Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 15:49:21


Post by: richred_uk


http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=GAW


TRADING UPDATE ON CLOSE OF FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED 29 MAY 2016

Following the close of its 2015/16 financial year Games Workshop provides the following trading highlights:

We expect the Group's profit for the year to 29 May 2016 to be slightly above market expectations due to earning more licensing income than we were expecting.

Over the year, sales have been largely the same as the prior year across all channels.

We will provide the detailed information on the results for the 2015/6 financial year at the time of our announcement on 26 July 2016.



Based on licences (Total War?) rather than sales of "stuff" but interesting ahead of the proper full-year results - the last time they announced anything it was that profits for the year would be unlikely to exceed £16M - this would suggest they have.

Mods - feel free to shift this to Discussions if it's more appropriate there - I wasn't sure.




GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 16:00:14


Post by: reds8n


Good spot and thanks for the heads up


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 16:09:45


Post by: Retrogamer0001


Must be all those models I've been buying direct from GW


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 16:19:21


Post by: El Torro


The pound has taken a hit in recent months as well against the Euro, which will help their bottom line and sales figures (when converted into pounds). I guess we'll have to wait and see what "Over the year, sales have been largely the same as the prior year across all channels." actually means though.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 18:36:36


Post by: Korinov


One also has to wonder what "market expectations" are exactly.

Let's see.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 19:11:12


Post by: richred_uk


 Korinov wrote:
One also has to wonder what "market expectations" are exactly.

Let's see.


http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-16-Press-Statement.pdf

At this stage in the Company’s financial
year, the Company’s internal projections indicate that pre-tax profit for the year to 29 May 2016 is
unlikely to exceed £16 million.


So basically the market expectation would be about £16M profit, before this update - I'd guess "slightly" would cover £17-18M, but it's a guess.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 19:40:12


Post by: Kilkrazy


Total War:Hammer is getting a lot of good press and seems to be genuinely a great game.
Given the pedigree of the Total War series that's not surprising.
It's all the more disappointing that GW canned WHFB the year before this potential big boost to recruitment came on stream.
I'll put that down to the tail end of the baleful Kirby era.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 19:42:29


Post by: Jehan-reznor


Noooo, what about GW going out of business soon!
But seriously i hope this will be finally a turn around in GW's ways, although they still need to address the high prices IMHO.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 20:04:26


Post by: Silent Puffin?


 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Noooo, what about GW going out of business soon! .


Few people have ever said 'soon'


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 20:20:15


Post by: Weboflies


To my knowledge this would be the first time in 6 years the company had turned a profit at all. That would be an unambiguously good thing.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 20:37:13


Post by: Laughing Man


 Weboflies wrote:
To my knowledge this would be the first time in 6 years the company had turned a profit at all. That would be an unambiguously good thing.

They've been turning profits consistently... forever. I don't think they've ever posted a loss over a full year.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 20:39:40


Post by: TheAuldGrump


But...
But...
But what about the unemployed Cypriots?! (This is a test for old timers. This is only a test.)

I am going to hold on to a faint glimmer of hope that the success of Total War: Warhammer spurs a reemergence of Warhammer, perhaps from Forge World. (Hey, I'm trying to be optimistic here, please don't kill my puppy.)

The Auld Grump


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 21:15:49


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Laughing Man wrote:
 Weboflies wrote:
To my knowledge this would be the first time in 6 years the company had turned a profit at all. That would be an unambiguously good thing.

They've been turning profits consistently... forever. I don't think they've ever posted a loss over a full year.


They have but it was about 10 years ago. I don't remember the exact year.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 22:35:19


Post by: TheAuldGrump


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 Laughing Man wrote:
 Weboflies wrote:
To my knowledge this would be the first time in 6 years the company had turned a profit at all. That would be an unambiguously good thing.

They've been turning profits consistently... forever. I don't think they've ever posted a loss over a full year.


They have but it was about 10 years ago. I don't remember the exact year.
Not losses, but steadily decreasing sales, offset by increased prices and cost cutting.

And one huge plummet in stock value, not all that long ago.

That said, I actually do hold out faith that Rountree may be able to undo some of the damage.

The Auld Grump


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 22:57:24


Post by: KiloFiX


Yeah, it was always profitable, every year.

It's just that profit was getting smaller year over year.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/06 23:02:12


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


So it sounds like they were saved by Total War.

What a surprise (sacarsm) they were underestimating the power of a licensed product that customers have been wanting for decades

Obviously have to wait for the report, but I will find it amusing in a sad way if they were saved from the poor sales of AoS by a product they didn't make licensed off the world they killed to make AoS. We'll have to wait and see.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 03:39:21


Post by: Toofast


What will be interesting is their profit and revenue compared to last year without the licensing included. Royalties are supposed to be the icing on the cake, not the only reason you don't slowly starve to death. If they aren't growing their miniature and rulebook sales, it's still a downward spiral. What happens next year when you don't have a huge game like that to keep the profits up? And the year after? This is slightly optimistic news, especially compared to the dismal report right after 8th WHFB and 6th 40k dropped.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 07:16:55


Post by: Yodhrin


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So it sounds like they were saved by Total War.

What a surprise (sacarsm) they were underestimating the power of a licensed product that customers have been wanting for decades

Obviously have to wait for the report, but I will find it amusing in a sad way if they were saved from the poor sales of AoS by a product they didn't make licensed off the world they killed to make AoS. We'll have to wait and see.


I don't know whether that would spark righteous schadenfreude or just sadness, to be honest.

Still, it's nice of them to openly admit licensing has saved their arse, neatly undercuts the handful of "deliberate internet contrarians" who've doubtless been gearing up for "Glorious AoS Saves Great Leader Games Workshop From Shame of Low Profit" gak stirring.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 07:39:47


Post by: Kilkrazy


 KiloFiX wrote:
Yeah, it was always profitable, every year.

It's just that profit was getting smaller year over year.


They haven't always been profitable and profits have been increasing for a few years as sales declined. This is because the company has got more efficient.

Their Cost of Goods (cost of making things to sell) has gone down from about 25% of retail price to about 20%. This creates a situation in which you can sell less stuff and make more profit.

I mention these points because there is no use discussing the company's financial position if we are not clear about their financial history.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Toofast wrote:
What will be interesting is their profit and revenue compared to last year without the licensing included. Royalties are supposed to be the icing on the cake, not the only reason you don't slowly starve to death. If they aren't growing their miniature and rulebook sales, it's still a downward spiral. What happens next year when you don't have a huge game like that to keep the profits up? And the year after? This is slightly optimistic news, especially compared to the dismal report right after 8th WHFB and 6th 40k dropped.


They also will have been helped by the weakening of the GBP in foreign exchange markets.

I agree it's hard to see how they can licence the IP without having core games that make it popular. Perhaps GW can transition to a purely digital company, designing 3D models and writing scenarios for computer games. Where would that leave the rest of the company, though?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 07:56:48


Post by: Herzlos


Total War is selling better than they were expecting? That says it all, really.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 07:59:39


Post by: richred_uk


Here's the last 5 years' headline financials if I can find back further I will post them up too:


£ Millions £ Millions £ Millions £ Millions £ Millions
Income Statement 31 May '15 1 Jun '14 2 Jun '13 3 Jun '12 29 May '11
Revenue 119.13 123.5 134.6 131.01 123.05
Operating Profit / Loss 16.48 12.3 21.25 19.14 15.24
Net Interest 0.11 0.1 0.14 0.33 0.04
Pre tax Profit 16.59 12.4 21.39 19.47 15.29
Post tax Profit 12.26 8.01 16.32 14.71 11.24
Profit for the Period 12.26 8.01 16.32 14.71 11.24

Not the tidiest formatting but


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 08:13:49


Post by: Backfire


They posted a loss of £2.1 million in 2007, report. This was when LOTR collapsed suddenly and they had very heavy cost structure which they began to cut.

They were operationally profitable that year (barely), but cuts caused big loss.

Licensing income has been relatively small potatoes in recent years - 1 to 2 million £ annually so interesting to see how much more it has produced.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 09:19:14


Post by: Herzlos


Total War: Warhammer has sold 642,364 copies so far @ about £50/copy (60EUR). That's £32m in revenue.
Assuming they get 5% as royalties, that's £1.6m - more licensing revenue in 2 weeks than they average annually.

It's potentially also enough to keep them in the black.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 09:28:46


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Herzlos wrote:
Total War: Warhammer has sold 642,364 copies so far @ about £50/copy (60EUR). That's £32m in revenue.
Assuming they get 5% as royalties, that's £1.6m - more licensing revenue in 2 weeks than they average annually.

It's potentially also enough to keep them in the black.
Where did you get those figures?

As far as I'm aware, it's impossible to tell how many copies have been sold because not all sales channels report blow by blow sales.

The only figure I could find from googling was this...

Total War: Warhammer has sold more than half a million units since its release at 8am on Tuesday, setting a franchise record for the fastest selling Total War title on Steam


And that was within the first 3 days it was on sale. I also don't know if that was Steam sales only, as the game could be purchased through a lot of other channels.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 09:35:41


Post by: Herzlos


http://steamspy.com/app/364360

I assume it has to be activated on steam to be played, even if you bought a retail box.

Edit: I don't see any confirmation of that. So the steam sales might not be the entire picture. If that's the case, we can realistically double those numbers, at least.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 09:45:59


Post by: Silent Puffin?


Total War games have required Steam activation since Empire, as far as I know anyway.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 10:32:56


Post by: TonyL707


Herzlos wrote:
Total War: Warhammer has sold 642,364 copies so far @ about £50/copy (60EUR). That's £32m in revenue.
Assuming they get 5% as royalties, that's £1.6m - more licensing revenue in 2 weeks than they average annually.

It's potentially also enough to keep them in the black.


I assume by 'keep them in the black' you mean increase profits rather than actually making the difference between profit and loss?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 10:33:24


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Are those realistic estimates of Steam sales anyway? I don't really follow steamspy, but I thought it worked by polling a bunch of accounts and adding up what games people had, which would mean it wouldn't account for people like me who's games can't be seen by others.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 10:35:34


Post by: Herzlos


I'm not sure. I think without TW or WHQ, they'd be making a loss (or negligable profit). We'll never get figures for WHQ though, but I suspect the royalties will be a significant proportion of the profits.

My prediction will be ~£4.5m profit, of which ~£2m is licensing.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 10:40:16


Post by: richred_uk


Herzlos wrote:
I'm not sure. I think without TW or WHQ, they'd be making a loss (or negligable profit). We'll never get figures for WHQ though, but I suspect the royalties will be a significant proportion of the profits.

My prediction will be ~£4.5m profit, of which ~£2m is licensing.


They have already said they are on track for c. £16M profit and have now announced that it will be "slightly" above that. My estimate is £17 - 18M profit.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 10:43:13


Post by: TonyL707


Herzlos wrote:
I'm not sure. I think without TW or WHQ, they'd be making a loss (or negligable profit). We'll never get figures for WHQ though, but I suspect the royalties will be a significant proportion of the profits.

My prediction will be ~£4.5m profit, of which ~£2m is licensing.


You might want to check the half year report. They made £6.2m up to November 2015, the big issue was they wouldn't make the £16m target. They're now saying they've done marginally better than expected so think your £4.5m might be a little low...


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 10:55:14


Post by: Herzlos


Yeah, you're right. My numbers don't make any sense.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 11:40:09


Post by: notprop


Herzlos wrote:
I'm not sure. I think without TW or WHQ, they'd be making a loss (or negligable profit). We'll never get figures for WHQ though, but I suspect the royalties will be a significant proportion of the profits.

My prediction will be ~£4.5m profit, of which ~£2m is licensing.


GW are consistently returning £12M-£15M in profit per annum.

I would be surprised if the TW licence was more than £5M for a 5 year period. Historically GW have spread their licence payments over the period so I would suspect they have maintained this (its also good practice) so their stated slight increase might be circa £1M over their prediction on the basis of the licence bucket payment dropping in..hey could have had the money for some time in accounts.

To be clear GW are know where near a loss. I know few companies that would not want to be in the position of posting 10%+ year to year for a decade. GW are in good shape from that stand point.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 11:43:33


Post by: Kilkrazy


That's exactly right.

GW's problem is a long term one of falling sales. Obviously if that continued their irreducible cost base would eventually come to exceed their income, and they would start to post actual losses.

However if GW can stem and reverse the tide, they are looking good thanks to the efficiencies they have made in the past 8-10 years.

Even if they just hold steady where they are now, they are still a profitable company.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 12:20:56


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's exactly right.

GW's problem is a long term one of falling sales. Obviously if that continued their irreducible cost base would eventually come to exceed their income, and they would start to post actual losses.

However if GW can stem and reverse the tide, they are looking good thanks to the efficiencies they have made in the past 8-10 years.

Even if they just hold steady where they are now, they are still a profitable company.


Is holding steady going to be good enough, though?

Their rivals produce paint, models, and games, which match and often excel, GW's product, and often at a lower price.

In this internet age, their rivals can also match their exposure and publicity.

Interesting times ahead.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 12:35:41


Post by: Kilkrazy


Holding steady won't kill GW. They probably would like to expand to take more advantage of their reduced cost base and more efficient production.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 17:03:34


Post by: Lanrak


If GW plc are only holding steady in terms of profit, while still loosing market share and sales volumes.
It may not lead them into bankruptcy any time soon.But just lead them into being insignificant in terms of the gaming market.

Which could potentially be just as bad.



GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 17:18:19


Post by: Snoopdeville3


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Total War:Hammer is getting a lot of good press and seems to be genuinely a great game.
Given the pedigree of the Total War series that's not surprising.
It's all the more disappointing that GW canned WHFB the year before this potential big boost to recruitment came on stream.
I'll put that down to the tail end of the baleful Kirby era.


Personally I think a lot of people would look into WHFB after playing this game... then they would find out how much it costs to get into, then go right back to playing. Thats what sweet about AoS, around $70 per person and you can start playing smalelr games.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 17:25:33


Post by: Uriels_Flame


Just imagine if they opened TW:WH up to Console/IOS users...


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 18:39:54


Post by: Fenrir Kitsune


 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Total War:Hammer is getting a lot of good press and seems to be genuinely a great game.
Given the pedigree of the Total War series that's not surprising.
It's all the more disappointing that GW canned WHFB the year before this potential big boost to recruitment came on stream.
I'll put that down to the tail end of the baleful Kirby era.


Personally I think a lot of people would look into WHFB after playing this game... then they would find out how much it costs to get into, then go right back to playing. Thats what sweet about AoS, around $70 per person and you can start playing smalelr games.


Except it's not WFB, is it?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 21:51:30


Post by: Compel


It wouldn't surprise me if GW do do better, even discounting the whole shotgun licencing thing. Though it might be more to do with the next report. I was one of those predicting doom for GW unless they made major changes.

To be quite frank... Well, they are making changes, despite me being loathed to admit it.

The whole release a new "game" every few months seems to be working, for now at least. Plus the other various changes and improvements.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 22:11:53


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Just imagine if they opened TW:WH up to Console/IOS users...
This is the first Total War game I've played, so maybe old school TW players don't feel the same, but I find the game has a terrible interface. If the interface sucks this bad on PC I'd hate to see what it's like on consoles.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/07 22:56:16


Post by: Zan


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Just imagine if they opened TW:WH up to Console/IOS users...
This is the first Total War game I've played, so maybe old school TW players don't feel the same, but I find the game has a terrible interface. If the interface sucks this bad on PC I'd hate to see what it's like on consoles.


