What justifies GW's prices is that people keep paying them.
The reason for the new Starter Bundles, and the return of decent softback books that don't cost a fortune -- the Chaos book -- is that people did stop buying stuff in big enough numbers for GW to have to take notice and address the problem.
Unless of course you believe that the significant drop in sales over the past few years was not due to falling sales.
Talys wrote: I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, because even at full MSRP, GW models are cheaper per model than Infinity models discounted.
I think your arguments would be less inflammatory if you stopped making sweeping statements like this.
example: even at full MSRP, GW models are cheaper per model than Infinity models discounted - Your statement is demonstrably untrue.
refined example: even at full MSRP, comparing squad boxes, GW models are cheaper per model than Infinity models discounted - Squad boxes are not always cheaper, and unless you have definitive discounting numbers, this is potentially untrue.
try: even at full MSRP, comparing squad boxes, GW models are usually cheaper per model than Infinity models at 10% discount of MSRP.
Oh, and my complaint about non-GW 6-10mm was a bit premature. I should have added that a lot of new stuff is better and getting better, and some of the old stuff isn't too bad either. I have a few bags of Heroics & Ros colonial British that should be acting as Epic praetorian guard some day. They don't even have faces, and they're brilliant.
I think I'm in love.
Roll on the return of Epic and all 6mm goodness I say.
Also, to those grumbling about Epic and 6mm looking like blobs, bugger off:
You can clearly see these are Marines and don't forget that these were sculpted in the 90's. Some of the modern 6mm (including some garage casted 6mm not-marines inspired by the HH) are astonishing.
Kilkrazy wrote: What justifies GW's prices is that people keep paying them.
The reason for the new Starter Bundles, and the return of decent softback books that don't cost a fortune -- the Chaos book -- is that people did stop buying stuff in big enough numbers for GW to have to take notice and address the problem.
Unless of course you believe that the significant drop in sales over the past few years was not due to falling sales.
Nope, it's completely due to GW being some special unicorn that is immune to price pressures and other facts of business that affect literally every other business in the world. Talys is able to buy GW at a 25% discount so therefor pricing must be discussed with this 25% discount factored-in or the entire conversation will devolve into convoluted explanations as to how it's very reasonable to compare Talys' 25% discount against whatever discount is offered (or not) on any other product in the world.
The drop in sales was obviously due to constant currency issues and has nothing to do with GW selling less product. BUT if they are selling less product, that obviously means that they are doing so intentionally because they only want to cater to their most dedicated collector customers.
See? It's all very reasonable if you base your entire conversation on fallacies created to justify how you assume businesses operate rather than how the business world actually does operate while also assuming that the price that you pay is the same as everyone else in the world pays.
keezus wrote: example: even at full MSRP, GW models are cheaper per model than Infinity models discounted - Your statement is demonstrably untrue.
Pretty much every non-clampack GW model is cheaper than Infinity models of a similar size, on MSRP... Infinity models come in squad boxes, just like GW models. GW squads cost less than Infinity squads.
If you want to argue that Infinity models are cheap and GW models aren't, please do so. I think they're both fairly priced.
agnosto wrote:Nope, it's completely due to GW being some special unicorn that is immune to price pressures and other facts of business that affect literally every other business in the world. Talys is able to buy GW at a 25% discount so therefor pricing must be discussed with this 25% discount factored-in or the entire conversation will devolve into convoluted explanations as to how it's very reasonable to compare Talys' 25% discount against whatever discount is offered (or not) on any other product in the world.
Talys gets a bigger than 25% discount because he buys a lot of stuff and contributes to his local store in other ways. That's not worth talking about, because it's not generally available.
But anyone in the USA can mail order from Frontline Gaming and get 25% discount off their entire order by adding a GW pre-order item to their order. And as I've said, if you're in Western Canada, I'm happy to point you to a couple of stores that can net you 25% and better discounts. They will mail order stuff to you too. In the EU, I believe you can get 20%+ right off of websites, where GW isn't able to block them from selling online.
There are few independents in these parts of the world that sell GW products at 100% MSRP. This doesn't cover everyone in the world -- significantly, not Australia or Asia -- but it's a huge percentage of GW regional customerbase.
Discussing street price is not crazy talk, especially when street prices are commonly lower than MSRP. If you're buy buying a video card or automobile, magazines will talk about both street price vs sticker price, because that's what smart shoppers will pay.
Kilkrazy wrote: What justifies GW's prices is that people keep paying them.
Less and less people every year. There is no justification for the huge mark up that GW enjoys.
PsychoticStorm wrote: As I said in the half that it was not quoted, they are way overpriced (and the market seems to reflect it), but, there are reasons why they can be more expensive than historicals and I would find it acceptable.
And please do not paraphrase me, I do mean I find acceptable fantasy and sci fi miniatures to be more expensive than historicals, I do not find GW's prices acceptable.
The reasons that you gave have been echoed all over the place, including this very thread, I simply don't accept them as a valid reason for the monumentally inflated prices for GW's little bits of plastic. Something that requires a lot of conceptual work may well be more expensive than something that can be essentially copied from somewhere else but that price difference disappears rapidly (at least it should) when these things are produce on a large scale.
Talys wrote: It's a different market. There isn't any justification, nor is one necessary
Its artificially a different market, largely due to GW and its 'hobby' fabrication. Its little plastic or metal men, designed and made using the same methods, for use in games which are designed and built using the same methods.
Its analogous to genre A of books somehow being 3, 4 or 5 times more expensive (if not more) than genre B despite both being printed on the same paper, in the same printing press and often written by the same author.
Silent Puffin? wrote: Its artificially a different market, largely due to GW and its 'hobby' fabrication. Its little plastic or metal men, designed and made using the same methods, for use in games which are designed and built using the same methods.
Its analogous to genre A of books somehow being 3, 4 or 5 times more expensive (if not more) than genre B despite both being printed on the same paper, in the same printing press and often written by the same author.
Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.
It's not just GW, though. Practically everyone in the scifi / fantasy wargaming industry has significantly higher prices than historical wargaming. It's just what the market will pay.
I've made this argument before: while 40k as a game is pretty expensive (in the range of a many hundreds to close to a thousand dollars to complete an army), this is because the game is generally played with many more models than its counterparts. Looking at the price per model, 40k (or AoS) models are really in the same ballpark as its direct competitors -- products that sit beside them on store shelves -- or in many cases, cheaper per model. I'm talking about PP, Wyrd, Corvus Belli. Even Mantic models, which most scifi wargamers consider to be inexpensive, are a lot closer to GW prices than they are to historical models. Look at Maelstrom's Edge, too -- or most kickstarters that succeed; they won't be priced anywhere near the PPM of historicals. Heck, even Reaper minis, considered some of the most affordable stocked at independent retailers, are a lot closer to GW prices than historicals.
Talys wrote: Pretty much every non-clampack GW model is cheaper than Infinity models of a similar size, on MSRP... Infinity models come in squad boxes, just like GW models. GW squads cost less than Infinity squads.
The 40mm base ones aren't cheaper, and clampacks weren't mentioned in your original statement. I understand what you are getting at, but your statement is still demonstrably incorrect.
Silent Puffin? wrote: Its artificially a different market, largely due to GW and its 'hobby' fabrication. Its little plastic or metal men, designed and made using the same methods, for use in games which are designed and built using the same methods.
Its analogous to genre A of books somehow being 3, 4 or 5 times more expensive (if not more) than genre B despite both being printed on the same paper, in the same printing press and often written by the same author.
Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15. .
Yes but the reason for the price difference above if applied to GW it just makes GW look even more like they are price gouging.
Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.
Except there are perfectly understandable reasons that an academic text may sell for a lot more. For instance, my friend has recently qualified as an Ed Psych, while studying she was required to purchase a book for study that cost something, IIRC, in the region of £200. Thing is, that specific text retails around a dozen copies a year to a very narrow market, so in order to make the book worth writing, it needs to be expensive, and it the book isn't written, people cannot learn to carry skills and knowledge into the future.
An HQ model selling for ~10x that of very similar products has no such justification in a market where other companies have no such issue, it's either greed or a flawed business model.
It's not just GW, though. Practically everyone in the scifi / fantasy wargaming industry has significantly higher prices than historical wargaming. It's just what the market will pay.
Except GW is a significant outlier while everyone else seems to have found a level.
I've made this argument before: while 40k as a game is pretty expensive (in the range of a many hundreds to close to a thousand dollars to complete an army), this is because the game is generally played with many more models than its counterparts. Looking at the price per model, 40k (or AoS) models are really in the same ballpark as its direct competitors -- products that sit beside them on store shelves -- or in many cases, cheaper per model. I'm talking about PP, Wyrd, Corvus Belli. Even Mantic models, which most scifi wargamers consider to be inexpensive, are a lot closer to GW prices than they are to historical models. Look at Maelstrom's Edge, too -- or most kickstarters that succeed; they won't be priced anywhere near the PPM of historicals. Heck, even Reaper minis, considered some of the most affordable stocked at independent retailers, are a lot closer to GW prices than historicals.
You've made the argument before, I've been shooting holes in it since before you registered. Cost per model is largely an irrelevance, to anyone wishing to play the game. The cost to start and finish an army is where the most valid comparison lies, because there's a huge number of variables and pressures on different companies which may influence the production cost and retail price of a finished miniature - yet, despite operating in a market full of small businesses who aren't able to leverage any sort of economic advantage in production or design, GW remain one of the most expensive, in fact let's call it, the most expensive game to start in 40K, in the industry.
Nobody cares what the price differential to historicals is, they are what they are. In terms of price to start, or price vs % of army, which is a good way of drawing comparisons, GW suffer badly against many competitiors exclusively on price, and those that compare on price frequently have an edge in quality or some other mitigating factor which generates a favourable outcome for the competition.
Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.
It's not just GW, though. Practically everyone in the scifi / fantasy wargaming industry has significantly higher prices than historical wargaming. It's just what the market will pay.
Yes, college textbooks are demonstrably more expensive than other fiction or non-fiction books. The difference is that such textbooks have a guaranteed market in students are required to purchase them for their classes thus being immune to price pressures, especially when the professor teaching the class wrote the book. GW products, on the other hand, are demonstrably not immune to price pressures thus price elasticity causes dips in sales volume; no one is forced to buy GW products so if they charge too much, sales decline.
I agree with your final statement.
Talys wrote: I've made this argument before: while 40k as a game is pretty expensive (in the range of a many hundreds to close to a thousand dollars to complete an army), this is because the game is generally played with many more models than its counterparts. Looking at the price per model, 40k (or AoS) models are really in the same ballpark as its direct competitors -- products that sit beside them on store shelves -- or in many cases, cheaper per model. I'm talking about PP, Wyrd, Corvus Belli. Even Mantic models, which most scifi wargamers consider to be inexpensive, are a lot closer to GW prices than they are to historical models. Look at Maelstrom's Edge, too -- or most kickstarters that succeed; they won't be priced anywhere near the PPM of historicals. Heck, even Reaper minis, considered some of the most affordable stocked at independent retailers, are a lot closer to GW prices than historicals.
This argument is disingenuous and you well know it from prior conversations on the topic. The argument doesn't stand because those other games require much fewer miniatures to play so the other game systems wind-up being cheaper than 40K (as an example). The laughable thing is that GW moved some kits to 5-man kits but then still raised the price while simultaneously continuing to require high amounts of these miniatures. Sure, I can spend $50 (no discount) for a 10-man unit of Bane Thralls but that's all I need for an average size game. Alternatively, I can spend $40 for a tactical squad but I'll need another 2 or 3 for a typically sized game. Yes, you can pick whatever unit you like but troop vs troop, GW's prices lose simply because you need so many of them. Mantic might be the closest comparison but their minis suck so I don't like to talk about them but, yeah, the model volume required for Mantic games is similar to GW which shouldn't be surprising since it's run by ex-GW employees.
Noir wrote:Yes but the reason for the price difference above if applied to GW it just makes GW look even more like they are price gouging.
Never once have I said that GW doesn't gouge us (players, hobbyists, collectors, whatever) on prices. To the contrary, I think GW charges as much as they possibly can.
Azreal13 wrote:You've made the argument before, I've been shooting holes in it since before you registered. Cost per model is largely an irrelevance, to anyone wishing to play the game. The cost to start and finish an army is where the most valid comparison lies, because there's a huge number of variables and pressures on different companies which may influence the production cost and retail price of a finished miniature - yet, despite operating in a market full of small businesses who aren't able to leverage any sort of economic advantage in production or design, GW remain one of the most expensive, in fact let's call it, the most expensive game to start in 40K, in the industry.
40k is by far the most expensive game in the industry. It's not even close, not even by a country mile. There are people who will in a lifetime spend tens of thousands of dollars (or even six figures) on GW models, which isn't even possible in any other setting. It also requires the most models of any game in the industry, which can be both a plus and a minus. If you feel like playing a scifi game with 200 models, you're going to probably play 40k.
The price per model is not irrelevant, because miniatures themselves have a value and a cost beyond the cost of the game. Nobody expects to pay as much for a game that fills an 8x12 table with 24" tall models as a game that fits on a small kitchen table with 20 models per side.
You're also ignoring that there are collectors/hobbyists who buy models simply to own model miniatures and will only rarely (if ever) game with them. Many people have reported that Games Workshop identifies this subsegment as a primary target customer. It's perfectly alright to say, "that's the furthest thing from me, so they're not going to get any of my business as long as they think that way," but it's unreasonable to pretend that those people don't exist and that they don't collectively spend a lot of money on models.
agnosto wrote:This argument is disingenuous and you well know it from prior conversations on the topic. The argument doesn't stand because those other games require much fewer miniatures to play so the other game systems wind-up being cheaper than 40K (as an example). The laughable thing is that GW moved some kits to 5-man kits but then still raised the price while simultaneously continuing to require high amounts of these miniatures. Sure, I can spend $50 (no discount) for a 10-man unit of Bane Thralls but that's all I need for an average size game. Alternatively, I can spend $40 for a tactical squad but I'll need another 2 or 3 for a typically sized game. Yes, you can pick whatever unit you like but troop vs troop, GW's prices lose simply because you need so many of them. Mantic might be the closest comparison but their minis suck so I don't like to talk about them but, yeah, the model volume required for Mantic games is similar to GW which shouldn't be surprising since it's run by ex-GW employees.
Pretty much my response to Azreal13. I'm not trying to say that 40k in the way that most people play it is comparable in price as a game to its competitors. I'm saying that the models are about the same price.
Again, quite to the contrary, 40k is a game that can cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars to play with in its envisioned size. 30k is even much more expensive than that. Unless you're willing to consider used models (which can be very cheap), 40k is not a game/hobby that can be successfully enjoyed for a couple of hundred dollars, as opposed to its direct competitors.
Every wargamer needs to ask themselves: do they want to play a 2x2, 4x4, 4x6, or 8x12 table? Do they want to build an army that will be many months or years to achieve, or something that can be ready in a weekend? Clearly, 40k/30/AoS are not games that will appeal to the latter.
Equally, there is clearly a premium market for those who wish to work on armies, modelling and painting them, over a very long span of time. You see one every month from a different hobbyist in Visions, where they feature a different player Army of the Month.
So you've established that a mass produced, machine cast, low cost material product has the same approximate cost (at RRP I assume) as metal and resin, hand cast product from smaller companies that benefit from far fewer economies of scale.
Now what?
You can't possibly be going to argue that you can use more models in 40K to play a game of bigger scope, just like you can with every other fething game on the market? Or buy more models just like you can with...
Azreal13 wrote: So you've established that a mass produced, machine cast, low cost material product has the same approximate cost (at RRP I assume) as metal and resin, hand cast product from smaller companies that benefit from far fewer economies of scale.
But I don't care what it costs someone to make something. I only care about what I pay out of my pocket. If GW or PP finds a way to make a model cheaper, good for them. If it costs them more, tough luck -- not my problem. I don't expect anyone to pass savings on to me because they saved some money, and if prices are raised beyond the point I'm willing to pay, I don't care if there's a perfectly good explanation for it; I just won't buy the product.
Azreal13 wrote: You can't possibly be going to argue that you can use more models in 40K to play a game of bigger scope, just like you can with every other fething game on the market? Or buy more models just like you can with...
Oh, you are?
Whoops.
No, you can't really play a WMH or Malifaux game on an 8x12 table with 200 models to a side. More to the point... you'll never find anyone else who does.
You can play 40k with one Start Collecting box if you want. They even give you a formation to make it game-legal. Or you can play the OOB Dark Vengeance force. The problem is the opposite: you won't find many people who want to play you with only 400 points, or with an army that's fun to play with against just a DV Starter.
So yes, I am arguing that the size of game that you want to play matters. Because you actually have to find people to play against.
Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.
That was not my analogy.
Textbooks are at least 4-5 times larger than a standard novel and require meticulous research. That doesn't sound like GW's standard models.
PsychoticStorm wrote: As I said in the half that it was not quoted, they are way overpriced (and the market seems to reflect it), but, there are reasons why they can be more expensive than historicals and I would find it acceptable.
And please do not paraphrase me, I do mean I find acceptable fantasy and sci fi miniatures to be more expensive than historicals, I do not find GW's prices acceptable.
I just don't get this idea at all.
For fantasy and sci-fi, you can pretty much get away with any design/sculpt you like - you can even push skulls into its skin and have people buy it.
Historicals though... you have to sculpt them accurately. You have to do research. In fact, make 1 tiny mistake and the "rivet counters" are all over you.
Why should Sci-fi/fantasy cost more? It's just we've been brought up to expect it and continue to pay it. GW push our price boundaries and the other companies keep just below them so we think they're better value.
No, you can't really play a WMH or Malifaux game on an 8x12 table with 200 models to a side. More to the point... you'll never find anyone else who does.
As usual, your sweeping generalisations are as infuriating as they are innacurate.
never heard of unbound?
And FYI, I'd play a game of thst size. And quite happily too. So would my mates. So go ahead and shove that in your pipe and smoke it.
Not that id trust you to listen to the other side though. You got yours after all, screw the rest.
Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.
That was not my analogy.
Textbooks are at least 4-5 times larger than a standard novel and require meticulous research. That doesn't sound like GW's standard models.
And require rigorous fact checking - rather akin to the playtesting and balancing that Games Workshop doesn't do.
The Auld Grump - so GW books are like textbooks written by the Center for Creationist Studies, not for a more informed educational system.
No, you can't really play a WMH or Malifaux game on an 8x12 table with 200 models to a side. More to the point... you'll never find anyone else who does.
As usual, your sweeping generalisations are as infuriating as they are innacurate.
never heard of unbound?
I'm coming to the conclusion that a person can only be this resolutely dense on purpose.
Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.
That was not my analogy.
Textbooks are at least 4-5 times larger than a standard novel and require meticulous research. That doesn't sound like GW's standard models.
Did I say "novel"? I could swear, it says, "nonfiction book for general consumption" Many required textbooks written by university courses are written by the professor of that class and cost a fortune for TINY books. I remember buying a philosophy textbook for $80, that was probably a 50 page softcover.
No, you can't really play a WMH or Malifaux game on an 8x12 table with 200 models to a side. More to the point... you'll never find anyone else who does.
As usual, your sweeping generalisations are as infuriating as they are innacurate.
never heard of unbound?
And FYI, I'd play a game of thst size. And quite happily too. So would my mates. So go ahead and shove that in your pipe and smoke it.
Not that id trust you to listen to the other side though. You got yours after all, screw the rest.
Look, if you want to play Malifuax on an 8x12, great. If you want to play 40k with 300 points, fantastic. But this is not generally how these games are played, which makes finding play partners much harder. The games aren't written for these scenarios, the mechanics are not ideal for that, and so on and so forth. People who want to play big games don't usually go to Malifaux, and people who only want to play with a squad don't usually buy into 40k. You can do whatever you want with your models, buy as many as you want and play them any way that's fun, but to say that 200 model WMH games on 8x12 tables are a thing is just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.
Besides, if you played WMH with 200 models, it wouldn't be any cheaper than playing 40k with 200 models. If you play 40k with 30 one and a half inch-tall models, it wouldn't really be any more expensive than playing WMH with 30 one and a half inch-tall models.
I mean, if you want to argue that 200 model WMH games are a thing, then WMH is NOT cheaper than 40k to play. But we both know that this isn't so, and in virtually all cases, WMH games require a lot fewer models and smaller gaming space than 40k, making it a cheaper gaming experience.
Is this really that controversial? Is this worth arguing about?!
Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.
That was not my analogy.
Textbooks are at least 4-5 times larger than a standard novel and require meticulous research. That doesn't sound like GW's standard models.
Did I say "novel"? I could swear, it says, "nonfiction book for general consumption" Many required textbooks written by university courses are written by the professor of that class and cost a fortune for TINY books. I remember buying a philosophy textbook for $80, that was probably a 50 page softcover.
Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.
That was not my analogy.
Textbooks are at least 4-5 times larger than a standard novel and require meticulous research. That doesn't sound like GW's standard models.
Did I say "novel"? I could swear, it says, "nonfiction book for general consumption" Many required textbooks written by university courses are written by the professor of that class and cost a fortune for TINY books. I remember buying a philosophy textbook for $80, that was probably a 50 page softcover.
And Talys has taken hold of the goalpost and is headed for the stands! He's at A level! B level - Ladies and gentlemen, he has passed the refreshment stand and is headed for the exit!
What a magnificent play!
I remember the extremely pricey textbook that we used in one of my classes - The Elements of Style. Less than a hundred pages... and less than three dollars. (And quite possibly one of the best textbooks ever written - old enough that the first edition is now in the public domain.)
Talys wrote: Many required textbooks written by university courses are written by the professor of that class and cost a fortune for TINY books.
Not in my experience. Textbooks tend to cost about the same as the 40K rulebook while being 2-3 times larger, but that's beside the point which is that there is no reasonable justification for GW's huge mark up. Worst of all it has dragged up the prices from other companies.
Sure. But they serve *totally* different markets, which was my original point. Things are priced based on what people in those markets are willing and able to pay. This is how a capitalist society works.
The C Programming Language (Khernigan and Ritchie) is still a textbook, I think and it's still $60!
Azreal13 wrote: Except, aside from some attempts to balance AoS, nobody uses model count as a balancing method.
How about comparing standard game size x any number you wish, using the games points values.
Once again GW comes up the loser.
A 70-100pt WMH army vs a 3000-3700pt 40K army...?
Az, I'm not saying that GW is a winner or loser.
I'm saying that when you buy into 40k, you're buying into a game with the expectation of an army of a certain size, and when you buy into WMH, you're investing your time and energy into a smaller sized game. I genuinely do not think that most people buy into WMH expecting to fill up a 6x4 or 8x6 or 8x12 table. On the balance of typical army sizes, 40k is going to be more models and more expensive. And I think that most people will expect that the game that has more models will cost more.
I don't think I'm being that unreasonable in saying that. I don't even know if I'm disagreeing with you, except in saying that in 40k, there are a lot of people who will own 10,000 or 20,000 points of models in one army, and maybe multiple armies. It's really a thing. I mean, just look at people's signatures. Per model, that would be cheaper than if you replaced all of those models with WMH models. In either case, you can't realistically play with hundreds of WMH or 40k models at the same time, because one turn would take you 1 week.
And I'M trying desperately to stick to the fething topic.
There is an issue with GW, many would point to the prices being intrinsic to that issue, no matter what mental gymnastics you're willing to perform to try and justify them, the falling sales are proving you wrong. Price per model may, in some very specific match ups, be comparable, but SOMETHING is hurting GW while all these other games tick along nicely.
40K is not unique in players owning complete sets of multiple factions either, and it really isn't relevant to the topic.
TheAuldGrump wrote: And Talys has taken hold of the goalpost and is headed for the stands! He's at A level! B level - Ladies and gentlemen, he has passed the refreshment stand and is headed for the exit!
People like to say this, but forget where the goalposts were to start with.
The initial goalpost was: different market, different prices. The price of a text book is irrelevant to the price of a gaming rulebook, and both are irrelevant to a cookbook or piece of fiction or issue of Popular Mechanics.
Just as the price of a WW2 tank is irrelevant to the price of a Predator.
Azreal13 wrote: And I'M trying desperately to stick to the fething topic.
There is an issue with GW, many would point to the prices being intrinsic to that issue, no matter what mental gymnastics you're willing to perform to try and justify them, the falling sales are proving you wrong. Price per model may, in some very specific match ups, be comparable, but SOMETHING is hurting GW while all these other games tick along nicely.
40K is not unique in players owning complete sets of multiple factions either, and it really isn't relevant to the topic.
Az, when have I ever said that the price of the game or the models is not a major factor in fewer people buying GW models? I happen to think that it is. I mean, let me repeat it: a lot of people can't afford to play GW's games because of the prices of the models and rules, including the number of models that are necessary, and therefore, play an alternative game with lower requirements.
To get back to the report and the topic, the only question is whether GW is optimizing its profits or not. We've been around this many times, but it is entirely possible that GW's current pricing structure is optimal for GW, at least in the short and mid-term. It is also possible that GW's current pricing structure is not. We don't have the data to support this either way, but we can certainly speculate.
I think most people would certainly appreciate cheaper models, either way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: And people like to say you're moving the goal posts because you keep moving goalposts.
Actually, people do this because our back-and-forths go on for 4 forum pages, and people don't remember or haven't seen the first goalpost in the series of messages.
TheAuldGrump wrote: And Talys has taken hold of the goalpost and is headed for the stands! He's at A level! B level - Ladies and gentlemen, he has passed the refreshment stand and is headed for the exit!
People like to say this, but forget where the goalposts were to start with.
The initial goalpost was: different market, different prices. The price of a text book is irrelevant to the price of a gaming rulebook, and both are irrelevant to a cookbook or piece of fiction or issue of Popular Mechanics.
Just as the price of a WW2 tank is irrelevant to the price of a Predator.
Why is the price of a WW2 tank irrelevant? Aren't they roughly equivalent (similar size, similar sculpting)? Both are model kits, no? Both are tank model kits?
WayneTheGame wrote: Why is the price of a WW2 tank irrelevant? Aren't they roughly equivalent (similar size, similar sculpting)? Both are model kits, no? Both are tank model kits?
The argument is this: the price isn't relevant, because the person who's going into a store to buy a Sherman probably isn't going to walk out buying a Predator, regardless of the price; and the person who's going to buy a Voidraven probably isn't going to buy a F-16, regardless of the price. They don't really compete with each other.
They serve two different types of hobbyists. Is there crossover? Yes, of course. But a lot of people interested in one aren't really interested in the other, so the products are priced based on their independent markets. I'm pretty sure that Revell tries to get as much for its models as it can, too.
On the other hand, someone looking at space marines might go over to the Cyngar shelf and buy those instead.
By the same token, it's unlikely that someone who's looking for a 24" model of the Millennium Falcon is going to instead buy a B-1 bomber because it's cheaper, so they too do not directly compete. The decision the person who's after the Millennium Falcon might be that, an A-Wing, or nothing.
Finally, a lot of gaming stores don't sell historical models, and a lot of places that sell Tamiya and Revell don't sell Games Workshop. That's not an absolute, but it's true of many gaming stores -- they're more likely to sell Magic the Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh than they are Sherman tanks.
I think it will be very interesting to see if GW backs off their price increase strategy on new releases. The Fyreslayers are roughly at par with previous releases. New players, once they get past the "start collecting" bundles are going to wonder WTF the new Fyreslayer Magmadroth is 30% more expensive than a Carnosaur (2013), and 185% more expensive than a Stegadon (2008). They won't know about the pricing exercises that GW's gone through... they'll only know that current pricing is a mess and makes no sense.
keezus wrote: I think it will be very interesting to see if GW backs off their price increase strategy on new releases. The Fyreslayers are roughly at par with previous releases. New players, once they get past the "start collecting" bundles are going to wonder WTF the new Fyreslayer Magmadroth is 30% more expensive than a Carnosaur (2013), and 185% more expensive than a Stegadon (2008). They won't know about the pricing exercises that GW's gone through... they'll only know that current pricing is a mess and makes no sense.
I totally agree that GW's pricing strategy has major MPD going on.
The Fyreslayers are more expensive than Tau, which came out, like one month before. But the Tau are cheaper than Stormcast, which came out before that. Which are more expensive than Skitarrii which were before them. Which are cheaper than Harlequins...
I think they maybe roll dice to figure out pricing
Vulkites: $6 ea. Fire Warriors: $5 ea. plus free drones! Liberators: $10 ea. Vanguard: $3.90 ea. Troupe: $6 ea. BA Tacticals: $4.30 ea.
WayneTheGame wrote: Why is the price of a WW2 tank irrelevant? Aren't they roughly equivalent (similar size, similar sculpting)? Both are model kits, no? Both are tank model kits?
The argument is this: the price isn't relevant, because the person who's going into a store to buy a Sherman probably isn't going to walk out buying a Predator, regardless of the price; and the person who's going to buy a Voidraven probably isn't going to buy a F-16, regardless of the price. They don't really compete with each other.
What about someone who just wants a tank to paint? Or isn't interested in WW2 but is curious as to why the Sherman on the next shelf is half the price of the Predator? Maybe they'll just proxy it in; 40K tanks are ripped straight out of WW1/2 anyway. There's no way a Land Raider was designed without the designer knowing what a MK IV was, for instance.
You can argue that there's only miniman crossover because they are for different genres of game, but you have to admit that their mere presence in the same store / mindshare makes GW's pricing look bad.
Silent Puffin? wrote: Its artificially a different market, largely due to GW and its 'hobby' fabrication. Its little plastic or metal men, designed and made using the same methods, for use in games which are designed and built using the same methods.
Its analogous to genre A of books somehow being 3, 4 or 5 times more expensive (if not more) than genre B despite both being printed on the same paper, in the same printing press and often written by the same author.
Your analogy is apt. If an author writes a college textbook, it can be $50-$100. if the same author writes a nonfiction book for general consumption, it can be $15.
If an author wrote a college textbook with the sort of quality that goes into a GW book they'd be chased out of their publishers office with a broom. College textbooks are expensive (maybe too expensive) but they are expensive to produce and are held to a much higher standard, generally by an expert in that field.
Look, if you want to play Malifuax on an 8x12, great. If you want to play 40k with 300 points, fantastic. But this is not generally how these games are played, which makes finding play partners much harder. The games aren't written for these scenarios, the mechanics are not ideal for that, and so on and so forth.
And yet, privateer press releases rules for playing large, epic battles of warmachine. They have a whole format devised for it, specifically written to cater to it so yes, by definition the game is written for these scenarios. Stop spreading misinformation.
You can do whatever you want with your models, buy as many as you want and play them any way that's fun, but to say that 200 model WMH games on 8x12 tables are a thing is just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.
moving goalposts again mate. Please don't. What you said was:
No, you can't really play a WMH or Malifaux game on an 8x12 table with 200 models to a side. More to the point... you'll never find anyone else who does.
'You can't really play wmh on an 8x12 with 200 models to a side'. Yes, yes you can. Stop spreading misinformation.
'You'll never find anyone else who does'. Yes, you can. Me and my mates would. Stop spreading misinformation.
Besides, if you played WMH with 200 models, it wouldn't be any cheaper than playing 40k with 200 models. If you play 40k with 30 one and a half inch-tall models, it wouldn't really be any more expensive than playing WMH with 30 one and a half inch-tall models.
Never really the point though, was it? Nice red herring by the way. You're good at them! The point was refuting your asinine assertion that you can't play big games of wmh or no one plays them.
Is this really that controversial? Is this worth arguing about?!
Saying this bit below is controversial and worth arguing about, since it is spouting rubbish and spreading misinformation. The rest was a red herring with the aim of distracting folks from pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Not falling for it mate.
No, you can't really play a WMH or Malifaux game on an 8x12 table with 200 models to a side. More to the point... you'll never find anyone else who does.
Azreal13 wrote: So you've established that a mass produced, machine cast, low cost material product has the same approximate cost (at RRP I assume) as metal and resin, hand cast product from smaller companies that benefit from far fewer economies of scale.
But I don't care what it costs someone to make something. I only care about what I pay out of my pocket. If GW or PP finds a way to make a model cheaper, good for them. If it costs them more, tough luck -- not my problem. I don't expect anyone to pass savings on to me because they saved some money, and if prices are raised beyond the point I'm willing to pay, I don't care if there's a perfectly good explanation for it; I just won't buy the product.
If I'm buying something that's expensive to make (like low run resin mini's) then I'm a lot more forgiving of a higher price than, say, injection moulded plastic. Because I know the resin probably cost 2 orders of magnitude more to make than the plastic did, fixed costs excepted.
