As a result, for some of us the price difference between 10 Cadians and 10 of Vic's minis is negligible.
Saevus wrote: These doom and gloom threads make me sad inside. Like a couple people pointed out, the trickle down from GW going down would likely crush a portion of the table top market.
Though, GW has such a valuable IP, whether it survives or not, Warhammer 40k will, and that is all that matters to me.
side note: Why are so many people keen on Victoria's Minis but rage at GW? I love the look of some of those minis over there, I really do, I'd LOVE to make an IG army using them. It is also $50 for 10. I know they why its $50, I get it. But why on earth are people so keen on them but a $35 pack from GW is like GW is killing your children?
Because they're fairly priced for resin and metal minis.
GW's troops boxes are just about their most reasonably (even fairly) priced kits, yet are still massively more expensive than kits of comparable complexity from the likes of Dreamforge or the Perrys. That is in despite of GW being in a position to benefit massively more from economies of scale than any of their competition.
People consistently prove that price isn't a barrier for this, or any other hobby, it is value at the heart of the issue, and people feel that 10 Vic Guardsmen for $50 is a fair deal with all that is entailed, whether it be aesthetic, variety, quality, interaction with the artist, whatever, but take issue with GW because the quality of their product for the price they demand doesn't offer them the same value.
Saevus wrote: These doom and gloom threads make me sad inside. Like a couple people pointed out, the trickle down from GW going down would likely crush a portion of the table top market.
Though, GW has such a valuable IP, whether it survives or not, Warhammer 40k will, and that is all that matters to me.
side note: Why are so many people keen on Victoria's Minis but rage at GW? I love the look of some of those minis over there, I really do, I'd LOVE to make an IG army using them. It is also $50 for 10. I know they why its $50, I get it. But why on earth are people so keen on them but a $35 pack from GW is like GW is killing your children?
Because they're fairly priced for resin and metal minis.
GW's troops boxes are just about their most reasonably (even fairly) priced kits, yet are still massively more expensive than kits of comparable complexity from the likes of Dreamforge or the Perrys. That is in despite of GW being in a position to benefit massively more from economies of scale than any of their competition.
People consistently prove that price isn't a barrier for this, or any other hobby, it is value at the heart of the issue, and people feel that 10 Vic Guardsmen for $50 is a fair deal with all that is entailed, whether it be aesthetic, variety, quality, interaction with the artist, whatever, but take issue with GW because the quality of their product for the price they demand doesn't offer them the same value.
Bingo.
This is why I never understood GW's legal position with Chapterhouse Studios. You claim that X product is a copy of your artwork, but customers pay more for it because it looks different. It should be common sense. The fact that the product has different aesthetics is what makes it attractive to consumers. The proof is in the pudding, and one should not need to innumerate similarities or differences to understand that if a piece of artwork sells because it looks different from another piece of artwork, you have an original expression, copyrightable in its own right.
Heck if someone else picks up 40k after games workshop has crashed and burned I hope they crash and burn faster. We might see some better rule writing and cheaper prices. The golden age of tabletop wargaming will return once more.
Xerics wrote: No we aren't. A few races are overpowered and the current company that owns 40k is doing it on purpose to fatten their wallets.
Some of us see this as a golden age for miniatures that aren't games workshop.
Heck, I love some of GW's kits so I'll call it a miniatures golden age, but 40k is
not a game I'm currently playing so that stuff gets bought after I feed my current
demons.
I have 12,000 points of Eldar. I have enough invested in this game that I don't want to get into another miniature game. As far as I am concerned there is only 40k because of the amount of money invested in the pieces and the time I have spent painting them (even if they aren't all quite finished yet).
Xerics wrote: I have 12,000 points of Eldar. I have enough invested in this game that I don't want to get into another miniature game. As far as I am concerned there is only 40k because of the amount of money invested in the pieces and the time I have spent painting them (even if they aren't all quite finished yet).
I don't know if I could underscore how much is out there you're missing out on.
As long as you understand that GW is not the only thing out there, and indeed the miniature wargaming market has arguably never been healthier.
Xerics wrote: I have 12,000 points of Eldar. I have enough invested in this game that I don't want to get into another miniature game. As far as I am concerned there is only 40k because of the amount of money invested in the pieces and the time I have spent painting them (even if they aren't all quite finished yet).
While thats totally understandable I still don't think that means that its not possible that we are currently in a golden age of wargaming.
Xerics wrote: I have 12,000 points of Eldar. I have enough invested in this game that I don't want to get into another miniature game. As far as I am concerned there is only 40k because of the amount of money invested in the pieces and the time I have spent painting them (even if they aren't all quite finished yet).
The fact that you're choosing to ignore everything else and just use 40K as the benchmark of the health of wargaming in general doesn't change the fact that all that other stuff is out there...
carlos13th wrote: It may not be the golden age of GW but it could be argued its a golden age for tabletop gaming.
I havent been into Wargaming for long enough to judge what is and isnt a golden age but I could see an argument being made for it atm.