The UI is pretty much par for the course as far as Total War games. I remember it being cumbersome when I first began to play Total War games in... 2004-5ish? At this point I'm used to it but I could definitely see how it might feel clunky to a newcomer.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/08 07:49:50


Post by: Herzlos


I think it's always been a bit clunky, but there's a lot to do. I can't see it translating well to a console or phone. I remember trying to play Red Alert on the PS1 and it was awful (I loved it on the PC), and it doesn't have the control depth of TW.


 Snoopdeville3 wrote:

Personally I think a lot of people would look into WHFB after playing this game... then they would find out how much it costs to get into, then go right back to playing. Thats what sweet about AoS, around $70 per person and you can start playing smalelr games.


But since it bears as much resemblance to TW:Warhammer as a potato, why would they want do to that? Bear in mind that whilst you can start playing AoS with a lower model count, some of those model boxes cost more than TW:Warhammer does.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/08 13:41:52


Post by: shinros


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Total War:Hammer is getting a lot of good press and seems to be genuinely a great game.
Given the pedigree of the Total War series that's not surprising.
It's all the more disappointing that GW canned WHFB the year before this potential big boost to recruitment came on stream.
I'll put that down to the tail end of the baleful Kirby era.


Yup that's why I keep saying imagine if Kevin was in charge before hand? I feel he would of done the necessary changes to improve the product. Well what's done is done.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/08 14:21:13


Post by: Brother SRM


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Just imagine if they opened TW:WH up to Console/IOS users...
This is the first Total War game I've played, so maybe old school TW players don't feel the same, but I find the game has a terrible interface. If the interface sucks this bad on PC I'd hate to see what it's like on consoles.

It would be unplayable on consoles altogether. It's a capital P capital C "PC" game. Warhammer: Battle March was like a poor man's Total War back on the 360, and that game wasn't so hot itself.

I'd expect sales of Total War to keep going on into the new financial year and feeding them more money, I'm adoring the game and the word of mouth is altogether really positive.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/09 06:14:40


Post by: tneva82


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's exactly right.

GW's problem is a long term one of falling sales. Obviously if that continued their irreducible cost base would eventually come to exceed their income, and they would start to post actual losses.

However if GW can stem and reverse the tide, they are looking good thanks to the efficiencies they have made in the past 8-10 years.

Even if they just hold steady where they are now, they are still a profitable company.


Is holding steady going to be good enough, though?

Their rivals produce paint, models, and games, which match and often excel, GW's product, and often at a lower price.

In this internet age, their rivals can also match their exposure and publicity.

Interesting times ahead.


Well depends how long they have and do they dare to keep prices fixed for a a long time After all if they would decide to stop increasing prices eventually their prices would become cheap again.

But do they have time/interest in not hiking prices up...


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/09 11:40:44


Post by: Backfire


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's exactly right.

GW's problem is a long term one of falling sales. Obviously if that continued their irreducible cost base would eventually come to exceed their income, and they would start to post actual losses.

However if GW can stem and reverse the tide, they are looking good thanks to the efficiencies they have made in the past 8-10 years.

Even if they just hold steady where they are now, they are still a profitable company.


Is holding steady going to be good enough, though?


No, it would be very risky. LOTR and WHFB both dropped from strong bringers of revenue to almost nothing in about 5 years or even less. Same could just as well happen to 40k and in company's present situation, would spell doom for them.
This is why they are attempting to diversify their catalogue - release board games, reset WHFB, bringing back Specialist Games.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/09 14:00:49


Post by: Bartali


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 KiloFiX wrote:
Yeah, it was always profitable, every year.

It's just that profit was getting smaller year over year.


They haven't always been profitable and profits have been increasing for a few years as sales declined. This is because the company has got more efficient.

Their Cost of Goods (cost of making things to sell) has gone down from about 25% of retail price to about 20%. This creates a situation in which you can sell less stuff and make more profit.

I mention these points because there is no use discussing the company's financial position if we are not clear about their financial history.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Toofast wrote:
What will be interesting is their profit and revenue compared to last year without the licensing included. Royalties are supposed to be the icing on the cake, not the only reason you don't slowly starve to death. If they aren't growing their miniature and rulebook sales, it's still a downward spiral. What happens next year when you don't have a huge game like that to keep the profits up? And the year after? This is slightly optimistic news, especially compared to the dismal report right after 8th WHFB and 6th 40k dropped.


They also will have been helped by the weakening of the GBP in foreign exchange markets.

I agree it's hard to see how they can licence the IP without having core games that make it popular. Perhaps GW can transition to a purely digital company, designing 3D models and writing scenarios for computer games. Where would that leave the rest of the company, though?


It's the Marvel approach. I haven't bought a Marvel Comic Book in years, but come Birthday or Christmas I always seem to get given some licensed Marvel pants, t-shirt, wallet, socks etc

With GW they probably hope the video games keep the franchises going while miniature sales are decreasing. In much the same way the films kept Marvel going whilst comic book sales drop off.
It wouldn't surprise me if GW took videogame production in house at some point


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/09 14:04:41


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Bartali wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if GW took videogame production in house at some point
It would surprise me because video game development is a cutthroat industry, extremely risky (large amounts of money required up front hoping for a pay off down the road) and a video game design studio is made up of a large number of people relative to a table top wargame design studio.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/09 14:35:46


Post by: Jehan-reznor


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Bartali wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if GW took videogame production in house at some point
It would surprise me because video game development is a cutthroat industry, extremely risky (large amounts of money required up front hoping for a pay off down the road) and a video game design studio is made up of a large number of people relative to a table top wargame design studio.


I agree, licensing is the safest route, would like to see them expand in other area's though.

Salamander grills, Khorne meat cleavers or the slaneesh rabbit


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/09 14:41:10


Post by: corpuschain


It seems to be that they are addressing their model price issue. The start collecting and renegade knight box sets and kits like the terminator command box are a way to get a reduced price on models without GW actually lowering the prices of models. The fear is probably that if they lower prices, they 'devalue' the models and make them less desirable.

So, whilst they won't lower the cost of a terminator box, they realise they're expensive and want to offer us some terminators in a special deal.

It seems like good business practice to me. It makes me want to buy more models, that's for sure!


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/09 19:27:09


Post by: alphaecho


 corpuschain wrote:


It seems like good business practice to me. It makes me want to buy more models, that's for sure!


That seems to be the beauty of the Start Collecting boxes.

"I'd really like a Dunecrawler. £40!!!! Oh wait for £50 I get the Dunecrawler AND troops AND a character. Here GW (or favourite FLGS/ Online retailer), have more money than I was originally going to spend".

I don't know how much profit they make with that extra £10 offset against the extra models you get but it must make sense to someone.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/09 20:19:50


Post by: Fenrir Kitsune


 corpuschain wrote:
It seems to be that they are addressing their model price issue. The start collecting and renegade knight box sets and kits like the terminator command box are a way to get a reduced price on models without GW actually lowering the prices of models. The fear is probably that if they lower prices, they 'devalue' the models and make them less desirable.

So, whilst they won't lower the cost of a terminator box, they realise they're expensive and want to offer us some terminators in a special deal.

It seems like good business practice to me. It makes me want to buy more models, that's for sure!


What if I only want terminators and think they are too expensive?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/09 20:53:28


Post by: Baron Klatz


Really great to hear that GW is doing well.

Like what's been said, a little sad to hear that TW warhammer has been turning a great profit despite the old world's destruction but not surprised that it wasn't predicted by GW back in 2013 when the franchise seemed through.

Lord knows that the early reception by the TW fanbase would've made anyone think it was a failure in the making. (Seriously, we're talking almost-death threats sent to CA for not working on medieval 3. Those fans are savage...)

I think videogame licenses and board games are the best bets for GW. The 3D printer press madness of the future can ruin model sales without good IP but board games with good model deals and awesome rules are far harder to rip-off than singular models and videogames are on a whole other level of protection.

Here's hoping GW can roll with the punches and win out in the end.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/10 08:29:12


Post by: Herzlos


 corpuschain wrote:
It seems to be that they are addressing their model price issue. The start collecting and renegade knight box sets and kits like the terminator command box are a way to get a reduced price on models without GW actually lowering the prices of models.


Only if the buyer (1) has the money to buy the bundle and either (a) wants most of the stuff in a box or (b) has contacts to swap out the rest.

Take the Knights box; great deal if you want 2 Knights, as the 2nd one was virtually free, but it was still the fat end of £100, and I only actually want 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baron Klatz wrote:
The 3D printer press madness of the future can ruin model sales without good IP but board games with good model deals and awesome rules are far harder to rip-off than singular models and videogames are on a whole other level of protection.


3D printed models will likely never be able to compete with mass produced PVC. Even at perfect resolution, it'd take so long to make it wouldn't be worth it. Just like home printers never killed the printing industry.



GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/11 03:14:28


Post by: Stormonu


 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
 corpuschain wrote:
It seems to be that they are addressing their model price issue. The start collecting and renegade knight box sets and kits like the terminator command box are a way to get a reduced price on models without GW actually lowering the prices of models. The fear is probably that if they lower prices, they 'devalue' the models and make them less desirable.

So, whilst they won't lower the cost of a terminator box, they realise they're expensive and want to offer us some terminators in a special deal.

It seems like good business practice to me. It makes me want to buy more models, that's for sure!


What if I only want terminators and think they are too expensive?


Probably buy the combined box set and sell off everything but the terminators at a profit...


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/11 03:37:42


Post by: Rootbeard


Value sets are great and all, but the way to address the high prices complaint isn't to say "spend even MORE money". That's a marketing move that distracts from the issue instead of trying to actually do anything about it.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/11 04:31:17


Post by: BigWaaagh


Simply put, companies do not go out of their way and make announcements like that if their results are going to disappoint. It's a very big and positive statement to actually come out and say something like this rather than just wait and post up their year end results, as they normally do, with the "trading is in line with expectations" comment they've thrown out to the investment community for the last several years. They must be very happy with the results they're tabulating.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/11 05:11:23


Post by: Silent Puffin?


Bartali wrote:

It wouldn't surprise me if GW took videogame production in house at some point


GW used to publish computer games, including the original Chaos, so its possible that they may go this route again with small GW related games although probably not.

Baron Klatz wrote:
but not surprised that it wasn't predicted by GW back in 2013 when the franchise seemed through.


I am . The TW series are definitely in the AAA realm and a Warhammer TW game has been much sought after for years, it was obvious that this would have been GW's biggest licensing opportunity by far, even more so than Dawn of War.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/11 18:35:50


Post by: notprop


 BigWaaagh wrote:
Simply put, companies do not go out of their way and make announcements like that if their results are going to disappoint. It's a very big and positive statement to actually come out and say something like this rather than just wait and post up their year end results, as they normally do, with the "trading is in line with expectations" comment they've thrown out to the investment community for the last several years. They must be very happy with the results they're tabulating.


Actually it is common for press releases prior to the publication of result by publicly traded companies.

Take a look at the half year press release where there announces a expected drop in profits for the period.

It's really nothing out of the ordinary.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/11 20:57:36


Post by: Rayvon


 Silent Puffin? wrote:


I am . The TW series are definitely in the AAA realm and a Warhammer TW game has been much sought after for years, it was obvious that this would have been GW's biggest licensing opportunity by far, even more so than Dawn of War.


This, they did not do it earlier because they were always worried that a game like this would have a negative effect on WFB sales !


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/11 22:46:38


Post by: BigWaaagh


 notprop wrote:
 BigWaaagh wrote:
Simply put, companies do not go out of their way and make announcements like that if their results are going to disappoint. It's a very big and positive statement to actually come out and say something like this rather than just wait and post up their year end results, as they normally do, with the "trading is in line with expectations" comment they've thrown out to the investment community for the last several years. They must be very happy with the results they're tabulating.


Actually it is common for press releases prior to the publication of result by publicly traded companies.

Take a look at the half year press release where there announces a expected drop in profits for the period.

It's really nothing out of the ordinary.


Actually, if you read the complete statement of what I said you'd see that what I've pointed out is the distinction of this blurb, not the blurb itself, vs. the normal "trading is in line with expectations" boilerplate that they've used repeatedly, on and off, for the last several years leading up to their mid- and year-end numbers. What is obviously extraordinary is the very positive spin that has been missing from their statements for some time and companies do not make announcements like that when results are bad, or even flat, for that matter.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/11 23:11:43


Post by: Azreal13


They might when their interim report featured something as negative as "we don't expect to earn more than £16m."

This reports says "slightly above market expectations."

So it's reasonable to assume that the market (the tiny bit that's actually paying attention,) given the last reports would be expecting zero growth, more or less, as last year's profits were £15.8m.

So, an extra £2-300K in profit, given the releases we've seen this year, could be simultaneously both disappointing and yet still above market expectations.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/12 18:08:34


Post by: wuestenfux


How about the influence of a Brexit?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/12 19:09:05


Post by: Azreal13


As with every other single issue: Nobody really knows.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/12 20:37:29


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 BigWaaagh wrote:
Simply put, companies do not go out of their way and make announcements like that if their results are going to disappoint. It's a very big and positive statement to actually come out and say something like this rather than just wait and post up their year end results, as they normally do, with the "trading is in line with expectations" comment they've thrown out to the investment community for the last several years. They must be very happy with the results they're tabulating.
Well the report is written for investors not gamers.

When investors read 6 months ago "We don't have good expectations" now they can read "we beat those bad expectations because of licensing!" as a positive.

As a gamer however, rather than being excessively positive my thought is "hrm, so does that mean your own in house games are going bad and you're just lucky Total War did better than expected?"


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/13 07:03:06


Post by: Kilkrazy


In the short term Brexit will be good for GW because it will cause a sudden steep drop in the value of the GBP. This will make GW's exports much more affordable in the rest of the world, which comprises about 2/3rds or 3/4rs of the GW market.

In the medium term the UK will suffer reduced growth which is liable to reduce GW's sales in the UK. This is also likely to have a long term knock-on effect, unless somehow the UK's economic growth rate increases by not being part of the EU. This however will only reduce UK sales, which as noted above are the minority.

In the longer term, we don't know what the effects of renegotiating all the EU trade treaties will be on GW's sales overseas.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/13 07:40:21


Post by: richred_uk


 Kilkrazy wrote:
In the short term Brexit will be good for GW because it will cause a sudden steep drop in the value of the GBP. This will make GW's exports much more affordable in the rest of the world, which comprises about 2/3rds or 3/4rs of the GW market.


Except that for the most part, GW prices in the local currency (US$, A$, NZ$, €), so unless GW decides to cut their exchange rates, the fall in the market exchange rate won;t make GW stuff more affordable (it might make it more profitable for GW though, so the 'good for GW point stands)). IIRC GW tend to maintain their rates on existing products, but might make new releases cheaper.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/13 10:04:39


Post by: Kilkrazy


That's what I meant, but expressed it badly. If the GBP falls in value, each Euro/Dollar/Yen spent on GW kits creates more £££ on GW's bottom line at the end of the year.

The way this works is that if GW's North American division want to buy £100,000 of kits to sell, they have to pay $150,000 for them. When the £ goes down 10%, the cost of those kits to the NA division suddenly drops to $135,000, but they still sell to customers in the NA market for the same total amount of dollars as before. The NA division's profit therefore goes up by $35,000.

