warboss wrote: Yeah, that's a stretch. There likely is no corporate mandate to make completely impossible to fulfill rules. It is simply a matter of not caring enough to playtest or proofread on the part of the design team.
There's unlikely to be a mandate to write broken rules. There IS likely a mandate to complete a book within a very limited timeline and budget, with corporate caring more about that timeline than about allowing adequate time and resources for refining the product.
warboss wrote: Yeah, that's a stretch. There likely is no corporate mandate to make completely impossible to fulfill rules. It is simply a matter of not caring enough to playtest or proofread on the part of the design team.
There's unlikely to be a mandate to write broken rules. There IS likely a mandate to complete a book within a very limited timeline and budget, with corporate caring more about that timeline than about allowing adequate time and resources for refining the product.
Then as a team you put your foot down as your name (at least in the past, not currently) would be permanently attached to that product as a creative. Or you simply cut that which you have no time to actually properly add in instead of letting half baked ideas out into the wild which then 2-3 years later will be removed to the detriment of players who bought models specifically to use that half baked rule. Does that require actual integrity to do so? Sure. Are GW designers officially expendable cogs in the team now that they're not even credited by name? Sure. Might doing the former cost you the latter? Possibly because you're not displaying the correct "attitude" corporate wants on top of the lack of "skill" the community wants... but that doesn't excuse putting out shoddy products.
warboss wrote: Yeah, that's a stretch. There likely is no corporate mandate to make completely impossible to fulfill rules. It is simply a matter of not caring enough to playtest or proofread on the part of the design team.
There's unlikely to be a mandate to write broken rules. There IS likely a mandate to complete a book within a very limited timeline and budget, with corporate caring more about that timeline than about allowing adequate time and resources for refining the product.
Then as a team you put your foot down as your name (at least in the past, not currently) would be permanently attached to that product as a creative. Or you simply cut that which you have no time to actually properly add in instead of letting half baked ideas out into the wild which then 2-3 years later will be removed to the detriment of players who bought models specifically to use that half baked rule. Does that require actual integrity to do so? Sure. Are GW designers officially expendable cogs in the team now that they're not even credited by name? Sure. Might doing the former cost you the latter? Possibly because you're not displaying the correct "attitude" corporate wants on top of the lack of "skill" the community wants... but that doesn't excuse putting out shoddy products.
Do you work in a corporation mindset organization? There is a phenomenon that goes on in closed minded corporation culture called, Groupthink.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink THIS is exactly what happened to GW. Not only because of the shlick shlock of... "We hire for attitude..." BUT because people who are independently thinking are pretty much shunned in large organizations, because, you know...; they rock the boat. It is not necessarily incompetence, its perceived pressure from corporation management, and in some cases because of the cultural vibe, tone, work environment, what have you that puts people to the boot, and pretty much craps on the QAQC process.
GW is a classic textbook Sigma Six example of how not to be. I asked the question in the beginning, because, well.... I do. AND.... the thought process is prevalent, but people IN the process do not nessesarily see it, and if they do, they keep their mouth shut in fear of their jobs....
EXAMPLES ofg why the founding fathers of GW left, are pretty much in line with my discussion points here, and There are numerous examples and discussions from them that have been posed in past threads that lead me to the conclusion that, there honestly needs to be a Sharholder meeting, and a real, no crap look at the books, and inquiry.
There is seriously something wrong in their books, BTW. Their numbers do not jive.
Talys wrote: I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.
That's a bad example to use, considering Blizzard designed Star Craft, which is considered one of the most well balanced games of all time.
(At least, according to Koreans during my time spent in the country, as it's practically a national sport there).
@Grot 6: You don't need to work for them to apparently catch the groupthink bug... the minis are apparently a vector for the pathogen as well. A minority (from the poll in the 40k general subforum) are afflicted with the contagion as well. Luckily, continued exposure seems to build up the immune system and at least half of the playerbase is immune to it currently.
Talys wrote: I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.
That's not really playtesting, that's just playing.
And even that doesn't explain some of the obviously terrible things in the game. Remember the deamon charriot that couldn't actually work? Even "casual" playing should have found that out.
But no one's perfect. Some things will slip by.
So they could just easily put out a FAQ....right?
Oh, that's right.
They don't do FAQ's anymore.
Not when they could just pump out another $60 book instead.
Talys wrote: I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.
That's not really playtesting, that's just playing.
And even that doesn't explain some of the obviously terrible things in the game. Remember the deamon charriot that couldn't actually work? Even "casual" playing should have found that out.
But no one's perfect. Some things will slip by.
So they could just easily put out a FAQ....right?
Oh, that's right.
They don't do FAQ's anymore.
Not when they could just pump out another $60 book instead.
I'm actually curious as to when (or if) they will publish more FAQs. To be fair, the only things that aren't FAQed are the things that have just been published. January 2015 was their last set of FAQs, which includes titles published in 2014 such as Space Wolves and Dark Eldar (and core rules).
Personally, I would run a gaming company (video game or wargame) and test with both casual and extreme players. It's the nature of the beast, and many of your best customers in terms of play hours and folks who will evangelize your product will be extreme players.
The thing is, if they publish a FAQ, will it make you happy? Not to speak for you, but I doubt it very much.
Talys wrote: I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.
That's not really playtesting, that's just playing.
And even that doesn't explain some of the obviously terrible things in the game. Remember the deamon charriot that couldn't actually work? Even "casual" playing should have found that out.
But no one's perfect. Some things will slip by.
So they could just easily put out a FAQ....right?
Oh, that's right.
They don't do FAQ's anymore.
Not when they could just pump out another $60 book instead.
I'm actually curious as to when (or if) they will publish more FAQs. To be fair, the only things that aren't FAQed are the things that have just been published. January 2015 was their last set of FAQs, which includes titles published in 2014 such as Space Wolves and Dark Eldar (and core rules).
Personally, I would run a gaming company (video game or wargame) and test with both casual and extreme players. It's the nature of the beast, and many of your best customers in terms of play hours and folks who will evangelize your product will be extreme players.
The thing is, if they publish a FAQ, will it make you happy? Not to speak for you, but I doubt it very much.
Why wouldn't fixing something that sucks not make someone happy?
Or do you think I run off of pure emotion and my criticisms for GW come from some pent up nerd rage? Is that what you're saying. You've been accused of being passive aggressive and condescending before. Do you get where that's coming from yet?
Even if GW wrote another set of FAQs, I don't think you'd be happy with GW and their products.
I say this because you've been pretty negative about GW for a pretty long time. In January 2015, and for all the time before that, they published FAQs, and you were still not happy with GW, so empirically, I can only assume that this trend would not reverse itself if/when they do another round.
I don't think I've ever accused anyone of being passive aggressive. But anyhow, I think you really don't like GW, and take pretty much every opportunity to attack them and their practices. I don't discount that maybe one day you'll like them again, of course. Feel free to tell me that I'm wrong. Not that there's anything wrong with that, free speech and all. I can still say that it's so, though, just as you're free to point out that I frequently defend GW (though I do criticize them for various things and point out their shortcomings, too).
Even if GW wrote another set of FAQs, I don't think you'd be happy with GW and their products.
It might be because the unhappyness is more than just skin deep for lots of people. I can't speak for anyone else but the days of just gently blowing on the boiling over pot to cool it down (aka FAQs and nothing else) are over. GW needs to make a real change that benefits fans and themselves (in that order) instead of just themselves in the very short term (like they've been doing for years).
Even if GW wrote another set of FAQs, I don't think you'd be happy with GW and their products.
I say this because you've been pretty negative about GW for a pretty long time. In January 2015, and for all the time before that, they published FAQs, and you were still not happy with GW, so empirically, I can only assume that this trend would not reverse itself if/when they do another round.
Are you aware of the substance behind your arguments, or just throwing out whatever occurs to you?
Those FAQs weren't worthy of the name.
There's a world of difference between a company using Errata and FAQs to actively try and maintain some semblance of balance (or in GW's case, functionality) and a half arsed attempt to answer a bunch of questions nobody was asking, or, in most cases, correcting an error on day 1 that should have been caught by an editor or proofreader, if they cared enough about the quality of the product to utilise one.
Even if GW wrote another set of FAQs, I don't think you'd be happy with GW and their products.
It might be because the unhappyness is more than just skin deep for lots of people. I can't speak for anyone else but the days of just gently blowing on the boiling over pot to cool it down (aka FAQs and nothing else) are over. GW needs to make a real change that benefits fans and themselves (in that order) instead of just themselves in the very short term (like they've been doing for years).
Right. This was really my point -- that FAQs are but a tiny part of what MWHistorian doesn't like about GW, and publishing FAQs (I don't think) would do the trick for him.
I think I can also safely say that for a huge percentage of the people who don't like GW, nothing that doesn't include cheaper products will make them happy. Since I don't think that will EVER happen, I don't think these people will ever be happy with GW again, unless their competition raises their prices to the point where GW's prices are no longer extraordinary, I suppose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Are you aware of the substance behind your arguments, or just throwing out whatever occurs to you?
Those FAQs weren't worthy of the name.
There's a world of difference between a company using Errata and FAQs to actively try and maintain some semblance of balance (or in GW's case, functionality) and a half arsed attempt to answer a bunch of questions nobody was asking, or, in most cases, correcting an error on day 1 that should have been caught by an editor or proofreader, if they cared enough about the quality of the product to utilise one.
40k has never been balanced. Not since Rogue Trader. If this is your litmus test for a game you wish to play, look elsewhere. GWFAQs are about clarity of language where there is ambiguity; they have never been about rebalancing.
They are Frequently Asked Questions [to the language of the text]. They are not, "Patch 1.05".
40k has never been balanced. Not since Rogue Trader. If this is your litmus test for a game you wish to play, look elsewhere.
I'm not sure why you keep saying that when it really doesn't matter. It was never completely balanced; no game ever was except for rock paper scissors and even then only in the case of folks with equal numbers of fingers. What matters is that the company tries to do its best to keep the game balanced and that the effort shows through in the rules. Where there imbalances to varying degrees in every edition? Sure. It's the nature of the beast. From 3rd to 5th edition, it still felt like GW was trying to put together a balanced and polished game. What they're doing now is just seeing everything that MIGHT sell some figs and throwing it all on the wall without bothering to check it any of it sticks (is balanced or in some cases flat out even works). That is the litmus test for plenty of folks, not some mythical perfect balance. Better is NOT the opposite of perfect and plenty of folks subjectively feel that the game was BETTER balanced before they added all this crap.
40k has never been balanced. Not since Rogue Trader. If this is your litmus test for a game you wish to play, look elsewhere.
I'm not sure why you keep saying that when it really doesn't matter. It was never completely balanced; no game ever was except for rock paper scissors and even then only in the case of folks with equal numbers of fingers. What matters is that the company tries to do its best to keep the game balanced and that the effort shows through in the rules. Where there imbalances to varying degrees in every edition? Sure. It's the nature of the beast. From 3rd to 5th edition, it still felt like GW was trying to put together a balanced and polished game. What they're doing now is just seeing everything that MIGHT sell some figs and throwing it all on the wall without bothering to check it any of it sticks (is balanced or in some cases flat out even works). That is the litmus test for plenty of folks, not some mythical perfect balance. Better is NOT the opposite of perfect and plenty of folks subjectively feel that the game was BETTER balanced before they added all this crap.
I sincerely disagree with you.
I think the game philosophy between 6.0-7.0 2014 was very consistent. In January 2015, the game philosophy changes significantly. All the factions before January 2015 were headed to a certain balance, and the ones after are balanced against each other in a much more dynamic, and more importantly, much more fluid and flexible way. Had they progressed and finished off all the codex books in this fashion, it would have been pretty balanced.
Instead, 7.5 came out with the Necron, and the 40k world turned upside down.
I think that the Post 2015 codex releases are excellent, and allow you to play fluffy armies that aren't stupidly powerless. Plus, they give you a brick ton of options. Most importantly, they are a ton of fun. Codex: Eldar Harlequins are something of an exception, but they just don't have enough models to be a full-fledged faction, IMO. Still, they're good rules. I can't speak for Khorne Daemonkin, because I don't know anyone that plays them, but it seems to be well-received.
I have voiced before a criticism of GW, that the single most annoying thing for players is probably GW's willingness to just up and change game philosophies, mid-cycle, essentially screwing some players.
Personally, I think Space Marines, Dark Angels, Craftworld Eldar, Necron, Imperial Knights, and Adeptus Mechanicus can all go head to head with each other in a fair fight, and they all have many options, with the exception of Imperial Knights (because they have 1 model). Can the other factions compete? I think most can; as an example, Orks have been making a lot of noise in the tournament scene. Space Wolves are still pretty tough, Grey Knights have nifty tricks, and Blood Angels are the Imperium taxi service. But they have a LOT less options, and require that you be awfully creative with your tricks to win.
If you disagree, please say which 2015 codex you don't like or is terribly unbalanced, and why.
If you disagree, please say which 2015 codex you don't like or is terribly unbalanced, and why.
Eldar: strength D and gargantuan creature spam. Imperial Knights: Superheavy spam. Space marines/Dark Angels: get free stuff when you trade in your $$ for points like a freemium game spam. Those are pretty much right off the top of my head for this year specifically for those codex books and isn't a complete list nor does it take into account the changes in rulebook 2014 that continue to be (ab)used in 2015.
warboss wrote:Then as a team you put your foot down as your name (at least in the past, not currently) would be permanently attached to that product as a creative... Are GW designers officially expendable cogs in the team now that they're not even credited by name?
'GW design studio' - wargaming's 'Alan Smithee'. I'd say they could almost be grateful for the anonymity.
warboss wrote:From 3rd to 5th edition, it still felt like GW was trying to put together a balanced and polished game.
I remember when they put out the 3.5 assault rules in Chapter Approved, to try and get them sorted for 4th ed. Seems so long ago, and not just because it was. Imagine that now?
If you disagree, please say which 2015 codex you don't like or is terribly unbalanced, and why.
Eldar: strength D and gargantuan creature spam. Imperial Knights: Superheavy spam. Space marines/Dark Angels: get free stuff when you trade in your $$ for points like a freemium game spam. Those are pretty much right off the top of my head for this year specifically for those codex books and isn't a complete list nor does it take into account the changes in rulebook 2014 that continue to be (ab)used in 2015.
Compared to blood angels or dark eldar, yea, these suck.
But to my point, IK, Distortion, and SM 7e are all very well balanced against each other. We've been playing quite a bit of 40k recently, using all new stuff, and none of these factions are lopsided against each other.
40k has never been balanced. Not since Rogue Trader. If this is your litmus test for a game you wish to play, look elsewhere. GWFAQs are about clarity of language where there is ambiguity; they have never been about rebalancing.
They are Frequently Asked Questions [to the language of the text]. They are not, "Patch 1.05".
Actually, I disagree.
I have an FAQ for Dark Elves from quite a way back. It was put together as a collaborative effort between Druchii.net (a Dark Elf fansite), feedback from events and GW (in this case Gav Thorpe who wrote the army book) in order to update the Dark Elf army book to alter units and so improve internal balance. GW released the FAQ and Errata on their website for players who already owned the book and released a new version of the book with the changes included.
Some of these changes included: - The introduction of the Eternal Hatred rule for Black Guard - Executioners having Heavy Armour instead of Light Armour - A leadership increase for Knights - Increase of Cauldron of Blood range - A points decrease for Dark Elf spearmen - Extra wargear options for Beastmasters
Which goes a long way beyond simple clarification of rules.
So, GW did once care about fan feedback of its products and would work with them to solve issues not just in wording but also in balance. It would try to balance its products, even in post and for free rather than make players have to wait years for a new book.
I remember when they put out the 3.5 assault rules in Chapter Approved, to try and get them sorted for 4th ed. Seems so long ago, and not just because it was. Imagine that now?
I think a lot of it is nostalgia and different expectations from a different time. Plus, back then, the internet was less ubiquitous, and exploits were not as quickly abused.
I am happy to agree that in many ways, GW is writing the perfect game for 20 years ago. I just happen to disagree with many here in thinking that it's also a great game for 2015 (not to say that it couldn't be better).
@Malus - your point is well taken, though I wasn't trying to imply that there shouldn't be patches to the game midcycle, or that GW hasn't ever done it. I'm just saying that's what it is now (clarified language, not game adjustments). One must remember that the argument against game rebalancing is, "but I bought 7 wave serpents based on the book".
I have an FAQ for Dark Elves from quite a way back. It was put together as a collaborative effort between Druchii.net (a Dark Elf fansite), feedback from events and GW (in this case Gav Thorpe who wrote the army book) in order to update the Dark Elf army book to alter units and so improve internal balance. GW released the FAQ and Errata on their website for players who already owned the book and released a new version of the book with the changes included.
Then there was the 5th edition Space Wolf faq that occasional adjectives or words like "a" and "the" every once in a while was lifted straight off of a mega-TFG rules lawyer's fan FAQ thread here on dakka (Gwar!). To his credit, he was very thorough in trying to find the loopholes and it was one of the best codex FAQs they came out with mainly because THEY didn't come out with it.
Even if GW wrote another set of FAQs, I don't think you'd be happy with GW and their products.
I say this because you've been pretty negative about GW for a pretty long time. In January 2015, and for all the time before that, they published FAQs, and you were still not happy with GW, so empirically, I can only assume that this trend would not reverse itself if/when they do another round.
I don't think I've ever accused anyone of being passive aggressive. But anyhow, I think you really don't like GW, and take pretty much every opportunity to attack them and their practices. I don't discount that maybe one day you'll like them again, of course. Feel free to tell me that I'm wrong. Not that there's anything wrong with that, free speech and all. I can still say that it's so, though, just as you're free to point out that I frequently defend GW (though I do criticize them for various things and point out their shortcomings, too).
no, you were clear. You were attacking me and not my arguments
MWHistorian wrote: no, you were clear. You were attacking me and not my arguments
I thought that I was stating the obvious. Since I'm wrong, I'll happily make a retraction, apologize for presuming something untrue, and look forward to you being full of cheer (or at least, fuller of cheer!) when GW finally releases a new round of FAQs
However, I will say that I believe MOST people dissatisfied by GW wont be made full of cheer by any number of FAQs. Even if they were the world's greatest FAQs, winch they won't be. I'll say it again too (and don't mistake this at targeting YOU), a plurality of the disaffected have no chance of being happy unless GW significantly reduces their prices.
Very few. It's irrelevant though. They were with gw. They learned through gw. And yet, they are all capable of making very solid wargames. Which goes directly against the notion that 'gw designers are incompetent', as was asserted. The current crop of designers could just as likely bethe next generation of independent game designers with their own companies making the next generation of good games.
That is just nonsensical. The fact that there used to be designers in a company who could make good wargames means nothing when we're talking about the current design team.
The current designers have shown, time and again, an inability to write clear, concise rules and often failed at even understanding the rules they did write. Hence why the current Dark Angels book has a formation with 3 HQ slots where only a single HQ option is available who also happens to be a special character.
Except it does.
Like I said, promotions department in a toy company. They arent the shot callers. They do what they're told, otherwise they're out on their ass, and it's a small enough industry thst they can't just March up and start elsewhere with no problems. 'Sell the new tyranid monstrous creatures'. Nerf the old ones. 'Design and Sell giant centrepiece models like riptides'. So... You do it. Remember, thryre not necessarily the ones behind the rules writing. It's very much a secondary concern within the company, and the protestations of the game designers mean vEry little. All it takes is one middle management aching to show how big his balls are and he'lol push the studio to do x and y and z. And if they don't, they can walk. That's the reality.
Get them to work in pp, corvus beli etc and you'll probably see a different set of results from them altogether.
I'm curious, does it not occur to you that the current absence of many of those former GW designers you name checked might be directly related to both the design direction the rest of the studio wanted to pursue and a corporate desire to gut the design studio of any shot calling ability? As in many of them left directly as a result of these issues? Often explicitly so, by their own admission?
And as much as I would normally be happy to cynically accept that the rules writing has gotten so bad in the post 5th era as a result of the sales department being the shot callers, that would then imply that the sales department knew the rules well enough or gave a damn about them enough to engineer the deep and abiding hostility the rules writing has had towards competitive players since the heady days of 5th edition. I'm not sure that he sales department would have been so eager to try and drive away competitive players by utterly gutting any semblance of rules structure or balance, nor to engage in what often appears to be deliberate trolling of the player base (such as making popular special characters LoW once the playerbase overwhelming reacted to LoWs by saying "NOPE!").
To me it seems like there's too much of an overall design direction for it to just be sales driving rules.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Errrrr... How many of those GW designers are actually still with GW, Deadnight?
Also, the reason that Hail Caesar and many other historical systems don't have points costs is because they are designed to recreate historical battles, where the numbers on each side were known. Hannibal doesn't suddenly have 500 Elephants when facing Scipio etc.
That doesn't work with GW games. They don't have that rigidity in the armies.
Ironically, the idea of points in 40K came from Ancients wargames, specifically the WRG rules in which each army had a defined list with a range of options within it, allowing the player to have more heavy cavalry, or less light infantry, or whatever, within the minimum-maximum limits of the list and the chosen points for the battle.
The old FOC system in 40K imitated the Ancients army list and points to quite a marked degree.
If you disagree, please say which 2015 codex you don't like or is terribly unbalanced, and why.
Eldar: strength D and gargantuan creature spam. Imperial Knights: Superheavy spam. Space marines/Dark Angels: get free stuff when you trade in your $$ for points like a freemium game spam. Those are pretty much right off the top of my head for this year specifically for those codex books and isn't a complete list nor does it take into account the changes in rulebook 2014 that continue to be (ab)used in 2015.
Have you even read the new Eldar 'dex? Eldar D-spam isn't all that scary anymore because all of their Strength D rolls for D-weapons (Except the one on the WK) take their D-table test at -1 to their roll. Meaning they can never roll a 6 to instant-remove a model. Wave Serpents have also been seriously nerfed - no more laser-lock and Serpent Shield took a hit in damage and are one-use. So, Eldar are relatively balanced now.
Imperial Knights still suffer from the same weaknesses they always do - low model count. When was the last time an AdLance won a tourney? Space Marines/Dark Angels - don't be ridiculous, those datasheets are pretty much available anywhere online, let's be real. And no tourney will ever be stupid enough to require you to have the original formation sheet from the web-store purchase. We're slowly getting to a point where there's no "spam all and win" options anymore in 7th (I will stop short of saying that every new 'dex has an answer to any spammable formation)
Then as a team you put your foot down as your name (at least in the past, not currently) would be permanently attached to that product as a creative.
And then 'there's the door'. There's a hundred more people thst will do your job for less pay. Gw is a hire and fire company and this level of insubordination will not be accepted by them, or any other corporation. What has more value? You talk about attaching your name to a product? Well, how about Attaching the terms 'troublesome, quarrelsome, uncooperative, not a team player, insubordinate' to your employment file from your employers thst would be the end result of 'putting your foot down' or getting on with it and completing your projects on time and within budget, keeping your employers happy and eventually leaving the company on cordial terms? Which looks better on a cv?
Or you simply cut that which you have no time to actually properly add in instead of letting half baked ideas out into the wild which then 2-3 years later will be removed to the detriment of players who bought models specifically to use that half baked rule.
When you've got deadlines,schedules and lots of projects on tgr go, and you've been specifically directed to add those half baked ideas by management in accordance with the intended corporate 'direction', and put them out then that's what you produce on demand and that's what you put out. You don't have the luxury of 'cutting'. Otherwise you're sacked. Or someone else will be asked to do it. An you'll look bad, or incompetent. Or both. and this will be remembered. At best. Say goodbye to a good reference, or getting your contract renewed.or getting a promotion. Worst case scenario? you're still probsbly sacked. And blacklisted in a niche industry where all the 'names' know each other.
You don't really get a say in it. In any case if people want to use stuff for two to three years, let them? It's par for the course for gw games really. Certain builds work for a while and then the rules are shuffled around.
warboss wrote: Does that require actual integrity to do so? Sure. Are GW designers officially expendable cogs in the team now that they're not even credited by name? Sure. Might doing the former cost you the latter? Possibly because you're not displaying the correct "attitude" corporate wants on top of the lack of "skill" the community wants... but that doesn't excuse putting out shoddy products.
Integrity? Big meaningless word for someone with a mortgage and kids thst are going to college. Or for some twenty something at the start of his career in a very niche industry where rocking the boat and pissing off the management gets you fired or blacklisted, neither of which looks great on a cv. You do your job, get your pay check and if you play games, you play them in a way that works for you. Most employees from what I hear (from a former professional painter) have one or two year contracts and then are let go. You do your job, you earn your money, you get your experience and then you move on with your life. Economic mercenary 101.
And they'll just say if you don't like the rules, then sort it out amongst your friends and opponents. They're not exactly 'shoddy' if you approach them the right way (ie be willing to ignore the poop as you rummage through it looking for diamonds), and modify the rules to suit you and your group? That'd how gw want the game played, thsts how they push it, and that's how a lot of people do play z(especially those historicals), and it's not exactly a wrong way of playing either.
From a post by pete haines from a while back on the interwebs. It gives an interesting insight into the company and the thoughts of one of tge main designers from a few years ago. Still annoyed with his 3.5chaos codex, but by all accounts he had a very professional attitude towards project management and was apparently a swell guy. :
It has been over 5 years since me and the studio parted ways. It came as a bit of a surprise to me when a colleague at my current company told me that I had come in for a kicking on-line. Frankly when I left GW I wanted as much seperation as possible so I did not make any effort to keep up to date. Now, with a lot more water under the bridge and an approaching bit of christmas induced nostalgia I decided to at least post something.
As I have no personal agenda any more - I am not even a GW hobbyist these days - what follows is as near the truth as I can remember.
The reason I left GW is that I was made redundant. At the time I was told that as the strategy was to recycle rather than create new material then senior developers were not needed. My feeling was that outrageous claims had been made commercially that the passing of the LOTR movies would not affect the growth of sales. When this was proved as ridiculous an assertion as everyone might have guessed the share price fell. GW's customary response to falling share price was always to cut headcount. For every developer in the studio there are 1000 fans willing to do the job for less money so they can do this with impunity. I was actually quite ambivalent about it. On one level I knew what I was getting into when I joined GW - they were a hire and fire company with job security being the private preserve of those above a glass ceiling in the company. As joining the company was analagous to a mid life crisis (some people buy high powerered motorbikes and crash them, some people run off with unsuitable blondes, I ran off and joined the circus) then I didn't really give it that much advanced thought.
The main thing that studio outsiders need to understand is that the games developers in the studio are small fish with negligible say. They may get their faces in WD a lot but that is pure marketing. Worse, the fact that it happens makes doing the job harder because being in the public eye attracts the bitter jealousy of many managers. Thus the developer is in a position with no authority, taking lumps for projects that they are not responsible for scoping and subject to summary dismissal so a suit can show how big his balls are. It's not great, mostly you can focus beyond it because you are working with your hobby and that is a bit like the key to the sweet shop but I always felt uneasy there.
For myself, I was always torn between trying to make 40K a role playing wargame where lists encouraged outrageous conversions forming part of highly personalised armies and, on the other hand, a competitive game that had to be properly balanced. As the Index Astartes series had already begun doing rules for chaos chapters when I started then I pursued the role playing approach for the chaos codex. In retrospect I should have thought it through more but I was still primarily an enthusiast at that time so it was easy to get carried away and I had found the previous (Jervis) codex to be bland to the point of tedium. The problem was always going to be that an ideal codex had 15 to 25 product codes. By the time Index Astartes had run its course the chaos codex would have needed two to three times that many. I really tried to keep as many of the options as I could because that was what I beleived people wanted. The end result was unbalanced but then with so much variation possible it was kind of inevitable. Al I can say to the people who have piled into me for it is sorry, I was actually trying to be true to the enthusiasts, rather than the bean counters. Later I managed to achieve something similar with traits etc without the balance issues but thats life.
Anyway I am now back working in IT and look back on my GW time fondly despite the constant worry and stress that came with it. I still have my armies but have returned to my original interest - playing historical ancients - and am thoroughly enjoying it.
So - to the people who have said courteous things, cheers, to the rest, well, if your world view is such that you spew vitriol at people for what they do in the context of a game of toy soldiers then you really ought to get out more. There are many things in the world worthy of opposing far more than a bit of codex creep.
Talys wrote: I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.
If I remember how Andy Chambers once described GW's playtesting.... it is all done in house, with studio armies - the same armies that were shown in the battle reports.
They made no attempt to simulate what will happen when the game hits the wild hordes of beardy fans.
Which is not a good way to do playtesting at all.
It left them wondering why nobody bought the Knights of the White Wolf - after all, they were more expensive, even though they didn't work as well as the Knights Panther, what's not to love?
I somehow doubt that their playtesting has gotten more comprehensive since then.
Mantic, a much smaller company, is doing a much more comprehensive series of playtests than GW ever did.
With one of GW's folks in charge, and another GW old timer writing the rules.
The folks who leave GW, pretty much universally, look back at GW and say 'let's not do it that way, eh?'
It would be interesting to hear directly from former or current GW employees on this site what the view and present thinking is on the inside of the beast with all the changes in the last 5 years
My apologies if this has already been going on in this thread, i am not familiar with everyone and alot of what is written is good and from outsiders perspective (from what i can gather).
What is the view, mindset and problems diagnosis from GW employees or former employees?
How do employees or former employees interpret the financial releases or figures the past 5 years in the face of overall model gaming market growth?
If I remember how Andy Chambers once described GW's playtesting.... it is all done in house, with studio armies - the same armies that were shown in the battle reports.
They made no attempt to simulate what will happen when the game hits the wild hordes of beardy fans.
Which is not a good way to do playtesting at all.
It left them wondering why nobody bought the Knights of the White Wolf - after all, they were more expensive, even though they didn't work as
Back in the day, they did external playtesting. The external playtesting project was abandoned when one of the groups leaked the fifth edition rules however, but thst is another story.
Different playtesting groups throughout Ireland and the uk were given different playtest packets and reported back on thoughts an issues. Different groups would have had different versions of proposed changes etc. I know this for a fact as back in the day, some of my closest friends were part of a playtesting group in the south of Ireland (the main guy even got his name in the special thanks section of a few codices). And I got to hear quite a few tidbits on the quiet as well - I got a heads up of the 4th ed eldar codex playtesting, the 4th ed marine codex and the tau codex of thst edition amongst others.