It's definitely a golden age right now. Look at the range of different games in different scales and game sizes and genres. If you're limiting yourself to Games Workshop games, even if you enjoy them, you're doing yourself a huge disservice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xerics wrote: I have 12,000 points of Eldar. I have enough invested in this game that I don't want to get into another miniature game. As far as I am concerned there is only 40k because of the amount of money invested in the pieces and the time I have spent painting them (even if they aren't all quite finished yet).
See, I'd argue the opposite way. You have 12,000 points of a single army. What could you possibly need? You could sit on that for the rest of your gaming life and never need another Eldar model, aside from the odd new unit you want.
This is the perfect time to try something else. Especially when, for some games out there, you can buy an entire 'army' for the cost of a single large GW model. A good example is Infinity. You can buy a 300pt force which will be perfectly playable for the forseeable future of the game for the cost of a Wraithknight. All rules and markers and templates are free. The most extra you'll need to buy is about 5 D20's. You can buy the Malifaux rulebook and a crew or two for the cost of a Wraithknight. All you need on top of that is a regular deck of cards, which is used in place of dice.
Ignoring games that are on the market because you have too much 40k already is nonsense.
Xerics wrote: I have 12,000 points of Eldar. I have enough invested in this game that I don't want to get into another miniature game. As far as I am concerned there is only 40k because of the amount of money invested in the pieces and the time I have spent painting them (even if they aren't all quite finished yet).
I have lots of 40k stuff, too. I haven't bothered to calculate the points lately.
Saevus wrote: These doom and gloom threads make me sad inside. Like a couple people pointed out, the trickle down from GW going down would likely crush a portion of the table top market.
Though, GW has such a valuable IP, whether it survives or not, Warhammer 40k will, and that is all that matters to me.
side note: Why are so many people keen on Victoria's Minis but rage at GW? I love the look of some of those minis over there, I really do, I'd LOVE to make an IG army using them. It is also $50 for 10. I know they why its $50, I get it. But why on earth are people so keen on them but a $35 pack from GW is like GW is killing your children?
For me its quality and variety. For example, there's a beef jerky company in Kentucky called Mingua Bros that I love. A 7oz bag costs $14. Its also absolutely delicious, and the company is constantly adding new flavors and trying new things. So even though the jerky costs more than other brands, I'm happy to pay it because I feel its worth the increase in price and I want to support the company.
Yes, Vic's minis are almost twice GW's Cadians or Catachans price in my area. They're also far higher quality and have aesthetics I like better. Plus Vic listens to her customers and constantly improves. This is a luxury good that I do as a hobby. I am already "wasting" money on little plastic army men. So why not get the best thing I can? I can either spend my money on a kit that's poor value for the quality like GW, or I could pay more and get what I really want like Victoria Lamb, kromlech, etc. Its the same reason a guitarist might drop three times the money to buy a legitimate Gibson SG over an Epiphone one, or why a person might want a real Shelby Cobra instead of a recreation.
Simply put, I don't feel 10 Cadians from GW are worth $30. If I wanted cheap ground pounders, Dreamforge has their stormtroopers with superior detail, better proportions and looks, and better casting at 20 guys for only about 10 bucks more. If I'm wanting purely kickass looking guard to paint, Vics minis have far superior detail and aesthetics, more options, are top notch quality. So why would I bother with GW? They don't make minis high enough quality to justify their price to me, and they dont sell them cheap enough to let me just ignore the quality either. If they can't fulfill either of those niches, why would I bother with them?
Moustaffa you have rasied an important point there about value. Cost and value are very sepeate. Something that costs more can be more valuable to a person than for a vareity of reasons. What has value to me may not have value to you and vice versa.
I am looking to pick up some miniatures from a place called Steel Fist miniatures. They make what are quite possible my favourite Samurai miniatures. They are some of the more expensive Samurai miniatures around but are still cheaper/around the same price as the Kensei miniatures. Steel fist are more expensive than perry Samurai too but what they offer is differnt to me from what perry offer.
The research that goes into them the uniqueness of them and the fact the guy who makes them is a really nice and helpful guy all factor into my perception that these are worth the extra cost compared to some other miniatures.
Both those miniature companies however are cheaper than GW and have more value for me than buying from GW which is a large part of the reason I am getting rid of a large amount of my GW stuff except the stuff I really want to paint but not play with.
I would agree with you about the guard and Catachan where they are to expensive for what they are.
To be fair, most tabletop gamers currently are either 40k gamers or ex 40k gamers, esp. as the follow up companies are no serious thread as they are run so poorly. If 40k would vanish, you won't get a global Warmahordes/Malifaux/Infinity/SAGA/Godslayer/FoW community of the same size. And X-Wing StarTrekAttackWing are in a different league, basically closer to board games, prepainted and all. Having all those small wargames is nice, but they will be a different size for a long time.
OTOH the 40k setting is too valuable to be left in the hands of economic amateurs. If GW "goes under", it will soon rise again under a more professional management. There is no economic reason, why GW is in such a bad shape, it is all self made by a consistent series of WTF decisions. A new management could easily achieve a sustainable growth within two years.
You say that like its a bad thing Kroot. I'd be glad if no single company gained such a foothold again. While we do owe the current situation to GW, another company 'taking over' the majority of the market after them wouldn't be ideal. It would just strangle the market all over again.
