Let's say GW gets it in their heads that they'd like to make themselves popular again. How could they do that while still drawing in customers and meeting the bottom line? What new policies would you like to see coming from Nottingham?
Develop a new product line that is meant to be sold through every possible distributor rather than trying to control who sells it and how. It needs to get in the hands of people GWs current marketing machine doesn't reach.
That rumoured inquisitorial skirmish game that turned out to be BS would be a good place to start.
Involve the community with an open playtest like Wizards did to revamp D&D and reclaim the top spot in RPG sales.
It would also be totally okay if they outsourced tthe design and development as their in house team isn't really capable of pulling such a product off.
1. STOP. Freeze everything, and evaluate what products they want their company to produce, then come up with a focused plan to make it happen. One of the biggest problems with GW is the rampant inconsistency with everything they touch. Then...
2. Make quality games. They make quality models, but what gives those models value to a lot of people is their use in the games GW produces. Games Workshop claims to be a model company...but they got their start producing games. Good, quality rulests would add a lot of value to their products, and it's an investment that would pay off. If they can't do it in-house, contract it out.
3. Bring back some specialist games. Battlefleet Gothic (for example) added a lot of fluff and helped to flesh out the 40K universe, but now it's gone. The specialist games help support the main lines, and each can draw players from one to the other.
4. Sponsor community events, whether they be tournaments or just exhibitions like Forge World already does. Also, revealing your new products that way is much better than via leaks on BOLS.
5. Lower prices. I know this is a typical rant, but if they reduce costs it's a really easy way to curry favor with their customers while they fix other stuff. Also, relatively high prices vs. other games is a common complaint.
6. Get rid of GW stores with the exception of a few major ones; those would have massive gaming spaces with awesome terrain and sell a full line of products, including FW. The rest just need to go, and they can sell their products through independent retailers.
I'll be the voice of dissent here and say that I don't think lowering prices is actually necessary.
Lowering the cost of entry, though - that would certainly help. Stop the endless codex cycling, focus on using new editions to fix the rules rather than changing them up for the sake of change, and release skirmish rules to get people in universe without having to buy an entire army.
A fun side-effect of that would be that if they weren't worrying about when (or if) their codex would be redone, a lot of the angst over not knowing what GW is working on next would go away.
However, communication is, I think, still key to getting the community back onside. People will forgive an awful lot if they at least feel like they're being listened to.
The cost of entry method only works if GW thinks of their products as a game first and minis second. Also, it only works if the majority of their potential customers think the same way. We know the first isn't true and have no way to know if the second is true.
You know what would satisfy both cost of entry concerned gamers as well as miniature collectors? Lowering prices.
First off, have the balls and admit to making mistakes.
The cuts the cost of their product, I have first hand knowledge that in nearly all of the distribution centre some products are over a year old and don't sell they are dust collectors.
Games Workshop should have clearance sales to offload slow selling lines.
Stop bringing out limited edition figures and box sets, sure they sell, but the initial investment to sales barely makes 5% profit, they consume a lot of money for little return.
Have the courage to open up all electronic communications and cop the criticism good/bad. Have expert painters to do your examples justice instead of badly painted plastic, impressions count.
Stop the Codex avalanche putting out Codicies out every two years is just crazy, and it is offensive knowing that the new codex will be obsolete in less than 18 months to two years, unlike the previous 4 to 5 year cycle.
Cut Finecast out of the system and endeavour to have an all plastic range within the next few years.
As mentioned but expand, on the gaming aspect, re-invest in games-day you know actual games and reward those with a Slayer Sword type award for the best player in their region and then have an international championship, thus crowning the world champion.
But the main issue is that the cost of product as previously mentioned.
Last week, I went into my LGW... and BSd for about an hour with the manager (re: sole employee). I asked him about AoS, as I had intended to, curious if I could possibly be enticed to start playing again, seeing as I have a bunch of time for a couple weeks....
He told me flat out, for the first time in what seems like months, or even years, people were having FUN playing a warhammer game.... I know these fora love to bash rules and pick them apart, etc. but when you have a guy who's job it is to push models like it's the hot miracle cure, like an old time snake oil salesman telling you that people are actually smiling, having fun in the store, to me, that's a step in the right direction.
To that end, from what I saw, the AoS rules were what... 4 pages, plus data sheets (sorry, "Warscrolls") for each unit. Cutting out bloat and needless exposition helps.
As much as I'd love to see price cuts, realistically, that won't happen. However, I would love to see a "Freeze" or a situation where, once a model is released, that's the price it is for basically all eternity. I think people, especially vets who have been around the game for a while can stomach a $50 Land Raider, knowing that it's always going to be 50 bucks. (it's 75 on the GW USA site... and when I started, they were 50). So, I know that GW want to make their money back on big kits like Nagash... Sure, sell them at 100 a pop. But now that it's 100, fething leave it at 100... don't sell it for 100 now, and then in 2 or 3 years raise the price to 130 or something.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: ...but when you have a guy who's job it is to push models like it's the hot miracle cure, like an old time snake oil salesman telling you that people are actually smiling, having fun in the store, to me, that's a step in the right direction.
So... the guy whose job is to tell you the game is good, telling you the game is good, is proof that the game is good...?
To be fair, maybe it is. I think the biggest problem that people have with AoS is just that it's such a big shift away from what WHFBwas. People who liked WHFB, even many of those who had left the game in more recent years, wanted that game fixed, not a different game entirely.
That's part of where that communication thing comes in. The backlash to AoS wouldn't have been as severe if people had been more prepared for it. If GW had told us months ago that it was coming, and what that actually meant for WHFB, they could have eased everyone into it, and built up excitement before the release. They also could have entered into some sort of dialogue about what those people who still wanted to play WHFB could do about it, and divined from there whether or not it was worth their while to offer legacy support for it...
Instead, we got 'BAM!, and your game is gone! Here, play this vaguely similar but completely different game instead! It has Space Marines in it!'
So... the guy whose job is to tell you the game is good, telling you the game is good, is proof that the game is good...?
Actually, the manager where I'm at and I have a fairly good rapport... he doesn't BS me. In fact, he never said the game is good. He said that he kind of likes the game, though he has already experienced a flaw in the not having points values anymore aspect. And he said that he's actually noticed people smiling and having fun.
To me, IMO, games should be fun... and if a guy who is constantly surrounded by us gamers, and all the bitching and moaning that so many of us do, has noticed a "morale shift" in a positive direction, it's something to take note of.
There's a problem with suddenly lowering prices though, and that's retailers. They've already paid for stock, and now they're supposed to sell it for less? GW would have to offer some refunds to all the independents, trying to figure out who actually has what on hand, or you're going to end up with GW selling stuff cheaper on their website than retailers have on their shelves, and that won't create good will.
AduroT wrote: There's a problem with suddenly lowering prices though, and that's retailers. They've already paid for stock, and now they're supposed to sell it for less? GW would have to offer some refunds to all the independents, trying to figure out who actually has what on hand, or you're going to end up with GW selling stuff cheaper on their website than retailers have on their shelves, and that won't create good will.
You're right. GW would never screw over the independent retailers for their own advantage.
If GW wants to be "popular" as in truly mainstream, they're going to have to branch out further into media which will mean less of a focus on the tabletop stuff. They need a new video game, something decent like Dawn of War. Not something terrible like Space Marine. There are some promising new games in the works, even some FB ones which is odd considering that FB is basically over.
I don't think a price cut is needed, as this is likely to also result in worse minis.. I'd say outsource the game rules and design to someone else and involve the community more via events. Also change White Dwarf back to what it used to be.
Oh yeah and, stop prosecuting everyone who tries to involve themselfs in the IP.
AduroT wrote: There's a problem with suddenly lowering prices though, and that's retailers. They've already paid for stock, and now they're supposed to sell it for less? GW would have to offer some refunds to all the independents, trying to figure out who actually has what on hand, or you're going to end up with GW selling stuff cheaper on their website than retailers have on their shelves, and that won't create good will.
I tend to agree with that, which is why in an earlier post, IIRC, I said that they should freeze price hikes.
I would suppose I should spell out better... I think that prices for current stock should not be increased. I also think that the price of a model needs to remain at it's entry price for the duration of the life of that kit. IE, the old metal harlequins were what... 30 bucks for a box of 5 or whatever? That price should have remained until the new, current plastic kit came out at $40 dollars a box. And it should pretty much always be $40, until the unit either no longer exists, or until a new and retooled kit is released. The Nagash model, at $100+ should remain at it's current price, again, until the unit no longer exists, or until they release a completely new kit for it.
Put time into surveying what people want figure and release wise and make it a small factor into the overall plan.
It's one thing to have your own scheduled releases, but making time for genuine fan pleasers - updates to hero figures, additional support for more "niche" (read: sidelined) armies.
How many times has a new release been met with, "Cool! But why did we need that?" Or, "Well I didn't see that coming..."