There is a lot more to international business operations that this but that's the basics of how currency movements affect things.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/13 10:24:48


Post by: BrianDavion


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Total War:Hammer is getting a lot of good press and seems to be genuinely a great game.
Given the pedigree of the Total War series that's not surprising.
It's all the more disappointing that GW canned WHFB the year before this potential big boost to recruitment came on stream.
I'll put that down to the tail end of the baleful Kirby era.


I have at least one friend who was asking me about WFB after buying total warhammer. when I mentioned Age of Sigmar literally the best explination I could give him for it was "yeah it's GW's 4th edition D&D"


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/13 11:21:51


Post by: notprop


So you really sold it to him then....not really surprising that he wasn't interested then?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/13 12:37:10


Post by: Mymearan


 notprop wrote:
So you really sold it to him then....not really surprising that he wasn't interested then?


Was going to say the same thing. I certainly think Total War could introduce many gamers to Age of Sigmar, just as it would have to WHFB. I mean, the majority of WHFB races aren't even in Total War, so what does it matter to the prospective gamer if the unknown race he encounters in the tabletop game is called Dark Elves or Shadowkin? Most of the units in Total War still exist in Age of Sigmar as well. And as for the fluff, it, as I understand it, isn't that in-depth in Total War, and most gamers probably don't pay that much attention to it anyway. The game rules are whatever, Age of Sigmar can easily look similar to Total War on the tabletop. To them, as long as you don't introduce in the way BrianDavion did, it's still Warhammer and you would very likely still be interested in if you were tabletop-curious after playing the PC game.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/13 15:12:25


Post by: Yodhrin


 Mymearan wrote:
 notprop wrote:
So you really sold it to him then....not really surprising that he wasn't interested then?


Was going to say the same thing. I certainly think Total War could introduce many gamers to Age of Sigmar, just as it would have to WHFB. I mean, the majority of WHFB races aren't even in Total War, so what does it matter to the prospective gamer if the unknown race he encounters in the tabletop game is called Dark Elves or Shadowkin? Most of the units in Total War still exist in Age of Sigmar as well. And as for the fluff, it, as I understand it, isn't that in-depth in Total War, and most gamers probably don't pay that much attention to it anyway. The game rules are whatever, Age of Sigmar can easily look similar to Total War on the tabletop. To them, as long as you don't introduce in the way BrianDavion did, it's still Warhammer and you would very likely still be interested in if you were tabletop-curious after playing the PC game.


Yes, god forbid people respond to people asking "can I do this specific thing in those models you like?" with an honest answer rather than trying to shill a product you have a low opinion of to your mates, truly the man is a monster

Also, if you're going to comment on the game, I'd recommend you play it rather than relying on your "understanding", as it's evidently not particularly extensive - the game is practically a love letter to WHF as a setting, from the design of the units to the way the iconic equipment for the Legendary Lords are acquired through special mission scenarios drawn from that character's background material. Further, the game only includes a limited roster for now, they'll be adding at least Bretonnians to this iteration as DLC and they plan to realise all the races and the entire global Warhammer World map by the end of the planned trilogy of titles(which will be "expandalones" that can be played individually or combined into PC Warhammer Voltron and played all at once). Also, AoS looks nothing like a TW:WH battle on the tabletop, because TW:WH looks like WHFB battles brought to life - the whole point of the TW franchise is that the mechanical depth comes from big block unit-based maneuver and positioning, it's all about charging the right unit with the right unit at the right angle and having the appropriate flanking force ready to engage, about crafting formations of huge angular blocks of infantry and cavalry to take advantage of the terrain and minimise your own force's weaknesses.

AoS doesn't share the same aesthetic, it doesn't share the same background/lore, and the core mechanics of the system are virtually the exact polar opposite in their design philosophy to the TW franchise - if someone could be persuaded to play AoS on the back of liking TW:WH, they could be persuaded to play literally any tabletop game and there are plenty of better ones out there to talk your mates into trying.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/13 16:37:53


Post by: Lanrak


I would recommend Mantics Kings Of War , as a game that is closer to the game play of TW:WH on the table top.

Or Armies of Arcana, if the anacronym has to be closer to AoS.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 09:20:41


Post by: Korinov


 Mymearan wrote:
The game rules are whatever, Age of Sigmar can easily look similar to Total War on the tabletop.

No, not at all. Have you ever played a Total War game?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 09:23:41


Post by: Mymearan


 Korinov wrote:
 Mymearan wrote:
The game rules are whatever, Age of Sigmar can easily look similar to Total War on the tabletop.

No, not at all. Have you ever played a Total War game?


Yep. Have you played Age of Sigmar?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 09:32:55


Post by: Kilkrazy


I haven't played either of them but I still know that Total War is a high model count mass battle game and AoS is a small model count skirmish game.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 09:33:59


Post by: Mymearan


Example of AoS battle:



GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 12:00:08


Post by: MaxT


 Kilkrazy wrote:
In the short term Brexit will be good for GW because it will cause a sudden steep drop in the value of the GBP. This will make GW's exports much more affordable in the rest of the world, which comprises about 2/3rds or 3/4rs of the GW market.

In the medium term the UK will suffer reduced growth which is liable to reduce GW's sales in the UK. This is also likely to have a long term knock-on effect, unless somehow the UK's economic growth rate increases by not being part of the EU. This however will only reduce UK sales, which as noted above are the minority.

In the longer term, we don't know what the effects of renegotiating all the EU trade treaties will be on GW's sales overseas.


The other side of the coin is that a drop in the ££ it makes imports into the UK more expensive. For businesses reliant on imports for raw materials or manufactured goods, this added expense will offset the increased profit from selling overseas. Now from GW's point of view they don't have an issue, as they make the vast majority of their stuff in the UK, and their imported raw materials are a tiny proportion of their expenses (Plastic pellets are cheap as hell, add 10%, they're still cheap as hell)

I bring it up as it'll potentially affect other miniature companies way more - Mantic for example has most of it's manufacturing in China, add 10% to the manufacturing costs, it could really hurt them.



GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 12:09:48


Post by: Fenrir Kitsune


GW print books abroad, don't they?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 12:10:09


Post by: OgreChubbs


 Mymearan wrote:
Example of AoS battle:

lol like playing a horde in 40k when their turn starts everyone pulls out a phone or walks away for a while. Move him move him 3 hours later almost done guys.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 12:21:00


Post by: MaxT


 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
GW print books abroad, don't they?


A mix of both in the UK and abroad. But books are a small part of the business, there is plenty of wood, paper mills and printing presses in the UK, and swapping printing companies is easy. Even a crazy ££ drop wouldn't impact much for books.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 13:02:37


Post by: Azreal13


Sterling may not drop universally, either. So it may weaken against the Euro notably, but perhaps not so much against $ or Yuan, it's something that can be highly unpredictable.

Then you look at a variety of potential economic time bombs ticking throughout the eurozone which have the potential to damage the €, and it gets even murkier.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 13:06:03


Post by: MaxT


Indeed. For us Brits, whatever the vote comes out, the price of our toy soldiers & the fate of the companies making them may be the least of our concerns !


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 13:10:47


Post by: Yodhrin


 Mymearan wrote:
Example of AoS battle:



Farcical. What's next, will you argue we should recommend 40K or WarmaHordes to people who play TW:WH and want to experience something similar on the tabletop?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 13:23:35


Post by: Azreal13


Hey, let's take a moment to appreciate the effort that must have gone into Mymerean finding a picture of someone actually playing AOS!


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 14:10:40


Post by: Fenrir Kitsune


They need some movement trays for those units. It'd speed things up and be quite helpful.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 14:18:20


Post by: Mymearan


I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 15:08:15


Post by: Fenrir Kitsune


 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... .


Sigmarines are in TW?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 15:34:33


Post by: TheAuldGrump


 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.
In which case any fantasy game could be used - from Tunnels & Trolls to D&D to Kings of War.

Many of which are much, much better games that AoS.

For something similar to TW I would recommend Kings of War - a large unit strategic and tactical game without a cumbersome system.

I would not recommend AoS, except as a source of miniatures, and even then... I do not much like the AoS figures. (Others do, so I won't try to argue that a giant daemon/golem thing with skull zits is a terrible miniature.)

I could be more sarcastic - like how would you explain why pretending to twirl your mustache gets you a bonus, but....

The Auld Grump


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 16:31:46


Post by: Kilkrazy


Anyway, it's getting a bit off topic.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 16:35:08


Post by: shinros


 Azreal13 wrote:
Hey, let's take a moment to appreciate the effort that must have gone into Mymerean finding a picture of someone actually playing AOS!


I know plently of people who play AOS myself.

I am going on to say if you actually want to win against someone who is good in AOS. You have to use formations and position your units correctly just like how it was displayed in the image because how you set your guys up effects how many people can get into combat and the pile in phase. Still the conversion rate for someone getting into wargaming is low. Someone can play warrior's of chaos for 6 pounds instead of 50-60+ pounds in AOS or 150+ for 8th. Now getting people to buy single models? That I could see happening and that's what GW aimed for in the advertisement.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 16:57:55


Post by: Azreal13


With due acknowledgment to KK's post, this will be my last say on the topic, but, you do realise the laughing Ork meant I was joking right?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 17:14:30


Post by: shinros


 Azreal13 wrote:
With due acknowledgment to KK's post, this will be my last say on the topic, but, you do realise the laughing Ork meant I was joking right?


Apologies I took it the wrong way considering the amount of times I have seen people mock AOS or those who play it I jumped the gun abit.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 18:04:10


Post by: Talys


 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.


*raises hand*

I've actually spent WAY more money on Fantasy models since the rebranding. Prior to AoS, I probably bought on average 2 models a year from the Fantasy range -- I think the only model I got in 2014 was Druthu. Since the rebranding, I've gotten all the Stormcast releases, most of the non-Chaos new terrain, Silver Tower, and several other kits. I've even painted a bunch of it

Even though I've owned a lot of the Fantasy stuff, going right back to the first version of Fantasy Role-Play, I have never been enamored with the lore/setting. It was too much a mirror of the "real world" (Europe) for me, and there were other fantasy game settings I was more invested in with better fiction, in my opinion (primarily TSR game worlds). If anything, the world in which WHFB was set detracted from the models, for me. I also thought a bunch of the models were just goofy, and I never liked how the humans and their heroes never felt awe-inspiring (though I loved the elves).






GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 19:32:20


Post by: Yodhrin


 Talys wrote:
 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.


*raises hand*

I've actually spent WAY more money on Fantasy models since the rebranding. Prior to AoS, I probably bought on average 2 models a year from the Fantasy range -- I think the only model I got in 2014 was Druthu. Since the rebranding, I've gotten all the Stormcast releases, most of the non-Chaos new terrain, Silver Tower, and several other kits. I've even painted a bunch of it

Even though I've owned a lot of the Fantasy stuff, going right back to the first version of Fantasy Role-Play, I have never been enamored with the lore/setting. It was too much a mirror of the "real world" (Europe) for me, and there were other fantasy game settings I was more invested in with better fiction, in my opinion (primarily TSR game worlds). If anything, the world in which WHFB was set detracted from the models, for me. I also thought a bunch of the models were just goofy, and I never liked how the humans and their heroes never felt awe-inspiring (though I loved the elves).






That's lovely, shame you getting what you want apparently required depriving all the fans of the existing setting of their enjoyment.

It's not, however, really relevant to the point; Mymearan is talking nonsense and he fine well knows it. We're not discussing randoms, we're not discussing GW customers who didn't like Realhammer, we're discussing people who play TW:WH and like it because of what it is and whether a game that isn't anything like what it is will appeal to most of them. AoS is a streamlined, skirmish-based, fairly random ruleset with minimal structure that doesn't share a setting or aesthetic with WHF as-was, TW:WH is a complex, block-based, maneuver-dependent and extremely predictable game system that painstakingly reproduces the aesthetic and setting of WHF. When that fundamental disconnect is pointed out, the response is "here, a picture of armies deployed in a line, your argument is invalid"

Is it technically possible for people of the type described to come from TW:WH explicitly seeking to replicate that experience on the tabletop and end up as happy, enthusiastic AoS players? Sure, but it's hardly very likely - if someone comes to me and says they're a fan of dark Nordic crime TV dramas and asks me to recommend them some American shows along the same lines, it's possible I could recommend them "Psych" and they'd love it, but it's hardly likely and it's not what they asked me for.

Anyway, I've explained my point as best I can, folk with either agree or not, I'll leave you to it until we see the actual results.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 19:46:22


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Talys wrote:
 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.


*raises hand*

I've actually spent WAY more money on Fantasy models since the rebranding. Prior to AoS, I probably bought on average 2 models a year from the Fantasy range -- I think the only model I got in 2014 was Druthu. Since the rebranding, I've gotten all the Stormcast releases, most of the non-Chaos new terrain, Silver Tower, and several other kits. I've even painted a bunch of it

Even though I've owned a lot of the Fantasy stuff, going right back to the first version of Fantasy Role-Play, I have never been enamored with the lore/setting. It was too much a mirror of the "real world" (Europe) for me, and there were other fantasy game settings I was more invested in with better fiction, in my opinion (primarily TSR game worlds). If anything, the world in which WHFB was set detracted from the models, for me. I also thought a bunch of the models were just goofy, and I never liked how the humans and their heroes never felt awe-inspiring (though I loved the elves).






Obviously there are people who spent more on fantasy than before, there are also people who spent less.
WHFB had 35 years of sales, after all.

The key point is the financial data that will be presented in a few weeks. At least we will be able to see the licensing revenue, which contains the Total War:Hammer sales.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 20:40:30


Post by: TheAuldGrump


 Talys wrote:
 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.


*raises hand*

I've actually spent WAY more money on Fantasy models since the rebranding. Prior to AoS, I probably bought on average 2 models a year from the Fantasy range -- I think the only model I got in 2014 was Druthu. Since the rebranding, I've gotten all the Stormcast releases, most of the non-Chaos new terrain, Silver Tower, and several other kits. I've even painted a bunch of it

Even though I've owned a lot of the Fantasy stuff, going right back to the first version of Fantasy Role-Play, I have never been enamored with the lore/setting. It was too much a mirror of the "real world" (Europe) for me, and there were other fantasy game settings I was more invested in with better fiction, in my opinion (primarily TSR game worlds). If anything, the world in which WHFB was set detracted from the models, for me. I also thought a bunch of the models were just goofy, and I never liked how the humans and their heroes never felt awe-inspiring (though I loved the elves).




I have also been buying a lot more for fantasy gaming - and none of it from GW. Mostly because people are playing more Kings of War than they had Warhammer Fantasy Battle. (It took GW getting rid of WHFB for folks to try KoW, but once they did it started getting played a lot.)

I strongly suspect that the drop in sales after getting rid of WHFB was a goodly chunk of GW's low expectations for this fiscal period - and was made up for, not by higher sales of AoS, but by higher sales of licensed product. (See, on topic!)

For the record - and this is kind of important - my yelling 'Bring Back Warhammer Fantasy Battle!!1!' is not the same as my yelling 'Get Rid Of Age Of Sigmar!!1!' - I think that getting rid of the large scale game was the mistake, not introducing a higher fantasy skirmish game.

While I have negative interest in AoS, I can say that about a lot of games.

They had an opportunity to grow the market, but instead chose to split the market. (They are not the first fantasy gaming company to do so - ask WotC or Rackham.)