I don't mind paying $30 for a boutique resin mini (I've paid more), but I probably wouldn't pay more than $20 for a metal one (easier to work, re-usable) and twitch at the idea of paying more than $10 for a plastic one. Malifaux has been the exception, where I've gone to maybe $20 for a plastic mini because I only need 5.
WayneTheGame wrote: Why is the price of a WW2 tank irrelevant? Aren't they roughly equivalent (similar size, similar sculpting)? Both are model kits, no? Both are tank model kits?
The argument is this: the price isn't relevant, because the person who's going into a store to buy a Sherman probably isn't going to walk out buying a Predator, regardless of the price; and the person who's going to buy a Voidraven probably isn't going to buy a F-16, regardless of the price. They don't really compete with each other.
What about someone who just wants a tank to paint? Or isn't interested in WW2 but is curious as to why the Sherman on the next shelf is half the price of the Predator? Maybe they'll just proxy it in; 40K tanks are ripped straight out of WW1/2 anyway. There's no way a Land Raider was designed without the designer knowing what a MK IV was, for instance.
You can argue that there's only miniman crossover because they are for different genres of game, but you have to admit that their mere presence in the same store / mindshare makes GW's pricing look bad.
Right: I'm not saying there isn't an argument for crossovers; the person who just wants to paint a tank of any type. I really don't think that this is that common, however; otherwise, most stores that sold GW stuff would also sell Revell and Tamiya, and, at least in my observation, that isn't the case. On the other hand, you see Privateer Press in most independent stores that sell GW.
Where I think you get more competition is someone who's new to the model hobby, and has to choose, for example, between 40k, scale models, and trainsets. Once someone becomes invested in a hobby, I think they tend to spend most of their time and money within that hobby. If one hobby is demonstrably cheaper than another, that might sway something. But emotional decisions are important too; someone is likely to look at a model, and if they think one is cool and one is not -- for example, if they like a Gundam robot or a Wraithknight, that may also sway their decision.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: If I'm buying something that's expensive to make (like low run resin mini's) then I'm a lot more forgiving of a higher price than, say, injection moulded plastic. Because I know the resin probably cost 2 orders of magnitude more to make than the plastic did, fixed costs excepted.
I don't mind paying $30 for a boutique resin mini (I've paid more), but I probably wouldn't pay more than $20 for a metal one (easier to work, re-usable) and twitch at the idea of paying more than $10 for a plastic one. Malifaux has been the exception, where I've gone to maybe $20 for a plastic mini because I only need 5.
That's fair enough, and it's also the argument for Forgeworld pricing. Personally, I'm less forgiving. I won't pay more for a Forgeworld model just because it's low production resin; since there's more than I could possibly put together in 5 lifetimes in high production plastic, if the resin model isn't actually better, I'll just buy the cheaper plastic one, unless there's some special reason.
Like you, I do associate a little premium with metal models. Like you said, you can rework them, but there is a lot of nostalgic value to metal minis for me
WayneTheGame wrote: Why is the price of a WW2 tank irrelevant? Aren't they roughly equivalent (similar size, similar sculpting)? Both are model kits, no? Both are tank model kits?
The argument is this: the price isn't relevant, because the person who's going into a store to buy a Sherman probably isn't going to walk out buying a Predator, regardless of the price; and the person who's going to buy a Voidraven probably isn't going to buy a F-16, regardless of the price. They don't really compete with each other.
They serve two different types of hobbyists. Is there crossover? Yes, of course. But a lot of people interested in one aren't really interested in the other, so the products are priced based on their independent markets. I'm pretty sure that Revell tries to get as much for its models as it can, too.
On the other hand, someone looking at space marines might go over to the Cyngar shelf and buy those instead.
By the same token, it's unlikely that someone who's looking for a 24" model of the Millennium Falcon is going to instead buy a B-1 bomber because it's cheaper, so they too do not directly compete. The decision the person who's after the Millennium Falcon might be that, an A-Wing, or nothing.
Finally, a lot of gaming stores don't sell historical models, and a lot of places that sell Tamiya and Revell don't sell Games Workshop. That's not an absolute, but it's true of many gaming stores -- they're more likely to sell Magic the Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh than they are Sherman tanks.
If Games workshop was a gaming company, your point would be valid. You can't use a sherman tank for space marines. But they're not they're a model company, and comparisons of tank models is OK. Models are judged on visual looks and value for money,I know because I've bought both.
Talys wrote: Where I think you get more competition is someone who's new to the model hobby, and has to choose, for example, between 40k, scale models, and trainsets. Once someone becomes invested in a hobby, I think they tend to spend most of their time and money within that hobby. If one hobby is demonstrably cheaper than another, that might sway something. But emotional decisions are important too; someone is likely to look at a model, and if they think one is cool and one is not -- for example, if they like a Gundam robot or a Wraithknight, that may also sway their decision.
Aesthetics will dictate which product (or product line) you are considering to buy. Budget determines whether you actually buy it. 40k, Scale Models and Trainsets are very different hobbies. It is highly unlikely that someone looking for a hobby is going to have those as competing choices, since Aesthetics dictates BEFORE budget.
@loki old fart - well, sure you can use Sherman tanks for space marines. I mean, why not, if it's about the right size.
My point is that regardless of whether they're a model or game company, the market for scifi models is different from the market for scale models. If there weren't different markets for both, GW wouldn't be selling hundreds of millions of dollars a year in scifi and fantasy models.
Because people would just go buy Sherman tanks and guys with M16s.
Talys wrote: Where I think you get more competition is someone who's new to the model hobby, and has to choose, for example, between 40k, scale models, and trainsets. Once someone becomes invested in a hobby, I think they tend to spend most of their time and money within that hobby. If one hobby is demonstrably cheaper than another, that might sway something. But emotional decisions are important too; someone is likely to look at a model, and if they think one is cool and one is not -- for example, if they like a Gundam robot or a Wraithknight, that may also sway their decision.
Aesthetics will dictate which product (or product line) you are considering to buy. Budget determines whether you actually buy it. 40k, Scale Models and Trainsets are very different hobbies. It is highly unlikely that someone looking for a hobby is going to have those as competing choices, since Aesthetics dictates BEFORE budget.
To a large extent, I definitely agree. For sure, this is why I would never paint a Sherman tank. I mean, if someone offered me one for free, I would tell them to donate it to a Christmas toy drive instead.
Actually that Sherman or whatever kit is relevant it creates a point of comparison to the buyer.
It might not suit the needs of the buyer but as a reference it allows comparison, you have heard many times about gundam sherman whatever cost its a reference, yes, a Gundam is not a knight or titan or whatever, but, its as big cheaper and technically superior crafting, completely useless if you want an Imperial Knight, but puts GW quality and price in a perspective, right? wrong? justly or unjustified? it does not matter the point of reference is there.
And this is one of the reasons GW does not want other games next to their, it creates comparisons and in comparisons you have to compete.
Talys wrote: @loki old fart - well, sure you can use Sherman tanks for space marines. I mean, why not, if it's about the right size.
My point is that regardless of whether they're a model or game company, the market for scifi models is different from the market for scale models. If there weren't different markets for both, GW wouldn't be selling hundreds of millions of dollars a year in scifi and fantasy models.
Because people would just go buy Sherman tanks and guys with M16s.
Talys wrote: Where I think you get more competition is someone who's new to the model hobby, and has to choose, for example, between 40k, scale models, and trainsets. Once someone becomes invested in a hobby, I think they tend to spend most of their time and money within that hobby. If one hobby is demonstrably cheaper than another, that might sway something. But emotional decisions are important too; someone is likely to look at a model, and if they think one is cool and one is not -- for example, if they like a Gundam robot or a Wraithknight, that may also sway their decision.
Aesthetics will dictate which product (or product line) you are considering to buy. Budget determines whether you actually buy it. 40k, Scale Models and Trainsets are very different hobbies. It is highly unlikely that someone looking for a hobby is going to have those as competing choices, since Aesthetics dictates BEFORE budget.
To a large extent, I definitely agree. For sure, this is why I would never paint a Sherman tank. I mean, if someone offered me one for free, I would tell them to donate it to a Christmas toy drive instead.
If your playing a game of 40k, you can use a sherman, with your opponents consent. BUT GW states it's a model company and that means it's products must be judged on looks, quality of construction, and value for money alone. They can't have it both ways. Games companies have more leeway, because the game is the product. (Not the model) Models are mere tokens needed to play.
Model company's product's are judged model by model.
If your playing a game of 40k, you can use a sherman, with your opponents consent. BUT GW states it's a model company and that means it's products must be judged on looks, quality of construction, and value for money alone. They can't have it both ways. Games companies have more leeway, because the game is the product. Model company's product's are judged model by model.
As I keep saying, scifi models are a different market than scale models. X-Wing fighters aren't priced based on how much an F-22 is. They're priced based on how much a Star Wars fan is willing to pay for an X-Wing model.
But anyways, since you're so insistent:
The games are a key part of both our Hobby and our business model.
I wouldn't use that document if I were you... it contains lots of "not practicing what they preach"... a veritable view into the eye of terror itself:
The products we make for our customers are the best in the wargaming world. This is because everyone at Games Workshop is passionate about our Hobby. - The products they make are the best in spite of the fact the creative team is tightly under the control of management. Its hard to be passionate when you have no control. Proper rules writing (in this case, lack thereof) isn't a real concern because...
Every year we seek new and better ways of making our products and improving the quality. This is not simply a personal obsession; it also makes good business sense. We know that, for a niche like ours, people who are interested in collecting fantasy miniatures will choose the best quality and be prepared to pay what they are worth. - While this is true to an extent, as long as the fantasy models (a) fit their aesthetic preferences and (b) fit their budget... It also shows incredible hubris and lack of market awareness. Now that there is more choice than ever, GW is doubling down on their house style instead of evolving with the times. Their technical innovation is good, but creatively, frankly speaking, many of their revamped model lines are almost parodies of their old designs.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Actually that Sherman or whatever kit is relevant it creates a point of comparison to the buyer.
It might not suit the needs of the buyer but as a reference it allows comparison, you have heard many times about gundam sherman whatever cost its a reference, yes, a Gundam is not a knight or titan or whatever, but, its as big cheaper and technically superior crafting, completely useless if you want an Imperial Knight, but puts GW quality and price in a perspective, right? wrong? justly or unjustified? it does not matter the point of reference is there.
And this is one of the reasons GW does not want other games next to their, it creates comparisons and in comparisons you have to compete.
I don't buy that. IMHO, people who are browsing for "models" are browsing (usually) with a particular model/aesthetic/whatever in mind. If I'm a scale modeler, I'm not even batting an eye at GW or PP or any "sci-fi" stuff. unless I'm looking for Gundams. And if I'm a Gundam fan, I'm not even bothering with Riptides or whatever, the aesthetic is totally different. I might look at "gundam-esque" models, and compare prices there, but it would never even be a decision between Bandai and GW. Totally different animals.
And you have to take into consideration development costs. A historical model has some, but I'd argue not as much as a company that has to develop concept art/drawings, background/fluff, the game that goes along with it, etc. Historicals don't have the same development cycle - hence why historical models hover around $1 a piece, or less if you're a discerning (read: cheap) historicals buyer. Anyone can put out a WW2 GI, do their research online and in the history books on the "look" and the armanent, and then pay someone to sculpt it. You can't get the same with a space marine. The space marine is going to cost you more to develop (I'm not talking a one man shop here, either, with glacial releases).
Its apples and oranges as a price point comparison between scale models, scale models with laser etch brass upgrades, historical tabletop miniatures, sci-fi table top miniatures, etc.
I wouldn't use that document if I were you... it contains lots of "not practicing what they preach"... a veritable view into the eye of terror itself:
The products we make for our customers are the best in the wargaming world. This is because everyone at Games Workshop is passionate about our Hobby. - The products they make are the best in spite of the fact the creative team is tightly under the control of management. Its hard to be passionate when you have no control. Proper rules writing (in this case, lack thereof) isn't a real concern because...
Every year we seek new and better ways of making our products and improving the quality. This is not simply a personal obsession; it also makes good business sense. We know that, for a niche like ours, people who are interested in collecting fantasy miniatures will choose the best quality and be prepared to pay what they are worth. - While this is true to an extent, as long as the fantasy models (a) fit their aesthetic preferences and (b) fit their budget... It also shows incredible hubris and lack of market awareness. Now that there is more choice than ever, GW is doubling down on their house style instead of evolving with the times. Their technical innovation is good, but creatively, frankly speaking, many of their revamped model lines are almost parodies of their old designs.
in my experience, the creative team is very passionate about their work...
they are proud of what they create, even if what they work on is dictated to them by management...
that is the difference between being an employee, and being your own boss...
there may seem to be less compromise with the guy that is his own boss, but the financial instability is the trade-off...
GW provides the creative team with a guaranteed salary, at the cost of doing what the boss tells you to do...
if they are happy working within the GW aesthetic, what is not to be passionate about???
Cruentus wrote:And you have to take into consideration development costs. A historical model has some, but I'd argue not as much as a company that has to develop concept art/drawings, background/fluff, the game that goes along with it, etc. Historicals don't have the same development cycle - hence why historical models hover around $1 a piece, or less if you're a discerning (read: cheap) historicals buyer. Anyone can put out a WW2 GI, do their research online and in the history books on the "look" and the armanent, and then pay someone to sculpt it. You can't get the same with a space marine. The space marine is going to cost you more to develop (I'm not talking a one man shop here, either, with glacial releases).
On the other hand, as folk have already said, historical dress, equipment, army composition, battlefield role, vehicle specifications etc. etc. can take a fair bit of research and the information is not always easy to find or interpret, depending on specific points and locations in history. Whereas - if you really want to go with the "you can just take a quick look online" bit - you can just take a quick browse through deviantart to see what fantasy designs the 'kids' are going for these days. Probably something with huge ridiculous pauldrons. Or ponies.
I have almost half a bookshelf on anatomy and basic figure sculpting alone, let alone the other stuff. (the nearest Ikea should grin when they see me coming) Based on that little microcosm of amateur interest, no, research is not as simple as you make out.
I'd argue about how much gruelling, innovative design GW does, anyway. I've no doubt someone's getting paid for fuzzy wacom sketches every couple of months when there's a new SM codex, but 40K designs all but ground to a halt years ago. Most new minis since about 3rd ed or before, are variations on a, has to be said, fairly stagnant theme, once certain looks became established. Jes Goodwin's plastic marines, Brian Nelson's orks, the then-fresh and brand-spanking-new tau, the increasingly xenomorph-alike tyranids...
(I still remember rumours of the plastic carnifex. 'Looks like a big termagant!' they said. Not half. And then every assault spawn eventually ported over from Epic was turned into one, too.)
in my experience with Andy, he has very fond memories of his time at the studio, and is very happy for the notoriety that he gained from his time there, which allowed him to go on to bigger, better, more independent things...
the same goes for Rick, Alessio, Paul, Ronnie, and everyone else who has made their name at GW, and then moved on to do their own thing...
there is nothing wrong with moving on, but don't underestimate the cache that being a former studio member has given these guys...
they are also from the old days, when things were much different, so it is not a surprise that they would chafe at outsiders coming in and taking control, and thus want to move on to do their own thing...
since we are in the here and now, i was actually referring to the current studio members...
sure, some of them would rather be working on things other than Space Marines, but then they have to weigh that against being a starving artist versus being gainfully employed in the world of wargaming miniatures, which is the passion...
if GW is that avenue, and they can handle the corporate culture, then it's win-win...
having worked as a painter for four different companies, including PP, i can tell you that the boss dictates the models you paint, and the schemes you will use, which does limit creative freedom somewhat...
on the upside, it does provide a paycheck, and the chance to work on some cool projects...
it sure beats working at Taco Bell...
Rick Priestley left because he felt his creative freedom was being stifled, not because he was unhappy working with the GW aesthetic.
Just pointing out that liking the GW aesthetic isn't enough for everyone to be passionate. Rick Priestley is a game designer who for a long time wasn't allowed to design games, during the period when GW was scrapping specialist games and doubling down on its core 3.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Rick Priestley left because he felt his creative freedom was being stifled, not because he was unhappy working with the GW aesthetic.
Just pointing out that liking the GW aesthetic isn't enough for everyone to be passionate. Rick Priestley is a game designer who for a long time wasn't allowed to design games, during the period when GW was scrapping specialist games and doubling down on its core 3.
again, i was speaking of the people that i know working in the current studio environment, not the old guard, who where there in the halcyon days gone by...
as i said, Rick was right to leave, and is now doing some fun stuff, but he is still buoyed by the title "creator of Warhammer 40,000", which i'm sure is not something that keeps him up at night fretting over...
plenty of people have come and gone through the studio over the last 4 decades...
all i'm saying is the the artists that i know in the studio right now are very happy to have their jobs, and get paid to play with toys all day...
not that that is unique to GW, but is pretty much industry wide...
who doesn't love getting paid to play with toys
WayneTheGame wrote: Why is the price of a WW2 tank irrelevant? Aren't they roughly equivalent (similar size, similar sculpting)? Both are model kits, no? Both are tank model kits?
... ...
Finally, a lot of gaming stores don't sell historical models, and a lot of places that sell Tamiya and Revell don't sell Games Workshop. That's not an absolute, but it's true of many gaming stores -- they're more likely to sell Magic the Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh than they are Sherman tanks.
If Games workshop was a gaming company, your point would be valid. You can't use a sherman tank for space marines. But they're not they're a model company, and comparisons of tank models is OK. Models are judged on visual looks and value for money,I know because I've bought both.
Well you can. I bought all historical kits for my SM army and IG army, because of looks and price, though I chose modern vehicles like M113s and M1117s. No reason you couldn't use Shermans, though. The running gear is distinctive and is shared by a number of designs including the Lee/Grant, the Priest SPG and the Canadian Sherman based APC , so there's good scope for modelling all the Rhino variants.
As far as modelling goes as a hobby, many modellers specialise in one format, like tanks, or biplanes, or naval models, so if you wanted to specislise in GW models your only problem, apart from price, would be lack of variety and detailing kits. Most modelling skills are transferable to other fomats. Even something like rigging biplanes can be transferred to rigging ships.
in my experience, the creative team is very passionate about their work...
they are proud of what they create, even if what they work on is dictated to them by management...
that is the difference between being an employee, and being your own boss...
there may seem to be less compromise with the guy that is his own boss, but the financial instability is the trade-off...
GW provides the creative team with a guaranteed salary, at the cost of doing what the boss tells you to do...
if they are happy working within the GW aesthetic, what is not to be passionate about???
cheers
jah
I can see your point: alternatively, overly strong direction can really damage the enthusiasm of creative types. It'd be like if I was commissioned to paint an Ultramarine army for someone and the customer came back and asked all the Aquila to be repainted pink, that each model be carrying a bolter in each hand and that every right leg needed to have orange hazard stripes... the customer / boss is always correct since they are paying the bill - its this forced compliance that saps the passion from the team.
@Jah-Joshua.
I would think the sculptors and minature painters are still allowed to use their skills to the extent they get some enjoyment from working at GW towers.
Even though the 'create works of art to inspire others to be creative,' vibe seems to have been squashed by corporate control .(Only promote products GW sell, and the way GW corporate dictate how they should be used.)
They are still not as restricted as the 'alleged GW game development.'
To put it into some sort of comparison so you '*arty' types might understand the way corporate sucked all the creativity out of game development.
(*Arty types means artistically inclined, no offence meant. )
If the minature painters were under the same restrictions as the game devs, they would be told...
'Here is a 1/2" paint brush.These ones want to be red, those ones want to be blue.'
'Yes, practically any one can paint to a better standard, but they are just game counters so why bother?'
I hope that helps you understand what has been lost over the years from GW games, from a gamers perspective.
This is not too different from the developers from Bungee complaining that all Microsoft wanted was Halo, Halo, and more Halo, when they had many other ideas and projects that they wanted to do instead. I totally appreciate the artistic types not wanting to "do the grind". I'm a little bit that way myself
On the other hand, there are realities of what pays the bills. When the Bungee guys finally finished their contract, they went off and made Destiny, and Microsoft went on to make Halo 5; guess which one was far and away the bigger seller? Of course, it's not all about the money, and doing what you want to do matters, but when you work for someone else, you surrender at least a part of that, because you get a pay check no matter what.
I highly doubt the sculptors and miniature painters and game writers don't get any enjoyment out of working at GW. I mean, look at attitude of the photographer with the contract who did the AMA at GW. How many people would be thrilled to paint miniatures all day, or sculpt them, instead of work retail or an office job?
At the end of the day, if you want to control your own destiny, you're better off striking it off on your own, or working for a smaller company, where you have more say. The larger the company, the more direction you'll receive, and the more of a cog you'll be in a giant machine, because that's just the reality of what's required to manage thousands of people; not everyone can have their way, and not everyone can be right, so it's up to the management to plot the course -- and it's their fault if it falls apart. It's not really any different than other companies of a similar size in other industries.
If you want to talk about squashing the life out of your employees, look at a company like Foxconn, where people work 80 hour weeks at 75 cents an hour, aren't allowed to leave the compound and jump off of walls because they go nuts. So we can have nice cell phones at the right price point.
Talys wrote: This is not too different from the developers from Bungee complaining that all Microsoft wanted was Halo, Halo, and more Halo, when they had many other ideas and projects that they wanted to do instead. I totally appreciate the artistic types not wanting to "do the grind". I'm a little bit that way myself
What is "do the grind" as you put it...
It is clear you understand the plight of creatives at all. Often they are given instructions to follow by people that don't have a cohesive vision and these instructions may be detrimental to the final product by by inserting many conflicting additions... it's like if you were told to bake a CHOCOLATE CAKE, the recipe is approved - and while it is in the oven... some guy came and said that it needs to contain nuts (but not peanuts, and not any nuts that are too expensive), and pineapple, maybe more whipped topping, since that makes it look more impressive, and it needs to be gluten free too with a crushed biscuit base too, since focus groups indicate that that's a popular feature.
Often you'll have a concept approved, only to have it undergo many iterative changes as it moves up the approvals process. Each of these alterations to the scope of work isn't GRIND, its literally complete and unnecessary rework resulting from poor definition of concept at best and needless interference at worst. The worst part is that the deadline doesn't change and these changes usually occur late in the process. There is that old artist meme that the customer thinks they know what's best, insist on the changes, and then asks why they are paying the artist when they are the one doing all the designing (in most cases making their own product crappier in the process). It's this systematic dismantling of the original concept that is a real morale killer.
Sure... people can take your suggestion, leave and do your own thing, but that doesn't make the life of a creative any less soul crushing. You need to have a pedigree and an unassailable portfolio before you can start insisting on retaining features, and even the world's most celebrated creatives (think movie directors) are hardly immune to studio interference. Its obvious that you have to heed those that pay your bills, but the complete lack of respect that many creatives endure is ridiculous. (Disclaimer: I'm not a creative).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Getting back on topic - I find it rich that GW would claim that they make the best gaming products when management actively bars the studio from making the necessary changes to improve the ruleset by enforced backwards compatibility.
@keezus - I'm not sure if it's a typo, and you're trying to say that I do or don't understand the "plight of creatives" as you put it
Anyhow, "the grind" so to speak, is just a general term referring to doing stuff that isn't what you really want to do, doing something that feels repetitive, something that feels uncreative, or worst of all, being told to do something that you find creatively distasteful -- like building something that you think looks ugly, but you do it because it's your job. I write computer software for a living, and work with animators and illustrators all the time, so I'm pretty familiar with what "the grind" is, at least in our industry.
The vast majority of creative types employed by big companies are either hired specifically for a project, moved to a project, or told pretty exactly what needs to be done. Within those parameters, they'll have some discretion, depending on the creative director and the size of the creative team. Most creative types understand this when they work for a big company.
Even so, it is definitely a grind being told not to work on Sequel #3, 3a, 3b, 4, 4+, 4a when you have great fresh ideas you'd like work on instead. In the context of miniatures, another Rhino chassis vehicle or another space marine with a different gun or leg or shoulder pad is probably a lot more grind-y than if you're handed a sketches of an Imperial Knight and told, "Make it so!"
For all of us, there are projects that we are really excited about, and projects that just seem like work. But hey, we all gotta eat, and even something that feels like a grind -- if you're sculpting or painting minis -- it's probably a lot more fun than fixing a PC at Best Buy or answering the customer service desk at Target. Which was kind of Jah's point, I think.
In any case, people who do great work and do exceptional concepts either as a part of their work or in their spare time do get noticed, and more often than not, will be lucky enough to move from cog in wheel to... a more important cog in the wheel, and eventually will be given increasing levels of freedom, even within a huge company. The problems start when creative types think they're doing really exceptional work, but their bosses don't think so.
On the other hand, there are realities of what pays the bills. When the Bungee guys finally finished their contract, they went off and made Destiny, and Microsoft went on to make Halo 5; guess which one was far and away the bigger seller?
Just chipping in to say: Most likely Destiny, but it's murky.
Destiny reportedly made back it's entire budget day one and something around 500 million dollars within one or two weeks. Activision avoided stating clear numbers, but all-in-all, it seemed like an incredible success. They also stated that at least 325 Million Dollars were day one sales or preorders.
Microsoft threw out a "400 Million Dollar" statement, which sounds great, but several retailers reported disappointing sales, so it's very much possible that Microsoft made those 400 Millions by selling most of the bunch to retailers, which couldn't move the product.
On the other hand, there are realities of what pays the bills. When the Bungee guys finally finished their contract, they went off and made Destiny, and Microsoft went on to make Halo 5; guess which one was far and away the bigger seller?
Just chipping in to say: Most likely Destiny, but it's murky.
Destiny reportedly made back it's entire budget day one and something around 500 million dollars within one or two weeks. Activision avoided stating clear numbers, but all-in-all, it seemed like an incredible success. They also stated that at least 325 Million Dollars were day one sales or preorders.
Microsoft threw out a "400 Million Dollar" statement, which sounds great, but several retailers reported disappointing sales, so it's very much possible that Microsoft made those 400 Millions by selling most of the bunch to retailers, which couldn't move the product.
You guys are probably right that Halo 5 is probably not a great example. Especially, since the numbers from Microsoft are murky. Keep in mind the numbers from Activision were also murky (they used sell-through numbers, IIRC). The point still stands though, that lots of creative people do stuff to pay the bills, and it still beats doing something out of your chosen profession or industry.
But anyways, this was not only a bad example, but way totally off topic. Sorry
So back on topic.
Kilkrazy wrote: At the risk of getting back on the topic, who here thinks that GW lets their design studio have loads of great creative ideas, etc. ?
Dune, blah blah, Asgard, blah blah.
Just hazarding a guess, I would suspect that GW's design studios have various creative directors that have a lot of latitude, and they probably solicit ideas from their teams, with everyone having their favorites. The creative director probably then takes it to get signed off by some grand overlord.
Talys wrote: You guys are probably right that Halo 5 is probably not a great example. Especially, since the numbers from Microsoft are murky. Keep in mind the numbers from Activision were also murky (they used sell-through numbers, IIRC). The point still stands though, that lots of creative people do stuff to pay the bills, and it still beats doing something out of your chosen profession or industry.
But anyways, this was not only a bad example, but way totally off topic. Sorry
So back on topic.
Kilkrazy wrote: At the risk of getting back on the topic, who here thinks that GW lets their design studio have loads of great creative ideas, etc. ?
Dune, blah blah, Asgard, blah blah.
Just hazarding a guess, I would suspect that GW's design studios have various creative directors that have a lot of latitude, and they probably solicit ideas from their teams, with everyone having their favorites. The creative director probably then takes it to get signed off by some grand overlord.
Of course, that's just a shot in the dark!
In the dark, blind folded, with your eyes closed, in a cave.
At night.
I rather suspect that in the case of GW, the design comes down from the top -so, somebody at the top yells 'Space clowns!'
The creative director goes to the design team leader and says 'Space clowns'.
The design team leader turns to his design team and says 'Space clowns?'
The design team sits down and begins sketching clowns in power armor.
The design team leader turns to the creative director and says 'Space clowns?'
The creative director goes to the loudest person at the top and says 'Space clowns.'
And the loudest person at the top yells 'Space clowns!' and sends it all off to the folks making the molds.
The Sigmarine is torn down, and a new Space clown becomes the mascot for the company.
Kilkrazy wrote: At the risk of getting back on the topic, who here thinks that GW lets their design studio have loads of great creative ideas, etc. ?
Dune, blah blah, Asgard, blah blah.
Human creativity is actually heavily dependent on iteration. The "eureka moment"/creative savant is largely a fiction peddled by egotists appropriating the work of their subordinates or dramatists who want an easy, simple story to tell. Works which are derivative are not inherently non-creative, and 40K has come a fair distance and birthed a fair amount of excellent storytelling since the days when it was essentially "Dune meets 2000AD plus Monty Python".
Actually I prefer Dune meets 2000AD meets Monty Python. That's because being British I simply cannot bring myself to take 40K seriously now that it has been drained of every trace of humour.
To come back to the subject I introduced, I agree that originality is a an over-rated virtue. However, granting that GW are allowed to take inspiration from other fantasy/SF backgrounds, is the stuff they've done for AoS much good?
I personally don't get nearly as much of a good times vibe off it as I did from The Olde Worlde,. The Azyrverse seems like a wide open titanic setting that is intended to allow people to fight small scale skirmishes that don't really connect with much outside themselves.
Personally I love the mythical greco-roman feel to the AoS world, and I love the world concepts and descriptions. Unfortunately the Black Library novels are almost exclusively Stormcast focused, and they're wearing thin by now. If they fleshed out the more interesting parts of the setting I'd say it could be very successful, but at the moment there's not much to be found aside from snippets of names and descriptions of places that sound like they COULD be interesting.
Regarding Halo and Destiny... it's probably fair to say that both games were great sellers, but also that they probably both owed it to the enormous marketing machines working for them.
As for creativity and GW... being derivative is embedded in 40k's DNA. It can and will never shake it, as long as it keeps using its foundations. And as long as they keep using names, places and concepts that were ripped wholesale from other works, I'll never be able to see it for anything else.
It's true that innovation is about iteration, but I'd argue that 40k has actually become a lot less innovative than it used to be.
Mymearan wrote: Personally I love the mythical greco-roman feel to the AoS world, and I love the world concepts and descriptions. Unfortunately the Black Library novels are almost exclusively Stormcast focused, and they're wearing thin by now. If they fleshed out the more interesting parts of the setting I'd say it could be very successful, but at the moment there's not much to be found aside from snippets of names and descriptions of places that sound like they COULD be interesting.
It is one of the three pillars that support a game: fluff, figures and rules. The combination of these needs to add up to more than the cost, to make the game worth playing. Meaning that you can ignore the fluff if the rules are great, and so on.
@keezus, Lanrak, &TheAuldGrump: it really is not as extreme as you guys are trying to make it out to be...
i am sharing my experience, in person, with the guys who work in the studio designing the rules, models, and paint schemes...
just because you guys are no longer on the same page as the studio, doesn't mean that they don't love what they do...
until you interact with the people who do the actual work, you really don't know how much fun they have at their job...
@Jah_joshua.
As you are in contact with the game developers at GW towers, who are loving what they do,apparently.
What game development are they most happy with over the last 5 years.
You know actual game development to address game play issues, rather than special snowflake rules to help sell the latest releases.
All the game developers I have talked to that left GW , all say they felt restricted by corporate directives.
'More of a sales department for a toy company , than a game development studio.'
jah-joshua wrote: @keezus, Lanrak, &TheAuldGrump: it really is not as extreme as you guys are trying to make it out to be... i am sharing my experience, in person, with the guys who work in the studio designing the rules, models, and paint schemes... just because you guys are no longer on the same page as the studio, doesn't mean that they don't love what they do...
until you interact with the people who do the actual work, you really don't know how much fun they have at their job...
cheers jah
I bet their tune will change once they leave GW and no longer have to toe the company line.
I'm sure the painters love their job, and the sculptors and artists (painting is painting, whether its a unique and original model or not). But the people who actually design the games like Rick Priestley and Matt Ward?
Kilkrazy wrote: Actually I prefer Dune meets 2000AD meets Monty Python. That's because being British I simply cannot bring myself to take 40K seriously now that it has been drained of every trace of humour.
To come back to the subject I introduced, I agree that originality is a an over-rated virtue. However, granting that GW are allowed to take inspiration from other fantasy/SF backgrounds, is the stuff they've done for AoS much good?