There were two main problems with the playtesting project which is why gw canned it in the end. The first, andmost important p, as alluded to earlier was that it leaked like a siv. Gw could not control their product, or their own information. And a lot of the leaks were quite detrimental and negative. When the fifth edition rulebook was leaked it was the final straw for them and they canned it.
The second reason was that gw saw only incedental value in playtesting. A lot of the playtesting groups were typical of gw fans everywhere - a whining complaining fractious and slightly toxic community. What gw got back in terms of comments was often best described as 'white noise' in terms of its value. The little nuggets of value were drowned out by the negativity and gw simply didn't have tge time, resources or inclination to go through it all, and in any case whatever direction they picked would be seen as 'wrong' by a large secment of the community, so they just got on with their job of making and selling models. My mate ran one of the good groups however, and while he has a good relationship with tge gw brass (even now, I think) he often found that gw was hesitant to take up feedback. One example was assault canons from space marines in the fourth ed codex. Thry reported that they should be either heavy3 and rending, or just heavy 4. Otherwise it could open up imbalances. Gw ignored them and made heavy 4 rending assault cannons and giving birth to the 'asscannon' marine builds of that generation. Probably because someone saw a way to sell all those models that could wield all those assault cannons, so retail concerns trumped game balance...
sumi808 wrote: It would be interesting to hear directly from former or current GW employees on this site what the view and present thinking is on the inside of the beast with all the changes in the last 5 years
My apologies if this has already been going on in this thread, i am not familiar with everyone and alot of what is written is good and from outsiders perspective (from what i can gather).
What is the view, mindset and problems diagnosis from GW employees or former employees?
How do employees or former employees interpret the financial releases or figures the past 5 years in the face of overall model gaming market growth?
Whats the view from the other side of the fence?
We don't often hear from current GW employees, at least not those who state that's what they are. This is, at least in part, because GW 'encourage' their staff not to participate in online forums.
sumi808 wrote: It would be interesting to hear directly from former or current GW employees on this site what the view and present thinking is on the inside of the beast with all the changes in the last 5 years
My apologies if this has already been going on in this thread, i am not familiar with everyone and alot of what is written is good and from outsiders perspective (from what i can gather).
What is the view, mindset and problems diagnosis from GW employees or former employees?
How do employees or former employees interpret the financial releases or figures the past 5 years in the face of overall model gaming market growth?
Whats the view from the other side of the fence?
I PMed this to deadnight earlier, I think it's quite relevant to what you are asking about. In summary, there's too much of a division between the hobby people and the business people, and Pete Haines' statement seems to agree with it:
Enigwolf wrote:For the most part, it seems that GW is pretty split between the "hobby guys" (sculptors, designers, etc.) and the "business guys" (regional sales directors, store managers, etc.). From talking to them, both heads have no clue what the other is doing, really, which I've always found ironic given that the aquila is a double-headed eagle. Hahaha. As someone pointed out recently in one of the threads, its such a niche market that most of the hobby guys would rather not rock the boat [Ed: lest they have to find a new job in a competitive job market]. It seems that they get tasked to do their regular stuff, and then in their own free time come up with their own things (evidenced in Jes Goodwin's book of his old sketches that never made it into models). Every time I've spoken to a "hobby guy", the enthusiasm and care they ooze for the hobby is so at odds with the way GW is handled as a business, and in fact, they're so openly able to talk about the things they're working on. i.e. Phil Kelly mentioned in '12 to me that he would love to have written a full Guard 'dex, but instead only managed to get a small hand in the then-upcoming Astra Militarum one. This latter statement implies to me that the whole design team now works on each 'dex, and the removal of the 'dex author's name from the inside cover page of each 'dex isn't just to hide the identity of the author, but really signals an internal reorganization in the process of how the 'dexes are written.
From a post by pete haines from a while back on the interwebs. It gives an interesting insight into the company and the thoughts of one of tge main designers from a few years ago. Still annoyed with his 3.5chaos codex, but by all accounts he had a very professional attitude towards project management and was apparently a swell guy. :
It has been over 5 years since me and the studio parted ways. It came as a bit of a surprise to me when a colleague at my current company told me that I had come in for a kicking on-line. Frankly when I left GW I wanted as much seperation as possible so I did not make any effort to keep up to date. Now, with a lot more water under the bridge and an approaching bit of christmas induced nostalgia I decided to at least post something.
As I have no personal agenda any more - I am not even a GW hobbyist these days - what follows is as near the truth as I can remember.
The reason I left GW is that I was made redundant. At the time I was told that as the strategy was to recycle rather than create new material then senior developers were not needed. My feeling was that outrageous claims had been made commercially that the passing of the LOTR movies would not affect the growth of sales. When this was proved as ridiculous an assertion as everyone might have guessed the share price fell. GW's customary response to falling share price was always to cut headcount. For every developer in the studio there are 1000 fans willing to do the job for less money so they can do this with impunity. I was actually quite ambivalent about it. On one level I knew what I was getting into when I joined GW - they were a hire and fire company with job security being the private preserve of those above a glass ceiling in the company. As joining the company was analagous to a mid life crisis (some people buy high powerered motorbikes and crash them, some people run off with unsuitable blondes, I ran off and joined the circus) then I didn't really give it that much advanced thought.
The main thing that studio outsiders need to understand is that the games developers in the studio are small fish with negligible say. They may get their faces in WD a lot but that is pure marketing. Worse, the fact that it happens makes doing the job harder because being in the public eye attracts the bitter jealousy of many managers. Thus the developer is in a position with no authority, taking lumps for projects that they are not responsible for scoping and subject to summary dismissal so a suit can show how big his balls are. It's not great, mostly you can focus beyond it because you are working with your hobby and that is a bit like the key to the sweet shop but I always felt uneasy there.
For myself, I was always torn between trying to make 40K a role playing wargame where lists encouraged outrageous conversions forming part of highly personalised armies and, on the other hand, a competitive game that had to be properly balanced. As the Index Astartes series had already begun doing rules for chaos chapters when I started then I pursued the role playing approach for the chaos codex. In retrospect I should have thought it through more but I was still primarily an enthusiast at that time so it was easy to get carried away and I had found the previous (Jervis) codex to be bland to the point of tedium. The problem was always going to be that an ideal codex had 15 to 25 product codes. By the time Index Astartes had run its course the chaos codex would have needed two to three times that many. I really tried to keep as many of the options as I could because that was what I beleived people wanted. The end result was unbalanced but then with so much variation possible it was kind of inevitable. Al I can say to the people who have piled into me for it is sorry, I was actually trying to be true to the enthusiasts, rather than the bean counters. Later I managed to achieve something similar with traits etc without the balance issues but thats life.
Anyway I am now back working in IT and look back on my GW time fondly despite the constant worry and stress that came with it. I still have my armies but have returned to my original interest - playing historical ancients - and am thoroughly enjoying it.
So - to the people who have said courteous things, cheers, to the rest, well, if your world view is such that you spew vitriol at people for what they do in the context of a game of toy soldiers then you really ought to get out more. There are many things in the world worthy of opposing far more than a bit of codex creep.
That was interesting to read, albeit not in the least bit surprising. Cheers for posting it.
Knockagh wrote: All this aside folks. AoS seems to be pretty flippin popular and could put a good LOTR size bump on the balance sheet.
Very unlikely for multiple reasons.
Firstly, the rules are available for free. Consequently, there will be no purchasing of $80USD rule books or $50USD army books. While it is nice for the player that these are free, there will obviously be no increase in revenue due to purchases of rule books.
Secondly, there is no associated release of new models to go with the release of AoS. When LotR was released by GW, there were multiple brand new lines of miniatures, and those miniatures were in a slightly different scale than their previous lines, making them more attractive to a different set of consumers. With the current AoS merely using already existing miniatures, there will not be a large influx of new customers who need to buy models to play. It's a safe wager that the majority, if not the vast majority, of people interested in playing AoS already own every model they would need in order to play. Of course, there will be some influx of newer players with the reduced barrier of entry from the financial side. However, without the release of a new line of models, there will most likely not be any sort of significant increase in revenue derived from existing GW customers.
Lastly, LotR's early success is largely attributed to the association with the movies of the same name. Those movies functioned as a sort of de facto marketing for the game, even though GW didn't do a tremendous amount of their own marketing of the game. There is no such mass-market appeal piece of pop culture with which to associate the AoS release. Just like most other GW games, the vast majority of people will have no knowledge whatsoever about the game. Conversely, people who had never even heard of table top wargames had heard of Lord of the Rings by association with the movies.
Those three reasons combined prompt me to believe that AoS will have a negligible impact upon the revenue of GW as a whole.
At the store I went to, one person bought the set. A lot of people were watching as he unboxed it, he was cool enough to let willing people assemble some models on place and they even started painting them together. All the white dwarves sold out too because of the miniature. Apart from that - nothing. Noone was even remotely interested in AoS. Everyone kept wondering on how will they be able to play using their armies and whether they should keep using the old rules or not.
Every friend who was into Warhammer is confused and approach AoS with huge reserve.
AOS won't be bringing in the outsiders like LOTR did, either.
Someone walks into a store. Sees the AOS box for $125, the Infinity for $120, the WMH for $99, etc. There's a lot of competition and nothing in the fluff (ala LOTR) to bring people to it more than the others.
Also, rules free, so no income from that. No massive new armies to buy. Many veterans turned off, etc.
Knockagh wrote: All this aside folks. AoS seems to be pretty flippin popular and could put a good LOTR size bump on the balance sheet.
As someone who worked in a GW during that 'bump', I will say.. not a chance in hell !
Unless AoS is being stocked in bookstores and other places like the original LotR games were 15 years ago, then I don't see too many outsiders finding out about it to make a bump.
Back on topic, LoTR added about £50 million in annual sales to GW for several years, that is why it was such a shock to them when it collapsed.
There is no way that a single boxed game costing £75 is going to sell that many copies. They would need to sell well over 600,000 boxes. It ain't happening. It could easily sell 100,000 boxes, I reckon. There clearly is a market for a simple, easy to pick up fantasy game. There has been a lot of positive reaction as well as negative.
What is important for GW is to establish AOS as the go to Fantasy wargame for a significant number of people, and manage to sell them lots more models.
It is clear that a lot of veteran Fantasy players already loathe AOS for pretty obvious reasons. But, as said above, the rules and scrolls are free, so the money has to come from selling kits. That sword cuts two ways. Even if Fantasy vets jump ship to Kings Of War, they may continue to buy GW kits if the models are impressive. Not playing AOS won't matter because the rules are free anyway, so no lost revenue for not playing it.
AOS has a better chance to catch on with newcomers and figure collectors (super fans) who aren't looking for an in-depth ruleset.
As things go on, there may be a chance of issuing compendia, fluff books, limited edition expansions and so on, that will generate some useful sales.
I'm not sure people will continue to buy the kits, at least not in the volumes that GW want though. The scale difference is way more out of whack - when you compare one of those Sigmarines next to a Space Marine, the difference is palpable. There is no way the new GW stuff is going to scale in any shape or form with existing 28mm Fantasy kits from other ranges so if you want to buy the GW stuff, you are committing to buying your whole army from GW. I assume that is a deliberate decision on their part to ensure their stuff is scaled sufficiently that it isn't interchangeable with other ranges but the door swings both ways; people might just as well decide to get their kits from other ranges, even more so if they are getting their rules from other sources too.
Deadnight wrote: What gw got back in terms of comments was often best described as 'white noise' in terms of its value. The little nuggets of value were drowned out by the negativity and gw simply didn't have tge time, resources or inclination to go through it all, and in any case whatever direction they picked would be seen as 'wrong' by a large secment of the community, so they just got on with their job of making and selling models.
filbert wrote: I'm not sure people will continue to buy the kits, at least not in the volumes that GW want though. The scale difference is way more out of whack - when you compare one of those Sigmarines next to a Space Marine, the difference is palpable. There is no way the new GW stuff is going to scale in any shape or form with existing 28mm Fantasy kits from other ranges so if you want to buy the GW stuff, you are committing to buying your whole army from GW. I assume that is a deliberate decision on their part to ensure their stuff is scaled sufficiently that it isn't interchangeable with other ranges but the door swings both ways; people might just as well decide to get their kits from other ranges, even more so if they are getting their rules from other sources too.
The Sigmarites are supposed to be bigger superhumans, though. Frankly, I think they're the size that Space Marines SHOULD be, and if GW rescaled Marines to that size, I'd remodel every one of mine without a second thought. (and I own a LOT of space marines). It remains to be seen how the chaos guys (Blood warriors?) are sized; as they look more like they should be cultist-sized (ie regular humans).
I'm sure I have seen a scale picture, although for the life of me I can't find where, that showed the chaos guys as being Space Marine size, so again, completely out of whack with what they should be.
If by "some", you mean "one", who owns an "admittedly tiny" number of shares, that would be right. There haven't even been any other posts about GAW for like, 3+ months.
filbert wrote: I'm sue I have seen a scale picture, although for the life of me I can't find where, that showed the chaos guys as being Space Marine size, so again, completely out of whack with what they should be.
filbert wrote: I'm sue I have seen a scale picture, although for the life of me I can't find where, that showed the chaos guys as being Space Marine size, so again, completely out of whack with what they should be.
We'll see the actual models in just a couple of days!
Re -- picture above -- the chaos guy there looks like the "CSM equivalent" model (look at the base size, it's 32mm). I meant the "chaos cultist equivalent", which should be on a 25mm base. The Sigmarite is on a 50mm base.
Actually, the Chaos guy above would be pretty good to use for CSM!
Tyron - that's the one - just found it myself on Google too. If I am not mistaken, the third guy along is one of the Chaos guys from the AoS boxed set right?
filbert wrote: Tyron - that's the one - just found it myself on Google too. If I am not mistaken, the third guy along is one of the Chaos guys from the AoS boxed set right?
So what are we saying then? That all the human miniatures from AoS are Andre the Giant? Or rather that this game clearly isn't 28mm scale any more and won't mesh well with either other 28mm ranges or in fact, with existing WHFB ranges because the elephantiasis will be apparent even compared to GW 'heroic' 28mm of the past. I think it's clear from the picture that we are talking an almost entirely new level of scale creep here.
I have been saying for years that GW's super secret technology for cramming all that wonderful detail into a 28mm figure is to make it 32mm instead. Now they are just going to make them 35mm.
If adding the new figures would invalidate all your existing WHFB armies you will just have to buy new AOS armies.
To be fair, though, the Sigmarites are Land Marines, so naturally they are taller than normal humans.
Talys wrote: Re -- picture above -- the chaos guy there looks like the "CSM equivalent" model (look at the base size, it's 32mm). I meant the "chaos cultist equivalent", which should be on a 25mm base. The Sigmarite is on a 50mm base.
No, that guy is the cultist equivalent... Note the lack of armour. That's supposed to be a regular sized human.
Just a sidenote. The polish GW fb page (there is an official GW store in Warsaw) kept deleting negative comments about the Age of Sigmar. The angry fans asked why - and here's the reply:
Games Workshop: Warsaw "Bo chcemy żeby tutaj pojawiały się tylko pozytywne opinie. Tyle w tym temacie Negatywne komentarze bedziemy usuwac, na nie jest mnóstwo miejsca na różnych forach itp."
Translation: Because we want only positive opinions here. That's all We will delete all negative comments, there is a lot of place for those on forums and so on.
Kahnawake wrote: Just a sidenote. The polish GW fb page (there is an official GW store in Warsaw) kept deleting negative comments about the Age of Sigmar. The angry fans asked why - and here's the reply:
Games Workshop: Warsaw "Bo chcemy żeby tutaj pojawiały się tylko pozytywne opinie. Tyle w tym temacie Negatywne komentarze bedziemy usuwac, na nie jest mnóstwo miejsca na różnych forach itp."
Translation: Because we want only positive opinions here. That's all We will delete all negative comments, there is a lot of place for those on forums and so on.
Well that's one way to handle fans I guess?
Well to be fair, the FB page isn't and shouldn't be seen as an independent and free space to comment whatever the hell people want - it is the GW store's product page and they are trying to promote their product so I am not surprised they are deleting negative comments. If you want to read and post what you want then you are always better off on an independent and impartial site.
Well, if we are to believe that GW are past masters of wargame figure design and manufacturing -- and why not after 35 years experience -- then we must assume the over scale size of the AOS models is deliberate.
Deadnight wrote: What gw got back in terms of comments was often best described as 'white noise' in terms of its value. The little nuggets of value were drowned out by the negativity and gw simply didn't have tge time, resources or inclination to go through it all, and in any case whatever direction they picked would be seen as 'wrong' by a large secment of the community, so they just got on with their job of making and selling models.
Then they were doing it wrong.
Indeed - but it was done wrong by both playtesters andgw. the play testers for the most part were an ill disciplined lot with a barely-professional (and often hostile) attitude most of the time (there were exceptions) , and they didn't add anything of value bar noise and leaked everything, and gw didn't bother listening to the nuggets of wisdom that were hidden in the rest of the white noise.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that players are above criticism either hbmc.
Deadnight wrote: What gw got back in terms of comments was often best described as 'white noise' in terms of its value. The little nuggets of value were drowned out by the negativity and gw simply didn't have tge time, resources or inclination to go through it all, and in any case whatever direction they picked would be seen as 'wrong' by a large secment of the community, so they just got on with their job of making and selling models.
Then they were doing it wrong.
Indeed - but it was done wrong by both playtesters andgw. the play testers for the most part were an ill disciplined lot with a barely-professional (and often hostile) attitude most of the time (there were exceptions) , and they didn't add anything of value bar noise and leaked everything, and gw didn't bother listening to the nuggets of wisdom that were hidden in the rest of the white noise.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that players are above criticism either hbmc.
I think the point here is that GW set up the entire process so it's ultimately their fault for the product they received. Don't like how it's working? Change it, but instead they tossed it out the window and went to nearly no playtesting at all.
I think the point here is that GW set up the entire process so it's ultimately their fault for the product they received. Don't like how it's working? Change it, but instead they tossed it out the window and went to nearly no playtesting at all.
So ultimately it's gw's fault? With this, whether intentionally or not, you are effectively trying to exonerate the play testers/players of all 'guilt', input and responsibility for things. you are effectively hand waving away the players responsibilities for their negative input and negative attitudes to the game. Like I said, it's not gw's fault that the play testers did more whining and moaning than gaming and feedback - that's on the players, and frankly is not an isolated example of this kind of behaviour within the gaming community.
I'm not sure I can entirely agree with you that it's all on gw. A lot of it is, but we share the burden too. Don't get me wrong agnosto - I'd like to agree with you, but I can't. At least not entirely.
Don't get me wrong. Gw screwed up the play testing in so many ways - the privateer press mk2 and malifaux second ed play tests so how it can engage the community, and get excellent feedback- they did it right. Gw hold too much stock in 'containing' information, rather than engaging the player base. But the player base itself is arguably a toxic and fractious lot, often at it's own throat: I can see how they imagine dealing with it to be far more trouble than it's worth.
Kilkrazy wrote: Indeed. Perhaps the poor quality of playtesters was related to the way GW selected and briefed them.
Some of the groups were really good though - let's be clear on that. The rest? Is it that gw selected poor ones or that they were just representative of a poor community? I think it's sone where in the middle myself...
I think the point here is that GW set up the entire process so it's ultimately their fault for the product they received. Don't like how it's working? Change it, but instead they tossed it out the window and went to nearly no playtesting at all.
So ultimately it's gw's fault? With this, whether intentionally or not, you are effectively trying to exonerate the play testers/players of all 'guilt', input and responsibility for things. you are effectively hand waving away the players responsibilities for their negative input and negative attitudes to the game. Like I said, it's not gw's fault that the play testers did more whining and moaning than gaming and feedback - that's on the players, and frankly is not an isolated example of this kind of behaviour within the gaming community.
I'm not sure I can entirely agree with you that it's all on gw. A lot of it is, but we share the burden too. Don't get me wrong agnosto - I'd like to agree with you, but I can't. At least not entirely.
Don't get me wrong. Gw screwed up the play testing in so many ways - the privateer press mk2 and malifaux second ed play tests so how it can engage the community, and get excellent feedback- they did it right. Gw hold too much stock in 'containing' information, rather than engaging the player base. But the player base itself is arguably a toxic and fractious lot, often at it's own throat: I can see how they imagine dealing with it to be far more trouble than it's worth.
Kilkrazy wrote: Indeed. Perhaps the poor quality of playtesters was related to the way GW selected and briefed them.
Some of the groups were really good though - let's be clear on that. The rest? Is it that gw selected poor ones or that they were just representative of a poor community? I think it's sone where in the middle myself...
Sure it's GW's fault, they're the company. If you get shoddy results from a round of playtesting, look at the process, determine inefficiencies and reset; it's almost like running a business.
I don't play WM/H but by all accounts, their open MKII beta-testing was a smashing success that ultimately caused their game to catapult in sales. I'm not saying that such a model would work for GW, even if they were willing to go that route, but it's ultimately much better than, "well, we tried and it didn't work, it's back to the workshop and fixed lists lads!" Companies do not have the luxury to set-up products for failure and if your unpaid test-monkeys screw-up you reset or find better quality test-monkeys you don't just scrap the whole system in favor of....nothing.
Edit:
Let me put it to you this way. I run several projects (8 to be exact) simultaneously with income in the millions of dollars per annum. At the end of the day, it's my fault if my employees do not do what they're supposed to do or if something else is cocked-up along the way; sure, they are the ones who messed it up but it's my rear on the line because it's my job to keep these projects humming along. It's GW's job to keep the games humming along, not the playtesters.
Sure it's GW's fault, they're the company. If you get shoddy results from a round of playtesting, look at the process, determine inefficiencies and reset; it's almost like running a business.
And if it's too much hassle for hardly any results, with plenty risk exposure, you cut your losses and kill it. Also a part of business 101. And running a business. Resets aren't always a thing...
I don't play WM/H but by all accounts, their open MKII beta-testing was a smashing success that ultimately caused their game to catapult in sales. I'm not saying that such a model would work for GW, even if they were willing to go that route, but it's ultimately much better than, "well, we tried and it didn't work, it's back to the workshop and fixed lists lads!" Companies do not have the luxury to set-up products for failure and if your unpaid test-monkeys screw-up you reset or find better quality test-monkeys you don't just scrap the whole system in favor of....nothing.
Mark2 play test was brilliant. It set up a great game and helped me fall in love with wargames again
Sure it's GW's fault, they're the company. If you get shoddy results from a round of playtesting, look at the process, determine inefficiencies and reset; it's almost like running a business.
And if it's too much hassle for hardly any results, with plenty risk exposure, you cut your losses and kill it. Also a part of business 101. And running a business. Resets aren't always a thing...
I don't play WM/H but by all accounts, their open MKII beta-testing was a smashing success that ultimately caused their game to catapult in sales. I'm not saying that such a model would work for GW, even if they were willing to go that route, but it's ultimately much better than, "well, we tried and it didn't work, it's back to the workshop and fixed lists lads!" Companies do not have the luxury to set-up products for failure and if your unpaid test-monkeys screw-up you reset or find better quality test-monkeys you don't just scrap the whole system in favor of....nothing.
Mark2 play test was brilliant. It set up a great game and helped me fall in love with wargames again
There's a dissonance between your two responses. Company A axes open playtesting, Company B performs it to resounding success.
Again, when running projects/businesses; if something doesn't work but has potential, you don't just arbitrarily toss it out the window in favor of something that has resulted in years of unbalanced gack rules. Or, at the very least, you go realize that you've gone to a system of gack rules production and consider moving back to a version of the old system OR do something different. Proactive over inactive because inactive yields negative results (see financial report).
Sure it's GW's fault, they're the company. If you get shoddy results from a round of playtesting, look at the process, determine inefficiencies and reset; it's almost like running a business.
And if it's too much hassle for hardly any results, with plenty risk exposure, you cut your losses and kill it. Also a part of business 101. And running a business. Resets aren't always a thing...
Only if you've established that there are no ways to improve it.
Tighter NDA's would be a start, delayed rewards until release another. Hire some proof readers and maths students to have a pop at the rules. Hire some of the tourney players to do testing, in a room in GWHQ, under supervision. There's all sorts of options that are better than "It didn't work, kill it"
Sure it's GW's fault, they're the company. If you get shoddy results from a round of playtesting, look at the process, determine inefficiencies and reset; it's almost like running a business.
And if it's too much hassle for hardly any results, with plenty risk exposure, you cut your losses and kill it. Also a part of business 101. And running a business. Resets aren't always a thing...
Only if you've established that there are no ways to improve it.
Tighter NDA's would be a start, delayed rewards until release another. Hire some proof readers and maths students to have a pop at the rules. Hire some of the tourney players to do testing, in a room in GWHQ, under supervision. There's all sorts of options that are better than "It didn't work, kill it"
Or just be free and open with it like PP did. Success/Failure/Reward. GW's iron curtain public policy would never allow them to even preview a FREE ruleset before release, that should indicate something. We are not customers, we are the enemy. It's the antagonistic relationship that GW has developed with its customers that is the real problem here.
TBH if GW's player community is sad, anti-social, disruptive and bad at playtesting, doesn't that say something about GW?
Other wargame companies manage to do playtesting without such dramas. Maybe GW games and HHHobby culture for some reason attract the wrong type of person.
However I feel this is an argument that is in danger of disappearing up its own bottom.
It only matters to the financial situation if GW have made a bad mistake by not investing in play-testing and marketing of new games.
Initial reactions to AOS are at least 50/50 pro/anti but I have no feel for whether that is a good result or a bad one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kahnawake wrote: Just a sidenote. The polish GW fb page (there is an official GW store in Warsaw) kept deleting negative comments about the Age of Sigmar. The angry fans asked why - and here's the reply:
Games Workshop: Warsaw "Bo chcemy żeby tutaj pojawiały się tylko pozytywne opinie. Tyle w tym temacie Negatywne komentarze bedziemy usuwac, na nie jest mnóstwo miejsca na różnych forach itp."
Translation: Because we want only positive opinions here. That's all We will delete all negative comments, there is a lot of place for those on forums and so on.
Well that's one way to handle fans I guess?
If that happened in the UK it would be borderline illegal under Advertising Standards Authority rules. A bit like those film posters that pick the positive bits out of reviews to make the film seem more successful than actually it is.
WM and Hordes Mark II playtesting had plenty of drama in the fan base, make no mistake. It's just that DC, Will, and the others not only were open about the playtest but they actually listened to the feedback (Zaal's feat early on for example was utterly game breaking).
12thRonin wrote: WM and Hordes Mark II playtesting had plenty of drama in the fan base, make no mistake. It's just that DC, Will, and the others not only were open about the playtest but they actually listened to the feedback (Zaal's feat early on for example was utterly game breaking).
You know, that right there is the best way to deal with such drama in play testing.
The company gets to be the adult in the (virtual) room and act professionally. Respond with well reasoned answers and attempt to address concerns as much as possible. Accept that you'll never make everyone happy, but attempt to address every even remotely legitimate concern (even if the only response is acknowledging that concern exists).
If the company at least gives the believable impression that they seek to work with the public in the play testing, that will go a long way to engender a general sense of good will from the customers.
Knockagh wrote: All this aside folks. AoS seems to be pretty flippin popular and could put a good LOTR size bump on the balance sheet.
As someone who worked in a GW during that 'bump', I will say.. not a chance in hell !
Unless AoS is being stocked in bookstores and other places like the original LotR games were 15 years ago, then I don't see too many outsiders finding out about it to make a bump.
agnosto wrote:
There's a dissonance between your two responses. Company A axes open playtesting, Company B performs it to resounding success.
Again, when running projects/businesses; if something doesn't work but has potential, you don't just arbitrarily toss it out the window in favor of something that has resulted in years of unbalanced gack rules. Or, at the very least, you go realize that you've gone to a system of gack rules production and consider moving back to a version of the old system OR do something different. Proactive over inactive because inactive yields negative results (see financial report).
The 'dissonance' though is just the difference between my personal opinion regarding the pp field test, and discussing playtesting in general. Dealing with gamers is hazardous. We are a toxic community, and dealing with us can be like herding cards. Sometimes it's just not worth it,
I fully agree with the rest of what you say, personally. Thst said, the alternative narrative is that playtesting requires time and resources, of which one or both may be in short supply. Continuing on that road with issues, versus a hard reset? Arguably, not worth it. At least from their perspective.
Herzlos wrote:
Only if you've established that there are no ways to improve it.
Tighter NDA's would be a start, delayed rewards until release another. Hire some proof readers and maths students to have a pop at the rules. Hire some of the tourney players to do testing, in a room in GWHQ, under supervision. There's all sorts of options that are better than "It didn't work, kill it"
All of which requires time, money and personnel, of which one, two or all may be lacking. There is a cost/reward thing going on there, and gw seemingly said it wasn't worth it - in my mind, they see it as irrelevant for the people they want to sell their product to, and irrelevant to the type of game they want 40k to be (ie chop and change and alter the things you don't like).
Kilkrazy wrote:TBH if GW's player community is sad, anti-social, disruptive and bad at playtesting, doesn't that say something about GW?
Other wargame companies manage to do playtesting without such dramas. Maybe GW games and HHHobby culture for some reason attract the wrong type of person.
.
So it's gw's fault that the player commune is sad, anti social, disruptive and bad at playtesting? Wow mate, that's... That's hand waving on a whole different level!
You see those traits exhibited by members of every geek subculture. The Internet just magnifies it.
sadly, those traits are gamer traits, and gamer (sub)culture and are present regardless of whatever company is making whatever game. Sadly, too many gamers as a general group are lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, self entitled, over-invested and not very open minded. It's got nothing to do with gw, just ourselves as a community.
So it's gw's fault that the player commune is sad, anti social, disruptive and bad at playtesting? Wow mate, that's... That's hand waving on a whole different level!
You see those traits exhibited by members of every geek subculture. The Internet just magnifies it.
sadly, those traits are gamer traits, and gamer (sub)culture and are present regardless of whatever company is making whatever game. Sadly, too many gamers as a general group are lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, self entitled, over-invested and not very open minded. It's got nothing to do with gw, just ourselves as a community.
I think that what Kilkrazy means is that a GW fan = a PP fan = a Wyrd fan = a CB fan.
There shouldn't be anything to differentiate any of them from one another.