If AoS had been the launch for the new/reissued Specialist Games line I very much doubt that we would have seen nearly as much hatred for the game, and it could have/would have been judged for its own merits and flaws.

For my part, I just don't like the direction the miniatures have taken since the new game launched, and Age of Sigmar holds no interest for me.

Which is kind of crappy timing - for the first time in quite a while I am seeing moves by the company that don't annoy the heck out of me - yet they have nothing that I want to buy. (Yes, I am one of those people that will stop buying from companies when I do not approve of their methods - and I have not approved of GW for a long time now.)

I am glad to see that they change in direction may be helping the company's bottom line, yet because they killed the one line that I had any interest in....

The Auld Grump


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 21:01:00


Post by: Nevelon


 Kilkrazy wrote:

The key point is the financial data that will be presented in a few weeks. At least we will be able to see the licensing revenue, which contains the Total War:Hammer sales.


When does GW put out their full halftime/yearly reports?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 21:16:50


Post by: Kilkrazy


Mid-July and mid-January. I don't remember exactly.

The exact dates will be on the GW Investor Relations page.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 21:28:49


Post by: TheAuldGrump


Hmmmm.... I wonder who will be writing the preamble....

The Auld Grump


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 21:31:16


Post by: Rayvon


 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.


Yep,
Age of Sigmar is still warhammer too, whether people like it or not.
It will attract some more customers, I doubt it will be as many as space marine did though.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 22:49:01


Post by: RoperPG


If TW:WH only released late May, how much of an effect could it have had given FY starts in April?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 23:05:37


Post by: Azreal13


Their FYE isn't April.

Their accounting runs from the start of June.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 23:07:45


Post by: Compel


Plus I imagine that you can never be entirely sure the specific details of when how and what GW are paid license-wise.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/14 23:41:16


Post by: MaxZ


Anybody got any idea why their stock peaked in 2005?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/15 07:59:52


Post by: Korinov


MaxZ wrote:
Anybody got any idea why their stock peaked in 2005?


The "LoTR" bubble at its peak.

Regarding the whole "AoS can represent TW" and the pic posted above... seriously, if we're getting down to that, any game out there can be used to represent a TW battle if you have enough models. You can get any skirmish game like Saga, deploy a lot of models in a way that resemble the shape of regiments, and call it a day.

But for me, Total War has always been about 100-to-200 men regiments, infantry blocks and lines, cavalry looking for flanks and rears, artillery supporting from behind, etc. You need a regiment-based game in order to represent that. AoS is not.

WHFB could be experiencing a significant boost in sales right now, and instead such money is likely going straight into the competition's pockets. That's GW's fault alone. The fact that someone has been called out for actually encouraging people to represent a regiment-based videogame with regiment-based tabletop warmes just shows the GW lobotomy can always run deeper than what you expect.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/15 14:06:28


Post by: OgreChubbs


 Korinov wrote:
MaxZ wrote:
Anybody got any idea why their stock peaked in 2005?


The "LoTR" bubble at its peak.

Regarding the whole "AoS can represent TW" and the pic posted above... seriously, if we're getting down to that, any game out there can be used to represent a TW battle if you have enough models. You can get any skirmish game like Saga, deploy a lot of models in a way that resemble the shape of regiments, and call it a day.

But for me, Total War has always been about 100-to-200 men regiments, infantry blocks and lines, cavalry looking for flanks and rears, artillery supporting from behind, etc. You need a regiment-based game in order to represent that. AoS is not.

WHFB could be experiencing a significant boost in sales right now, and instead such money is likely going straight into the competition's pockets. That's GW's fault alone. The fact that someone has been called out for actually encouraging people to represent a regiment-based videogame with regiment-based tabletop warmes just shows the GW lobotomy can always run deeper than what you expect.
Sad to say but I agree.

I play TW/WHFB then look at Age Of gak and think wow this is a let down.

After playing the game for a couple hours as empire I thought hell ya I need franz on deathclaw and lots more men at arms. Went to the website to be greated with a steaming pile of AoS. Been so long since I was on the website I forgot it was there, then I just closed the browser and moved on. I like some ooorrrkkuses or how ever you spell the new orc name models. But due to them being from a sifi fantasy game I have limited uses for them. I may buy a box of each then walk away never to paint of build them. Where as if they where fantasy I most likely would of bought 10+ boxes of brutes alone this month. Now I spent the money on a titan and the rest on random skins for heroes of the storm.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/15 14:22:06


Post by: Fenrir Kitsune


So you spent your money on a different GW product - the titan?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/15 14:27:51


Post by: OgreChubbs


 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So you spent your money on a different GW product - the titan?
Not a GW or FW model titan...... A different one lol. I have not bought direct from gamesworkshop store since the AoS release.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/15 22:25:01


Post by: TheAuldGrump


 Rayvon wrote:
 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.


Yep,
Age of Sigmar is still warhammer too, whether people like it or not.
It will attract some more customers, I doubt it will be as many as space marine did though.
And 4th edition was the future for Dungeons & Dragons. (*Blub, blub, blub.*)

The problem isn't that GW can't use the Warhammer name for a new property, it is that if people don't like Warhamer: Age of [Insert Humorous Name HERE] then they won't buy the game.

And if they feel that they have been done dirty by the company in the process, they are also less likely to even try the game.

I may, personally, think that the game sucks - I am allowed to do so.

And you, personally, may think that the game is perfect in every way - you are allowed to do so.

But neither changes the fact that GW fumbled the roll out for the game.

In pretty much the exact same way that WotC fumbled the roll out of D&D 4e (which was also a game that I, personally, thought sucked).

They lost market share - and in a market that is currently growing.

Shouting that it's still Warhammer!!1! does not help in any way regarding that fumbled roll out.

Honestly, the previous edition failing so hard was a signal to the company that they needed to do the market research that Kirby found to be so otiose in a niche market.

Instead they rolled out a new game, with no reason to expect the game to be well received, yet, going by the Golden Sigmarine Statue, they were obviously expecting W:AoS to be the Next Big Thing.

The Auld Grump - and W:AoS, like D&D 4e... may have the same name as the old game - but it is not the same game.

*EDIT* I rather expect that Rountree is investing in market research.

*EDIT 2* I have no shame at all in saying that Rountree has not been what I had expected, and that is a good thing.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/16 02:16:09


Post by: MattofWar


So we're probably going to see:

Core business of miniatures: level or maybe slightly down

Video game licensing revenue: up quite a bit

The real question will be whether or not the core business is down more than expected while the video game revenue pushes the total higher than expected. It would be very bad if the video game revenue is basically hiding a steep decline in their core business. After all, their video game revenue seems to be quite inconsistent with spikes and drops as a given project either succeeds or tanks.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/16 05:50:26


Post by: Kilkrazy


GW still report licensing income separately, so we will be able to see if table top games are up, down or static. We won't be able to tell what is selling well or badly the two (three?) core systems and the various boxed games. They have released several boxed games in the past year.

The video game business is like the film business. Most games and films make no money or even lose it. A reasonable number make their money back and an okay profit. But the industry really depends on a fairly small number of massive hits. In the film industry you have a long tail of sales from DVDs and TV releases, but this doesn't really exist in the game industry.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/16 08:07:00


Post by: Fenrir Kitsune


OgreChubbs wrote:
 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So you spent your money on a different GW product - the titan?
Not a GW or FW model titan...... A different one lol. I have not bought direct from gamesworkshop store since the AoS release.


Buying their product from a different channel. Yeah, that'll learn 'em!


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/16 11:10:58


Post by: MattofWar


 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So you spent your money on a different GW product - the titan?
Not a GW or FW model titan...... A different one lol. I have not bought direct from gamesworkshop store since the AoS release.


Buying their product from a different channel. Yeah, that'll learn 'em!


I think you missed what was written between the lines.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/16 12:21:12


Post by: Fenrir Kitsune


 MattofWar wrote:
 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So you spent your money on a different GW product - the titan?
Not a GW or FW model titan...... A different one lol. I have not bought direct from gamesworkshop store since the AoS release.


Buying their product from a different channel. Yeah, that'll learn 'em!


I think you missed what was written between the lines.


I think you may have done as well.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/16 15:07:49


Post by: TheAuldGrump


 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
 MattofWar wrote:
 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So you spent your money on a different GW product - the titan?
Not a GW or FW model titan...... A different one lol. I have not bought direct from gamesworkshop store since the AoS release.


Buying their product from a different channel. Yeah, that'll learn 'em!


I think you missed what was written between the lines.


I think you may have done as well.
You mean 'Not a GW or FW model titan'?

Now how could somebody miss a direct statement?

No reading between the lines needed.

The Auld Grump


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/16 17:26:26


Post by: Pacific


 TheAuldGrump wrote:
 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.
In which case any fantasy game could be used - from Tunnels & Trolls to D&D to Kings of War.

Many of which are much, much better games that AoS.

For something similar to TW I would recommend Kings of War - a large unit strategic and tactical game without a cumbersome system.

I would not recommend AoS, except as a source of miniatures, and even then... I do not much like the AoS figures. (Others do, so I won't try to argue that a giant daemon/golem thing with skull zits is a terrible miniature.)

I could be more sarcastic - like how would you explain why pretending to twirl your mustache gets you a bonus, but....

The Auld Grump


I would probably have recommended 9th age actually, as the closest war game to TW. Although really anything with rank and file mechanics (take your pick from historical rule sets) would suffice also.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/16 21:00:49


Post by: TheAuldGrump


 Pacific wrote:
 TheAuldGrump wrote:
 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.
In which case any fantasy game could be used - from Tunnels & Trolls to D&D to Kings of War.

Many of which are much, much better games that AoS.

For something similar to TW I would recommend Kings of War - a large unit strategic and tactical game without a cumbersome system.

I would not recommend AoS, except as a source of miniatures, and even then... I do not much like the AoS figures. (Others do, so I won't try to argue that a giant daemon/golem thing with skull zits is a terrible miniature.)

I could be more sarcastic - like how would you explain why pretending to twirl your mustache gets you a bonus, but....

The Auld Grump

I would probably have recommended 9th age actually, as the closest war game to TW. Although really anything with rank and file mechanics (take your pick from historical rule sets) would suffice also.
I have not played 9th Age - KoW is scratching that itch.

But I am very glad that it exists, and I hope that it does very, very well.

The Auld Grump


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/16 21:48:31


Post by: MattofWar


 TheAuldGrump wrote:
You mean 'Not a GW or FW model titan'?

Now how could somebody miss a direct statement?

No reading between the lines needed.

The Auld Grump


Lol. I guess you're right. I have no idea why Fenrir Kitsune seems to think he spent money on something that had anything to do with GW after OgreChubbs specifically said he didn't. Maybe Fenrir just doesn't know anything about Dreamforge's leviathan, repurposing gunpla or Chinese/Russian recasters. There are so many ways to buy a "titan" without any money going to GW.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/17 09:40:46


Post by: Kilkrazy


Let's remember that DakkaDakka rules do not allow advocating recasters. Substitution of alternative legitimate models is absolutely fine, of course.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/17 09:55:33


Post by: notprop


 Pacific wrote:
..I would probably have recommended 9th age actually, as the closest war game to TW. Although really anything with rank and file mechanics (take your pick from historical rule sets) would suffice also.


I'd suggest Warmaster. Has a far more epic feel and really captures large Fantasy armies clashing. Covers monsters and magic well so that they important but not overpowered.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/18 05:28:05


Post by: Talys


 MattofWar wrote:
Lol. I guess you're right. I have no idea why Fenrir Kitsune seems to think he spent money on something that had anything to do with GW after OgreChubbs specifically said he didn't. Maybe Fenrir just doesn't know anything about Dreamforge's leviathan, repurposing gunpla or Chinese/Russian recasters. There are so many ways to buy a "titan" without any money going to GW.


I get repurposing Dreamforge, Gundam or other models for titans, if you actually play 40k and have (and presumably, buy...) other GW models. But it seems unlikely that one would build an entire army of non-GW models to play 40k/AoS If it came down to that, I mean, why bother using models at all? Just use paper markers on bases, or cardboard discs cut to the right size.

I guess, it would make sense if you really loved the 40k/AoS game, but really disliked the models... and had play partners of like mind, or at least didn't care about your models I've yet to meet anyone like that -- though I suppose anything is possible!


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/18 06:00:48


Post by: nareik


 notprop wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
..I would probably have recommended 9th age actually, as the closest war game to TW. Although really anything with rank and file mechanics (take your pick from historical rule sets) would suffice also.


I'd suggest Warmaster. Has a far more epic feel and really captures large Fantasy armies clashing. Covers monsters and magic well so that they important but not overpowered.
Indeed, I was thinking it odd that people were suggesting AoS failed to represent blocks of hundreds of troops, whereas fantasy could.... Neither game uses units this big! 100 really was the upper limit for a horde unit under 8th, and even that was pushing it!

Warmaster better represents the level of engagement people describe TW:Wh as having, surely?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/18 06:28:52


Post by: jonolikespie


 Talys wrote:
 MattofWar wrote:
Lol. I guess you're right. I have no idea why Fenrir Kitsune seems to think he spent money on something that had anything to do with GW after OgreChubbs specifically said he didn't. Maybe Fenrir just doesn't know anything about Dreamforge's leviathan, repurposing gunpla or Chinese/Russian recasters. There are so many ways to buy a "titan" without any money going to GW.


I get repurposing Dreamforge, Gundam or other models for titans, if you actually play 40k and have (and presumably, buy...) other GW models. But it seems unlikely that one would build an entire army of non-GW models to play 40k/AoS If it came down to that, I mean, why bother using models at all? Just use paper markers on bases, or cardboard discs cut to the right size.

I guess, it would make sense if you really loved the 40k/AoS game, but really disliked the models... and had play partners of like mind, or at least didn't care about your models I've yet to meet anyone like that -- though I suppose anything is possible!

Or if you just don't think GW's models are all that good anymore

I'll admit that I have considered making 40k armies out of Dreamforge or Anvil Industries models before, or a Fantasy army out of Raging Heroes models. Probably would have if I still actually enjoyed 40k or if WHFB was still a thing.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/18 06:52:46


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Talys wrote:
 MattofWar wrote:
Lol. I guess you're right. I have no idea why Fenrir Kitsune seems to think he spent money on something that had anything to do with GW after OgreChubbs specifically said he didn't. Maybe Fenrir just doesn't know anything about Dreamforge's leviathan, repurposing gunpla or Chinese/Russian recasters. There are so many ways to buy a "titan" without any money going to GW.


I get repurposing Dreamforge, Gundam or other models for titans, if you actually play 40k and have (and presumably, buy...) other GW models. But it seems unlikely that one would build an entire army of non-GW models to play 40k/AoS If it came down to that, I mean, why bother using models at all? Just use paper markers on bases, or cardboard discs cut to the right size.

I guess, it would make sense if you really loved the 40k/AoS game, but really disliked the models... and had play partners of like mind, or at least didn't care about your models I've yet to meet anyone like that -- though I suppose anything is possible!


I was working on a Guard army made entirely from non-GW figures and models when I gave up the game due to rules changes. Because I like making variation armies, I dislike the official models and also found them too expensive.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/18 08:19:02


Post by: Lanrak


I know of a few people who used 'converted' imperial guard, simply to save themselves a ton of cash.And some of them did not like the GW models 'art style either.
Art style is subjective, if you like it or not is purely down to your opinion .

If using an alternative source for minatures means some one can play a game with their friends, with the other option being they can not afford to play.Then it is obvious why people use alternative sources.
Wealth is finite, if you can not afford something you find alternatives or go without.




GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/18 08:25:02


Post by: Talys


@kilkrazy & jonolikespie - What your describing is kind of what I mean. At some point, unless you really love the game, but want other models, building an entire 40k army of non-GW models is just a project asking to be abandoned.

The models, the rules, and even the meta changes so abruptly that one year you'd be making almost-razorbacks and the next you'd be making almost-drop pods, then almost-Knights and another you'd be making almost-Centurions. A new supplement, and all of the sudden, things like Plasma on Stormravens which were nonexistent become a thing. A new FAQ and... Well, you get the idea

There are people (like me) who are excited for that new model, or even an excuse to retool or build another old model, and in that context, it's all good. And in that case, the buying GW models makes sense. And building occasional substitutes, especially for a bad model, can be really cool. But if you don't like that sort of thing, and just want substitutes (whether because you think that ALL the models are cooler or it's cheaper) I just kinda imagine that continuously looking for substitutes would drive me nuts.

Hence, I was saying, if it were me.. I'd just use cardboard on bases if I wanted to play the game, or, more likely, just play something else.

@Lanrak - all my first games of 40k were without GW models (many games over many months). But back then, they were all models on 25mm bases, too. It's just such a different game now, focused on much bigger and more varied models that I imagine it'd be so frustrating to endlessly find substitutes that were suitable.

But to each their own; those who can manage that in today's 40k definitely have my respect


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/18 09:33:29


Post by: Korinov


In my view, as long as a model represents accurately (with some degree of flexibility, we're talking about 30mm models after all) what it's supposed to represent, I could care less where it came from.

This niche market is getting more and more crowded with new companies every passing day. We're living in a truly new golden age for 28mm scale models. Virtually everyone offers a better price/quality ratio than GW's. If someone wants to build certain armies, GW has become literally the worst option to go for. For a long time I've had a project about building a medium sized Dogs of War army, for playing WHFB, KoW or similar regiment-based games. I already have some models from the WHFB 6th edition starting box around, and when I look for affordable options towards expanding it...

If I go GW, 20€ get me 10 ape-looking imperial infantrymen.

If I go Perrys, for a bit more (around 25€) I get 40 infantrymen out of their XV century european mercenaries kit (usually built as 20 pikemen, 10 crossbowmen and 10 arquebusiers).

And the Perry models actually look way better than the GW monkeys.

The difference in price/quality is simply obscene. GW simply can't expect to compete in a growing market with prices like that. They're out of the loop. In the long run, they either change their pricing policies or they won't survive. I'd even go as far as saying they're mostly keeping afloat for now because the competition is yet to deliver decent looking space marines-lookalikes for a decent price. And even that could begin to change soon.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/18 09:36:25


Post by: Silent Puffin?


 Talys wrote:
At some point, unless you really love the game, but want other models, building an entire 40k army of non-GW models is just a project asking to be abandoned.


That entirely depends on what sort of army you would be building. I always build armies with a very strong 'core', in other words basic infantry, and that sort of thing is easy to find alternatives for. Of course if you want to make armies out of all the ridiculous things that GW keeps attempting to crowbar into a skirmish game then you may well have a problem but its not insurmountable given the likes of Kromlech et al.

I was planning on building a 40K army out of Heer Grenadiers when I gave up on 40k and I was half way through an Empire army made entirely out of Perry War of the Roses stuff when 8th hit and destroyed my remaining interest in Warhammer. I am even toying with the idea of making a 2nd ed Ork army out of the Kromlech Orks.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/18 10:21:59


Post by: Mymearan


nareik wrote:
 notprop wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
..I would probably have recommended 9th age actually, as the closest war game to TW. Although really anything with rank and file mechanics (take your pick from historical rule sets) would suffice also.


I'd suggest Warmaster. Has a far more epic feel and really captures large Fantasy armies clashing. Covers monsters and magic well so that they important but not overpowered.
Indeed, I was thinking it odd that people were suggesting AoS failed to represent blocks of hundreds of troops, whereas fantasy could.... Neither game uses units this big! 100 really was the upper limit for a horde unit under 8th, and even that was pushing it!

Warmaster better represents the level of engagement people describe TW:Wh as having, surely?


I agree, 28mm can't really represent TW accurately, you would need to go smaller. I was suggesting AoS as an alternative to WHFB because neither game really captures the feeling of TW but either could be played if you mainly cared about using the models from the video game.

 Korinov wrote:
In my view, as long as a model represents accurately (with some degree of flexibility, we're talking about 30mm models after all) what it's supposed to represent, I could care less where it came from.

This niche market is getting more and more crowded with new companies every passing day. We're living in a truly new golden age for 28mm scale models. Virtually everyone offers a better price/quality ratio than GW's. If someone wants to build certain armies, GW has become literally the worst option to go for. For a long time I've had a project about building a medium sized Dogs of War army, for playing WHFB, KoW or similar regiment-based games. I already have some models from the WHFB 6th edition starting box around, and when I look for affordable options towards expanding it...

If I go GW, 20€ get me 10 ape-looking imperial infantrymen.

If I go Perrys, for a bit more (around 25€) I get 40 infantrymen out of their XV century european mercenaries kit (usually built as 20 pikemen, 10 crossbowmen and 10 arquebusiers).

And the Perry models actually look way better than the GW monkeys.

The difference in price/quality is simply obscene. GW simply can't expect to compete in a growing market with prices like that. They're out of the loop. In the long run, they either change their pricing policies or they won't survive. I'd even go as far as saying they're mostly keeping afloat for now because the competition is yet to deliver decent looking space marines-lookalikes for a decent price. And even that could begin to change soon.


Historical models are indeed both cheaper and better looking than old GW Empire models... Which is why GW scrapped their almost-historical armies (Empire and Brettonia). Sci-Fi and Fantasy HIPS models are generally not that much cheaper than GW (and remember that most GW kits are multi-kits, which is a huge advantage for kit-bashers and converters like me). Mantic maybe, but their sculpt quality is inconsistent at best. Other ranges that were cheaper (Dreamforge, Wargames Factory) have been forced to raise their prices. Still cheaper, but not even close to historicals, which have the advantage of having all the concept work and "fluff" for free...

Some GW kits are quite absurdly priced (Fyreslayers 5-pack is insane for five dwarf-sized models) but that is not really the norm. Tactical Marines, Skitarii, and other modern and great-looking kits are fine, not to mention the reboxed AoS kits which mostly have gone down in price per model, and the Start Collecting kits.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/18 14:20:23


Post by: Lanrak


@Mymearan.
What did you mean by..''Still cheaper, but not even close to historicals, which have the advantage of having all the concept work and "fluff" for free...''

I will think you will find the amount of effort and research that goes into making a scale replica of an actual historical unit is just as complex and time consuming.Just in a slightly different way to fictional units.(Historical gamers can be quite exacting over accuracy of models. )

Historical minatures tend to be cheaper as they can be used with many rule sets, and so there are more manufacturers of historical units to fill the bigger market. More companies mean more competition, which means lower pricing in general.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/18 15:56:08


Post by: Silent Puffin?


Its only a matter of time before someone makes a high quality 'Space Knight' multipart plastic kit.

I'm surprised that there isn't one already given the variety of resin manufacturers


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/18 16:00:13


Post by: Compel


 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Its only a matter of time before someone makes a high quality 'Space Knight' multipart plastic kit.

I'm surprised that there isn't one already given the variety of resin manufacturers


This do?



Personally, I'm more inclined to Mantic Enforcers though, because the space knight aspect isn't for me, really.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/20 03:04:54


Post by: Jehan-reznor


 Talys wrote:
 MattofWar wrote:
Lol. I guess you're right. I have no idea why Fenrir Kitsune seems to think he spent money on something that had anything to do with GW after OgreChubbs specifically said he didn't. Maybe Fenrir just doesn't know anything about Dreamforge's leviathan, repurposing gunpla or Chinese/Russian recasters. There are so many ways to buy a "titan" without any money going to GW.


I get repurposing Dreamforge, Gundam or other models for titans, if you actually play 40k and have (and presumably, buy...) other GW models. But it seems unlikely that one would build an entire army of non-GW models to play 40k/AoS If it came down to that, I mean, why bother using models at all? Just use paper markers on bases, or cardboard discs cut to the right size.

I guess, it would make sense if you really loved the 40k/AoS game, but really disliked the models... and had play partners of like mind, or at least didn't care about your models I've yet to meet anyone like that -- though I suppose anything is possible!


Hm, an aos army made out Kingdom Death Mini's now that is an idea


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/06/22 06:13:30


Post by: Adam LongWalker


Here is something you should look.

The first Url denote some bullish (favorable) movement. That is in 50 day closing prices in stock HOWEVER.... please take look at the rest of the information. All denotes a non favorable (Bearish) movement on the rest of the indicators provided.

http://www.capitalcube.com/blog/index.php/games-workshop-group-plc-breached-its-50-day-moving-average-in-a-bullish-manner-gaw-gb-may-20-2016/

The second URL be the same company. Please note that now everything is in a Bearish manner.

http://www.capitalcube.com/blog/index.php/games-workshop-group-plc-breached-its-50-day-moving-average-in-a-bearish-manner-gaw-gb-june-13-2016/

Even with GW's announcement, in the real world as far as performance, they are a flat as ever.

Now I know that GW will be around for a bit BUT they are not the 800 pound gorilla dictating what the h-h-h-obby should be. The tards had a chance to be great on being a break out non niche game but now they are nothing English Company with Common Wealth countries spoon feeding them their revenue.

Secondly they do have European influence HOWEVER over the years they have lost their player base in the US as well as all of Latin America.

I'll just throw this google chart, since it is free and anyone can take a look.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F012ywp&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B7

So YaY???? Great announcement? Eh no. Not really.


So have fun with your GW report. Because there is really nothing great about it.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 07:46:39


Post by: richred_uk


Financial Report out:

http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2015-16-Press-statement.pdf

Highlights:
Year to Year to
29 May 2016 31 May 2015
£000 £000
Revenue 118,069 119,132
Revenue at constant currency* 118,192 119,132
Operating profit - pre-royalties receivable 10,921 14,979
Royalties receivable 5,939 1,498
Operating profit 16,860 16,477
Profit before taxation 16,948 16,585
Cash generated from operations 26,782 25,579
Earnings per share 42.1p 38.3p
Dividends per share declared in the year 40p 52p


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 07:52:25


Post by: angelofvengeance


Just read it and it's nice to see a more professional element to these things rather than the deranged statements Kirby came out with lol.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 08:04:30


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


So as we expected, their arses were pulled out of the fire by the video games, Total War and Vermintide.

They say AoS is selling better than WHFB has been in the past years, but that's not saying much because WHFB had received very little attention in recent years and 8th ed was poorly received.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 08:38:38


Post by: shinros


Well that's what a niche hobby company should be doing. DnD make's most of their money the same way. Getting the IP out to video game developers etc. I think the new CEO understand's that since they allowed modding for total war warhammer, if they want to stay a float they gotta get their IP's out to good developers that can use it well.

I am glad at least AOS is doing well.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 08:56:55


Post by: motski


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
They say AoS is selling better than WHFB has been in the past years, but that's not saying much because WHFB had received very little attention in recent years and 8th ed was poorly received.


Maybe so but the hater crowd claims it sells worse than WHFB did and was some kind of financial disaster for GW. Good to hear the official word on the matter.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 08:57:33


Post by: Herzlos


Revenue at constant currency* 118,192 119,132
Operating profit - pre-royalties receivable 10,921 14,979


So that's another million less revenue, and a 27% drop in pre-royalty operating profit?

That really doesn't sound good, since despite huge profit from royalties, they are still declining, and their operating profit has taken quite a dip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
motski wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
They say AoS is selling better than WHFB has been in the past years, but that's not saying much because WHFB had received very little attention in recent years and 8th ed was poorly received.


Maybe so but the hater crowd claims it sells worse than WHFB did and was some kind of financial disaster for GW. Good to hear the official word on the matter.


Saying it's selling better than something that was canned due to low sales doesn't say much, especially when you consider that lots of sales will be falsely reported as being AoS - the panic buyers, the Warhammer Quest buyers etc, will all count as AoS sales even though they are unlikely to result in ongoing spending.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the plus side; they are paying out less in dividends that they earned for a change, which will give them a bit more buffer going forwards.

Incidentally, I normally keep track of when these reports come out and refresh discussion pages in the run up, this time I just plain forgot. I think I've reached the point where I just don't care enough about GW to be particularly interested in how it's doing.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 09:27:12


Post by: RoperPG


I don't think you can credit panic buying - report effectively states it was only the second half of the year where things picked up for AoS.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 09:29:44


Post by: Chikout


That is a bit of a negative outlook isn't. Overall profits are up over last year. It shows that in the long term, Gw may be able to transition to a new business model.
The retail sector as a whole is suffering. Gw has been able to offset this with its royalties. That is good business.
Aos is selling better than the end times stuff. That is not bad. It seems clear from the subtext of his comments that Aos did not start well, but it is on an upwards trajectory. Gw is not setting the world on fire, but it seems set to survive for the foreseeable future, which is all I, as a customer, need.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 09:30:13


Post by: Herzlos


RoperPG wrote:
I don't think you can credit panic buying - report effectively states it was only the second half of the year where things picked up for AoS.


Wasn't 2nd half of the year when stuff started going into "last chance to buy" and getting wholesale squatted?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 09:39:39


Post by: shinros


Chikout wrote:
That is a bit of a negative outlook isn't. Overall profits are up over last year. It shows that in the long term, Gw may be able to transition to a new business model.
The retail sector as a whole is suffering. Gw has been able to offset this with its royalties. That is good business.
Aos is selling better than the end times stuff. That is not bad. It seems clear from the subtext of his comments that Aos did not start well, but it is on an upwards trajectory. Gw is not setting the world on fire, but it seems set to survive for the foreseeable future, which is all I, as a customer, need.


GW even admitted it did not launch well during warhammer fest. Everyone knew it did not launch well let's not forget I recall Kirby still had his hands in the pie then. They turned it around rather well in my opinion.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 09:45:56


Post by: Herzlos


I think the next year will be more telling, as the remnants of the Old World gamers have moved on and there's essentially nothing left for them at GW. Of course, if they manage to group Blood Bowl in with AoS sales, AoS will have a bumper year.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 09:51:58


Post by: shinros


Herzlos wrote:
I think the next year will be more telling, as the remnants of the Old World gamers have moved on and there's essentially nothing left for them at GW. Of course, if they manage to group Blood Bowl in with AoS sales, AoS will have a bumper year.


Most of them have already moved on ages ago to other games or 9th age. I don't think next year will be the most telling that's what people said the last time predicting that AOS will do even worse than WHFB they said that this report will truly show how AOS is doing according to them, yet low and behold it didn't. So when will people be satisfied? Until the next one? Or the one after that?

This is anecdotal but so far since AOS came out in my GW store there is actually gaps in my friend(who is the manager) fantasy shelf. That never happened before he was telling me constantly that his AOS range is actually doing better than when we had WHFB. Of course I had no evidence I am just glad this report reflect's what he said. This is based on the second half were AOS had to stand on it's own two legs and I feel it has.

With the general handbook out and the new types of battle tome's I think AOS will do okay in the future.