The "current situation" of the whole wargames market is up for debate.
GW ascended to its current position on a rocket booster made of successful retail of original games, licensed games and distributed games.
Now they only have WH and (LoTR).
GW undoubtedly were important in increasing the hobby games market overall. You only need to look at the number of people who fondly remember Talisman and other games from GW.
Whether they are so vital or effective now is another thing. There was a vibrant tabletop wargames hobby before WH. It won't collapse if WH goes away.
It would certainly be bad news for WH players and the companies that produce add-ons and alternatives for WH. It might be great news for the various F/SF games that are minor alternatives to GW -- Infinity, Warmachine, and Kings of War for instance. People drawn into wargames by 40K are probably more likely to go on to other SF type games.
I don't see how Historicals would be affected at all.
Xerics wrote: I have 12,000 points of Eldar. I have enough invested in this game that I don't want to get into another miniature game. As far as I am concerned there is only 40k because of the amount of money invested in the pieces and the time I have spent painting them (even if they aren't all quite finished yet).
This is the perfect time to try something else. Especially when, for some games out there, you can buy an entire 'army' for the cost of a single large GW model. A good example is Infinity. You can buy a 300pt force which will be perfectly playable for the forseeable future of the game for the cost of a Wraithknight. All rules and markers and templates are free. The most extra you'll need to buy is about 5 D20's. You can buy the Malifaux rulebook and a crew or two for the cost of a Wraithknight. All you need on top of that is a regular deck of cards, which is used in place of dice.
Ignoring games that are on the market because you have too much 40k already is nonsense.
Or Dark Age where for the price of a Knight, you could buy an entire warband and still have $20-$30 left over.
I really do have an incalculable amount of 40k miniatures (or nothing reasonable a couple days would be needed for inventory count...).
I have a vested interest in at least the 40k game and it's IP, GW maybe not as much.
The models I bought in "good faith" allow me to play pick-up games pretty much anywhere and the wargaming geek in me is content (other than the occasional pain in the rear new rules).
GW dying would put that in jeopardy and the question of who would buy their IP would be the big question.
I do agree there is no time like now try new things.
I still love Battletech "classic".
Federation Commander from Star Trek is a fun game.
X-wing I got a bit of everything from each wave and is one of the fastest games to get into for tabletop.
I bought into Robotech, will see if that pans out anytime soon.
The great thing is that the competition IS so much cheaper you can have a large and rewarding game for a fraction of the cost.
So you can say I am rather torn with GW, I want the situation of management and rules to improve.
The only thing they will listen to is loss of revenue.
They are rather slow to reacting to that however.
They are even worse at interpreting the reason for it.
So, roll the dice, hope they go under and hope someone better runs things?
Or they die altogether an hope for something like "Net Epic Armageddon"?http://www.net-armageddon.org/
Anyway, going to a tabletop gaming convention this weekend called "HotLead" http://www.hotlead.ca/ and I intend to not play a single game of 40k.
brettz123 wrote: I agree with most of your post but TSR did not go bust because of any of what you are talking about. At the end of the day they went out of business so suddenly because they published too many hard cover fiction books in the previous year that did not sell well and when their publisher demanded they buy them back they did not have the cash on hand to pay off the debt.
Now certainly everything you pointed out contributed to the situation but without the forced buy back I would guess TSR would have been around for a lot longer. So my guess is unless GW has a similar issue pop up you will either see a very slow demise over time or a continued loss of sales until they finally get they need to change how they do business.
Yes, TSR spent a couple of years cramming the book market with titles that weren't selling as well. When they told their current publisher they were dumping them to move to self publishing, the current publisher wisely excercised it's right to return all those books to TSR, rather than continue to eat them themselves. TSR lost millions.
The rise, fall, and aquisition by WOTC has actually been documented quite well. Check out '30 years of TSR' for a start. Very interesting reading.
It's not so much that there are parallels between TSR and GW, as their are parallels shared by all businesses seeking short term profit over long term goals. Generally speaking, it does not lead to a stable business in the future.
If GW are done with Specialist Games why not let them go? Cyanide did a good with Bloodbowl and the Confrontation world. Why not let then do BFG or Necromunda? As it stands GW are getting no money for this IP, licensing with have them get money for doing nothing.
Wolfstan wrote: Why not let then do BFG or Necromunda? As it stands GW are getting no money for this IP, licensing with have them get money for doing nothing.
Both of those games would require some kind of licensing of the art work and potential models resulting from the artwork in the 40K universe, GWs current top sell and have the potential to generate competition.
For the same reason they killed them off Wolfstan. The upper management saw the specialist games as competition for the core games (40k, WFB, LOTR), It wasn't about time and cost and effort as much as it was that those games (several of which were better than the current state of the big 3) took players away from the others. Their mistake IMO was that they assumed the players of those games would just throw it all out, stop playing them, and go back to buying the other 3.
For that reason, they'd see licensing them out as creating their own competition.