So why is GW's community always represented as toxic to the extremes that some people even blame them for leading GW to retreat from having any online presence whatsoever, but the fans of those other miniature wargames have managed to help produce things like the WMH Mk2 and Malifaux V2 or the Infinity tournament system?
Isn't the sole differentiating factor between those communities the way that the parent company behaves and interacts with its fans?
agnosto wrote:
There's a dissonance between your two responses. Company A axes open playtesting, Company B performs it to resounding success.
Again, when running projects/businesses; if something doesn't work but has potential, you don't just arbitrarily toss it out the window in favor of something that has resulted in years of unbalanced gack rules. Or, at the very least, you go realize that you've gone to a system of gack rules production and consider moving back to a version of the old system OR do something different. Proactive over inactive because inactive yields negative results (see financial report).
The 'dissonance' though is just the difference between my personal opinion regarding the pp field test, and discussing playtesting in general. Dealing with gamers is hazardous. We are a toxic community, and dealing with us can be like herding cards. Sometimes it's just not worth it,
I fully agree with the rest of what you say, personally. Thst said, the alternative narrative is that playtesting requires time and resources, of which one or both may be in short supply. Continuing on that road with issues, versus a hard reset? Arguably, not worth it. At least from their perspective.
Herzlos wrote:
Only if you've established that there are no ways to improve it.
Tighter NDA's would be a start, delayed rewards until release another. Hire some proof readers and maths students to have a pop at the rules. Hire some of the tourney players to do testing, in a room in GWHQ, under supervision. There's all sorts of options that are better than "It didn't work, kill it"
All of which requires time, money and personnel, of which one, two or all may be lacking. There is a cost/reward thing going on there, and gw seemingly said it wasn't worth it - in my mind, they see it as irrelevant for the people they want to sell their product to, and irrelevant to the type of game they want 40k to be (ie chop and change and alter the things you don't like).
Kilkrazy wrote:TBH if GW's player community is sad, anti-social, disruptive and bad at playtesting, doesn't that say something about GW?
Other wargame companies manage to do playtesting without such dramas. Maybe GW games and HHHobby culture for some reason attract the wrong type of person.
.
So it's gw's fault that the player commune is sad, anti social, disruptive and bad at playtesting? Wow mate, that's... That's hand waving on a whole different level!
You see those traits exhibited by members of every geek subculture. The Internet just magnifies it.
sadly, those traits are gamer traits, and gamer (sub)culture and are present regardless of whatever company is making whatever game. Sadly, too many gamers as a general group are lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, self entitled, over-invested and not very open minded. It's got nothing to do with gw, just ourselves as a community.
So a small player like PP can put a successful open beta-test together but the big player with all the resources, GW, is unable to for some reason? I guess that I just don't get it. I know that from personal experience in the business world, the more resources that a company has, the better a product they are generally able to produce. GW arguably has more money and people than other companies so why the gack rules?
It's a dangerous thing to lump a larger group of people into a smaller subset. Besides, if a company treats its customers as "toxic" then they run the danger of engendering a culture and atmosphere of distrust and resentment between themselves and their supposed consumer base.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, if we are to believe that GW are past masters of wargame figure design and manufacturing -- and why not after 35 years experience -- then we must assume the over scale size of the AOS models is deliberate.
Absolutely deliberate.
At every point in their existence Citadel/GW have gone out of their way to part with existing standards to force people to depend solely upon their products, and to be unable to use their products with others' products.
They started the "Scale Creep" in the fantasy miniatures back in 1983/84, which has only continued to the present, where their miniatures are beginning to close in on 40mm/50mm.
Personally, I would like to see a return to 25mm miniatures (and no, the Perry's stuff is NOT "True-25mm." Real Partha's miniatures were/are True-25mm, and they are tiny compared to the Perry's stuff, or the LotR lines, which are more 28mm/30mm miniatures - closer to 30mm).
So it's gw's fault that the player commune is sad, anti social, disruptive and bad at playtesting? Wow mate, that's... That's hand waving on a whole different level!
You see those traits exhibited by members of every geek subculture. The Internet just magnifies it.
sadly, those traits are gamer traits, and gamer (sub)culture and are present regardless of whatever company is making whatever game. Sadly, too many gamers as a general group are lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, self entitled, over-invested and not very open minded. It's got nothing to do with gw, just ourselves as a community.
I think that what Kilkrazy means is that a GW fan = a PP fan = a Wyrd fan = a CB fan.
There shouldn't be anything to differentiate any of them from one another.
So why is GW's community always represented as toxic to the extremes that some people even blame them for leading GW to retreat from having any online presence whatsoever, but the fans of those other miniature wargames have managed to help produce things like the WMH Mk2 and Malifaux V2 or the Infinity tournament system?
Isn't the sole differentiating factor between those communities the way that the parent company behaves and interacts with its fans?
Yes, lots of other wargame companies manage to do play testing. Why should GW, the biggest, richest and most experienced, have such trouble they found it useless.
Why is it that now their latest rulebook has a number of very obvious flaws despite being only 4 pages? It took about 10 minutes for people to point out the problems with movement and bases.
So it's gw's fault that the player commune is sad, anti social, disruptive and bad at playtesting? Wow mate, that's... That's hand waving on a whole different level!
You see those traits exhibited by members of every geek subculture. The Internet just magnifies it.
sadly, those traits are gamer traits, and gamer (sub)culture and are present regardless of whatever company is making whatever game. Sadly, too many gamers as a general group are lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, self entitled, over-invested and not very open minded. It's got nothing to do with gw, just ourselves as a community.
Yes it is 100% GWs fault, how is that even a question. Who do you think PICKs the playtesters, some ramdon guy off the internet. Other company seem to pick playtester gruop that are not a bunch of self intersted pricks. Funny how GW can't and people want us to just let them slide, because what they are the biggest company in the market, so can't do what the little guys figured out from day one, really?
So it's gw's fault that the player commune is sad, anti social, disruptive and bad at playtesting? Wow mate, that's... That's hand waving on a whole different level!
You see those traits exhibited by members of every geek subculture. The Internet just magnifies it.
sadly, those traits are gamer traits, and gamer (sub)culture and are present regardless of whatever company is making whatever game. Sadly, too many gamers as a general group are lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, self entitled, over-invested and not very open minded. It's got nothing to do with gw, just ourselves as a community.
Yes it is 100% GWs fault, how is that even a question. Who do you think PICKs the playtesters, some ramdon guy off the internet. Other company seem to pick playtester gruop that are not a bunch of self intersted pricks. Funny how GW can't and people want us to just let them slide, because what they are the biggest company in the market, so can't do what the little guys figured out from day one, really?
Well, they were obviously chosen for attitude, just like GW's hiring practices dictate...and playtesting is otiose in a niche market, obviously.
I think you can blame a multimillion dollar company for being "lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, and self entitled, and over (or under) invested" more than you can blame individual players.
Sorry, but you have to realize, corporations are still people, and those people from top to bottom can be just as flawed. What's worse is that those flaws have even greater effect as its amplified by the corporate decisions at the top.
Vertrucio wrote: I think you can blame a multimillion dollar company for being "lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, and self entitled, and over (or under) invested" more than you can blame individual players.
Sorry, but you have to realize, corporations are still people, and those people from top to bottom can be just as flawed. What's worse is that those flaws have even greater effect as its amplified by the corporate decisions at the top.
This is something the average person often forgets. Big organizations (corporations, governments, NGO's, etc.) are ultimately all run by people and are subject to the same flaws in character present in all the rest of us. When manifested a key positions which exert a lot of authority or influence, those character flaws in those organizations can have disproportionately large impact.
I think that what Kilkrazy means is that a GW fan = a PP fan = a Wyrd fan = a CB fan.
There shouldn't be anything to differentiate any of them from one another.
Not strictly true. Or only true by the metric that they're all miniature wargames fans. It's like saying soccer fans and rugby fans and cricket fans are the same. No, not necessarily - they're all sports fans but they're all there for different things. Fans of pp games might not like cb's aesthetics, sci-fi nature of small scale. A lot of pp fans want different things to a lot of gw fans etc. I know the low model count and the nature of both infinity and WMH have turned off various people who liked what 40k had. Some found infinity really boring (:p I know, right!).
PhantomViper wrote:
So why is GW's community always represented as toxic to the extremes that some people even blame them for leading GW to retreat from having any online presence whatsoever, but the fans of those other miniature wargames have managed to help produce things like the WMH Mk2 and Malifaux V2 or the Infinity tournament system?
Plenty pp fans are just as toxic. There's plenty pp players I want nothing to do with. There's one guy in my city who has probably run off about a dozen prospects. You hear borrow stories of 'page 5 l2p noob', when we all know that that's not what it's all about. Thing is 40k is bigger than warmachine, as is their online communities so the voices are 'louder' and therefore there is more, more obvious toxicity.
PhantomViper wrote:
Isn't the sole differentiating factor between those communities the way that the parent company behaves and interacts with its fans?
PP does plenty howlers and cb have been deserving of some criticism in the past. Neither has the number of players or the legacy in terms of time in existence as 40k - although warmachine is getting on to fifteen years now...
agnosto wrote:
So a small player like PP can put a successful open beta-test together but the big player with all the resources, GW, is unable to for some reason? I guess that I just don't get it. I know that from personal experience in the business world, the more resources that a company has, the better a product they are generally able to produce. GW arguably has more money and people than other companies so why the gack rules?
Yup, apparently. Let's not forget that gw has its own massive retail arm as well as in house manufacturing. Along with world wide infrastructure. Pp doesn't. And didn't. Five years ago, for mk2, they could just get on with the job - it was a smaller game than it is now. If mk2 happened now, it would be a gargantuan undertaking - pp would creak and groan at the seams, if they'd see it as worth it at all. The bigger you are, the more you have to worry about that isn't just game based.
Let's not also forget the company mantra of 'we're a model company first', rules are an afterthought.
agnosto wrote:It's a dangerous thing to lump a larger group of people into a smaller subset. Besides, if a company treats its customers as "toxic" then they run the danger of engendering a culture and atmosphere of distrust and resentment between themselves and their supposed consumer base.
Oh agreed, the issue is the player base, as I see it, does little to help itself either...
Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, lots of other wargame companies manage to do play testing. Why should GW, the biggest, richest and most experienced, have such trouble they found it useless.
Combine historic negative experience (ie leaks Etc) with an attitude that they want to put responsibility for how the game is played in the hands of gamers, along with a favouring of 'beer and pretzels' gaming over organised play - it's not hard to see how playtesting isn't the number one thing. Bear in mind, I'm not agreeing with them - just trying to see it from their perspective. Remember, they want to design games for people who play at each other's homes, with a few beers and house rule and mod the gsme as they see fit. What's the point in playtesting when those who buy are just going to rebuild it anyway? Just get on with building pretty models... Just extra expense and time wasted, and your design studio has better things to be doing on company time thst rolling dice with their space marines...
Kilkrazy wrote:
Why is it that now their latest rulebook has a number of very obvious flaws despite being only 4 pages? It took about 10 minutes for people to point out the problems with movement and bases.
'So change it' is what they'd answer with. Forge the narrative and all that guff.
Gw are finally embracing 'we are a model company first. Rules.. Pfft!' Christ, what did you expect?
Don't get me wrong kill crazy - the rules are pretty shocking. But it's par for the course really.
Yes it is 100% GWs fault, how is that even a question. Who do you think PICKs the playtesters, some ramdon guy off the internet. Other company seem to pick playtester gruop that are not a bunch of self intersted pricks. Funny how GW can't and people want us to just let them slide, because what they are the biggest company in the market, so can't do what the little guys figured out from day one, really?
And look at the materials they have to work with - a toxic schizophrenic community more often at its own throat than anything else.
Gw want you to buy their models. Anything else-hey it's up to you. It's even in the rulebook. Don't like something? Then bloody well change it.
I get it - I really do. I love warmachine and infinity. I love organised play. But a lot of people find that very same structure and organisation very restrictive and stifling. So yeah, do what you want.
Vertrucio wrote: I think you can blame a multimillion dollar company for being "lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, and self entitled, and over (or under) invested" more than you can blame individual players.
Sorry, but you have to realize, corporations are still people, and those people from top to bottom can be just as flawed. What's worse is that those flaws have even greater effect as its amplified by the corporate decisions at the top.
This is something the average person often forgets. Big organizations (corporations, governments, NGO's, etc.) are ultimately all run by people and are subject to the same flaws in character present in all the rest of us. When manifested a key positions which exert a lot of authority or influence, those character flaws in those organizations can have disproportionately large impact.
Which is why they are supposed to have balancing factors (i.e. a Board to oversee the CEO, a Chairman to oversee the Board and the overall Board to oversee the Chairmen). The problem is when you see a company that has become so incestuous that no one will gainsay the Chairman. Barring major stockholders standing up (little chance with them being institutional stockholders) Mr. Kirby has free reign to do what he likes with his little kingdom.
Comparing a group of table top miniatures wargames to a group of entirely different sports is disingenuous at best.
Sports fan is to soccer as table top games fan is to miniature wargames.
Comparing and contrasting to products within a niche of a niche of a niche is far more akin to comparing NASCAR to Formula One. There are differences, sure, but the sorts of differences someone who doesn't give a gack about motor sports does not really appreciate or care about.
More importantly, the interests of a NASCAR fan and a Formula One fan overlap very significantly.
Yes it is 100% GWs fault, how is that even a question. Who do you think PICKs the playtesters, some ramdon guy off the internet. Other company seem to pick playtester gruop that are not a bunch of self intersted pricks. Funny how GW can't and people want us to just let them slide, because what they are the biggest company in the market, so can't do what the little guys figured out from day one, really?
And look at the materials they have to work with - a toxic schizophrenic community more often at its own throat than anything else.
Gw want you to buy their models. Anything else-hey it's up to you. It's even in the rulebook. Don't like something? Then bloody well change it.
I get it - I really do. I love warmachine and infinity. I love organised play. But a lot of people find that very same structure and organisation very restrictive and stifling. So yeah, do what you want.
You mean the target market and fan base GW created themself. Yes, 100% GWs fault, no way around it. The rest of the quote is pointless to this fact.
weeble1000 wrote:Comparing a group of table top miniatures wargames to a group of entirely different sports is disingenuous at best.
Sports fan is to soccer as table top games fan is to miniature wargames.
Comparing and contrasting to products within a niche of a niche of a niche is far more akin to comparing NASCAR to Formula One. There are differences, sure, but the sorts of differences someone who doesn't give a gack about motor sports does not really appreciate or care about.
More importantly, the interests of a NASCAR fan and a Formula One fan overlap very significantly.
I know soccer fans who have no interest in cricket, and rugby fans who despise soccer- give them a football game and it's less than meaningless. Heck I know soccer fans who support different teams who have no interest in any other teams in the same bloody sport - missus deadnight is one of them. Neither the fans nor the games are the same thing. PP. Gw. Cb? All different games, appealing to different peple. This is not a bad thing. I don't want one true game. I want wmh for pugs and tourneys, flames of war or for casual epic battles and infinity for my intense sci fi fix. All different games, doing different things. And others will like some, all, or none of these things along with me.
And all those sports people I know would have issue with what you're saying.
Noir wrote:
You mean the target market and fan base GW created themself. Yes, 100% GWs fault, no way around it. The rest of the quote is pointless to this fact.
Nope. Gamers have always existed. Gw didn't start the craze, they just gave those people a place to hang out. If gw didn't exist, thst same toxic members of our community would still exist and would congregate towards other nerdy hobbies and ruin them instead. Nerds of all calibres can be extremely toxic.
As to target market - garage gamers who drink beer and roll dice around? These aren't generally the ones playtesting. Thryre the ones who cut and paste what they like and what they don't like. And often with custom scenarios and custom armies without points caps. I know because I am one of them (admittedly with games like infinity and flames of war, but the mentality our Friday group plays by is quite laid back and casual and happy to do our own thing). Posters like talys are tge same.
Playtesting for a lot of these casual gamers is a secondary concern - at the end of the day, if something doesn't work, we change it.
For the pug players and competitive crowd? Playtesting is absolutely vital. Absolutely. It's why pp are doing so well - they targeted their product brilliantly for this segment of the community. Gw are not targeting these people. Gw are just happy to chug along with their own target and make pretty models.
GW had designed a "culture" where they created a ecosystem for all elements of it's games.
That has largely evaporated now.
Much of the older fan-base is still clinging to that "clique".
The problem is there is some element of "us and them" to it all. Couple that with people who hang their ego's on winning and it can create that "toxic" environment.
@Deadnight: You said"Nerds of all calibres can be extremely toxic."
Two meaning to nerd:
"a foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly studious."
and
"a single-minded expert in a particular technical field."
That is rather general but typically I find environments more toxic through ignorance (spreading untruths) than by being studious or an expert (take pride in being "correct").
Sure it's GW's fault, they're the company. If you get shoddy results from a round of playtesting, look at the process, determine inefficiencies and reset; it's almost like running a business.
And if it's too much hassle for hardly any results, with plenty risk exposure, you cut your losses and kill it. Also a part of business 101. And running a business. Resets aren't always a thing...
I don't play WM/H but by all accounts, their open MKII beta-testing was a smashing success that ultimately caused their game to catapult in sales. I'm not saying that such a model would work for GW, even if they were willing to go that route, but it's ultimately much better than, "well, we tried and it didn't work, it's back to the workshop and fixed lists lads!" Companies do not have the luxury to set-up products for failure and if your unpaid test-monkeys screw-up you reset or find better quality test-monkeys you don't just scrap the whole system in favor of....nothing.
Mark2 play test was brilliant. It set up a great game and helped me fall in love with wargames again
There's a dissonance between your two responses. Company A axes open playtesting, Company B performs it to resounding success.
Again, when running projects/businesses; if something doesn't work but has potential, you don't just arbitrarily toss it out the window in favor of something that has resulted in years of unbalanced gack rules. Or, at the very least, you go realize that you've gone to a system of gack rules production and consider moving back to a version of the old system OR do something different. Proactive over inactive because inactive yields negative results (see financial report).
Plus, there is the very real possibility that the playtesters were focusing on ugly truths that GW did not want to hear.
It happens.
4th edition Dungeons and Dragons suffered from it - with playtesters telling the game designers that the skill challenges, as written, were unusable - that low level characters could not realistically get the needed results.
And that the game, as written, was overly focused on combat, to the detriment of the rest of the game.
The game hit the market - with the same unusable skill challenges, and too much focus on combat.
The first errata dropped the skill DCs of nearly every challenge by ten or more - on a d20!
Then the game itself dropped from the long held #1 spot to #2.
Because WotC decided that they knew better than the playtesters.
Sometimes there is a reason that people, even playtesters, are complaining.
Initial reactions to AOS are at least 50/50 pro/anti but I have no feel for whether that is a good result or a bad one.
Been thinking about that. If a significant proportion of the pro crowd are those 40K players who wanted a way to get into Fantasy*, who will devote a portion of their hobby budget to AoS, and cause a significant drop in 40K revenue, will GW declare AoS to be cannibalising 40K sales and throw it off a cliff...?
*Not that they'll be getting into Warhammer Fantasy at all, y'know.
Initial reactions to AOS are at least 50/50 pro/anti but I have no feel for whether that is a good result or a bad one.
Been thinking about that. If a significant proportion of the pro crowd are those 40K players who wanted a way to get into Fantasy*, who will devote a portion of their hobby budget to AoS, and cause a significant drop in 40K revenue, will GW declare AoS to be cannibalising 40K sales and throw it off a cliff...?
*Not that they'll be getting into Warhammer Fantasy at all, y'know.
I've been wondering that myself. Glad i'm sticking to my hobby of throwing ferraris off cliffs as it would be bloody expensive to throw gw stuff.
weeble1000 wrote:Comparing a group of table top miniatures wargames to a group of entirely different sports is disingenuous at best.
Sports fan is to soccer as table top games fan is to miniature wargames.
Comparing and contrasting to products within a niche of a niche of a niche is far more akin to comparing NASCAR to Formula One. There are differences, sure, but the sorts of differences someone who doesn't give a gack about motor sports does not really appreciate or care about.
More importantly, the interests of a NASCAR fan and a Formula One fan overlap very significantly.
I know soccer fans who have no interest in cricket, and rugby fans who despise soccer- give them a football game and it's less than meaningless. Heck I know soccer fans who support different teams who have no interest in any other teams in the same bloody sport - missus deadnight is one of them. Neither the fans nor the games are the same thing. PP. Gw. Cb? All different games, appealing to different peple. This is not a bad thing. I don't want one true game. I want wmh for pugs and tourneys, flames of war or for casual epic battles and infinity for my intense sci fi fix. All different games, doing different things. And others will like some, all, or none of these things along with me.
And all those sports people I know would have issue with what you're saying.
If use the sports car analogy lots of F1 fans are into DTM too, Or those who like Nascar like Indycar too.
Wargaming is a small market and most play 2 or more systems, only the die-hard GW-fans play only GW stuff.
So it is quite possible, that a person that plays GW and PP can in their community be positive about one company and negative about another.
weeble1000 wrote:Comparing a group of table top miniatures wargames to a group of entirely different sports is disingenuous at best.
Sports fan is to soccer as table top games fan is to miniature wargames.
Comparing and contrasting to products within a niche of a niche of a niche is far more akin to comparing NASCAR to Formula One. There are differences, sure, but the sorts of differences someone who doesn't give a gack about motor sports does not really appreciate or care about.
More importantly, the interests of a NASCAR fan and a Formula One fan overlap very significantly.
I know soccer fans who have no interest in cricket, and rugby fans who despise soccer- give them a football game and it's less than meaningless. Heck I know soccer fans who support different teams who have no interest in any other teams in the same bloody sport - missus deadnight is one of them. Neither the fans nor the games are the same thing. PP. Gw. Cb? All different games, appealing to different peple. This is not a bad thing. I don't want one true game. I want wmh for pugs and tourneys, flames of war or for casual epic battles and infinity for my intense sci fi fix. All different games, doing different things. And others will like some, all, or none of these things along with me.
And all those sports people I know would have issue with what you're saying.
The difference is that you'll never go to a soccer forum where they scream about how stupid cricket is, and how cricket should die. Sports fans might want every other team other than theirs to get injured (Go food poisoning!!) so that their team wins, but that's a little different
Just me, I'd rather be involved for a sport (Go Habs! Go Seahawks!) or wargame that I like, than to blow my time dumping on something that I don't. I can't stand basketball (mostly because I get sick of cheering every minute there's a basket), and I think golf is pointless to watch, but the last thing in the universe I'd do is talk about how dumb either sport is to spectate Besides, I fully understand how these sports which seem ridiculous to watch for me are totally immersive for others.
Just me, I'd rather be involved for a sport (Go Habs! Go Seahawks!) or wargame that I like, than to blow my time dumping on something that I don't.
So, what about a sport you did like, but now has changed to the point that you don't enjoy it anymore? Perhaps you're especially generous and will simply stop following it without a word (as many are wont to do), but surely you can see why a person might feel upset at something they enjoy "going away" so-to-speak.
Take AoS for example. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the rumors of WHFB being 100% replaced are true. That is, going forward, let's assume there will be no more models in the existing styles and no further rulebook updates for the system. Now, of course the stuff people already have will not simply vanish, and everyone can continue playing 8th as they have been before. Players/3rd party sites may even pick up the reins themselves and build new rules and models. Nevertheless, the "official" product line has ended. From this point forward, the specific aesthetic of the current line is done. Finished. Over. GW, as far as players are concerned, has no plans to do more of "the same", instead opting to make everything "new again". Although this is ultimately inevitable with anything in any industry, I'm sure you will agree that nobody is forcing GW to adopt this stance; after all, they are still a healthy, profitable company. It is their belief that this plan will be sustainable and/or profitable in the future.
So perhaps you can understand why a person might feel the need to speak their mind on a forum such as this, to say "I like this specific thing, and so I do not like that there won't be any more of it, and I do not believe that the situation must be this way." As someone who values having individual shelves for each franchise and product line, if one of those lines was cancelled - so you knew that shelf would never get anything new - would you not be even a little distressed?
Again, while you may be generous enough (and with enough other modeling projects to not be affected much) to not raise a big stink about it, I think it's very disingenuous to hand-wave away other customers' complaints with a back-handed "if you don't like it, go away." Many of them will go away, but I suspect most of those don't actually want to - and so they voice their concerns.
Just because cricket fans don't slag off baseball, doesn't mean WHFB fans should not slag off AOS.
To be realistic, no-one believes cricket would suddenly turn into baseball if enough people said cricket was rubbish and baseball was great. On the other hand, cricket fans might well complain that the five day international test format was too boring, or the 20/20 format was too fast. In fact it turns out the cricket authorities have taken note of such complaints and introduced a variety of formats to suit different tastes.
In our case it is game players who used to like 40K or WHFB, who started to become annoyed by different aspects of the games (price rises, lack of balance, etc) and voiced their complaints that were ignored by GW.
AOS actually is the final admission by GW that these complaints were not the whining of a tiny minority. The only possible reason for AOS and the dumping of WHFB, is that sales had declined to the point where the game was losing money. The reasons why are easy to understand; high barrier to entry because the game was too complicated and expensive, high barrier to continuing play because the game was too expensive, and a significant amount of disatisfaction with the rules.
The game plan for AOS is now becoming clear. An intro set of rules that is free and easy to play at skirmish level, to be followed by extensions adding more complex rules for larger battles and tournaments. This is exactly what a number of highly intelligent people like me have been saying is needed by 40K. GW have done it with WHFB because it is a more strategic target.
Admittedly there are some flies in the ointment. The basic AOS rules have immediately revealed a number of flaws that users will have to house rule about. These will shake out quite quickly, as the rules are so limited in scope there can't be too many of them. The lack of a balancing system is remarkable, however I understand from rumours it will be corrected in time.
Also, GW have taken advantage of the reset to rename all the factions and are going to release new models for them that will be incompatible with the old ones. This also invalidates all rival companies figures, e.g. Mantic.
On one level this is a bit gakky, but being realistic, GW need to make money off the models rather than the books. They hope to attract a lot of new players into their game but they also need to sell to veterans if possible. If you have an existing WHFB army, I should quickly buy whatever classic figures you need to fill out its war scrolls before they are all unavailable. (People are also buying the Land Marines for use in 40K armies.)
On the plus side, GW released free War scroll codexes for all the traditional WHFB armies, so if you have one you will easily be able to use it in AOS. That is a very good move by the company.
Back to the main topic: I am convinced that AOS will be more successful than WHFB had become. Loads of people like the rules and/or the figures and we are seeing reports of noobs even including girls enjoying the simplicity of the game.
It is also notable that it has launched at the mid-point of GW's financial year. If GW can sell 100,000 boxes, which I think they will, it adds a very useful £6 million plus to the bottom line even before new kits start to fly off the shelves.
The key question is whether 40K could go down the same route. 40K presumably accounts fo 80% or more of sales, so changing it dramatically would be a risk. However it is highly likely that 40K sales have been declining for several years, since 6th edition, which arguably introduced the same kind of accessibility problems that affected WHFB.
Presumably GW will study the effect of AOS for a couple of years before committing themselves to a total reworking of 40K. I personally would welcome a n AOS style system, as I have many 40K figures that currently are unused because I gave up the game during 6th/7th owing to the rising cost and complexity of the whole thing.
Kilkrazy wrote: Just because cricket fans don't slag off baseball, doesn't mean WHFB fans should not slag off AOS.
To be realistic, no-one believes cricket would suddenly turn into baseball if enough people said cricket was rubbish and baseball was great. On the other hand, cricket fans might well complain that the five day international test format was too boring, or the 20/20 format was too fast. In fact it turns out the cricket authorities have taken note of such complaints and introduced a variety of formats to suit different tastes.
In our case it is game players who used to like 40K or WHFB, who started to become annoyed by different aspects of the games (price rises, lack of balance, etc) and voiced their complaints that were ignored by GW.
AOS actually is the final admission by GW that these complaints were not the whining of a tiny minority. The only possible reason for AOS and the dumping of WHFB, is that sales had declined to the point where the game was losing money. The reasons why are easy to understand; high barrier to entry because the game was too complicated and expensive, high barrier to continuing play because the game was too expensive, and a significant amount of disatisfaction with the rules.
The game plan for AOS is now becoming clear. An intro set of rules that is free and easy to play at skirmish level, to be followed by extensions adding more complex rules for larger battles and tournaments. This is exactly what a number of highly intelligent people like me have been saying is needed by 40K. GW have done it with WHFB because it is a more strategic target.
Admittedly there are some flies in the ointment. The basic AOS rules have immediately revealed a number of flaws that users will have to house rule about. These will shake out quite quickly, as the rules are so limited in scope there can't be too many of them. The lack of a balancing system is remarkable, however I understand from rumours it will be corrected in time.
Also, GW have taken advantage of the reset to rename all the factions and are going to release new models for them that will be incompatible with the old ones. This also invalidates all rival companies figures, e.g. Mantic.
On one level this is a bit gakky, but being realistic, GW need to make money off the models rather than the books. They hope to attract a lot of new players into their game but they also need to sell to veterans if possible. If you have an existing WHFB army, I should quickly buy whatever classic figures you need to fill out its war scrolls before they are all unavailable. (People are also buying the Land Marines for use in 40K armies.)
On the plus side, GW released free War scroll codexes for all the traditional WHFB armies, so if you have one you will easily be able to use it in AOS. That is a very good move by the company.
Back to the main topic: I am convinced that AOS will be more successful than WHFB had become. Loads of people like the rules and/or the figures and we are seeing reports of noobs even including girls enjoying the simplicity of the game.
It is also notable that it has launched at the mid-point of GW's financial year. If GW can sell 100,000 boxes, which I think they will, it adds a very useful £6 million plus to the bottom line even before new kits start to fly off the shelves.
The key question is whether 40K could go down the same route. 40K presumably accounts fo 80% or more of sales, so changing it dramatically would be a risk. However it is highly likely that 40K sales have been declining for several years, since 6th edition, which arguably introduced the same kind of accessibility problems that affected WHFB.
Presumably GW will study the effect of AOS for a couple of years before committing themselves to a total reworking of 40K. I personally would welcome a n AOS style system, as I have many 40K figures that currently are unused because I gave up the game during 6th/7th owing to the rising cost and complexity of the whole thing.