I personally don't get nearly as much of a good times vibe off it as I did from The Olde Worlde,. The Azyrverse seems like a wide open titanic setting that is intended to allow people to fight small scale skirmishes that don't really connect with much outside themselves.
Mate, have you seen my posts in the AoS thread? Safe to say I agree, but where the inspiration comes from is less the issue than the motivation behind the process and what the building blocks gained are shaped into is more the point I was making. Fantasy worked as a setting because it was a world - AoS is, as you say, a way of getting around the limitations of being a world(it never seems to have occurred to the bigwigs to simply focus on a scale of conflict more suited to the setting, rather than grand, overwrought, world-ending catastrophising, but I suppose to do that the studio would have required writers capable of creating[or permitted to create] dramatic tension and compelling narrative rather than faking those things by generating ever more ludicrous threats to all of civilisation).
I agree less so about 40K; the balance has certaiinly been tilted too far towards po-faced mythologising, but there's a happy medium between the totally unaware modern post-grimdark pseudoepic and the days of "Obiwan Sherlock Clouseau".
@Killkrazy - I don't think I ever took 40k seriously
The entire concept of space marines fighting space orks and space elves forty thousand years in the future with the dying immortal emperor on the golden throne psychically staving off chaos is just so ridiculous that I don't know how anyone could possibly take it seriously I mean, does anyone actually think that titans with giant fists that throw tanks across the battlefield is anything other than a laugh?
Not in the way, for instance, that it's possible to say that Roddenberry's future (Star Trek) is a plausible, aspirational one, or that Lucas' Star Wars setting, or even BattleTech's vision of a future humanity. Even with a suspension of belief, 40k is just impossibly nonsensical. It's not that there are logic and plot holes; it's that just about everything defies common sense. Like the one million space marines (1000 chapters of 1000 brothers) are somehow more fearsome and effective than literally endless trillions of Imperial Guard (so many that nobody even knows how many there are!). I mean, who cares how big and strong they are; they're all the same inside a space ship or jet or tank with a big gun. It just defies logic.
But none of that matters to me. Because the 40k universe is just awesome, in such a cool way. Tanks! Armored Knights! Big guns! Kaboom! Jellybean? Mmmmmmm.... Yummy!
With regards to AoS and WHFB's setting -- the problem with WHFB for me is that I didn't like the Old World at all. It was like a crappy version of Greyhawk or Middle Earth, with fiction that didn't stack up to TSR novels (or Tolkein, if you want to go there).
Is AoS better? Well, not really, in the sense that I am equally uninvested in the game world. But I suppose I have a passing interest in what happens in the story line, at least from a Wikipedia/Coles Notes type macro level. In other words, I won't ever read a novel or listen to an audiobook, but I'll read the summary or follow the campaign loosely to see what happened to various heroes and villains.
I don't know I cannot take 40k seriously as a sarcastic comedy, I could in the past and it was nice, but the direction they got the past decade or more made it just bad, not bad enough to be enjoyable, neither good enough to sidestep the odd stuff.
Interesting article popped up on my newsfeed today...
Games Workshop: In Denial
There’s bad news about revenue and profitability in Games Workshop’s half-year report and no adequate explanation. Maybe the company’s in denial.
Games Workshop failed to report the one thing I was looking out for in the half-year to November 2015, an increase in revenue, although on a constant currency basis it did rise (by less than 1%). Operating profit was flat too, although it was rescued by royalty income from other firms, for example app and computer game producers who use Games Workshop’s fantasy worlds. Profit from the sale of miniatures and games, the company’s core business, fell 15%.
Irritatingly, Games Workshop didn’t provide an explanation, which is surprising since, in its previous full-year results, it had promised a sales drive.
Delving into the segmental results in note 2, which are admirably thorough, it’s easy to pick out a culprit from the line-up. Games Workshop’s trade channel made an operating profit of £5.8m and its mail order channel made a profit of £6.2m, but its retail channel made a loss of £2.5m, more than double the loss it made for the same period the previous year.
Sales, the company, says are roughly flat on a constant currency basis, but it opened 25 new stores and only closed 13.
The retail channel is Games Workshop’s Hobby Stores, which are being rebranded Warhammer and are present in many UK and European towns and cities. They’re of particular interest because of the strategic emphasis put on them, and because of how much they cost to run.
Games Workshop designs, manufactures and retails fantasy miniatures which must be assembled and painted, either for the fun of it, or to play its Warhammer games. The company eschews advertising and relies primarily on word of mouth and its stores to encourage new hobbyists who can model and play there as well as spend.
It’s just completed a multi-year store rationalisation program, relocating to smaller, cheaper premises, and converting stores into low-cost one-man operations. The strategy was a response to a period of expansion when higher costs almost completely stymied profit, and it successfully restored profitability at Games Workshop.
Store running costs are over half of all Games Workshop’s operating costs, reflecting, presumably, their importance not just as a sales channel, but as way of recruiting new hobbyists who might go on and buy products through mail-order (which includes the company’s Internet site) and other retailers. The trade and mail order channels are far less expensive to operate.
Kevin Rountree, the company’s chief executive, has previously said improvements in sales depend on recruiting the right store managers, and that failing to do so is the biggest risk facing Games Workshop. He has recruited a recruitment specialist to help him.
Maybe that’s all there is to it. But maybe the company can’t recruit managers of sufficient calibre because running a one-man store is too much work for one man. Maybe one man cannot show people how to model, run games, and serve paying customers at the same time. Trials of larger multi-man stores in Sydney, Munich, Paris and Copenhagen suggest, at least for locations where there are lots of customers, one man stores are not the answer.
I also worry that despite the unsubstantiated claim that Games Workshop has launched some “great new products”, the company’s new version of Warhammer, Warhammer Age of Sigmar, is not doing as well as hoped. This new simpler version is intended to revive the original Warhammer game, which for many years has trailed its more futuristic sibling Warhammer 40,000.
Perhaps by focusing too much on maximising profit through cost cutting, the company is neglecting the recruitment of new hobbyists. Or perhaps the much smaller armies of rival fantasy wargaming and modelling companies and the armies of illegal clones sold on the Internet are chipping away at Games Workshop’s franchise. In a more competitive world profitable stores in less popular locations may be oxymoronic.
The company routinely denies competitive threats and aggressively squashes business that steal its intellectual property, but the longer it fails to lift revenue profitably the more credible these alternate realities become.
My previous article on Games Workshop was also my most popular article, it accumulated a staggering number of comments. That gives us an inkling of how strong a hold the company has over modellers and gamers, which is what attracted me to it as an investment.
But when I read Games Workshop’s results, I wonder about what the company says, and what it doesn’t say, and whether I’m mad or it’s delusional.
To my mind, the business is stuck in a rut, but it needs to grow to justify the asking price. A share price of 549p values the enterprise at £226m, about 16 times adjusted profit.
You may be wondering why a so-called long-term investor is worrying about half-year sales. I’m not.
But maybe the company can’t recruit managers of sufficient calibre because running a one-man store is too much work for one man. Maybe one man cannot show people how to model, run games, and serve paying customers at the same time. Trials of larger multi-man stores in Sydney, Munich, Paris and Copenhagen suggest, at least for locations where there are lots of customers, one man stores are not the answer.
But maybe the company can’t recruit managers of sufficient calibre because running a one-man store is too much work for one man. Maybe one man cannot show people how to model, run games, and serve paying customers at the same time. Trials of larger multi-man stores in Sydney, Munich, Paris and Copenhagen suggest, at least for locations where there are lots of customers, one man stores are not the answer.
Someone get this man a bloody prize
I think you'd need to give a prize to the other million or so people who have pointed that out since GW first started the one man to rule them all policy
It's a few years since GW announced problems with ne-man shops due to difficulty of recruiting the right people. If they have not managed to solve this problem, perhaps they have the wrong strategy.
Azreal13 wrote: Interesting article popped up on my newsfeed today...
Spoiler:
Games Workshop: In Denial
There’s bad news about revenue and profitability in Games Workshop’s half-year report and no adequate explanation. Maybe the company’s in denial.
Games Workshop failed to report the one thing I was looking out for in the half-year to November 2015, an increase in revenue, although on a constant currency basis it did rise (by less than 1%). Operating profit was flat too, although it was rescued by royalty income from other firms, for example app and computer game producers who use Games Workshop’s fantasy worlds. Profit from the sale of miniatures and games, the company’s core business, fell 15%.
Irritatingly, Games Workshop didn’t provide an explanation, which is surprising since, in its previous full-year results, it had promised a sales drive.
Delving into the segmental results in note 2, which are admirably thorough, it’s easy to pick out a culprit from the line-up. Games Workshop’s trade channel made an operating profit of £5.8m and its mail order channel made a profit of £6.2m, but its retail channel made a loss of £2.5m, more than double the loss it made for the same period the previous year.
Sales, the company, says are roughly flat on a constant currency basis, but it opened 25 new stores and only closed 13.
The retail channel is Games Workshop’s Hobby Stores, which are being rebranded Warhammer and are present in many UK and European towns and cities. They’re of particular interest because of the strategic emphasis put on them, and because of how much they cost to run.
Games Workshop designs, manufactures and retails fantasy miniatures which must be assembled and painted, either for the fun of it, or to play its Warhammer games. The company eschews advertising and relies primarily on word of mouth and its stores to encourage new hobbyists who can model and play there as well as spend.
It’s just completed a multi-year store rationalisation program, relocating to smaller, cheaper premises, and converting stores into low-cost one-man operations. The strategy was a response to a period of expansion when higher costs almost completely stymied profit, and it successfully restored profitability at Games Workshop.
Store running costs are over half of all Games Workshop’s operating costs, reflecting, presumably, their importance not just as a sales channel, but as way of recruiting new hobbyists who might go on and buy products through mail-order (which includes the company’s Internet site) and other retailers. The trade and mail order channels are far less expensive to operate.
Kevin Rountree, the company’s chief executive, has previously said improvements in sales depend on recruiting the right store managers, and that failing to do so is the biggest risk facing Games Workshop. He has recruited a recruitment specialist to help him.
Maybe that’s all there is to it. But maybe the company can’t recruit managers of sufficient calibre because running a one-man store is too much work for one man. Maybe one man cannot show people how to model, run games, and serve paying customers at the same time. Trials of larger multi-man stores in Sydney, Munich, Paris and Copenhagen suggest, at least for locations where there are lots of customers, one man stores are not the answer.
I also worry that despite the unsubstantiated claim that Games Workshop has launched some “great new products”, the company’s new version of Warhammer, Warhammer Age of Sigmar, is not doing as well as hoped. This new simpler version is intended to revive the original Warhammer game, which for many years has trailed its more futuristic sibling Warhammer 40,000.
Perhaps by focusing too much on maximising profit through cost cutting, the company is neglecting the recruitment of new hobbyists. Or perhaps the much smaller armies of rival fantasy wargaming and modelling companies and the armies of illegal clones sold on the Internet are chipping away at Games Workshop’s franchise. In a more competitive world profitable stores in less popular locations may be oxymoronic.
The company routinely denies competitive threats and aggressively squashes business that steal its intellectual property, but the longer it fails to lift revenue profitably the more credible these alternate realities become.
My previous article on Games Workshop was also my most popular article, it accumulated a staggering number of comments. That gives us an inkling of how strong a hold the company has over modellers and gamers, which is what attracted me to it as an investment.
But when I read Games Workshop’s results, I wonder about what the company says, and what it doesn’t say, and whether I’m mad or it’s delusional.
To my mind, the business is stuck in a rut, but it needs to grow to justify the asking price. A share price of 549p values the enterprise at £226m, about 16 times adjusted profit.
You may be wondering why a so-called long-term investor is worrying about half-year sales. I’m not.
Games Workshop’s AGM is next Wednesday, and I’m going to use it to test my theory that the company may be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
It’s not a theory I necessarily subscribe to, in fact, it may be fantasy.
The theory goes like this: Since no-one else can legally produce Warhammer miniatures, model soldiers and other creatures set in the company’s fantasy worlds because it invented them, and since Games Workshop controls every aspect of the business from design through manufacturing to marketing and retail, it’s destiny is in its own hands. Other wargames exist, but they’re less rich and less popular. Presumably, the most important consideration when choosing a war game is that other people play it. Rivals seeking to break into this monopoly have their work cut out, so if Games Workshop is to fail it will be the result of some internal blunder.
When I first articulated the possibility the company could be the architect of its own demise, it resonated with a large number of people. They weren’t investors though, they were customers. Dozens of them commented on the article, many of them saying that Games Workshop had neglected gamers, or that it was gouging them for money by raising prices and relentlessly releasing new models.
The theory puts gaming at the centre of the business model, but you won’t find much mention of gaming in the annual reports. The money comes from the models and Games Workshop’s ambition, verbatim, is to make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them profitably, forever. Despite the company’s failure to increase sales meaningfully over the last decade, which you might expect if the game were growing in popularity, its remained resolutely profitable, which you might expect if the company were, as it has in recent years, focused on reducing manufacturing costs (it switched from metal to resin models), distribution costs (it cut out middle management and repatriated overseas distribution) and retail costs (it’s near the end of a programme of store conversions to a one-man format), while simultaneously raising prices.
The company’s strategy in recent years suggests it’s focused on a fairly fixed, or even diminishing, pool of older, wealthier, collectors, drawn into the hobby years ago by the game, but it may also be shutting out younger, newer, recruits. An online petition has over 16,000 signatures all asking the company to refocus its business model on the sale of the game and the support of the gaming community.
I would have thought the company would be alive to the risk of killing the goose that lays the golden egg, but Games Workshop has an unusually strong internal culture. That’s usually a good thing, if the culture is open to criticism and capable of adapting. Reading Games Workshops annual reports over the years has left me with me a different impression though. In 2014 Tom Kirby, longstanding chairman, the former chief executive who ran the company during its rapid growth in the 1990’s, said it doesn’t do market research:
Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.
The company’s approach may be changing though, Kirby has relinquished the chief executive’s role, although he still has an operational role as he’s also been retained as a consultant. The new chief executive is Kevin Rountree the former finance director. He’s promising to lift sales, indeed salaries have been frozen until it happens, and in the 2015 annual report he included this paragraph on pricing (the emphasis is mine):
I will review our product range. We believe this is long overdue: it is time for a resetting of the ranges. Not tweaking here and there but a top down reassessment. I expect to update you further at the half year. We will aim to continue to deliver outstanding product and customer service, maintain our Group gross margin and continue to improve our Group stock turn. To be absolutely clear I will not be reducing the RRP of our products: they are premium priced for their premium quality. I will, however, be looking to offer a broader range of price points.
New products at lower prices, might be more attractive to gamers who need models in quantity,than collectors who prize models that are unusual, challenging to paint, and expensive.
I’m keen to know whether the company believes it has neglected the game, and whether it will listen to customers more in the future.
I do not see why it is impossible to make a range of games that appeals to a range of players, and a range of figures that includes cheaper units for wargamers and expensive kits for collectors.
My previous article on Games Workshop was also my most popular article, it accumulated a staggering number of comments. That gives us an inkling of how strong a hold the company has over modellers and gamers, which is what attracted me to it as an investment.
But when I read Games Workshop’s results, I wonder about what the company says, and what it doesn’t say, and whether I’m mad or it’s delusional.
I'm not sure why he's wondering. Did he actually read what those comments said? At least some of them? IIRC a lot of them were singing from the same song sheet, telling him just why GW's 'premium' main product minis weren't selling.
A large audience of mere customers, and no attention paid to what they say. That rings a bell, somehow...
I do not see why it is impossible to make a range of games that appeals to a range of players, and a range of figures that includes cheaper units for wargamers and expensive kits for collectors.
I think the former is certainly possible; GW just doesn't seem to have an interest in it. I can't even hazard a guess as to why, because it wouldn't take a lot to make certain groups much happier.
As for the latter, I believe that GW thinks it's more profitable to make all the units more expensive, and force people to either buy the more expensive units or go elsewhere. In the niche of scifi wargames, in my opinion, over time this has raised everyone's ASP (average selling price), because other companies consider GW's prices when setting their own. The net effect becomes a choice of (a) play a scifi wargame with a lot of expensive models, (b) play a scifi wargame with a few expensive models or (c) play a non-scifi wargame. Or, I suppose, play whatever you want, but with proxies for models.
Before anyone jumps all over it, yes, I realize this is a generalization and exceptions exist -- but generally speaking, pricy scifi wargaming models is where we're at, especially for companies with bigger catalogs, and we've gotten here by GW pushing the envelope, and everyone else happily tagging along for the ride.
In my opinion, if Privateer Press wrote a large-scale wargame optimized for 6x4 and larger tables AND reduced the price of their models to the levels that you see in historicals, you'd see a lot of people jump over from 40k. But I don't know if that would actually be a lot more profitable for PP (if at all). The reason I say PP is because they're one of the few companies that have a large and varied enough catalog to produce make a large-scale scifi wargame that would entice the sort of people who are into that, and currently play 40k.
Talys wrote: In my opinion, if Privateer Press wrote a large-scale wargame optimized for 6x4 and larger tables AND reduced the price of their models to the levels that you see in historicals, you'd see a lot of people jump over from 40k. But I don't know if that would actually be a lot more profitable for PP (if at all). The reason I say PP is because they're one of the few companies that have a large and varied enough catalog to produce make a large-scale scifi wargame that would entice the sort of people who are into that, and currently play 40k.
Why pick PP? They have manufacturing capability sure. Rules writing cred in spades, but they don't manufacture ANY sci-fi models.
IMHO, Mantic seems to be a better fit. Regardless, the one reason why GW is supreme in the mass-model wargame market is that competitors need to build up their model range and have to start at the skirmish size. PP's catalog is only the size it is now as both its core games are over 10 years old.
Talys wrote: In my opinion, if Privateer Press wrote a large-scale wargame optimized for 6x4 and larger tables AND reduced the price of their models to the levels that you see in historicals, you'd see a lot of people jump over from 40k. But I don't know if that would actually be a lot more profitable for PP (if at all). The reason I say PP is because they're one of the few companies that have a large and varied enough catalog to produce make a large-scale scifi wargame that would entice the sort of people who are into that, and currently play 40k.
Why pick PP? They have manufacturing capability sure. Rules writing cred in spades, but they don't manufacture ANY sci-fi models.
IMHO, Mantic seems to be a better fit. Regardless, the one reason why GW is supreme in the mass-model wargame market is that competitors need to build up their model range and have to start at the skirmish size. PP's catalog is only the size it is now as both its core games are over 10 years old.
I consider Warmachine models pretty close to scifi. I think there's a lot of appeal in the Warmachine models to 40k fans, broadly speaking. The reason I mentioned PP is that their catalog is big enough that they could actually put out in a pretty short period of time a big game with lots of models of the type of variety in sizes as GW (therefore, again, appealing to the same players/hobbyists).
When you look at Mantic games, their models are much more spread out between properties, and couldn't be brought together into cohesive armies that could reasonably compete with 40k. It's not just about having a lot of models on the table; it's also about having a lot of models to choose from. Plus, they don't have a lot of bigger models (like Gargantuan / Titan sized), or even that many mid-sized models in each collection, which, like them or not, if you want to steal 40k fans in a 40k-size game, you're going to need.
Warmachine is steampunk, 40K is trad Sci Fi with Gothic elements. Aesthetically they're really quite far removed, and by far the biggest objection I've heard from 40K players about not switching to WMH is the model aesthetic.
I'm also surprised you've apparently never heard of price leadership, because that's exactly what you're describing with your "higher average sale price" theory, and it's an established piece of economic theory.
Azreal13 wrote: Warmachine is steampunk, 40K is trad Sci Fi with Gothic elements. Aesthetically they're really quite far removed, and by far the biggest objection I've heard from 40K players about not switching to WMH is the model aesthetic.
I'm also surprised you've apparently never heard of price leadership, because that's exactly what you're describing with your "higher average sale price" theory, and it's an established piece of economic theory.
You don't think that if there were a large-scale game with Warmachines, combined with much lower prices (in the range of historical models), that some 40k players would be tempted to switch games?
Of course, there are people who just abhor the WMH aesthetic (just like there's people that hate space marines). I'm not one of them; I just prefer 40k as a game, and 40k models generally speaking, but I'd definitely saddle up if there were a Warmachines setting game that were high model count, and especially if the prices and rules were both great.
It's ironic that you mention price leadership. Generally, price leadership only applies when one company is so overwhelmingly dominant in their market segment that nobody else thinks they'll be hurt by raising their prices. The irony is that if we were to agree that this is the case, this becomes a strong argument that historical wargames, scale models, and Gundam models aren't a substitute (or market equivalent or market competitor) of 40k models, whereas PP models are.
After all price leadership applied, and they were in the same market, manufacturers of historical and scale models would maximize their own profits by increasing their prices to GW levels, something that obviously isn't the case. Basically, if you ascribe to the price leadership model and believe that GW is the price leader, then all companies that don't trail GW's pricing levels are either in another market (not direct competitors), or they're not maximizing their profits.
@Talys.
I can understand people liking the style of the 40k art and minatures,and some still find the background inspiring, despite GW messing about with it recently to try to boost sales.
But the game of 40k ONLY exists as an idea in the head of the group of players who agree what it is supposed to be.
The rule book does not clearly define how the game is played.
The codex books do not generate enough balance for fun random pick up games.
I can not understand why GW corporate can not admit they were WRONG, and GOOD game development IS important to ADD VALUE to the product range.
IF GW corporate had listened to Andy Chambers, and 4th ed 40k rules were written for the units and game size of 4th ed 40k.
Rather than a compromised backwards compatible version of WHFB skirmish.
Perhaps the gamers would not have left in droves, the retail price would not have rocketed , and GW would be able to produce a good sci fi wargame with cheap minatures because they could maximize the economies of scale.
The company best placed to produce a well written sci fi battle game with cheap minatures was GW plc.
But now GW only stay in buisiness because some collectors with deep pockets like their model range.
(The price elasticity of some collectors is quite astounding!)
Age Of Tyrants looks rather nice for a large scale sci fi battle game BTW.(In 6mm .)
Lanrak wrote: they could maximize the economies of scale.
That is a good question, their whole manufacture is set to take advantage in economy of scale yet their strategy is to reduce production.
Given their costs have risen despite falling revenue in their core business (and after years of cost cutting measures), they may well be at the point where the high up front costs of plastic injection moulding are now a liability. Where the individual cost per sprue has hit a point where they no longer get a major advantage from the mass production process in terms of reducing their costs per sprue and by extension, increasing their margins.
Lanrak wrote: they could maximize the economies of scale.
That is a good question, their whole manufacture is set to take advantage in economy of scale yet their strategy is to reduce production.
Given their costs have risen despite falling revenue in their core business (and after years of cost cutting measures), they may well be at the point where the high up front costs of plastic injection moulding are now a liability. Where the individual cost per sprue has hit a point where they no longer get a major advantage from the mass production process in terms of reducing their costs per sprue and by extension, increasing their margins.
But that's rather the point, for GW the up-front costs of plastic injection aren't that high, certainly compared to just about anyone else in the miniatures business. All their design staff are salaried employees so their R&D cost is minimised; they use CAD to design the kits and have become fairly adept at cutting the models up and packing the sprues efficiently, so the cost to actually create an individual kit is minimised; and they own all the necessary machinery to produce, pack, and distribute the resulting products in-house and once again do so using salaried or wage-contracted employees. I think I recall someone saying GW had the cost to produce a new plastic mould down to the £10k region, which is a fraction of the cost it was even a decade ago, let alone when they first began making plastic models.
If they can make their production that efficient and cost-effective, yet still find that cost a liability, then somewhere there is colossal mismanagement going on.
I would say the following, if they can make a plastic mould for a limited edition plastic character then it does not cost them that much in production.
They have a "mass market" production facility and their plastic production is an economy of scale production, why having this as their only production they keep striving in reducing sales is beyond me.
Hell at this point they should consider offering their services to other companies just to make use of their production facilities.
When you look at Mantic games, their models are much more spread out between properties, and couldn't be brought together into cohesive armies that could reasonably compete with 40k. It's not just about having a lot of models on the table; it's also about having a lot of models to choose from. Plus, they don't have a lot of bigger models (like Gargantuan / Titan sized), or even that many mid-sized models in each collection, which, like them or not, if you want to steal 40k fans in a 40k-size game, you're going to need.
When Warpath hits, there's yet another game to compete with 40k.
A vast amount of it will be in Mantic's decent HIP as well.
You also need to remember, a lot of people have moved away from 40k/GWbecause of the bigger models. There are a lot of players out there that liked 40k before it went to oversized (and overpriced) models.
Warpath will have quite a lot going for it. Here's a few of the simple armies they made up in the kickstarter.
Yes, some of the stuff in there is "restic", but in all honesty, I had less scraping and mold removing on the restic Striders from Mantic than the plastic lizardmen I just got from GW in the Seraphon starter box.
And despite yourself and the other defenders of GW continually telling us on this forum that GW stuff is quality and justifies the price, what you need to remember is that there are less and less kids getting "into" GW these days. Mainly because of the price. You can''t play for an afternoon in a GW store anymore then buy a blister to add to your army from your pocketmoney like the old days. As less people buy into it, the prices go up to keep the profits the same... you see the spiral GW are in surely?
Those starter sets were a great way to start breaking out of the cycle, but when players see the price of adding to their armies, many just don't bother. I know the middle class middle age males that they're targeting can afford it, but I bet most of those are only "into" GW because of discovering it in their youth. And when the youth are no longer getting into gaming GW stuff... the cycle ends.
Lanrak wrote: they could maximize the economies of scale.
That is a good question, their whole manufacture is set to take advantage in economy of scale yet their strategy is to reduce production.
Given their costs have risen despite falling revenue in their core business (and after years of cost cutting measures), they may well be at the point where the high up front costs of plastic injection moulding are now a liability. Where the individual cost per sprue has hit a point where they no longer get a major advantage from the mass production process in terms of reducing their costs per sprue and by extension, increasing their margins.
The up front cost of plastic injection moulding is nothing compared to what it used to be and those costs you are talking about are because they are opening more stores despite the fact the one man store system is clearly a failure.
Gimgamgoo wrote: When Warpath hits, there's yet another game to compete with 40k. A vast amount of it will be in Mantic's decent HIP as well.
You also need to remember, a lot of people have moved away from 40k/GWbecause of the bigger models. There are a lot of players out there that liked 40k before it went to oversized (and overpriced) models.
I don't disagree with you even a little bit. There are a lot of people who prefer the smaller model count and model size of 40k of yesteryear. Clearly, present-day 40k is not the game for them if they want to play with the majority of 40k players.
We presume that GW has identified that they simply can't make enough money selling mostly 28mm 40k miniatures anymore, possibly because it's a pretty mature market; in 30 years, you kind of run out of fresh things you can sculpt in that size to make people spend their next few hundred bucks.
If someone else like Mantic can hit the reset button with a fresh property, props, and all the power to them.
Looking specifically at Mantic, I'm sorry, but I think a lot of their models are junk. For me, a lot of models look way better in the renders or painted up on the web page than the sprues do in front of me, as a result, I have a couple of hundred dollars of Mantic models that will probably never get painted. But the question posed to me wasn't, "do you like Mantic models?", it was, "Why did you pick PP as an example, instead of Mantic in terms of suggesting a company that could start a cheap, successful large-scale wargame?"
To which, my response is that presently, Mantic's properties are way too spread out between different games to create large collections of cohesive armies. Privateer Press has the models ready, now and simply has to write the rules and drop their prices. They go hand in hand, because I don't think a lot of people would be excited about a 100 model army at PP's current prices (it would cost even more than a 40k army). I can't speak for other people, but I assure you that if I could have a 100-model Warmachines army for $300 with exceptionally good rules, the next army I'd paint would be a Warmachines army.
It's not a question of, "do you like Warmachines models better than GW models?" either, because I can have both, right? It's just that presently, there's no incentive (or intelligent reason way to) build a large Warmachine collection, and I don't really enjoy playing small skirmishers.
Looking at Warpath, it's hard to comment on a game and models that don't yet exist. Yes, it has exciting potential. Clearly, they want to be a direct 40k competitor. Some of the larger models look more exciting than others. I can almost guarantee you that I'll buy at least one Warpath army or a starter box (assuming one exists) when it comes out, to model if nothing else, though if the models are like Deadzone, they'll sit unpainted on a shelf except for my favorite ones. Will it unseat 40k? For me, that's unlikely for at least a decade because there won't be that many models in the collection for a long time.
Will using Warpath rules with 40k be a thing? Maybe? Don't know what the rules are, so I can't say.
And despite yourself and the other defenders of GW continually telling us on this forum that GW stuff is quality and justifies the price, what you need to remember is that there are less and less kids getting "into" GW these days. Mainly because of the price. You can''t play for an afternoon in a GW store anymore then buy a blister to add to your army from your pocketmoney like the old days. As less people buy into it, the prices go up to keep the profits the same... you see the spiral GW are in surely?
Those starter sets were a great way to start breaking out of the cycle, but when players see the price of adding to their armies, many just don't bother. I know the middle class middle age males that they're targeting can afford it, but I bet most of those are only "into" GW because of discovering it in their youth. And when the youth are no longer getting into gaming GW stuff... the cycle ends.
I've actually never said that GW prices are justified by their quality. In all my thousands of posts, I don't think I've said this even once. I think that GW models are a high quality and I like their aesthetic, but that has nothing to do with their price.
In case there's any doubt, I'll state my position clearly:
In my opinion, GW doesn't need to justify their prices. GW prices are what they are because enough people will pay them. Obviously, there are many people mad at how expensive GW (and I presume Mantic and Wyrd and Corvus Belli) models have become, compared to model prices in 1985 or 1995. There are many people who are excluded from the hobby, or, as I said, forced to play a game with a smaller number of expensive models, when in yesteryear they would have enjoyed a larger game of cheaper models. But there are enough people paying $5-$10+ per 28mm model that the pricing scheme is both sustainable and profitable -- I assume, even to companies that aren't GW, that the pricing range is optimally profitable, because at the end of the day, that's pretty important to most companies.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Hell at this point they should consider offering their services to other companies just to make use of their production facilities.
I think that realistically, that is the only way GW is going to survive in the long term.Their only real asset is their production know-how and capacity.
Why would PP do that? their main game which is well regarded needs half or less the models and it is priced in a cost the market accepts, creating a new mass battle game would take away the feel of what WM/H is about create two systems that direct compete between themselves and there is no proof that the masses will jump on the mass battle system to justify lowering the prices.
Factor in, customer alienation and the necessary changes that are needed for this to happen, plus the cannibalization of resources for the new system to be created and it is an really bad idea.
GW's way is not a one way road, their production method requires economy of scale, they could have gone open get in stores and compete with everybody else, lower prices make the game accessible, make kits that modelers will pick up ectr, instead they went with forcing players to buy more and more by increasing the scope of the game and raising prices, now that enough customers left because of that, they make big models to justify their cost and sell them at great margins in order to survive, never achieving what their production method is geared to do, sell volume cheap.
If PP is a sensible company with a good financial plan, they do not need a mass battles game (at least not in 28mm) to go on, they can expand by making other IP and other types of games as they actually do.
Mass battle games take a lot more time, energy and financial investment on the part of players. I think its very important to draw them in with a small scale skirmish game, and a simplified mass battle ruleset for players with big collections who want to play larger games.
The LOTR did this quite well with the SBG as an entry point, and the WOTR ruleset for people who've been playing for a while and have big armies. That ruleset had promise, its a shame they didn't update and balance it.
If the argument is, "Why would PP want a mass battle game when they have a great thing going?", you could flip it around, and say, "Why would GW want a skirmisher, when they have a great thing going?" and both sides could stay in their respective comfort zones.
We actually don't know if PP's profits are going up or down from one period to the next, because they're not required (and don't) reveal this information. We do know that despite declines in revenue, GW continues to make a lot of money; probably more money than any other company in the wargame niche, and certainly orders of magnitude more than a company like Mantic (because of their registered company type, we know they are, at most, something like 1/50 the size of GW).
Obviously, there's a market for both types of games in the market. If PP is happy where it is in terms of market share and mindshare, profitability, and price levels, that would be further validation that prices are where they "should" be, and that the sweet spot right now is $5-$10 troop models, $20+ hero models, 50mm base models for $40, and or 120mm base models for $125.
Edit -
I think it's worth noting that when I defend GW, it's not because I think they're a flawless company or that there isn't lots of room for improvement. It's just that, perhaps contrary to the majority online, I'm genuinely happy with the general creative direction and the type of game and hobby it's evolved to in the last decades, and I don't vilify GW for pushing the envelope with its pricing.