Kyrolon wrote: For the same reason they killed them off Wolfstan. The upper management saw the specialist games as competition for the core games (40k, WFB, LOTR), It wasn't about time and cost and effort as much as it was that those games (several of which were better than the current state of the big 3) took players away from the others. Their mistake IMO was that they assumed the players of those games would just throw it all out, stop playing them, and go back to buying the other 3.
For that reason, they'd see licensing them out as creating their own competition.
Which proves that GW's management never heard of Howard Moskowitz.
Variety sells. By reducing the number of systems available GW blew their own foot off.
Wolfstan wrote: Why not let then do BFG or Necromunda? As it stands GW are getting no money for this IP, licensing with have them get money for doing nothing.
Both of those games would require some kind of licensing of the art work and potential models resulting from the artwork in the 40K universe, GWs current top sell and have the potential to generate competition.
But they don't don't have to do any work. They license it out (at no cost to them) and then get an income from the licensing. How on earth is having a CGI BFG going to affect sales of GW models. Gamers will still want models, this is a bonus.
If the game is done right you will also have non wargamers buy it. Ok they aren't going to buy GW stuff but they bought the CGI game, thus making it successful, which brings profit to the game maker, who will then likely bring out expansions or invest in other titles, thus paying GW more money.
I play Dogs of War and there are players of this system who never knew that it was based on a tabletop game, they just came on board because they liked it.
-Loki- wrote: You say that like its a bad thing Kroot. I'd be glad if no single company gained such a foothold again. While we do owe the current situation to GW, another company 'taking over' the majority of the market after them wouldn't be ideal. It would just strangle the market all over again.
Imagine a town with a potential of 12 wargamers. If all play the same game, no problem. Not even if they play another one in addition to that. They have a coommon ground to start from.
Now imagine a town with one SAGA player, one FoW player, one Warmachine fanatic and one Infinity player. Most likely they will never meet, never play a game and leave wargaming pretty soon.
Wolfstan wrote: But they don't don't have to do any work. They license it out (at no cost to them) and then get an income from the licensing. How on earth is having a CGI BFG going to affect sales of GW models. Gamers will still want models, this is a bonus.
I don't disagree with you, but I think GW is affraid someone else may offer cheaper/better quality models that 40K players would buy instead of theirs. Even for models that are completely different (BFG) I think GW is paranoid about their IP. I also think GW is too arrogant to let someone else take a run at one of their discontinued games. Imagine the threads if someone reboots a previously GW game and does a superior job, asking GW to hand over 40K to the new company for rules development.
Wolfstan wrote: But they don't don't have to do any work. They license it out (at no cost to them) and then get an income from the licensing. How on earth is having a CGI BFG going to affect sales of GW models. Gamers will still want models, this is a bonus.
I don't disagree with you, but I think GW is affraid someone else may offer cheaper/better quality models that 40K players would buy instead of theirs. Even for models that are completely different (BFG) I think GW is paranoid about their IP. I also think GW is too arrogant to let someone else take a run at one of their discontinued games. Imagine the threads if someone reboots a previously GW game and does a superior job, asking GW to hand over 40K to the new company for rules development.
-Loki- wrote: You say that like its a bad thing Kroot. I'd be glad if no single company gained such a foothold again. While we do owe the current situation to GW, another company 'taking over' the majority of the market after them wouldn't be ideal. It would just strangle the market all over again.
Imagine a town with a potential of 12 wargamers. If all play the same game, no problem. Not even if they play another one in addition to that. They have a coommon ground to start from.
Now imagine a town with one SAGA player, one FoW player, one Warmachine fanatic and one Infinity player. Most likely they will never meet, never play a game and leave wargaming pretty soon.
Diversity can be bad if you never find a mate
Right, because the vast majority of players out there play exactly one game system, and one game system only.
(Well, that might very well be the case for people who's favorite game is 40K, but around here, typical gamers have armies for multiple game systems, and the FLGS has nights dedicated to each of them. On any given Saturday, you'll see 40K, WHFB, Dropzone Commander, X-Wing, Attack Wing, Warmahordes, FOW, RPGs, MtG, and piles of boardgames being played. Malifaux, Infiniti, and Dark Age also show up. I personally have forces for four different tabletop wargame systems, and that's not really considered a lot around here.)
Wolfstan wrote: But they don't don't have to do any work. They license it out (at no cost to them) and then get an income from the licensing. How on earth is having a CGI BFG going to affect sales of GW models. Gamers will still want models, this is a bonus.
I don't disagree with you, but I think GW is affraid someone else may offer cheaper/better quality models that 40K players would buy instead of theirs. Even for models that are completely different (BFG) I think GW is paranoid about their IP. I also think GW is too arrogant to let someone else take a run at one of their discontinued games. Imagine the threads if someone reboots a previously GW game and does a superior job, asking GW to hand over 40K to the new company for rules development.
I bet GW management would have a minor conniption fit if another company profitably re-created Mordheim and/or Necromunda with a regular release of scenarios, new rules, new bands, new campaign ideas, new miniatures, etc.
I bet GW management would have a minor conniption fit if another company profitably re-created Mordheim and/or Necromunda with a regular release of scenarios, new rules, new bands, new campaign ideas, new miniatures, etc.