This would appear to be a good idea with regard to 40k, (and if I'm understanding AOS correctly), but will it bring in the money for GW? GW are used to people needing to spend £150+ to field a 40k army, will they be interested in a system that allows gamers to spend less?
The other day I spent £60 on a Dead Man's Hand set up. That was for 2 x 7 man factions and a rulebook (one of the factions was a birthday present for a mate). I flicked through the rules one lunchbreak and we played our first game that evening at our local indie store. Game took about 2.5hrs and was great fun. I don't see GW wanting to drop to that level.
**********
Rea
Was just sent a FB link, Hitler reacts to Age of Sigmar. Not suitable NSW, but the best I've seen in a long while
I don't think GW will, from the quotes from the rep, it sounds like there will be a lot of very proscribed gaming opportunities, like the Stormclaw box.
If you want a new balanced game, you buy a campain box which contains 2 pre-defined armies and a handful of scenarios they feel are suitably balanced, you paint them, play with them as instructed, and then buy the next campaign box.
How much sales revenu do GW make from 40K? Is it declining and how fast?
What would be the impact of making the books available free? Will people spend more on kits than the lost revenue of book sales?
AOS is a potential testbed for this. It makes sense for GW at this point because WHFB clearly was no longer profitable, so trashing it doesn't lose them anything significant.
GW will gain sales information from AOS that will guide their decisions regarding the future of 40K.
The GW half-year report comes out towards the end of July.
The other day I spent £60 on a Dead Man's Hand set up. That was for 2 x 7 man factions and a rulebook (one of the factions was a birthday present for a mate). I flicked through the rules one lunchbreak and we played our first game that evening at our local indie store. Game took about 2.5hrs and was great fun. I don't see GW wanting to drop to that level.
**********
Rea
Was just sent a FB link, Hitler reacts to Age of Sigmar. Not suitable NSW, but the best I've seen in a long while
The other day I made a similar purchase (part spurred by my inlaws giving me £20 at Partizan for telephone tech support over the years). I followed it up with a gakload of 4ground buildings, cacti, crates, barrels and paint to do up a 3x3 on the reverse of my x-wing board. Total spend well into 3 figures. I will definitely be buying more, along with the expansion packs.
Just me, I'd rather be involved for a sport (Go Habs! Go Seahawks!) or wargame that I like, than to blow my time dumping on something that I don't.
So, what about a sport you did like, but now has changed to the point that you don't enjoy it anymore? Perhaps you're especially generous and will simply stop following it without a word (as many are wont to do), but surely you can see why a person might feel upset at something they enjoy "going away" so-to-speak.
This actually happened during the NHL strikes. I stopped watching hockey for quite a few years after because it posses me off. Sure, you complain about it and voice your concerns (otherwise you didn't care in the first place). And just like we have mini collections, sports paraphernalia, tickets, and all that aren't cheap, lemme tell ya. But even when I started doing other things with my time, I didn't go onto the NHL's boards and go on and on about how football was superior. If I thought there was a chance that it would make a difference, perhaps, but the NHL listening to me is zero, so why bother? Also, I make the assumption that my knowledge of the facts is incomplete, while theirs is at least marginally better, so I just let them do their thing.
It's not really being generous. It's being practical.
Now there are things that I believe are worthy of activist causes. Hydraulic fracking, for example, or whales caught in commercial fishing nets. But... wargaming.. sorry, as much as I enjoy it and as many hours I devote to the hobby, it's not close to makineg the cut to being a cult.
Wow... Okay, I made up a new game. Player 1 hits Player 2 in the head with a toaster. Then Player 2 hits Player 1 in the head with a toaster. Play continues until only one player remains conscious. Wanna play this one?
While an extreme example, what I'm getting at is that someone can look at a set of rules and not like them without actually playing the game. There are many things in AoS that I do not like (the inane special character rules like The Masque's dance for example). Upon reading the rules I have decided, without playing the game, that I do not like it. This is possible.
If the rules are out, you can comment on them. Generally, if it's a complex rules interaction that is woven through the whole of the game, it's best to wait to comment.
But what we're talking about here are rules so stupid and broken that it's pretty clear they're not trying at all.
Well, I did, today.
It's not fun. In fact, by turn two you are starting to wonder what you are doing here at all, because you start to feel a little silly. And that's before pretending to ride a horse and talking to it. It's not a good game, by any measure and I'd wager I could throw something together of the same quality in a single afternoon.
Or just move on, and find something better to do with their time and money?
Or both?
Sitting at work, burning the government's money, I enjoy a good post or two or dozen. I enjoy discussions, I'm sure you do to, and for many people on this board, 40k/Fantasy is a long term relationship that's become increasingly rocky. Its hard to just walk away for many. Lots of money, time, and effort were put into many armies, and many memories made over the years.
Realy I think AoS has some real potential if GW puts some effort into it and can pull in a great year, it could set them up for a real chance at making back what was lost at fantasy.
But they have to have learn from all there mistakes with fantasy, no more leaving factions and players in the dust for years...
If they have learn, And we see a update to the rules and support within the next few months I would think it can be successful.
If this is it, and we don't see any info on any new faction within a few months I think it will start to falter.
People who don't like eternals or KHORNE are effectively sitting around waiting to find out if they should even bother getting excited. And this is where GW fail before, there is only so long players will wait for stuff to get there interest.
GW needs to market there new game better and talk about the future a bit now. Why everyone is watching them. That's something that you can't pay for and GW is throwing it away.
Or just move on, and find something better to do with their time and money?
Or both?
Sitting at work, burning the government's money, I enjoy a good post or two or dozen. I enjoy discussions, I'm sure you do to, and for many people on this board, 40k/Fantasy is a long term relationship that's become increasingly rocky. Its hard to just walk away for many. Lots of money, time, and effort were put into many armies, and many memories made over the years.
Honestly - I agree with you. But there is a point where maintaining relationships that are essentially extinct is counter productive and unhealthy.
...Sure, you complain about it and voice your concerns (otherwise you didn't care in the first place). ...If I thought there was a chance that it would make a difference, perhaps, but the NHL listening to me is zero, so why bother? ...so I just let them do their thing.
So, in the same breath you admit to complaining about a similar situation... and then say "why bother complaining?" I can only assume you mean that you verbally voiced your complaints to friends/family, but then drew the line at posting your concerns on the forum, which in my opinion is essentially an arbitrary distinction. You may not feel the need to post your opinion, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss everyone else just because "why bother." As I said before, has it occurred to you that the people posting on here are just doing so to "complain about it and voice [their] concerns" rather than any attempt to make a difference? Of course GW isn't listening, they're not gonna change because of what happens here.
However, other people are listening. When posts here highlight issues with rules, pricing, models, business practices, and everything else, others who listen might change their attitudes; they might say "Huh, I never thought of it that way" or "Nah, that's not an issue for me." And then we have a discourse about it - that's the point of having a forum. Some people may just want to hear about others' experiences, good or bad, or have had a problem and want to hear what others have done (such as all the people who are now migrating to KoW after coming here and other forums and hearing about it).
Dismissing all of this just because you don't like to read "negative things" on the internet isn't conducive to a debate or conversation - it's basically covering your ears and saying "Shut up and go away!"
Besides that, I'm not even going to get started with your silly "It's not as bad as fracking or bad whaling practices so don't talk about it" strawman... I mean, come on; really?
...Sure, you complain about it and voice your concerns (otherwise you didn't care in the first place). ...If I thought there was a chance that it would make a difference, perhaps, but the NHL listening to me is zero, so why bother? ...so I just let them do their thing.
So, in the same breath you admit to complaining about a similar situation... and then say "why bother complaining?" I can only assume you mean that you verbally voiced your complaints to friends/family, but then drew the line at posting your concerns on the forum, which in my opinion is essentially an arbitrary distinction. You may not feel the need to post your opinion, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss everyone else just because "why bother." As I said before, has it occurred to you that the people posting on here are just doing so to "complain about it and voice [their] concerns" rather than any attempt to make a difference? Of course GW isn't listening, they're not gonna change because of what happens here.
However, other people are listening. When posts here highlight issues with rules, pricing, models, business practices, and everything else, others who listen might change their attitudes; they might say "Huh, I never thought of it that way" or "Nah, that's not an issue for me." And then we have a discourse about it - that's the point of having a forum. Some people may just want to hear about others' experiences, good or bad, or have had a problem and want to hear what others have done (such as all the people who are now migrating to KoW after coming here and other forums and hearing about it).
Dismissing all of this just because you don't like to read "negative things" on the internet isn't conducive to a debate or conversation - it's basically covering your ears and saying "Shut up and go away!"
Besides that, I'm not even going to get started with your silly "It's not as bad as fracking or bad whaling practices so don't talk about it" strawman... I mean, come on; really?
Exalted for truth. Of course GW isn't listening. Of course they won't change their products based on what we write here. That's not the point. We all post here to talk about wargames, just like we do with our friends in real life. Some companies/creators do post here and use this site to communicate with their fans, and that's a fantastic bonus, but's just a bonus. Chatting with other people in the same hobby is the point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote: Realy I think AoS has some real potential if GW puts some effort into it and can pull in a great year, it could set them up for a real chance at making back what was lost at fantasy.
But they have to have learn from all there mistakes with fantasy, no more leaving factions and players in the dust for years...
If they have learn, And we see a update to the rules and support within the next few months I would think it can be successful.
If this is it, and we don't see any info on any new faction within a few months I think it will start to falter.
People who don't like eternals or KHORNE are effectively sitting around waiting to find out if they should even bother getting excited. And this is where GW fail before, there is only so long players will wait for stuff to get there interest.
GW needs to market there new game better and talk about the future a bit now. Why everyone is watching them. That's something that you can't pay for and GW is throwing it away.
See, the assumption that you're making is that GW have built a solid base for this game which they can build on. Many of us, myself included, don't share that assumption. GW has done little over the past decade or more to encourage us to trust in their ability to handle such a major relaunch. For crissake, the Dark Angels codex has formations in it that are impossible to use, RAW. Why should we trust them to handle building a whole game from scratch?
Also, when the first step to success for your game is "fix the non-functioning rules," you're already in trouble.
Honestly - I agree with you. But there is a point where maintaining relationships that are essentially extinct is counter productive and unhealthy.
True, and that point is often hard to recognize for many, and varies from person to person. Funny enough for me, I'm still sticking around 40k because of a 3rd party company that I absolutely love.
Still, I often feel its better for all involved to either have a sensible discussion with someone you may not agree with, or ignore them entirely.
I feel Azrael's sig quote sums up my feelings on these matters. I'm both equally fascinated and not a little shocked at how many people are enjoying AoS, but I don't think I'd ever ask them to stop posting about it, nor would I expect them to ask the same of me.
GW topics are a bit like political/religious discussions sometimes, eh? Funny how that is.
Apple fox wrote: Realy I think AoS has some real potential if GW puts some effort into it and can pull in a great year, it could set them up for a real chance at making back what was lost at fantasy.
But they have to have learn from all there mistakes with fantasy, no more leaving factions and players in the dust for years...
If they have learn, And we see a update to the rules and support within the next few months I would think it can be successful.
If this is it, and we don't see any info on any new faction within a few months I think it will start to falter.
People who don't like eternals or KHORNE are effectively sitting around waiting to find out if they should even bother getting excited. And this is where GW fail before, there is only so long players will wait for stuff to get there interest.
GW needs to market there new game better and talk about the future a bit now. Why everyone is watching them. That's something that you can't pay for and GW is throwing it away.
See, the assumption that you're making is that GW have built a solid base for this game which they can build on. Many of us, myself included, don't share that assumption. GW has done little over the past decade or more to encourage us to trust in their ability to handle such a major relaunch. For crissake, the Dark Angels codex has formations in it that are impossible to use, RAW. Why should we trust them to handle building a whole game from scratch?
Also, when the first step to success for your game is "fix the non-functioning rules," you're already in trouble.
I think you misunderstood, or my English fail a bit late at night, I don't think GW has built a solid base for the game, I think they can.
But they have to change there ways, the dark angels formation can't happen again and again.
As other rules issues shouldn't.
As a community we should know that it's only getting so much attention since it's a GW product and bares the fantasy name, but that alone can't make it successful.
This game I think will show where GW stands for the future, if it fails then GW will be left with 40k. There is money for GW in these products, they just have to put in some effort to get it.
Well, I did, today.
It's not fun. In fact, by turn two you are starting to wonder what you are doing here at all, because you start to feel a little silly. And that's before pretending to ride a horse and talking to it. It's not a good game, by any measure and I'd wager I could throw something together of the same quality in a single afternoon.
As an opposing view, I have a store full of people playing it and liking it, many of them older players who have played wfb for over 10 years, sometimes 20 or more. First tournament is Sunday.
Well, I did, today.
It's not fun. In fact, by turn two you are starting to wonder what you are doing here at all, because you start to feel a little silly. And that's before pretending to ride a horse and talking to it. It's not a good game, by any measure and I'd wager I could throw something together of the same quality in a single afternoon.
As an opposing view, I have a store full of people playing it and liking it, many of them older players who have played wfb for over 10 years, sometimes 20 or more. First tournament is Sunday.
And the boxed set has none of the silly rules.
To be honest, the idea of making the existing armies 'silly and embarrasing to play' as a 'last hurrah' for them is insulting at best.
People spent hundreds, if not thousands of dollars on those armies, and put many hundreds of hours into them. For GW to purposely try to make you embarrassed to play them in order to get people to migrate to newer armies is, again, pretty insulting, and another sign of them treating you as a wallet.
Well, I did, today.
It's not fun. In fact, by turn two you are starting to wonder what you are doing here at all, because you start to feel a little silly. And that's before pretending to ride a horse and talking to it. It's not a good game, by any measure and I'd wager I could throw something together of the same quality in a single afternoon.
As an opposing view, I have a store full of people playing it and liking it, many of them older players who have played wfb for over 10 years, sometimes 20 or more. First tournament is Sunday.
And the boxed set has none of the silly rules.
To be honest, the idea of making the existing armies 'silly and embarrasing to play' as a 'last hurrah' for them is insulting at best.
People spent hundreds, if not thousands of dollars on those armies, and put many hundreds of hours into them. For GW to purposely try to make you embarrassed to play them in order to get people to migrate to newer armies is, again, pretty insulting, and another sign of them treating you as a wallet.
1 - no one forced them to buy thousands of "currency" worth of armies
2 - no one forced them to spend many hundreds of hours of painting/modelling them
3 - no one forces you to be embarrassed by using the "silly" abilities heck they do not even force you to take it seriously, it is a game of goblins and dragons, heck using cognitive reasoning you could IGNORE those particular abilities and play without the silliness
4 - every company sees us as "customers" and not wallets, same as GW, GW could have ended warhammer fantasy and focused on 40k as their only source of income and it would make more sense than to keep WFB alive (since it was dying and DYING and dying and we could bicker and argue about how to fix it but it was dying) so they did the next best thing, restart it...
I mean lets be honest, if fantasy and AoS cease to be do you really think GW would suffer that much? if anything they would make more money on 40k by releasing more things and focusing on that IP alone.
People seldom force anyone to do anything, often attempting to do so will result in police prosecution and imprisonment.
That doesn't invalidate any of the issues people may raise.
But posting such a poorly constructed argument has actually lowered the overall level of discourse in this thread noticeably, please try harder.
Oh, and as for '4' most businesses see customers as an important asset, to be nurtured and cultivated, GW acts like customers are a resource to be exploited. Less protecting and managing a beautiful area of countryside to encourage visitors who spend money again and again, more strip mining the whole area.
Azreal13 wrote: People seldom force anyone to do anything, often attempting to do so will result in police prosecution and imprisonment.
That doesn't invalidate any of the issues people may raise.
But posting such a poorly constructed argument has actually lowered the overall level of discourse in this thread noticeably, please try harder.
Oh, and as for '4' most businesses see customers as an important asset, to be nurtured and cultivated, GW acts like customers are a resource to be exploited. Less protecting and managing a beautiful area of countryside to encourage visitors who spend money again and again, more strip mining the whole area.
I assure you that my publisher does not think of customers as wallets. We talk to them as friends and listen to what they want because we genuinely like them. Because we are them.
Wargaming is for nerds. I'm proud to be a nerd. We like communities where we can get together and talk nerd-stuff. GW is no longer apart of that community and has actively discouraged that community in places. For that, I won't give them a dime until they change.
And some companies are even willing to talk about the business decisions that they make.
Hell, if you make the mistake of asking the Pughs at Reaper about the business decisions, they will bring out graphs and charts.... (I am joking about it being a mistake - but I, for one, was unprepared for the enthusiasm that they used when presenting the numbers. They are happy bean counters - and ones that enjoy their work enough that it is contagious.)
The Auld Grump - so I never make the mistake of saying that GW is having problems because the bean counters are in charge - they just need better bean counters.
*EDIT* Paizo is another company that is willing to talk - and are willing to admit when they have made mistakes.
Azreal13 wrote: People seldom force anyone to do anything, often attempting to do so will result in police prosecution and imprisonment.
That doesn't invalidate any of the issues people may raise.
But posting such a poorly constructed argument has actually lowered the overall level of discourse in this thread noticeably, please try harder.
Oh, and as for '4' most businesses see customers as an important asset, to be nurtured and cultivated, GW acts like customers are a resource to be exploited. Less protecting and managing a beautiful area of countryside to encourage visitors who spend money again and again, more strip mining the whole area.
their argument is as follows
"GW is a bad company because they do things that I do not agree with because even though they are successful and make a profit I believe they should do this and this and this because as a company they should make me happy instead of making themselves a profit"
as their CEO said "we are in the business of making miniatures"... and they are still the best at it.
oh and by the way
this
"But posting such a poorly constructed argument has actually lowered the overall level of discourse in this thread noticeably, please try harder. "
is more or less an ad hominem... and I am not trying to have an argument, arguments are conflicts, I prefer discussions...
Azreal13 wrote: People seldom force anyone to do anything, often attempting to do so will result in police prosecution and imprisonment.
That doesn't invalidate any of the issues people may raise.
But posting such a poorly constructed argument has actually lowered the overall level of discourse in this thread noticeably, please try harder.
Oh, and as for '4' most businesses see customers as an important asset, to be nurtured and cultivated, GW acts like customers are a resource to be exploited. Less protecting and managing a beautiful area of countryside to encourage visitors who spend money again and again, more strip mining the whole area.
I assure you that my publisher does not think of customers as wallets. We talk to them as friends and listen to what they want because we genuinely like them. Because we are them.
Wargaming is for nerds. I'm proud to be a nerd. We like communities where we can get together and talk nerd-stuff. GW is no longer apart of that community and has actively discouraged that community in places. For that, I won't give them a dime until they change.
they have been rather good to me lately, been able to discuss a lot with the GW manager, love their miniature guides, their paints and such are great, modelling tools are top quality, I am going to get tips from the GW manager about painting and playing later on this month, miniatures are top of the line and they are "trying" to keep a dying part of their business alive (WFB) when they could just end it and move on to things that make a profit.
Except, of course, that they aren't the best miniatures.
Some of their lines are decent, some are good, and some are drek.
Mostly... they are middle of the road.
And their CEO is making decisions that are hurting the company - not helping it expand in a time when the industry as a whole is expanding by double digits.
Azreal13 wrote: People seldom force anyone to do anything, often attempting to do so will result in police prosecution and imprisonment.
That doesn't invalidate any of the issues people may raise.
But posting such a poorly constructed argument has actually lowered the overall level of discourse in this thread noticeably, please try harder.
Oh, and as for '4' most businesses see customers as an important asset, to be nurtured and cultivated, GW acts like customers are a resource to be exploited. Less protecting and managing a beautiful area of countryside to encourage visitors who spend money again and again, more strip mining the whole area.
their argument is as follows
"GW is a bad company because they do things that I do not agree with because even though they are successful and make a profit I believe they should do this and this and this because as a company they should make me happy instead of making themselves a profit"
as their CEO said "we are in the business of making miniatures"... and they are still the best at it.
Firstly characterising everyone with something critical to say as "they" and attributing the same argument to all of "them" is dramatically oversimplifying the situation.
Secondly, by so dramatically oversimplifying the situation you've shown a lack of awareness. I don't characterise GW as a "bad company," there's no such thing. I think they're poorly run, and many of their actions (withdrawal from the customer base, heavy handed legal tactics, doubling down on ideas that are already showing they aren't working etc, etc, etc) run completely contrary to established best practice, or just plain common sense, frequently the GW approach to problem solving is akin to punching yourself in the face in order to scratch your nose.
Finally, although Grump has already covered this, they categorically don't make the best miniatures, they make some nice models sure, but they're charging Ferrari money for their Porsche models.
oh and by the way
this
"But posting such a poorly constructed argument has actually lowered the overall level of discourse in this thread noticeably, please try harder. "
is more or less an ad hominem... and I am not trying to have an argument, arguments are conflicts, I prefer discussions...
No, I was attacking your argument, in a very literal sense, it was dreadful to use "nobody forced you" as any sort of defence, and if it's the best you've got then there's no discussion to be had.
notprop wrote: Bean counters need to be in charge of all companies. I know, I'm a bean counter.
With the greatest of respect to bean-counters though, really they should be there in the background and letting the creative types do their thing, applying a slight nudge to the rump at times, dangling a carrot at others and helping guide the ship.
Rather than being T-800s stood with Plasma rifles outside the guarded compound, while HKs circle above, the poor creative types huddled inside writing exactly what they are told and incinerated by said plasma rifles if they don't!
Which is really the only way you can possibly explain some of the rules of AoS, or the fact that GW is not continuing to sell 8th edition even in a limited/direct only form, which really is the only problem I have with any of this..
Azreal13 wrote: Oh, and as for '4' most businesses see customers as an important asset, to be nurtured and cultivated, GW acts like customers are a resource to be exploited. Less protecting and managing a beautiful area of countryside to encourage visitors who spend money again and again, more strip mining the whole area.
I think most businesses see their customers as long-term cashflow, not.... plants. You don't need to water and feed your customers; you don't need to shower them with love or talk to them for them to send more money. You just need to make products that they want, and they will buy them. When was the last time Apple asked anyone what the next iPhone should look like? When was the last time the hugged their customer and treated them like a chia plant? It's just an expensive gadget that people like, and the vast majority of iPhone users could care less what Tim Cook says or does (or Steve Jobs, who was much more interesting). Most people who use Windows have no idea who Satya Nadella is, never heard of Steve Ballmer, and only know Bill Gates as the richest guy on Earth.
AoS isn't any more expensive than WMH now (I'd argue it's cheaper as a 20-30 model game if you pick comparable models).
GW isn't strip mining its customer base anymore than British Petroleum is. They're just making a product and selling it for the highest price they can get away with selling it for, which is the same strategy that just about everyone else uses. GW models are not even the most expensive models on the market. They don't force anyone to buy anything; quite to the opposite, they don't even spend money on marketing their stuff, so if you buy something, it's because you walked into a store, saw it on a shelf, and wanted it.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Except, of course, that they aren't the best miniatures.
Some of their lines are decent, some are good, and some are drek.
Mostly... they are middle of the road.
And their CEO is making decisions that are hurting the company - not helping it expand in a time when the industry as a whole is expanding by double digits.
The Auld Grump
ok... what if I say, they are the best?
you realise that other than our opinion the only way to prove either of us are wrong or right are sales... and they lead in that department.
Look I am not saying others do not make amazing minies (Perry miniatures look great if you are after the realistic historical look) but at the end of the day other than our opinion and when that fails (which it usually does because opinions are all equally wrong) its down to success and sales...
I will say this though, GW needs to make more female miniatures... which is clearly lacking (other than their fantastic ladyboys models, wyches)
Azreal13 wrote: Oh, and as for '4' most businesses see customers as an important asset, to be nurtured and cultivated, GW acts like customers are a resource to be exploited. Less protecting and managing a beautiful area of countryside to encourage visitors who spend money again and again, more strip mining the whole area.
I think most businesses see their customers as long-term cashflow, not.... plants. You don't need to water and feed your customers; you don't need to shower them with love or talk to them for them to send more money. You just need to make products that they want, and they will buy them. When was the last time Apple asked anyone what the next iPhone should look like? When was the last time the hugged their customer and treated them like a chia plant? It's just an expensive gadget that people like, and the vast majority of iPhone users could care less what Tim Cook says or does (or Steve Jobs, who was much more interesting). Most people who use Windows have no idea who Satya Nadella is, never heard of Steve Ballmer, and only know Bill Gates as the richest guy on Earth.
AoS isn't any more expensive than WMH now (I'd argue it's cheaper as a 20-30 model game if you pick comparable models).
GW isn't strip mining its customer base anymore than British Petroleum is. They're just making a product and selling it for the highest price they can get away with selling it for, which is the same strategy that just about everyone else uses. GW models are not even the most expensive models on the market. They don't force anyone to buy anything; quite to the opposite, they don't even spend money on marketing their stuff, so if you buy something, it's because you walked into a store, saw it on a shelf, and wanted it.
You'd either be wrong as a blanket statement, or partially correct or wrong based on the criteria, or so subjective its irrelevant to discuss.
You decide.
you realise that other than our opinion the only way to prove either of us are wrong or right are sales... and they lead in that department.
They lead now...but are dropping. That's been the whole point of this thread if you've been paying attention. Everyone here is aware that GW is the 400lbs gorilla in the room. What we're saying is that they used to be the 800lbs gorilla, but a lot of smaller companies are eating away at them, for many reasons.
Look I am not saying others do not make amazing minies (Perry miniatures look great if you are after the realistic historical look) but at the end of the day other than our opinion and when that fails (which it usually does because opinions are all equally wrong) its down to success and sales...
And again, if you've been reading the thread and other peoples' responses, you'd understand their sales are shrinking. Put it this way, GW makes so much money that they have to carry a larger cost to do; overhead, paying for materials, staff, so on. The day GW goes under (if/when), they'll still likely be turning over more revenue than most other companies in the market, its just that GW has to make so much more money to support their costs.
So yes, GW still makes a lot of money, but they're making less. That's the issue here.
I will say this though, GW needs to make more female miniatures... which is clearly lacking (other than their fantastic ladyboys models, wyches)
Yes, female Guard would be a welcome addition, though I'm getting mine from Vic Minis.
Azreal13 wrote: Oh, and as for '4' most businesses see customers as an important asset, to be nurtured and cultivated, GW acts like customers are a resource to be exploited. Less protecting and managing a beautiful area of countryside to encourage visitors who spend money again and again, more strip mining the whole area.
I think most businesses see their customers as long-term cashflow, not.... plants. You don't need to water and feed your customers; you don't need to shower them with love or talk to them for them to send more money. You just need to make products that they want, and they will buy them. When was the last time Apple asked anyone what the next iPhone should look like? When was the last time the hugged their customer and treated them like a chia plant? It's just an expensive gadget that people like, and the vast majority of iPhone users could care less what Tim Cook says or does (or Steve Jobs, who was much more interesting). Most people who use Windows have no idea who Satya Nadella is, never heard of Steve Ballmer, and only know Bill Gates as the richest guy on Earth.
AoS isn't any more expensive than WMH now (I'd argue it's cheaper as a 20-30 model game if you pick comparable models).
GW isn't strip mining its customer base anymore than British Petroleum is. They're just making a product and selling it for the highest price they can get away with selling it for, which is the same strategy that just about everyone else uses. GW models are not even the most expensive models on the market. They don't force anyone to buy anything; quite to the opposite, they don't even spend money on marketing their stuff, so if you buy something, it's because you walked into a store, saw it on a shelf, and wanted it.
A long term customer is something you do cultivate a relationship with, just like a plant. Sure, you've tried to make it sound dumb by the language you've used, but there's a reason that salesmen are broadly characterised as either hunters or farmers, and that the farmer sort are broadly speaking most desirable in the majority of situations. So in actual fact you've countered your own argument. You're right, people don't care what the CEO does or says (necessarily) but they do care about things like the quality of the experience they receive when going into their shops (which Apple are known for.) Do you think the reduction to one man stores and relocation to out of the way locations has preserved the retail experience for GW's customers? How about the removal of in store gaming, or the de facto removal because of smaller units?
We have numerous incidents that can be cited as demonstrating senior management's less than stellar attitude towards the customers, and if you can come up with a better metaphor for milking a diminishing customer base for more and more cash in the short term to pay out in dividends with little regard to the future health of the company than strip mining then let's hear it.
No, I was attacking your argument, in a very literal sense, it was dreadful to use "nobody forced you" as any sort of defence, and if it's the best you've got then there's no discussion to be had.
It was not a defense, it was a statement of fact, the whole "GW does things I do not agree with" is a silly argument or statement for that matter, its their company and they run it how they see fit... there is a magic ability where you can STOP BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS AND MOVE ON that sort of works but if you spent THOUSANDS of ££$$$ on their products and then cry when they do things you do not agree with, well, that is really your problem... as a company they do things what ALL companies do (THEY MAKE A PROFIT), if they wish to focus on miniature making and lore and ignore gaming, that is THEIR choice, not yours... if they want to restart WHFB that is THEIR choice and not yours and its YOUR choice to stop buying any of their products and move on.... remember GW is not a political party where they need to cuddle and hug their "customers"... they are a business, they make money, everything else is a process on how to make money, if they would make more money by being open and cuddling then they would..
40k is a success and other than slight sales down (which could be because of the economic downfall the world felt) it is successful and they do exactly what they have always done, why fix something (in a business sense) that is not broken :/
its like the whole MARVEL nonsense and battleworlds, people all complain about it but in end MARVEL is still making money and therefore its a success whether we agree with the ethics or not..
they have been rather good to me lately, been able to discuss a lot with the GW manager, love their miniature guides, their paints and such are great, modelling tools are top quality, I am going to get tips from the GW manager about painting and playing later on this month, miniatures are top of the line and they are "trying" to keep a dying part of their business alive (WFB) when they could just end it and move on to things that make a profit.
This is a very short sighted view. Just because you like their products and have a good relationship with your local manager does not mean that the company as a whole has very toxic business practices that are hurtful to the hobby and it's participants as a whole. These practices have been discussed in detail on this forum, and pretending they don't exist is willful ignorance. By supporting GW you actively hurt the hobby you claim to like.