It doesn't mean that I don't feel there's lots of things that could be done to make myself or a lot of other people a little bit or a lot happier. I say so lots of times.
On the issue of pricing, no matter the industry, I very rarely vilify a company for pricing: if my wife likes a $10,000 handbag or $200 perfume, and I can't afford it or think the price is nuts, I just tell her I can't afford it; I might say that the price is insane, but I don't accuse Channel of being an evil empire. The exception to this is when a company jacks up the price of a life-saving item at a predatory price because they're the sole source of it, like a life-saving drug. I can't recall the name of the drug, but some company recently bought out another and raised the price of some medication by orders of magnitude, putting people's lives at risk. In this case, I would vilify the company doing that. In terms of GW models? Price them whatever they want, if it's too much, I'll stop buying them, move on (maybe to someone else's models, maybe to another hobby), and be happy with the time I spent enjoying the ones I did. It's a hobby, not my life. Really, no different than ski passes. For many years, I quit skiing simply because the prices had gotten out of hand, and I couldn't afford to enjoy it anymore. I didn't think the ski hill operators were nefarious.
It is not "they have a great thing going" situation, its a "why they would do something that actively harms them" situation.
Why would GW want a skirmish game? there are reasons but GW cornered themselves in that area, its different from asking why would PP corner themselves in the same bad place GW has.
Azreal13 wrote: Warmachine is steampunk, 40K is trad Sci Fi with Gothic elements. Aesthetically they're really quite far removed, and by far the biggest objection I've heard from 40K players about not switching to WMH is the model aesthetic.
I'm also surprised you've apparently never heard of price leadership, because that's exactly what you're describing with your "higher average sale price" theory, and it's an established piece of economic theory.
Both steampunk and Gothic space fantasy are examples of pseudo science fiction - and there are also plenty of examples of Gothic style in WARMACHINE. (Cryx, mostly.)
This is one of the signs of the Apocalypse, you know....
I'm agreeing with Talys....
Locally, WARMACHINE stole far more players from 40K than it did from Fantasy Battle.
Skirmish level battles, with robots and guys in power armor... and round bases.
The Auld Grump, come to think of it, that was also about the same time that GW started pushing for larger armies....
Talys wrote: If the argument is, "Why would PP want a mass battle game when they have a great thing going?", you could flip it around, and say, "Why would GW want a skirmisher, when they have a great thing going?" and both sides could stay in their respective comfort zones.
They're actually not the same at all.
A mass battle game causes more problems in production with the need to at least produce more models, as well as more time in the design studio for bigger models (which again will impact production capacities) and rules development. This is all for a mode of play that might not take off.
A skirmish, or much smaller model count game for 40k could be done, and done well, with just rules. Models already exist, you don't need to go smaller. At most, a warhousing hit as you repackage some models into smaller boxes (with the obligatory price increase for the trouble). Simply have the design studio come up with a ruleset that works at a smaller scale, and release the book. Let people use existing assets to build their smaller armies. The modularity of their models makes this a perfect excercise - a box of Tactical Marines, Assault Marines and Devastators gives a huge wealth of options for creating things, as does a box of Hormagaunts and a box of Termagants. With a smaller outlay of just a rulebook, they have a gateway game into 40k, something they'd know they needed if they did that otiose thing called market research.
Talys wrote: If the argument is, "Why would PP want a mass battle game when they have a great thing going?", you could flip it around, and say, "Why would GW want a skirmisher, when they have a great thing going?" and both sides could stay in their respective comfort zones.
We actually don't know if PP's profits are going up or down from one period to the next, because they're not required (and don't) reveal this information. We do know that despite declines in revenue, GW continues to make a lot of money; probably more money than any other company in the wargame niche, and certainly orders of magnitude more than a company like Mantic (because of their registered company type, we know they are, at most, something like 1/50 the size of GW).
Obviously, there's a market for both types of games in the market. If PP is happy where it is in terms of market share and mindshare, profitability, and price levels, that would be further validation that prices are where they "should" be, and that the sweet spot right now is $5-$10 troop models, $20+ hero models, 50mm base models for $40, and or 120mm base models for $125.
Let me pop it back around - locally, WH40K did better when it was 'a skirmisher' than it is now with overcrowded tables and too many large figures.
I think that the folks at GW have lost 'the sweet spot' - when folks often had multiple armies, and bought all of the army books as they came out.
This, I think, has as much to do with rules writing as price - many, perhaps most, of the players in my Kings of War league are building multiple armies again.
And, given that some of those armies are mostly GW figures... it can't be just because the Mantic figurines are inexpensive.
People want good rules - they really like that all of the army lists for Kings of War are in two books - and that those two books together are thinner than the Warhammer rules, and less expensive into the bargain.
Admittedly at this point, if GW does a 40k skirmish game and it is good, it will cannibalize the sales of the existing 40k and this can be hazardous given they have put everything in gamers buying the huge model kits they sell which should not be compatible with a skirmish game, admittedly they could to a one big thing VS many small like OGRE, but it will need much work to pull that off.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Admittedly at this point, if GW does a 40k skirmish game and it is good, it will cannibalize the sales of the existing 40k and this can be hazardous given they have put everything in gamers buying the huge model kits they sell which should not be compatible with a skirmish game, admittedly they could to a one big thing VS many small like OGRE, but it will need much work to pull that off.
There's no going back for GW now without dinting the profits.
We're stuck with huge games, huge models and massive prices.
If they shrunk the game sizes and the prices, in the long term, profits could go up (as they build back up more players), but they won't accept the initial dent to profits and it would be too much of a gamble. A better short term solution in their eyes is to keep on making new stuff with higher and higher prices and lower and lower model counts.
It may have seemed that AoS dropped down in the amount of models required, but the prices went up significantly.
How long GW can go on like this I don't know.
What I do know is that my School 40K club which has remained pretty stable for over 10 years with 8-15 kids, now has 2 players left - and they leave school this year. At least GW will save me some time as I won't have a 2 hour after school club to run. :-)
Edit: The 2 new kids that planned on joining this year realised that for the price of 2 plastic toy soldiers, they could buy a PS4 game - never came back.
PsychoticStorm wrote: It is not "they have a great thing going" situation, its a "why they would do something that actively harms them" situation.
Why would GW want a skirmish game? there are reasons but GW cornered themselves in that area, its different from asking why would PP corner themselves in the same bad place GW has.
40K used to be a skirmish game and G W have inflated the size of armies over the past 3 to 5 years, and are losing sales.
GW did the same to WHFB, until sales got so bad that they decided to can the game completely and replace it with a low model count skirmish game.
PsychoticStorm wrote: It is not "they have a great thing going" situation, its a "why they would do something that actively harms them" situation.
Why would GW want a skirmish game? there are reasons but GW cornered themselves in that area, its different from asking why would PP corner themselves in the same bad place GW has.
40K used to be a skirmish game and G W have inflated the size of armies over the past 3 to 5 years, and are losing sales.
GW did the same to WHFB, until sales got so bad that they decided to can the game completely and replace it with a low model count skirmish game.
I agree and if they reach this situation for 40k now it will be catastrophic for them, I was replying to Talys, but have the bad habit of not quoting if the person I am answering is directly above my post.
I think GW has to take that temporary hit to profits. They NEED to split the game system between "skirmish', starter mode as a supported level to bring the startup cost under control, and then a full mode for all the hardcore grognards.
The full entry price for the skirmish mode needs to be brought back down to $200-300USD to maintain competitiveness with competing brands, where you can build a tournament level list for that amount. Just having cheap starter bundles is a good first step, but the structure of the game, and the necessity to buy the rules to play the full game is prohibitive. Its like the starter bundle ($85) is a video game where the retail version lets you play in this restricted sandbox mode, unable to join games with other players. To do that, you need to buy DLC to unlock the full game mode (rulebook: $85 again!), and buy additional DLC to unlock the in-game characters ($50-$58: codex!). That's a total of $220 for the full game experience only to discover you have a non-functional force, needing you to buy additional DLC to be able to play evenly with other players.
Anyone who gives it some research is going to balk at the prices... Either they have a strong community which persuades them to jump in, or they'll have a disillusioned community which will steer them to a cheaper game (being played in the region), or, left to their own devices, they'll probably pass, due to the costs involved, the uncertainty of getting games in, and the effort of having to grow the community from scratch, esp. with the prices being a barrier to that.
TheAuldGrump wrote:This is one of the signs of the Apocalypse, you know....
I'm agreeing with Talys....
Chaos shall soon rule supreme ^.^ Actually, I think that a lot of stuff you say makes a lot of sense. Mostly, when I disagree with you, it's just on the interpretation of the same set of facts, partly due to different priorities in the hobby.
In our meta as well, Warmachine stole way more players from 40k than anything else.
Really, what I've been driving at is that Warmachine has already raided the low hanging fruit from the 40k pool -- people who want a smaller scale skirmisher (and/or a lower total army price) who are unhappy with GW rules; if PP wants to continue chipping away at the 40k crowd, eventually, they'll need to consider a bigger scale game. There are some people (like me) who just won't ever be happy with a small table with a small number of models.
-Loki- wrote:A mass battle game causes more problems in production with the need to at least produce more models, as well as more time in the design studio for bigger models (which again will impact production capacities) and rules development. This is all for a mode of play that might not take off.
I agree with you in principle, but not as it applies to Privateer Press. Their troop boxes already come in 5's and 10's, and they're already making the transition to plastics where there are better economies of scale as model counts increase. Besides, people used to have 60-120 model armies all in metal from GW, at price points they could stomach, so it's not as if there's no market for this.
PsychoticStorm wrote:Admittedly at this point, if GW does a 40k skirmish game and it is good, it will cannibalize the sales of the existing 40k and this can be hazardous given they have put everything in gamers buying the huge model kits they sell which should not be compatible with a skirmish game, admittedly they could to a one big thing VS many small like OGRE, but it will need much work to pull that off.
I'm not so sure about that. I think there a lot of people who just want a bigger game with more models; or a game with bigger models. Locally in my area, Kill Team is actually a great way for people to start in a new army, have fun, and see if they like a new faction before they jump all in and spend their next paycheck on models.
Kilkrazy wrote:
40K used to be a skirmish game and G W have inflated the size of armies over the past 3 to 5 years, and are losing sales.
GW did the same to WHFB, until sales got so bad that they decided to can the game completely and replace it with a low model count skirmish game.
While 40k was more skirmishy and had smaller armies in the past, even in my oldest memories of the game (late 80s), 50+ marines or 80+ imperial guard on a table was pretty normal, and the table sizes were pretty big. While the model count has certainly gone up some, what's really changed seems to be the physical size of the models, and the total cost of the armies. It used to troops were the core of the army, and now, they're often a tax.
As for Mantic suddenly offering new competition in the form of Warpath, I doubt it will be any different than when they did that with Kings of War. Mantic, for whatever reason, just seems to always produce a modest success but no real breakout in terms of capturing market share. Mantic and a host of others will keep capturing market share in aggregate, but I don't think Warpath is going to significantly cause GW any problems on its own.
The key point that was raised though is the lack of recruitment. If GW is recruiting less and less new customers then those new customers are going to tell less people about their new hobby. GW's reliance on word of mouth advertising means grim things ahead if their retail approach fails to generate sufficient numbers of people talking about their game.
As for GW's costs, the cost of sales is actually lower than their operating expenses. And this report shows a decline in cost of sales (more one emoloyee stores and centralized trade sales) but an increase in operating expenses. This report also represents a decline in their return on capital. In the past, their cost saving plans kept that increasing (and in some years, quite dramatically), but now it's starting to reverse.
The biggest red flag continues to be their dividend payout ratio. 20p during a period in which they earned 14.9p. If anyone wants to know what the implications are, just do a search for dividend ratio over 100%. It's basically a sign that the company is propping up their stock by paying out the results of past years instead of using the money to right the ship and actually grow the business. It's not sustainable and any market historian can tell you what eventually happens. The dividend gets cut as the company moves into losses and since the reserves have been paid out, the company is forced to go into debt to finally try and fix things. And they do so years behind where they could have been.
I'm not so sure about that. I think there a lot of people who just want a bigger game with more models; or a game with bigger models. Locally in my area, Kill Team is actually a great way for people to start in a new army, have fun, and see if they like a new faction before they jump all in and spend their next paycheck on models.
While 40k was more skirmishy and had smaller armies in the past, even in my oldest memories of the game (late 80s), 50+ marines or 80+ imperial guard on a table was pretty normal, and the table sizes were pretty big. While the model count has certainly gone up some, what's really changed seems to be the physical size of the models, and the total cost of the armies. It used to troops were the core of the army, and now, they're often a tax.
At what cost? at the cost of their already existing player base? at the cost of their core game? at the cost of their company's reputation? and for what gains? the unknown but definitely minor part of the 40k player-base that cares for mass mega models games? the ones who have staid at GW for the fluff and the aesthetic, despite the horrible balance and rules, the overtly expensive kits some of them been the same models for 15 years? the ones who probably do not care for a balanced game with great rules writing?
Why would they endanger their company for this crowd? sorry that core is not big and is too much attached to GW for a company to even care about them.
Now 40k was released at the end of the 80's (88 IIRC) and at late 80's 30 marines were quite the norm but 50? you might mean the end of 90's which again was not that norm, maybe in "mega games" of 2500pts yes but not on the usual 1500pts game if nothign else the WD codex marine at the end of 2nd that allowed half squads helped some squads than never saw the battlefield to be fielded, as soon as 3rd got in 50 marines was the norm along with vehicles.
frozenwastes wrote: The key point that was raised though is the lack of recruitment. If GW is recruiting less and less new customers then those new customers are going to tell less people about their new hobby. GW's reliance on word of mouth advertising means grim things ahead if their retail approach fails to generate sufficient numbers of people talking about their game.
--
My uncle expressed interest in miniature wargaming a while ago. I told him to avoid Gamesworkshop like the plague, and told him about the Batman miniatures game because he loves superheroes and comics. I don't even play that game or have any of the miniatures.
PsychoticStorm wrote: At what cost? at the cost of their already existing player base? at the cost of their core game? at the cost of their company's reputation? and for what gains? the unknown but definitely minor part of the 40k player-base that cares for mass mega models games? the ones who have staid at GW for the fluff and the aesthetic, despite the horrible balance and rules, the overtly expensive kits some of them been the same models for 15 years? the ones who probably do not care for a balanced game with great rules writing?
Why would they endanger their company for this crowd? sorry that core is not big and is too much attached to GW for a company to even care about them.
I disagree. Whether for better or worse, GW continually goes out of their way to please the type of hobbyist that views the game and hobby as their aspirational armies positively do. When you open up a White Dwarf or Visions, you see cinematic battles of seas of models, with huge models towering over little ones posed for a climactic clash of the titans. When you go to their YouTube channel, you see 100 modelling videos and 1 about gaming. When you read a batrep, its about one almost deity battling one actual deity. There are stories about the 10th company or about Garro. You'll learn that there the Sanguinary Guard number 30.
What you haven't seen in years is an actual game of 40k that resembles a game or 40k, or tips on how to build an effective army.
Maybe GW doesn't need to do anything to keep this captive audience, but they certainly do -- the group of people who model and collect a lot and play relatively little, and who are heavily invested in the lore and aesthetic of 40k... and who can afford the current ecosystem .... aren't feeling left out. Its the people who want a more competitive, pickup or tournament game that feels left out. Or the people that want a smaller game that doesn't take as much time or money to get started.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Now 40k was released at the end of the 80's (88 IIRC) and at late 80's 30 marines were quite the norm but 50? you might mean the end of 90's which again was not that norm, maybe in "mega games" of 2500pts yes but not on the usual 1500pts game if nothign else the WD codex marine at the end of 2nd that allowed half squads helped some squads than never saw the battlefield to be fielded, as soon as 3rd got in 50 marines was the norm along with vehicles.
Since RTB-01 came with 30 space marines and the old Guard and Ork boxes came with similar numbers, most people had at least 3 squads of 10. My very first complete 40k army had 3 tactical squads, 1 assault squad, and a number of personalities, including medic, captain, etc. And that was no vehicles.
Those haven't really changed (the number of small models). It's the extra special models added on that has. So, dreadnoughts, centurions, razorback, land raiders, drop pods, imperial knights, forge world knights, stormtalons, and forgeword flyers gradually added to the game, in addition to elite 28mm models. The philosophical question becomes, at some point, do you just stop? If you do, the veterans have nothing to add to their army other than replacing old models with nicer new ones, and may get bored and move on. Another army, you say? Over 30 years, they would have already bought into all the factions that appealed to them.
I think the perfect system would be two games, that share the same models so that players can grow from ne to the other.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:My uncle expressed interest in miniature wargaming a while ago. I told him to avoid Gamesworkshop like the plague, and told him about the Batman miniatures game because he loves superheroes and comics. I don't even play that game or have any of the miniatures.
GW also has found itself in the unenviable position of having a large base of ex-customers who actively steer people away from their products. It's like the opposite of word of mouth advertising.
Talys wrote:I think the perfect system would be two games, that share the same models so that players can grow from ne to the other.
Can it really be so impossible to have a game that works at a lower model count and then has some simple changes that come into play at a certain points level to make larger games playable in the same time frame? Especially if the bar for success is as low as the current 40k?
A while back I got a massive amount of wargaming related publications and periodicals from the late 1960s and early 70s from an estate sale. The thing about Warhammer and 40k is that it really is just a conservative representation of ideas that already existed then. Dice per figure, a target number based on some sort of stat comparison. A save mechanic. And a very simplistic turn sequence chosen among many better ones that were already available. People have enjoyed games like this for decades. I bet you could take this foundation and just by having activation of troops change based on the game size make a really good version of 40k. In fact, I think Bolt Action and the Antares version of it pretty much show what this might look like.
But why would current GW ever want to invest in something like that? When it came time to do a game relaunch, Age of Sigmar shows us what they are willing to invest in when it comes to rules development and what GW really thinks people want to buy when it comes to rules.
EDIT:
Just wanted to add that while my posts have been negative about GW in this thread, I don't want them interpreted as being predicting of some great demise. GW has great access to debt and if losses force them to finally address their real problems, I'm confident they'll have the capital available to make the necessary changes. It would take a real revenue shock to put GW at risk as a company. And given how stringently they control costs and how conservatively they make product runs, I don't think we'll see a sudden shock, but more of this slow grinding down of both volume and market share.
Well Privateer Press and to some extend are doing what GW are doing slowly pricing themselves out of the equation.
PP's game is also getting larger. with more miniatures. So my interest in it is waning.
Maybe GW should look at how Kings of War and Darklands are doing that seems to work.
I hope the return of specialists game will turn things around and that announcement was not a smokescreen. Decently priced original games like space crusade, talisman, blood bowl, necrumunda, mordheim could bring in new gamers especially now that there has been an upswing in board games sales in the last years.
Talys wrote:I think the perfect system would be two games, that share the same models so that players can grow from ne to the other.
Can it really be so impossible to have a game that works at a lower model count and then has some simple changes that come into play at a certain points level to make larger games playable in the same time frame? Especially if the bar for success is as low as the current 40k?
In my opinion, the short answer is that I can't imagine a game that would be a great game on both ends of the scale.
There are a few different issues. The most important, in my opinion, is that an well-written game for 30 models on a small table, for 100 models of infantry on a large tables, or for 100 models that range from infantry to building-sized just won't be the same game. The mechanics are just different: in games with more models, you typically want mechanics like keeping squads and units together, whereas in games with few models, individuality is core. What a sergeant does in a small game matters; a sergeant is just more cannon fodder in a big game. In games the size of WMH, it's appropriate to have an in-game avatar (the Warcaster), but this makes less sense if the warcaster will never see 80% of the game board.
Secondly, in 40k, you can just choose to play 500-750 point games on 4x4 tables, or Kill Team (250 points) with severe model restrictions. A practical problem is that if you bring your backpack of models and want such a thing, unless you've prearranged it, in all likelihood you're wasting your time. In other words, I think that if they dropped Kill Team rules into the core 40k book, it would be largely ignored as the de facto game will be assumed to be the 1850 or 2000 point game. There is a certain psychology amongst many players to aspire to the "big boy" game, even though the smaller game has many advantages like being quicker and costing less money.
And finally, in any restrictive game, you have to exclude like, half or more of GW's 40k collection, with a lot of it being the newer stuff.
I think a second, minihammer 40k that focuses on a small infantry models, with very few small vehicles, little stompies and minor heroes but with significantly different rules to 40k is the key to making a small game fun and also keep costs reasonable.
Ironically, 40k suffers from the exact same problem.
You've got mechanics that are a holdover from being a much smaller game, like complex hit allocation, individual model upgrades within units and characters being individually powerful models. These are crossed with rules for larger scale games with lots of armour - squadrons of vehicles and specific vehicle damage tables. Crossed again with what you'd expect in a huge model count, tiny model scale game with Titans, which can delete whole units with a single roll and supersonic aircraft, which are hilariously shoehorned into a game usually played on a 6'x4' table.
If it wants to be a smaller scale game using detailed squad vs squad mechanics and individual trooper upgrades, it should be dropping Titans and Aircraft altogether. If it wants to be a larger game with lots of vehicles, it should be dropping a lot of the infantry customisability and streamlining the vehicle rules . If it wants to be massive scale, infantry units should be based on large bases and model individuality removed to speed up the game.
40k is a massive hodgepodge of different games. it has no clue what it wants to be. Some people say that's what 40k is, which is fine, but it doesn't make it a good game.
What you want with a shift in scale like this is what Wyrd appear to be doing with The Other Side. Instead of just taking Malifaux, a character driven Mordheim style skirmish game and just making rules for larger and larger games, The Other Side will shift to a different model range, possibly a different model scale, and rules that don't work with Malifaux, a standalone game. Each game will do what it does best.
Talys wrote:I think the perfect system would be two games, that share the same models so that players can grow from ne to the other.
Can it really be so impossible to have a game that works at a lower model count and then has some simple changes that come into play at a certain points level to make larger games playable in the same time frame? Especially if the bar for success is as low as the current 40k?
In my opinion, the short answer is that I can't imagine a game that would be a great game on both ends of the scale.
Spoiler:
There are a few different issues. The most important, in my opinion, is that an well-written game for 30 models on a small table, for 100 models of infantry on a large tables, or for 100 models that range from infantry to building-sized just won't be the same game. The mechanics are just different: in games with more models, you typically want mechanics like keeping squads and units together, whereas in games with few models, individuality is core. What a sergeant does in a small game matters; a sergeant is just more cannon fodder in a big game. In games the size of WMH, it's appropriate to have an in-game avatar (the Warcaster), but this makes less sense if the warcaster will never see 80% of the game board.
Secondly, in 40k, you can just choose to play 500-750 point games on 4x4 tables, or Kill Team (250 points) with severe model restrictions. A practical problem is that if you bring your backpack of models and want such a thing, unless you've prearranged it, in all likelihood you're wasting your time. In other words, I think that if they dropped Kill Team rules into the core 40k book, it would be largely ignored as the de facto game will be assumed to be the 1850 or 2000 point game. There is a certain psychology amongst many players to aspire to the "big boy" game, even though the smaller game has many advantages like being quicker and costing less money.
And finally, in any restrictive game, you have to exclude like, half or more of GW's 40k collection, with a lot of it being the newer stuff.
I think a second, minihammer 40k that focuses on a small infantry models, with very few small vehicles, little stompies and minor heroes but with significantly different rules to 40k is the key to making a small game fun and also keep costs reasonable.
I've only observed bolt action -- never paid much attention to it, because it's historical, and I don't have any interest in historical -- but bolt action doesn't have all the things that make modern 40k what it is, that the people who don't like it dislike so strongly -- deathstars that can't really be killed (or even hit), mages that can reappear anywhere on the board, super elites that can erase several squads every round, building-sized creatures that can crush infantryman under their heels, floating buildings with gigantic guns that can be repositioned, troops that get back up after you kill them, and so on.
You could remove all those things for a smaller, simplified second game -- but that game would not be modern-day Warhammer 40k, and would be missing a huge part of the current catalog, and/or have dramatically different rules for some of the catalog. Some of the models you couldn't write into a toned down game, because the premise of 40k is that there are deific heroes; it would be really sucky if a grot had any chance of killing the thousand-year-old Commander Dante, right?
The second game would surely have appeal to people who wanted to play -- for lack of a better description -- futuristic bolt action. Maybe a cadre of more "serious gamers", and surely, it would be a better suited for competitive play. But that game would have much less appeal to the people who like current day 40k with its psykers, titans, drop pods, and all that. Obviously, the latter group does exist; otherwise GW would be out of business.
It's not a reason not to have a second game, but it is a reason, I think, not to try to make them a single game. Basically, these two groups of people want different things out of a wargame (I think) so why force it?
To recap, GW's sales have been declining for about five years.
This half-year's report showed a theoretical sales increase of under 1%, an improvement, but it was changed by currency conversion into a practical sales decrease. Also, this ignores inflation. It's no good to have a small theoretical increase that is a practical reduction. You have to increase sales at least as fast as inflation or you are going backwards. GW has been profitable for some years, but profits come from sales. If sales continue to go backwards, the profits will eventually wither too.
Let's remember that 40K is a setting not a game. In 5th edition you could play 40K at several levels. The smallest was Kill Team, then there was standard 40K playable at 500 to 2,000 points, roughly speaking. Then for people who wanted really big games, with really big models (Baneblade, etc) there was Apocalypse.
All these used essentially the same rules, arguably not very successfully, but the key point is they all used the same models. To bang on about it, GW's big mistake was to force the unwanted Apoc rules into core 40K and double the price of the game. This meant whatever version of 40K you wanted to play, you had to double your spend on a set of rules that tried to force you to play Apoc and buy big models. It's hardly a surprise that a lot of people gave it up.
There's no reason why GW could not write a detailed true skirmish game, a mass skirmish game like 40K in 4th/5th edition, and a streamlined mass battle game like Apocalypse. I would also add a very streamlined skirmish/mass skirmish game available free to tempt beginners.
All would be played with the same models. Players at all levels would be happy, unless the rulebooks were outrageously expensive. Once GW get people playing again, they have the chance to sell them more model kits.
I would add, though, that Kill Team is still very much a thing. The rules are current, and I've met and played with quite a few people & groups into it. Why it's not in BRB -- or a free download --is beyond me.
GW has been about selling more stuff since it's inception, it's almost redundent to even say it!
That said having more models on the board can hardly be put down to evil corporate scheming. Players can and do want more rules they facilitate this (and bigger models too).
I often find the criticism of GW for game size perplexing when I've always found 40k to be most enjoyable at 1000 to 1500 points on a normal table. More than that it becomes increasingly about physical space and time constraints outside of the game and players willing to constrain the units they want or size they think everyone plays.
GW's efforts to increase by designing rules that encourage the use of more and bigger models have resulted in lower sales year on year for four or five years.
In my view this is because people who wanted to play smaller games have found the GW rules increasingly too expensive and inadequate for their needs.
That is why I think GW can do better by presenting games at several levels of involvement.
PsychoticStorm wrote: At what cost? at the cost of their already existing player base? at the cost of their core game? at the cost of their company's reputation? and for what gains? the unknown but definitely minor part of the 40k player-base that cares for mass mega models games? the ones who have staid at GW for the fluff and the aesthetic, despite the horrible balance and rules, the overtly expensive kits some of them been the same models for 15 years? the ones who probably do not care for a balanced game with great rules writing?
Why would they endanger their company for this crowd? sorry that core is not big and is too much attached to GW for a company to even care about them.
I disagree. Whether for better or worse, GW continually goes out of their way to please the type of hobbyist that views the game and hobby as their aspirational armies positively do. When you open up a White Dwarf or Visions, you see cinematic battles of seas of models, with huge models towering over little ones posed for a climactic clash of the titans. When you go to their YouTube channel, you see 100 modelling videos and 1 about gaming. When you read a batrep, its about one almost deity battling one actual deity. There are stories about the 10th company or about Garro. You'll learn that there the Sanguinary Guard number 30.
What you haven't seen in years is an actual game of 40k that resembles a game or 40k, or tips on how to build an effective army.
Maybe GW doesn't need to do anything to keep this captive audience, but they certainly do -- the group of people who model and collect a lot and play relatively little, and who are heavily invested in the lore and aesthetic of 40k... and who can afford the current ecosystem .... aren't feeling left out. Its the people who want a more competitive, pickup or tournament game that feels left out. Or the people that want a smaller game that doesn't take as much time or money to get started.
Who cares, I was talking about PP and why they should not go after the tiny group of big spenders GW caters, do I need to write PP in a post replying you why PP should not go after GW mass battles audience to understand I am talking about PP? GW has set themselves in the corner they are and for PP to put the extra effort to do what GW did and corner themselves in that corner and fight for GW for just that corner? no it makes no sense for PP to do so.
Going mass battles changes everything the casters and jacks will not be the focus the units will be, the rules will have to be simplified, the cost per model will have to drop significantly and the game will have to compete with the normal WH/H which is the main income of the company and if not enouph players adapt to it it will vastly hurt the company, with all these factored in why not go 15mm which is [b]the scale for mass battle games, if one wants to have mass battle games?
PsychoticStorm wrote: Now 40k was released at the end of the 80's (88 IIRC) and at late 80's 30 marines were quite the norm but 50? you might mean the end of 90's which again was not that norm, maybe in "mega games" of 2500pts yes but not on the usual 1500pts game if nothign else the WD codex marine at the end of 2nd that allowed half squads helped some squads than never saw the battlefield to be fielded, as soon as 3rd got in 50 marines was the norm along with vehicles.
Since RTB-01 came with 30 space marines and the old Guard and Ork boxes came with similar numbers, most people had at least 3 squads of 10. My very first complete 40k army had 3 tactical squads, 1 assault squad, and a number of personalities, including medic, captain, etc. And that was no vehicles.
Those haven't really changed (the number of small models). It's the extra special models added on that has. So, dreadnoughts, centurions, razorback, land raiders, drop pods, imperial knights, forge world knights, stormtalons, and forgeword flyers gradually added to the game, in addition to elite 28mm models. The philosophical question becomes, at some point, do you just stop? If you do, the veterans have nothing to add to their army other than replacing old models with nicer new ones, and may get bored and move on. Another army, you say? Over 30 years, they would have already bought into all the factions that appealed to them.
I think the perfect system would be two games, that share the same models so that players can grow from ne to the other.
Yes I had 3 of the big boxes and a few of the 10 marine ones, this does not stop the fact that after you rolled the D100s for equipment and factored in the characters 30 marines and a few characters and a vehicle or two was what one fielded, I remind you that when BTB01 was introduced it was done with much horn-blowing on how plastic would lower the prices, giving so many marines in the box was a statement.
I often find the criticism of GW for game size perplexing when I've always found 40k to be most enjoyable at 1000 to 1500 points on a normal table. More than that it becomes increasingly about physical space and time constraints outside of the game and players willing to constrain the units they want or size they think everyone plays.
Definitely, even on a 6x4 once you go above about 1500 points you really run out of room to do stuff. Most of the time everythings in range of everything and tanks don't really have anywhere to go.
The best games I've had have been 1500pt games on 8x12 tables.
I agree about 1000 points on a 4x6 table. That was my favorite game size as well. While I now use my 40k collection with other rules, I tend to still put that number of figures down.
I think it's a great size for getting new people into the game and for selling existing players on the idea of a new army (or their fourth or fifth new army).
Maybe GW should look at how Kings of War and Darklands are doing that seems to work.
Is it working for Mantic, though?
Mantic does seem to be on the up and up, though as a private company we can not confirm. What we do know is GW is shrinking rapidly so Mantic would have to be shrinking even faster for them to be doing worse.
Kilkrazy wrote:
There's no reason why GW could not write a detailed true skirmish game, a mass skirmish game like 40K in 4th/5th edition, and a streamlined mass battle game like Apocalypse.
I know it's always said whenever the problem with Apocalypse crops up, but here goes, one more time: it's arguable how streamlined Apoc really is. And GW already had that streamlined mass battle game that was, historically, quite popular. You know the one.
All would be played with the same models.
I think that would be something of a mistake, going from mid-sized to large games. Sure, it'd be an advantage to use models you already own, but just for starters, you wouldn't be able to do that with your mid-sized collection. You'd need to buy much more. And at GW prices, you might be able to buy a whole, viable 6-10mm force for as much or less than what you'd need to boost your existing 28mm army.