On that note, a little transparency in advance releases. Knowing in 8 months there's going to be an awesome release for X or Y had never hurt a gaming company before. Sure, drop surprises like its Christmas magic, but give us something to lust after.
If you mean the tournament/competitive community, "giving a damn" might be a start, but "nothing" is probably closer to the truth, because GW has made it pretty evident in what they do that they just don't care about them.
If you mean WHFB community, "nothing" is probably a pretty absolute answer for those that despise AoS and GW as a game and company that ended development off their pastime.
If you mean the close group gamer (plays at home or in a private group), better communication seems to be something a lot of people want. Though personally, I love the rumor-news-release drama. I don't think this group is as angry with GW.
If you mean the 40k modelling hobbyist, I don't think they need to do anything at all; this is a happy bunch, because new shiny things keep popping out of the Eye of Terror.
Of course, lower prices would make everyone happier. But I don't know if it would necessarily make GW more money (it might, or might not).
Obviously GW can't just "lower" its prices. Not gonna happen. The only practical way for them to go about making their products cheaper is to release new kits with better value than the stuff that was coming out before. This happens once in a blue moon, like when GW releases cheap minis for a "starter" box set or when they started producing multipart customizable plastics in the late 90s. Their best bet is to start making kits with a minimum of superfluous bits, just straight up give you what you need to assemble a horde like the AoBR box. And no more experimentation with non-plastic stuff for sure.
Official communication channels. Previews more than a week in advance in a WD. Community managers/liaison people on official and un-official discussion sites. Pricing drop/value increase. Codex cycle stops. Tmely and well done FAQs. Not needing a day 1 FAQ because the rules are properly written. Play testing. Work with FLGS, not against them. Run official events, at both their stores and through FLGS.
Blacksails wrote: Official communication channels. Previews more than a week in advance in a WD. Community managers/liaison people on official and un-official discussion sites. Pricing drop/value increase. Codex cycle stops. Tmely and well done FAQs. Not needing a day 1 FAQ because the rules are properly written. Play testing. Work with FLGS, not against them. Run official events, at both their stores and through FLGS.
this is probably a good start.
The playbook for building a good gaming community isn't secret, in fact GW was a huge participant through the 90s.
Price drops are unrealistic, as others have pointed out, but making bundles/battalions/battle forces actual good deals is not. Sell 700-1000 points of armies in a go at a decent internal discount, and see if that brings in new folk. Some stability with rules/codexes would be nice as well. Right now, the prices are high, but the cycling and the cynical attempts to bleed the fanbase dry are a big turnoff.
Bring back outriders. Every other gaming company has them, so why not GW? have them do demos, paint and takes, and run small store tournaments. Have events!
GW actually does a good job with box games, including starter sets. Dark Vengeance is a ton of models for the price. Why not emphasis that? Also, as many others have noted, bring out a skirmish game in the 40k universe, and watch as people buy starter boxes, followed by squad boxes to build their kill teams.
And, alas, communication. Social media, two way communication. Stop treating us like we're idiots with sudden releases.
Everything I've seen from GW in the last few years, up until AOS, was an attempt to maximize short term profits. I had theorized they were goosing their numbers to look good for a sale, but apparently I was wrong. Their complete disengagement made sense then, but I'm increasingly mystified why they think they can run a modern niche business with no social media.
Opposed to a price cut - better balanced rules with better value for money in the form of less lethality across the board and requiring less models.
I wouldn't mind paying $50 for 12 Gaunts, or $90 for a Carnifex, if they weren't a tiny fraction of an army that will be removed from the table by the handful when D plates start hitting the table.
What makes GW's games so insanely expensive is the amount of models required due to balancing of the game and the lethality of the game.
While the easy answer is 'play at lower points levels', the game simply isn't balanced enough to care to. Fix those - make in game tactics more imortant that simple faction selection, and make units more worthwhile across the board while also lowering the standard level the game is balanced to, and it would be worth getting back into.
The answer to this is very simple:
1). Get involved with the community. GW used to be heavily involved in events, forums, etc but now they live behind closed doors.
2). Listen to your players. Malifaux does something that blows my mind....they release test rules for everyone to play before the new edition is to be released. GW needs to do this.
3). Recreate the value of their product. Yes it is a premium product but their current arrogant sales mentality turns off their customers. Stop increasing prices just to increase profit...give me a value and make me feel good about my purchase.
GW lives in a void and behind closed doors. Until they look at themselves as a game company again we will not see any improvement. They have forgotten why they sell those models they are so proud of.
The GW site could look like the Wizards MtG one, daily columns/articles and submissions from players. A true resource alongside their card database (Gatherer). There's something new every day.
The GW site is a shop, nothing more. The extent of their community interaction is that they put stuff on sale, you buy it and go away.
Make Tony Cottrell CEO, and hand over all design and rules decisions to Forge World.
OK, that wasn't that serious but I think maybe taking a look at FW and why they are regarded in higher esteem than the rest of GW would be a start.
FW just don't seem to get anywhere near as much of a backlash (IMO) as GW, which is crazy, coz they are GW.
It's just they're accessibility at things like FW Open Days, the fact they tell us what's coming, that their books are so glorious so I don't mind paying twice the cost of a codex.
Their rules seem better, their models are higher quality, or if they're not because their QA drops they replace things instantly with no problems.
Although one thing GW does excel at is their customer service, but FW at least seem to listen to their fans - they used to ask what models we wanted to see and for the most part delivered.
FW ARE GW, they are the same company and they aren't as autonomous as they used to be but despite that they just seem to do everything better and I think that really is down to Tony.
I think getting him to look at the rest of GW might not be such a bad idea.
And maybe a Bugman's at the back of every branch of GW.... that would help...
namiel wrote: Simple; give us a reason to buy minis other then your stance of "they are really good minis"
support the community. GAMERS supply your revenue, not collectors. Collectors spend but not what gamers do.
GW may be overestimating the power of the impulse buy, but they make a killing off the people who dabble in their products briefly before giving up in disgust when they find out nobody wants to play a 400 point game and their minis are already invalidated by the new codex that came out last tuesday.
I mean a dedicated gamer might spend $10k USD on their stuff but wouldn't GW rather sell $50 worth of minis to a thousand people?
I personally don't think there is anything the GW can ever do to get back in good standing with its gamers. There is way more hate from GW's "fans" than any community I've ever heard of.
They canned Warhammer because it wasn't selling. It's like when Rover and MG went down the pan, there was a massive outcry across Britain to save them but nobody went out and bought one.
Rover's chief exec said "If everyone who said they wanted to save Rover bought a Rover, it wouldn't need saving" - but these people went to BMW and Audi instead.
Same with GW. People bitch and whine about it and go to Mantic and Warmahordes etc, leaving Warhammer to disappear, then complain about Warhammer's demise which THEY brought about by not buying or playing it.
Stalemate, the real losers are Warhammer's genuine fans.
insaniak wrote: I'll be the voice of dissent here and say that I don't think lowering prices is actually necessary.
I agree. I can afford the minis, I just don't want to spend the time building and painting them up to play a huge tedious affair of vague rules, looking up charts and FAQ's, and other such nonsense.
It doesn't help that IMO a lot of the minis are not as good as they were a few years ago. I feel like they realized Space Marines were too generic with the fallout of the Chapterhouse affair, and decided the best medicine for that was to bling up every flat surface of everything with all kinds of crud, mostly skulls. I think the models are much too busy now.
That's part of where that communication thing comes in. The backlash to AoS wouldn't have been as severe if people had been more prepared for it. If GW had told us months ago that it was coming, and what that actually meant for WHFB, they could have eased everyone into it, and built up excitement before the release. They also could have entered into some sort of dialogue about what those people who still wanted to play WHFB could do about it, and divined from there whether or not it was worth their while to offer legacy support for it...
Instead, we got 'BAM!, and your game is gone! Here, play this vaguely similar but completely different game instead! It has Space Marines in it!'
I don't even play WHFB and I knew AoS was coming a month or 2 ahead of time. So to say people did not see it coming is not totally true I will admit details were scarce, but you knew it was happening.
I actually take the opposite tack on GW entering into a dialloge with existing Fantasy players. That seems like a losing proposition. If they did that in earnest then they would probably have ended up with some frankenstiened thing that was not what they (GW) wanted or what the players wanted and basically would have still ended up with a bunch of pissed off old fantasy players who might actually have some real beef with GW since they actively sought their advice and still "didn't listen". With the non community input method (and I don't know that they did not solicit customer feedback from anyone for a fact) they still end up with pissed off old fantasy players, but gain an un-compromised product they think will do better in the long run.
It is a tough position to be in. I work for a software company and we develop features based on customer feedback and we develop features based on our own sense of where the market is going, where it needs to be, or where we want to push it to. Because we don't focus completely on what the customers ask for we hear the "you don't listen to customer feedback" chant all the time, even though we do listen to customers. However it is hard to take the advice of a customer base of over 450,000 worldwide users. No matter how we collect customer feedback we only get a slice of the user base.