Also if you truly believe they that Age of Sigmar was made out of the kindness of GW's hearts in order to keep fantasy alive, and was not made explicitly to redirect the hobby towards a new audience (younger kids) in order to make a profit, then you are drinking some serious GW Koolaid. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by that sentence, but if it is that is some massive propaganda.
they have been rather good to me lately, been able to discuss a lot with the GW manager, love their miniature guides, their paints and such are great, modelling tools are top quality, I am going to get tips from the GW manager about painting and playing later on this month, miniatures are top of the line and they are "trying" to keep a dying part of their business alive (WFB) when they could just end it and move on to things that make a profit.
This is a very short sighted view. Just because you like their products and have a good relationship with your local manager does not mean that the company as a whole has very toxic business practices that are hurtful to the hobby and it's participants as a whole. These practices have been discussed in detail on this forum, and pretending they don't exist is willful ignorance. By supporting GW you actively hurt the hobby you claim to like.
Also if you truly believe they that Age of Sigmar was made out of the kindness of GW's hearts in order to keep fantasy alive, and was not made explicitly to redirect the hobby towards a new audience (younger kids) in order to make a profit, then you are drinking some serious GW Koolaid. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by that sentence, but if it is that is some massive propaganda.
ALL COMPANIES FOCUS ON PROFIT, they would not be companies otherwise :/ even PRIVATEER PRESS focuses on profit... and any other company you think off, how they go about making profits is their choice, GW is successful in making profits therefore they are a successful company if you do not like the way they make profits, find another company...
bitethythumb wrote: 40k is a success and other than slight sales down (which could be because of the economic downfall the world felt) it is successful and they do exactly what they have always done, why fix something (in a business sense) that is not broken :/
The wargaming and miniature markets as a whole have been steadily growing in the last years, GW being the most notable exception. So the economic crisis is hardly an excuse here.
@Talys.
Selling your product at the highest price the market will stand , is what lots of companies do to great effect.
If the majority of your customer base still sees value in the product everything is great!
However, when you exceed the price the market can stand, you start seeing a down turn in sales volumes.
At which point you should look at adding value to you product range.
OR the sales volume declines to the point you have to increase retail prices even more to make up the shortfall, which drops sales volumes even more...And then this will eventually negatively impact profit margins.
Does this sound familiar?
@notprop.
'Bean counters' are experts at dealing with numbers.And are an important PART of a successful business.
However, the people that understand the product and all the processes involved in delivering it.And those people dealing with customers , to establish customer requirements, and most importantly what customers value most.
Should also be part of the decision making process.
No, I was attacking your argument, in a very literal sense, it was dreadful to use "nobody forced you" as any sort of defence, and if it's the best you've got then there's no discussion to be had.
It was not a defense, it was a statement of fact, the whole "GW does things I do not agree with" is a silly argument or statement for that matter, its their company and they run it how they see fit... there is a magic ability where you can STOP BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS AND MOVE ON that sort of works but if you spent THOUSANDS of ££$$$ on their products and then cry when they do things you do not agree with, well, that is really your problem... as a company they do things what ALL companies do (THEY MAKE A PROFIT), if they wish to focus on miniature making and lore and ignore gaming, that is THEIR choice, not yours... if they want to restart WHFB that is THEIR choice and not yours and its YOUR choice to stop buying any of their products and move on.... remember GW is not a political party where they need to cuddle and hug their "customers"... they are a business, they make money, everything else is a process on how to make money, if they would make more money by being open and cuddling then they would..
40k is a success and other than slight sales down (which could be because of the economic downfall the world felt) it is successful and they do exactly what they have always done, why fix something (in a business sense) that is not broken :/
its like the whole MARVEL nonsense and battleworlds, people all complain about it but in end MARVEL is still making money and therefore its a success whether we agree with the ethics or not..
welcome to capitalism buddy.
Yeesh.
Here's capitalism in a nutshell - find out what people want and give it to them.
GW don't do the first bit and it's questionable that they're currently doing the second.
Plus, Marvel as an example? The same Marvel that was in serious trouble before Disney bought them and started making movies? That Marvel?
bitethythumb wrote: 40k is a success and other than slight sales down (which could be because of the economic downfall the world felt) it is successful and they do exactly what they have always done, why fix something (in a business sense) that is not broken :/
The wargaming and miniature markets as a whole have been steadily growing in the last years, GW being the most notable exception. So the economic crisis is hardly an excuse here.
of course they would they sell (most of the time) cheaper miniatures and books (in terms of actually starting a hobby) and therefore is more attractive, good on them, capitalism works with strong competition... its why GW made a skirmish game as by looking at things, they sell more...
you realise that other than our opinion the only way to prove either of us are wrong or right are sales... and they lead in that department.
Look I am not saying others do not make amazing minies (Perry miniatures look great if you are after the realistic historical look) but at the end of the day other than our opinion and when that fails (which it usually does because opinions are all equally wrong) its down to success and sales...
Sales level a conclusive indication of quality?
Please take a look at the current top 10 movie and album sales and then repeat that statement.
they have been rather good to me lately, been able to discuss a lot with the GW manager, love their miniature guides, their paints and such are great, modelling tools are top quality, I am going to get tips from the GW manager about painting and playing later on this month, miniatures are top of the line and they are "trying" to keep a dying part of their business alive (WFB) when they could just end it and move on to things that make a profit.
This is a very short sighted view. Just because you like their products and have a good relationship with your local manager does not mean that the company as a whole has very toxic business practices that are hurtful to the hobby and it's participants as a whole. These practices have been discussed in detail on this forum, and pretending they don't exist is willful ignorance. By supporting GW you actively hurt the hobby you claim to like.
Also if you truly believe they that Age of Sigmar was made out of the kindness of GW's hearts in order to keep fantasy alive, and was not made explicitly to redirect the hobby towards a new audience (younger kids) in order to make a profit, then you are drinking some serious GW Koolaid. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by that sentence, but if it is that is some massive propaganda.
ALL COMPANIES FOCUS ON PROFIT, they would not be companies otherwise :/ even PRIVATEER PRESS focuses on profit... and any other company you think off, how they go about making profits is their choice, GW is successful in making profits therefore they are a successful company if you do not like the way they make profits, find another company...
That's not my point. You had been previously criticized for backing a company that implements business policies that are detrimental to the hobby. You replied by saying you were treated well on a personal level. I then responded that this is a short sighted view, because ultimately you are still supporting a company that is making things worse for the hobby and it's playerbase. You are right that I don't like the way they make a profit, and my argument is that you shouldn't either as a fan of the miniature game industry.
Blacksails wrote: "We're still not bankrupt guys! Everything must be fine!"
Flawless logic right there.
GW makes profits, they are FAAAAR away from bankruptcy, GW is so big that they have a lot of economic strategies to still be making profits, heck even if they lose 30% of their customers they would still be making profits (most likely close down their stores etc)
Blacksails wrote: "We're still not bankrupt guys! Everything must be fine!"
Flawless logic right there.
GW makes profits, they are FAAAAR away from bankruptcy, GW is so big that they have a lot of economic strategies to still be making profits, heck even if they lose 30% of their customers they would still be making profits (most likely close down their stores etc)
Please provide sources for this. Without sources this literally you making stuff up.
Blacksails wrote: "We're still not bankrupt guys! Everything must be fine!"
Flawless logic right there.
GW makes profits, they are FAAAAR away from bankruptcy, GW is so big that they have a lot of economic strategies to still be making profits, heck even if they lose 30% of their customers they would still be making profits (most likely close down their stores etc)
Please provide sources for this. Without sources this literally you making stuff up.
Blacksails wrote: "We're still not bankrupt guys! Everything must be fine!"
Flawless logic right there.
GW makes profits, they are FAAAAR away from bankruptcy, GW is so big that they have a lot of economic strategies to still be making profits, heck even if they lose 30% of their customers they would still be making profits (most likely close down their stores etc)
Please provide sources for this. Without sources this literally you making stuff up.
Blacksails wrote: Isn't GW operating on ~10M in profit out of some ~110Mish revenue?
A 30% drop would put them very much in the red.
Hence why I said they could use basic economic strategies to still be making profits like for example "CLOSING DOWN ALL STORES" etc... there are many things a company can do to make a profit and keep out of the red, GW is so big it has a lot to fall back on... look at it this way, GW can still make a profit even if it goes down to the size of say Privateer Press, they would just have to "change"
Blacksails wrote: "We're still not bankrupt guys! Everything must be fine!"
Flawless logic right there.
GW makes profits, they are FAAAAR away from bankruptcy, GW is so big that they have a lot of economic strategies to still be making profits, heck even if they lose 30% of their customers they would still be making profits (most likely close down their stores etc)
Please provide sources for this. Without sources this literally you making stuff up.
Hence why I said they could use basic economic strategies to still be making profits like for example "CLOSING DOWN ALL STORES" etc... there are many things a company can do to make a profit and keep out of the red, GW is so big it has a lot to fall back on... look at it this way, GW can still make a profit even if it goes down to the size of say Privateer Press, they would just have to "change"
Which doesn't happen overnight, which has the issues of whatever contracts the stores are on, or that cutting too many things starts to eat into their own ability to produce and distribute their product effectively.
Its easy to say, hard to do.
There's also zero evidence to claim GW could just magically shrink down to the size of PP and make profit. They have obligations and overhead costs they'd have to dramatically slash that the end result wouldn't even resemble GW. Further, if GW was forced to shrink to that size, logic would then dictate it would eventually fold, seeing as the reasons it ended up there would indicate they're not making anything people want to buy.
bitethythumb wrote:GW makes profits, they are FAAAAR away from bankruptcy, GW is so big that they have a lot of economic strategies to still be making profits, heck even if they lose 30% of their customers they would still be making profits (most likely close down their stores etc)
Blacksails wrote:Isn't GW operating on ~10M in profit out of some ~110Mish revenue?
A 30% drop would put them very much in the red.
He actually said, 30% of their customers, not 30% of their revenue.
I actually think that GW could survive losing 30% of their customers, because it would mostly be the least profitable 30%. The 'superfans' spend by far the most money, and would be the least likely to leave.
To put it another way, a superfan who spends $1000 a month is worth $12,000 a year, and just 1000 of them are worth $12 million annually. I'm sure there are way more than 1000, globally, plus, there are many that spend more than that (the FW superfans).
In our tiny group of 8 players, there are 3 in that category, with one person who easily spends $25,000 a year, because he is determined to fill his basement with brand-new-in-bag FW models and his library with LE books.
Not that I think GW should feel that it's ok to alienate 30% of its customers!!!
They've already been closing down stores left and right, sometimes relocating them to cheaper areas, sometimes simply shutting them down. So far such measures have been unable to reverse their decline in both sales and profits.
Also, their official stores still make a very important % of their sales (in fact, way more important than their webstore). Closing them all would probably save them money, but the consequences could be disastrous for them.
you realise that other than our opinion the only way to prove either of us are wrong or right are sales... and they lead in that department.
So by your logic one direction are the greatest band ever in the whole history of music.
again... you are saying the "greatest" as in what? greatest band in making music or greatest band that makes profits? if by greatest you mean a band that has sold more and made more profits than yes they are (if they have made more than others, I am not sure, not a big music buff) but if you mean in terms of technical skills and actual writing no, that would be Queen.... just look at it this way, a huge chunk of what made the "beatles" great was their record sales and fanbase which was mostly "girls", Beatles themselves were not that technically genius and dude lets be honest, in the music industry its all about sales and profits, look at Jazz... some of the greatest musical creators are ignored because they play jazz music and that sells less than say "pop" and "rock" or watchamacallit "hippity hop" and therefore people do not recognize them...
Is SLASH really better than Guthrie Govan?
GW as a company is the best, as a company that is in the business of making money.... GW can do a lot more as a miniature creator (even though I see their minis as some of the best, per price that is, force world is also pretty amazing, slaanesh greater daemon )
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Korinov wrote: They've already been closing down stores left and right, sometimes relocating them to cheaper areas, sometimes simply shutting them down. So far such measures have been unable to reverse their decline in both sales and profits.
Also, their official stores still make a very important % of their sales (in fact, way more important than their webstore). Closing them all would probably save them money, but the consequences could be disastrous for them.
I would have no idea, I know that google tells me that in 2014 they closed about 20 stores and opened 27 new ones (one manager stores) and look I get it, their stores are important I am just saying that they have MULTIPLE things that could be done that would keep them in the miniature market... everything I said were just examples, I am not in their staff or payroll I have no idea what they have planned but I know that any large business has BACKUP plans and such when things fail, GW has a lot of "costs" and profits that could be refocused.
Basically what I am saying is GW is staying with us for a LONG LONG TIME, unless everyone just stops buying their products all of a sudden... bankruptcy is FAR away for them
He actually said, 30% of their customers, not 30% of their revenue.
I actually think that GW could survive losing 30% of their customers, because it would mostly be the least profitable 30%. The 'superfans' spend by far the most money, and would be the least likely to leave.
To put it another way, a superfan who spends $1000 a month is worth $12,000 a year, and just 1000 of them are worth $12 million annually. I'm sure there are way more than 1000, globally, plus, there are many that spend more than that (the FW superfans).
In our tiny group of 8 players, there are 3 in that category, with one person who easily spends $25,000 a year, because he is determined to fill his basement with brand-new-in-bag FW models and his library with LE books.
Not that I think GW should feel that it's ok to alienate 30% of its customers!!!
I'm aware of what he said, but there's no reliable way to determine how much revenue 30% of customers brings in, much less what kind of customers. Isn't there some rule...80/20 or something? Something about 20% of your customer base being 80% of your revenue...or something, I don't know.
Point is, with such a vague statement about losing 30% of customers its as reasonable to say it'd be roughly equivalent to 30% of their revenue...or 10%, or 90%. There's no way to know with GW.
However, I'm sure we can all agree that losing 30% of your customers is a pretty fething bad thing, and would likely result in GW operating in the red.
He actually said, 30% of their customers, not 30% of their revenue.
I actually think that GW could survive losing 30% of their customers, because it would mostly be the least profitable 30%. The 'superfans' spend by far the most money, and would be the least likely to leave.
To put it another way, a superfan who spends $1000 a month is worth $12,000 a year, and just 1000 of them are worth $12 million annually. I'm sure there are way more than 1000, globally, plus, there are many that spend more than that (the FW superfans).
In our tiny group of 8 players, there are 3 in that category, with one person who easily spends $25,000 a year, because he is determined to fill his basement with brand-new-in-bag FW models and his library with LE books.
Not that I think GW should feel that it's ok to alienate 30% of its customers!!!
I'm aware of what he said, but there's no reliable way to determine how much revenue 30% of customers brings in, much less what kind of customers. Isn't there some rule...80/20 or something? Something about 20% of your customer base being 80% of your revenue...or something, I don't know.
Point is, with such a vague statement about losing 30% of customers its as reasonable to say it'd be roughly equivalent to 30% of their revenue...or 10%, or 90%. There's no way to know with GW.
However, I'm sure we can all agree that losing 30% of your customers is a pretty fething bad thing, and would likely result in GW operating in the red.
To be blunt, bitethythumb isn't showing the strongest grasp of financial terminology, I don't think "customers" can be taken at face value, it likely he means "money" or "custom" may be closer.
Hence why I said they could use basic economic strategies to still be making profits like for example "CLOSING DOWN ALL STORES" etc... there are many things a company can do to make a profit and keep out of the red, GW is so big it has a lot to fall back on... look at it this way, GW can still make a profit even if it goes down to the size of say Privateer Press, they would just have to "change"
Which doesn't happen overnight, which has the issues of whatever contracts the stores are on, or that cutting too many things starts to eat into their own ability to produce and distribute their product effectively.
Its easy to say, hard to do.
There's also zero evidence to claim GW could just magically shrink down to the size of PP and make profit. They have obligations and overhead costs they'd have to dramatically slash that the end result wouldn't even resemble GW. Further, if GW was forced to shrink to that size, logic would then dictate it would eventually fold, seeing as the reasons it ended up there would indicate they're not making anything people want to buy.
neither does going bankrupt happen over night or do your standards only apply to your reasoning, so when someone tells you "GW is almost bankrupt" think to your comment about things happening overnight and realize that it applies both ways.... and yes logic would dictate that if they slashed their staff and overhead costs they would not be GW as we see them, but that is life in the business world.. if say a Chinese donganaire gave privateer press £500,000,000 every year for 10 years do you think that Privateer press would still be the same Privateer Press as you see them?
I see a lot of double standards in these discussions.
Hence why I said they could use basic economic strategies to still be making profits like for example "CLOSING DOWN ALL STORES" etc... there are many things a company can do to make a profit and keep out of the red, GW is so big it has a lot to fall back on... look at it this way, GW can still make a profit even if it goes down to the size of say Privateer Press, they would just have to "change"
Closing down their branch network would remove 90%+ of their marketing and outreach to new and existing customers.
If GW gets to a point where they close down their entire branch network, it's a safe bet they're on their last legs.
Hence why I said they could use basic economic strategies to still be making profits like for example "CLOSING DOWN ALL STORES" etc... there are many things a company can do to make a profit and keep out of the red, GW is so big it has a lot to fall back on... look at it this way, GW can still make a profit even if it goes down to the size of say Privateer Press, they would just have to "change"
Closing down their branch network would remove 90%+ of their marketing and outreach to new and existing customers.
If GW gets to a point where they close down their entire branch network, it's a safe bet they're on their last legs.
I think the store network currently costs more than it generates in revenue (or very close) so if they could simply walk away, it would probably be for the best.
You can go home one day, and come back to work the next day to find a bill on the doormat you simply can't pay. Usually a tax bill.
talk about not making sense, if you cannot manage your finances to the point where you get magic bills that you are unprepared for than yes you will go bankrupt, but seriously? what bills are like that... you know exactly what you pay for and which services you use... if you get a phone bill that is very high chances are you called someone at a high fee... that is YOUR fault.
I have not heard are more benign statement that this so far... and who does not pay their "tax" bills properly? that they, always pay your taxes and always put money away in some savings as an insurance policy... pay for what you can, use what you pay for.
But, nobody is saying "GW is almost bankrupt" people are saying "GW will go bankrupt if the trend of falling revenue and profit is not reversed."
in many many years sure... maybe... but like I said, they have many means to salvage themselves
I literally have no idea what point you're trying to make with the Chinese man example.
the other user stated that if GW falls to the size of privateer press it will not be GW and I am pointing out that if PRIVATEER PRESS becomes a multi million company it will no longer be privateer press as we see it... too complex?
--- by the way I know perfectly well my economics terminology (to the extent that a none economist knows), English is not my main language though so maybe that is where we differ... either way, customers is money... you live in a capitalist society, everything is money, deal with it or travel back in time to soviet Russia.
For GW to lose 30 % of there buyers(not players) it would be a disaster, you only need 10 people to spend 100$ to match a 1000$ a month spender, and that super fan will certenly be a far rarer occerance than lesser purchasers.
if GW is propped up so drastically by super fans I would think that there game is shrinking far faster than it even appears.
You can go home one day, and come back to work the next day to find a bill on the doormat you simply can't pay. Usually a tax bill.
talk about not making sense, if you cannot manage your finances to the point where you get magic bills that you are unprepared for than yes you will go bankrupt, but seriously? what bills are like that... you know exactly what you pay for and which services you use... if you get a phone bill that is very high chances are you called someone at a high fee... that is YOUR fault.
I have not heard are more benign statement that this so far... and who does not pay their "tax" bills properly? that they, always pay your taxes and always put money away in some savings as an insurance policy... pay for what you can, use what you pay for.
But, nobody is saying "GW is almost bankrupt" people are saying "GW will go bankrupt if the trend of falling revenue and profit is not reversed."
in many many years sure... maybe... but like I said, they have many means to salvage themselves
I literally have no idea what point you're trying to make with the Chinese man example.
the other user stated that if GW falls to the size of privateer press it will not be GW and I am pointing out that if PRIVATEER PRESS becomes a multi million company it will no longer be privateer press as we see it... too complex?
--- by the way I know perfectly well my economics terminology (to the extent that a none economist knows), English is not my main language though so maybe that is where we differ... either way, customers is money... you live in a capitalist society, everything is money, deal with it or travel back in time to soviet Russia.
You're utterly clueless.
It is possible to go bankrupt overnight. You know how I know? Because I've been involved in a company where it happened. At no point did I say you're unaware it may happen (nice strawman) but if you're in that position, one unexpected or larger than expected expense can be all it takes to push things over the edge.
It will not take many years for GW to 'go,' their net profit is <5% of their revenue, it will take a relatively small unexpected drop in revenue without a proportional drop in expenditure OT send them into the red. Note I said "in the red" which means at a loss, this is not the same as bankrupt.
The reason I didn't understand your example is because someone investing a ludicrous amount into a company because reasons is NOTHING LIKE (I can randomly shout too) a company growing to the same size through commercial success.
Please stop banging on about capitalism, it's getting tiresome and it isn't doing your argument any favours.
That's not my point. You had been previously criticized for backing a company that implements business policies that are detrimental to the hobby. You replied by saying you were treated well on a personal level. I then responded that this is a short sighted view, because ultimately you are still supporting a company that is making things worse for the hobby and it's playerbase. You are right that I don't like the way they make a profit, and my argument is that you shouldn't either as a fan of the miniature game industry.
you are literally telling me how to behave... lets break it down..
"You had been previously criticized for backing a company that implements business policies that are detrimental to the hobby"
no... they have not, as been shown by many others that other companies are steadily growing, anything detrimental done is only detrimental to GW..
"You replied by saying you were treated well on a personal level. I then responded that this is a short sighted view, because ultimately you are still supporting a company that is making things worse for the hobby and it's playerbase."
I am part of that playerbase and for me they have not done things to make it worse... if others believe they have made it worse for them that is their choice, I cannot base my opinions and likes and dislikes on how "others" see them... that would be wrong and foolish
"You are right that I don't like the way they make a profit, and my argument is that you shouldn't either as a fan of the miniature game industry!"
that is worse than me supporting GW, me having to base my opinions and my experience because someone else says so... that is like saying "Do not buy apple products because I think "insert other products" is better and do things better"...
my whole argument is that in a capitalist society we have a freedom to choose which company and how we experience it works, I have not had a bad experience with GW (apart from the silly prices but you gotta make money to pay the talented staff, but I have ways around that, like buying a set of pin vices and drill bits for £10) so why should I change my perception of them because "others" have?
if 10 people jumped off a cliff should I jump off as well? even though those ten people have said "the cliff is all wet and dirty and we do not like it" when I am like "but I like this cliff"
again, welcome to capitalism... your choice to buy or not to buy, your choice is as equally correct as mine
You can go home one day, and come back to work the next day to find a bill on the doormat you simply can't pay. Usually a tax bill.
talk about not making sense, if you cannot manage your finances to the point where you get magic bills that you are unprepared for than yes you will go bankrupt, but seriously? what bills are like that... you know exactly what you pay for and which services you use... if you get a phone bill that is very high chances are you called someone at a high fee... that is YOUR fault.
I have not heard are more benign statement that this so far... and who does not pay their "tax" bills properly? that they, always pay your taxes and always put money away in some savings as an insurance policy... pay for what you can, use what you pay for.
It is possible to go bankrupt overnight. You know how I know? Because I've been involved in a company where it happened. At no point did I say you're unaware it may happen (nice strawman) but if you're in that position, one unexpected or larger than expected expense can be all it takes to push things over the edge.
unexpected expenses or cost overruns only happen by mismanagement and general ignorance... a company that is unaware of its expenses or not prepared for the unexpected is expected to fail... cost overruns are attributed to things like bad forecasting and inadequate information on the business (especially its expenses and costs etc)
your company experienced bankruptcy because chances are, it was a bad company and/or some of their staff did not do their job properly
I would like to think that any right thinking company would want to hang onto its regular customers as well as go forwards with strategy to bring in new business.
They are not in a low margin high volume low quality business where churn is part of a core business ideal. Nor are they in a luxury segment where customer demand is greater than product availability (no matter how much limited edition product they want to release).
GW have positioned themselves in some kind of contradiction based retail hell. where high volume is expected to meet their own luxury segment goals. I wonder if one man stores are not a result of this luxury positioning. Was 'boutique' repeatedly mentioned in previous board meetings?
That it saves money is great too. But in corporate GW eyes.......
And cost saving. It really isn't 'great news'. It means that there is something fundamentally wrong with the structure of the business. Cost saving is great if you can renegotiate rates, take advantage of raw material pricing (Virgin resin is currently lower in cost that recycled materials in some sectors) It isnt so good if you are having to strip out core activities to prop up your profitability.
Gw's disdain for existing customers only works in their favour as long as their new customers purchasing exceeds the level of those veterans no longer purchasing.
Those veterans have long been the nonsalaried promoters of GW product, From the get go, evangelical support of GW is what gained them traction in the early years and ultimately was the leverage needed to get investment into GW PLc.
Obviously GW can now do without a regular revenue stream from these customers and can do without the free marketing that goes with them.
GW can always loose another 30% and still remain viable..... Maybe they can reduce staffing at Lenton to one man?
You can go home one day, and come back to work the next day to find a bill on the doormat you simply can't pay. Usually a tax bill.
talk about not making sense, if you cannot manage your finances to the point where you get magic bills that you are unprepared for than yes you will go bankrupt, but seriously? what bills are like that... you know exactly what you pay for and which services you use... if you get a phone bill that is very high chances are you called someone at a high fee... that is YOUR fault.
I have not heard are more benign statement that this so far... and who does not pay their "tax" bills properly? that they, always pay your taxes and always put money away in some savings as an insurance policy... pay for what you can, use what you pay for.
It is possible to go bankrupt overnight. You know how I know? Because I've been involved in a company where it happened. At no point did I say you're unaware it may happen (nice strawman) but if you're in that position, one unexpected or larger than expected expense can be all it takes to push things over the edge.
unexpected expenses or cost overruns only happen by mismanagement and general ignorance... a company that is unaware of its expenses or not prepared for the unexpected is expected to fail... cost overruns are attributed to things like bad forecasting and inadequate information on the business (especially its expenses and costs etc)
your company experienced bankruptcy because chances are, it was a bad company and/or some of their staff did not do their job properly
Actually, it went bankrupt because of an unexpected verdict on a contentious interpretation of a VAT law coupled with the bank simultaneously (and independently) deciding to reduce the company overdraft by 50% (which was £1.5m IIRC) meaning the company became liable for a substantial amount of back tax at the same time as it had its ability to pay it removed. It was a highly unlikely set of circumstances which happened all at once. It was so unlikely it would have been more irresponsible to run the company in a manner that expected it as that would have severly impeded its ability to function.
But what do I know, you're rolling out trite nonsense and plucking figures from the air, I can't compete with that.
Actually, it went bankrupt because of an unexpected verdict on a contentious interpretation of a VAT law
lol... unexpected verdict.. if I have to explain why that in itself is silly this has gone to far in discussion... but suffice to say, the verdict could have gone 2 ways... it went the way your company did not prepare for, funny how verdicts usually do not happen over night (they usually last weeks/months/years) but you seem to think it did maybe next time keep better track of the laws regulating your company and their court cases as not be be thrust with silly "bills"
its like me watching a court case that could increase my water bills or decrease it and I ignore it until the bills come through the post and "OH MY GOD" they increased it and then blame "unexpected verdict" for the increase, no the verdict was expected... I was not expecting that verdict and neither was your company and that was the flaw, your company not "expecting" the expectable*.
Actually, it went bankrupt because of an unexpected verdict on a contentious interpretation of a VAT law
lol... unexpected verdict.. if I have to explain why that in itself is silly this has gone to far in discussion... but suffice to say, the verdict could have gone 2 ways... it went the way your company did not prepare for, funny how verdicts usually do not happen over night (they usually last weeks/months/years) but you seem to think it did maybe next time keep better track of the laws regulating your company and their court cases as not be be thrust with silly "bills"
its like me watching a court case that could increase my water bills or decrease it and I ignore it until the bills come through the post and "OH MY GOD" they increased it and then blame "unexpected verdict" for the increase, no the verdict was expected... I was not expecting that verdict and neither was your company and that was the flaw, your company not "expecting" the expectable*.
I dont think you have any idea how business works.
Actually, it went bankrupt because of an unexpected verdict on a contentious interpretation of a VAT law
lol... unexpected verdict.. if I have to explain why that in itself is silly this has gone to far in discussion... but suffice to say, the verdict could have gone 2 ways... it went the way your company did not prepare for, funny how verdicts usually do not happen over night (they usually last weeks/months/years) but you seem to think it did maybe next time keep better track of the laws regulating your company and their court cases as not be be thrust with silly "bills"
its like me watching a court case that could increase my water bills or decrease it and I ignore it until the bills come through the post and "OH MY GOD" they increased it and then blame "unexpected verdict" for the increase, no the verdict was expected... I was not expecting that verdict and neither was your company and that was the flaw, your company not "expecting" the expectable*.
I dont think you have any idea.
FTFY
Automatically Appended Next Post: Seeing as I have to explain, "unexpected" in this context means "the verdict that was not expected" as in, all the solicitors, accountants lawyers etc were content that the law was being followed correctly, and that it would continue as it had been.
It was very much against the prevailing opinion when some judge or magistrate somewhere decided to go against that opinion in his or her ruling, IIRC they even went against the advice of their own consultants.
@Azreal Iwas going to do a pithy FTFY about the prevailing opinion re trademarking hammers and shoulderpads. I mean GW should have forseen an unexpected verdict too shouldn't they?
TheAuldGrump wrote: Except, of course, that they aren't the best miniatures.
Some of their lines are decent, some are good, and some are drek.
Mostly... they are middle of the road.
And their CEO is making decisions that are hurting the company - not helping it expand in a time when the industry as a whole is expanding by double digits.
The Auld Grump
ok... what if I say, they are the best?
Then you are wrong - simple!
you realise that other than our opinion the only way to prove either of us are wrong or right are sales... and they lead in that department.
And you do realize that their sales are shrinking - right?
And that a whole lot of other game companies are growing?
And, no - well how the minis sell really isn't the best indication of how they look.
It just means that they are the ones most people get - for any number of reasons - with availability and ubiquity being the main reason, not the looks of the mini.
Ford used to outsell every other car in the world - and nobody claimed that they made the best cars in the world.
McDonald's sells a lot of food - but nobody over the age of twelve claims that they make the best food in the world.
GW minis are... mediocre. Even for 40K there are companies that blow GW out of the water - Hell, Forgeworld one of GW's subsidiaries, makes much, much better looking models than GW.
The number one reason that GW are losing market share is that they are charging above the value of their models.