Ha, ha, that's crazy talk, why would a company want to make something people want and then support it...?
Wolfstan wrote: But they don't don't have to do any work. They license it out (at no cost to them) and then get an income from the licensing. How on earth is having a CGI BFG going to affect sales of GW models. Gamers will still want models, this is a bonus.
I don't disagree with you, but I think GW is affraid someone else may offer cheaper/better quality models that 40K players would buy instead of theirs. Even for models that are completely different (BFG) I think GW is paranoid about their IP. I also think GW is too arrogant to let someone else take a run at one of their discontinued games. Imagine the threads if someone reboots a previously GW game and does a superior job, asking GW to hand over 40K to the new company for rules development.
They probably ARE paranoid about their IP. Blizzard has made quite a pretty penny off of repackaging it.
sing your life wrote: Vallejo has been selling the same paints since 2001 , as has coat,d,arms, this is long before today or the improved Citadel paint range came out.
So, no, paint has nothing to do with comparisons to GW release scdual.
When you look up the word "non sequitur" in the dictionary, the above quote, word for word, will be the definition.
sing your life wrote: Vallejo has been selling the same paints since 2001 , as has coat,d,arms, this is long before today or the improved Citadel paint range came out.
So, no, paint has nothing to do with comparisons to GW release scdual.
When you look up the word "non sequitur" in the dictionary, the above quote, word for word, will be the definition.
sing your life wrote: Vallejo has been selling the same paints since 2001 , as has coat,d,arms, this is long before today or the improved Citadel paint range came out.
So, no, paint has nothing to do with comparisons to GW release scdual.
I agree with the notion that it will be a huge blow to the community if GW goes under especially considering the example of TSR. I mean, it's basically impossible to play D&D these days.
Las wrote: I agree with the notion that it will be a huge blow to the community if GW goes under especially considering the example of TSR. I mean, it's basically impossible to play D&D these days.
I wish I had one of those "I see what you did there" meme pictures handy....
Las wrote: I agree with the notion that it will be a huge blow to the community if GW goes under especially considering the example of TSR. I mean, it's basically impossible to play D&D these days.
I know you were being facetious, but in all seriousness you'll notice a lot of "the hobby would die" posts are coming from people located in the UK. Over here, to many of the uninitiated, GW IS wargaming. There is literally nothing else (that they are aware of). If GW were to disappear from the high streets in the UK tomorrow it would create a massive power vacuum as a result. There would be nobody to fill the void initially. Sure, 40k etc. would live on, but without GW to provide a high street presence, they would die a slow death in gaming clubs and people's homes as little to no new gamers appear to play these dead games.
I can count on my hands the number of high profile FLGSs over here, they are simply not as prominent, add in the phenomenon of what I refer to as "GW towns", where in spite of the location having a thriving independent gaming club, GW still rules the roost in a place where, in theory, anything should go. Simply due to GW being some people's first (or only) exposure to wargaming.
Las wrote: I agree with the notion that it will be a huge blow to the community if GW goes under especially considering the example of TSR. I mean, it's basically impossible to play D&D these days.
You're correct. It is almost impossible to play D&D as written by TSR. If it wasn't for WotC, or more properly, Peter Adkinson's love of D&D, it would have been history as the company was in such bad shape it wasn't a good buy - even at pennies on the dollar. However, WotC had the cash as was able to pick up and save the brand because of one fact - Peter Adkinson loved D&D.
If GW does collapse - who has the cash in the industry to pick them up? People forget that GW has a tremendous amount of assets as a manufacturer and their is no one close to their size. So, does 40k have a Peter Adkinson out there, willing to make a bad buy in order to save a brand they love???
And, if you think it can't happen, you may want to read the story of WordPerfect Corporation and Wang Corporation to see how a small $500 million company (WordPerfect) caused a $51 billion dollar company (Wang) to disappear from existence in less than a year.
Does anybody have an idea as to how much it would cost to buy GW outright? Just curious.
I can attest to GW basically being the only game in town in this country. My town only has a Toymaster that stocks the minimum amount of GW products that they can, about 25% of a small room upstairs which is otherwise PACKED with model trains and planes.
I want to get into X Wing at the moment, but I know I'd have to buy the starter and extras (who's going to want to use the solo x wing?) just to get one or two games out of my group of four or five 40K players. I tried to get them into Warmachine, but it has no traction with them, Paper RPG's? Gay. Magic? Gay. It's hard work.
I like to imagine a world where GW dies, and we have to play other games until a white knight or Noel Edmonds and his secret gang of investors drive to Nottingham in their Qpods and save 40K, putting it back to 5th Edition and starting again on 6th.
BairdEC wrote: 31.86m shares in circulation x 505p per share =16,089,300,000 pence = 160,893,000 pounds
(100 pence per pound, right?)
Assuming that the price didn't start to rise when someone bought all those share and that every shareholder would be willing to sell.
While that is a great start, that isn't necessarily the truth.