Then there's what Notprop, Herzlos and Frozenwastes have just said (and what I've seen and heard) and what that implies: 28mm is not an optimum size for mass battles, not on a standard or even a slightly larger table, and despite what years of WFB/40K bloat and institutionalisation might claim. I could repost Peter 'Baccus' Berry's odes to 6mm, if anyone skimmed past them. As it is: normally no room for movement, no room for manoeuvre, all but no room to play. As I've heard even afficionados of Apoc say, it's all about cramming your collection on the table and making pew-pew noises as things get blown away and whittled down.
And it still takes far more time to play than Epic:A.
Lastly, bit of a vague thought, but over on the fantasy side of things I've seen people horrified at the thought of unit basing and unit removal in KoW (or any other mass block battle game) because it somehow negates all the painstaking detail and painting on their 28mm characters. (As if it never applied in WFB) Doesn't seem to ruffle Apoc players too much, from what little I've seen; but I wonder how much it ruffled 40K players and made them avoid Apoc in the first place? Especially as a now-'compulsory' part of 40K?
Maybe GW should look at how Kings of War and Darklands are doing that seems to work.
Is it working for Mantic, though?
Locally, yes.
But, they also had somebody in the local area that was interested in the rules, and so was in position to boost it when Warhammer 8 was... pretty damned bad. (It was the first iteration of the game where I saw people buy their army book, read it, and quit the game.)
When players tried Kings of War, the game sold itself - pretty much by being the opposite of Warhammer - simple rules, few exceptions, the main army lists in the main book, and an attempt at balance. And games that could be finished in an evening, with no rules arguments.
Mantic was in position to intercept when GW fumbled.
Which, I will admit, is not quite the same thing as growing the market - they took a big share when the then market leader failed - which does not count the folks that stuck with Warhammer 7th edition or previous.
AoS was just a continuation of the fumble that began in 7th - as GW carefully buttered the ball, to make sure that it would squirt from their fingers like a watermelon seed.
It is not so much that Kings of War is succeeding as that GW is failing.
The Auld Grump - and I love Kings of War... and have multiple armies.
jonolikespie wrote:
Mantic does seem to be on the up and up, though as a private company we can not confirm.
They give away free rules for GW minis and keep sticking up kickstarters, anyway. Rumours flit around that they're stuck in that way of doing things and just one or two bad KSs could nobble them. I don't think it's a matter of doing 'worse' than GW, by direct comparison of sales or revenue or whatever (Neither it nor any other wargaming company can come close, anyway) but of perhaps doing things in their own, special, unsustainable way.
But, like GW, it's uncertain if that alleged unsustainability will bite them in the behind anytime soon. They seem to have their own version of a captive audience.
I know you do. And I don't include folk who try KoW and prefer it to WFB/AoS, in 'a captive audience'. I just debate that the immediate gamer advantage of free rules, lacklustre miniature design*, and throwing money at concept art and unwritten rules, is helping Mantic grow as quickly as it might, or helping it in the long term. To bring it somewhat back on topic, whatever GW is doing wrong, I don't know if it'd help to switch to whatever Mantic is doing.
*There's 'subjective', and then there's 'just not trying'.
On the subject of one rule set to cover skirmish game up to battle game.
If the game mechanics and resolution methods are written specifically for a 40k game.(And not a WHFB mutation!)
You can cover a detailed skirmish game with rules focusing on detailed MODEL interaction.
And using the SAME BASIC RULE SET cover a battle game with rules focusing on detailed UNIT interaction.
Eg just shift the level of interaction up by one.
IMO the real issue with 40k game play is they removed the tactical depth from the game play.So each unit has a limited in game function.
This makes the 'super special snowflake units; with 'super special snowflake rules' more appealing in light of the point and click type game play.
If the game play had more tactical depth, each unit could shine in different ways, and allow combined arms type approach to make the army building more varied and interesting.
This would mean ALL units are equally viable , (depending on play style preference.)And players dont feel like they have to pay a 'troops tax' to get 'the special snowflake units' on the table.
I am not saying ban the big kits.But make them an optional extra in a separate Apoc type rule set, as many have mentioned already.
Who cares, I was talking about PP and why they should not go after the tiny group of big spenders GW caters, do I need to write PP in a post replying you why PP should not go after GW mass battles audience to understand I am talking about PP? GW has set themselves in the corner they are and for PP to put the extra effort to do what GW did and corner themselves in that corner and fight for GW for just that corner? no it makes no sense for PP to do so.
Going mass battles changes everything the casters and jacks will not be the focus the units will be, the rules will have to be simplified, the cost per model will have to drop significantly and the game will have to compete with the normal WH/H which is the main income of the company and if not enouph players adapt to it it will vastly hurt the company, with all these factored in why not go 15mm which is [b]the scale for mass battle games, if one wants to have mass battle games?
Your assertion was that GW doesn't do anything for, well, really, anyone, so I simply expressed the groups that GW caters to. Now, you may think that the group that GW caters to is tiny, but you have no proof of this. People spending disproportionate time painting, modelling, and collecting, while only occasionally playing wargames (or not playing at all) may seem like a tiny group, but how do you measure how big that group is? They're might not be the ones gaming in local clubs, or they might even order online. If their primary interest doesn't require other humans, or at least with strangers, the chances of socializing with them is going to be less. Of the 6 people in our gaming group, I'm the only one who's social at FLGS at all; the rest just either internet order or walk in, buy their stuff, and leave, so even if they were customers at the same store you shopped at, you'd never know about these guys that each spend thousands of dollars on gaming every year.
At the end of the day, of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on GW yearly, I suspect a good chunk of that is spent by people who have priorities more in alignment with GW's vision than not. There are lots of real people with armies like this:
Spoiler:
The reason I brought up Warmachine mass battle is because in my opinion, Privateer Press has already taken the low hanging fruit of 40k and WHFB gamers. If we can agree that the size of the playerbase isn't rapidly expanding, the easiest way to grow your company is to steal more 40k players, because that's where the largest player pool remains. I mean, you either target 40k players or X-Wing players, or try to make new ones. The rest of the market is so small that it's not worth chasing, right? So, that means, going after a mass battle game.
Of course, PP doesn't have to do this. It's just something they could do, and I think at the right price, Warmachine models would appeal to hobbyists into 40k. Presently, for the people who do remain with GW that either like mass battle games or are really into the collectible/modelling aspects, there is really no difference in cost between PP and 40k models; I hypothesize that if there were a large difference in cost, at least some of the pool would be tempted to switch, though the net difference might not mean more profit for Privateer Press, at least in the short term.
In any case, this scenario probably won't happen. Cheaper models from PP for a mass battle game is probably as much a pipe dream as a $200 tournament-friendly skirmisher from GW.
At the end of the day, of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on GW yearly, I suspect a good chunk of that is spent by people who have priorities more in alignment with GW's vision than not.
I'll go one further and say that if they can figure out where to open their stores and how to find and train the right people and figure out how to optimally price and sell their products, GW can actually return to growth using their current vision.
As it currently stands I'm not sure the product they are currently asking their store managers to sell works in all the places they are trying to sell it. And it's sad to see them blaming all their problems on these store level managers who have no say about anything. It's not their fault, it's GW's upper management that put them on this path of declining revenue & profits.
@frozenwastes - I agree. The odd store not working out can be the fault of an individual store manager, but if it's systemic and continued revenue decline, that's up to management to fix. Even if all store managers are deficient, somehow (I don't believe this for a minute), that's STILL management's problem to fix.
I don't think GW has falling sales because Warmachine or X-Wing is attracting people away. I think people are being driven away by high prices and unpalatable rules in 40K.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Well Privateer Press and to some extend are doing what GW are doing slowly pricing themselves out of the equation.
PP's game is also getting larger. with more miniatures. So my interest in it is waning.
Yes to this! PP badly needs a new edition to reign in the bloat in WM/H system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: I would add, though, that Kill Team is still very much a thing. The rules are current, and I've met and played with quite a few people & groups into it. Why it's not in BRB -- or a free download --is beyond me.
The biggest problem with Kill Team is that it requires a codex to play. This automatically makes it a $100 investment (one squad box + codex at minimum, and quite expensive, if you want to mix model types) to play what is an extremely barebones "game".
While 40k was more skirmishy and had smaller armies in the past, even in my oldest memories of the game (late 80s), 50+ marines or 80+ imperial guard on a table was pretty normal, and the table sizes were pretty big. While the model count has certainly gone up some, what's really changed seems to be the physical size of the models, and the total cost of the armies. It used to troops were the core of the army, and now, they're often a tax.
A Guardsman was 10 points a model and a Marine was 30 in 2nd ed; the standard game size was also 1500 points, at least it was in Scotland.
Compare that to 6 point Guardsmen, 15 point Marines and 2K (if not more) standard points values. Modern 40k has a lot more figures than it did when it was a skirmish game. IIRC my 2nd ed 1500 IG infantry army had around 70-80 models, I was (briefly) working on its spiritual successor under the last edition of 40k and I had about 170 infantrymen.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think GW has falling sales because Warmachine or X-Wing is attracting people away. I think people are being driven away by high prices and unpalatable rules in 40K.
Yes to this. Even guys who are coming back to GW don't bother because they can build a decent list in a competing system with competent rules. The cost to re-enter the GW hobby for someone who has left is, without buying any models is: $85 for current rulebook and $50-58 for the codex. (Total: $140ish.)
$140 is in the range of the all-in-one army deals that PP has.
X-Wing is $40 for the starter, additional small ships are $15 and big ones are $30. You could have the starter, one big ship and 4 more little ones, easily playing at normal competition size.
$140 also goes pretty far in Infinity. You can get some pretty competent 300 point lists for around that dollar amount. I priced a Nomads list (Starter Box, Zoe and Pi-Well, Zonds Remotes, Intruder HMG, Interventors) and it comes out to $150.
The news that GW is loosing money because of their retail stores don't surprise me. If you have a friendly local game store that carries their products; why would you go to their store instead? The only time I have visited my local shop is when it first opened just to get the special release items they had there. Plus I live just a few hours away from the Memphis battle bunker and never stepped foot in the place. But the complete opposite of that is x-wing I've seen it in retail stores, comic shops, even on Amazon. If you limit where you sell your products, you limit your market.
You can have a decent tactical game of X-Wing with two starter sets. It includes all the rules and components, and there is no assembly and painting needed. It sets up and plays quickly and needs no terrain. The add-on sets are what I call "pocket money price", which means even a schoolboy can add one or two more fighters to his fleet every month.
When you look at the price levels, a lapsed 40K player like me can think of buying the rules and two codexes for my armies, which will cost £110 and I still won't have the expensive models necessary to compete, or I can spend that money on a decent set up for X Wing. Which is exactly what I have done.
OTOH if you are a newb at wargames, you can look at the prices and think you won't even bother with buying the starter for 40K because you can get two starters and a couple of expansions for X-Wing for the same money.
At the end of the day, of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on GW yearly, I suspect a good chunk of that is spent by people who have priorities more in alignment with GW's vision than not.
I'll go one further and say that if they can figure out where to open their stores and how to find and train the right people and figure out how to optimally price and sell their products, GW can actually return to growth using their current vision.
As it currently stands I'm not sure the product they are currently asking their store managers to sell works in all the places they are trying to sell it. And it's sad to see them blaming all their problems on these store level managers who have no say about anything. It's not their fault, it's GW's upper management that put them on this path of declining revenue & profits.
The issue of finding the right people to work at the stores and keeping them isn't made any easier by some of their policies. I've been personal friends with 2 of the 3 GW managers here over since this store opened. The first one left for a better job making significantly more money. His replacement was fired within 90 days for various reasons. The 3rd, my other friend, still works there. The first issue is the pay. The company has been on a salary freeze since the disastrous report of 2014 that tanked their share price. The pay varies by store but in this market it's $30-33k. Not minimum wage but not enough to support anyone but yourself, even in the most affordable large city in the US (Birmingham). The second issue is the sales targets. Every store has the same target number and managers get bonuses based on how they perform compared to this number. The reader's digest version is that a manager of a large store in a huge market can basically open the doors, lay his head on his desk, just wake up to ring people out and get a large bonus every year for exceeding his targets. For example, the stores in LA or Vegas where somebody like Robin Williams will walk in and drop $10-20k without batting an eye. Now the problem comes when you give those same sales targets to managers in the deep south where the concentration of wargamers is much lower, income is lower, etc. This manager could open the store early and stay late, run tons of events to establish a community, get local high schools to start 40k clubs, etc and still fall short of his sales targets. This manager will be fired in 90 days for not making the sales while the guy sleeping on his desk is rewarded with bonuses and raises. Recently I have seen them using last year's sales on that particular day as the goal but I haven't heard if that's what their bonus is based on now.
I think they would be much better off abandoning their one man stores and just opening the large stores in bigger markets. The problem is this would require them to basically restructure everything and also admit that the main thing they've been touting as their savior to skeptical shareholders is actually the single biggest roadblock to GW becoming more profitable. When the stores cost more to run than they make in profit, what purpose do they serve? How many years is GW going to lose money running 1 man stores before they change tactics? There are 5 FLGS within a 30 minute drive from me that are open 7 days a week, most of them open before GW and close after GW on the days GW is open. GW needs to allow 3rd party retailers to sell more of their products and give them more incentive to stock their products. However, they've waited so long that even if they did change tactics, it might be too little, too late. I doubt that GW can compete with the other games that have really picked up steam lately. Two stores locally have about the same amount of shelf space for GW and PP. However, any time you go in, you will see WMH, X wing and hero clix being played but no 40k. As much as GW publicly ignores any and all possible competitors, behind closed doors somebody in upper management has to be aware of the market share they're losing.
TLDR : There isn't a simple solution for GW to turn this around right now. Saying "We just need to find and retain the right people for our one man stores to work" is much easier than the actual process of finding said people. It also shows me that GW is woefully inept at fixing the core issues with their products. You could have the best salesmen in the world, if the vast majority of your customer base doesn't want the product, the stores are still going to fail. The release of AoS really opened my eyes to how clueless GW is about the desires of the customers that are thinking about leaving, have already left or have slowed their purchasing.
jonolikespie wrote:
Mantic does seem to be on the up and up, though as a private company we can not confirm.
They give away free rules for GW minis and keep sticking up kickstarters, anyway. Rumours flit around that they're stuck in that way of doing things and just one or two bad KSs could nobble them. I don't think it's a matter of doing 'worse' than GW, by direct comparison of sales or revenue or whatever (Neither it nor any other wargaming company can come close, anyway) but of perhaps doing things in their own, special, unsustainable way.
But, like GW, it's uncertain if that alleged unsustainability will bite them in the behind anytime soon. They seem to have their own version of a captive audience.
I know you do. And I don't include folk who try KoW and prefer it to WFB/AoS, in 'a captive audience'. I just debate that the immediate gamer advantage of free rules, lacklustre miniature design*, and throwing money at concept art and unwritten rules, is helping Mantic grow as quickly as it might, or helping it in the long term. To bring it somewhat back on topic, whatever GW is doing wrong, I don't know if it'd help to switch to whatever Mantic is doing.
*There's 'subjective', and then there's 'just not trying'.
Considering that there are Mantic miniatures lines that I like better than their GW counterparts... it is subjective. There are also plenty that I like 'well enough' - where the price difference tilts the playing field in favor of Mantic.
Undead - skeletons that look like they would at least fit inside of a human body, and some freaking awesome looking ghouls and zombies. Add one of the best liche figures in metal, and call me happy.
Ogres - I like the oldGW Ogres more than the Mantic Ogres - and like the Mantic Ogres a lot more than the current GW Ogres.
Dwarfs - I like the infantry about the same between Mantic and GW - but like the Mantic war machines more. (Just me, or are the Mantic dwarfs pushing 19th Century cannon?) The price difference tips the scales in Mantic's favor. Then add in character models from other companies. And I really like the Brock riders.
I am really not liking the new line of GW Dwarfs - tilting the scales all the way.
Orcs - again, I like the Mantic figures about the same as the GW ones. Price makes the difference.
Humans... here GW wins, or at least comes in second to a company that is not Mantic. (The Perry Miniatures are better than either.) And the Basilean Men at Arms are just. Plain. Awful.
Abyssals/ Chaos Daemons... Both, please. I have no problem with fielding a mix of both.
Elves... are a special case - I prefer GW figures as Elves, but like the Mantic Elves as The Shining Host.
Dragons - GW... but I will take Reaper Bones over either.
Trolls... I like trolls, and will happily use models from all over the place. The more the merrier.
Goblins... I actually prefer a mix - and like the mix more than any single company on its own. (Including Reaper Bones Pathfinder Goblins.)
So, yeah - I am going to say 'subjective'. You don't like Mantic figures, and you are allowed not to like them.
But enough of them are good for me to roll my eyes when somebody tries to insist that Mantic does not make good miniatures.
Our area doesn't have a one-man GW store, and I don't really visit official GW stores out of town unless it's a really big one in an major city, so I'm just curious -- is a 1-man store exactly one employee, period, or is it 1 employee at a time, or is it 1 employee most of the time?
As to Mantic, I'm glad they exist. Choice and competition are good. I don't know if they'll break out of being a relatively small company into one with deeper pockets and bigger profits, and with games with deeper portfolios -- or if they want any of this.
Ignoring how great things were in 1990, I'm not sure if the path to big money today is big games with expensive models, small games with expensive models, big games with cheap models, or small games with cheap models. I also don't know for a fact whether the mostly-gamer or mostly-collector niche generates more money both for manufacturers and local stores.
I think there us a compelling argument for every one of those categories, and that some (though not all) are mutually exclusive within a collection of models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote: I thought futuristic Bolt Action was called Gates of Antares?
I'm unfamiliar with the rules, and I have never seen the models in a store or in person -- my only exposure, really, is the News section on Dakka, but it has always seemed to me that Antares models aren't really any cheaper than GW models of a similar size, broadly speaking. Plus, almost all the models are infantry sized, with only a tiny number that are Dreadnought-sized or larger. Not like I'm any expert on it, but it felt like Bolt Action seems to have a lot more vehicles in the catalog. I'll freely admit that I could be wrong.
I suppose that if you really want to play future infantry with a smattering of future cavalry and slightly bigger robots, Antares might be your game. Without more a lot more vehicles, though, I don't think Antares would be able to steal a whole lot of 40k players away.
As much as I like to reminisce about Rogue Trader and RTB-01, and although I might occasionally play a game that looks/feels like a retro 40k game, I wouldn't want to invest (time) in whole new armies that were restricted to the types of units we had 25 years ago in 40k.
As far as I can tell, the shops I visit in the UK are mostly one man and have only one man. That's why they are closed a lot of the time.
My view is that GW grew into a big money operation by publishing and selling a wide variety of games at relatively non-excessive prices, and it's since they stopped doing this that things have begun to go wrong.
In terms of profits, they have done well out of efficiency savings but they have been coasting on momentum and heritage that is bleeding awa, so sales have declined badly..
Your assertion was that GW doesn't do anything for, well, really, anyone, so I simply expressed the groups that GW caters to. Now, you may think that the group that GW caters to is tiny, but you have no proof of this. People spending disproportionate time painting, modelling, and collecting, while only occasionally playing wargames (or not playing at all) may seem like a tiny group, but how do you measure how big that group is? They're might not be the ones gaming in local clubs, or they might even order online. If their primary interest doesn't require other humans, or at least with strangers, the chances of socializing with them is going to be less. Of the 6 people in our gaming group, I'm the only one who's social at FLGS at all; the rest just either internet order or walk in, buy their stuff, and leave, so even if they were customers at the same store you shopped at, you'd never know about these guys that each spend thousands of dollars on gaming every year.
At the end of the day, of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on GW yearly, I suspect a good chunk of that is spent by people who have priorities more in alignment with GW's vision than not. There are lots of real people with armies like this:
I did not assert this, what I said is it was pointless for PP while they have a good game that sells them a lot to do what GW does and shoot themselves at the foot.
Somehow you taken all the times I said this that I was talking for GW and not PP, I really do not know how or why.
And yes I think the core group who plays 40k as GW envisions it and likes it is tiny, big spenders but tiny, most are into it because they are either invested to much to go or because they stick to the biggest mass of players.
In any case in all my replies what I said is it would be foolish for PP to go after the GW mass battles crowd, it will alienate their current customers, it is not that big to make the company sustainable after alienating their customers and it is too much entrenched into 40k fluff and GW to leave anyway, so they are better doing what they do now and explore new IP to grow.
Kilkrazy wrote:As far as I can tell, the shops I visit in the UK are mostly one man and have only one man. That's why they are closed a lot of the time.
Okay, well, that is just crazy. Sometimes people get sick, need a break, get into a car accident, have a leak in the kitchen...
PsychoticStorm wrote:Somehow you taken all the times I said this that I was talking for GW and not PP, I really do not know how or why.
Sorry My bad, then. I'm just misread.
Silent Puffin? wrote:Conversely I will only invest any time and effort into a game which had nothing but those very same unit types, in 28mm at least.
There is a fair bit of 30/40k being played at my club at the moment and I find all those huge models blocking up the board to look utterly ridiculous.
Yep, and I think there is a market for the games with less of the huge models, or even less models period, but more than the WMH-sized games. Hence, Antares might be a good fit (I really have no idea, since I haven't read the rules and I've never seen anyone play it), despite the models not really being much cheaper than GW's. Maybe Warpath will be something for you too, but it's really impossible to say about a game that doesn't yet exist
With 40k, obviously, it's possible to play without any (or many) huge models, and without the cheap tricks that probably would annoy you (like invisible deathstars or unkillable buffed land raiders). The problem is always in the matchmaking process -- finding a game with someone who wants to play Retro 40k with you and who has brought the appropriate models, because people just assume that the game they'll find is one that is like the ones you describe that you can't stand. We play quite a lot of games where the scenarios don't have many of the huge models, or even a lot of crappy, generally useless models, but it has to be agreed on beforehand if for no other reason than people have to bring the appropriate models.
The issue of finding the right people to work at the stores and keeping them isn't made any easier by some of their policies. I've been personal friends with 2 of the 3 GW managers here over since this store opened. The first one left for a better job making significantly more money. His replacement was fired within 90 days for various reasons. The 3rd, my other friend, still works there. The first issue is the pay. The company has been on a salary freeze since the disastrous report of 2014 that tanked their share price. The pay varies by store but in this market it's $30-33k. Not minimum wage but not enough to support anyone but yourself, even in the most affordable large city in the US (Birmingham).
Here, the people who work in a cell phone kiosk in the mall only have to be moderately successful to make enough sales for their commissions to outstrip what a GW manager earns. A friend of mine who runs a bunch of them told me his average employee makes $40,000 a year. Apparently commission sales people in high end clothing stores can earn even more than that. And that's not even considering the amount of money that is in business to business sales, real estate, car sales and so on. If someone is looking to make sales their career, GW is probably the worst employer to possibly choose.
I think they would be much better off abandoning their one man stores and just opening the large stores in bigger markets. The problem is this would require them to basically restructure everything and also admit that the main thing they've been touting as their savior to skeptical shareholders is actually the single biggest roadblock to GW becoming more profitable.
Yep. And if you look at the revenue declines that map with their rate of shifting stores to single employee operations you'll see that rather than save them, it's contributed massively to the problem. They gave up so much revenue per location by cutting their open hours back so much. And it looks like they honestly believe the answer is "more of the same."
TLDR : There isn't a simple solution for GW to turn this around right now. Saying "We just need to find and retain the right people for our one man stores to work" is much easier than the actual process of finding said people. It also shows me that GW is woefully inept at fixing the core issues with their products. You could have the best salesmen in the world, if the vast majority of your customer base doesn't want the product, the stores are still going to fail. The release of AoS really opened my eyes to how clueless GW is about the desires of the customers that are thinking about leaving, have already left or have slowed their purchasing.
Well said.
The real interesting thing will be what sort of 40k launch happens this year. Given the two years between the last edition change, could we see a 40k relaunch in 2016? And what will it do to sales if it is an AoSification of 40k? If Age of the Emperor comes out and 40k is done?
Kilkrazy wrote: You can have a decent tactical game of X-Wing with two starter sets. It includes all the rules and components, and there is no assembly and painting needed. It sets up and plays quickly and needs no terrain. The add-on sets are what I call "pocket money price", which means even a schoolboy can add one or two more fighters to his fleet every month.
When you look at the price levels, a lapsed 40K player like me can think of buying the rules and two codexes for my armies, which will cost £110 and I still won't have the expensive models necessary to compete, or I can spend that money on a decent set up for X Wing. Which is exactly what I have done.
OTOH if you are a newb at wargames, you can look at the prices and think you won't even bother with buying the starter for 40K because you can get two starters and a couple of expansions for X-Wing for the same money.
Even disregarding X-Wing, pretty much any other game on the market right now has a better entry price. Dark Vengeance is $165au. While there's a decent amount of models in there, and they are very nice, they're not even close to giving you what you need to properly, or even legally, field a Dark Angels and a Chaos Marine list. On top of that you'll need a pair of codexes ($150au), another Tactical Squad ($65au) and a Chaos Marine squad ($62au). Those aren't remotely balanced armies, but they're legal and you have your codexes. $422au entry cost. That's not counting hobby supplies for a new player.
Any other game on the market right now with a 2 player starter gives me two reasonably balanced forces that play well out of the box, with cheap paths to expanding to standard sized games, for less than half that. Some of them I can expand both sides to standard level and beyond and not reach that entry price. X Wing edges them all out by being pre painted and pre built, but there's so many options.
And that doesn't even include big box miniature heavy board games. Zombicide and Imperial Assault have to be eating into the younger demographics as well.
I can attest to that. Two of the guys at my club each own ALL of the Imperial Assault and original Zombicide sets plus the expansions. One of them also has the Zombicide Black Plague set (shipped early as a Xmas present for kick starter backers) and he's awaiting the expansions too.
Other popular games include x wing, every variety of munchkin , magic the gathering plus the MTG board games, and a who!e range of other board games.
I'm the only dedicated wargamer here. Buts that OK, Im running dungeons and dragons with my wargaming figures (lotr and hasslefree).
There is a conspicuous absence of Games workshop. But almost everybody has old GW collections gathering dust.
Here, the people who work in a cell phone kiosk in the mall only have to be moderately successful to make enough sales for their commissions to outstrip what a GW manager earns. A friend of mine who runs a bunch of them told me his average employee makes $40,000 a year. Apparently commission sales people in high end clothing stores can earn even more than that. And that's not even considering the amount of money that is in business to business sales, real estate, car sales and so on. If someone is looking to make sales their career, GW is probably the worst employer to possibly choose.
Cell phone kiosks, however, can be ridiculously profitable. A fellow I know sold a chain of 14 of them and made a huge profit. Cell phones cost a lot, there are many high-markup accessories, and importantly, everyone has one these days.
In my opinion, the only reason to work in a gaming store of any kind -- GW or otherwise -- is because you love hobby. Unless you're the owner of a successful store, you're not going to get rich on it, and even if you're the owner of a successful store, you probably could have opened something else and made more money.
Compare what someone will pay to paint an army of wargaming miniatures, compared to say, a commission on a motorcycle helmet or hockey goaler's helmet, or side of a car or painting... The time vs. profit for the vast majority is not great.
Talys wrote: In my opinion, the only reason to work in a gaming store of any kind -- GW or otherwise -- is because you love hobby.
And GW used to build their employee base on exactly that basis. It used to be that the guy at the local shop was a dedicated fan who was there because he loved everything about Warhammer or 40k or whatever. Now they have recruitment companies trying to find anyone who they can get to enact their sales plan.
GW itself identifies their greatest threat as a lack of good store managers. They aren't willing to pay what professional sales people expect and they have this ridiculous idea that their product is beyond reproach and that any failure must be a problem with the store manager.
They are relying on opening more and more of these single employee locations in order to grow their business but they're doing everything they can to stunt their success in the name of control.
Talys wrote: In my opinion, the only reason to work in a gaming store of any kind -- GW or otherwise -- is because you love hobby.
And GW used to build their employee base on exactly that basis. It used to be that the guy at the local shop was a dedicated fan who was there because he loved everything about Warhammer or 40k or whatever. Now they have recruitment companies trying to find anyone who they can get to enact their sales plan.
GW itself identifies their greatest threat as a lack of good store managers. They aren't willing to pay what professional sales people expect and they have this ridiculous idea that their product is beyond reproach and that any failure must be a problem with the store manager.
They are relying on opening more and more of these single employee locations in order to grow their business but they're doing everything they can to stunt their success in the name of control.
I recall once upon a time (not even 5 years ago actually) it used to be expected that to be hired as a GW employee you would have at least one army for 40k, WHFB and LotR, so that you knew all three games and could demo/explain in further detail all three.
Now I've heard of people being brought in with no hobby experience whatsoever and learning that as they go so long as they have the right 'attitude' and can sell.
Funny thing is, the shop managers I speak to are all okay guys, except for their GW fanatacism, which is mandatory for various reasons, so you can't blame them.
The fanatacism is why they work for GW. As noted above by several people, GW shop staffing is a pretty poor gig unless you really like Teh HHHobby.
These guys are actually good at their job. They can sell the game if people have any inclination to buy it.
I don't think it helps them that lots of stuff is available only through the web site, though if you order on the computer at the shop, perhaps the manager there will get the credit for the sale.
jonolikespie wrote: I recall once upon a time (not even 5 years ago actually) it used to be expected that to be hired as a GW employee you would have at least one army for 40k, WHFB and LotR, so that you knew all three games and could demo/explain in further detail all three.
I know a guy who once had to buy a Warhammer army because of a mandatory staff tournament. He had never played Fantasy up until that point.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect GW employees to be able to play and demo the games, there are only three of them anyway, but only to hire people who already know highlights the conformity culture of the company. It's also a good saving on training, of course.
Working in a GW store is by far the easiest way to kill off hobby motivation.
It used to be that all staffers were super-gamers (lured in by the 50% discount, I imagine), but most of the newer ones I've encountered or heard of have no hobby experience at all, or a vague one from long ago. My local GW re-opened after maybe a 10 year absence, and they had to borrow display mini's from another store for the window.
I'm assuming they get training, but I don't know how they can introduce people to the hobby or help them with it without spending a lot of time trying to figure out the labyrinthine systems.
Okay, well, that is just crazy. Sometimes people get sick, need a break, get into a car accident, have a leak in the kitchen...
Worse; they have to close the store (kicking out any customers) to have lunch, or visit the bathroom. Stores are closed 2 days a week and don't have long opening hours. Stores are regularly closed over holidays.
Why they don't even have casual guys for cover I don't understand. Like, would it kill them to hire someone to come in for an hour or 2 every lunch time, or for the 2 days off / evenings? Or even have a backup guy on standby for when the regular guy is off. It'd be ideal for students (and pensioners).
Okay, well, that is just crazy. Sometimes people get sick, need a break, get into a car accident, have a leak in the kitchen...
Worse; they have to close the store (kicking out any customers) to have lunch, or visit the bathroom. Stores are closed 2 days a week and don't have long opening hours. Stores are regularly closed over holidays.
The evening opening hours really gets me. Between the two FLGSs in my local area Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday are all up for late night gaming, plus Friday night magic.
That's 2 gaming nights a week at each store plus Magic night.
The local GW is only open late one night a week, and it's only till 9pm, where the others close at 10 at the earliest, maybe as late as 3am.
When I worked at GW we all had WFB and 40K armies, but we drew straws to see who had to have a painted LOTR army. (there were about 5 staff at the time.)
Currently one of the one-man stores in my area isn't open Sundays. I can't make it there after work, as they aren't open late and only being open 1 weekend day, I would think, is suicide.
(not that I go there anymore, anyways)
I would suggest that the issue is slightly complicated given certain properties might limit opening times of tenants to varying degrees.
I also seem to remember that opening days times were currently left to the discretion of the Managers (though I would imagine Saturdays would be mandatory).
Only being open 1 day per weekend and or limited late night openings suggest a realistic worklife balance policy to me given that significant others might not be seen.
Looking a the feedback fro various former managers here the feedback on GW employment doesn't generally seem to be negative so I don't think they are all that bad as an employer. Certainly most of the chaps work there that I have met seemed quite happy.
The shops I visit are usually closed on Monday and sometimes Tuesday, and open on Sundays. The normal working hours are 12 to 8 or 9, but Sunday opening in the UK is complicated by trading laws. The shops are often closed some time during the afternoon for lunch, and in some cases they don't open prompt at 12.
Where I'm at the GW store employs two people, but they can never work at the same time no matter what.
They are both very passionate about there jobs, but the one-man model has to hurt them. The shop is mostly ran by one guy, the other guy covers for him when he can't make it or has to go in for training.