I can tell you from experience you can't give the customer all of the power during a development cycle. Like the old saying from Henry Ford, "If I asked the people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." Sometimes a customer does not really "know" what they want or have the vison to know what they "need".
So sometimes communication with the customer is not necessiarily the best thing.
Loborocket wrote: I don't even play WHFB and I knew AoS was coming a month or 2 ahead of time. So to say people did not see it coming is not totally true I will admit details were scarce, but you knew it was happening.
Outside of internet forums I don't know how many people knew about it.
And even though we knew about it, most people just went on a buying freeze because we had no fething idea what was coming. There were a lot of contradicting rumours. People were suspecting a new edition or a new something going back to when the End Times came out. But that's not a good thing when all it does is piss people off because they think something is coming but have no idea what it is.
I actually take the opposite tack on GW entering into a dialloge with existing Fantasy players. That seems like a losing proposition. If they did that in earnest then they would probably have ended up with some frankenstiened thing that was not what they (GW) wanted or what the players wanted and basically would have still ended up with a bunch of pissed off old fantasy players who might actually have some real beef with GW since they actively sought their advice and still "didn't listen". With the non community input method (and I don't know that they did not solicit customer feedback from anyone for a fact) they still end up with pissed off old fantasy players, but gain an un-compromised product they think will do better in the long run.
Getting customer feedback doesn't mean you have to take all their advice and make a Frankenstein monster NOR does it mean you just ignore it all. Being able to communicate effectively with your customers means being able to present yourself in a way that shows you did listen to customer feedback even if you did something different.
I can tell you from experience you can't give the customer all of the power during a development cycle.
And no one is saying you should.
So sometimes communication with the customer is not necessiarily the best thing.
Agree to disagree on that one. Only thing worse than a pissed off customer is a pissed off customer you are ignoring.
If GW spent more time listening to customers in the first place they might not be in the position where they had to kill WHFB in the first place.
I don't even play WHFB and I knew AoS was coming a month or 2 ahead of time. So to say people did not see it coming is not totally true I will admit details were scarce, but you knew it was happening.
So sometimes communication with the customer is not necessiarily the best thing.
The problem with this line of reasoning, IMO, is that "a month or 2" advance notice, with ZERO details, no "hey, this is really really exciting!!!" type drumming up the new system, with evidence or anything to give players that time to see and get an idea of whether they might like it. Especially when you consider that rule books from GW are getting up towards the $100 mark, which is getting into college textbook territory (which, IMO is territory you do NOT want to be in), and more casual fans like myself may just decide to bail altogether.
I agree with you in the middle bit, where you say that even the best companies don't always do everything or anything that comes out of customer feedback.... But, GW doesn't have ANY communication with the customer, unless you call up support to say, "hey, I bought this kit, and part X was royally fethed and now I can't build it at all" I think there is a happy medium that can be struck here, but the point is, GW doesn't seem to do anything with the customer aside from taking money.
insaniak wrote: I'll be the voice of dissent here and say that I don't think lowering prices is actually necessary.
Lowering the cost of entry, though - that would certainly help. Stop the endless codex cycling, focus on using new editions to fix the rules rather than changing them up for the sake of change, and release skirmish rules to get people in universe without having to buy an entire army.
This. It's hard to get people excited to pay for a new codex and rule book every 2 years, much less the pretty models.
Develop a solid core ruleset that they don't make constant dramatic changes to all the time. Tweak it over time to make it better and more balanced instead of completely redoing the whole thing and in the process just replacing one messed up mechanic with another.
Make the rules available online free and update them regularly to fix imbalance and ambiguity. Still sell codexes and a main rulebook with a couple bonus treats that aren't in the online rules, and focus on lore, art, and modeling. Update them every year or two to keep them from being too outdated as the online rules change.
Use regular campaigns to add small modifications to the base game keeping things constantly fresh and to drive sales in a less heavy handed manner than alternating between assault rules/ shooting rules, vehicles rule/vehicles suck, etc.
Develop a starter game with generally the same mechanics and the same models that is interesting and allows people to get into the game without a huge army and expenses and allows them to transition naturally into the larger game.
Set up a plan. Make it consistent. Communicate the vision. Tease the upcoming theme giving hints about which model types will be boosted and vague hints about what the story will focus on.
Can you guys offer any concrete plans of cutting costs for customers other then oh it needs to be cheaper because I'm entitled to cheaper minis for my loyalty over the years??
GW is barely profitable and is a public company. If they cut prices even 15% they'll be in the red.
It's NOT like GW is racking in the money themselves. Their production costs are massive. All their public shareholders which are British public institutions will dump the stock if they can't meet dividends.
The last thing GW should do is listening to some 35 year old fat guy on an Internet forum rage-hating on GW for how expensive they are and wants cheaper minis. There needs to be a financial basis.
GW can release free rules PDFs but put less work into them because all that writing and artwork takes a ton of money. Of course then the haters will rage about how gakky quality the new codexs are when they took a hit on their income JUST for the community.
DorianGray wrote: Can you guys offer any concrete plans of cutting costs for customers other then oh it needs to be cheaper because I'm entitled to cheaper minis for my loyalty over the years??
GW is barely profitable and is a public company. If they cut prices even 15% they'll be in the red.
It's NOT like GW is racking in the money themselves. Their production costs are massive. All their public shareholders which are British public institutions will dump the stock if they can't meet dividends.
The last thing GW should do is listening to some 35 year old fat guy on an Internet forum rage-hating on GW for how expensive they are and wants cheaper minis. There needs to be a financial basis.
GW can release free rules PDFs but put less work into them because all that writing and artwork takes a ton of money. Of course then the haters will rage about how gakky quality the new codexs are when they took a hit on their income JUST for the community.
Sure.
Stop being a miniatures company and be a good games company that supports competitive and tournament play, and I'll be happy to support them. Or I mean, a "miniatures company first" or however the hell people they put it. Like, still make miniatures, but stop making them the be-all-and-end-all.
The reason their products cost so much is because they're always making more product (I understand the molds are expensive). But the product is stupid because it wrecks their game, so it's a lose-lose. Everything costs more AND the game keeps escalating. The models keep getting bigger and more expensive and more complicated, all things that are anti-game.
If they would write a good game, make the models for it and then -- finito for that version -- then the products would be cheaper and the game would be better. I do not care if they still sold space marines made in 1985. I just want space marines. Then every 10 years or so, write a new version of the game, maybe add models, but leave the existing models alone. Stop making new improved MORE EXPENSIVE models.
My brother has 10,000 or more points of Eldar, and he STILL has to buy Eldar stuff, because they keep coming out with new gak. He keeps buying newer, better models of stuff he bought 10 years ago. GW's whole business model is "Get people buying stuff for this game, and then keep adding to the game so that they buy stuff forever." That's just stupid, because the game just keeps getting bigger and more bloated. Or I think so.
Just be done with it and give people a new, fresh game to play instead of forever growing the old one until $2000 Warlord Titans are the average unit and you need to be on the beach to play the game.
DorianGray wrote: Can you guys offer any concrete plans of cutting costs for customers other then oh it needs to be cheaper because I'm entitled to cheaper minis for my loyalty over the years??
GW is barely profitable and is a public company. If they cut prices even 15% they'll be in the red.
It's NOT like GW is racking in the money themselves. Their production costs are massive. All their public shareholders which are British public institutions will dump the stock if they can't meet dividends.
The last thing GW should do is listening to some 35 year old fat guy on an Internet forum rage-hating on GW for how expensive they are and wants cheaper minis. There needs to be a financial basis.
Well, the topic is community rapport, and one big problem GW has with the community is the perception that the minis are hugely expensive. This has always been true, but the cost has risen far ahead of inflation, and GW has made a lot of moves that read as attempts to simply pump the community for money. I think some concrete efforts to encourage army building would help. Package deals, better battle forces, etc. And make them useful! My advice would be to fill them with bulk troops that come from long paid off molds. Tactical Marines, Cadians, Firewarriors/kroot (13 year oldmodels, btw)
A price drop is unlikely, probably unnecessary, and it would certainly alienate the independent stockists. But GW has great IP and a ridiculous profit margin. If they aren't making money, they're doing it wrong.
GW can release free rules PDFs but put less work into them because all that writing and artwork takes a ton of money. Of course then the haters will rage about how gakky quality the new codexs are when they took a hit on their income JUST for the community
Well, you might be arguing something different here than the high minded finances you claimed.
Polonius wrote: Well, the topic is community rapport, and one big problem GW has with the community is the perception that the minis are hugely expensive. This has always been true, but the cost has risen far ahead of inflation, and GW has made a lot of moves that read as attempts to simply pump the community for money. I think some concrete efforts to encourage army building would help. Package deals, better battle forces, etc. And make them useful! My advice would be to fill them with bulk troops that come from long paid off molds. Tactical Marines, Cadians, Firewarriors/kroot (13 year oldmodels, btw)
I actually don't mind paying a lot of money for models (WMH models are expensive too), as long as they last essentially forever and I don't need to replace them because game rules change, or there's a "refreshed" model of the same thing or because of power creep.