The brand value and future income streams have to be factored in and a little bit of the black arts and then face left and spin on your right heal and someone will have an idea of what they want to pay per share for the company. The manaement often then have a price they think they are worth (which is often no basis in the real world) and then somewhere only the lines a price is agreed upon and the shareholders (i.e owners) vote on whether or not to sell. Once the price is agreed upon the shares move up to that value because the selling price per share is obvious the value of the share.
Shares moving up during negotiations have no impact on the final price, unless the feeling is the sale offer has been undervalued. If shares are currently $1.50 and there is a negotiation aiming for between $1.75 and $2 the shareprice will obviously start drifting to the $1.75 mark. But if it does you can see if wont affect the price paid.
Additionally you only need a controlling stake, not an outright purchase (unless you wish to de-list the company from the exchange) which means that, within your criteria of a non-reactive share price, you'd only need ~80m.
As FHoH says though, it isn't that straightforward, and once you hit a 27% stake, you're obliged to try and purchase the rest of the company under UK financial regs, so that muddies things still further.
Wayshuba wrote: If GW does collapse - who has the cash in the industry to pick them up? People forget that GW has a tremendous amount of assets as a manufacturer and their is no one close to their size. .
If GW actually went bust, the most likely scenario would be that their IP would be bought by someone else, and their manufacturing assets sold off separately.
True. Anyone buying up the Games Workshop IP wouldn't bother with the higher cost of production in the UK, and instead move all the model making to China. They probably wouldn't even keep the molds, instead they would let the Chinese factory rework and recut the CAD files to make new (and probably better) molds.
Tannhauser42 wrote: True. Anyone buying up the Games Workshop IP wouldn't bother with the higher cost of production in the UK, and instead move all the model making to China. They probably wouldn't even keep the molds, instead they would let the Chinese factory rework and recut the CAD files to make new (and probably better) molds.
I doubt that this would be the case. The only companies that I know of who have used Chinese manufacturers (Wargames Factory and Mantic) took a severe hit on quality. GW has the equipment and the staff already set up and as manufacturing is supposedly starting to flow back from China anyway I suspect that whoever buys GW will keep the current arrangements basically unchanged. Production doesn't really cost GW all that much once the moulds have been made, its their retail arm that costs a fortune.
Xerics wrote: I have 12,000 points of Eldar. I have enough invested in this game that I don't want to get into another miniature game. As far as I am concerned there is only 40k because of the amount of money invested in the pieces and the time I have spent painting them (even if they aren't all quite finished yet).
I don't know if I could underscore how much is out there you're missing out on.
As long as you understand that GW is not the only thing out there, and indeed the miniature wargaming market has arguably never been healthier.
I agree, think we are very much in a golden era of wargaming at the moment. In fact, probably too much of a golden era - it's frustrating seeing so many great games and miniatures, and knowing that I won't have time to try them all!
Thanks to the internet, it's allowed small games to survive like never before. It's so easy to find other gaming groups, travel for a few hours to play in a tournament somewhere, join discussion groups and get answers to rule questions, and order miniatures from overseas for you and friends to try. It's fething brilliant - I think especially for youngsters coming into wargaming, who haven't known it any differently, it's impossible to overstate how much modern communications have helped the wargaming industry and community.
On your other point, it very much depends on what you want from wargaming. I know some people who have played the same MMO-RPG for 6-7 years, are completely content with playing no other games at all. But, many others want to try different things. I would argue that you can obtain a better, more rich experience from the world of wargaming by spreading yourself out a bit - even if you don't end up going mental and collecting for half a dozen game systems at the same time! Certainly, I think for most people coming from the historical wargaming sector, the idea of staying exclusively within a single miniature collection and games system would be absolutely incomprehensible.
Palindrome wrote: I doubt that this would be the case. The only companies that I know of who have used Chinese manufacturers (Wargames Factory and Mantic) took a severe hit on quality
The issues with Wargames Factory and Mantic are more to do with their sculpting than their casting.
Mongoose's Starship Troopers line was all produced in China, and was mostly superb.
Forgeworld for a time produced in China, and casts for that period don't seem to have been any worse than what they were doing in-house.
And the company that does the moulding and casting for Wargames Factory also does Dreamforge, and Catalyst Labs, amongst others. No issues with quality there.
Starship Troopers... That went away too soon, luckily when something new that I like comes around I wait for the model range to expand before I buy it, this plan saved me from purchasing a dead game.
Tannhauser42 wrote: True. Anyone buying up the Games Workshop IP wouldn't bother with the higher cost of production in the UK, and instead move all the model making to China. They probably wouldn't even keep the molds, instead they would let the Chinese factory rework and recut the CAD files to make new (and probably better) molds.
Lots of UK companies who outsourced work to China are now repatriating the work to Europe, because China is having its own labour problems. You can get very high quality work there, but only with close supervision.
Of course, you might be right in that a private equity GW-buyer would probably move production straight to China. Whether you'd get better quality is another matter.
We really need to survey the damage to gw to get an idea. We can run our mouths all day about f gw this and evil corp that. But if you are buying, playing, or both you are assisting them. Giving them money or enabling those who do just feeds the gw machine. In all truth they serve their purpose as long as you are having fun playing.