The shop is open noon to seven, Wednesday through Sunday. During the holidays they were open every day, but still noon to seven, and even during heavy traffic days they could not both be on the clock at the same time.
This means that on Black Friday they didn't open until noon and as usual the manager has to take a half hour break, so everyone out of the pool.
Add to that there's no bathroom on sight and parking costs money in that area, and you have a recipe for a difficult place to game.
What pains me is even though the Main shopkeep is relatively new to Warhammer (3 years now,) he is a fantastic salesman, runs his shop well, and constantly puts in the extra mile. He doesn't close instantly if a game is going on, he shuffles around his lunch to accommodate any games or sales going on, and is just a excellent retail worker. He's done "midnight release" sales, and opened early for events. I'm scared to ask him if that's all on his own dime.
I don't think all-in-all the one man stores work. They are just hamstrung by the corporate rules, even in the best of circumstances.
Even using the labor laws of my state, you can work eight hours (not counting your off the clock break) without hitting overtime. They could easily add a second worker part-time who works only four hours a day, overlapping the lunch break and closing or opening the store. That's literally only twenty more hours a week, and with so many universities that wouldn't be a hard spot to fill.
Hell, if working a second guy 20 hours a week is too much, then just open the other two days a week, that's only 14 hours.
Or, and this might just be crazy, but hire two more people. you double your man hours, making it so the store is open from noon to eight thirty every day of the week like any other retail shop in the state!
Oh, and give the workers a real discount and a bathroom, jeesh.
And it's probably going to fail for GW in the long run, too.
I walk past the GW in Nuremberg every week or two on the way to my favourite Thai restaurant. I never go in, though it looks like a friendly place - I think I even saw people playing Dark Heresy in there once! The FLGS nearby has a better selection of GW models and also stocks about 20+ other suppliers.
pox wrote: Where I'm at the GW store employs two people, but they can never work at the same time no matter what.
This makes much more sense to me. Most countries have labour laws that prohibit 60-80 hour work weeks
Living in a relatively large urban area, I've been fortunate to never have been too far from a store with wargaming stuff. There's one store that's open to 1am five days out of the week, and 10pm and 12 am the other 2 days; and another store that will just give regulars the keys and ask them to lock up. However, if I lived in an area with more marginal service, I think I would prefer a small GW shop open 10am - 6pm, 6 days a week, over nothing at all.
Sometimes, if I'm just grabbing a paint or two or grabbing the latest White Dwarf, I don't really care about a discount, there's still inventory for popular stuff in a pinch, and it's still a place to game and socialize, and all that. Whether they can make any money at it... I suppose, not really my problem
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: The one man store model is awful for the workers.
When I first started my own business -- seems a lifetime ago -- I was a one-man store for a while. If it's something you really like doing, it's not really that much of an issue.
Looking at retail, walk into a shopping center or strip mall, and you'll see *tons* of stores with one employee, often the owner-operator or relative. It's just the nature of retail; not every business is profitable enough or busy enough to justify 2 employees, even at minimum wage.
Talys wrote: In my opinion, the only reason to work in a gaming store of any kind -- GW or otherwise -- is because you love hobby.
And GW used to build their employee base on exactly that basis. It used to be that the guy at the local shop was a dedicated fan who was there because he loved everything about Warhammer or 40k or whatever. Now they have recruitment companies trying to find anyone who they can get to enact their sales plan.
GW itself identifies their greatest threat as a lack of good store managers. They aren't willing to pay what professional sales people expect and they have this ridiculous idea that their product is beyond reproach and that any failure must be a problem with the store manager.
They are relying on opening more and more of these single employee locations in order to grow their business but they're doing everything they can to stunt their success in the name of control.
I think part of the problem is also cost of living -- in parts of the world where GW tends to succeed, the cost of living relative to both the minimum wage and average wage has been a tough grind. It used to be that someone making a slightly-above minimum wage salary, like a retail assistant manager, could actually live. Now, in many parts of the world, that's considered below the poverty level.
It's hard to attract or keep someone that will treat a store like an owner operator, when all you are willing or able to pay them is $30k - $40k (Canadian, call it $22k-$30k USD), because that same person has so many other opportunities in other fields. I'm sure it's different in every city/country, but housing in most of Canada is really expensive for people in those wage brackets. Two decades ago, this just wasn't the case; the cost of living relative to that type of salary just got you a lot further in life.
Talys wrote: Looking at retail, walk into a shopping center or strip mall, and you'll see *tons* of stores with one employee, often the owner-operator or relative. It's just the nature of retail; not every business is profitable enough or busy enough to justify 2 employees, even at minimum wage.
Most retail stores don't double as community hubs and gaming clubs.
Talys wrote: Looking at retail, walk into a shopping center or strip mall, and you'll see *tons* of stores with one employee, often the owner-operator or relative. It's just the nature of retail; not every business is profitable enough or busy enough to justify 2 employees, even at minimum wage.
Most retail stores don't double as community hubs and gaming clubs.
This. The person operating the till in Primark doesn't have to also try to give fashion advice to customers and help them put on the clothes.
In regard to the bit about hiring people who are passionate about the hobby, I have an interesting anecdote. I spoke to a former GW manager regarding the possibility of getting a job there when he left. He gave me some advice about what to write in my interest letter and how to approach interview questions. He told me to downplay my experience with the hobby and just tell them I love sales. According to him, they have gone away from hiring long time GW fans because of the wide array of negative opinions of the company and games they have most likely been exposed to. GW is afraid someone might get the job that knows about their "spots the space marine" fiasco or the chapterhouse case. The last thing they want is a red shirt accidentally saying something negative about GW. If they hire someone who doesn't know anything about the company or the hobby, they don't have to worry about that.
I applied for the job, wrote a fantastic letter, nailed both interviews (IMO) and was passed over for a middle aged fellow that had never built or painted a model, played a game or read a black library book, and whose most recent jobs included an electronics store and a used car dealership. Myself and the other long time veteran that were passed over for the GW job both acquired upper management jobs for multi million dollar companies within 1 year of being turned down to run a one man GW store. The first manager that left and coached us through the process has a high level IT job now.
Perhaps this is why they're having trouble finding and keeping the right people, they prefer used car salesmen over 15+ year veterans with 10+ years of retail management/sales experience because they've received so much negative publicity over the last 10 years.
Talys wrote: Looking at retail, walk into a shopping center or strip mall, and you'll see *tons* of stores with one employee, often the owner-operator or relative. It's just the nature of retail; not every business is profitable enough or busy enough to justify 2 employees, even at minimum wage.
Most retail stores don't double as community hubs and gaming clubs.
I would actually say most stores have 2+ staff around busy times, at least around these parts. Maybe during low periods they might drop to 1, but usually 2+. Most stores don't want one customer waiting for 10 minutes while the only staff person helps someone else or don't want to put up a "be back in X minutes" sign during lunch, toilet breaks, etc. Also just simple things like 1 person being able to run the register while another helps customers.
Even the local hobby shop (not gaming) which is a very small operation, the owner gets his wife in to help out answering the phones and running the register and whatnot. The slightly larger hobby shop down the road has 2 employees around peak times, the much larger one a bit further down the road has never had less than 3 staff when I've been in there, usually 4+.
Beyond hobby stores, I've never counted, but I'd say the majority of stores at the local shopping centre would have more than 1 staff working during peak times.
Looking at retail, walk into a shopping center or strip mall, and you'll see *tons* of stores with one employee, often the owner-operator or relative. It's just the nature of retail; not every business is profitable enough or busy enough to justify 2 employees, even at minimum wage.
Yes, but you are now comparing mom and pop shops and kiosks to a multi-million dollar international retail chain.
And by me, most of those mom and pop shops have at least two employees.
Toofast wrote:In regard to the bit about hiring people who are passionate about the hobby, I have an interesting anecdote. I spoke to a former GW manager regarding the possibility of getting a job there when he left. He gave me some advice about what to write in my interest letter and how to approach interview questions. He told me to downplay my experience with the hobby and just tell them I love sales. According to him, they have gone away from hiring long time GW fans because of the wide array of negative opinions of the company and games they have most likely been exposed to. GW is afraid someone might get the job that knows about their "spots the space marine" fiasco or the chapterhouse case. The last thing they want is a red shirt accidentally saying something negative about GW. If they hire someone who doesn't know anything about the company or the hobby, they don't have to worry about that.
I applied for the job, wrote a fantastic letter, nailed both interviews (IMO) and was passed over for a middle aged fellow that had never built or painted a model, played a game or read a black library book, and whose most recent jobs included an electronics store and a used car dealership. Myself and the other long time veteran that were passed over for the GW job both acquired upper management jobs for multi million dollar companies within 1 year of being turned down to run a one man GW store. The first manager that left and coached us through the process has a high level IT job now.
Perhaps this is why they're having trouble finding and keeping the right people, they prefer used car salesmen over 15+ year veterans with 10+ years of retail management/sales experience because they've received so much negative publicity over the last 10 years.
If true, it would be really sad that GW is passing over real fans over for essentially professional salespeople. I don't have a ton of experience with GW store employees, because almost all of my model purchases are from independents, but I've yet to meet an GW retail employee who was unenthusiastic about the product or totally unknowledgeable. At the hobby shops that I frequent, the employees that stay aren't paid very much at all, but they remain for years because they're hobbyists and want to work at a hobby shop, or they're relatives of the owner-operator. The ones that don't fall into one of these two criteria are usually pretty short-lived.
It's conceivable that they thought that you were passed over for someone that they thought would stay in the job. You sound like you might have been overqualified, from an HR perspective -- some people are great hires, but move on when a much better paying opportunity comes along, and it's HR's job to identify those.
This falls in a bit with what I was saying before -- most floor jobs at retailers with only a few employees just aren't paid enough to make a career out of it, partly because of rising costs of living.
Talys wrote: Looking at retail, walk into a shopping center or strip mall, and you'll see *tons* of stores with one employee, often the owner-operator or relative. It's just the nature of retail; not every business is profitable enough or busy enough to justify 2 employees, even at minimum wage.
Most retail stores don't double as community hubs and gaming clubs.
This. The person operating the till in Primark doesn't have to also try to give fashion advice to customers and help them put on the clothes.
Sure, but the person who is just at the til and has no other responsibilities will be paid minimum wage. At bigger stores, 5 of those people are being replaced with 1 person who is slightly more responsible plus a bunch of check-yourself-out tils with computers, barcode scanners, and digital scales. The people who have other responsibilities will make more than that, usually commensurate with the expertise required and the number of applicants who would be successful.
If you work at a lingerie shop, you need to be good at estimating bra sizes, be expert at helping men shop for their partners, and have a good rapport with your customers, and that will probably be worth something more than minimum wage, especially if once you prove yourself, because finding good replacements just isn't that easy.
Flip the coin, a video game store at a mall might require some special expertise (I know a lot about video games!), but it won't pay more than minimum wage because the stack of applicants is legion.
Anyways, in my opinion, a GW store manager should be someone who is passionate about the hobby, because someone who is can much more easily sell product and connect with the customer.
Oh, this thread is so long, I don't have time to read it all, so instead I'll just read one of your posts Talys, I'm sure your views contain no bias and will give me a balanced opinion.
Ah, everything GW is doing is great, nothing is broken! Great news!
Joyboozer wrote: Oh, this thread is so long, I don't have time to read it all, so instead I'll just read one of your posts Talys, I'm sure your views contain no bias and will give me a balanced opinion.
Ah, everything GW is doing is great, nothing is broken! Great news!
Hardly
But you know, it's possible to have a favorable opinion of Games Workshop (and that they are not going out of business anytime soon), while believing that there's ample room for improvement and people who are disaffected, and discussing that.
Talys wrote: It's conceivable that they thought that you were passed over for someone that they thought would stay in the job. You sound like you might have been overqualified, from an HR perspective -- some people are great hires, but move on when a much better paying opportunity comes along, and it's HR's job to identify those.
Considering the rate of churn in GW employees... if their plan really is hiring less enthusiastic / competent people in hopes that they'll stay with the system - it isn't working out for them.
Joyboozer wrote: You went from saying one man GW stores are crazy to defending one man stores in a few pages.
No, I think a retail store with 1 employee is crazy. As someone who ran one (my own) in another lifetime, I can attest to it being unsustainable in the long term, because you know, stuff happens.
A retail store with one employee working at a time during most business hours, and maybe a second during special events or peak times, makes a lot of sense. But to get there, you really need 2-3 employees for a store open 6-7 days a week. 1 full time, 2 part time, or 2 full time and 1 part time. Just my opinion.
When I was in high school, the first locally gaming hobby shop that opened in the area (which now employs many full time people and is pretty huge) was a one-man shop, run by the owner. he depended on his regular customers (like me!) to watch the store and the til for him when he had to run out. Obviously, not the best situation
GW stores aren't supermarkets, with the prices they charge a new army, or worse yet, starting, is going to be a considered purchase for many, and going to need parental endorsement in some cases too.
Asking a member of staff to engage with people sufficiently to make a sale of several hundred pounds, potentially, while answering the phone, or ignoring it, or serving other customers, or ignoring them, or taking the deliveries etc etc is just too much. It doesn't have to be busy, what do you do if you're half way through a demo game and another potential customer walks in? Start over and risk the first customer going cold as you repeat a bunch of stuff? Try and engage the second customer who won't necessarily understand what's going on, and may well ask a bunch of questions that you've previously answered? Ignore the second guy and pray he doesn't get bored and leave before you're done with the first?
These are all struggles I've observed in my local GW, and I don't even go in that often.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry, meant that for Talys and someone popped up in the middle!
@Joyboozer - which is why I say, 2 at peak times. A lot of times a gaming store is open is dead. Like, the number of people needing help at 10 am on Monday is zero.
If you're an evil north American employer, you split-shift people, and make them come from 11am - 1:30pm, then come back at 4pm - 7pm or something stupid like that (what restaurants do).
Gaming stores also benefit from many customers helping other customers. Often, they have way better advice than the store operators!
@HumblePenitent - Yeah, I understand everything that you're saying, man. I agree, too. Obviously, 2 employees is better.
All I was saying before was that if I lived in a more remote part of the world, and my choice (as a customer) were between no gaming store at all and a 1-man GW shop, I'd take the latter. I'm not advocating (at all) for 1-man stores. Likewise, if I lived in a town that had 1 GW store and nothing else, and it were a choice between more restricted hours and 1 employee, or no store at all, I'd choose to keep the GW store.
If I lived in a town that had a decent independent and a 1-man GW store near each other... well, my comment would be, GW is wasting its time on the store.
Talys wrote: Gaming stores also benefit from many customers helping other customers. Often, they have way better advice than the store operators!
Which is part of where GW ticking off their veteran players can come and bite them in the arse.
I would not go to a GW store - and soon I will have an opportunity to not go to such a store.
But a disgruntled customer base does not limit their gruntling to the store - they are more than willing to air complaints wherever they might roost.
A web forum, say.
And GW is doing a mighty fine job of making disgruntled ex-customers, over the last few years. (AoS being the current prime example.)
At this time, I am not sure that they can dig themselves out of the hole that they have been digging with shovels of ever increasing size.
Specialist Games is a start, but at the prices that are showing up for AoS... it may die aborning.
The price of GW's most recent Not-Troll-Slayers-No-Sir! figures just made a sale for Mantic... the customer could get 75 figures, including two cannon, for just a bit over a third of the price for thirty GW Not-Dwarfs, no war machines. (By 'just' I mean about five minutes ago. And, no, I am not talking about myself.) He couldn't bring himself to paying $230 for thirty figures. $85 for seventy-five was a lot more palatable, even if the figures aren't as... dynamic. (I really do not like the new Fire Slayers, but others are welcome to their own opinions.)
Forgive me, but isn't the topic GW Finanicals? So isn't it more relevant to discuss the one man store from the perspective of how it works, or perhaps doesn't? for GW.
I mean, with all due respect, "something is better than nothing" is already a fairly banal truism as it stands, and if you're in a remote area with few options, given what's been discussed here (or what I've seen of it, it's a long thread to catch up on!) how likely is it for a one man store to be pulling its weight for the company when the whole retail arm seems to largely be a liability?
Wouldn't it benefit GW to condense the stores down into key locations where they can gain sales sufficiently to offer the salaries necessary to attract and retain a team of professional salespeople with adequate management and then find other methods (online and independents) to extend their reach into the less heavily populated areas?
The thing with the sort of staff GW seem to have said they're after is that people of that caliber know they're being sold a pup when it happens, and they're either going to refuse the job or move on in no time at all (whichever suits them) if GW want quality staff, they need to offer pay and conditions commensurate with those people's expectations, or admit that the McDonalds of war gaming, fit a window at the front of every shop and just have GW Kiosks in every half horse town on the planet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Gah, someone did again, must figure out quotes!
HumblePenitent wrote: Forgive me, but isn't the topic GW Finanicals? So isn't it more relevant to discuss the one man store from the perspective of how it works, or perhaps doesn't? for GW.
I mean, with all due respect, "something is better than nothing" is already a fairly banal truism as it stands, and if you're in a remote area with few options, given what's been discussed here (or what I've seen of it, it's a long thread to catch up on!) how likely is it for a one man store to be pulling its weight for the company when the whole retail arm seems to largely be a liability?
Wouldn't it benefit GW to condense the stores down into key locations where they can gain sales sufficiently to offer the salaries necessary to attract and retain a team of professional salespeople with adequate management and then find other methods (online and independents) to extend their reach into the less heavily populated areas?
The thing with the sort of staff GW seem to have said they're after is that people of that caliber know they're being sold a pup when it happens, and they're either going to refuse the job or move on in no time at all (whichever suits them) if GW want quality staff, they need to offer pay and conditions commensurate with those people's expectations, or admit that the McDonalds of war gaming, fit a window at the front of every shop and just have GW Kiosks in every half horse town on the planet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Gah, someone did again, must figure out quotes!
I think that GW would be better served diversifying their stores, and carry material from other companies, at least those companies that are producing after market or RPG support for their miniatures. (As a not-so-random-example - they would have done well to bring Chapter House on board, rather than trying to sue....)
The Auld Grump - GW started as a general gaming store, way back when, carrying that little known game, Dungeons & Dragons.
@HumblePenitent - Well, yes, the topic is GW financials, and one of the recurring questions is, "Are GW retail stores a good thing for GW?"
My opinion is that GW retail stores are about the best type of advertising that GW can get for its money. In the right location they're highly effective and will introduce people to the hobby (miniature wargaming) that otherwise wouldn't have a exposure. It also presents only the GW side of the hobby, without competition, which is good for GW. They also provide a social environment for gamers to congregate and play.
I do not believe that GW retail stores need to be profitable on their own two legs, so to speak, in order to be a good idea, for a few reasons:
1) Profitability is Deceiving.
Products are sold to stores at about a 45% margin. If a store sells $10,000 a month, the gross profit is $4,500. If it costs $5,500 to make that, is the store a good thing?
If this were an independent, no. But if it were a GW store, absolutely. Why? Because on the manufacturing end, GW makes more than $1,000 selling that product to its own store. It's not as if that $10,000 of product would have sold itself if the store didn't exist, so even though they might lose a little money on retail, they make it back selling to their own retail outlet.
Because GW doesn't break down its actual retail sales numbers, it's impossible for us to know the true extent of retail profitability (or loss). But we can safely assume that sales without GW retail stores would be significantly less, and that would impact both retail and manufacturing profitability. We also know that the cost of sales is about 30% (based on the ratio of revenue vs cost of sales), so we can probably safely assume that GW has another 10%-15% to play in there, not accounting for benefits of economies of scale. This understates the profitability on the manufacturing end, some of those cost of sales are fixed rather than variable costs.
2) Product Visibility and Brand Presence
There is a value to people seeing your stores and signs. It's no different than Nokia stores having more value than the number of phones it sold. Sure, Nokia ultimate failed with cell phones, but there were many years when it made a TON of money.
3) Long Term Customers who Buy through Other Channels
Sure, some people don't like GW models or GW games. But some people DO. Some of them started with their first purchases through GW stores, and then went to independents for discounts, or through the GW website for convenience.
Winning that customer is worth something more than the gross profit on the sale.
4) GW Retail Stores Deprive Competitors of Sales
If someone has $100 to spend on gaming and spends $90 with GW, it means they don't have much to spend it elsewhere. And if they don't, they can't get sucked into another game that they might actually enjoy more.
Edit -- @TheAuldGrump -- I wholly agree that GW could improve retail profitability by selling complementary products that aren't direct competitors (ie not miniature wargames), in niches where the customers are the same folks, but where GW has no interest in expanding into.
Talys wrote: @HumblePenitent - Well, yes, the topic is GW financials, and one of the recurring questions is, "Are GW retail stores a good thing for GW?"
My opinion is that GW retail stores are about the best type of advertising that GW can get for its money. In the right location they're highly effective and will introduce people to the hobby (miniature wargaming) that otherwise wouldn't have a exposure. It also presents only the GW side of the hobby, without competition, which is good for GW. They also provide a social environment for gamers to congregate and play.
I do not believe that GW retail stores need to be profitable on their own two legs, so to speak, in order to be a good idea, for a few reasons:
1) Profitability is Deceiving.
Products are sold to stores at about a 45% margin. If a store sells $10,000 a month, the gross profit is $4,500. If it costs $5,500 to make that, is the store a good thing?
If this were an independent, no. But if it were a GW store, absolutely. Why? Because on the manufacturing end, GW makes more than $1,000 selling that product to its own store. It's not as if that $10,000 of product would have sold itself if the store didn't exist, so even though they might lose a little money on retail, they make it back selling to their own retail outlet.
Because GW doesn't break down its actual retail sales numbers, it's impossible for us to know the true extent of retail profitability (or loss). But we can safely assume that sales without GW retail stores would be significantly less, and that would impact both retail and manufacturing profitability. We also know that the cost of sales is about 30% (based on the ratio of revenue vs cost of sales), so we can probably safely assume that GW has another 10%-15% to play in there, not accounting for benefits of economies of scale. This understates the profitability on the manufacturing end, some of those cost of sales are fixed rather than variable costs.
2) Product Visibility and Brand Presence
There is a value to people seeing your stores and signs. It's no different than Nokia stores having more value than the number of phones it sold. Sure, Nokia ultimate failed with cell phones, but there were many years when it made a TON of money.
3) Long Term Customers who Buy through Other Channels
Sure, some people don't like GW models or GW games. But some people DO. Some of them started with their first purchases through GW stores, and then went to independents for discounts, or through the GW website for convenience.
Winning that customer is worth something more than the gross profit on the sale.
4) GW Retail Stores Deprive Competitors of Sales
If someone has $100 to spend on gaming and spends $90 with GW, it means they don't have much to spend it elsewhere. And if they don't, they can't get sucked into another game that they might actually enjoy more.
Edit -- @TheAuldGrump -- I wholly agree that GW could improve retail profitability by selling complementary products that aren't direct competitors (ie not miniature wargames), in niches where the customers are the same folks, but where GW has no interest in expanding into.
Perhaps even when it is a direct competitor - Paizo is perfectly happy to sell you D&D 5e, even though they publish Pathfinder.
As you wrote elsewhere, it is a 5% that they wouldn't have seen.
Getting back to being a general games retailer, that has its own games as well as that of other companies, might help make the stores profitable.
I am just talking about the stores, there - but given that they are in a position where they are sending out more in dividends than they are taking in as profit, just making the retail chain more than merely self supporting would seem to be a good thing.
The Auld Grump - mind you, Paizo, in many ways, is the Anti-GW.... They have even plugged competing products over their own, in published Adventure Paths. (And sell that competing product through their webstore... they still get a cut.)
Talys wrote: @HumblePenitent - Well, yes, the topic is GW financials, and one of the recurring questions is, "Are GW retail stores a good thing for GW?"
My opinion is that GW retail stores are about the best type of advertising that GW can get for its money. In the right location they're highly effective and will introduce people to the hobby (miniature wargaming) that otherwise wouldn't have a exposure. It also presents only the GW side of the hobby, without competition, which is good for GW. They also provide a social environment for gamers to congregate and play.
I do not believe that GW retail stores need to be profitable on their own two legs, so to speak, in order to be a good idea, for a few reasons:
1) Profitability is Deceiving.
Products are sold to stores at about a 45% margin. If a store sells $10,000 a month, the gross profit is $4,500. If it costs $5,500 to make that, is the store a good thing?
If this were an independent, no. But if it were a GW store, absolutely. Why? Because on the manufacturing end, GW makes more than $1,000 selling that product to its own store. It's not as if that $10,000 of product would have sold itself if the store didn't exist, so even though they might lose a little money on retail, they make it back selling to their own retail outlet.
Because GW doesn't break down its actual retail sales numbers, it's impossible for us to know the true extent of retail profitability (or loss). But we can safely assume that sales without GW retail stores would be significantly less, and that would impact both retail and manufacturing profitability. We also know that the cost of sales is about 30% (based on the ratio of revenue vs cost of sales), so we can probably safely assume that GW has another 10%-15% to play in there, not accounting for benefits of economies of scale. This understates the profitability on the manufacturing end, some of those cost of sales are fixed rather than variable costs.
2) Product Visibility and Brand Presence
There is a value to people seeing your stores and signs. It's no different than Nokia stores having more value than the number of phones it sold. Sure, Nokia ultimate failed with cell phones, but there were many years when it made a TON of money.
3) Long Term Customers who Buy through Other Channels
Sure, some people don't like GW models or GW games. But some people DO. Some of them started with their first purchases through GW stores, and then went to independents for discounts, or through the GW website for convenience.
Winning that customer is worth something more than the gross profit on the sale.
4) GW Retail Stores Deprive Competitors of Sales
If someone has $100 to spend on gaming and spends $90 with GW, it means they don't have much to spend it elsewhere. And if they don't, they can't get sucked into another game that they might actually enjoy more.
Edit -- @TheAuldGrump -- I wholly agree that GW could improve retail profitability by selling complementary products that aren't direct competitors (ie not miniature wargames), in niches where the customers are the same folks, but where GW has no interest in expanding into.
I think you're completely wrong about item #2.
In the US especially (I'm not very familiar with the UK), GW locates its stores very poorly. They're often in out of the way strip malls or boutique areas. The average customer of the other stores won't be interested in miniatures, and if they walk into a GW its because they thought there would be video or board games. Which is why even a well located store simply isn't very helpful. Their sign is meaningless and deceiving as they're not a "games workshop," they're a model shop that sells models for only two games (3 if your store still bothers to stock hobbit I suppose). GW's complete failure to pursue intelligent advertising means they have to rely on brand recognition with a brand name that is almost irrelevant to their product line. Switching it to "Warhammer" won't really help either, because if you're not already a customer you don't know what that means.
Relying on people walking into your store at random in the hope they'll be interested in your product is about as brain dead a business philosophy as I've ever known. If GW dropped every store they had and instead invested that money with some intelligent marketing firms (although there's no reason for it to be an either / or), they'd get far better bang for their buck in my opinion, and they'd still be able to sell their products online and in FLGs.
I agree the stores provide a lot of other value, but the fact that they provide a tiny marketing benefit is only important because GW fails to market its products otherwise.
Toofast wrote:In regard to the bit about hiring people who are passionate about the hobby, I have an interesting anecdote. I spoke to a former GW manager regarding the possibility of getting a job there when he left. He gave me some advice about what to write in my interest letter and how to approach interview questions. He told me to downplay my experience with the hobby and just tell them I love sales. According to him, they have gone away from hiring long time GW fans because of the wide array of negative opinions of the company and games they have most likely been exposed to. GW is afraid someone might get the job that knows about their "spots the space marine" fiasco or the chapterhouse case. The last thing they want is a red shirt accidentally saying something negative about GW. If they hire someone who doesn't know anything about the company or the hobby, they don't have to worry about that.
I applied for the job, wrote a fantastic letter, nailed both interviews (IMO) and was passed over for a middle aged fellow that had never built or painted a model, played a game or read a black library book, and whose most recent jobs included an electronics store and a used car dealership. Myself and the other long time veteran that were passed over for the GW job both acquired upper management jobs for multi million dollar companies within 1 year of being turned down to run a one man GW store. The first manager that left and coached us through the process has a high level IT job now.
Perhaps this is why they're having trouble finding and keeping the right people, they prefer used car salesmen over 15+ year veterans with 10+ years of retail management/sales experience because they've received so much negative publicity over the last 10 years.
If true, it would be really sad that GW is passing over real fans over for essentially professional salespeople. I don't have a ton of experience with GW store employees, because almost all of my model purchases are from independents, but I've yet to meet an GW retail employee who was unenthusiastic about the product or totally unknowledgeable. -snip-
Hate to break it to you Talys, but in most cases that's not passion, it's patter. When I worked at GAME a few years back(very similar attitude to staff to GW's, ie salespeople first and actual knowledge & experience of gaming could count against you if the lumbering oaf of a Regional Manager decided you were too much like the great unwashed masses) I hadn't even touched a Nintendo product since the SNES I had as a wee kid, indeed I'd been a PC-exclusive gamer most of my life, and most of the staff I had were uni students with only a passing interest in gaming if any at all, but it wasn't difficult to BS people into believing we knew what we were on about. It wasn't work I enjoyed, mind you, but it was hardly difficult between the training and marketing briefs from HQ and an hour a week spent skimming console gaming news websites. Feigning enthusiasm for the product is pretty much page one, paragraph one, word one of the "How to be a Low-paid Retail-Salesperson" handbook.
Toofast wrote:In regard to the bit about hiring people who are passionate about the hobby, I have an interesting anecdote. I spoke to a former GW manager regarding the possibility of getting a job there when he left. He gave me some advice about what to write in my interest letter and how to approach interview questions. He told me to downplay my experience with the hobby and just tell them I love sales. According to him, they have gone away from hiring long time GW fans because of the wide array of negative opinions of the company and games they have most likely been exposed to. GW is afraid someone might get the job that knows about their "spots the space marine" fiasco or the chapterhouse case. The last thing they want is a red shirt accidentally saying something negative about GW. If they hire someone who doesn't know anything about the company or the hobby, they don't have to worry about that.
I applied for the job, wrote a fantastic letter, nailed both interviews (IMO) and was passed over for a middle aged fellow that had never built or painted a model, played a game or read a black library book, and whose most recent jobs included an electronics store and a used car dealership. Myself and the other long time veteran that were passed over for the GW job both acquired upper management jobs for multi million dollar companies within 1 year of being turned down to run a one man GW store. The first manager that left and coached us through the process has a high level IT job now.
Perhaps this is why they're having trouble finding and keeping the right people, they prefer used car salesmen over 15+ year veterans with 10+ years of retail management/sales experience because they've received so much negative publicity over the last 10 years.
If true, it would be really sad that GW is passing over real fans over for essentially professional salespeople. I don't have a ton of experience with GW store employees, because almost all of my model purchases are from independents, but I've yet to meet an GW retail employee who was unenthusiastic about the product or totally unknowledgeable. -snip-
Hate to break it to you Talys, but in most cases that's not passion, it's patter. When I worked at GAME a few years back(very similar attitude to staff to GW's, ie salespeople first and actual knowledge & experience of gaming could count against you if the lumbering oaf of a Regional Manager decided you were too much like the great unwashed masses) I hadn't even touched a Nintendo product since the SNES I had as a wee kid, indeed I'd been a PC-exclusive gamer most of my life, and most of the staff I had were uni students with only a passing interest in gaming if any at all, but it wasn't difficult to BS people into believing we knew what we were on about. It wasn't work I enjoyed, mind you, but it was hardly difficult between the training and marketing briefs from HQ and an hour a week spent skimming console gaming news websites. Feigning enthusiasm for the product is pretty much page one, paragraph one, word one of the "How to be a Low-paid Retail-Salesperson" handbook.
This. The guy I was passed over for was definitely passionate. The problem came when he tried to run events with custom scenarios he made for example. His lack of knowledge about the rules led to scenarios with bigger holes than the rulebook itself. It also makes it tougher to do an add on sale if you aren't as familiar with the product. Someone who knows all the formations might remind a space marine player they can take a free rhino in that formation so they might as well buy one with that tac squad. Or suggesting the proper washes for a certain paint job. Telling someone how awesome everything in the store is doesn't have quite the same effect.