Their character models look nice - but they do not look $25 in plastic nice.
They are McDonald's, trying to charge $25 for a Big Mac, a small drink, and fries. (Not as facetious as you may think - when I was first playing WH40K, a character model did cost about the same as a meal at Mickey Dee's.)
If you are relying on sales as the sole basis of how good a miniature is.... well, enjoy your Big Mac.
Mr. Burning wrote: @Azreal Iwas going to do a pithy FTFY about the prevailing opinion re trademarking hammers and shoulderpads. I mean GW should have forseen an unexpected verdict too shouldn't they?
Actually, it went bankrupt because of an unexpected verdict on a contentious interpretation of a VAT law
lol... unexpected verdict.. if I have to explain why that in itself is silly this has gone to far in discussion... but suffice to say, the verdict could have gone 2 ways... it went the way your company did not prepare for, funny how verdicts usually do not happen over night (they usually last weeks/months/years) but you seem to think it did maybe next time keep better track of the laws regulating your company and their court cases as not be be thrust with silly "bills"
its like me watching a court case that could increase my water bills or decrease it and I ignore it until the bills come through the post and "OH MY GOD" they increased it and then blame "unexpected verdict" for the increase, no the verdict was expected... I was not expecting that verdict and neither was your company and that was the flaw, your company not "expecting" the expectable*.
I dont think you have any idea how business works.
I also don't think you have any idea how the law works.
Verdicts are not binary. Not even in criminal cases, but especially not so in civil cases.
You can't be wrong about what models you think are best, because you're entitled to pick whatever you want to pick and say, "This is the best model in the world!" There is no objective measure to a subjective test.
I think that GW has the most detailed plastic tooling in the industry, though. I don't think anyone produces plastic kits that are comparable to the Sigmar models in detail, though that might not be important to many people, or be the criteria which they judge "best".
And that a whole lot of other game companies are growing?
It's a lot easier for a company doing $50,000 a year, or $500,000 a year to grow than a company that's doing $50M a year to grow. Apple is losing iPhone market share every year, has been for years. Yet it's hardly a failure, and any other company would gladly trade places, because they are by far the most profitable, despite shrinking market shares.
Remember also that GW could make more profit if they invested less in new product (because all those new models don't come cheap), but this not the route they choose.
And, no - well how the minis sell really isn't the best indication of how they look.
It just means that they are the ones most people get - for any number of reasons - with availability and ubiquity being the main reason, not the looks of the mini.
I agree! Availability is huge. I would buy every Dark Sword miniature if my FLGS carried them. But they don't, so I don't own any of them. I don't like buying minis from websites; I like physically looking at them. It's also one reason that I buy very little Forge World. Without it being there, I can't impulse buy it (but I also prefer plastic, more on that below).
Ford used to outsell every other car in the world - and nobody claimed that they made the best cars in the world.
Ford and Chevy regularly claim they have the best trucks in the world, though They say so on TV like... every day. I mean, so what? PP SHOULD claim that they make the best minis, and so should GW. So should Reaper, and everyone else who makes minis too! I mean, why would anyone ever claim otherwise of their own brand? "No, we make crappy miniatures! But come buy them."
McDonald's sells a lot of food - but nobody over the age of twelve claims that they make the best food in the world.
I dated a woman while I attended university who would disagree. Her lifelong dream was to visit every McDonald's in the world. Very strange and rather twisted, I agree, but she was extremely cute and kissing lips to die for -- pinup calendar gorgeous -- so that hardly mattered to a 19-year-old. 95% of our dates actually involved McDonald's at some point, even if it was just to get an apple pie or icecream. At least the food was cheap
GW minis are... mediocre. Even for 40K there are companies that blow GW out of the water - Hell, Forgeworld one of GW's subsidiaries, makes much, much better looking models than GW.
This is a matter of preference. Personally, I think GW makes the best multipart configurable plastic kits in the world. Since I love multipart plastic kits more than resin kits, I buy much more GW than FW. I happen to like finished GW models, on average, better than any models from any other company, which would qualify them as "best collection" in my books.
It's not at all an issue of price for me. If someone else made better models that cost twice as much, I'd buy those too, perhaps instead.
For instance, I would rather build an Imperial Knight Warden that a Knight Castigator, or a Wraithknight rather than a Revenant Titan, not because of the price but because I like plastic better than resin as a material to work with.
The number one reason that GW are losing market share is that they are charging above the value of their models.
No, the number one reason GW is losing market share is because there are more competitors. If you have 100% of the market, and there's one competitor, you'll lose market share.
I might believe that a contributing factor to GW's decline in sales revenue is due to the price of their models, but only if GW said so themselves. Otherwise, it's equally likely that GW has optimized their revenue with their pricing, and with cheaper prices, they'd make even less than they do now. After all, just because there's 100% more models being manufactured doesn't mean the pie is 100% bigger.
We don't have the information necessary to draw a definitive conclusion. GW doesn't even have that, though they have much better information than us.
Their character models look nice - but they do not look $25 in plastic nice.
I think that many of the character models are worth $25. Well, I must, because I buy the ones that I like. The ones that aren't for me, I pass on, but I'm sure other people buy them. They're not stupid, and they shouldn't feel bad for spending money on things they like. Any more than someone who spends $50 on a PP character mini should feel bad or stupid. They should be happy that they converted their hard-earned money into some model that they like.
You can't be wrong about what models you think are best, because you're entitled to pick whatever you want to pick and say, "This is the best model in the world!" There is no objective measure to a subjective test.
I think that GW has the most detailed plastic tooling in the industry, though. I don't think anyone produces plastic kits that are comparable to the Sigmar models in detail, though that might not be important to many people, or be the criteria which they judge "best".
No, but to argue "GW make the best models in the world" you'd have to take what is plausibly their worst model and plausibly argue that it was better than the best model anyone else makes, otherwise it's, at best, a partial truth. Sure, there's an element of subjectivity, but there's a healthy dose of popular opinion one can draw in too.
And that a whole lot of other game companies are growing?
It's a lot easier for a company doing $50,000 a year, or $500,000 a year to grow than a company that's doing $50M a year to grow. Apple is losing iPhone market share every year, has been for years. Yet it's hardly a failure, and any other company would gladly trade places, because they are by far the most profitable, despite shrinking market shares.
Remember also that GW could make more profit if they invested less in new product (because all those new models don't come cheap), but this not the route they choose.
Will you stop banging on about Apple! Yes, Apple, like GW, are losing market share to a multitude of smaller rivals, but, unlike Apple, GW aren't making more profit than many small (and some not so small) companies. GW are in danger of making a loss in the near future, if progress goes unchecked. GW spend only a small amount of their revenue on development, so it would only be a small amount more, and their business model would subsequently implode once the flow of new shines started to falter.
And, no - well how the minis sell really isn't the best indication of how they look.
It just means that they are the ones most people get - for any number of reasons - with availability and ubiquity being the main reason, not the looks of the mini.
I agree! Availability is huge. I would buy every Dark Sword miniature if my FLGS carried them. But they don't, so I don't own any of them. I don't like buying minis from websites; I like physically looking at them. It's also one reason that I buy very little Forge World. Without it being there, I can't impulse buy it (but I also prefer plastic, more on that below).
So, despite all of your defence of and professed love of GW's product, when it boils down to it, you buy it because it's easy?!
Ford used to outsell every other car in the world - and nobody claimed that they made the best cars in the world.
Ford and Chevy regularly claim they have the best trucks in the world, though They say so on TV like... every day. I mean, so what? PP SHOULD claim that they make the best minis, and so should GW. So should Reaper, and everyone else who makes minis too! I mean, why would anyone ever claim otherwise of their own brand? "No, we make crappy miniatures! But come buy them."
No they shouldn't, advertising law means you need to substantiate claims you make in advertising. GW doesn't advertise, so it isn't a problem that they make unsubstantiated claims (until they end up in a courtroom at least!)
McDonald's sells a lot of food - but nobody over the age of twelve claims that they make the best food in the world.
I dated a woman while I attended university who would disagree. Her lifelong dream was to visit every McDonald's in the world. Very strange and rather twisted, I agree, but she was extremely cute and kissing lips to die for -- pinup calendar gorgeous -- so that hardly mattered to a 19-year-old. 95% of our dates actually involved McDonald's at some point, even if it was just to get an apple pie or icecream. At least the food was cheap
Irrelevant anecdotes and specific examples don't refute a general argument.
GW minis are... mediocre. Even for 40K there are companies that blow GW out of the water - Hell, Forgeworld one of GW's subsidiaries, makes much, much better looking models than GW.
This is a matter of preference. Personally, I think GW makes the best multipart configurable plastic kits in the world. Since I love multipart plastic kits more than resin kits, I buy much more GW than FW. I happen to like finished GW models, on average, better than any models from any other company, which would qualify them as "best collection" in my books.
It's not at all an issue of price for me. If someone else made better models that cost twice as much, I'd buy those too, perhaps instead.
For instance, I would rather build an Imperial Knight Warden that a Knight Castigator, or a Wraithknight rather than a Revenant Titan, not because of the price but because I like plastic better than resin as a material to work with.
We can't be held responsible for your low standards.
The number one reason that GW are losing market share is that they are charging above the value of their models.
No, the number one reason GW is losing market share is because there are more competitors. If you have 100% of the market, and there's one competitor, you'll lose market share.
I might believe that a contributing factor to GW's decline in sales revenue is due to the price of their models, but only if GW said so themselves. Otherwise, it's equally likely that GW has optimized their revenue with their pricing, and with cheaper prices, they'd make even less than they do now. After all, just because there's 100% more models being manufactured doesn't mean the pie is 100% bigger.
We don't have the information necessary to draw a definitive conclusion. GW doesn't even have that, though they have much better information than us.
No, what we do have is a massive amount of anecdotal evidence of people saying "I'm out, it's too expensive" alongside the historical evidence of many competitors falling by the wayside because GW were so utterly dominant, who now have headspace to gain traction because GW have, through their own ineptitude, created that headspace.
It boils down to two things - either nobody wants models, or GW are trying to charge a price that isn't commensurate with the quality of the product for a growing number of people. There really isn't any other plausible situation to explain the drop in revenue, despite all the smoke and mirrors Kirby has employed.
Their character models look nice - but they do not look $25 in plastic nice.
I think that many of the character models are worth $25. Well, I must, because I buy the ones that I like. The ones that aren't for me, I pass on, but I'm sure other people buy them. They're not stupid, and they shouldn't feel bad for spending money on things they like. Any more than someone who spends $50 on a PP character mini should feel bad or stupid. They should be happy that they converted their hard-earned money into some model that they like.
Again, we can't be held accountable for your low standards, I expect a little more for my wargaming buck than a monopose character with excessive, occasionally risible, details and no options.
In all fairness, from what I've seen of his painting, Talys knows his way around miniatures. I will admit, though, there is a price break for me when I start casting about for substitutes.
That being said, if someone can afford a miniature they like, it's no real skin off their nose if it runs $10 more than you'd pay.
I think that GW has the most detailed plastic tooling in the industry, though. I don't think anyone produces plastic kits that are comparable to the Sigmar models in detail, though that might not be important to many people, or be the criteria which they judge "best".
Wyrd. Their plastics are flat out the best I've seen.
Relapse wrote: In all fairness, from what I've seen of his painting, Talys knows his way around miniatures. I will admit, though, there is a price break for me when I start casting about for substitutes.
That being said, if someone can afford a miniature they like, it's no real skin off their nose if it runs $10 more than you'd pay.
No, the danger is when GW start charging $10 more than the number of people they need to buy it to make it profitable will pay, regardless of whether a handful of people have their wallets open like baby birds at any price, and this is a line they seem to be drifting perilously close to.
The fact that my tongue was firmly in my cheek aside, you can paint the most gak miniature ever sculpted to a high standard, and declare it the greatest thing ever cast, it doesn't really have any bearing on the discussion.
Anyone who truly thinks GW makes the best miniatures in the world needs to do one of two things:
1. Actually look at other miniatures manufacturers.
2. Realize that it's simply GW's style they prefer that skews their perception of who makes the "best miniatures."
Tannhauser42 wrote: Anyone who truly thinks GW makes the best miniatures in the world needs to do one of two things:
1. Actually look at other miniatures manufacturers.
2. Realize that it's simply GW's style they prefer that skews their perception of who makes the "best miniatures."
I think FW might possibly be able to hold the title (there humans are proportioned properly, there HH models have all been spectacular.)
But from GW main we get gorilla like cadians and power squatting space marines.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Anyone who truly thinks GW makes the best miniatures in the world needs to do one of two things:
1. Actually look at other miniatures manufacturers.
2. Realize that it's simply GW's style they prefer that skews their perception of who makes the "best miniatures."
GW do make the 'best' miniatures in the world... for a given set of criteria
GW makes:
1. A vast, complete, comprehensive line of
2. Fantasy and Science fiction miniatures in
3. 28mm scale made of
4. Multi-part pose-able Hard Plastic, with
5. An array of vehicles, monsters and warmachines in
6. Several distinct but related factions with common aesthetic which match
7. A set of game rules to play them with.
There are a number of wargames companies that equal or surpass GW in some of those areas, but they don't tick all the boxes.
- Perry miniatures are on part with GW for multi-part hard plastic minis, but they're decidedly historical
- Privateer Press is Scifi/Fantasy with several complete factions, but only 1 model is hard plastic yet
- Infinity does some fantastic sculpts, but all in metal afaik,
- Wyrd does some great single-pose hard plastic characters... but no 'rank and file'. (Plus, GW is getting lambasted here for single-pose characters yet Wyrd is getting praise? double standards much?)
- Mantic is moving up with hard plastic, but their factions are a bit hit-or-miss, and they don't have any vehicles (yet)
- If you scour the internet you can probably build up a Orc, Empire or Brettonian army from third-party miniatures - yet you're likely to get 3 or 4 very distinct and different sculpting styles, scales and aesthetics that make the army look non-uniform.
- Hawk wargames does great, complete factions... in a scale that doesn't appeal to some people.
For a lot of people, many of those criteria are crucial to wargaming. Where a company does offer rules to play and miniatures to buy, it is very rare (outside of GW games) to be playing with third party minis. I've never witnessed people subbing in cheaper miniatures into Infinity or Malifaux games. Plus when you're playing a game and it calls for a 'Lothern Sky Cutter' and you're thinking, 'great, lets just scour the internet and see how many companies make a sky chariot pulled by an eagle and crewed by elf archers'; or maybe you're trying to field a Leman Russ squadron with 3 different types of turret on the same vehicle and don't want to go to three different manufacturers to get that. GW has a very large, distinct advantage in the sheer size and compatibility of their range.
Even if you narrow it down to just the plastic minis - the AOS minis are great. Even if you don't like the aesthetic (though I do) the detail and posing GW have managed to capture in a very small amount of pieces is easily the equal of any other plastic or pvc miniatures on the market.
I don't like a lot of GW's decisions, and I think AOS may ruin them... but credit where it's due.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Anyone who truly thinks GW makes the best miniatures in the world needs to do one of two things:
1. Actually look at other miniatures manufacturers.
2. Realize that it's simply GW's style they prefer that skews their perception of who makes the "best miniatures."
GW do make the 'best' miniatures in the world... for a given set of criteria
GW makes:
1. A vast, complete, comprehensive line of
2. Fantasy and Science fiction miniatures in
3. 28mm scale made of
4. Multi-part pose-able Hard Plastic, with
5. An array of vehicles, monsters and warmachines in
6. Several distinct but related factions with common aesthetic which match
7. A set of game rules to play them with.
There are a number of wargames companies that equal or surpass GW in some of those areas, but they don't tick all the boxes.
- Perry miniatures are on part with GW for multi-part hard plastic minis, but they're decidedly historical
- Privateer Press is Scifi/Fantasy with several complete factions, but only 1 model is hard plastic yet
- Infinity does some fantastic sculpts, but all in metal afaik,
- Wyrd does some great single-pose hard plastic characters... but no 'rank and file'. (Plus, GW is getting lambasted here for single-pose characters yet Wyrd is getting praise? double standards much?)
- Mantic is moving up with hard plastic, but their factions are a bit hit-or-miss, and they don't have any vehicles (yet)
- If you scour the internet you can probably build up a Orc, Empire or Brettonian army from third-party miniatures - yet you're likely to get 3 or 4 very distinct and different sculpting styles, scales and aesthetics that make the army look non-uniform.
- Hawk wargames does great, complete factions... in a scale that doesn't appeal to some people.
For a lot of people, many of those criteria are crucial to wargaming. Where a company does offer rules to play and miniatures to buy, it is very rare (outside of GW games) to be playing with third party minis. I've never witnessed people subbing in cheaper miniatures into Infinity or Malifaux games. Plus when you're playing a game and it calls for a 'Lothern Sky Cutter' and you're thinking, 'great, lets just scour the internet and see how many companies make a sky chariot pulled by an eagle and crewed by elf archers'; or maybe you're trying to field a Leman Russ squadron with 3 different types of turret on the same vehicle and don't want to go to three different manufacturers to get that. GW has a very large, distinct advantage in the sheer size and compatibility of their range.
Even if you narrow it down to just the plastic minis - the AOS minis are great. Even if you don't like the aesthetic (though I do) the detail and posing GW have managed to capture in a very small amount of pieces is easily the equal of any other plastic or pvc miniatures on the market.
I don't like a lot of GW's decisions, and I think AOS may ruin them... but credit where it's due.
Infinity's models are superior to GW's in terms of artistry and detail. (I don't see how them being metal makes a difference.)
Wyrd does much better plastics.
Gundam (while not a gaming system) does MUCH higher quality vehicle and robot models than GW. (and cheaper)
Many boutiques doe higher quality.
So, what your saying is GW makes a bit of everything but doesn't excel at anything. Kind of like Walmart.
And regarding GW minis... I like them for the most part. Some are little... Less than good, but they can't all be home runs. From the models I have bought, they seem to be my favorite with regards to quality, sculpt, ease of assembly etc. Admitedly my experience is limited to: Privateer, XWing, DZC, FW, old Citadel and RalPartha. Obviously there are exceptions... Fine cast anything comes to mind.
Infinity's models are superior to GW's in terms of artistry and detail. (I don't see how them being metal makes a difference.)
Wyrd does much better plastics.
Gundam (while not a gaming system) does MUCH higher quality vehicle and robot models than GW. (and cheaper)
Many boutiques doe higher quality.
So, what your saying is GW makes a bit of everything but doesn't excel at anything. Kind of like Walmart.
GW does many things very well - it just happens to include things that you don't value: complete ranges of rank&file, characters, monsters and vehicles.
I don't know enough about Gundams or whichever pricier-than-GW 5-total-sculpts boutique you're talking about, but...
Personally I don't care for Infinity's aesthetic. I can tell they are technically great sculpts, the just don't appeal to me. GW's metal/finecast character models have as much detail/artistry, its just placed in different directions. Metal vs plastic is a huge difference for a large number of people - I personally prefer not to play with metal models. It also plays in to the size of the company: GW NEEDS hard plastic minis because they outproduce CB fifty times over.
Wyrd plastics in my experience (I only built one small crew but then sold them) are equivalent to GW's clampack characters.
Infinity's models are superior to GW's in terms of artistry and detail. (I don't see how them being metal makes a difference.)
Wyrd does much better plastics.
Gundam (while not a gaming system) does MUCH higher quality vehicle and robot models than GW. (and cheaper)
Many boutiques doe higher quality.
So, what your saying is GW makes a bit of everything but doesn't excel at anything. Kind of like Walmart.
GW does many things very well - it just happens to include things that you don't value: complete ranges of rank&file, characters, monsters and vehicles.
I don't know enough about Gundams or whichever pricier-than-GW 5-total-sculpts boutique you're talking about, but...
Personally I don't care for Infinity's aesthetic. I can tell they are technically great sculpts, the just don't appeal to me. GW's metal/finecast character models have as much detail/artistry, its just placed in different directions. Metal vs plastic is a huge difference for a large number of people - I personally prefer not to play with metal models. It also plays in to the size of the company: GW NEEDS hard plastic minis because they outproduce CB fifty times over.
Wyrd plastics in my experience (I only built one small crew but then sold them) are equivalent to GW's clampack characters.
And none of that has anything to do with the quality of sculpts I was talking about. Good job.
@Azrael - I'm not going to quote something that's humongous that requires other people to scroll forever. So:
1. You'll never convince me that it's possible to lock down the badge of "best models" to one company, because it's all in what you want in a model, and people want different things. It's not an objective test, anymore than "this in the L'Ouvre is the best in the renaissance collection" makes any sense.
2. I bang on about Apple, as you put it, because it illustrates a point. You can't admire one company for making expensive things that are unaffordable to many, being secretive, being arrogant, and not listening to its customers just because it makes a lot of money; while at the same time disliking another company for the same reasons. How much money they make is irrelevant.
3. If you wrote what I typed, I like looking at models before I buy them. A lot of companies (like Dark Sword, which I mentioned) show painted models on their website, making it hard to judge the model on its merits. Plus, there's a magic to feeling a product. And I like my FLGS, and supporting my local business, which employs all sorts of people and sets up shop so that I can come in and look at cool things. It doesn't mean I'll NEVER buy things only online; SWM is a good example -- I spend plenty there.
4. No other miniature or miniature wargaming company does any significant amount of advertising either. It's because the market is pitifully small per geographic area relative to the awesomely huge cost of effective advertising.
5. The claim was that NOBODY thinks McDonald's is the best food ever past the age of childhood. I simply assert that SOME people (though few) think it is. I did mention that the girl I dated was some kind of freakish anomaly. However, my wife, who is a health food nut and eats like a rabbit, loves their coffees -- thinks it is the best in the world -- and really likes their new salads, too (though certainly not rising to the quality of "best"). NOBODY is a very strong absolute.
6. I won't respond to your personal attack about my standards. I enjoy the minis I buy, from all sorts of companies, and I'll leave it at that.
7. Weren't you just the one who said that anecdotal evidence wasn't helpful? Sure there's a lot of people saying, "I'm out, it's too expensive." There are also people who don't. Only GW knows the numbers to that profit curve, and I don't know why people think that GW purposely wants to make less money. If they thought that reducing the price of a model would generate more overall profit, in my opinion, they would. If they thought that increasing the price of a model would optimize its overall profit, I think they would do that instead. I'm pretty sure GW's pricing manager actually does try to make the company the most money by pricing the products based on the information they have.
8.Again, I'll ignore your personal attack on my standards, and only point out that there are other games that charge $25+ for character models. Buy what you want and what you like.
I think that GW has the most detailed plastic tooling in the industry, though. I don't think anyone produces plastic kits that are comparable to the Sigmar models in detail, though that might not be important to many people, or be the criteria which they judge "best".
Wyrd. Their plastics are flat out the best I've seen.
I would actually disagree with this on a technical level, in that I don't see how Malifaux plastic models are technical superior in resolution or detail than GW models. That being said, technically, they are good models.
However, specific to my tastes: I'm not very fond of Malifaux models at all. I own a few, but the aesthetic is just way too strange for me. I'm not into the horror stuff at all. That's not a negative to the model; it just doesn't fit what I like. My preference is for knights with swords and guns rather than creepy stuff, very bizarre robots, and spider-looking critters.
Also as an objective comparison, Wyrd does not make any large models or complex models. GW has many 200+ part plastic scifi models with configurable options, something that neither Wyrd nor almost any other company has any of.
Dreamforge Leviathan would be a rare example -- I'm not sure what the part count is compared to an IK, but it's a plenty complex model; however, an objective observer would have to admit that GW has more such kits than most modelers will build in their lifetime, while, across the spectrum of all other scifi/fantasy miniature wargames, there are very few others. Almost no other game systems even support such models (for good or ill). It looks like Mantic will have some neat vehicles coming up.
In addition, GW has a very nice line of themed terrain (again, you have to like the aesthetic), which Wyrd can't compete with.
Now, quality isn't the same thing as quantity, or size. But size of models, width and depth of collection do matter from a practical perspective, especially if you like building a lot of models (because otherwise you'll just run out of stuff to do and move on, which is the story of me and Infinity).
By the way, being metal makes a HUGE difference between the complexity Infinity and GW's models. Single-part metal models will have undercuts, and cannot have the part-behind-part and the wrapped-around-parts of multipart models. Once you've painted a lot of metal models, you notice that they're all in the same type of horizontal-plane poses, because basically, that's what a 2-part mold supports. Infinity solves this by having multipart metal minis, but mostly, the torsos (upper and lower bodies) are still cast as a single piece across a horizontal plane, rather than splitting the torso into several pieces, which is the limiting factor. But they do a great job of it, and I love their models.
In addition, metal models cannot be large for gaming. I mean, it's impossible. I don't know how many metal ogres and dreadnoughts with fifty bazillion pins and jars of superglue I have that fell apart because someone walked by the table. Unless you're willing to epoxy everything and spend a hundred hours to prep a model, if it's the size of a dreadnought or bigger, it has to be plastic or resin.
To give you concrete examples in infantry sizes, models like this standard bearer would tip over easily, even when weighted down with lead:
Spoiler:
And Karlaen would be impossible in metal without severe undercuts or being many pieces, which you almost never see in 28mm metal infantry. Like, can't be done as single or dual piece miniature without severe undercuts. Instead, what you get is a lot of models like the Hordes warcaster, which are cast across a horizontal plane, often with one arm that attaches in order to give it that greater depth. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but they get boring after you've painted the same variations of poses for 20 years.
Talys wrote: ...If they thought that increasing the price of a model would optimize its overall profit, I think they would do that instead...
They thought that. They did that. It didn't work.
Clearly, GW made a mistake in judgement. Whether it was a mistake regarding scope, scale, or the viability of the entire strategy, no one can say with certainty. Nevertheless, GW did not achieve the desired result over the last two years. Some customers predicted this turn of events before the results became a matter of record. As such, some believe that this mistake was avoidable.
Talys wrote: ...If they thought that increasing the price of a model would optimize its overall profit, I think they would do that instead...
They thought that. They did that. It didn't work.
Clearly, GW made a mistake in judgement. Whether it was a mistake regarding scope, scale, or the viability of the entire strategy, no one can say with certainty. Nevertheless, GW did not achieve the desired result over the last two years. Some customers predicted this turn of events before the results became a matter of record. As such, some believe that this mistake was avoidable.
It could, however, be a question of loss minimization rather than profit maximization.
The equation could be: Now $130m. Keep prices the same, make $100m. Lower prices, make $90m. Raise prices, make $110m.
I don't know the answer to the question, and I'll freely concede GW may have made the WRONG decision or miscalculated. I just think that they have more information than us to make those decisions, and whatever they decide on, it's in their best interest, and it's not to purposely torpedo their company.
The pricing is one of their biggest failings, but I mean that regarding how products are priced, not the prices themselves. The prices are actually set by the design team, not the accountants. The sales figures also contribute towards the sculptors' salary negotiations. That is why there is so much inconsistency in prices (£23.50 for 10 eternal guard, but £35 for witch elves, £25 for a tac squad, but £21 for a 5 man tempestous scion box). Honestly, it's a over excited kid trying to ride a massive space hopper and falling off, not Darth Vader in the death star.
That's interesting to hear, although it's odd that you get the same sculptors producing stuff for both GW and other companies, and the GW stuff is so much more expensive?
Take for example the Perry's work, and compare it to the price of their historicals ranges (for their own company!) which are a fraction of the price of the miniatures they sculpted for the Hobbit.
JamesY wrote: The pricing is one of their biggest failings, but I mean that regarding how products are priced, not the prices themselves. The prices are actually set by the design team, not the accountants. The sales figures also contribute towards the sculptors' salary negotiations. That is why there is so much inconsistency in prices (£23.50 for 10 eternal guard, but £35 for witch elves, £25 for a tac squad, but £21 for a 5 man tempestous scion box). Honestly, it's a over excited kid trying to ride a massive space hopper and falling off, not Darth Vader in the death star.
Wow. That is really interesting to hear. Thanks for that!
JamesY = font of knowledge.
There must be some guidelines, though, because 10-man troops are all in one price strata, 5 man FA/Heavies are in another, 50mm ones another step up, et cetera. BA Tacticals, for instance, would never have been priced at $50 per 5, right? As Blacksails put it, there's a suggestion on Reddit for AoS to be balanced just on the basis of MSRP
Prices are not set by designers, they are set by management accountants and marketers, who have to do a lot of work to track all kinds of costs to ensure the true production cost of a unit is known as accurately as possible, WIthout this info you might be selling stuff at a loss. Once the production cost is known, marketers take over and work out how much can be charged for the item by comparing with rivals, the general state of the market, and how much they can boost demand by things like advertising, premium pricing and other strategies. Etc.
With regards to bitetyhthumb's points, there are some grains of truth in what he says.
GW operates a large retail chain that soaks up about 70% of turnover to keep it going. Obviously if sales dropped further, GW could start closing a lot of shops to save money. There are some possible problems with this:
1. Shops held on leases cannot necessarily be disposed of quickly. Also, there are redundancy costs for getting rid of staff.
2. Most importantly, GW actually sells a lot of kits through its shops and they are the major source of recruitment of new customers. Closing shops is likely to have an adverse effect on these factors, so it is possible that the money saved by closing shops would be more than outweighed by the reduction in sales. However, GW have over 30 years experience in retail, and it really is the heart and soul of the company, not model making or rules-writing. So I think GW could manage this pretty well.
The 80/20 rule that Blacksails referred to is called the Pareto Principle and states that 80% of the results ceom from 20% of the causal factors. It is surprisingly widely applicable as a rule of thumb.
The danger for GW of relying on this principle is that they are selling games that have an important social component and network effect. The more people who (buy and) play a GW game, the more likely it is for more people to want to (buy and) play the same game. This also affects licensing revenue.
In this scenario GW would be reliant on the true super fans who buy everything GW put out because they like to buy everything GW put out. GW would therefore tailor their new products more and more to this group of customers.
At that point GW have ceased being a wargame company and would have little relevance for the rest of the market.
The release of AOS does not look as if it is following that strategy, though. AOS is clearly intended to be a widely appealing game.
I don't know enough about Gundams or whichever pricier-than-GW 5-total-sculpts boutique you're talking about, but...
I didn't know much about Gundams either other than their reputation, but I picked up a few and the sprue technology is easily a decade or 2 ahead of GW (and everyone else in the space), I mean they have multi-coloured, multi-plastic sprues, and can even put hinged parts on them.