. I find truth in what most of you are saying. On both sides. If you want to send a message then organize a boycott of purchases from gw. No books, no figs, no downloads. Make your voices loud in the only language they understand. Convince those who disagree with you to hold purchases for a few months. Convince your local tournament organizer to not hold tourneys for a few months. Dont play it at your flgs. Play other games. Email them that you are upset and the reasons why. And most importantly coordinate. Start it at or near the beginning of the quarter. A bad quarter wont kill them. It might make them listen. If it doesnt then they dont deserve your business and you should find another game.
Who should lead such a thing and who would follow?
I've read what you have to say. What do you expect me to do? Join the fanatical group of privateer press players? I've done that already. I don't like anything privateer press. I enjoy the fluff of GW and I enjoy playing Warhammer and 40K. I still buy their products. My friends and I have a weekly game that we play. More often than not we are playing a GW brand games. What do you want us to do? Throw our stuff into the trash to support your anger? You realize that you are complaining about toy soldiers and make believe battlefields. If you don't like it, just do what I have done with my Privateer Press minis. Sell them to those who want to use them for make believe battles.
WhiskySierra wrote: I've read what you have to say. What do you expect me to do? Join the fanatical group of privateer press players? I've done that already. I don't like anything privateer press. I enjoy the fluff of GW and I enjoy playing Warhammer and 40K. I still buy their products. My friends and I have a weekly game that we play. More often than not we are playing a GW brand games. What do you want us to do? Throw our stuff into the trash to support your anger? You realize that you are complaining about toy soldiers and make believe battlefields. If you don't like it, just do what I have done with my Privateer Press minis. Sell them to those who want to use them for make believe battles.
What an odd and weird reply that doesn't really address anything anyone has said. No one has suggested everyone should drop 40k for PP games. No one has suggested you throw your stuff away. You have written a post containing almost entirely straw men.
Carlos there are a lot of us who are dealing with bs at home, work, and romantic parts of life. The only break some of us get from that is gaming. There is so much truth behind the negative things said about gw that even if we are all wrong about all these negative things, its still believable and it threatens us. It threatens our social circles with the possibility of change and our closets with the potential to be loaded with thousands or tens of thousands of dollars worth of worthless.
Anybody who has been through the changes before knows that when the games change you lose a few friends sometimes. It sucks all the way around for everyone.
When 3rd ed came out some people hung on, some quit and played magic, some went to various rpgs. It fragments like that. When you have fun playing something regularly with people you like, you cant help put take it personally when it is threatened. Sometimes people direct the anger at the messenger.
Las wrote: I agree with the notion that it will be a huge blow to the community if GW goes under especially considering the example of TSR. I mean, it's basically impossible to play D&D these days.
You're correct. It is almost impossible to play D&D as written by TSR. If it wasn't for WotC, or more properly, Peter Adkinson's love of D&D, it would have been history as the company was in such bad shape it wasn't a good buy - even at pennies on the dollar. However, WotC had the cash as was able to pick up and save the brand because of one fact - Peter Adkinson loved D&D.
Right, I had forgotten how, right when TSR went under, all the print on my D&D, AD&D, and AD&D 2nd Edition books fell off the pages into a jumbled pile on the floor. Good thing WotC came along and fixed that.
That makes sense Quientin never looked at it like that. My social circle has never really been based on gaming so its never threaten to effect me that way. Thanks for an intresting perspective.
Quientin wrote: We really need to survey the damage to gw to get an idea. We can run our mouths all day about f gw this and evil corp that. But if you are buying, playing, or both you are assisting them. Giving them money or enabling those who do just feeds the gw machine. In all truth they serve their purpose as long as you are having fun playing.
. I find truth in what most of you are saying. On both sides. If you want to send a message then organize a boycott of purchases from gw. No books, no figs, no downloads. Make your voices loud in the only language they understand. Convince those who disagree with you to hold purchases for a few months. Convince your local tournament organizer to not hold tourneys for a few months. Dont play it at your flgs. Play other games. Email them that you are upset and the reasons why. And most importantly coordinate. Start it at or near the beginning of the quarter. A bad quarter wont kill them. It might make them listen. If it doesnt then they dont deserve your business and you should find another game.
Who should lead such a thing and who would follow?
There is a quiet section of people who have already done much of this. I haven't bought any GW models since early 2011 and I haven't bought any of the 6th edition codexes.
I didn't do this as a specific protest, I have just dropped out of buying GW thanks to the prices. I don't think I am the only one, OTOH the Knight Titans are flying off the shelves so other people are spending plenty.
The key point for GW is how big the overall result is when you factor in the people who buying Knight Titans and Escalation against the people who have stopped buying GW stuff.
Wayshuba wrote: You're correct. It is almost impossible to play D&D as written by TSR.
Actually it's probably never been easier. Also thanks to Adkinson and Dancey, the OGL has allowed the legal publication of retro-clones. And the internet has made it easier than ever to get in contact with people who are looking to play older versions of the game. The people who appreciate these older games often self identify as the OSR (which can me Old School Revival or Renaissance) and if my little city of 70,000 people has an OSR group on facebook, I imagine many larger centres do as well.