Yodhrin wrote: Hate to break it to you Talys, but in most cases that's not passion, it's patter. When I worked at GAME a few years back(very similar attitude to staff to GW's, ie salespeople first and actual knowledge & experience of gaming could count against you if the lumbering oaf of a Regional Manager decided you were too much like the great unwashed masses) I hadn't even touched a Nintendo product since the SNES I had as a wee kid, indeed I'd been a PC-exclusive gamer most of my life, and most of the staff I had were uni students with only a passing interest in gaming if any at all, but it wasn't difficult to BS people into believing we knew what we were on about. It wasn't work I enjoyed, mind you, but it was hardly difficult between the training and marketing briefs from HQ and an hour a week spent skimming console gaming news websites. Feigning enthusiasm for the product is pretty much page one, paragraph one, word one of the "How to be a Low-paid Retail-Salesperson" handbook.
I'm not denying that you could be correct that being overly passionate could work against you. However, I'm not exactly sure what the difference between genuine passion and feigned enthusiasm (by a good salesperson) is. I mean, it just sounds like one person really likes the stuff, and the other person is faking it -- and the regional manager prefers the one that's faking it? Is it possible that the person faking just presents as a better salesperson, and it's not possible to tell that he's faking it?
I would think, by the way, that a GW one-man-shop guy would be considered more than a low-paid retail salesperson -- even though they, by most accounts, aren't going to be considered highly-paid. If you're the only guy there, you'll probably have administrative duties, do restocking, merchandising, and that sort of thing.
The other thing is that every GW store I've been to has had painted models in it. Now, I have no idea where those models come from... I always assumed the staff. Most really aren't super spectacular, but are certainly of a reasonable tabletop quality. But if the guy can't paint models... does corporate supply a cabinet full of painted models? hehehehe
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Toofast wrote: This. The guy I was passed over for was definitely passionate. The problem came when he tried to run events with custom scenarios he made for example. His lack of knowledge about the rules led to scenarios with bigger holes than the rulebook itself. It also makes it tougher to do an add on sale if you aren't as familiar with the product. Someone who knows all the formations might remind a space marine player they can take a free rhino in that formation so they might as well buy one with that tac squad. Or suggesting the proper washes for a certain paint job. Telling someone how awesome everything in the store is doesn't have quite the same effect.
Totally agree with that. Someone without genuine knowledge of the product will be less able to sell gaming stuff. Plus, giving solid advice gets you good, repeat, loyal customers.
Joyboozer wrote: Oh, this thread is so long, I don't have time to read it all, so instead I'll just read one of your posts Talys, I'm sure your views contain no bias and will give me a balanced opinion.
Ah, everything GW is doing is great, nothing is broken! Great news!
Hardly
But you know, it's possible to have a favorable opinion of Games Workshop (and that they are not going out of business anytime soon), while believing that there's ample room for improvement and people who are disaffected, and discussing that.
Joyboozer wrote: Oh, this thread is so long, I don't have time to read it all, so instead I'll just read one of your posts Talys, I'm sure your views contain no bias and will give me a balanced opinion.
Ah, everything GW is doing is great, nothing is broken! Great news!
Hardly
But you know, it's possible to have a favorable opinion of Games Workshop (and that they are not going out of business anytime soon), while believing that there's ample room for improvement and people who are disaffected, and discussing that.
Thank you. It is like a breath of fresh air.
Reading a report that GW continue to just scrape by doesn't leave me with a favourable opinion of them. I still believe their universe and history to be second to none, but that it's being ruined by poor business decisions. I guess in your world, I just farted.
This. The guy I was passed over for was definitely passionate. The problem came when he tried to run events with custom scenarios he made for example. His lack of knowledge about the rules led to scenarios with bigger holes than the rulebook itself. It also makes it tougher to do an add on sale if you aren't as familiar with the product. Someone who knows all the formations might remind a space marine player they can take a free rhino in that formation so they might as well buy one with that tac squad. Or suggesting the proper washes for a certain paint job. Telling someone how awesome everything in the store is doesn't have quite the same effect.
This right here is my absolute most hated type of GW employee. Everything you ask him about is the best model GW have ever made, if there is something awful you dislike (like the old Nagash), you're just crazy, it's a great model!
Taking it one step further he would tell you how he has played any non-GW game you happen to mention, every edition of it, and he thinks it is a much worse game. (He also might not actually know how many editions of it there were, or gets some of the core mechanics wrong..)
And of course he is happy how to show you to paint like a master... when his own models have clearly been sloppily done following the tutorials straight out of a GW book. It's great and all to teach new people to paint, but don't insist on teaching me anything until you fix the streak marks all over the store's starter models.
Toofast wrote:In regard to the bit about hiring people who are passionate about the hobby, I have an interesting anecdote. I spoke to a former GW manager regarding the possibility of getting a job there when he left. He gave me some advice about what to write in my interest letter and how to approach interview questions. He told me to downplay my experience with the hobby and just tell them I love sales. According to him, they have gone away from hiring long time GW fans because of the wide array of negative opinions of the company and games they have most likely been exposed to. GW is afraid someone might get the job that knows about their "spots the space marine" fiasco or the chapterhouse case. The last thing they want is a red shirt accidentally saying something negative about GW. If they hire someone who doesn't know anything about the company or the hobby, they don't have to worry about that.
I applied for the job, wrote a fantastic letter, nailed both interviews (IMO) and was passed over for a middle aged fellow that had never built or painted a model, played a game or read a black library book, and whose most recent jobs included an electronics store and a used car dealership. Myself and the other long time veteran that were passed over for the GW job both acquired upper management jobs for multi million dollar companies within 1 year of being turned down to run a one man GW store. The first manager that left and coached us through the process has a high level IT job now.
Perhaps this is why they're having trouble finding and keeping the right people, they prefer used car salesmen over 15+ year veterans with 10+ years of retail management/sales experience because they've received so much negative publicity over the last 10 years.
If true, it would be really sad that GW is passing over real fans over for essentially professional salespeople. I don't have a ton of experience with GW store employees, because almost all of my model purchases are from independents, but I've yet to meet an GW retail employee who was unenthusiastic about the product or totally unknowledgeable. -snip-
Hate to break it to you Talys, but in most cases that's not passion, it's patter. When I worked at GAME a few years back(very similar attitude to staff to GW's, ie salespeople first and actual knowledge & experience of gaming could count against you if the lumbering oaf of a Regional Manager decided you were too much like the great unwashed masses) I hadn't even touched a Nintendo product since the SNES I had as a wee kid, indeed I'd been a PC-exclusive gamer most of my life, and most of the staff I had were uni students with only a passing interest in gaming if any at all,but it wasn't difficult to BS people into believing we knew what we were on about. It wasn't work I enjoyed, mind you, but it was hardly difficult between the training and marketing briefs from HQ and an hour a week spent skimming console gaming news websites. Feigning enthusiasm for the product is pretty much page one, paragraph one, word one of the "How to be a Low-paid Retail-Salesperson" handbook.
I've gotten to the point now where I just assume everyone in retail is BS'ing me
These days I just walk in to a shop and I just be polite to the salesperson who's obviously BS'ing me "hmm, yes, oh, that's interesting, yes, that sounds like a good feature, yes, that sounds like this product would be better than that product" while actually thinking "please go away, you have no idea what you're talking about, I either know more than you about the product I'm looking for and even if I don't, there's no way I'm going to trust you".
I wonder how many sales people are fooled in to thinking their BSing is working when the customer is just being polite But then I guess there's plenty of customers who are ignorant enough to trust the BSing salesperson.
I love it when I walk in to a shop and the person behind the counter actually knows what they're talking about. Even if I don't know the product I can usually figure out pretty fast if the sales person does. There's several stores I frequent for the specific reason that the staff know what they're talking about instead of just pretending they know what they're talking about and will honestly tell you if they're unsure.
The number of stories... staff telling me one product is better because of a certain feature it has even though both products have that feature the guy who was confidently trying to sell me an acrylic thinner to mix with a lacquer paint because they weren't labelled as such but they were next to each other in the catalog The salesperson confidently telling me one product is faster than another when they obviously have no fething idea
I'm sure that's part of why online sales has become so popular, people like me who would rather not deal with ignorant staff selling me on features they only just read on the box 5 seconds earlier
pox wrote: Hell, if working a second guy 20 hours a week is too much, then just open the other two days a week, that's only 14 hours.
I think their main rationale is that the customers are going to buy the stuff anyway, so if they only open 5 days, the customers that would visit on the 2 days its closed will just come in another day. Just like how they thought that killing specialist games would just move the money into 40K.
Looking at retail, walk into a shopping center or strip mall, and you'll see *tons* of stores with one employee, often the owner-operator or relative. It's just the nature of retail; not every business is profitable enough or busy enough to justify 2 employees, even at minimum wage.
In the UK at least, the only single employee places I've seen tend to be fleamarkets, kiosks or booths, and even then they tend to be in clusters to cover for each other.
I honestly can't think of any real "retail store" that has less than 2 employees. Even the little corner newsagents here tend to have 2 staff.
On the stores themselves, I think in correct location and the correct size, they could be an asset. But they are currently opening up stores that are too small, in locations that are too hidden, and further obfuscating them by changing the name.
The most prominent store here is in Edinburgh, on the main corner of one of the busiest streets in the city (between the train station and the castle), it's been there for about 20 years (I was at the opening) and is practically unmissable, but it recently renamed to "Warhammer" with the most generic sign writing possible, and I (a 20 year veteran) walked right past it trying to find it one day. They opened another one in a mall where my wife works. In an alley outside that's mostly pubs, again bland sign, and again, despite knowing it was there and actively looking for it, I managed to walk past it.
The other problem is the stock; they barely have anything in stock these days, so I hit a point years ago where all the stuff I wanted was web only, so there was pretty much no reason to visit. What they need to do is have a much fuller inventory available in store (even if the manager needs to go to the stock room for it), and to stock anything tangentially related to GW - the FFG games, vouchers for the mobile phone games. Make it a place that always has something new to tempt me in, or at least make it big enough for me to go for some gaming.
Compared to my FLGS 1 which has a wall of blisters (mostly Reaper), the GW store is a barren wasteland, compared to my FLGS 2 which has 3x as many permanent tables, and a cafe, it's a hole in the wall closet. Even ignoring the 10% discounts, there's literally no reason for me to visit the GW over the FLGS, since they all carry identical GW stock.
GW's Cost of Goods (which basically is the same as Cost of Sales) is about 20%. GW has stated this specifically in their reports because a few years ago they stated it as about 25% and it's a major achievement to get it down such a lot. This reduction is an important cause of their profitability.
In regards to shop locations, I think GW in the UK are benefiting from word of mouth to inform potential players about the games, then people look up their local GW shop to go and look at stuff. It isn't a matter of people wandering by at random. However, the shops need to be close to transport facilities and schools to allow youngsters to get there easily. Most shops I am familiar with fit this profile, though they tend to be fairly small and contain three tables and a basic selection of stock.
The managers need to be familiar with the stock, with the rules to run demo games, and also with painting techniques to help youngsters to assemble and paint figures. This is all necessary for selling the goods. They need to be elder brothers or uncles, to the young lads, and also mates to the older studenty types, and capable of being pleasant to the old codgers like me.
This is a fairly difficult set of skills and knowledge on top of basic retail operations.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW's Cost of Goods (which basically is the same as Cost of Sales) is about 20%. GW has stated this specifically in their reports because a few years ago they stated it as about 25% and it's a major achievement to get it down such a lot. This reduction is an important cause of their profitability.
Can't they just do that by boosting prices by about 20%? Which they've easily done on new releases since 2014.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW's Cost of Goods (which basically is the same as Cost of Sales) is about 20%. GW has stated this specifically in their reports because a few years ago they stated it as about 25% and it's a major achievement to get it down such a lot. This reduction is an important cause of their profitability.
In the 29 Nov 2015 statements, the stated Revenue is 55.3k, and cost of sales is 16.8k for a gross profit of 38.5k. That's 30.4%, and the previous full year is 31% (37k / 119k).
While cost of sales and cost of goods are often used interchangeably, and *neither* is defined in GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles), most financial and management accountants expect companies that sell physical products to state cost of goods as raw materials, manufacturing, storage, transportation, and direct labor. On the other hand, cost of sales is generally expected to be seen on financial statements of service-based companies. The types of inputs often include direct selling costs like commissions, which in some industries can be very significant.
Being unfamiliar with UK financials, I'm happy to concede that I'm unfamiliar with regional nuances. On the other hand, looking at the "consolidated income statement", it's broken down in an EXTREMELY condensed form:
Revenue - Cost of Sales = Gross Profit + Operating Expenses + Other Income Operating = Operating Profit.
Even though the cost of sales is 30.4%, because the financials are so ambiguous, the traditional CoGS, where we're measuring the cost to manufacture goods, could actually be closer to 20%. To further complicate things, the Cost of Sales blends GW store sales and channel sales; in the latter, there's presumably a greater cost to the sale as a line item. That is, sales reps' commissions that are probably captured as direct selling, where as regional managers of GW stores are probably paid on a structure that has more of a fixed salary with some kind of performance bonus scheme.
In any case, we can probably assume that each additional dollar GW makes will cost them not more than 30.4%, which gives GW, at least another 25% to play with, versus traditional stores, which must remain profitable based on a 45% discount (or 55% cost of goods).
You are entirely correct that it's possible that the cost of goods for GW stores is closer to 20% (probably not quite, because freight is probably still significant, and there are variable selling costs at the store level too, such as performance bonuses, I assume), giving them even more leeway.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW's Cost of Goods (which basically is the same as Cost of Sales) is about 20%. GW has stated this specifically in their reports because a few years ago they stated it as about 25% and it's a major achievement to get it down such a lot. This reduction is an important cause of their profitability.
Can't they just do that by boosting prices by about 20%? Which they've easily done on new releases since 2014.
That's not how it is calculated. The Cost of Goods is to do with the manufacturing costs and amount of inventory. GW are saying they have reduced their manufacturing costs and/or amount of inventory held. We know GW have more or less given up on metal, have reduced the amount of stock held in shops, have manufactured more stuff in China (printing and terrain kits), and we also know that polystyrene moulding technology is a lot cheaper now than 10 years ago.
There's a very simple reason why 1-man stores don't work, it's partially the fault of GW's BS internal culture, and partially the fault of the trial store managers.
When they started trialing it, it didn't work. Unfortunately, the trial managers didn't suck it up and suffer during the trial - which is what you want to happen, they took the initiative and worked out among themselves how to make it work. When they had the end-of-trial review and tried to feed back on how the initial model didn't work they were told "not to be negative and be team players" to quote the trial manager I know, and the defective model is the one that got implemented.
EDIT: cost of goods, yes, what KK said.
Also though, if sales volume has fallen significantly to the point where they can use the cheaper aluminium moulds instead of steel ones then that's not necessarily a desirable saving.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW's Cost of Goods (which basically is the same as Cost of Sales) is about 20%. GW has stated this specifically in their reports because a few years ago they stated it as about 25% and it's a major achievement to get it down such a lot. This reduction is an important cause of their profitability.
In the 29 Nov 2015 statements, the stated Revenue is 55.3k, and cost of sales is 16.8k for a gross profit of 38.5k. That's 30.4%, and the previous full year is 31% (37k / 119k).
...
Even though the cost of sales is 30.4%, because the financials are so ambiguous, the traditional CoGS, where we're measuring the cost to manufacture goods, could actually be closer to 20%. To further complicate things, the Cost of Sales blends GW store sales and channel sales; in the latter, there's presumably a greater cost to the sale as a line item. That is, sales reps' commissions that are probably captured as direct selling, where as regional managers of GW stores are probably paid on a structure that has more of a fixed salary with some kind of performance bonus scheme.
In any case, we can probably assume that each additional dollar GW makes will earn them at least 30.4%, which gives GW, at least another 14.6% to play with, versus traditional stores, which must remain profitable based on a 45% cost of goods.
You are entirely correct that it's possible that the cost of goods for GW stores is closer to 20% (probably not quite, because freight is probably still significant, and there are variable selling costs at the store level too, such as performance bonuses, I assume), giving them even more leeway.
When I worked at GW the % was much better than that. They sold to employees at 60% off and were still making profit on that.
They also take advantage of currency differences (as we've all seen) to make them more money.
The Cdn pricing has always been rough compared to the British.
When we got stock in the store it always had the 'cost' for the store on the sheet with the qty and item codes. The store was only 'paying' about $2.50 for a blister pack that we sold for around $15 (this was back in the days of metal!) So their margins, at least in Canada, were huge.
@Ashitaka - Oops, you know, I made a typo. It should say, "In any case, we can probably assume that each additional dollar GW makes will cost them not more than 30.4%, which gives GW, at least another 25% to play with versus traditional stores, which must remain profitable based on a 45% discount (or 55% cost of goods)."
It was too late when I posted, and I was tired
Which means, at 30% cost of sales, they'd still make 10%+ if they gave employees a 60% discount. Keep in mind that when they sell to an employee, there's no cost to the sale other than manufacture plus freight plus warehousing (that is, hopefully, nobody gets a bonus based on an employee buying something )
That actually sounds pretty reasonable. Nice perk too!
Another way to put with respect to retail stores is that based on GW's last 3 financial periods, its blended gross margin is about 70%. So a store that sells $10,000 at retail is actually making more than $7,000 for GW's bank accounts - the same $4,500 that any retail store would make, plus an extra $2,500 that manufacturing operations gets credit for. So even if the retail store loses money at $4,500, that's not terrible, as long as it's close, because of the profit on the manufacturing end.
Where this model doesn't hold true is if (a) an independent or GW web store would have make the same sale anyways or (b) if an independent would actually have made more sales than the GW store. But both of those scenarios are very difficult, if not impossible, to assess, even with GW's internal data.
Ah... the old Gorka Morka truk. Nothing but the latest and greatest models to put your best foot forwards, capture the imagination and entice newbs right?
That model was already horribly primitive when it was released in 1997, mercifully put out of its misery in 2009... and now lives again as (an ill conceived) lead-in product in 2016!
-edit- That looks like the discontinued ork bike too... with the tracks and the nonsense side-guns. Ugh.
HumblePenitent wrote: Wow, given the quality of those pics, I think we can rule out a photoshop job!
Yup they're real.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
keezus wrote: Ah... the old Gorka Morka truk. Nothing but the latest and greatest models to put your best foot forwards, capture the imagination and entice newbs right?
That model was already horribly primitive when it was released in 1997, mercifully put out of its misery in 2009... and now lives again as (an ill conceived) lead-in product in 2016!
-edit- That looks like the discontinued ork bike too... with the tracks and the nonsense side-guns. Ugh.
Maybe Talys would like to paint them for his collection.
Honestly, I have fond memories of the Gorka Morka Trukk... it makes a great buggy / wartrack base. The main problem is that it needs new crew, as the supplied ones are horribly undersized by today's standards. If the kit is retooled with new crew, it might be OK. If it is not, it is a horrible missed opportunity for GW... $27 is a bit of coin for such a primitive kit and selling in dedicated model shops can only compare unfavorably vs stuff like $10 1/144 Gundam kits and Revell's Star Wars kits (e.g. Poe's X-Wing is msrp $22 IIRC)
Honestly, I have fond memories of the Gorka Morka Trukk... it makes a great buggy / wartrack base. The main problem is that it needs new crew, as the supplied ones are horribly undersized by today's standards. If the kit is retooled with new crew, it might be OK. If it is not, it is a horrible missed opportunity for GW... $27 is a bit of coin for such a primitive kit and selling in dedicated model shops can only compare unfavorably vs stuff like $10 1/144 Gundam kits and Revell's Star Wars kits (e.g. Poe's X-Wing is msrp $22 IIRC)
keezus wrote: Ah... the old Gorka Morka truk. Nothing but the latest and greatest models to put your best foot forwards, capture the imagination and entice newbs right?
That model was already horribly primitive when it was released in 1997, mercifully put out of its misery in 2009... and now lives again as (an ill conceived) lead-in product in 2016!
-edit- That looks like the discontinued ork bike too... with the tracks and the nonsense side-guns. Ugh.
Maybe Talys would like to paint them for his collection.
LOL. Why not
Most of the space marine/imperial guard/ork collections are utter "nonsense" in the sense of practicality anyhow. As long as it's a cool looking model, I'm in
As I said in the other thread, GW's financial situation might be worse shape than we think if they are embracing big retail stores again for the first time in, what, 20 years? More?
keezus wrote: Ah... the old Gorka Morka truk. Nothing but the latest and greatest models to put your best foot forwards, capture the imagination and entice newbs right?
That model was already horribly primitive when it was released in 1997, mercifully put out of its misery in 2009... and now lives again as (an ill conceived) lead-in product in 2016!
-edit- That looks like the discontinued ork bike too... with the tracks and the nonsense side-guns. Ugh.
Maybe Talys would like to paint them for his collection.
LOL. Why not
Most of the space marine/imperial guard/ork collections are utter "nonsense" in the sense of practicality anyhow. As long as it's a cool looking model, I'm in
Trouble is that the model is very dated in scale and aesthetic compared with the modern offerings. If GW is pushing out these old kits hoping to sell based on rule of cool, I think they are missing the boat entirely. Instead of these old models, I think they should have gone with the Black Reach Dread, the Ork Kans / Deff Koptas from Black Reach / and whatever set had the Kans... On top of that, one of the best parts about the Gorka Morka kit was the inclusion of the Gubbinz sprue to Ork up your model, which is almost CERTAIN to not be included.
I think the most significant thing here isn't that GW is releasing cut down/simplied kits to model shops but that GW is actually giving real previews of its future releases. When was the last time that GW made public a release scheduled for next year?
I think the real determinant of success for this build and paint line will be whether or not GW sells to toy and model distribution or iinsists that ever toy or model shop who might want to have a couple of these on their shelf open up a GW trade account with all the restrictions and minimum orders and whatnot.
Imagine if you owned a toy store and wanted to get a case of these for your model section, but GW insisted that you also have to carry Age of Sigmar and 40k stuff. Or if a given kit sells out and you can't restock it without buying $400 worth of stuff you don't want.
keezus wrote: Trouble is that the model is very dated in scale and aesthetic compared with the modern offerings. If GW is pushing out these old kits hoping to sell based on rule of cool, I think they are missing the boat entirely. Instead of these old models, I think they should have gone with the Black Reach Dread, the Ork Kans / Deff Koptas from Black Reach / and whatever set had the Kans... On top of that, one of the best parts about the Gorka Morka kit was the inclusion of the Gubbinz sprue to Ork up your model, which is almost CERTAIN to not be included.
Since my last Ork army was built in 1990 and I have no desire to rebuild/play Orks, that's ok
All of these build+paint boxes are pretty useless for 40k anyhow. They're just nifty boxes of models. Looking at the photo of the sprue, aside from the color, it doesn't look like an old sprue, so it's entirely possible that they've been retooled. If nothing else, the new casting process has much higher density on the sprue, so it would ship in a smaller box.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: I think the real determinant of success for this build and paint line will be whether or not GW sells to toy and model distribution or iinsists that ever toy or model shop who might want to have a couple of these on their shelf open up a GW trade account with all the restrictions and minimum orders and whatnot.
Imagine if you owned a toy store and wanted to get a case of these for your model section, but GW insisted that you also have to carry Age of Sigmar and 40k stuff. Or if a given kit sells out and you can't restock it without buying $400 worth of stuff you don't want.
I don't know about other parts of the world; in west coast Canada, the toy scene is totally dominated by giant super-toy-stores (like Toys R Us) and department stores (like Walmart). The little independent toy stores do exist in malls, but they've slowly been driven out of business with the pricing and selection of larger competitors.
I don't think a shop like Walmart would have an issue with stocking all 6 boxes, if they decided this was a product worthy of their toy section. I can't imagine sticking proper 40k/AoS stuff (like AoS starter) in a big box store. In any case, they'd make GW front them for like, 90+ days and take back anything that didn't sell anyhow.
I don't know about other parts of the world; in west coast Canada, the toy scene is totally dominated by giant super-toy-stores (like Toys R Us) and department stores (like Walmart). The little independent toy stores do exist in malls, but they've slowly been driven out of business with the pricing and selection of larger competitors.
People have this impression pretty much anywhere, but it turns out that small independent toy stores are actually doing okay and each city usually has a good number of them.
That's just 4 Canadian cities and each one has a handful. Now how many potential customers are there for GW when you extrapolate that across Canada and the much, much larger US?
I don't think a shop like Walmart would have an issue with stocking all 6 boxes, if they decided this was a product worthy of their toy section. I can't imagine sticking proper 40k/AoS stuff (like AoS starter) in a big box store. In any case, they'd make GW front them for like, 90+ days and take back anything that didn't sell anyhow.
Definitely. If Toys R Us and Walmart carry these, they will dictate the terms, not kowtow to GW's.
Weren't there rumours floating around that years and years ago some GW reps went to talk to Walmart (or someone like that) about stocking their product and got laughed at because of the crazy trade terms they tried to put on a much much larger company that didn't need them one bit?
jonolikespie wrote: Weren't there rumours floating around that years and years ago some GW reps went to talk to Walmart (or someone like that) about stocking their product and got laughed at because of the crazy trade terms they tried to put on a much much larger company that didn't need them one bit?
I remember hearing something like that, but it's impossible to confirm. The thing to remember is that a single super Walmart location in a major US centre has a greater revenue than the entirety of GW's operation worldwide. When you count their smaller stores not in major cities, it takes about 6 to equal the entirety of GW's revenue. If I was on Walmart's team and GW tried to tell us how to retail, I'd laugh them out of the room as well.
If GW can get this product line in a few percent of toy and model shops in the UK, Europe and North America and actually work out terms with some larger stores (perhaps even walmart) then they could return to growth with this one move. They need to do everything in their power to get these products in as many sales channels and possible and stop insisting on their sole control over everything.
People have this impression pretty much anywhere, but it turns out that small independent toy stores are actually doing okay and each city usually has a good number of them.
Looking at the Vancouver map (Victoria is a much, much smaller city on an island, despite being the capital of the province), the number of toy store dots is actually tiny. When I was a kid, there were way more toy stores than that. Also, a lot of the toy stores on that map are boutique shops -- for example, Oakridge Mall shows a toy store, but it's a Lego store. The Disney store is likewise not really a toy store. Others specialize in wooden toys or kites, and that kind of thing. And the dot Downtown is uhhh... "Honey Gifts Sex Shop Vancouver"
When you look at the two large shopping centers in Vancouver -- Pacific Center, Oakridge Mall -- there isn't a single independent left. Ditto in Richmond Center, and Guildford Mall, two other large shopping centers in suburbs, though Surrey Place and Park Royal each have an independent toy store.
keezus wrote: Ah... the old Gorka Morka truk. Nothing but the latest and greatest models to put your best foot forwards, capture the imagination and entice newbs right?
That model was already horribly primitive when it was released in 1997, mercifully put out of its misery in 2009... and now lives again as (an ill conceived) lead-in product in 2016!
-edit- That looks like the discontinued ork bike too... with the tracks and the nonsense side-guns. Ugh.
It's covered in the main News thread but the boxes and art are watermarked with "Mock Up" so who knows what the final product will actually be.
If you consider the intended target audience though, the Gorkamorka era Trukk may be less daunting to an 8 year old splashing out some pocket money.
Get them hooked on a gateway product before ensnaring them with the higher priced product.
The "assemble and paint your own toy" is a good idea, a better one would be a weekly magazine that comes with a miniature and takes you through collecting your army week by week.
The magazine could contain rules, assembly guides and painting guides, and all collectors would be at the same stage each week so their armies would be balanced against each other.
Talys it doesn't really matter that google returned a variety of results and includes things you find funny. It also makes sense that google would return all types of toy stores, doesn't it? So how about you just count the ones that might have a model section or could be talked into starting one with these sort of products. The fact is that in pretty much every major urban centre there are still independent toy and model shops. They may not be in malls anymore like they were when I was a kid, but they're there. And they represent an untapped potential for GW trade sales that these new products are probably meant exactly for.
The only question is whether or not GW will stand in their own way on this and assume sole distributorship and demand things of these shops that no other of the store's suppliers demands. The stores for these kinds of products are there. I just don't think GW's current trade sales approach will reach them. I think they need a more traditional, less demanding, manufacturer-retailer relationship with these sorts of stores in order to get as many of these kits onto as many shelves as possible.
One thing I've gotten into over the last couple years is using historical model kits for miniature gaming. I travel a lot for business and pretty much without fail I can find a place to buy a kit I'm interested in. All across Canada and the US. I've been to Saskatoon and Vancouver and Markham and St John's and Raleigh and Phoenix and Ojai and all sorts of places. Independent toy and model stores are so not dead. All of them I visit seem to be doing pretty well.
If GW is going to actually do what needs to be done (including revisiting the very nature of their products) so they can get into these stores, it could be exactly what they need to stop their decline.
Joyboozer wrote: The "assemble and paint your own toy" is a good idea, a better one would be a weekly magazine that comes with a miniature and takes you through collecting your army week by week.
The magazine could contain rules, assembly guides and painting guides, and all collectors would be at the same stage each week so their armies would be balanced against each other.
Problem is who buys magazines anymore? Kids would keep the model but just throw the magazine away and look up the info on their tablets.
Joyboozer wrote: The "assemble and paint your own toy" is a good idea, a better one would be a weekly magazine that comes with a miniature and takes you through collecting your army week by week.
The magazine could contain rules, assembly guides and painting guides, and all collectors would be at the same stage each week so their armies would be balanced against each other.
Problem is who buys magazines anymore? Kids would keep the model but just throw the magazine away and look up the info on their tablets.
I'm not so sure. Kids love books and many parents still read to their young children with real paper books. I could totally see an 8-10 year old loving a "Battle Games in the Dark Millennium" series. It kicked ass in terms of getting GW sales during the LOTR boom. I know GW has expressed fear of expanding too rapidly if they ever had success like that again, but with another declining year into a bad December and already having a profit warning issued for next report, I think GW might be waking up a little.
jonolikespie wrote: Weren't there rumours floating around that years and years ago some GW reps went to talk to Walmart (or someone like that) about stocking their product and got laughed at because of the crazy trade terms they tried to put on a much much larger company that didn't need them one bit?
I remember hearing something like that, but it's impossible to confirm. The thing to remember is that a single super Walmart location in a major US centre has a greater revenue than the entirety of GW's operation worldwide. When you count their smaller stores not in major cities, it takes about 6 to equal the entirety of GW's revenue. If I was on Walmart's team and GW tried to tell us how to retail, I'd laugh them out of the room as well.
If GW can get this product line in a few percent of toy and model shops in the UK, Europe and North America and actually work out terms with some larger stores (perhaps even walmart) then they could return to growth with this one move. They need to do everything in their power to get these products in as many sales channels and possible and stop insisting on their sole control over everything.
--
The things is with the Walmart story is that Walmart, like similar approaches from Argos and Tescos et al, is that the terms they trade (anything up to 6months plus returns at the suppliers cost) restrict cashflow to the supplier massively on top of the heavy discounts they want just aren't attractive versus unknown additional sales that might ultimately just reduce sales at your own stores.
I have had similar experiences when a former company I worked for tried to impose lengthened terms on suppliers, all the suppliers with established or diversified businesses walked away. As one owner said to me "I've got money and other clients, why do I need this?"
The things is with the Walmart story is that Walmart, like similar approaches from Argos and Tescos et al, is that the terms they trade (anything up to 6months plus returns at the suppliers cost) restrict cashflow to the supplier massively on top of the heavy discounts they want just aren't attractive versus unknown additional sales that might ultimately just reduce sales at your own stores.
I have had similar experiences when a former company I worked for tried to impose lengthened terms on suppliers, all the suppliers with established or diversified businesses walked away. As one owner said to me "I've got money and other clients, why do I need this?"
Absolutely. I'm not advocating for GW doing whatever it takes to get them into walmart. If they can make it work, fine, but I don't see them taking on a bad deal in order to get it done. While they haven't had a cash flow problem for years, if GW got themselves into an overly long term with a place like Walmart, that could kill them in a single incident of returned product and destroyed margins.
frozenwastes wrote: Talys it doesn't really matter that google returned a variety of results and includes things you find funny. It also makes sense that google would return all types of toy stores, doesn't it? So how about you just count the ones that might have a model section or could be talked into starting one with these sort of products. The fact is that in pretty much every major urban centre there are still independent toy and model shops. They may not be in malls anymore like they were when I was a kid, but they're there. And they represent an untapped potential for GW trade sales that these new products are probably meant exactly for.
--
This was exactly my point, though: The kite shop, adult sex toy shop, lego shop, rc/drone shop, and store selling toys carved out of maple wood... are not going to sell GW models.