What's more, you can get Gundams that are approximately Dreadnaught sized for 210 Yen, that's ~$2. I think I paid 2000Y (~$20) for one about riptide sized, which must have had 200 parts. Of course, that was in Japan, but even in the UK/US, I can import Gundams that utterly humiliate any wargaming manufacturer for a fraction of the price.
Kilkrazy wrote: Prices are not set by designers, they are set by management accountants and marketers, who have to do a lot of work to track all kinds of costs to ensure the true production cost of a unit is known as accurately as possible, WIthout this info you might be selling stuff at a loss. Once the production cost is known, marketers take over and work out how much can be charged for the item by comparing with rivals, the general state of the market, and how much they can boost demand by things like advertising, premium pricing and other strategies. Etc.
With regards to bitetyhthumb's points, there are some grains of truth in what he says.
GW operates a large retail chain that soaks up about 70% of turnover to keep it going. Obviously if sales dropped further, GW could start closing a lot of shops to save money. There are some possible problems with this:
1. Shops held on leases cannot necessarily be disposed of quickly. Also, there are redundancy costs for getting rid of staff.
2. Most importantly, GW actually sells a lot of kits through its shops and they are the major source of recruitment of new customers. Closing shops is likely to have an adverse effect on these factors, so it is possible that the money saved by closing shops would be more than outweighed by the reduction in sales. However, GW have over 30 years experience in retail, and it really is the heart and soul of the company, not model making or rules-writing. So I think GW could manage this pretty well.
The 80/20 rule that Blacksails referred to is called the Pareto Principle and states that 80% of the results ceom from 20% of the causal factors. It is surprisingly widely applicable as a rule of thumb.
The danger for GW of relying on this principle is that they are selling games that have an important social component and network effect. The more people who (buy and) play a GW game, the more likely it is for more people to want to (buy and) play the same game. This also affects licensing revenue.
In this scenario GW would be reliant on the true super fans who buy everything GW put out because they like to buy everything GW put out. GW would therefore tailor their new products more and more to this group of customers.
At that point GW have ceased being a wargame company and would have little relevance for the rest of the market.
The release of AOS does not look as if it is following that strategy, though. AOS is clearly intended to be a widely appealing game.
Mate, I used to chat to quite a few of the sculptors, and that is straight from the mouths of one of the most senior and respected sculptors in the business. They aren't blindly pricing, they know very well the production costs and break even points of everything they make. I don't agree with it at all and had quite a heated discussion about the blasé and boarder line insulting nature of the pricing differences, but that is how the prices are determined.
The pricing system you describe is, unfortunately, only observed by companies that are good at retail. I am very very fond of gw, but retail is not their strong point.
GW does many things very well - it just happens to include things that you don't value: complete ranges of rank&file, characters, monsters and vehicles.
Assuming scale is consistent-ish, you don't need a single company to produce the complete range, or the rules. My 28mm WW2 Soviet army has troops and vehicles from a host of manufacturers and can be used with any ruleset. Neither of those have anything to do with scultping quality though.
GW's done remarkably well to convince people you must buy everything from the same company. It's probably the best thing they've managed and I think the only reason they are still on the go.
2. I bang on about Apple, as you put it, because it illustrates a point. You can't admire one company for making expensive things that are unaffordable to many, being secretive, being arrogant, and not listening to its customers just because it makes a lot of money; while at the same time disliking another company for the same reasons. How much money they make is irrelevant.
Apple managed to make themselves appear to be a status symbol, due to being popular with designers a decade or 2 ago. They are somewhat secretive but always leak stuff with plenty of notice to drive huge hype. They listen to customers, sort of. They also aren't that unafordable to many now - which is partially why they are becoming less popular with the 'cool' folk, being upset because even the guy who serves them coffee has one. They also make devices which, for the most part, are pretty slick, even if they don't have feature parity with competition. Their markup is huge, they make billions in profit and have expanded widely covering various markets (phones, mp3 players, PC's) whilst making lots of money from other people (30% iTunes royalty). They were also run by a pretty big personality.
None of that applies to GW; They don't make status symbols, they aren't must haves, they don't have a wide product range, they don't leak things or drive up hype, their products aren't slick (whilst still not having feature parity), and they ignore everyone else.
They like to think they are like Apple. But like most other companies in the world, they aren't.
So, GW makes bigger and more models. I don't see how that means they make the best. Again, their Walmart. They have a bigger selection of mediocre stuff, but unlike Walmart they charge too much.
Also, I get it. No one else makes Space Marines. So everyone is inferior.
Painting can forgive and cover many sculpt issues.
The "flow" of cloth and chains seem to contradict where they are moving... all directions? Very showy poses. Matter of tastes as mentioned.
Since "quality" of models is to a great degree a personal aesthetic choice, it is useless to praise or criticise any particular firm's output except in relation to consumers' perception of price/value leading to sales.
What I mean is that whatever people say about GW's models having technology that is more or less sophisticated, or better/worse scaling, or poseability, in the end nothing matters except purchasing behaviour.
In this respect GW's continuing slide in sales revenue can only tell us that however good their models may be, consumers increasingly find them overpriced.
Of course this is only a trend of the past few years. The company is still in profit and can stop the rot.
Vertrucio wrote: I think you can blame a multimillion dollar company for being "lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, and self entitled, and over (or under) invested" more than you can blame individual players.
Sorry, but you have to realize, corporations are still people, and those people from top to bottom can be just as flawed. What's worse is that those flaws have even greater effect as its amplified by the corporate decisions at the top.
Technically, Corporations are Meta-People.
The technical term is a "Rational Economic Agency" (REA)
It is essentially a rule-based consciousness, composed of sub-agents, each acting with their own agenda, but toward the goal of achieving the overall Utility Function of the larger meta-person or Agent.
This is why you can see Corporate Behavior that seems to be so counter-productive to the function of the corporation (because Sub-Agents have learned how to game the Utility function without providing any actual value).
As an example. An REA has a Utility Function of producing a maximum number of widgets for the reported resources. A set of Sub-agents, each with their own utility function, reports the resources available to the REA's main Agent. Another Sub-Agent is in charge of actually making widgets, and reporting back to the REA's main Agent whenever a widget is produced.
And, these sub-agents get a "Cookie" (A reward) whenever a widget is produced.
But, let us say that a group of sub-agents discover how to trick the Sub-Agent in charge of producing widgets into telling the REA Main Agent that a widget has been produced (when one has not), so that they all get their reward "Cookie."
Suddenly, the REA thinks to its "Look how awesome and successful I am! All of my agents are being rewarded, I am making all these widgets! Things are GREAT!"
Only to have the whole thing fall apart later due to a pileup of underutilized resources that have been warehoused and not used, and accounting problems arise when an audit is done, and it is discovered that the warehouse supposed to have stored all of the created widgets is empty....
GW would fall into this sort of REA. Not quite as bad as the example, but it looks to be heading that way.
Kirby has found a way to give cookies (Dividends) to the shareholders without actually producing the widgets to deserve those Cookies (Dividends).
I think that GW has the most detailed plastic tooling in the industry, though. I don't think anyone produces plastic kits that are comparable to the Sigmar models in detail, though that might not be important to many people, or be the criteria which they judge "best".
Wyrd. Their plastics are flat out the best I've seen.
You have no idea how much I wanted to dislike the PC models for Through the Breach.... (I missed the Kickstarter by one minute....)
On the other hand, I really do not like the Sigmarines at all. If AoS had been a Kickstarter then I would have skipped it at half the price.
Talizvar wrote: Painting can forgive and cover many sculpt issues.
The "flow" of cloth and chains seem to contradict where they are moving... all directions? Very showy poses. Matter of tastes as mentioned.
They're supposed to be. They're homages to movie kung fu. Wyrd really to make some fantastic plastics. Likeing the aesthetics all depends what they're going for, as Malifaux is a melting pot of styles and themes.
Talizvar wrote: Painting can forgive and cover many sculpt issues.
The "flow" of cloth and chains seem to contradict where they are moving... all directions? Very showy poses. Matter of tastes as mentioned.
They're supposed to be. They're homages to movie kung fu. Wyrd really to make some fantastic plastics. Likeing the aesthetics all depends what they're going for, as Malifaux is a melting pot of styles and themes.
Spoiler:
Is that a Malifaux model? If it is I am doing some more investigating!
Talizvar wrote: Painting can forgive and cover many sculpt issues.
The "flow" of cloth and chains seem to contradict where they are moving... all directions? Very showy poses. Matter of tastes as mentioned.
They're supposed to be. They're homages to movie kung fu. Wyrd really to make some fantastic plastics. Likeing the aesthetics all depends what they're going for, as Malifaux is a melting pot of styles and themes.
Spoiler:
Is that a Malifaux model? If it is I am doing some more investigating!
Limited Edition, there's another available that doesn't have so many Gremlins on it. It's a Whiskey Golem. For that model you could hunt eBay, it's the Nightmare Whiskey Golem.
Talizvar wrote: Painting can forgive and cover many sculpt issues.
The "flow" of cloth and chains seem to contradict where they are moving... all directions? Very showy poses. Matter of tastes as mentioned.
They're supposed to be. They're homages to movie kung fu. Wyrd really to make some fantastic plastics. Likeing the aesthetics all depends what they're going for, as Malifaux is a melting pot of styles and themes.
Spoiler:
Is that a Malifaux model? If it is I am doing some more investigating!
Limited Edition, there's another available that doesn't have so many Gremlins on it. It's a Whiskey Golem. For that model you could hunt eBay, it's the Nightmare Whiskey Golem.
Or just wait until the end of the month when Gencon rolls around and it (and the other le sets) should be available on Wyrd's online store.
Apple fox wrote: For GW to lose 30 % of there buyers(not players) it would be a disaster, you only need 10 people to spend 100$ to match a 1000$ a month spender, and that super fan will certenly be a far rarer occerance than lesser purchasers.
if GW is propped up so drastically by super fans I would think that there game is shrinking far faster than it even appears.
Super fans make up more than 30% in Talys' example... a sample size of 8 is pretty big, so this must be representative of the market as a whole.
Trasvi wrote:
For a lot of people, many of those criteria are crucial to wargaming. Where a company does offer rules to play and miniatures to buy, it is very rare (outside of GW games) to be playing with third party minis. I've never witnessed people subbing in cheaper miniatures into Infinity or Malifaux games. Plus when you're playing a game and it calls for a 'Lothern Sky Cutter' and you're thinking, 'great, lets just scour the internet and see how many companies make a sky chariot pulled by an eagle and crewed by elf archers'; or maybe you're trying to field a Leman Russ squadron with 3 different types of turret on the same vehicle and don't want to go to three different manufacturers to get that. GW has a very large, distinct advantage in the sheer size and compatibility of their range.
I'm not entirely sure that providing a specific character model or peculiar vehicle, for a specific character or peculiar vehicle concept that they made up themselves and wrote highly specific special rules for (often a whole packaged-with cardful of them), counts towards a company's claim of 'the best models in the world'. The claim of the most specific or peculiar models in the world, maybe, but not the best.
There are some relatively generic models that might be swapped out - I have an old Inquisitor cyber-mastiff standing in for a Malifaux Guild hunter, for example - but how many alternative models can there be for e.g. a Victorian-themed inventor propped up by an exoskeleton bristling with dangerous-looking equipment; cybernetic chinese rail-workers; undead cowboys slinging coffins around; hillbilly-themed goblins; a cross between Jack the Ripper and a leprechaun on acid, etc. etc? And how different are you willing to go with proxies, without getting confusing or losing the essential character that may have attracted you to all these... characters?
To be honest this is something that mildly narks me about companies trying to use GW's old method of hooking people with a one-stop-shop package game, with tightly intertwined minis and rules and fluff, accept no substitutes. With the caveat that GW's old generic-fantasy theme for many minis was IMO one of it's strengths, allowing you to mix and match minis and rules a little more, before the prices went too goofy. And that's one of the things that mildly narks me about this move towards specificity in AoS...
(And not that I want all rules to go utterly generic, like HoTT or something, but more wiggle room in some areas would be nice)
Oh, and on the topic of Malifaux Guild hunter minis and one reason why I swapped mine out: earlier someone said the wee, fine bits and connection points on Malifaux minis glue and stay much more easily with styrene and poly cement. Didn't stop them trying with their metal minis, though!
TheAuldGrump wrote: You have no idea how much I wanted to dislike the PC models for Through the Breach.... (I missed the Kickstarter by one minute....)
On the other hand, I really do not like the Sigmarines at all. If AoS had been a Kickstarter then I would have skipped it at half the price.
The Angels are okay, though.
The Sigmarites are clearly targeted for the crowd of folks who like the World of Warcraft paladins with big pauldrons and giant weapons This is a big demographic, though (look how well space marines sell). I'm actually surprised that more companies don't go after this type of aesthetic, or exploit it as fully as GW, because clearly, there is market demand.
But I wasn't really talking about aesthetics, but rather, the technical aspects of the sculpting and the manufacture quality of the plastics -- they are really, really good. I think even people who hate the aesthetic would concede that. The material is perfectly clean and the details are crisp and deep. There are no artifacts, nor imperfections. If they are like the WD75 model, the pieces have excellent fit, and excellent cast, which is NOT always the case with multipart models, including GW ones.
For example, if you look on the Dark Vengeance kit, which has excellent models, many of the tactical squad markings require remediation (the shoulder markings and/or the point at which the shoulder pad connects to the arm is not crisp); many of the bolters across the chest don't have a perfect fit (without cutting a little off). Neither is the end of the world, but I do appreciate it when models work out just the way the sculptors intended, and there's no remediation required.
Kilkrazy wrote: Prices are not set by designers, they are set by management accountants and marketers, who have to do a lot of work to track all kinds of costs to ensure the true production cost of a unit is known as accurately as possible, WIthout this info you might be selling stuff at a loss. Once the production cost is known, marketers take over and work out how much can be charged for the item by comparing with rivals, the general state of the market, and how much they can boost demand by things like advertising, premium pricing and other strategies. Etc.
With regards to bitetyhthumb's points, there are some grains of truth in what he says.
GW operates a large retail chain that soaks up about 70% of turnover to keep it going. Obviously if sales dropped further, GW could start closing a lot of shops to save money. There are some possible problems with this:
1. Shops held on leases cannot necessarily be disposed of quickly. Also, there are redundancy costs for getting rid of staff.
2. Most importantly, GW actually sells a lot of kits through its shops and they are the major source of recruitment of new customers. Closing shops is likely to have an adverse effect on these factors, so it is possible that the money saved by closing shops would be more than outweighed by the reduction in sales. However, GW have over 30 years experience in retail, and it really is the heart and soul of the company, not model making or rules-writing. So I think GW could manage this pretty well.
The 80/20 rule that Blacksails referred to is called the Pareto Principle and states that 80% of the results ceom from 20% of the causal factors. It is surprisingly widely applicable as a rule of thumb.
The danger for GW of relying on this principle is that they are selling games that have an important social component and network effect. The more people who (buy and) play a GW game, the more likely it is for more people to want to (buy and) play the same game. This also affects licensing revenue.
In this scenario GW would be reliant on the true super fans who buy everything GW put out because they like to buy everything GW put out. GW would therefore tailor their new products more and more to this group of customers.
At that point GW have ceased being a wargame company and would have little relevance for the rest of the market.
The release of AOS does not look as if it is following that strategy, though. AOS is clearly intended to be a widely appealing game.
Mate, I used to chat to quite a few of the sculptors, and that is straight from the mouths of one of the most senior and respected sculptors in the business. They aren't blindly pricing, they know very well the production costs and break even points of everything they make. I don't agree with it at all and had quite a heated discussion about the blasé and boarder line insulting nature of the pricing differences, but that is how the prices are determined.
The pricing system you describe is, unfortunately, only observed by companies that are good at retail. I am very very fond of gw, but retail is not their strong point.
Really, does GW still use freelance sculptors anymore. aren't they all in-house now?
Apple fox wrote: For GW to lose 30 % of there buyers(not players) it would be a disaster, you only need 10 people to spend 100$ to match a 1000$ a month spender, and that super fan will certenly be a far rarer occerance than lesser purchasers.
if GW is propped up so drastically by super fans I would think that there game is shrinking far faster than it even appears.
Super fans make up more than 30% in Talys' example... a sample size of 8 is pretty big, so this must be representative of the market as a whole.
I don't think the average player spends $1,200 per year.
In my opinion and experience, a 40k fan spending $500 a year on GW product is really generous -- over 20 years, that's $10,000.
Of course, there's a big gap between $500 per year and $12,000 per year, with people all between. My point was simple: the people fleeing first will be generally be the people buying the least; the people who are currently spending a lot are probably pretty happy with GW. I don't think that this is an irrational hypothesis.
Also, the GW big spender and casual spender has a HUGE gap, unlike Infinity or Malifaux, and even WMH. I mean, when was the last time that you heard of a Malifaux or WMH player who spent $50,000 or more (in their lifetime) with Wyrd or Privateer Press? On the other hand, if you're into FW and such it's really easy to hit. A 30k army can run you $10,000 without trying very hard, and plenty of popular models are in the $1k range.
In this respect GW's continuing slide in sales revenue can only tell us that however good their models may be, consumers increasingly find them overpriced.
Of course this is only a trend of the past few years. The company is still in profit and can stop the rot.
I still maintain that there is no evidence that a lower price would result in a higher profit for Games Workshop, as we have no data on pricing elasticity. There are people that may leave GW or play other games for plenty of reasons other than price -- for example, "GW can't write good rules" or, "All my friends play X-Wing".
Lower prices will certainly increase unit sales, but I don't see data that would indicate revenue or profit would increase.
Talys, while I agree that lower prices on models will not necessarily draw more people in, I think the costs of playing a standard game are too high.
With 40k, there are significant issues with game bloating and frequent rule book replacements. In that regard, the models are not so badly priced (may 15-20% higher than I'd like), but to get the standard experience- the range between 1500 and 2000pt- the cost is increasing, despite the experience not necessarily becoming anymore enriching.
WH-AOS has actually done a *fair* job at resolving this. I feel that this game's problems have to do more with there not being a way to make a standardized experience. However, the concerns are less to do with the cost directly, and more with the mechanics of the game itself, so steps in the right direction.
Beyond these, I think GW is going to have to do something about their perception within the customer base as incredibly expensive. They may enjoy these limited edition, two-year cycle books and gaming accessories (I'm looking at you, Khorne dice shaker!) set at ridiculous costs, but it creates the impression that the game is for people with more money than sense.
Talys wrote: I don't think the average player spends $1,200 per year.
In my opinion and experience, a 40k fan spending $500 a year on GW product is really generous -- over 20 years, that's $10,000.
Of course, there's a big gap between $500 per year and $12,000 per year, with people all between. My point was simple: the people fleeing first will be generally be the people buying the least; the people who are currently spending a lot are probably pretty happy with GW. I don't think that this is an irrational hypothesis.
Also, the GW big spender and casual spender has a HUGE gap, unlike Infinity or Malifaux, and even WMH. I mean, when was the last time that you heard of a Malifaux or WMH player who spent $50,000 or more (in their lifetime) with Wyrd or Privateer Press? On the other hand, if you're into FW and such it's really easy to hit. A 30k army can run you $10,000 without trying very hard, and plenty of popular models are in the $1k range.
I think you are vastly underestimating the buying power of the average hobbyist. $500/year isn't enough for you to buy one 40k box a month...
There's two scenarios: 1. Startup and 2. Maintenance. I believe you are correct that the average 40k hobbyist is unlikely to spend $500/year + on maintenance of their force. There will be spikes when their army gets updated, but these spikes are spread over the course of the non-update years. Startup is another animal. To get your army up to speed, the initial cost is going to blow that $500 out of the water. Even games with lower entry levels such as Warmachine and Infinity are going to result in sunk costs of a few hundred dollars just to get to the minimum accepted playing level. Then you start buying options. You can easily get to $300 mark with Infinity and beyond that with Warmachine in the first year. These are not "enthusiasts" but represent the core demographic of a miniature game's customers, and IMHO, these guys are the first guys that are going to drop out if the system see's a huge customer base die-off, not the $1-200/year passer-bys.
I agree that $50k lifetime Warmachine is unlikely due to the more limited scale of the game (Malifaux and Infinity even less likely), but lifetime $10k isn't a stretch. In 2014, one-of-everything faction-complete was in the $2.5k range, and many players who are faction complete have multiples. With the new book, I'm sure faction complete is closer to 3k.
I still maintain that there is no evidence that a lower price would result in a higher profit for Games Workshop, as we have no data on pricing elasticity. There are people that may leave GW or play other games for plenty of reasons other than price -- for example, "GW can't write good rules" or, "All my friends play X-Wing".
.
Of course there's no evidence, for there to be evidence a thing needs to have happened!
But you're not taking a holistic approach. I wouldn't be surprised that for many people who have walked away from GW, or rejected it, the price needed to illicit a purchase may be lower than break even. There's plenty of ways GW could address the issue of value without necessarily cutting prices, chiefly by focusing on getting people excited to play again, I've always maintained that price ceases to be such an issue if people are excited by the product, and I believe the root cause of the decline is the decreasing popularity of the games systems they sell.
Work on improving the game, throw the odd extra sprue in to boxed sets to improve value, alongside a more flexible option for new players, judicious price cuts where they hurt the least to show willing and then you're just left with the dreadful millstone that is the retail chain to deal with.
I think you are vastly underestimating the buying power of the average hobbyist. $500/year isn't enough for you to buy one 40k box a month...
Yeah, I don't think the average 40k player buys a box a month, though. I mean, if you play 1 army, once you have your army, you don't need to do that. There isn't even enough stuff that comes out (for that faction) to justify it. Most people who play 2 armies that are casual don't concurrently maintain both. And of course you're right, the buying patter is spikey.
To your point of startup, absolutely. New players are worth a few hundred bucks. But then it tapers off (as people expect, and as it should) for most games.
The problem is that many times when they are doing something that could, in theory at least, add value, they increase the price at the same time.
Which counters the increased value in one swell foop.
Adding the bits to make elite Witch elves to the frames for dark elf witches - great idea!
Doubling the price, at the same time - bad idea!
Guess which one they went with?
They are also amazingly adept at taking the wrong lesson from things, such as dciding to rename everything, because it turns out that they do not own terms like 'space marine', 'dark elf', 'Roman numerals'....
I still maintain that there is no evidence that a lower price would result in a higher profit for Games Workshop, as we have no data on pricing elasticity. There are people that may leave GW or play other games for plenty of reasons other than price -- for example, "GW can't write good rules" or, "All my friends play X-Wing".
.
Of course there's no evidence, for there to be evidence a thing needs to have happened!
But you're not taking a holistic approach. I wouldn't be surprised that for many people who have walked away from GW, or rejected it, the price needed to illicit a purchase may be lower than break even. There's plenty of ways GW could address the issue of value without necessarily cutting prices, chiefly by focusing on getting people excited to play again, I've always maintained that price ceases to be such an issue if people are excited by the product, and I believe the root cause of the decline is the decreasing popularity of the games systems they sell.
Work on improving the game, throw the odd extra sprue in to boxed sets to improve value, alongside a more flexible option for new players, judicious price cuts where they hurt the least to show willing and then you're just left with the dreadful millstone that is the retail chain to deal with.
I don't think GW is as terrible at retail as you think it is. They've been at it for a very long time, and in this aspect, they're pretty experienced. In some areas, it's the only store for a pretty big radius.
Please note that I'm not saying that cutting prices would NOT result in better aggregate revenue / profit, either in the short, medium, or long term. I was saying that I think that GW has more information than us, and is not willfully self-destructive on the issue of pricing. Whatever they are doing, they genuinely think is the best strategy. But evidently I am wrong.
But I will take JamesY at his word, as he seems pretty credible in what he says, and accept that at least to some extent, the pricing also reflects compensation negotiations with sculptors and other factors in a weird formula that is more arcane than anything else.
Incidentally, what you're describing is exactly what GW is trying to accomplish with AoS. It's polarizing; some people like it, and others hate it. But at least more people like it than played Fantasy Battle. Whether it's a long term success, I don't know. They'll squeeze a little bit of money out of me; I'm not sure how much they'll get in the long term -- probably not much at all, because after all, how many Sigmarites can they build? LOL.
As a former corporate accountant, I'd just like to say there is no way a creative is setting prices for the product line of a publicly listed corporation. It might be a managerial leader of the design time but the idea that the same people who are sculpting the models, designing the rules or doing graphic design are setting prices is just ludicrous.
frozenwastes wrote: As a former corporate accountant, I'd just like to say there is no way a creative is setting prices for the product line of a publicly listed corporation. It might be a managerial leader of the design time but the idea that the same people who are sculpting the models, designing the rules or doing graphic design are setting prices is just ludicrous.
Ok, I'm not going to continue to try to convince anyone on this point, as a member of staff, I asked one of the sculptors who set the prices, he told me it was the design team. Was he lying? Perhaps, but I can't see why he would, as the conversation wasn't making the pricing policy look good.
Also I used to help design cloths for a gents outfitters. Guess who used to set the prices?
Design team doesn't have to equal a sculptor or something. Guess who was the head of product design for GW for a good while? Mark Wells. A laywer and MBA who was also later GW's CEO.
You're making it sound like it was Matt Ward or something. Design team doesn't mean creative type. There's always some sort of management person on teams like this. Like for Magic how Mark Rosewater is the lead designer but Mark Gottlieb is the design team manager. Usually these people have actual business training.
So no, I do not in any way believe a designer is setting GW's prices.
I still maintain that there is no evidence that a lower price would result in a higher profit for Games Workshop, as we have no data on pricing elasticity. There are people that may leave GW or play other games for plenty of reasons other than price -- for example, "GW can't write good rules" or, "All my friends play X-Wing".
.
Of course there's no evidence, for there to be evidence a thing needs to have happened!
But you're not taking a holistic approach. I wouldn't be surprised that for many people who have walked away from GW, or rejected it, the price needed to illicit a purchase may be lower than break even. There's plenty of ways GW could address the issue of value without necessarily cutting prices, chiefly by focusing on getting people excited to play again, I've always maintained that price ceases to be such an issue if people are excited by the product, and I believe the root cause of the decline is the decreasing popularity of the games systems they sell.
Work on improving the game, throw the odd extra sprue in to boxed sets to improve value, alongside a more flexible option for new players, judicious price cuts where they hurt the least to show willing and then you're just left with the dreadful millstone that is the retail chain to deal with.
I don't think GW is as terrible at retail as you think it is. They've been at it for a very long time, and in this aspect, they're pretty experienced. In some areas, it's the only store for a pretty big radius.
It's difficult to be too precise, because the figures themselves aren't exactly specific in what they refer to, but it appears GW spent £50m last FY in order to generate £51.5m in revenue through their own stores.
Now, you may have a different idea of terrible than me...
why is it terrible retailing to profit £1.5m selling toy soldiers in your own stores???
if you said that GW spent £51.5m to generate £50m in revenue, then i would say that is terrible, and unsustainable, retailing...
£1.5m is a tidy sum of profit...
It's difficult to be too precise, because the figures themselves aren't exactly specific in what they refer to, but it appears GW spent £50m last FY in order to generate £51.5m in revenue through their own stores.
Now, you may have a different idea of terrible than me...
That isn't bad at all. Microsoft loses money at retail as did Nokia during its best years. As a manufacturer, the stores serve as presence, advertising, showroom, and player recruitment. That they can even break even is frankly baffling to me as most major cities have an independent within a shirt distance that will sell at 10%-25% off on the same product AND stock other stuff.
I mean, as much as I like GW models, I'll take discounts and support local small businesses thank you. Also: Buying direct, I'd just purchase online and have it shipped. Maybe not supplies I guess.
One other thing - the numbers you're looking at probably reflect profit as a factor of distribution pricing, not manufacturing cost. In other words, they sell internally to their own stores at the same trade prices they sell to FLGS. This is significant because they make a distribution profit (we assume it's a high margin, right?), and left to just independents, the sales volumes would without doubt be lower, because some people going to an independent will buy non-GW stuff instead, even if they like GW (for example, brushes, paints, etc), not to mention the folks who will buy a non-GW model kit instead.
jah-joshua wrote: why is it terrible retailing to profit £1.5m selling toy soldiers in your own stores???
if you said that GW spent £51.5m to generate £50m in revenue, then i would say that is terrible, and unsustainable, retailing...
£1.5m is a tidy sum of profit...
cheers
jah
It's terrible because you could have put £50 million in the bank and generated more than £1.5 M profit from interest payments.
Leaving that aside, Talys mentioned that reducing the price of GW games would not necessarily generate more revenue. There are two points about this that I would like to bring up:
1. AOS is a reduced price game in the sense of the free rules and army books. GW clearly think it will generate more revenue than WHFB. They may be mistaken, and we have not yet seen the price of AOS kits, of course.
2. It is possible that GW simply do not have a sustainable business with the 1/2/3 games they currently publish. It is only in the past five years that they have reduced themselves from selling a fairly wide variety of titles to basically only three. It is in the pas five years that revenues have shown a serious decline.
In this scenario GW won't increase revenue by decreasing prices. They also need to publish more games.
jah-joshua wrote: why is it terrible retailing to profit £1.5m selling toy soldiers in your own stores???
if you said that GW spent £51.5m to generate £50m in revenue, then i would say that is terrible, and unsustainable, retailing...
£1.5m is a tidy sum of profit...
cheers
jah
Not profit, revenue
They are spending £50m in order to generate £51.5m revenue.
By their current percentages, that's somewhere in the region of
£150k actual profit.
It's difficult to be too precise, because the figures themselves aren't exactly specific in what they refer to, but it appears GW spent £50m last FY in order to generate £51.5m in revenue through their own stores.
Now, you may have a different idea of terrible than me...
That isn't bad at all. Microsoft loses money at retail as did Nokia during its best years. As a manufacturer, the stores serve as presence, advertising, showroom, and player recruitment. That they can even break even is frankly baffling to me as most major cities have an independent within a shirt distance that will sell at 10%-25% off on the same product AND stock other stuff.