Right now if GW want's to stay afloat they gotta use their IP more. DnD knows this and I think GW are slowly starting to realize this with the report.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 10:08:49


Post by: Backfire


I kinda expected bit better report based on their forecast. Sales are still on slight downward trend, expenses are mostly well controlled though opening of new stores appears to have been signifant money sink. Royalties of course very strong but can it last?
It is like few of their previous reports - the ship is floating strong, but the pumpers are getting tired...

At very least we got our answer about AoS. First full year since WHFB was axed and numbers changed very little. So, WHFB wasn't doing much for the company in its last years and they were quite right to (re)boot it, though it can be argued whether it was done the best way.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 10:11:18


Post by: Horace


 shinros wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
I think the next year will be more telling, as the remnants of the Old World gamers have moved on and there's essentially nothing left for them at GW. Of course, if they manage to group Blood Bowl in with AoS sales, AoS will have a bumper year.


Most of them have already moved on ages ago to other games or 9th age. I don't think next year will be the most telling that's what people said the last time predicting that AOS will do even worse than WHFB they said that this report will truly show how AOS is doing according to them, yet low and behold it didn't. So when will people be satisfied? Until the next one? Or the one after that?



Probably when substantial fantasy sales no longer fall within the financial year.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 11:13:55


Post by: Herzlos


 shinros wrote:

Most of them have already moved on ages ago to other games or 9th age. I don't think next year will be the most telling that's what people said the last time predicting that AOS will do even worse than WHFB they said that this report will truly show how AOS is doing according to them, yet low and behold it didn't. So when will people be satisfied? Until the next one? Or the one after that?


The first pure AOS year, i.e. next year, will tell. Whilst a lot of WHFB fans went to other places when AoS dropped, a lot of people were still rounding out armies using GW SKU's which would have reported as sales for AoS, like everything that was cleared out - were people buying the last of the Bretonian or Empire stock AoS players?

This is anecdotal but so far since AOS came out in my GW store there is actually gaps in my friend(who is the manager) fantasy shelf. That never happened before he was telling me constantly that his AOS range is actually doing better than when we had WHFB. Of course I had no evidence I am just glad this report reflect's what he said. This is based on the second half were AOS had to stand on it's own two legs and I feel it has.


Hopefully it is picking up, but without knowing how many kits are coming in, clearing shelves isn't big news. I've heard reports of stores ordering in a lot less (like, 1 of everything instead of 3/4), which means shelves will clear more quickly.

With the general handbook out and the new types of battle tome's I think AOS will do okay in the future.


I hope so, I'd be quite interetsed in getting into a 2nd or 3rd Edition of it with the boy.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 11:34:52


Post by: Spiky Norman


 shinros wrote:
Most of them have already moved on ages ago to other games or 9th age. I don't think next year will be the most telling that's what people said the last time predicting that AOS will do even worse than WHFB they said that this report will truly show how AOS is doing according to them, yet low and behold it didn't. So when will people be satisfied? Until the next one? Or the one after that?

Never because it does not fit their preferred narrative.

It's not about truth or facts, it's about what they want the truth to be - What feels right rather than what is right. It feels unfair that a company is doing well, when they stopped supporting your prefered brand of game. Therefore all signs must be bend to fit the narrative, rather than the other way around.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 11:37:07


Post by: shinros


Spiky Norman wrote:
 shinros wrote:
Most of them have already moved on ages ago to other games or 9th age. I don't think next year will be the most telling that's what people said the last time predicting that AOS will do even worse than WHFB they said that this report will truly show how AOS is doing according to them, yet low and behold it didn't. So when will people be satisfied? Until the next one? Or the one after that?

Never because it does not fit their preferred narrative.

It's not about truth or facts, it's about what they want the truth to be - What feels right rather than what is right. It feels unfair that a company is doing well, when they stopped supporting your prefered brand of game. Therefore all signs must be bend to fit the narrative, rather than the other way around.


*sigh* just kinda tired of all this money talk.

I should just be satisfied that warhammer age of sigmar is doing well. At least it's flat than a loss so they can still pull through, as I said before they need to get their IP out to good game developers that is the thing that will truly help them.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 11:52:55


Post by: Accolade


I'd have to guess that AOS is at least stabilized, if not picking up a little steam by now, especially with some of the new releases. However, I do wonder if 40k is starting to really take a hit too: that game has had a lot of negativity over the last two editions (again, with GW calling 7th a lame duck) and it seems its global sales are on a continued downward trend.

AOS could actually start making decent money, but if the course for 40k isn't rectified things will probably get much worse for GW.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 11:56:36


Post by: Korinov


Falling revenue is never good news.

If not for the royalties, profits would have taken quite a dent.

Total War (plus some help from Vermintide and others) saved their asses this year.

On one hand this shows they've managed to finally make their IP truly profitable out of the miniature market itself, on the other the core issues within the company (and their business model) seem to remain the same.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 12:04:36


Post by: Barfolomew


Inflation has been running about 1% per year. In addition, most investors are looking for growth from a business.

Revenue is down 1%
Op profit before royalties is down 27%
Total op profit is up 2%

While changing the business model is a good thing, the licensed items aren't going keep the company going in the long run, because someone will eventually buy their IP if they are just a royalty company.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 12:05:55


Post by: shinros


 Accolade wrote:
I'd have to guess that AOS is at least stabilized, if not picking up a little steam by now, especially with some of the new releases. However, I do wonder if 40k is starting to really take a hit too: that game has had a lot of negativity over the last two editions (again, with GW calling 7th a lame duck) and it seems its global sales are on a continued downward trend.

AOS could actually start making decent money, but if the course for 40k isn't rectified things will probably get much worse for GW.


I suspect 40k is next year. There is talk on bell of lost souls that the new AOS battle tome's are most likely paving the way for 40k. I think if they get 40k back on track things should be good hopefully.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 12:08:38


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


One interesting thing, Total War: Warhammer sold around 800k copies according to SteamSpy. If it sold for an average of $40 that means some $32 million in sales. If you take a guess and say £4 million of the royalties money came from Total War (given they made £4.4M more in royalties this year compared to last year). If we take an exchange rate of about 1.5, that means $6M in royalties. With those numbers GW would have made roughly 19% off each copy of TW:Warhmmer sold

That estimate might be a bit high, might be underestimating how much TWW sold for on average or overestimating it's contribution, but I'd be guessing in the 10-15% range still.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 12:20:24


Post by: Thud


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
One interesting thing, Total War: Warhammer sold around 800k copies according to SteamSpy. If it sold for an average of $40 that means some $32 million in sales. If you take a guess and say £4 million of the royalties money came from Total War (given they made £4.4M more in royalties this year compared to last year). If we take an exchange rate of about 1.5, that means $6M in royalties. With those numbers GW would have made roughly 19% off each copy of TW:Warhmmer sold

That estimate might be a bit high, might be underestimating how much TWW sold for on average or overestimating it's contribution, but I'd be guessing in the 10-15% range still.


They made about £4.6m from PC and console games in total, and in addition to Total War there's Vermintide and Blood Bowl 2 (560k + 120k).

Plus other games not menioned in the report, and smaller numbers of older games.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 12:30:42


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Thud wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
One interesting thing, Total War: Warhammer sold around 800k copies according to SteamSpy. If it sold for an average of $40 that means some $32 million in sales. If you take a guess and say £4 million of the royalties money came from Total War (given they made £4.4M more in royalties this year compared to last year). If we take an exchange rate of about 1.5, that means $6M in royalties. With those numbers GW would have made roughly 19% off each copy of TW:Warhmmer sold

That estimate might be a bit high, might be underestimating how much TWW sold for on average or overestimating it's contribution, but I'd be guessing in the 10-15% range still.


They made about £4.6m from PC and console games in total, and in addition to Total War there's Vermintide and Blood Bowl 2 (560k + 120k).

Plus other games not menioned in the report, and smaller numbers of older games.
I missed the £4.6m figure. Still, £4M from Total War probably isn't a bad estimate, I don't think Vermintide sold nearly as well as TWW and I think it had a lower price at launch as well, so the lion share is going to come from TWW. Even if you lower the estimate of royalties to £3M and raise the average sale price to $50, that's still in the 10~15% range.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 13:05:53


Post by: warboss


Can someone with access (and not on their phone) check the % sale numbers by channel year over year? It looks like this year their retail stores were 41%, indy trade stores 38%, and website/mail order 21%. I'm curious how their marketshare in FLGS is trending as that is where I traditionally buy/play.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 13:11:40


Post by: Fauk


Next year the new Dawn of War will probably save them xD


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 14:29:54


Post by: herjan1987


I adore such lines in the report as:

"We are proud to manufacture our product in Nottingham."

When the Chaos Dreadhold and the new 40k base kits are labeled to be made in China.

Its also funny that even with the great clearance sales there is a drop in revenue.

Oh well I guess I need to Ebay Bretonnians and Tomb Kings.

Fauk Dawn of War wont save them. Its looks like a MOBA not as a Dawn of War game. That can hurt the Core audience.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 14:33:51


Post by: shinros


herjan1987 wrote:
I adore such lines in the report as:

"We are proud to manufacture our product in Nottingham."

When the Chaos Dreadhold and the new 40k base kits are labeled to be made in China.

Its also funny that even with the great clearance sales there is a drop in revenue.

Oh well I guess I need to Ebay Bretonnians and Tomb Kings.

Fauk Dawn of War wont save them. Its looks like a MOBA not as a Dawn of War game. That can hurt the Core audience.


Well it's pre-alpha I won't judge it until I play it for myself who knows I might have fun with it.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 14:36:32


Post by: angelofvengeance


Fauk wrote:
Next year the new Dawn of War will probably save them xD


Doubt it. So far DoW III has done bugger all to pull me in. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 14:37:33


Post by: herjan1987


 shinros wrote:


Well it's pre-alpha I won't judge it until I play it for myself who knows I might have fun with it.


It would require significant changes and going by the developers words they will go this way.

I guess this will be the new look of 40k in general even in the TT.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 14:41:19


Post by: shinros


 angelofvengeance wrote:
Fauk wrote:
Next year the new Dawn of War will probably save them xD


Doubt it. So far DoW III has done bugger all to pull me in. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.


I still have the scar of Gabriel jumping around in terminator armor.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 14:44:47


Post by: godardc


herjan1987 wrote:
I adore such lines in the report as:

"We are proud to manufacture our product in Nottingham."

When the Chaos Dreadhold and the new 40k base kits are labeled to be made in China.

Its also funny that even with the great clearance sales there is a drop in revenue.

Oh well I guess I need to Ebay Bretonnians and Tomb Kings.

Fauk Dawn of War wont save them. Its looks like a MOBA not as a Dawn of War game. That can hurt the Core audience.


Some kits are made in china ?! Which one ?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 14:52:41


Post by: herjan1987


 godardc wrote:


Some kits are made in china ?! Which one ?


According to Spikeybits all the Age of Sigmar terrain sprues are made in China: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk0DdxQbD3E

Look at 1.35

Also the new basing kits for 40k : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx8bgbrIJ_4

Look at 2.29



GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 15:01:57


Post by: legoburner


Yeah most GW terrain appears to be getting made in China now.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 15:07:18


Post by: herjan1987


 legoburner wrote:
Yeah most GW terrain appears to be getting made in China now.


Did the chinese occupy Nottingham, like the UK occupied Hong Kong?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 15:24:13


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


It might be that GW doesn't have the necessary machinery in house to make the large sprues for the terrain pieces? Or maybe if they're only doing short runs, my understanding is you can use cheaper processes for making the moulds which maybe again they can't do in house.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 15:36:47


Post by: Davor


angelofvengeance wrote:Just read it and it's nice to see a more professional element to these things rather than the deranged statements Kirby came out with lol.


But now it's not so entertaining.

motski wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
They say AoS is selling better than WHFB has been in the past years, but that's not saying much because WHFB had received very little attention in recent years and 8th ed was poorly received.


Maybe so but the hater crowd claims it sells worse than WHFB did and was some kind of financial disaster for GW. Good to hear the official word on the matter.


If true that AoS is selling better and the 4 out of 5 months their increased sales (or was it profits?) are showing. So that is a good sign then AoS is healthy if the facts are true. What that means though is 40K is doing worse than people are saying or thinking.

legoburner wrote:Yeah most GW terrain appears to be getting made in China now.


So much for everything being done in Nottingham. I also got a chuckle of "all...... artwork.....done in Nottingham." I thought they outsourced their artwork and not all the artwork is done in house. A bit of confusing statements or mis truths being told.

Also my favourite statement from Mr Roundtree.

In my opinion the greatest risk is the same one that we repeat each year, namely, management. So long as we have the right people in the right jobs we will be fine. Problems will arise if the board allows egos and private agendas to rule. I will do my utmost to ensure that this does not happen on my watch.


Doesn't sound like a Kirby croney at all.

So I guess we will really have to wait till next year to see the full results or at least, January for the 1/2 year report.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 16:20:16


Post by: shinros


Wow I missed that line good on Kevin IMO. I think GW should overall be okay with him in charge.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 16:58:38


Post by: creeping-deth87


In my opinion the greatest risk is the same one that we repeat each year, namely, management. So long as we have the right people in the right jobs we will be fine. Problems will arise if the board allows egos and private agendas to rule. I will do my utmost to ensure that this does not happen on my watch.


The fact that this is in the preamble only makes me like Rountree even more. I really hope he continues to take the company in the right direction and I think a lot of what he's done so far has been fantastic. I'm cautiously optimistic about the future of 40K.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 17:08:15


Post by: warboss


The ol' Kirby moat 'round the castle darn folks stealing mah' pigs preambles were more entertaining though.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 17:39:54


Post by: Accolade


 warboss wrote:
The ol' Kirby moat 'round the castle darn folks stealing mah' pigs preambles were more entertaining though.


I mean, who remembers Pokemon, amirite??

Wanders off trying to catch a Squirtle


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 17:43:44


Post by: Azreal13


That egos and agenda thing was in the last report too, it certainly reads like a subtle "Kirby was an idiot, mah house now" sort of sentiment.

I agree that a lot of stuff, both factual and anecdotal, coming out of GW recently seems to be positive, but let's not gloss over the fact that the licensing revenue saved their ass, and it's another period of contraction for the core business.

Sadly, it won't matter how popular Rountree's tenure is with hobbyists if it doesn't have a tangible, positive, commercial impact. There's still time, but I'd have liked to have seen more of a reaction after, what, 18 months?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 17:58:07


Post by: shinros


 Azreal13 wrote:
That egos and agenda thing was in the last report too, it certainly reads like a subtle "Kirby was an idiot, mah house now" sort of sentiment.

I agree that a lot of stuff, both factual and anecdotal, coming out of GW recently seems to be positive, but let's not gloss over the fact that the licensing revenue saved their ass, and it's another period of contraction for the core business.

Sadly, it won't matter how popular Rountree's tenure is with hobbyists if it doesn't have a tangible, positive, commercial impact. There's still time, but I'd have liked to have seen more of a reaction after, what, 18 months?


According to my GW manager and area manager everyone did actually hate the guy and like what kevin is doing for the company.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 18:00:22


Post by: Bottle


-


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 18:08:12


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Bottle wrote:
Sales only fell by 0.9% but has it fallen by in previous years?
Sales fell by 4.7% by my quick calculations.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 18:31:52


Post by: Vaktathi


So overall, still profitable, but revenue in both real and inflation adjusted terms continues to decline, and there's an increasing emphasis on IP licensing. This would seem to follow the trend of the last...decade I guess.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 18:36:02


Post by: Azreal13


The revenue has only dropped a small amount, but the profit, pre licence revenue, has dropped by £4m, which is almost a third.