Incidentally, this is starting to happen in WMH too, and it is also starting to get on my nerves (power creep and feeling like I need to buy more stuff).
I am 26, I work an intensive high powered job in Manhattan and probably make in the top 10-20% of all 20 somethings worldwide and I STILL don't purchase the codexes (except for Harlequins that you know won't be updated for anothe 10 years lmao) and instead download them free off the net because I know they'll be obsolete and unusable in 2 years.
Even the collector edition codexes have zero value after the next update just look at ebay.
GW should not lower prices (though they should not raise them). They cannot afford to. Just look at their financial projections. Nerds and people who are clamouring that GW needs to lower prices are people you don't want to super focus on anyway because barring any drastic change they will always be cash-strapped and just want to play minis - once they get successful and a good job they won't complain about the prices.
Look at Warmachine. They are JUST as expensive as GW. I don't see haters hate on PP all day long.
DorianGray wrote: I am 26, I work an intensive high powered job in Manhattan and probably make in the top 10-20% of all 20 somethings worldwide and I STILL don't purchase the codexes (except for Harlequins that you know won't be updated for anothe 10 years lmao) and instead download them free off the net because I know they'll be obsolete and unusable in 2 years.
Even the collector edition codexes have zero value after the next update just look at ebay.
GW should not lower prices (though they should not raise them). They cannot afford to. Just look at their financial projections. Nerds and people who are clamouring that GW needs to lower prices are people you don't want to super focus on anyway because barring any drastic change they will always be cash-strapped and just want to play minis - once they get successful and a good job they won't complain about the prices.
Look at Warmachine. They are JUST as expensive as GW. I don't see haters hate on PP all day long.
Good will goes a long way. I saw on the PP forum where people were upset about a new release. Nerd Rage +10 going on. Then one of the creators got on line and explained it all and the nerd rage went away. GW players often say "Communicate with your opponent." The same goes for GW. They have a fractured and shrinking fan base and all of that could be reversed if they just communicated properly.
Hmmm with me it wasn't so much the price creep (prices go up it's a fact of life) as it's the fact they halved the number of models in the box. I'd say maybe increase the content of some boxes as £6 for a plastic figure is more than I'm prepared to go.
My personal problem with Age of Sigmar is it's lost what I liked about Warhammer. Dark gritty heroism. The grubby desperate Empire Spearmen somehow desperately managing to hold of the Chaos Knights for long enough for the villagers to flee. It's just to bright and shiny and not dark and brooding enough.
Warhammer was also a game of regiments a game of large fantasy battles and about their manoeuvers. That isn't an element in the new version.
I reckon the key thing they need to do is acknowledge that they are part of a competitive market. They've lost their monopoly which was far better enforced by the availability of Specialist Games than it was by IP lawyers. The Specialist Games meant you didn't look beyond GW you had the fleet game, the grand battle game, the skirmish game and the main battle game.
DorianGray wrote: Look at Warmachine. They are JUST as expensive as GW. I don't see haters hate on PP all day long.
Indeed. Because price per model isn't the sole basis of the unhappiness that people currently have with GW.
PPs models are around a similar price point, but this is mitigated somewhat by the fact that you don't need as many of them to get a functional force.
They also get a certain amount of leeway due to the much better perception that people have of them as a company. Customers who feel more positive about a company will be far more accepting of a company's faults. PP are still doing a lot of those things that had people so positive about GW for back in the '90s.
And while I'm not one of those suggesting that GW need to cut prices, I feel a need to point out that this:
GW is barely profitable and is a public company. If they cut prices even 15% they'll be in the red.
...is not actually quite how it works.
GW aren't 'barely profitable', although their profits have certainly taken a hit over recent years. But lowering prices only results in less profit if it fails to generate increased sales. Selling 10 products that each earn you a dollar profit makes you more money overall than selling 3 products that each earn you 3 dollars profit... The key for any business is finding that sweet spot where your profit margin is balanced against the amount of work you need to do to get a sale. Raising prices to generate more profit only works until you hit that ceiling where people just stop buying. And given the decreasing unit sales that have been showing up in their last few financial reports, GW are approaching that ceiling. If they lowered their prices, and if that resulted in more people buying more stuff, then they very well might wind up more profitable as a result.
But at this stage, with the sheer amount of goodwill they have squandered, and with the current state of their games, I very much doubt that lowering prices would solve anything by itself. There's a lot more work needed to turn things around.
Dude I have access to Bloomberg terminal and equity research by the one gakky firm that covers GW since it's such a tiny company (in comparison to the real world)
Their total Earning margins are around 3-5%. No one has a "buy" on the stock. EBITDA is not much higher than earnings.
DorianGray wrote: I am 26, I work an intensive high powered job in Manhattan and probably make in the top 10-20% of all 20 somethings worldwide and I STILL don't purchase the codexes (except for Harlequins that you know won't be updated for anothe 10 years lmao) and instead download them free off the net because I know they'll be obsolete and unusable in 2 years.
The funny thing is, I never used to buy all the codexes. It wasn't until they went full color and hardback that I started buying them all -- and then largely for the fluff and artwork.
DorianGray wrote: GW should not lower prices (though they should not raise them). They cannot afford to. Just look at their financial projections. Nerds and people who are clamouring that GW needs to lower prices are people you don't want to super focus on anyway because barring any drastic change they will always be cash-strapped and just want to play minis - once they get successful and a good job they won't complain about the prices.
Look at Warmachine. They are JUST as expensive as GW. I don't see haters hate on PP all day long.
GW wants people who really enjoy their miniatures and fluff, and spend a lot of time on them painting and modelling (and maybe they also play the game) -- the people who primarily just want plastic game pieces to just play a game they'll take as customers, but they're not the target demo that the products are made or priced for. For these people, the models aren't expensive, because they spend an awful lot of time on each model.
I alluded to this in the other thread on DD. Look at what GW does for its painters/modellers/collectors: hundreds of hours of tutorials on Warhammer TV, dozens of books on painting, Paint Splatter, Sprues 'n Glue, and tons of photos in each White Dwarf, a whole (expensive) magazine dedicated to photography of models, an annual painting competition that's highly recognized, parade grounds, local showcase events, and on and on and on.
What do they do for the competitive gaming crowd? There isn't a video on Warhammer TV that shows ONE game table set up in a way that anyone plays the game. There are zero books on strategy. There are no videos or game guides on how to play the game (except the Dark Vengeance quickstart). They never photograph an actual game in White Dwarf. Battle Reports now boul down to "Super Monster A Charges Super Monster B and slays it in 2 rounds!". They don't show up at other people's tournaments. And you could go on forever.
The only conclusion that I can draw is that GW doesn't care about the competitive gaming crowd. They're happy to sell them product, but after that, they're on their own. As opposed to the painting & modelling crowd, which they're happy to support with boatloads of free & pay stuff.
The thing is, ANYONE who is interested in painting & modelling will spend a lot of time on the miniatures. Even at a minimum, 5 hours on a mini gives you a pretty rough result. If a model costs $10, and takes 5 hours just to paint, it's $2 / hour of entertainment right there. And then you have a game piece, and something that you can put on a shelf after to look pretty. If you spend 20 hours on the model, it's just $0.50 per hour of entertainment.
The majority of people in first-world countries who falls into GW's target demo of "painter/modeler/collector that also plays some games", who has any sort of job that leaves them with money in their wallet, will not be able to buy models faster than they can paint them.
GW should def. improve their rules though and give the competitive crowd a bone though. I play 90% causally but once or twice a year I go to adepticon bring a total face wrecking cheese max list and rape face as others do to me. It's fun to be hyper competitive once in a while.
DorianGray wrote: GW should def. improve their rules though and give the competitive crowd a bone though.
I'm of the opinion that they could achieve this by merely "tightening" their rules, as many folks I know who play Warmahordes constantly tell me how tight their rules are.
I think it would satisfy pretty much every crowd out there, because ambiguity breeds rules arguments, which kill the "fun" of any game regardless of the intent you're playing that particular game.
DorianGray wrote: GW should def. improve their rules though and give the competitive crowd a bone though.
I'm of the opinion that they could achieve this by merely "tightening" their rules, as many folks I know who play Warmahordes constantly tell me how tight their rules are.
I think it would satisfy pretty much every crowd out there, because ambiguity breeds rules arguments, which kill the "fun" of any game regardless of the intent you're playing that particular game.
A set of tournament rules and a tournament FAQ would take care of it.
I don't think in 7e there are really that many cases of ambiguity anymore. A lot of rules arguments online are by people arguing between rules as written versus as intended; it's mostly clear what's written -- some people just don't like it.
DorianGray wrote: It's NOT like GW is racking in the money themselves. Their production costs are massive. All their public shareholders which are British public institutions will dump the stock if they can't meet dividends.