I'm currently running a game using an RPG published in 1980 and have 5 players and a waiting list of another 4. All found through the internet and they all ended up being local to me.
And that's not even counting the endless potential to find players over skype, google hangouts or roll20.
Right now you can get in print rulebooks for every edition of D&D ever played. It might just be called something else. 1974 D&D is called Swords & Wizardry. AD&D1e is called OSRIC. Moldvay D&D is called Labyrinth Lord and Mentzer BECMI D&D is called Labyrinth Lord.
And new material, new adventures, new magazine content, etc., is being produced for all these games and more right now.
The community took it over and as a result, it become more accessible than ever.
If it wasn't for WotC, or more properly, Peter Adkinson's love of D&D, it would have been history as the company was in such bad shape it wasn't a good buy - even at pennies on the dollar. However, WotC had the cash as was able to pick up and save the brand because of one fact - Peter Adkinson loved D&D.
It would take organization and a lot of commitment kilkrazy. I know very few would participate. More the point that most of the haters dont hate it that much. Everyone might be split on what needs to be done and even if something needs to be done. Even if that is the case I doubt even 1 in 100 unsatisfied players would do anything in protest other than simply quit spending and/or playing. No one has the stomach for extreme measures over a game.
As usual though you are insightful, on point, and right. (No sarcasm)
frozenwastes wrote: Actually it's probably never been easier. Also thanks to Adkinson and Dancey, the OGL has allowed the legal publication of retro-clones. And the internet has made it easier than ever to get in contact with people who are looking to play older versions of the game. The people who appreciate these older games often self identify as the OSR (which can me Old School Revival or Renaissance) and if my little city of 70,000 people has an OSR group on facebook, I imagine many larger centres do as well.
There are currently at least two different gaming groups that meet at the FLGS who are playing 1980's era AD&D. I poke my head in and watch from time to time, because that's what I cut my teeth on as far as RPG's are concerned. You can find every single one of the original modules for free download online in PDF form. In the last couple of months, I saw them running Keep on the Borderlands and The Hidden Shrine of Tomoachan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quientin wrote: It would take organization and a lot of commitment kilkrazy. I know very few would participate. More the point that most of the haters dont hate it that much. Everyone might be split on what needs to be done and even if something needs to be done. Even if that is the case I doubt even 1 in 100 unsatisfied players would do anything in protest other than simply quit spending and/or playing. No one has the stomach for extreme measures over a game.
As usual though you are insightful, on point, and right. (No sarcasm)
Actually, it doesn't take any organization at all.
I didn't stop playing 40K because other people lobbied me into doing it. I just got to a point sometime during 5th edition where I didn't think it was fun anymore, and 6th edition didn't change that opinion. The rising prices didn't help much, either.
I'm willing to bet that the reason GW"s sales numbers aren't dropping because of any sort of organization; it's just a natural push-back to the cost of the product in comparison to the perceived value of the product.
Quientin wrote: We really need to survey the damage to gw to get an idea. We can run our mouths all day about f gw this and evil corp that. But if you are buying, playing, or both you are assisting them. Giving them money or enabling those who do just feeds the gw machine. In all truth they serve their purpose as long as you are having fun playing.
. I find truth in what most of you are saying. On both sides. If you want to send a message then organize a boycott of purchases from gw. No books, no figs, no downloads. Make your voices loud in the only language they understand. Convince those who disagree with you to hold purchases for a few months. Convince your local tournament organizer to not hold tourneys for a few months. Dont play it at your flgs. Play other games. Email them that you are upset and the reasons why. And most importantly coordinate. Start it at or near the beginning of the quarter. A bad quarter wont kill them. It might make them listen. If it doesnt then they dont deserve your business and you should find another game.
Who should lead such a thing and who would follow?
There is a quiet section of people who have already done much of this. I haven't bought any GW models since early 2011 and I haven't bought any of the 6th edition codexes.
I didn't do this as a specific protest, I have just dropped out of buying GW thanks to the prices. I don't think I am the only one, OTOH the Knight Titans are flying off the shelves so other people are spending plenty.
The key point for GW is how big the overall result is when you factor in the people who buying Knight Titans and Escalation against the people who have stopped buying GW stuff.
I changed to a conscious choice to stop in 2012 and only bought a blister or two and two boxes of daemons, paints as needed and GS. I stopped buying all BL books. In 2013 I moved to deciding to do zero purchases from GW. Just bought my first roll of 36inch Kneadatite and moved by paints to a mix of non-GW. I own one 8th edition army book and zero 6 editions also because frankly I find both rule sets annoying and the changes made to them not done to benefit the playability of the game. Ihave gone from owning mutliple armies for both 40k and WFB and every army book/ codex to having a handful of models (sold everything) and an 8th ed rule book I was given because I refused to buy such a stupid waste of money for a book that is a pain in the ass to use whilst playing because of its ridiculous size.
On the flip side, I have about 5k of Romans in the last 12months, $400 of Sarissa buildings and far too many Tamiya models.
I will admit I was tempted by the Knight but not at that price. That is just silly pricing.