Yes, major urban centers still have independent toy stores that sell a wide variety of toys. Yes, they are good places for GW to have toys (at least, the ones that don't have . My point was just that there are a lot fewer of them now compared to decades past -- just like there are a lot fewer independent bookstores that don't specialize in some niche (like computer books or occult). Neither is imagined; it's actual, at least in my part of the world, a qualification that I originally stated. Whether indie toy stores are a big thing in Frankfurt or Paris or Cleveland, I have no idea, even though I've probably been to those cities a hundred times.
This is an important distinction insofar as to say that should GW wish to succeed in selling toys in 2016, I believe that they will need to be sold in big box stores like Toys-R-Us, Walmart, and Target, as well as online places where people buy toys like Amazon. Otherwise, I am guessing that the market they'd reach will be only a tiny fraction of the potential. It's no different than having a book that isn't sold in Barnes & Noble or Chapters/Indigo or Amazon. Sure, there are other places to buy books; but those three eat up such a big piece of the pie now, that they're really key partners.
This is also an important distinction because one of the reasons that stores like Walmart can offer their customers great prices is the way that they treat all their vendors; it's a very different relationship than Games Workshop is accustomed to. GW models will be something that these stores don't really care about, not a core item like Coca-Cola or Barbie, so they will have no leverage at all. It will be their standard terms, which will include infernally long payment terms, return of unsold product, big discounts, required contributions for co-op advertising, and so on. And that's if the buyer wants the product at all.
The things is with the Walmart story is that Walmart, like similar approaches from Argos and Tescos et al, is that the terms they trade (anything up to 6months plus returns at the suppliers cost) restrict cashflow to the supplier massively on top of the heavy discounts they want just aren't attractive versus unknown additional sales that might ultimately just reduce sales at your own stores.
I have had similar experiences when a former company I worked for tried to impose lengthened terms on suppliers, all the suppliers with established or diversified businesses walked away. As one owner said to me "I've got money and other clients, why do I need this?"
Absolutely. I'm not advocating for GW doing whatever it takes to get them into walmart. If they can make it work, fine, but I don't see them taking on a bad deal in order to get it done. While they haven't had a cash flow problem for years, if GW got themselves into an overly long term with a place like Walmart, that could kill them in a single incident of returned product and destroyed margins.
Indeed. These Paint + Play products seem like a good compromise. They're effectively 2nd string lines that will capture interest and the (one would assume) included 40k leaflet/catalogue showing more "advanced" kits.
These will be super cheap to produce as they seem to be old AoBR stuff or similar, so thousands of units sitting on sale or return shouldn't be too big a deal and will not negatively effect (or at least shouldn't) sale of existing products.
Absolutely. I'm not advocating for GW doing whatever it takes to get them into walmart. If they can make it work, fine, but I don't see them taking on a bad deal in order to get it done. While they haven't had a cash flow problem for years, if GW got themselves into an overly long term with a place like Walmart, that could kill them in a single incident of returned product and destroyed margins.
I agree. In this case, the actual cost of goods sold is extremely relevant, as the other costs of sale will be much lower. If the actual CoGS is around 20% or lower, GW is in a good place to be in Walmart; at 30% and above, I think it would be pretty dicey.
If the CoGS approaches 10% or lower, the returns aren't really a big deal. In the case of these box sets, or sold in high enough numbers, that actually might actually be possible.
Talys wrote: Yes, major urban centers still have independent toy stores that sell a wide variety of toys. Yes, they are good places for GW to have toys (at least, the ones that don't have . My point was just that there are a lot fewer of them now compared to decades past -- just like there are a lot fewer independent bookstores that don't specialize in some niche (like computer books or occult). Neither is imagined; it's actual, at least in my part of the world, a qualification that I originally stated. Whether indie toy stores are a big thing in Frankfurt or Paris or Cleveland, I have no idea, even though I've probably been to those cities a hundred times.
Cool. I apologize if I mistook you as dismissing the independent toy store out of hand.
Here we have an example of GW going to an actual trade event and unveiling a new product line (even if it is just repackaged old figures in coloured plastic) meant for a new sales channel. In a product that has a low development cost but could open up an entire new source of revenue for GW. This is the first concrete thing they've tried other than just talking about more single employee stores and how everything rests on their store managers not thinking for themselves and GW's ability to recruit replacements when they don't work out.
What I find a little strange is that there's an individual's email address on these flyers. Like a single individual has been tasked with tapping into this market. If so, then this might be a really low risk, high reward situation. If they already have the tooling done and can spin up the machines to pump out the sprues and already have their source for packaging, tiny paint pots and the like, then it doesn't take too much in the way of investment to go after this new target market.
If it works, it could be huge for GW and the way it might benefit your typical Dakka poster is if it reminds GW that there's profit to be made on each individual sprue costing very little after all the design and development work has been done. It could remind GW that they have a huge reserve of moulds already cut that they can use to package things at good prices rather than constantly churning their own product line and concentrating on high pressure sales of the latest release at the highest possible price. It might make them see that a return to growth is actually possible and that the Wells and Kirby plan of intentionally shrinking the business year over year isn't the only path available for GW. A small project like this really blowing up could revitalize their corporate culture.
Do i think it will work? Probably not. I think GW will shoot themselves in their own foot and just approach all these toy stores with their current trade sales plan and it'll go nowhere. Stores that might go "Oh, six products for the models section? And they come with paints and a brush? Sure." will instead go "And I have to bring in the whole line of paints and this Age of Sigmar products and reorganize a large portion of my shelves and if I want to reorder anything I have to wait until I have a $400 order to place? No thanks."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: If the CoGS approaches 10% or lower, the returns aren't really a big deal. In the case of these box sets, or sold in high enough numbers, that actually might actually be possible.
If GW has hit the point where they can keep their costs shrinking with their revenue declines then they might have injection moulding hours available. They already have a huge variety of steel moulds that are all paid for. A single graphic designer, a single product developer and a dedicated sales guy and a bit of support from various people as needed and GW might be able to do this for next to nothing.
I think the individual e-mail adress is there because this is a trade show and there needs to be a trade contact for retailers interested in carrying the Build & Paint line. I don't think it means more than that.
frozenwastes wrote: Talys it doesn't really matter that google returned a variety of results and includes things you find funny. It also makes sense that google would return all types of toy stores, doesn't it? So how about you just count the ones that might have a model section or could be talked into starting one with these sort of products. The fact is that in pretty much every major urban centre there are still independent toy and model shops. They may not be in malls anymore like they were when I was a kid, but they're there. And they represent an untapped potential for GW trade sales that these new products are probably meant exactly for.
--
This was exactly my point, though: The kite shop, adult sex toy shop, lego shop, rc/drone shop, and store selling toys carved out of maple wood... are not going to sell GW models.
The sex toy shop, well obviously, but why not the rest? There are a few hobby stores here, the biggest is right in the town centre and stocks airsoft weapons, RC vehicles pre-built and kit-form, lego, assorted toys, train sets and accessories, general hobby supplies, and military modelling kits of all levels. Even the almost-totally-dedicated hobby train shop that reeks of pipe smoke and flat caps has a few shelves of Airfix boxes. Any half-competent salesperson should be able to shift a wee chunk of these to a hobby store providing GW don't insist on their ludicrous trade terms.
GW will not be able to impose their usual rather onerous trade terms on toy and models shops because these shops have less need for GW than GW has need for them.
It's not like game hobby shops where a substantial part of sales used to come from GW products.
How many people would it really take to develop this product line? And why not have a single guy be the sales guy for this line until he can show some results and make the case for more of their trade sales force being assigned to this new channel?
GW has centralized their admin and sales departments and is very hawkish about costs, so why not have one guy that is the toy store guy in the sales department? And when he closes some orders and shows this product line is working, they can expand. Or perhaps he'll be the one organizing their trade sales force to go after this segment in general and this new line will be what they open with.
I don't think it's really reading into anything to assume the guy's name on the flyer is the guy who's the sales guy for these six products. I think it's more of a stretch to assume this is some huge new branch of GW or something. Or that GW trade sales in general is switching directions from game stores to model and toy stores. One guy as the sales guy for this sort of thing makes more sense than that.
It could well also just be a cultural thing. In my own business to business sales experience the flyers will have generic contact info and the specific sales person's info will be on a business card.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: GW will not be able to impose their usual rather onerous trade terms on toy and models shops because these shops have less need for GW than GW has need for them.
It's not like game hobby shops where a substantial part of sales used to come from GW products.
That's why I think if they go with that approach, this new sales channel won't get developed. It just won't work to have a new product line for a new channel and then saddle it with the baggage of other sales channels and other product lines.
I think it comes down to price again. These are going to be sat next to the revel and airfix starter kits. Will these be cool enough and cheap enough for Timmys dad to buy over a spitfire of a mini cooper?
It's a great idea in theory, but i don't trust gw to make it work. It might benefit vets that are short on time though.
I guess I'm just shocked that GW is doing anything differently than their approach of cutting costs, raise prices and concentrating on high pressure sales to their captive niche. It's just strange to think of GW actually having a plan to enter a new sales channel and develop products specifically for it. I just can't see Kirby bragging about how they looked at how this new market works and then designed a product to meet that analysis. Maybe Rountree isn't just a hand puppet for Kirby.
Hum. Well, it seems to me that the new guy at the top, Rountree, actually is coming through with some changes of strategy to try and address the longterm decline of sales.
When his appointment was announced, a couple of years ago, I was worried that he would be a mere figurehead yes-man for Kirby, the power behind the throne, but this clearly is not the case. Unless Kirby has changed strategy, of course, though that comes to the same result.
Herzlos wrote: I think it comes down to price again. These are going to be sat next to the revel and airfix starter kits. Will these be cool enough and cheap enough for Timmys dad to buy over a spitfire of a mini cooper?
It's a great idea in theory, but i don't trust gw to make it work. It might benefit vets that are short on time though.
They look like they will be a touch more expensive than similar Revel or Airfix kits particular where the latter appear in discount supermarkets etc.
But I don't think that's not a problem. Picture a boring wet weekend, Dad says to little timmy "lets get a model what like I used to make when I were a young 'un".
He shows Timmy a Spitfire/Tiger Tank but Timmy is already looking at the Explodey pictures with the Space Knight riding a and Angry Aliens on them. Dad buys the slightly more expensive kit as he has no choice. I've been there, it happens.
Kilkrazy wrote: What GW should think about is making an Age of Emporer rulebook that could be included free with each starter kit.
And then not make the rules intentionally devalue the models by requiring a ton of them. Instead find a way to have the individual bike or individual captain be awesome. Or the individual trukk. So a kid can play with his friend and have a real game experience with just a kit or two each. Even if it only takes 20 minutes to play. The "everything is awesome" version of 40k. That kid should be zooming his bike each turn even though he's being shot at. Not just remove it from play after one attack the first time it drives out from behind a book pretending to be a hill.
The G sets are listed £10 Bike, £15 Land Speeder/Truck and £25 for the Squads, so the same ball park.
An edit of the Dark Vengence starter pamphlet would make sent to include.
I'm not sure if Age of [EEEE]Emporer might be you playing the wag Kk, but it isn't a bad idea if you could balance the fact that your not getting both sides. I'm sure people would moan if they felt they were buying a game but then having to buy something else.
notprop wrote: He shows Timmy a Spitfire/Tiger Tank but Timmy is already looking at the Explodey pictures with the Space Knight riding a and Angry Aliens on them. Dad buys the slightly more expensive kit as he has no choice. I've been there, it happens.
It's a shame. My parents only ever gave me money for chores and then it was up to me to decide what I wanted, if I wanted to spend more on a kit it was up to me to decide if it was worth waiting another week or two to get.
When did parents start just buying gak for their kids instead of teaching them the value of money?
notprop wrote: The G sets are listed £10 Bike, £15 Land Speeder/Truck and £25 for the Squads, so the same ball park.
KK was talking about the airfix starter sets that come with paint, glue and a couple of those awful brushes. The smaller starter sets (1/72 aircraft) are actually more like £8, 1/32 cars are more like £12-18.
Airfix obviously make a massive range of kits, they start from about £6 for many of the 1/72 WW2 fighters up to £150 for something like a 1/24 DeHavilland Mosquito with over 600 parts and a wingspan of over 2 feet.
notprop wrote: The G sets are listed £10 Bike, £15 Land Speeder/Truck and £25 for the Squads, so the same ball park.
An edit of the Dark Vengence starter pamphlet would make sent to include.
I'm not sure if Age of [EEEE]Emporer might be you playing the wag Kk, but it isn't a bad idea if you could balance the fact that your not getting both sides. I'm sure people would moan if they felt they were buying a game but then having to buy something else.
No, I genuinely feel that GW's objective should be to get people to buy a couple these kits, start playing rather than just building them, and then graduate to bigger games and more models. This argues for inclusion of some simple rules.
Since the kits are cheap and aimed at a young audience that won't necessarily have support in playing, the included rules need to be short and simple. An AoS style rule pamphlet would fill this role. GW could print the game stats of the models on the end panels of the boxes, as a colour war scroll.
notprop wrote: The G sets are listed £10 Bike, £15 Land Speeder/Truck and £25 for the Squads, so the same ball park.
KK was talking about the airfix starter sets that come with paint, glue and a couple of those awful brushes. The smaller starter sets (1/72 aircraft) are actually more like £8, 1/32 cars are more like £12-18.
Airfix obviously make a massive range of kits, they start from about £6 for many of the 1/72 WW2 fighters up to £150 for something like a 1/24 DeHavilland Mosquito with over 600 parts and a wingspan of over 2 feet.
When did parents start just buying gak for their kids instead of teaching them the value of money?
I hear it happened shortly after the invention of money!
Maybe it's just where I grew up. The majority of kids in my class going through primary school got some amount of pocket money to spend from the age of like, I dunno, 7, 8? Parents just randomly buying gak was something special and not just to appease little Timmy for another few days
Maybe that's what I get for growing up in a working class suburb, lol.
Two things about the kits.
1. there is a sprue in one of the pictures with the deff copter. no box, but it would be great to be able to get that model again.
2. here in the US, a lot of the larger hobby stores carry an isle of model kits. Michaels and Hobby Lobby both do fairly decent model sales, and there aren't a lot of Sci-fi and fantasy kits so they may sell well. it would be worth it to GW to look at this as advertising and exposure to a wider market. They may well just make the deals these larger hobby stores require. The boxes have self contained, so it could just be a toe in the water to see if they move.
pox wrote: Two things about the kits.
1. there is a sprue in one of the pictures with the deff copter. no box, but it would be great to be able to get that model again.
2. here in the US, a lot of the larger hobby stores carry an isle of model kits. Michaels and Hobby Lobby both do fairly decent model sales, and there aren't a lot of Sci-fi and fantasy kits so they may sell well. it would be worth it to GW to look at this as advertising and exposure to a wider market. They may well just make the deals these larger hobby stores require. The boxes have self contained, so it could just be a toe in the water to see if they move.
I'm not sure it would work out to well for the store you mention if Hobbycraft in the UK are anything to go by. They carried GW and FoW in their (large retail chain) stores much like you mention but they didn't last much more than a few years as stock. The only time anyone I know bought from them as desperate need for a kit now and big discount vouchers.
I think wargames kits need the games themselves pushing to generate and maintain interest with the general. It didn't seem to work here at similar stores.
Herzlos wrote: I think it comes down to price again. These are going to be sat next to the revel and airfix starter kits. Will these be cool enough and cheap enough for Timmys dad to buy over a spitfire of a mini cooper?
It's a great idea in theory, but i don't trust gw to make it work. It might benefit vets that are short on time though.
They look like they will be a touch more expensive than similar Revel or Airfix kits particular where the latter appear in discount supermarkets etc.
But I don't think that's not a problem. Picture a boring wet weekend, Dad says to little timmy "lets get a model what like I used to make when I were a young 'un".
He shows Timmy a Spitfire/Tiger Tank but Timmy is already looking at the Explodey pictures with the Space Knight riding a and Angry Aliens on them. Dad buys the slightly more expensive kit as he has no choice. I've been there, it happens.
Assuming the boxes show something cool enough; the mock-ups aren't of much more than the model, and whilst I know it's a space marine on a bike, to the complete novice, it's just a big blue dude on a motorbike, or a big green dude on some platform thing. By the target age, they'll probably have seen a lot more old war films on TV than sci-fi stuff, so I'm not sure they'd automatically go for the Warhammer stuff in the same way we did in the 90's (where the box art was like a heavy metal cover).
If there's a price difference, will Timmy want the GW stuff enough that he isn't won over by his dad saying "But if you go for that one, you can get a yo-yo too, or an ice cream".
In essence, I'm trying to say that in this new market, their IP has no market penetration or value, so it needs to compete in other ways. They could make a big play on it being part of a game with rules (and provide rules that allow them to play simple games with 2 boxes - a model each). Like what Zvezda do with their 1/100th scale individual model kits (which cost about £4 each and come with a unit card link).
Kids like the fantastic (bright colours help too). You have a ton of WW2 and modern tanks/planes and something different, the something different will catch your eye.
I mean the existence of this site and a nearby thread to this one describing the fascination of our younger selves with mostly GW products contradicts the notion that it has no penetration or value. It does have a cache with children and thats what it will compete on.
War films don't appeal to children these days anyway, they have live streaming cartoons and youtube instead.
As for War films, that was the last generation; and we only watched them because they were better than whatever gakky Cowboy film had been on the day before!
keezus wrote: Ah... the old Gorka Morka truk. Nothing but the latest and greatest models to put your best foot forwards, capture the imagination and entice newbs right?
That model was already horribly primitive when it was released in 1997, mercifully put out of its misery in 2009... and now lives again as (an ill conceived) lead-in product in 2016!
-edit- That looks like the discontinued ork bike too... with the tracks and the nonsense side-guns. Ugh.
It's covered in the main News thread but the boxes and art are watermarked with "Mock Up" so who knows what the final product will actually be.
If you consider the intended target audience though, the Gorkamorka era Trukk may be less daunting to an 8 year old splashing out some pocket money.
Get them hooked on a gateway product before ensnaring them with the higher priced product.
I'm going to sound old at the ripe old age of 31 with this, but since when was £15 (the price of the trukk) pocket money?
I remember getting 20p a week, if I did my piano practice, and the price of a series one Airfix kit went up from 20p to 21p. That was over 40 years ago.
Yeah but that was when you could buy a metal Dwarf for 50p or a metal Marine for 60p.
This pricing structure is the main reason I have a GW Dwarf army. I was too impatient to wait another week for the extra 10p to buy the marine I wanted rather than the Dwarf I could afford.
When I started buying Citadel figures they were 25p each, compared to 20p for historical wargame figures in 25mm scale. This was the early 1980s.
In 2004-2005 I was buying Tau Ethereal blisters for £2.50. The metal Pathfinders came in packs of three. I can't remember their price. A Tau Ethereal is now £9 in Finecast.
No, I genuinely feel that GW's objective should be to get people to buy a couple these kits, start playing rather than just building them, and then graduate to bigger games and more models. This argues for inclusion of some simple rules.
Since the kits are cheap and aimed at a young audience that won't necessarily have support in playing, the included rules need to be short and simple. An AoS style rule pamphlet would fill this role. GW could print the game stats of the models on the end panels of the boxes, as a colour war scroll.
I don't think GW is looking at these as any sort of game pieces. They're designed to capture kids' imaginations in terms of modelling, no differently than a model airplane or train or submarine or Gundam robot would. Frankly, I don't think that is a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with encouraging pure modelling.
On the other hand, I also think it would be great if they had an actual toy store or general appeal game, like HeroQuest. But it should be marketed as such, and like HeroQuest, it shouldn't require any glue to enjoy.
Herzlos wrote: I certainly remember getting enough that I could buy a blister every time I went to GW (once a month or so). Maybe £1/week in the early-mid 90's?
Kids have gotten a lot more expensive Now they want iPhones, XBoxes, PlayStations... It's never-freakin'-ending now. Frankly, for a lot of parents I know, if their a $50 box of models every few weeks would keep their 12-16 year old engaged, they'd be very happy, lol.
By the way, in the late 80's, GW blisters here were about $10, though you usually got 2 heroes or up to 5 troops for that. I still have some with the price stickers on them
Games and gaming consoles have become cheaper compared to the nineties, not to mention PC gaming. The PlayStation launched for 299 Pounds in 1994 and games have become a whole lot cheaper compared to the early nineties.
Most parents will probably prefer the 50 bucks game, or even cheaper from the used bin at their local Game Stop, to a box five unassambled plastic toys that require further investment for any sort of enjoyment to be gained from them.
You would be surprised how often parents voice the concern that their children do too much solitary or online, passive computer gaming. It was a common theme when I worked for SCEE and we spent a lot of effort trying to find ways to dispel that image of computer games.
Korraz wrote: Games and gaming consoles have become cheaper compared to the nineties, not to mention PC gaming. The PlayStation launched for 299 Pounds in 1994 and games have become a whole lot cheaper compared to the early nineties.
Most parents will probably prefer the 50 bucks game, or even cheaper from the used bin at their local Game Stop, to a box five unassambled plastic toys that require further investment for any sort of enjoyment to be gained from them.
Some things never change
The PlayStation 4 is around 299 Pounds in 2016, and most of the games are in the fifty-buck range Plus DLC, deluxe editions, and other ways to fleece you after
Sure, you'll find parents buying previous generation consoles, but this has happened, well, ever since the 2nd generation consoles Kids want the new generation stuff; what they get, well, depends on the means of the family and all that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: You would be surprised how often parents voice the concern that their children do too much solitary or online, passive computer gaming. It was a common theme when I worked for SCEE and we spent a lot of effort trying to find ways to dispel that image of computer games.
There are three sorts of parents -- the ones that are very much, "get out and exercise", others that are, "do something cerebral", and the ones that just don't much care one way or the other, or just let their children choose their activities, within reason. Some parents are perfectly content that their children never leave the safety of the home, and would rather have their friends come over to play in the house, rather than have them get out and go kick a soccer ball.
The PlayStation 4 is around 299 Pounds in 2016, and most of the games are in the fifty-buck range Plus DLC, deluxe editions, and other ways to fleece you after
£299 is worth a whole lot less after 22 years of inflation According to one of the calculators, £299 in 1994 is worth about £544 in 2016. So in real terms, the cost of consoles has halved. There's also a much larger 2nd hand market due to a massive uptake related to the drop in price.
DLC will almost always shaft you, but it won't bring games up to price parity.
Microsoft just released its 2016Q2 quarterlies, and I had to chuckle a little as I noticed that it's pretty much all expressed in Constant Currency -- not just the top line numbers, but pretty much every comparative with previous periods.
Also, Microsoft returned $6.5 billion to investors in the form of repurchases and dividends, on profits of $5.0 billion
Yes, yes, there are about 100 billion reasons that they're not good companies to compare with each other (around the difference in their annual revenues). But it just goes to show that constant currency and returning more to investors than earnings is not just something crazy that GW does.
If anyone's interested in MSFT, an easy summary is here -- all in all a pretty good quarter for them.
The link states the $6.5bn came from buybacks and dividends, According to https://www.microsoft.com/investor/Stock/StockSplit/default.aspx the dividend was only $0.36 per share, which is roughly half of the $0.62 earnings per share. The difference must be made up from share buy-backs, so MSFT aren't actually giving away more to shareholders than they make.
It seems to have been a good quarter because whilst the telephone space has tanked (47% decline) their Office 365 division is doing well. Diversification works
Whenever companies want to highlight that they are subject to currency fluctuations they'll put in constant currency. Especially when it makes things look better (or less worse).
As for dividend payout ratios, the reason it's been well looked into by market historians is that it's far too common for a company to crank up their payout ratio to an unsustainable level. It always ends the same though-- a dividend cut. It's mathematically impossible to pay more than you make forever.
I took a look at this Microsoft report and yeah, their dividend payout ratio was 58%. Their share buyback is part of a multi year strategy to reduce their outstanding share numbers. It's definitely part of the current corporate management playbook to have bonuses that are tied to increasing earning per share and then getting their by reducing the number of shares.
I'm sure lots of MS investors would rather see the company put some of that buy back money towards finding new ways to grow, but at least their dividend policy is sane.
I'm sure lots of MS investors would rather see the company put some of that buy back money towards finding new ways to grow, but at least their dividend policy is sane.
Yeah. Some of the longest standing companies have been chugging away payout dividends of 50-60% of earnings for decades. It's sort of where you expect a mature company who's not looking to take big risks to level off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: It seems to have been a good quarter because whilst the telephone space has tanked (47% decline) their Office 365 division is doing well. Diversification works
This is one of the reasons GW should be getting back into as many sales channels as possible with a variety of products rather than ratecheting down to 40k and AoS. I think with the Bloodbowl relaunch and their new children's products, they're doing this. As well as their aggressive licensing for video games (which has worked and lead to increasing revenue from royalties). They need to keep going on this path. They need to reverse this idea that they have one type of customer who loves their "jewel like objects of magic and wonder" and will pay any price asked for it and realize that there are lots of different people they can get money from.
Herzlos wrote: The link states the $6.5bn came from buybacks and dividends, According to https://www.microsoft.com/investor/Stock/StockSplit/default.aspx the dividend was only $0.36 per share, which is roughly half of the $0.62 earnings per share. The difference must be made up from share buy-backs, so MSFT aren't actually giving away more to shareholders than they make.
It seems to have been a good quarter because whilst the telephone space has tanked (47% decline) their Office 365 division is doing well. Diversification works
47% decline sounds horrible! But, they only sold 4.5 million handsets, and they lose money on every Lumia handset they sell. So, on one hand, they lost less money by selling fewer phones, and all 4.5 million phones don't add up to a hill of beans anyhow (even then, most of those are cheap Lumia 500- and 600- series phones). Ironically, Microsoft's crappiest unit (phones) was bought for more money than GW will ever be worth ($7.2 billion) I'm not sure if you're familiar with Windows Phones (I'm a big fan), but the joke is, Windows Phones aren't phones made for fans; they're made by Microsoft to shut fans up.
Almost all of their divisions did well, though. Even the ones that saw a decline mostly had some silver lining, beat the market average, or overperformed expectations.
Whether a company pays out a dollar or spends a dollar paid in dividends or buying back shares makes no difference from the perspective of "giving back more than you earn". They both equally reduce the cash position of the company and provide immediate value to shareholders -- if there are fewer shares outstanding, you own proportionately more of the company. Sure, you can't sustain it forever, but there are lots of times when it will just work out that way, or when it might be a good idea, which is all I was saying about GW.
It's certainly possible to take a 47% decline and still not lose money, if you are prepared for it. I don't know anything about Microsoft phones (they pretty much don't exist here - it's all Samsung or Apple).
Whether a company pays out a dollar or spends a dollar paid in dividends or buying back shares makes no difference from the perspective of "giving back more than you earn". They both equally reduce the cash position of the company and provide immediate value to shareholders -- if there are fewer shares outstanding, you own proportionately more of the company. Sure, you can't sustain it forever, but there are lots of times when it will just work out that way, or when it might be a good idea, which is all I was saying about GW.
But they didn't give away more than they earned. The gave away have half of their EPS and then bought stuff with the rest.
Those shares will result in about a 2.34% yield, and can be sold again if needed (or given to staff in lieu of cash payments). The dividend didn't change so there's no expectations of higher dividends, and the buy back is presumably a one-off thing, or at least at their discretion.
With GW the money was given away, there's no way for the company to recoup any of it if they need the money. If they reduce it, the share price drops because the shareholders are used to the incredibly high yield (6.838%), so their hands are tied.
One is a smart move, and one is very shortsighted.
GW make dividend payments because they generate allot of cash from direct immediate sales and this is clearly visible to shareholders. They cannot reasonably sit on large sums of cash without good reason - i.e. contingency/risk, planned investment, expansion etc.
notprop wrote: GW make dividend payments because they generate allot of cash from direct immediate sales and this is clearly visible to shareholders. They cannot reasonably sit on large sums of cash without good reason - i.e. contingency/risk, planned investment, expansion etc.
If they were growing as a company then that argument about not sitting on cash would be fine and dandy. They are not. They should be reinvesting that money into the company.
While it is desirable that turnover will grow over time it would be naïve to assume that a company would not wax and wane with the market it is in, so long as the company can remain buoyant and generate enough margin to cover overhead and profit.
Now GW do reinvest but there is only so much money you can spend on plant, property and human resources (if that is even a reinvestment) without generating higher liabilities for the next period; and thereby undercutting your own profitability.
As I say GW create allot of cash (from stores/we sales) and there's only so much you can do with it (how many £4M webstores does one need? That cash will go to dividend if not used.
It's not criminal, it's not negligent or incompetent, i's just the way share ownership works within a business.
The only other thing this sort of money is used for in buying other businesses. Take a look at the way the big US firms buy everything and anything. Apple generates so much cash they have to buy more and more companies otherwise they will be paying it in tax on profit.
notprop wrote: It's not criminal, it's not negligent or incompetent, i's just the way share ownership works within a business.
I think it can be incompetent. I think it can be the way share ownership doesn't work (that is causes decline) in a business.
At least Microsoft spent some of their money on developing both their phone division (which isn't really working) and their tablet division (which is blowing up and doing awesome). And investing in changing how they deliver software and finally integrating the business model of an app marketplace into Windows. And their cloud services. Had the company not invested in these additional means of making money they would barely be profitable. In fact, their Intelligent Cloud division now makes as much money as business software sales.
GW has done the opposite. They've consolidated and banked on just their core business. And not just their core business, but a subset of possible customers within that core business. So now that their core business has shrunk, they find themselves in a very different position from Microsoft. Microsoft has replaced their shrinking software sales with tablets and cloud services that now combine to make up a quarter of their revenue. GW has done none of that and now just has their shrunken core business and some anemic royalties and that's it.
Yeah, GW giving all that money to the shareholders implies that they literally have nothing better to do with that money.
Like, surely there's lots of things they could do with the money to grow the company? Why can't they buy up smaller companies? Upgrading their tooling? Develop more games? Fix their existing games? Run some adverts? Host some external events?
Shareholders naturally want a company to survive and grow, which usually requires R&D or other investment, but they ultimately are interested in profiting from their shareholdings.
From a shareholder's point of view there are two ways to make money out of a company. These are dividends, or share price growth. If shares increase in price quickly enough they can either be sold for a good profit, or used as security for borrowing.
Indeed, and a company holding too much cash can actually damage its share price.
Herzlos wrote: Yeah, GW giving all that money to the shareholders implies that they literally have nothing better to do with that money.
Like, surely there's lots of things they could do with the money to grow the company? Why can't they buy up smaller companies? Upgrading their tooling? Develop more games? Fix their existing games? Run some adverts? Host some external events?
It doesn't imply, it confirms.
Also you can't spend necessarily spend extra cash without increasing your on-going liability (extra staff, running costs, property etc). So if GW think they have the resource already to expand the SGS (or will do when/if they get in the extra bodies we have seen advertised) then the cash remains surplus so available for dividend.
Herzlos wrote: Yeah, GW giving all that money to the shareholders implies that they literally have nothing better to do with that money.
Like, surely there's lots of things they could do with the money to grow the company? Why can't they buy up smaller companies? Upgrading their tooling? Develop more games? Fix their existing games? Run some adverts? Host some external events?
I believe paying someone to fix their rules would be a much better use of that money than giving it to shareholders. I guess good business sense is otiose at GWHQ.
Talys wrote: Microsoft just released its 2016Q2 quarterlies, and I had to chuckle a little as I noticed that it's pretty much all expressed in Constant Currency -- not just the top line numbers, but pretty much every comparative with previous periods.
Also, Microsoft returned $6.5 billion to investors in the form of repurchases and dividends, on profits of $5.0 billion
Yes, yes, there are about 100 billion reasons that they're not good companies to compare with each other (around the difference in their annual revenues). But it just goes to show that constant currency and returning more to investors than earnings is not just something crazy that GW does.
If anyone's interested in MSFT, an easy summary is here -- all in all a pretty good quarter for them.
I honestly can see how it could work well for them- but ultimately I can't see how this could possibly a maintainable strategy. I mean, Microsoft spent $1.5 billion that they didn't make, right?
If they paid out less than they made last year, I could see how this would make loads of sense. I cannot see how this could possibly be a sustainable long term strategy.
Is there a way that it can be a strong long-term strategy?
Many required textbooks written by university courses are written by the professor of that class and cost a fortune for TINY books. I remember buying a philosophy textbook for $80, that was probably a 50 page softcover. 
the guy who was confidently trying to sell me an acrylic thinner to mix with a lacquer paint because they weren't labelled as such but they were next to each other in the catalog 