Actually GW's current earnings per share (38.3) are at similar levels to the LOTR days (height of 40.1). And they just increased their dividend from 16p to 20p. During the LOTR days they had volume driving their high earnings. These days their high earnings are driven by capturing a greater portion of the markup to retail, severe cost cutting and protecting their margins through premium pricing. In their financial reports they describe their approach to paying dividends as only distributing truly surplus cash.
Kirby has described GW as an efficient cash generating machine for good reason.
They totally could try to increase sales volume by lowering price. They're just not going to. The last time they chased volume they ended up being blindsided by the post LOTR revenue shock and they had two dangerous loss making years. Since then they have been intentionally sacrificing volume to reduce costs and improve their margins. The latest report repeats their commitment to premium pricing under Rountree's tenure.
Anyone who feels they were priced out by GW is right to feel that way as it was intentional. GW wants you to pay more and get less as in doing so they will save on a variety of costs like shipping, manufacturing, administration, etc., so they can efficiently generate more truly surplus* cash to pay out as dividends. If you're not the kind of customer who will pay what they ask, you can be on your merry way while they concentrate on those they see as their true customers. Collectors who see their miniatures as "jewel like objects of magic and wonder" (Kirby).
Also their shareholders of record are all private investment firms from all over the world (and Kirby's 6.7%) and not "British public institutions."
* it's sad that GW's management can't figure out a single thing to do with millions and millions of pounds to grow their business further.
As a compromise between free rules and expensive hardbacks, GW might look to Paizo and Pathfinder.
The big, lovely, full-color rules are pricey. They don't cycle through them like GW does, but they aren't cheap. The nuts and bolts of the rules are available for free online. No fluff, no background, no pictures. That way, the people who want a beautiful book can buy it, and the people who want rules to play (and thus, to buy minis to play) can get them. This also allows for easy updating of the rules (as you update the free online rules) and doesn't necessitate printing a new book to fix rules issues.
Another way to appease gamers without lowering prices is by adding value. GW could do this by running sales, by including coupons for a discount of the rules with the miniatures, etc. GW could also offer bundle deals, or even take what they have learned with Assassination Force and the other sets they have released and release boxed games that have an internal narrative, but also sell models at a discount.
For instance, they could sell a "Jungles of Armageddon Prime" game with Catachans and Ork Kommandos. You could have characters in the box and a price that was cheaper than selling them all individually, then after the sales run, sell them individually at a higher cost. These narrative games could use the same underlying mechanics of 40K, instead of a totally different game, and would function as 'skirmish games'.
They really, really need to figure out good ways of connecting with their fans. I'd love to see actual battle reports again, and some of my favorite battle reports were 'less professional". Ones with a regular gamer playing a GW writer, or even (boy this is a long time ago) a fan providing writeups of his own games. The battle reports need to be in depth and detailed, but modern technology should make that much less of a chore than it was 15 years ago.
They also need to actually demonstrate that they want and need the good will of their fans. GW seems to simply assume that their fans are content to lap up whatever they dole out, rather than behaving as a company who benefits from the economic support of devoted fans.
Everyone comparing GW to other companies just realise that GW is the only publicly traded wargaming company.
If you're a private company you can basically do whatever the feth you want. You don't report to anyone.
If you're on a stock exchange you're beholden to a board of director made of the largest shareholders who will have your head on a plate if you don't hit targets, hit margins, etc.
GW simply doesn't have the kind of independence that Privateer Press, etc has.
If you nerds really want to solve this problem BUY OUT GW and take it private off the stock exchange through a leveraged buyout and kick out Kirby. Kirby will probably fight to the death to keep his top job so it'll have to be a hostile takeover so you'll need crack investment bankers. (Like me)
It'll be bloody messy but when you're going to be using millions of your own money to buy a public company to take it private ... don't you kinda want to have higher returns then a hyper niche toy company with pathetic profit margins (compared to other industries like tech companies/Pharmaceuticals?)
Maybe a billionaire who likes 40k will do it just for the hell of it and run it himself. Short of that, don't get your hopes up.
DorianGray wrote: Everyone comparing GW to other companies just realise that GW is the only publicly traded wargaming company.
So?
As a customer, I care far more about how a company's decisions affect me than I do about why they made those decisions. Unless, of course, I feel positively enough about the company to care about their welfare as well as my own. That's the goodwill that people keep mentioning, that GW have seemingly been trying very hard to squash out.
If GW's status as a public company is affecting their ability to connect with their customers, ultimately that's their problem.
I doubt that being publicly traded actually is the problem, though, since they were publicly traded well before they started shutting out their customers.
It certainly may have forced some decisions on them... But doesn't explain most of their less customer friendly choices.
And I agree with insaniak, there are numerous, publicly traded stores that I simply do not shop at because their "principles" do not agree with mine. And if insaniak is correct about them being publicly traded long before they started into a tailspin, then I would suspect that they made the same exact mistake that Home Depot did a while back.
Two of the most prominent "won't shop at" places for me, are Target and Walmart. And Home Depot, when it was founded, was run on the principle that everyone should be able to do things around the house themselves. As such, they hired retirees from various fields, whom they didn't need to pay all that much (but they usually did) because the guy was "enjoying" his retirement. I'm talking 30 year electricians, plumbers, construction workers, etc. in the orange apron, who were all more than happy to walk you through what you needed to get your project/repair done. Fast forward, they get a new CEO, who is far more interested in dividends, margins and profits so they fire all those "expensive" retirees, in favor of the prototypical Walmart worker, and suddenly you have a situation where a guy like me, who knows nothing about plumbing, but needs to replace the U shaped pipe in a kitchen sink, is lost in the store because the new breed of employee can only point out that plumbing is on aisle 5 (thanks, genius, I can read that for myself as well).
Obviously, GW hasn't completely gone down the "orange apron road", because they simply are not going to attract non-gamer types as employees, so they've gone for the money in other ways.
First you wouldn't need billions you would need approximately 50 million . You could of course attempt to buy out shareholders. But the safest bet is just go for a take over.
But to answer the questions.
Give Tony Cottrell (sp?) A larger staff and hand him specialist games .
Forums.
Lower prices or have a loyalty program both probably would be a good idea at least for the first 16 months.
Close 60/70 percent of these stores pull back into 1 store per large city with multiple staff ( Birmingham for example has 4 within easy reach)
Games days that have games, a decent bag of swag ( see blizzcon ) and pre releases for say 5-8 months You could knock 10-15 percent of just for the event.
The problem is, if you try to buy a lot of it, each incremental share gets more expensive, and this is why hostile takeovers are difficult. Expect to pay at least twice as much for shares in this circumstance, and keep in mind that there may not even be a controlling interest in shares available to be purchased. All the institutional owners will sell for the right price, but unsophisticated shareholders are likely to not even notice, in the short run, that someone is trying to effect a takeover.
Plus , equally or more importantly, being a large or even majority shareholder offers you no short term power. All of the power in a company rests in the board of directors, which are elected annually by the shareholders. Unless the company is in distress, it is very hard to reshape the board.
Frankly, it would be cheaper and easier to just bribe Kirby away (with a pile of cash, and perhaps some meaningless but titularly impressive position to assuage his ego) and work with other directors of the company to get what you want.
The real question is why anyone would want to. The effort to make GW into the next Marvel would be monumental and risky, and there is just way easier money to be made with capital than miniature wargaming. To make GW into a multibillion dollar enterprise, which is the only smart reason to buy control, would require a super risky investment of probably hundreds of millions.
I doubt even with unlimited funds, miniatures could be turned into a multibillion dollar enterprise, and for anything else, why not just license rights from GW? It's cheap anyhow; we can tell because there are plenty of licensees and little revenue.
Or, just do it outside of GW properties, which to me makes way more sense.
I think for the foreseeable future, GW will just do its thing, cater to its core, and continue to make profits and pay out dividends -- essentially just doing the same old, until and unless a new entrant or technology does something truly disruptive.
Talys wrote: The market cap of GAW.L s about 187m.
The problem is, if you try to buy a lot of it, each incremental share gets more expensive, and this is why hostile takeovers are difficult. Expect to pay at least twice as much for shares in this circumstance, and keep in mind that there may not even be a controlling interest in shares available to be purchased. All the institutional owners will sell for the right price, but unsophisticated shareholders are likely to not even notice, in the short run, that someone is trying to effect a takeover.
Plus , equally or more importantly, being a large or even majority shareholder offers you no short term power. All of the power in a company rests in the board of directors, which are elected annually by the shareholders. Unless the company is in distress, it is very hard to reshape the board.
Frankly, it would be cheaper and easier to just bribe Kirby away (with a pile of cash, and perhaps some meaningless but titularly impressive position to assuage his ego) and work with other directors of the company to get what you want.
The real question is why anyone would want to. The effort to make GW into the next Marvel would be monumental and risky, and there is just way easier money to be made with capital than miniature wargaming. To make GW into a multibillion dollar enterprise, which is the only smart reason to buy control, would require a super risky investment of probably hundreds of millions.