So they've spent more money to generate the same amount of cash as they did last year, more or less.

Ultimately this won't matter to investors, a profit is a profit and identifying a new source of cash is exactly the sort of thing that a healthy, outward looking, company should be doing, but as wargamers, that they still haven't grown the core business, despite adopting a lot of the measures that they were roundly, and correctly, criticised for not taking sooner, should give us pause.

My first instinct is that they're giving away more product at a lower price, but haven't managed to either grow their customer base or solicit higher spending from existing customers sufficiently to offset it.

I still think they're on the right track, and there's no cause for panic, but there's still fundamental issues that need addressing.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 18:45:57


Post by: Bottle


-


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 19:22:32


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Bottle wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Bottle wrote:
Sales only fell by 0.9% what has it fallen by in previous years?
Sales fell by 4.7% by my quick calculations.


Do you mean in previous years? Because the report explicitly states sales fell by 0.9% this year. If it's a smaller amount than previous years perhaps it's a sign of the new measures curbing the decline - and they might be able to level it off for next year or make a small growth in revenue.

A big part of the decrease in profits is the £2.5 mil increase in costs due to investments including more stores and the Asia management team.
I was talking about this report, where do they say 0.9%? I calculated 4.7%

The definition of "sales" is revenue minus income from sources other than goods going to customers, so I subtracted off the royalties from the total revenue (though it could be slightly different from that depending on how you calculate the various figures).

EDIT: Just found the -0.9% sales figure in the report. It seems GW equates sales to revenue, I find that slightly odd. Does that mean their "revenue" is only revenue from customers, ie. "sales", or that they are misrepresenting "sales" to include income from other sources? I could probably figure it out from the rest of the numbers in the report but I don't have time right now.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 19:25:05


Post by: f2k


So it's pretty much as bad as we feared then?

Unit-sales keep declining, and by quite a bit this time, and it's only by handing out their IP like candy that they remain somewhat level when compared with previous years.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 19:27:50


Post by: shinros


Just looked, GW's stock it went up. Hmm maybe some feel they are on the right track now? According to google it happened at around 4:30 pm. Don't know if it's a decent amount I don't really have a head for business.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 19:30:04


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


f2k wrote:
So it's pretty much as bad as we feared then?

Unit-sales keep declining, and by quite a bit this time, and it's only by handing out their IP like candy that they remain somewhat level when compared with previous years.
Nah, it's not handing out IP like candy that's keeping them strong, it's specifically handing it out to a top tier developer to make Total War.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 19:34:01


Post by: Azreal13


 Bottle wrote:

A big part of the decrease in profits is the £2.5 mil increase in costs due to investments including more stores and the Asia management team.


Which isn't (yet) justifying it's expense.

It's difficult to make a call on whether there's been sufficient time for the spending to impact income, that money may have all been spent last August or a week before they closed the books for the year, so it may pay off next year.

Thing is, they've paused the rollout of stores in Europe because they're not pulling their weight, and are still insisting on pursuing North America, which is a historical graveyard for UK companies, and doing so by opening traditional retail stores when they're becoming increasingly anachronistic.

At least we get an acknowledgment that the management structure was too flat (and is being addressed) and that one man stores aren't the universal panacea that Kirby seemed to believe they were.

We really need to see revenue starting to increase in revenue soon though, otherwise the 'investment' wil simply have been 'spent.'


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 19:34:19


Post by: shinros


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
f2k wrote:
So it's pretty much as bad as we feared then?

Unit-sales keep declining, and by quite a bit this time, and it's only by handing out their IP like candy that they remain somewhat level when compared with previous years.
Nah, it's not handing out IP like candy that's keeping them strong, it's specifically handing it out to a top tier developer to make Total War.


I think they should do more of that get the IP to good game developers, I assume that's how wizard's stays afloat? I mean I know most people play the video games than actual DnD.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 19:37:20


Post by: Azreal13


No, Wizards stays afloat because of Magic.


 shinros wrote:
Just looked, GW's stock it went up. Hmm maybe some feel they are on the right track now? According to google it happened at around 4:30 pm. Don't know if it's a decent amount I don't really have a head for business.


They've announced a dividend, people are buying stock to qualify and driving the price up. GW aren't big enough to illicit a market reaction based solely on their management, they're largely owned by funds because they pay out regularly and for a long while were increasing in share value.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 19:41:44


Post by: shinros


 Azreal13 wrote:
No, Wizards stays afloat because of Magic.


 shinros wrote:
Just looked, GW's stock it went up. Hmm maybe some feel they are on the right track now? According to google it happened at around 4:30 pm. Don't know if it's a decent amount I don't really have a head for business.


They've announced a dividend, people are buying stock to qualify and driving the price up. GW aren't big enough to illicit a market reaction based solely on their management, they're largely owned by funds because they pay out regularly and for a long while were increasing in share value.


Oh yeah magic, forgot about that heh.

I see, thanks for the explanation I appreciate it.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 19:46:05


Post by: Azreal13


No problem, and while you're right that the price did increase today, the price is still looking like its at something like a 5 year low, and it's been lower this week.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 19:48:01


Post by: shinros


 Azreal13 wrote:
No problem, and while you're right that the price did increase today, the price is still looking like its at something like a 5 year low, and it's been lower this week.


It does look like a big jump though in one go according to graph. So is it a question of can they keep this up?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 19:59:10


Post by: Azreal13


It's a few pennies, less than 10p a share. It's really nothing to be excited about.

To put it in context, when they announced that their revenue was down for the first time in years a few years back, the price fell almost £2 in one day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That was a big deal!


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 20:09:23


Post by: shinros


 Azreal13 wrote:
It's a few pennies, less than 10p a share. It's really nothing to be excited about.

To put it in context, when they announced that their revenue was down for the first time in years a few years back, the price fell almost £2 in one day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That was a big deal!


I see thanks for the information.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 20:35:33


Post by: richred_uk


 Azreal13 wrote:

 shinros wrote:
Just looked, GW's stock it went up. Hmm maybe some feel they are on the right track now? According to google it happened at around 4:30 pm. Don't know if it's a decent amount I don't really have a head for business.


They've announced a dividend, people are buying stock to qualify and driving the price up. GW aren't big enough to illicit a market reaction based solely on their management, they're largely owned by funds because they pay out regularly and for a long while were increasing in share value.


Where are you getting that there's a dividend? I haven't seen anything announced, and one was paid a couple of months or so ago. GW has always paid decent dividends, last financial year as 40p per share the year before was 52p and the share price is about 4.65, that's about 8% yield which is pretty impressive in the current market.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 21:06:43


Post by: warboss


 Azreal13 wrote:

I agree that a lot of stuff, both factual and anecdotal, coming out of GW recently seems to be positive, but let's not gloss over the fact that the licensing revenue saved their ass, and it's another period of contraction for the core business.


That's my take from skimming the report as well. Their core business (minis and games) is down yet again but their old hard work from decades past is still paying off. Gw have IMHO been doing alot right in the last year like HH plastics, Deathwatch, Blood Bowl, Epic, and the reintroduction of some sanity back to AOS with the general's handbook...but they still haven't addressed the core issues that made me largely give up on them...namely bonkers pricing and a bloated unbalanced mess of a ruleset in 40k. I firmly put them under the same heading as the cubs... better but maybe next year.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 21:15:32


Post by: Azreal13


richred_uk wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:

 shinros wrote:
Just looked, GW's stock it went up. Hmm maybe some feel they are on the right track now? According to google it happened at around 4:30 pm. Don't know if it's a decent amount I don't really have a head for business.


They've announced a dividend, people are buying stock to qualify and driving the price up. GW aren't big enough to illicit a market reaction based solely on their management, they're largely owned by funds because they pay out regularly and for a long while were increasing in share value.


Where are you getting that there's a dividend? I haven't seen anything announced, and one was paid a couple of months or so ago. GW has always paid decent dividends, last financial year as 40p per share the year before was 52p and the share price is about 4.65, that's about 8% yield which is pretty impressive in the current market.


Yeah, ok, somewhat of an assumption in my part, I'd basically had three separate thoughts and didn't really express myself all that well. There's basically no way on earth they won't declare this year, so a positive financial report coupled with historically regular dividends was always going to generate positive market reaction.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 21:17:45


Post by: Bottle


-


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 21:38:02


Post by: Azreal13


I think not counting Calth and Deathwatch as 40K releases is an error, it's an assumption, but I think a safe one, that a sizable chunk of their sales can be attributed to people buying the models for 40K/30K projects. The Assassin one too.

Silver Tower falls outside this accounting period, but that was the first game I got the impression was bought as much for the game as the models.

There's probably something in what you're saying though, but that does put an immense amount of presshure on that revamp to deliver if they're going to return the miniatures business to growth.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/26 23:11:35


Post by: SickSix


 Azreal13 wrote:

I still think they're on the right track, and there's no cause for panic, but there's still fundamental issues that need addressing.


Well they are doing things that people have wanted like specialist games.

But the core games are still rising in price beyond inflation.

In 5 Years a box of sternguard is going to be $100.

It won't matter how amazing the sculpts are if no-one can afford it.

They won't be on the right track until they make the core game not pants on head expensive.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 00:19:06


Post by: Azreal13


"On the right track" doesn't mean "everything is done, finished and at its destination."

Specialist games would be a very good example of "on the right track," core games being expensive would be "fundamental issues that need addressing."

Although I don't think price is, in isolation, a massive issue, but rather it's distorted through the lens of crappy rules.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 00:26:51


Post by: Blacksails


Just give me fething BFG in plastic already! Don't even touch the rules, the community has a perfect set of fan-made FAQs and revisions, just release plastic kits!

But on a more topic related note, I'm hoping specialist games are done right and sell well so GW will be motivated to keep doing right by SG.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 02:08:53


Post by: herjan1987


So I read the thing once again with a little more attention. I am bit dissapointed to say the least.

I was more focussing on the words rather then the numbers.

AoS is doing better then WHFB, but how much better? If you go and say that this and this part of the trading is x and y procent better why dont you say something about this???

I already mentioned, that misinformation that all of the stuff is created in Nottingham is Beastmen droppings atleast.

Maybe I get this wrong but I dont think that all the licensing deals where made under Mr. Rountrees era, yet he talks as his team spoils.

Also its nice to mention that he talks about growing market for AoS. but they core business fall by 3.1 million pounds.

I really wish Hastings will show up here and gives his 2 cents about this report.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 02:42:02


Post by: Azreal13


Why, is Hastings an accountant? Because just knowing what models are due for release isn't a prerequisite for financial insight.

Rountree is long term senior management, so any deals done before the Kirby era ended he was still likely heavily involved in, so he's probably well within his rights to claim some credit.

Don't be surprised that negatives are glossed over and positives exaggerated. This isn't an impartial analysis, this is the company presenting its best face to its investors, within the realms of law, if you want the real picture you need to read between the lines and look deeper than the first few pages.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 03:23:19


Post by: Jehan-reznor


Any indications on the boardgame sales, if that is a reasonable slice we can expect more of those, and what Blacksails said! (although i wish some new ships though


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 08:08:14


Post by: Talys


 Azreal13 wrote:
My first instinct is that they're giving away more product at a lower price, but haven't managed to either grow their customer base or solicit higher spending from existing customers sufficiently to offset it.


I can't speak for others, but for me, this is certainly the case. I'm buying a lot more product for a lot less money this year, because there are bundles which are great deals, yielding far, far, more models than I can paint. Like, I bought 2 of the Knight boxes -- that's a whole lot of painting to catch up on. Silver Tower. The AoS hero box. DWO. Start Collecting boxes. Et cetera. In fact, in the last 12 months, I've accumulated way more sprues than I have ever accumulated (my closet sure thinks so, anyways), but spent considerably less money.

Also, there have been few 40k codex drops, and no big 40k multi-model faction updates since Tau. Not much on the Astartes/Imperium model side, nor Eldar, both of which make me spend pretty big. I really like the AoS models, but I can't quite bring myself to painting up full fledged fantasy army yet. Though I must admit, the Syvaneth have me re-evaluating that for a bit down the road.

On the other hand, I've spent a lot more money on GW supplies than ever -- airbrush paints, drybrush paints, paintbrushes, drybrushes, washes, and so on. And even 3 of the big zigzag Crusader cases as I pack up some of my old models from shelves to make way for some new ones. My local shop is going to start stocking the GW airbrush paints in the fall, which will probably shift a whole bunch of my Vallejo to GW -- since Game Air is a special order, and I hate having to sometimes wait weeks for it. GW just needs an airbrush primer now

All good though. I really want to wrap up my Blood Angels this year, so that I can move on to some other stuff


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Azreal13 wrote:
I think not counting Calth and Deathwatch as 40K releases is an error, it's an assumption, but I think a safe one, that a sizable chunk of their sales can be attributed to people buying the models for 40K/30K projects. The Assassin one too.


Calth and Assassins for sure; everyone I know who bought them wanted the models for 40k (or 30k) at least as much as the game. Most definitely, for the assassins, lol. However, DWO is another beast, I think -- I know quite a lot of people who bought it just for the cool models. I've yet to see DW fielded as 40k units in a game, but that's just me.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 08:18:37


Post by: zedmeister


 Azreal13 wrote:
Although I don't think price is, in isolation, a massive issue, but rather it's distorted through the lens of crappy rules.


This all over. The kits they make are, in the main, quite nice but eye wateringly expensive. Combine that with, lets face it, rather crap and cumbersome rules still put a lot of people off. They definitely need to tighten up the rules for both systems and make it an attractive proposition.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 08:19:45


Post by: RoperPG


Being primarily an AoS forum visitor, have to say the increase in revenue from the North American retail arm was surprising.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 09:54:12


Post by: Mymearan


AoS is doing well and getting better then. Jives with my anecdotal experience, really happy that the game is picking up steam. People are talking a lot more about it, lots of new people coming in and the online chatter is much more positive at this point. Im convinced it'll just keep going up with the amount of effort and community involvement GW has been doing lately. Great news!


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 12:48:34


Post by: richred_uk


Apparently the Telegraph has GW tipped as a potential share to buy in today's paper:

Wednesday newspaper share tips: Games Workshop, PZ Cussons
Wed, 27th Jul 2016 13:07
(ShareCast News) - Investors looking for a haven from sterling's post-Brexit vote nadirs could do worse than Games Workshop, which The Telegraph's Questor columns suggests as a potential 'Buy'.

It said the "cheep and cheerful" outfit might have been overlooked by the market, noting revenues had recovered at the tabletop games maker since end-2015.

"Couple with strong cash generation and healthy overseas sales, Games Workshop is an enticing, if risky play," asserted the column.

The outfit has pumped out figurines to a loyal customer base since the 1970s, and yet still received scant analyst coverage in the austere halls of the City.

Games Workshop accrued about 72% of its sales overseas, and had a domestically focused cost base.

"A weaker pound could boost profits beyond the expectation-busting £16.9m achieved in the year to May 29," wrote Questor.

"The company appears to be making good progress in selling its intellectual property to video-game developers, boosting royalty income from £1.5m to £5.9m in its most recent results."

The column noted that this revenue stream would inevitably involve a certain amount of lumpiness, ultimately leading to volatility in share price.

It further added that Games Workshop was wrestling with a secular threat -- it was reliant on a generation of loyalists who, as they have matured, have been able to absorb increasing prices forever.