Microsoft and Nokia are poor examples (as I suspect you realise) having a showroom that is nominally a retail location isn't what GW do, and they're actively pursuing strategies to try and drive footfall to their stores and website, they're not content to pour money into retail as advertising, they clearly want them to succeed, and yet they're barely breaking even (given I did quite a bit of rounding, with a margin that small they could conceivably actually making a loss)
One other thing - the numbers you're looking at probably reflect profit as a factor of distribution pricing, not manufacturing cost. In other words, they sell internally to their own stores at the same trade prices they sell to FLGS. This is significant because they make a distribution profit (we assume it's a high margin, right?), and left to just independents, the sales volumes would without doubt be lower, because some people going to an independent will buy non-GW stuff instead, even if they like GW (for example, brushes, paints, etc), not to mention the folks who will buy a non-GW model kit instead.
I can't see how that's the case, otherwise that revenue stream would show up on the report somewhere, and I've never seen it, so it's either buried deep in the notes somewhere or doesn't exist. Equally if they reported that money as part of the distribution channel, there's no way their stores and Indys could account for over 40% of revenue each.
@Killkrazy: obviously, the people at GW don't think it is terrible to have their own shops...
@Azrael: if you are taking their retail arm in isolation, which it seems like your post was, spending £50m to generate £51.5m, then how is that not a profit of £1.5m for the retail side???
you seemed to be implying that generating £1.5m more than the retail stores cost to sustain is somehow bad business...
I don't have the data to debate with you (and I don't think it's published in a complete, meaningful way), and sometimes partial information is worse than none at all.
Microsoft and Nokia opened retail outlets to grow mindshare and to drive awareness to their product, and also because they perceive that their retailers don't provide a good enough exhibit or experience to showcase the product.
In the same way, Games Workshop stores display and promote their product reasonably well, and bring awareness to a brand in an industry that doesn't drive enough volume for many of the traditional forms of advertising. As I said, that retail revenue number that you indicated sounds huge.
To determine the profitability for the stores, there must be a cost base for the models (it can't be zero, and the cost of manufacturing would be a poor number to use per store, because the product could have been made 15 years ago and is neither reflective of a current cost, nor replacement cost).
Personally, even though I don't buy anything at them (or at least, so rarely that it doesn't matter), I'm glad GW stores exist. In my mind, the more hobby and gaming shops in the world, the better!
jah-joshua wrote: @Killkrazy: obviously, the people at GW don't think it is terrible to have their own shops...
@Azrael: if you are taking their retail arm in isolation, which it seems like your post was, spending £50m to generate £51.5m, then how is that not a profit of £1.5m for the retail side???
you seemed to be implying that generating £1.5m more than the retail stores cost to sustain is somehow bad business...
am i missing something here???
cheers
jah
Yep.
Revenue =/= profit. Their retail arm drew in about 40 something % of their revenue, the total amount of money given to them by their customers. This equates to around £51.5m out of their revenue NOT profit. Therefore the stores generated only 1.5m in revenue over what it appears to have cost GW to run them. As their profit runs at ~10% of their revenue, it is reasonable to extrapolate that out to the whole store network made only 150k for the company, yet required an investment of £50m to do so.
I'm sure that you don't need to be a business genius to see that spending £50m to make £150k isn't a fabulous return on investment, and, as KK rightly points out, they would have made a lot more just by sticking it in the bank.
This doesn't account for intangibles like brand awareness, recruitment, advertising etc, but in pure cash terms, GW without their stores is the same as GW with them, except all the ancillary staff needed for staff managment, leases, utilities etc would be fewer, so one could fairly convincingly argue that they'd be better off.
i guess i should have said a plus, instead of a profit...
given the benefits of what GW see their shops providing, i don't see how you could convince me that those shops operating at a plus is a bad thing...
like i said, if the shops were losing them money, i could get behind your argument...
it doesn't appear that they are, by your numbers...
as long as they are bringing in more than they cost to run, then i am sure GW are happy to keep the retail chain...
I don't have the data to debate with you (and I don't think it's published in a complete, meaningful way), and sometimes partial information is worse than none at all.
Really? I'm content that the figures in the accounts are sufficient to prove my case. I'm not trying to argue Devestators outsold Assault Squads here, all the info is right there, and it is reasonable to assume presented in the best light they can.
Microsoft and Nokia opened retail outlets to grow mindshare and to drive awareness to their product, and also because they perceive that their retailers don't provide a good enough exhibit or experience to showcase the product. In the same way, Games Workshop stores display and promote their product reasonably well, and bring awareness to a brand in an industry that doesn't drive enough volume for many of the traditional forms of advertising.
I know, my background is in retail mangement, specifically in consumer electronics, mainly in cellphone retail, I'm well aware, it still doesn't alter the fact that their motivation, and consequently parameters for success were very different to GW, who seem to be actively pursuing the idea of making their stores the main revenue stream, not just showrooms (for instance, Nokia stores were front and centre in some very pricey real estate, not tucked away in a corner somewhere.)
As I said, that retail revenue number that you indicated sounds huge.
It isn't, the stores have been generating around the same percentage for years, and presumably been just as big an overhead.
To determine the profitability for the stores, there must be a cost base for the models (it can't be zero, and the cost of manufacturing would be a poor number to use per store, because the product could have been made 15 years ago and is neither reflective of a current cost, nor replacement cost).
Determining the profitabilty of the stores, you simply substitute the amount they cost to run plus a percentage of company wide overhead, taxes etc from the amount they generate and there you go, not a precise accounting figure, but we know how much they cost to run and how much money they generate in revenue, what you're proposing may be necessary for an audit, but it isn't really needed for this level of discussion.
Personally, even though I don't buy anything at them (or at least, so rarely that it doesn't matter), I'm glad GW stores exist. In my mind, the more hobby and gaming shops in the world, the better!
They're not really hobby stores though, are they? They're just kiosks designed to try and shift plastic. I haven't seen or stepped foot in a GW in years that compares to any of the indys I'm familiar with, in fact all GW stores have done in the UK is make the superior indy stores a rarer animal, thankfully yet another positive of GW's slow decline is that indys seem to be able to open and survive without relying on GW, should they choose to stock it, so they're making a bit of a comeback.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jah-joshua wrote: i guess i should have said a plus, instead of a profit...
given the benefits of what GW see their shops providing, i don't see how you could convince me that those shops operating at a plus is a bad thing...
like i said, if the shops were losing them money, i could get behind your argument...
it doesn't appear that they are, by your numbers...
as long as they are bringing in more than they cost to run, then i am sure GW are happy to keep the retail chain...
cheers
jah
My quick and dirty maths means there's every chance they're making a loss, and my rounding of figures just made it look like a small profit. Could be slightly the other way of course, but being obliged to spend over 40% of your income on something that barely makes it money back isn't a fabulous place to be in. I'd much rather make less money to earn the same profit and be more able to react to the changing market. GW didn't need to double down on stores like it has, some of its golden years were achieved with a much smaller retail presence and greater number of indy retailers, it seems all they've done is drive those indys out of business, saddle themselves with greater overhead and exposure to risk, yet not reaped an appropriate award for what it's cost them to do so.
On Page 9, it shows that the Operating Profit for Retail, restated to 1 year ended 1 June 2014 is -196k GBP, and for 6 months ended 30 November 2014 is -1.286m GBP. Since Christmas is a critical season for retail, the 12-month period is probably more useful when considering retail viability.
Operating profit for the 6-month period ended 30 Nov. is
Trade 4,272 Retail -1,286 Mail Order 5,309
It's actually a smaller loss than the 6-month period ended 2013. Also, I never realized Internet sales were so significant. Although I should, as there is a guy in our group who buys $2k+ per month straight from GW/FW's website because he can't be bothered to drive to a store, 30% discount be damned. I guess that's also why GW is so restrictive about its FLGS selling stuff online -- it's way too profitable for GW.
In summary, I think you should abandon your "quick and dirty maths" as you put it, and just accept p.9 of the financial report, which actually breaks down the operating profits and losses
Considering the many benefits that GW stores bring, plus, I believe that goods sold to Retail show as profit on the manufacturing side, it's just a no-brainer to keep them running. And also: I do consider GW stores hobby stores. They sell hobby goods, and when you go into one, you can buy everything that you need to build, paint, and play miniatures and GW wargames. That there may be better alternatives for some hobby supplies doesn't make them just "kiosks".
I read about half this thread and this is my evaluation:
I don't give a **** about GW. Right now I'm having fun with 40k. When it stops being fun or GW implode I'll move on to another miniature game. Life is too short to worry about this or that.
Specifically, Az, I believe that the sales between GW and its stores are captured under "Total group core business operating profit", under "Product and Supply", which is worth 4.5m profit.
In the current period, the total retail sales = 22.4m.
Apply trade discount, that's 13.4m that the stores must pay GW.
4.5m profit from 13.4m in product seems quite reasonable.
Yes, it's left to right hand, but you need to do it to figure out the stores' performance, the same way Microsoft retail stores don't sell Office365 with a $0 cost and Apple retail stores don't sell iPhones based on manufacturing cost.
If GW stores didn't exist some of that 22.4m (maybe less) would go through Trade or Mail Order, instead of Retail, and off of both, GW would have made more profit, though probably less than 4.5m. There is a question of whether an independent is better at selling and promoting GW product than GW (I would argue that in some cases, yes), but that's a whole other discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ninepaces wrote: I read about half this thread and this is my evaluation:
I don't give a **** about GW. Right now I'm having fun with 40k. When it stops being fun or GW implode I'll move on to another miniature game. Life is too short to worry about this or that.
At the end of the day, yeah, that's all I care about too
If 40k died, I'd spend some more time on other miniature games, but video games would get a lot more love from me.
ninepaces wrote: I read about half this thread and this is my evaluation:
I don't give a **** about GW. Right now I'm having fun with 40k. When it stops being fun or GW implode I'll move on to another miniature game. Life is too short to worry about this or that.
ninepaces wrote: I read about half this thread and this is my evaluation:
I don't give a **** about GW. Right now I'm having fun with 40k. When it stops being fun or GW implode I'll move on to another miniature game. Life is too short to worry about this or that.
Talys wrote: Specifically, Az, I believe that the sales between GW and its stores are captured under "Total group core business operating profit", under "Product and Supply", which is worth 4.5m profit.
In the current period, the total retail sales = 22.4m.
Apply trade discount, that's 13.4m that the stores must pay GW.
4.5m profit from 13.4m in product seems quite reasonable.
Yes, it's left to right hand, but you need to do it to figure out the stores' performance, the same way Microsoft retail stores don't sell Office365 with a $0 cost and Apple retail stores don't sell iPhones based on manufacturing cost.
If GW stores didn't exist some of that 22.4m (maybe less) would go through Trade or Mail Order, instead of Retail, and off of both, GW would have made more profit, though probably less than 4.5m. There is a question of whether an independent is better at selling and promoting GW product than GW (I would argue that in some cases, yes), but that's a whole other discussion
Actually, I disagree, subtracting the cash spent from the cash generated probably gives a clearer picture of the true circumstances than assessing how much money GW gave itself. It's real money vs paper money.
Talys wrote: Specifically, Az, I believe that the sales between GW and its stores are captured under "Total group core business operating profit", under "Product and Supply", which is worth 4.5m profit.
In the current period, the total retail sales = 22.4m.
Apply trade discount, that's 13.4m that the stores must pay GW.
4.5m profit from 13.4m in product seems quite reasonable.
Yes, it's left to right hand, but you need to do it to figure out the stores' performance, the same way Microsoft retail stores don't sell Office365 with a $0 cost and Apple retail stores don't sell iPhones based on manufacturing cost.
If GW stores didn't exist some of that 22.4m (maybe less) would go through Trade or Mail Order, instead of Retail, and off of both, GW would have made more profit, though probably less than 4.5m. There is a question of whether an independent is better at selling and promoting GW product than GW (I would argue that in some cases, yes), but that's a whole other discussion
Actually, I disagree, subtracting the cash spent from the cash generated probably gives a clearer picture of the true circumstances than assessing how much money GW gave itself. It's real money vs paper money.
No, it's not.
Stores must buy inventory from GW. It's real money, either generated from store sales or from borrowing money from GW. If a store sells a $100 model, its gross profit should be $40, not $70.
Just look at trade revenue vs trade profit. Retail revenue vs profit from internal sales to GW retail will be a similar ratio.
Azreal13 wrote: So, you don't see GW's stores buying stock from GW as paper money?
It's pure accountancy, no doubt to mitigate tax, and nothing else.
It is real money, man. When a GW store sells a mini the store gets MSRP. The retail portion gets credit for its sale, and the wholesale division gets credit (paid) for their work. Otherwise, who pays for the shipping, the stock at the distribution center, the cost of storage at the DC, the inventory manager, the shippers/receivers, and all that? Why should the DC be penalized for shipping to a GW retail store over an independent?
If it's as you put it, what is the 4.5m products and services core revenue for? But I digress. It's silly arguing this, and we're just taking in circles now, so I give up Believe whatever you wish; I won't try to convince you otherwise.
So the money, given to GW is artificially divided amongst internal departments.
It all goes to the same place, GW Retail isn't some separate company, GW as a gestalt entity still makes 100% of the profit less the production costs, unlike a sale made by an outside agency.
How they write this down has absolutely no effect on money in and money out.
Azreal13 wrote: So the money, given to GW is artificially divided amongst internal departments.
It all goes to the same place, GW Retail isn't some separate company, GW as a gestalt entity still makes 100% of the profit less the production costs, unlike a sale made by an outside agency.
How they write this down has absolutely no effect on money in and money out.
I must really suck at explaining things. I'll try one last time, another way. GW might lose money at retail but still make profit through its retail channel, because it makes more money at the wholesale level than it loses at the retail level.
If other retailers could sell the same amount of product, gw would make the same wholesale profit (for the sake of argument, just say 4.5m, off of 22m in 6 months, ok?), and NOT take a retail loss. But a reasonable expectation is that stores not owned by GW that also sell competing products may sell less GW product than a GW store. Also, there are some GW stores in good locations where independent s don't have a strong presence, or don't promote GW at all.
GW does many things very well - it just happens to include things that you don't value: complete ranges of rank&file, characters, monsters and vehicles.
Assuming scale is consistent-ish, you don't need a single company to produce the complete range, or the rules. My 28mm WW2 Soviet army has troops and vehicles from a host of manufacturers and can be used with any ruleset. Neither of those have anything to do with scultping quality though.
GW's done remarkably well to convince people you must buy everything from the same company. It's probably the best thing they've managed and I think the only reason they are still on the go.
That is definitely not a GW-only thing.
Every other 'big' sci-fi or fantasy game uses pretty much exclusively their own minis - and subbing in models from other companies is actually significantly rarer in these games than GW games in my experience. I've yet to see someone using 3rd party minis in Malifaux or Warmachine, but nearly all my regular 40k opponents feature at least 1 non-GW model in their forces.
Historical games are a bit different here because they essentially can't be IP protected. Two companies producing 28mm Sherman tanks should produce essentially identical looking minis.
Its a business decision, to be sure: You make the rules for something and a model for it, 99% of players are going to buy that model from you. You make a model, 99% of customers are going to use it in your game. A significant part of the value of your models is that it fits with and identifies with other models you produce.
This really shouldn't be a surprising idea. Most other mini manufacturers don't do eclectic, one-off models with no tie ins to anything else they produce. They won't make ONE dwarf - they'll make 5 dwarf warriors, 5 dwarf riflemen, and two dwarf characters (for example). The more expansive the range, the more value as you can build an entire warband/army that fits together seamlessly.
Azreal13 wrote: So the money, given to GW is artificially divided amongst internal departments.
It all goes to the same place, GW Retail isn't some separate company, GW as a gestalt entity still makes 100% of the profit less the production costs, unlike a sale made by an outside agency.
How they write this down has absolutely no effect on money in and money out.
I must really suck at explaining things. I'll try one last time, another way. GW might lose money at retail but still make profit through its retail channel, because it makes more money at the wholesale level than it loses at the retail level.
If other retailers could sell the same amount of product, gw would make the same wholesale profit (for the sake of argument, just say 4.5m, off of 22m in 6 months, ok?), and NOT take a retail loss. But a reasonable expectation is that stores not owned by GW that also sell competing products may sell less GW product than a GW store. Also, there are some GW stores in good locations where independent s don't have a strong presence, or don't promote GW at all.
Does that make any sense?
It's not that I don't understand you, I just disagree with you. You're getting sucked into the financial shell game that is corporate accounting.
My assertions are simple - GW spend around 50m on the stores, the stores generate around 51.5m in revenue. Even if they're making a "profit" at the distribution end, they're still spending the same amount on the retail chain as they're taking in, near as dammit.
Where do you see that they spend GBP50m on the stores, anyways? All I see is $36m COGS and $76m operating expenses. I'm not arguing with you, I just want to know where it is.
If you took out the stores, GW would sell a lot less product (unless you disagree with that). It's really as simple as that. Even if stores didn't ever make a dime in the end calculus, they are driving sales to GW instead of other products. It's more players, more mindshare, more awareness, new players, a place for existing players to socialize, and some of which translates into purchases from other channels, and in the end, is a good thing.
jah-joshua wrote: @Killkrazy: obviously, the people at GW don't think it is terrible to have their own shops...
@Azrael: if you are taking their retail arm in isolation, which it seems like your post was, spending £50m to generate £51.5m, then how is that not a profit of £1.5m for the retail side???
you seemed to be implying that generating £1.5m more than the retail stores cost to sustain is somehow bad business...
am i missing something here???
cheers
jah
Naturally, it's easy to forget that GW started as a games retailer originally, and it is the only real constant in their history. It ought to be their no1 core competency.
IMO they ought to be selling a much wider range of games in their shops, to maximise effectiveness of their retail chain.
i can understand why they stopped selling other companies' games, but i do think it is a shame that they don't carry their own back catalog...
lots of good stuff there...
Trasvi wrote: I've yet to see someone using 3rd party minis in Malifaux or Warmachine, but nearly all my regular 40k opponents feature at least 1 non-GW model in their forces.
It is more uncommon but not unique. My Cygnar Trencher heavy force for Warmachine is comprised of WWI German Stormtroopers as PP's Trencher sculpts are awful. The only actual PP models are the Jacks and the caster.
The ubiquity of 40K is what allows the companies that produce alternatives and ancillaries to GW models to thrive. There also seems to be a great deal less brand loyalty to GW when it comes to little men, there seems to be a lot of resistance amongst, for example, Infinity players to use proxies while 40K players will happily use entire proxied armies.
Azreal13 wrote: My assertions are simple - GW spend around 50m on the stores, the stores generate around 51.5m in revenue. Even if they're making a "profit" at the distribution end, they're still spending the same amount on the retail chain as they're taking in, near as dammit.
I think as long as GW are making similar revenue as it costs to run the stores, the stores are probably fine. They do serve somewhat as advertising for other channels as well, so their sales can't be considered in isolation. I'm sure there's lots of people who benefit from having a GW store nearby but still purchase through online discounters, other FLGS's or even GW's own online store.
The obligation is my biggest contention, carrying that sort of overhead severely restricts your ability to take risks, and for a company with creativity at its core, at least theoretically, that's a big downside. If there were clearer hard benefits (you can't accurately value the intangibles, and the value the stores bring is a debate in itself) then fair enough, but I personally don't think the return warrants the investment.
Talys wrote: Where do you see that they spend GBP50m on the stores, anyways? All I see is $36m COGS and $76m operating expenses. I'm not arguing with you, I just want to know where it is.
If you took out the stores, GW would sell a lot less product (unless you disagree with that). It's really as simple as that. Even if stores didn't ever make a dime in the end calculus, they are driving sales to GW instead of other products. It's more players, more mindshare, more awareness, new players, a place for existing players to socialize, and some of which translates into purchases from other channels, and in the end, is a good thing.
13/14 Report Page 42 - Operating Expenses by Segment
If you simply removed the stores at a stroke, then yes, they'd shift fewer boxes (although I've always questioned the wisdom of just shifting product for the sake of it) but I'm more arguing if they'd not lent so heavily on developing their own chain and instead concentrated more on acting as a wholesaler, which they're probably more appropriately set up to be, over the last X years, then any loss in revenue in comparison to how they've actually proceeded would be more than compensated for by the reduction in overhead, exposure and risk. I think GW without retail (or limited to a handful of destination stores) would be a leaner, fitter animal better positioned to compete with its many tiny competitors, rather than sitting there, wheezing, while they all take chunks out of it unchallenged.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
heartserenade wrote: Oooooor they can spend that money on actual advertising and let FLGS owners do the work (i.e. sell their product) for them?
Don't be so otiose.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I actually don't see conventional advertising as the way forward, either, but there's probably plenty of unconventional advertising to be explored.
Trasvi wrote: I've yet to see someone using 3rd party minis in Malifaux or Warmachine, but nearly all my regular 40k opponents feature at least 1 non-GW model in their forces.
It is more uncommon but not unique. My Cygnar Trencher heavy force for Warmachine is comprised of WWI German Stormtroopers as PP's Trencher sculpts are awful. The only actual PP models are the Jacks and the caster.
I have also seen Warzone Tommies being used in the same manner - but his reasoning was that he could get the plastic Tommies from Prince August for very little money.
Looks good on the table, too.
The Auld Grump
*EDIT* And once upon a time, Games Workshop used to be a retailer for games by many companies, not nearly so isolated from the industry. And they produced games for other companies into the bargain - Call of Cthulhu and RuneQuest both saw hard cover editions in the UK because of GW.
I actually don't see conventional advertising as the way forward, either, but there's probably plenty of unconventional advertising to be explored.
They don't have to do above the line advertising. There's a lot of below the line stuff that they can explore. Social media management is really huge right now and they're fialing at that... badly. Best thing is they don't have to burn that much money as they do on their actual stores.
Hell, for a great example of basic community-based advertising that works extraordinarily well, just look at what Forgeworld does. The events they go to, the events they host, and their willingness to actually communicate brings them a lot of goodwill. Just look at the N&R thread for Forgeworld every time they have an event to see how foaming at the mouth rabidly lusting for their product we are. That doesn't happen in the normal GW news thread.
Talys wrote: Where do you see that they spend GBP50m on the stores, anyways? All I see is $36m COGS and $76m operating expenses. I'm not arguing with you, I just want to know where it is.
If you took out the stores, GW would sell a lot less product (unless you disagree with that). It's really as simple as that. Even if stores didn't ever make a dime in the end calculus, they are driving sales to GW instead of other products. It's more players, more mindshare, more awareness, new players, a place for existing players to socialize, and some of which translates into purchases from other channels, and in the end, is a good thing.
13/14 Report Page 42 - Operating Expenses by Segment
If you simply removed the stores at a stroke, then yes, they'd shift fewer boxes (although I've always questioned the wisdom of just shifting product for the sake of it) but I'm more arguing if they'd not lent so heavily on developing their own chain and instead concentrated more on acting as a wholesaler, which they're probably more appropriately set up to be, over the last X years, then any loss in revenue in comparison to how they've actually proceeded would be more than compensated for by the reduction in overhead, exposure and risk. I think GW without retail (or limited to a handful of destination stores) would be a leaner, fitter animal better positioned to compete with its many tiny competitors, rather than sitting there, wheezing, while they all take chunks out of it unchallenged.
You are misreading it.
"Operating Expenses - Sales Businesses" is not just retail sales. It's ALL sales, including trades, online sales, retail sales.
All costs of sales is rolled into the 50 million. I don't know how GW sales reps are paid, but this includes their compensation, the cost of regionally warehousing and delivering product, management costs per region, et cetera.
Edit -- it's actually defined in p. 40 -
Sales businesses. These businesses sell product to external customers, through the Group’s network of Hobby centres, independent retailers and direct via the global web store. The sales businesses have been aggregated into segments where they sell products of a similar nature, have similar production processes, similar customers, similar distribution methods and are affected by similar economic factors. The segments are as follows:
Note that BL, WHW, and FW actually fall into "Other".
As well, Product and Supply (something I didn't understand earlier, looking at the half-year report, and misread) means the design and manufacture of products.
And Service Centre means non-sales support services (IT, accounting, payroll, HR, etc).
You're right I misinterpreted the information, it was late and I just scanned through the document until I found what I though I was looking for.
I am curious why you felt the need to both point me to where the definitions were listed and explain them again in thread. Never 1 word when 10 will do eh?
So I dug a little deeper, and ironically, while my method was flawed, it looks like my conclusion wasn't far off the money!
It won't be possible to generate a precise figure because of the nature of the reporting of some figures, but the cost of leases on hobby centres as £8.5m, the spend on salaries (company wide, sales staff FT and PT equate to about half the total number of employees, but not likely a high average per head) is around £42m and there's nothing I can find WRT variable costs for the shops (utilities etc) so presumably they're buried in the operating expenses somewhere, but if they are pegged at about the same cost as leases (which is pure speculation, but has often been the case in retail units I've worked, that may be pure coincidence rather than any general rule, would need to be a lot of coincidences though) then overall cost is likely still knocking on the door of £40m.
Maybe they'll change the accounting method this year to make it easier to decipher, but it still doesn't change my point about it being a big, ponderous overhead that GW doesn't need.
Or a big ponderous overhead that GW should be making more use of.
As I mentioned before, it is easy for us to forget that historically GW is not a rules publisher or a model kit designer, it is a retail and distribution company.
One of their problems IMO is that they do not have a wide enough range of products in their shops.
Yep, I could get behind that. Traditional retail is getting harder, and GW has historically been slow to adapt to new technology, but I can't think of a better opportunity to drive people into your stores than a product that requires amounts of space and resources that not everyone has access to.
Yes, it has been posted. You'll notice it was written back in May, before the "broadly in line with managment expectations" aka "if there were anything to crow about we'd mention it, so prepare for yet another very ordinary year" press release back in early June.
Additionally, from a purely investment perspective GW currently is a reasonable prospect, the share price is no longer vastly overinflated and the dividend payouts are regular and healthy. It's only when you peek behind the curtain and you see that the Wizard Of Kirby is just a near pension age taxman out of ideas that things look less rosy.
lets do a little math 2015 - 2014
- Revenue 119.1-123.5 = -4.4
- Operating profit 16.5 - (12.3 + 4.5) = -0.3
They only got a 25% jump in profit because they took into account the exceptional expense of restructuring last year, if you actually took that out of the equation you would see that both Revenue and Profit are down, again.
Azreal13 wrote: Yep, I could get behind that. Traditional retail is getting harder, and GW has historically been slow to adapt to new technology, but I can't think of a better opportunity to drive people into your stores than a product that requires amounts of space and resources that not everyone has access to.
This was my thought as well. Few companies are as well positioned to take advantage of the change in retail environment, I would have thought.
The way I see it, which is admittedly fairly uninformed, the focus in stores should be on maintaining a positive gaming and collecting space rather than trying to push plastic. There's so many other ways of getting the models into the hands of customers - the traditional boxes on shelves feels like a massive waste of space. A combination of an Argos-style system, a few racks with the last few months' releases, and the good ol' glass cases of finished minis should surely be enough?
Of course if they're actually making money hand over fist at the till then I guess maybe what they're doing is working. It was just a thought.
Azreal13 wrote: Yep, I could get behind that. Traditional retail is getting harder, and GW has historically been slow to adapt to new technology, but I can't think of a better opportunity to drive people into your stores than a product that requires amounts of space and resources that not everyone has access to.
I wonder what would happen if GW decided to change their retail store model away from a single manufacturer boutique model into something more resembling the FLGS where they stocked a wide variety of game systems. They would probably see a bit less of their own product being moved, but would seem an increase (obviously from zero) of other product being moved. Would the increase in revenue from other products at their retail locations be larger than any reduction in revenue from lost in-house product sales?
I am disappointed. They seem to have done ok in 2015 on their 40k releases, and I was hoping, PRAYING that this would be burnout for 40k buyers. I guess enough elder players went to buy scatbikes to pull GW through the year.
Azreal13 wrote: Yep, I could get behind that. Traditional retail is getting harder, and GW has historically been slow to adapt to new technology, but I can't think of a better opportunity to drive people into your stores than a product that requires amounts of space and resources that not everyone has access to.
I wonder what would happen if GW decided to change their retail store model away from a single manufacturer boutique model into something more resembling the FLGS where they stocked a wide variety of game systems. They would probably see a bit less of their own product being moved, but would seem an increase (obviously from zero) of other product being moved. Would the increase in revenue from other products at their retail locations be larger than any reduction in revenue from lost in-house product sales?
Or they could just sell a range of different games they produce themselves?
Marlov wrote: I am disappointed. They seem to have done ok in 2015 on their 40k releases, and I was hoping, PRAYING that this would be burnout for 40k buyers. I guess enough elder players went to buy scatbikes to pull GW through the year.
Still hoping GW dies and dies fast!
Why?
What have they done to you, personally?
What do you gain if they fail?
If you don't like them, play something else.
I can get not liking a company, but to PRAY that they fail? That's just sick, man.
Marlov wrote: I am disappointed. They seem to have done ok in 2015 on their 40k releases, and I was hoping, PRAYING that this would be burnout for 40k buyers. I guess enough elder players went to buy scatbikes to pull GW through the year.
Still hoping GW dies and dies fast!
Why?
What have they done to you, personally?
What do you gain if they fail?
If you don't like them, play something else.
I can get not liking a company, but to PRAY that they fail? That's just sick, man.
You just don't understand religion, that's all.
I druther they straighten up and get things back on a friendly footing, but barring that....
I am not sure which is worse, a slow decline and fall that drags out for another decade, or a fast decline that is brutal, but allows another to take over the properties before they lose all value.
I really think that half a quarter of the problems that GW has stem from them seriously overvaluing their IP.
It is not as unique as they feel, nor is it nearly as much of a moat and castle as they have claimed - if the Chapterhouse case proved nothing else, people can legally make compatible products.
Marlov wrote: I am disappointed. They seem to have done ok in 2015 on their 40k releases, and I was hoping, PRAYING that this would be burnout for 40k buyers. I guess enough elder players went to buy scatbikes to pull GW through the year.
MrFlutterPie wrote: I also want to add that I am worried about the stock review thing. As a sister player that kind of talk worries me.
Perhaps we will be martyred to the Emperor soon after all...
Or
They could get rid the metal models so they didn't have to bother with metal at all and reboot us with new plastics.
Faith...I must have faith...
They won't give any warning though. Just like when they pulled the plug on specialist games and there was a panic as the stock suddenly dried up overnight. The lesson is that if you want something you should get it now and not keep putting it off, as you'll get no warning when it goes. Just another of those 'communication' things GW doesn't do.
He is from the set.
.JPG)