I doubt even with unlimited funds, miniatures could be turned into a multibillion dollar enterprise, and for anything else, why not just license rights from GW? It's cheap anyhow; we can tell because there are plenty of licensees and little revenue.
Or, just do it outside of GW properties, which to me makes way more sense.
I think for the foreseeable future, GW will just do its thing, cater to its core, and continue to make profits and pay out dividends -- essentially just doing the same old, until and unless a new entrant or technology does something truly disruptive.
But if you ever researched a take over you just need to buy all the shares hence 50 mil last time I checked. A market cap is different to how much shares are sold or so my research tells me. while a company may be worth 180odd the company usually only floats part of it. I don't know if GW are that... oh maybe they are.
But to gain enough influence to change you just need more shares than Kirby he currently possesses 6 milion
Barrier to entry is too high - there needs to be 3 or more DV style kits, all with different armies.
Prices are 25% too high. I buy from eBay mostly, and I'm not alone. I would happily buy fresh kits from GW if they took a $10-$15 chunk off the tag.
GW communicates very poorly about EVERYTHING. Look at the flames of war website and be filled with envy for their lovely communication and regular updates AIMED AT CUSTOMERS
The problem is, if you try to buy a lot of it, each incremental share gets more expensive, and this is why hostile takeovers are difficult. Expect to pay at least twice as much for shares in this circumstance, and keep in mind that there may not even be a controlling interest in shares available to be purchased. All the institutional owners will sell for the right price, but unsophisticated shareholders are likely to not even notice, in the short run, that someone is trying to effect a takeover.
Plus , equally or more importantly, being a large or even majority shareholder offers you no short term power. All of the power in a company rests in the board of directors, which are elected annually by the shareholders. Unless the company is in distress, it is very hard to reshape the board.
Frankly, it would be cheaper and easier to just bribe Kirby away (with a pile of cash, and perhaps some meaningless but titularly impressive position to assuage his ego) and work with other directors of the company to get what you want.
The real question is why anyone would want to. The effort to make GW into the next Marvel would be monumental and risky, and there is just way easier money to be made with capital than miniature wargaming. To make GW into a multibillion dollar enterprise, which is the only smart reason to buy control, would require a super risky investment of probably hundreds of millions.
I doubt even with unlimited funds, miniatures could be turned into a multibillion dollar enterprise, and for anything else, why not just license rights from GW? It's cheap anyhow; we can tell because there are plenty of licensees and little revenue.
Or, just do it outside of GW properties, which to me makes way more sense.
I think for the foreseeable future, GW will just do its thing, cater to its core, and continue to make profits and pay out dividends -- essentially just doing the same old, until and unless a new entrant or technology does something truly disruptive.
But if you ever researched a take over you just need to buy all the shares hence 50 mil last time I checked. A market cap is different to how much shares are sold or so my research tells me. while a company may be worth 180odd the company usually only floats part of it. I don't know if GW are that... oh maybe they are.
But to gain enough influence to change you just need more shares than Kirby he currently possesses 6 milion
Huh?
Market capitalization means the total number of outstanding shares multiplied by the current (market) price per share. It is an unambiguous investment term that has no other definition. If you bought 100% of the shares at the current price it would equal the market cap of the company.
To absolutely control a company's shareholder vote you need 50% + 1 outstanding common shares. At that point, at the next AGM, you can fire the entire board of directors and appoint your own, including yourself and your grandma. Everyone else gets to vote too, but their vote doesn't matter because your hand is bigger than all of theirs put together. Effectively, to control a company, you need 50% + 1 of the shares that will vote. This is because many shares are owned by unsophisticated shareholders who neither vote nor give their proxy to vote. Realistically, to control a company, you need to have a large number of shares, and convince other large shareholders to vote your way.
In order to achieve total or effective control (ie be a dictator), you need to buy a lot of shares. But if you had 100 million GBP in the bank, you would be unlikely to be able to buy 51% of GAW.L, because as you started buying shares, the value of the shares would increase. As you approached 51%, those shares would get more and more expensive, and in the end, in a perfect world, you'd be spending AT LEAST 200m GBP, if you could even find that many shares for sale. You will surely be gouged at the end.
Also, you can't do it overnight. The Board will see this, and they have many tools to make your life miserable (and enrich current shareholders) if they know you're trying to effect a hostile takeover. That share price will go through the roof, and you STILL might not end up with a controlling vote. In the worst case scenario, you end up with 15%-20% of the shares of the company, can't change a single seat on the board, and paid twice as much for the shares as they're worth, and can't sell the shares except at a huge loss.
Among other things, they can issue more shares, screwing you over! They even have a good reason to -- shares are abnormally high, and this is a great way for the company to cash in on it.
This is why in the typical scenario, a guy like Carl Ichahn will engineer a buyout or control (for example Dell), but not actually conduct the transaction unless they KNOW they are going to effect control. And even with with untold billions, the transaction won't happen unless he KNOWS he'll get what he wants. It's very complex, and you'll spend millions just engineering the deal before a penny changes hands.
Owning more shares than Kirby means NOTHING. It gives you a vote at the AGM (but so does owning 1 share), and Kirby has proven to shareholders that he's very good at one thing: making them money. You'd have to prove at an AGM that you could make people more money than him to dethrone him, and he has a good track record in that respect.
There is another issue that you have as well. If you somehow managed to wrest control of GW, took it in a totally different direction "for the benefit of the community" or whatever, and then it paid significantly less dividends or the stock price really took a hit for its remaining shareholders, those shareholders could sue you for oppression and breach of fiduciary duty -- that's when a majority shareholder acts in their own best interest, at the expense of minority shareholders. They might lose, but you never know; cases like this are sometimes won in court, and either way, it's super expensive.
The smart thing to do if you had billions would be to offer management a price that's superb (say triple current market value) and take the company private. As a part of that transaction, the board makes an extraordinary meeting of the shareholders, and anyone dissenting doesn't matter, because they'll just get a check like everyone else. The board gets the vote for you, and it's risk-free to you (in the sense that you won't end up with shares you can't do anything with but sell at a loss). Then you own 100% of the company and you can do whatever you want with it, including change directions or shutter it.
But all this is not really worth the hassle... since... instead of spending tens or hundreds of millions on GAW.L, you could just you know, start up your own gaming company or buy one that's privately owned where the founders want to cash out, or need money, or whatever.
Close 60/70 percent of these stores pull back into 1 store per large city with multiple staff ( Birmingham for example has 4 within easy reach)
This may work well in much of Europe. But in the US, I could see this feasibly only working in a very small number of cities (New York, Chicago) due to the shambles that our public transport is generally in.
I live near Tacoma, WA, and due to the exact spot where I live, I have 2 stores that are "reasonably" within range. Let's say that I live closer to one of the stores, and in your "plan" that store is chosen for closing; if I have to rely on public transport, that has effectively killed my ability and desire to game inside the "other" store that is now the only store and at a much greater distance.
Close 60/70 percent of these stores pull back into 1 store per large city with multiple staff ( Birmingham for example has 4 within easy reach)
This may work well in much of Europe. But in the US, I could see this feasibly only working in a very small number of cities (New York, Chicago) due to the shambles that our public transport is generally in.
I live near Tacoma, WA, and due to the exact spot where I live, I have 2 stores that are "reasonably" within range. Let's say that I live closer to one of the stores, and in your "plan" that store is chosen for closing; if I have to rely on public transport, that has effectively killed my ability and desire to game inside the "other" store that is now the only store and at a much greater distance.
I actually mean for the UK.. I'd probably extended the staff in other countries. Or have something like a sister store program with LGS.
Okay so I've obviously misunderstood something. I'm not sure what exactly though. Your saying from this that GW has completely floated itself? Multiple times over it seems
So as a senior shareholder I'd be able to do nothing? That's what you're saying right? So a man that has 6 million pounds worth of shares has more power than 12 or 15? That's not how I understood things but I do see your point.
Okay so I've obviously misunderstood something. I'm not sure what exactly though. Your saying from this that GW has completely floated itself? Multiple times over it seems
So as a senior shareholder I'd be able to do nothing? That's what you're saying right? So a man that has 6 million pounds worth of shares has more power than 12 or 15? That's not how I understood things but I do see your point.
But fine yeah you're figures seem to show that GW is in a far worse place than I have thought I honestly don't see them lasting
This is absolutely correct. You could own 75% of the shares of the company and be powerless for 11 months and 30 days.
A corporation is a republic, not a democracy. Shareholders elect a board of directors for a year, and during that year, the board of directors have complete control of the company, except for a list of very specific things which mostly have to do with restructuring the company, which, if the Board wants, would require a special vote in an extraordinary meeting of shareholders. To take Nokia as an example, shareholders were powerless to prevent the Board from selling the mobile phone division to Microsoft (didn't require a vote). But if Nokia wanted to itself become a subsidiary of Microsoft, or even issue new shares that it would sell to Microsoft, it would have had to hold an extraordinary meeting of shareholders, provide notice, and allow a vote.
When it comes to the AGM, you have a vote proportionate to your shareholdings. So if you own 6 million GBP of shares and the market cap is 287 GBP, you would own 2.1% of the vote. But if half the votes don't show up, you'd represent 4.2% of any particular vote.
Incidentally, most people who fill out the forms just proxy their vote to management, unless they're shareholders that held onto the stock AND don't like management (which isn't that common, because why own stock of a company you don't believe in?), so the Board controls an awful lot of votes.
Typically, very significant shareholders own those shares for a reason, and often, they or their representative will have a seat (and vote) at the Board of Directors. But this doesn't have to be the case, certainly not if the shareholder is hostile to the current Board.
Also, typically, for a company the size of GW (big enough, but not really big), Chairmanships and Directorships are like empires, and handed from one person to their successor, so long as the expectations of the major shareholders are met. And those expectations have nothing to do with "game balance" or whether the community loves you. It doesn't even *really* have anything to do with revenues. Almost universally, every sophisticated investor cares about share prices and dividends. The other stuff only comes up in the discussion of "why", which is only really relevant when share prices and dividends are weak -- because as long as the company is making money for shareholders, nobody cares much how it's achieved.
There are other methods of controlling them though. And it's been done before. You buy the suppliers or bribe/ influence people who do so effectively starving them if they can't get raw materials and make them persona non grata. I think that would be cheaper and more effective. Shareholders would bail. And you could scoop up the rights and remains.
Hypothetically, I think Kirby should raise prices, and release a new version of 40k which is stitched together with all the bad ideas of the various editions rolled into one. He should wear a suit, walk with a pronounced strut, and release weekly videos extolling his virtues and slamming hobbyists. A Mr McMahon character, if you will.
HOWEVER
At the same time, Forge World should lower their prices and continue to write excellent Horus Heresy rulebooks. They should engage with hobbyists online and at conventions. Allow beta testing of their rules, thank people for their help. Set themselves up as the faces (good guys)
That's right - GW should aim to be the villain and hero. Or not, because I haven't thought this through.
I agree with the rules stuff I read (i only got four minutes of read time left so I cut it short). I liked 4th editions SM codex- I could make a chapter of my own design. Now I feel more restricted- like I have to play THEIR way. A good create your own (X) would be a HUGE thing for me. I like having the ability to play how I like. This whole formations thing aggravates me (look I got universal Cheese syndrome for FREE cause I have Cheese already!!!)- like they think I am an idiot with no ability to think for myself. Maybe allow non GW minis in GW tournies. Make it about the hobby as well as the game. There- my two cents.
They could start by re releasing their specialist games. They want 12 year olds to play? Why did they remove the smaller games they COULD afford, in favour of horde rules WHFB armies?
One every 6 months would have gorkamorka, mordheim, hero quest, inquisitor, necromunda, BFG and Space Hulk out in 3,5 years. BFG could surf the X-wing enthusiasm, while gorka, inq, necro and space hulk would recruit to the 40k universe, while manowar, mordheim and some revamp of hero quest would recruit to age of sigmar.
As it is, they get a lot of hate from people who try to start up and then gives up in disgust as they realize 500 pts isnt enough to play anything.
GW could also start giving previews, instead of keeping the rumour mill going and just releasing somethig out of the blue. Dreadfleet is a good example of something that -might- have worked if introduced differently and playtested a bit more. I WANTED it to be good so much, but it just wasnt.
Thirdly, they could communicate with the fans.
As it is, they have gone from releasing many games, to releasing 2; age of sigmar and 40k. With the hobitt on its way out.
triplegrim wrote: They could start by re releasing their specialist games. They want 12 year olds to play? Why did they remove the smaller games they COULD afford, in favour of horde rules WHFB armies?
One every 6 months would have gorkamorka, mordheim, hero quest, inquisitor, necromunda, BFG and Space Hulk out in 3,5 years. BFG could surf the X-wing enthusiasm, while gorka, inq, necro and space hulk would recruit to the 40k universe, while manowar, mordheim and some revamp of hero quest would recruit to age of sigmar.
As it is, they get a lot of hate from people who try to start up and then gives up in disgust as they realize 500 pts isnt enough to play anything.
GW could also start giving previews, instead of keeping the rumour mill going and just releasing somethig out of the blue. Dreadfleet is a good example of something that -might- have worked if introduced differently and playtested a bit more. I WANTED it to be good so much, but it just wasnt.
Thirdly, they could communicate with the fans.
As it is, they have gone from releasing many games, to releasing 2; age of sigmar and 40k. With the hobitt on its way out.
Problem with this is that I no longer think any of the Fantasy specialist games will recruit people into Age of Sigmar without massively altering the specialist games themselves which will just cause even more resentment.
Why would people move from interesting games with lots of character like Mordheim to AoS?
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Hypothetically, I think Kirby should raise prices, and release a new version of 40k which is stitched together with all the bad ideas of the various editions rolled into one. He should wear a suit, walk with a pronounced strut, and release weekly videos extolling his virtues and slamming hobbyists. A Mr McMahon character, if you will.
HOWEVER
At the same time, Forge World should lower their prices and continue to write excellent Horus Heresy rulebooks. They should engage with hobbyists online and at conventions. Allow beta testing of their rules, thank people for their help. Set themselves up as the faces (good guys)
That's right - GW should aim to be the villain and hero. Or not, because I haven't thought this through.
Why would people move from interesting games with lots of character like Mordheim to AoS?
Gamers tends to move from smaller games to larger games, in my experience. Also, they could have made mordheim a pure boardgame with a few expansions. There have never been more Hero Quest style games on the marked, and never have they been better or sold better. But GW is completely off that marked, except for a LIMITED release of Space Hulk. Limited; as in -we're only making a few of these-. Do they even want to make money?
When I said re release, I also ment more of a remake. City of Blight or Skavenblight etc. Where you head in to find warptokens or something. But doesnt have to be set in Age of Sigmar universe even.
It wouldn't work really as a board game. SG are dead I think as I understand it there's no money in a game where you collect 16 is figures and you are done and let's not forget GW is trying to pay dividends so no long term money in it or so they think. There's talisman or Dungeon that's quite like Hero Quest.
migooo wrote: ...as I understand it there's no money in a game where you collect 16 is figures and you are done ...
'No money' is a stretch. There was plenty of money in Space Hulk, and that didn't require any additional purchase at all. Zombicide appears to be making a crateload of money for CMoN. Hell, Warmahordes lets you play with only a dozen or so figures, which come with their rules in the pack.
Given that GW's apparent focus has for years now been new players rather than vets, all-in-one-box games would make far more sense than games like 40K or AoS, because there's far less work involved in making a sale. No need to explain how armies work, and what sort of models they need... Just hand them a box and ring up the sale.
migooo wrote: It wouldn't work really as a board game. SG are dead I think as I understand it there's no money in a game where you collect 16 is figures and you are done and let's not forget GW is trying to pay dividends so no long term money in it or so they think. There's talisman or Dungeon that's quite like Hero Quest.
I'm sure Corvus Belli would disagree that there's no money in games that require 16 figures. I'm sure FFG may have something to say on the matter too.
Self contained board games are hugely popular, as are expansions for those board games. Likely far in excess of true, full blooded, wargames.
Speaking personally, my interest is switching to these sorts of games too, largely because I need to drive to my local club, and drawing up an army list, packing the models, travelling, unpacking the models, humping some boxes of terrain out of storage, setting up a table, playing the game and then doing the whole thing in reverse just isn't justified by the fun I get out of 40K right now.
By contrast, X Wing is very easy to play, we've got an Imperial Assault campaign going every couple of weeks (all played out of the box, no expansions yet) and I'm looking at other games with a smaller scale mainly, or that are self contained.
I'd kill for Bloodbowl, Epic, BFG etc all to come back again, I'd pick them up as a matter of course, whereas I'm struggling to remember the last time I gave GW any money as I type.
drop most things around 10 dollars... (makes it still expesnive but no more then most other hobbys)
listen to the fan community
plastic models for all my people(sisters)
Cutting prices, by $10 or any other amount, simply isn't feasible. As much as I criticise the way GW operates, I don't want to see them go under, and any sort of price cut would likely drive them under in short order.
There would be a slim chance that the lower prices would drive enough of an uptick in sales volume that it cancelled itself out, or even had a positive impact on the bottom line, but regardless of where you stand on the "do GW do research or not" debate, if they were harvesting the sort of data they'd need for that not to be anything but a massive gamble, we'd be aware of it.
No, as I've said countless times before, the way forward is to concentrate on value, not on price cuts. Stick enough extra legs in the ASM box to make 5 JP equipped and 5 foot Assault Marines, add a heavy weapons sprue to the tactical squad etc, etc.
I agree that having some sort feedback mechanism is needed, not only to find out what the customer base thinks, but also to engage with us to explain why certain things don't happen, that will mitigate a lot of the anger that stony silence provokes.
As for plastic Sisters? I think it's funnier as a non-SOB for them not to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
migooo wrote: I was attempting to play into the GW mindset. I'm actually working for a company that's producing models for skirmish games.
If you're interested in Necromunda and Mordhiem type games. Then I can only say you might like what we are doing.
migooo wrote: ...as I understand it there's no money in a game where you collect 16 is figures and you are done ...
'No money' is a stretch. There was plenty of money in Space Hulk, and that didn't require any additional purchase at all. Zombicide appears to be making a crateload of money for CMoN. Hell, Warmahordes lets you play with only a dozen or so figures, which come with their rules in the pack.
Given that GW's apparent focus has for years now been new players rather than vets, all-in-one-box games would make far more sense than games like 40K or AoS, because there's far less work involved in making a sale. No need to explain how armies work, and what sort of models they need... Just hand them a box and ring up the sale.
It's all relative. I'm sure that some companies would think $2 million would be enough revenue for the whole year to be really happy, while other companies need that magic number to be $10 million for the product to be deemed successful. GW has very high expectations for the industry for a product to be selling enough for it to support. I'm sure the WHFB sales that they deemed "practically dead" was still millions of dollars, and more than what a lot of other companies make in a year.
Azreal13 wrote:
migooo wrote: It wouldn't work really as a board game. SG are dead I think as I understand it there's no money in a game where you collect 16 is figures and you are done and let's not forget GW is trying to pay dividends so no long term money in it or so they think. There's talisman or Dungeon that's quite like Hero Quest.
I'm sure Corvus Belli would disagree that there's no money in games that require 16 figures. I'm sure FFG may have something to say on the matter too.
Self contained board games are hugely popular, as are expansions for those board games. Likely far in excess of true, full blooded, wargames.
Speaking personally, my interest is switching to these sorts of games too, largely because I need to drive to my local club, and drawing up an army list, packing the models, travelling, unpacking the models, humping some boxes of terrain out of storage, setting up a table, playing the game and then doing the whole thing in reverse just isn't justified by the fun I get out of 40K right now.
By contrast, X Wing is very easy to play, we've got an Imperial Assault campaign going every couple of weeks (all played out of the box, no expansions yet) and I'm looking at other games with a smaller scale mainly, or that are self contained.
I'd kill for Bloodbowl, Epic, BFG etc all to come back again, I'd pick them up as a matter of course, whereas I'm struggling to remember the last time I gave GW any money as I type.
I think it's all comes down to long term profitability for GW. They're looking for paths to recurring revenue of players who invest in a game, and keep buying into it, essentially forever. In relative terms, they likely see games like Bloodbowl, Space Hulk, and Advanced HeroQuest as dead ends -- games that cost money to produce, and after an initial launch period are just a stocking pain-in-the-ass.
On the other hand, I totally get that a model/miniature treadmill is not what a lot of people are looking for.
I love going to the board game section of the hobby shop and browsing them -- there are so many cool ones. But I'll confess that I don't buy very many, any more. Was really into them, in my teens, mostly because I had a friend that really enjoyed them too.
Talisman is my favorite game of all time, by the way -- by a long shot!
They will only see them as dead ends if the studio staff aren't up to finding ways of extending them. Plus there's always the opportunity of a new edition every few years to shake things up and rejuvenate sales, it's surprising how receptive people can be to updates if they actually appear to make efforts to refine or improve the game, or take it forward in other ways.
It is testament to how far away the Talysverse is from where I am that you're saying that SGs which would likely provide nice spikes of revenue when released wouldn't interest GW because they wouldn't deliver long term profits. GW are guilty of fairly serious short termism, it is this sort of product that, given past behaviour, shoud be EXACTLY what they are looking at.
Funny thing about a treadmill, whether it is viewed as that, or viewed as regular exciting updates and expansions for a game is almost entirely dependant on the general dispostion of the customer towards the producer.
Azreal13 wrote: They will only see them as dead ends if the studio staff aren't up to finding ways of extending them. Plus there's always the opportunity of a new edition every few years to shake things up and rejuvenate sales, it's surprising how receptive people can be to updates if they actually appear to make efforts to refine or improve the game, or take it forward in other ways.
It is testament to how far away the Talysverse is from where I am that you're saying that SGs which would likely provide nice spikes of revenue when released wouldn't interest GW because they wouldn't deliver long term profits. GW are guilty of fairly serious short termism, it is this sort of product that, given past behaviour, shoud be EXACTLY what they are looking at.
Funny thing about a treadmill, whether it is viewed as that, or viewed as regular exciting updates and expansions for a game is almost entirely dependant on the general dispostion of the customer towards the producer.
I actually see the model treadmill as an exciting stream of updates that come at a pretty consistent speed. It's just like.. modelling... exercise To me the GW cycle of Rumor/News/Release is strangely intoxicating. Unless it's Chaos stuff (literally the only faction I care nothing about), I avidly scour the interwebz for hints as to where GW is going.
I think SGs do provide a nice spike of revenue -- but it's such a relative term, right? Like, what's $5 million or $10 million? Is that enough to justify producing a game that diverts talent away from core products? Is it worthwhile to stick 30 games produced over 15 years on a shelf? Or do you take the same space and put 120 (smaller) boxes of stuff on the shelf of products for your core game?
If GW has the choice of making $5 million from a SG or $5 million from a 40k kit, I think they'll take the 40k product any day of the week, because the primary lifespan of that plastic kit is probably going to be like, 20 years; whereas an SG will get a nice spike and then taper off into obscurity (but still require as much shelf space). While GW is often looking for short-term gains, it's always in the context of a long-term product. Like, spike now is nice, but the product will be relevant for a long time to come. With the cost of mold tooling, they don't have much of a choice.
There is also the issue of followup and expansion purchases. Of course, expansions are possible, but historically, SGs have a relatively small number of expansions. GW would much rather you buy into (get hooked on) something that has a lifetime spend with the potential of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars (and no doubt neat 6 figures for some people).
BTW, I'm not saying that I'm RIGHT (or that GW's course is the most profitable). I'm just posing a hypothesis as to why GW isn't producing SG games, or even selling their own successful ones. If you have a different theory, I'm happy to hear the reasoning from the Azverse
Azreal13 wrote: They will only see them as dead ends if the studio staff aren't up to finding ways of extending them. Plus there's always the opportunity of a new edition every few years to shake things up and rejuvenate sales, it's surprising how receptive people can be to updates if they actually appear to make efforts to refine or improve the game, or take it forward in other ways.
It is testament to how far away the Talysverse is from where I am that you're saying that SGs which would likely provide nice spikes of revenue when released wouldn't interest GW because they wouldn't deliver long term profits. GW are guilty of fairly serious short termism, it is this sort of product that, given past behaviour, shoud be EXACTLY what they are looking at.
Funny thing about a treadmill, whether it is viewed as that, or viewed as regular exciting updates and expansions for a game is almost entirely dependant on the general dispostion of the customer towards the producer.
I actually see the model treadmill as an exciting stream of updates that come at a pretty consistent speed. It's just like.. modelling... exercise To me the GW cycle of Rumor/News/Release is strangely intoxicating. Unless it's Chaos stuff (literally the only faction I care nothing about), I avidly scour the interwebz for hints as to where GW is going.
Azreal13 wrote:Funny thing about a treadmill, whether it is viewed as that, or viewed as regular exciting updates and expansions for a game is almost entirely dependant on the general dispostion of the customer towards the producer.
I think SGs do provide a nice spike of revenue -- but it's such a relative term, right? Like, what's $5 million or $10 million? Is that enough to justify producing a game that diverts talent away from core products? Is it worthwhile to stick 30 games produced over 15 years on a shelf? Or do you take the same space and put 120 (smaller) boxes of stuff on the shelf of products for your core game?
If GW has the choice of making $5 million from a SG or $5 million from a 40k kit, I think they'll take the 40k product any day of the week, because the primary lifespan of that plastic kit is probably going to be like, 20 years; whereas an SG will get a nice spike and then taper off into obscurity (but still require as much shelf space). While GW is often looking for short-term gains, it's always in the context of a long-term product. Like, spike now is nice, but the product will be relevant for a long time to come. With the cost of mold tooling, they don't have much of a choice.
There is also the issue of followup and expansion purchases. Of course, expansions are possible, but historically, SGs have a relatively small number of expansions. GW would much rather you buy into (get hooked on) something that has a lifetime spend with the potential of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars (and no doubt neat 6 figures for some people).
$10m is a substantial spike, one I'm sure GW would gladly take, and they never stocked all the SGs at once, there was an annual release, followed by expansions and supplements (with much fanfare in WD) before it quietly slipped to the back of the queue in time for the next one in the cycle. The games already exist, they don't need a massive investment of time, just some spit and polish, at this point, I'm not even sure people would care if it was the old models (and plenty would have no idea they were old models.)