"They will not be around forever," Questor said.

Thus, Games Workshop's challenge was to recruit a new wave of younger, less affluent customers going forward.

"To overcome these hurdles, management must be careful not to get stuck in a fantasy world of their own," wrote the column, adding it believed the shares possessed upside potential.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 13:05:52


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Mymearan wrote:
AoS is doing well and getting better then.
We really have no basis for making an argument either way. Too many things occur over the course of a financial year to pin anything down unless GW gave us an actual breakdown, which I don't think they ever will.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 13:32:17


Post by: Herzlos


richred_uk wrote:
Apparently the Telegraph has GW tipped as a potential share to buy in today's paper:

Wednesday newspaper share tips: Games Workshop, PZ Cussons
Wed, 27th Jul 2016 13:07
(ShareCast News) - Investors looking for a haven from sterling's post-Brexit vote nadirs could do worse than Games Workshop, which The Telegraph's Questor columns suggests as a potential 'Buy'.

It said the "cheep and cheerful" outfit might have been overlooked by the market, noting revenues had recovered at the tabletop games maker since end-2015.

"Couple with strong cash generation and healthy overseas sales, Games Workshop is an enticing, if risky play," asserted the column.

The outfit has pumped out figurines to a loyal customer base since the 1970s, and yet still received scant analyst coverage in the austere halls of the City.

Games Workshop accrued about 72% of its sales overseas, and had a domestically focused cost base.

"A weaker pound could boost profits beyond the expectation-busting £16.9m achieved in the year to May 29," wrote Questor.

"The company appears to be making good progress in selling its intellectual property to video-game developers, boosting royalty income from £1.5m to £5.9m in its most recent results."

The column noted that this revenue stream would inevitably involve a certain amount of lumpiness, ultimately leading to volatility in share price.

It further added that Games Workshop was wrestling with a secular threat -- it was reliant on a generation of loyalists who, as they have matured, have been able to absorb increasing prices forever.

"They will not be around forever," Questor said.

Thus, Games Workshop's challenge was to recruit a new wave of younger, less affluent customers going forward.

"To overcome these hurdles, management must be careful not to get stuck in a fantasy world of their own," wrote the column, adding it believed the shares possessed upside potential.


It's got an 8.8% yield and is going to benefit from the crashing GBP, whilst may have difficulty staying around long term. So it makes an ideal, but risky, short-term investment; get a few years of dividends and then sell it off before it tanks and you should be laughing.

I'd be willing to throw money at it for a year or 2 before bottling it.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 13:36:52


Post by: Eternal flitter


So just me reading the numbers:

Operating profit virtually hasn't changed between last year and this year. However removing royalties from that operating profit puts this year down by approximately £4 million. Operating profit being their core pursuits (miniatures/ books sales - expenditure on raw materials/product production/salaries/other foreseeable costs directly linked to these activites).

Therefore, you can conclude that their business as a whole is doing OK, or as good as last year anyway, but they aren't making as much money through selling books and miniatures.

If that's fundamentally wrong let me know, but I think that's pretty much the case. Any claims that AoS have sold badly can't really be substantiated since there's no distinction between their ranges.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 14:41:40


Post by: Selym


richred_uk wrote:
Apparently the Telegraph has GW tipped as a potential share to buy in today's paper:

Wednesday newspaper share tips: Games Workshop, PZ Cussons
Wed, 27th Jul 2016 13:07
(ShareCast News) - Investors looking for a haven from sterling's post-Brexit vote nadirs could do worse than Games Workshop, which The Telegraph's Questor columns suggests as a potential 'Buy'.

It said the "cheep and cheerful" outfit might have been overlooked by the market, noting revenues had recovered at the tabletop games maker since end-2015.

"Couple with strong cash generation and healthy overseas sales, Games Workshop is an enticing, if risky play," asserted the column.

The outfit has pumped out figurines to a loyal customer base since the 1970s, and yet still received scant analyst coverage in the austere halls of the City.

Games Workshop accrued about 72% of its sales overseas, and had a domestically focused cost base.

"A weaker pound could boost profits beyond the expectation-busting £16.9m achieved in the year to May 29," wrote Questor.

"The company appears to be making good progress in selling its intellectual property to video-game developers, boosting royalty income from £1.5m to £5.9m in its most recent results."

The column noted that this revenue stream would inevitably involve a certain amount of lumpiness, ultimately leading to volatility in share price.

It further added that Games Workshop was wrestling with a secular threat -- it was reliant on a generation of loyalists who, as they have matured, have been able to absorb increasing prices forever.

"They will not be around forever," Questor said.

Thus, Games Workshop's challenge was to recruit a new wave of younger, less affluent customers going forward.

"To overcome these hurdles, management must be careful not to get stuck in a fantasy world of their own," wrote the column, adding it believed the shares possessed upside potential.
At least it's not just us dakkanaughts who think GW is going a little off it's rocker. And by a little, I mean £250 is a "small scale start" to 40k.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 15:06:07


Post by: frankr


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Mymearan wrote:
AoS is doing well and getting better then.
We really have no basis for making an argument either way. Too many things occur over the course of a financial year to pin anything down unless GW gave us an actual breakdown, which I don't think they ever will.


From page 6 of the financial report:
"we finished the year with sales of Warhammer: Age of Sigmar at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years"



GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 15:34:37


Post by: Azreal13


Which you've interpreted exactly as was intended.

The reality is that WHFB sales could have comprised 5% of total revenue and AOS 5.1% and that statement would be factually true yet functionally irrelevant.

Read any non financial information in the report as a propaganda, not as an objective assessment.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 15:46:25


Post by: Davor


frankr wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Mymearan wrote:
AoS is doing well and getting better then.
We really have no basis for making an argument either way. Too many things occur over the course of a financial year to pin anything down unless GW gave us an actual breakdown, which I don't think they ever will.


From page 6 of the financial report:
"we finished the year with sales of Warhammer: Age of Sigmar at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years"



So Fantasy sold $10 000. Age of Sigmar Sold $10 500. Just making numbers up but this can be the case as well. Without numbers that quote means nothing. AoS could be just as bad as Fantasy was doing but better. Is $500 more doing better? What I don't see in this quote is AoS is doing amazing. I don't see AoS is doing great, good, well or satisfactory. All I see is AoS is doing better than Fantasy. AoS can still be doing very poorly but better than Fantasy.

What amazes me though IF AoS is doing well, then that would mean 40K is doing poorly. Not surprising since they didn't get much of a release this year. Another amazing thing is, IF AoS is doing poorly but better than Fantasy, that would mean 40K is still doing great even though not much came out for it. So so many ways of looking at this without the numbers.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 15:46:46


Post by: n0t_u


richred_uk wrote:
Apparently the Telegraph has GW tipped as a potential share to buy in today's paper:

Wednesday newspaper share tips: Games Workshop, PZ Cussons
Wed, 27th Jul 2016 13:07
(ShareCast News) - Investors looking for a haven from sterling's post-Brexit vote nadirs could do worse than Games Workshop, which The Telegraph's Questor columns suggests as a potential 'Buy'.

It said the "cheep and cheerful" outfit might have been overlooked by the market, noting revenues had recovered at the tabletop games maker since end-2015.

"Couple with strong cash generation and healthy overseas sales, Games Workshop is an enticing, if risky play," asserted the column.

The outfit has pumped out figurines to a loyal customer base since the 1970s, and yet still received scant analyst coverage in the austere halls of the City.

Games Workshop accrued about 72% of its sales overseas, and had a domestically focused cost base.

"A weaker pound could boost profits beyond the expectation-busting £16.9m achieved in the year to May 29," wrote Questor.

"The company appears to be making good progress in selling its intellectual property to video-game developers, boosting royalty income from £1.5m to £5.9m in its most recent results."

The column noted that this revenue stream would inevitably involve a certain amount of lumpiness, ultimately leading to volatility in share price.

It further added that Games Workshop was wrestling with a secular threat -- it was reliant on a generation of loyalists who, as they have matured, have been able to absorb increasing prices forever.

"They will not be around forever," Questor said.

Thus, Games Workshop's challenge was to recruit a new wave of younger, less affluent customers going forward.

"To overcome these hurdles, management must be careful not to get stuck in a fantasy world of their own," wrote the column, adding it believed the shares possessed upside potential.


I like to imagine Roundtree following Kirby, trying to get his attention all day. Every time Kirby glaces his way Roundtree is just standing there holding up this article he's clipped out of the paper, huge smug grin on his face waiting for Kirby to respond to it.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 16:09:51


Post by: pox


Well, the report seems to be in line with the last few, with them doing just a little worse in gaming sales, yet propped up by IP sales.

It's really too bad, I was hoping it would be much worse for GW. I'd also assume the next report in 6 months will be similar. I don't think anything is really gonna change till we see how the Specialist ranges do at launch, and if the next edition of 40k either craters or soars.

At least Kirby's insane ramblings are still in there and still fun to read!


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 16:25:38


Post by: Stormonu


It seems on the surface GW is slowly turning the ship about, but it has a lot of negative inertia and Kirby baggage to still overcome. Prices overall are still stupidly high and there is the looming spectre of what will be coming with 8th edition for 40K. If GW can adequately address those issues with the company itself (and a few other lingering issues from the Kirby era), they have a good future ahead of them - but I don't think that will be reflected in the financials for until a couple years have passed.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 16:28:31


Post by: Horace


I think it is pretty clear AoS is not really doing fantastically. It is difficult to suggest it is doing better than WFB because at this point in time WFB sales are still contributing to the AoS pot.

I do think AoS is gaining a bit of traction (anecdotally) and so it's sales will probably not be drastically worse than WFB would have been. This is also backed up by the financials essentially being more of the same if you strip out the royalties.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 17:01:49


Post by: hobojebus


I bet they count all those last chance to buy sales as AoS though, I'd be incredibly surprised if panic buying of old miniatures didn't outstrip AoS.

And total war saving their bacon was no surprise.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 17:09:05


Post by: Blacksails


What I wouldn't give for GW to show their revenue/sales for their various lines individually. I'd love to know how well their burgeoning SG department is doing, compared to say AoS.

Plus, it'd certainly settle a few discussion points we always circle around every half year.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 19:23:20


Post by: godardc


If it is only the terrains, then I'm fine with it, thanks !


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 20:31:28


Post by: motski


hobojebus wrote:
I bet they count all those last chance to buy sales as AoS though, I'd be incredibly surprised if panic buying of old miniatures didn't outstrip AoS.


I was wondering how the hater crowd were going to try and spin this.

You can't keep using that excuse forever I'm afraid.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 20:33:18


Post by: Davor


motski wrote:
hobojebus wrote:
I bet they count all those last chance to buy sales as AoS though, I'd be incredibly surprised if panic buying of old miniatures didn't outstrip AoS.


I was wondering how the hater crowd were going to try and spin this.

You can't keep using that excuse forever I'm afraid.


Who cares. If they hate, they should move on. It speaks more of them sticking around than them moving on with something they don't like or even worse, hate. End of the day, haters are going to hate no matter what. I will still keep buying if GW is offering me value. Lately they have been offering value, so I am buying some of their products again. Nice to enjoy the hobby again and not be sour about it.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 20:36:11


Post by: Azreal13


motski wrote:
hobojebus wrote:
I bet they count all those last chance to buy sales as AoS though, I'd be incredibly surprised if panic buying of old miniatures didn't outstrip AoS.


I was wondering how the hater crowd were going to try and spin this.

You can't keep using that excuse forever I'm afraid.


What excuse?

Based on the information presented, hobojebus' assumption is as valid as any.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 20:44:54


Post by: Brutus_Apex


I just want to throw this out there, but I spent a feth load of money on last chance Fantasy purchases this year. Unfortunately this does contribute to the AOS pot, I hate AOS, but I will finish my remaining fantasy armies come hell or high water.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 21:05:29


Post by: hobojebus


 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I just want to throw this out there, but I spent a feth load of money on last chance Fantasy purchases this year. Unfortunately this does contribute to the AOS pot, I hate AOS, but I will finish my remaining fantasy armies come hell or high water.


And I really doubt you were alone I know several players that wanted to Finish armies for 9th age or kow and bought stuff around that time as well.

Next year will be the real indicator as there's going to be no legacy sales to cloud things.



GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 21:06:00


Post by: Bottle


-


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 21:17:00


Post by: Brutus_Apex


ok...my post was in response to the post about haters making excuses. And I'm saying that people spending money on last chance stuff was a legitimate buff to AOS sales, some to finish their fantasy armies, some because they wanted to add on to AOS armies. We can't separate them, and can't tell if this is an indicator that those would have contributed to AOS being popular, or if it was falsely added into the AOS pile.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 21:36:42


Post by: shinros


According to lady Atia on the last chance stuff.

"Too bad that the "panic buying", atleast for the last chance to buy section stuff isn't really huge - the warehouses weren't full of the stuff, especially characters. That's why most of it was sold within minutes ^^"

Believe her or don't.

I am just slightly annoyed that people said this report would be the indicator if AOS is doing good or not. GW say's it's doing better WAIT WE GOTTA WAIT UNTIL NEXT YEAR! Right so if AOS is still selling more next year what then? Do we wait for the one after that? Or the next? Or perhaps it was the sylvaneth and ironjaw's release that boosted sales also. Espically the sylvaneth release it went out of stock in several territories and the 200+ bundles as well? I guess people forgot that as well. I personally believe Atia and I think the last chance helped but it was not as much as we think it was.

Well we don't have the numbers so it's speculation anyway I am just happy AOS done well this year. Eh kinda tired of this just going to enjoy the hobby.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 22:04:37


Post by: Brutus_Apex


"Too bad that the "panic buying", atleast for the last chance to buy section stuff isn't really huge - the warehouses weren't full of the stuff, especially characters. That's why most of it was sold within minutes ^^"

Believe her or don't.


Probably true, and If it came from Atia I am inclined to believe it.

Basically it is selling more than Fantasy did for the last few years, which shouldn't be that difficult if the rumoured numbers are true.

You might be slightly annoyed at people not wanting AOS to succeed. Imagine how the rest of us feel after spending years (in my case a decade and a half) enjoying a game only to be destroyed and replaced with something we despise. I gotta tell you, I feel a little bit more than "annoyed".


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 22:11:50


Post by: shinros


 Brutus_Apex wrote:
"Too bad that the "panic buying", atleast for the last chance to buy section stuff isn't really huge - the warehouses weren't full of the stuff, especially characters. That's why most of it was sold within minutes ^^"

Believe her or don't.


Probably true, and If it came from Atia I am inclined to believe it.

Basically it is selling more than Fantasy did for the last few years, which shouldn't be that difficult if the rumoured numbers are true.

You might be slightly annoyed at people not wanting AOS to succeed. Imagine how the rest of us feel after spending years (in my case a decade and a half) enjoying a game only to be destroyed and replaced with something we despise. I gotta tell you, I feel a little bit more than "annoyed".


I understand that but it's some of the double standards some people display. I still recall people gloating saying AOS is going to crash and burn the company and it's going to do even worse than how WHFB(plus calling people shallow for liking it) was doing and that this report will show everyone how bad it is and it did the opposite. Someone who even disliked AOS told me this about the report "people voted with their wallets which game they preferred that's the end of it". It's not about me being annoyed at them not wanting to succeed(I could care less if people like it or not people like different things) it's annoying me they keep changing the goal posts of their arguments. "It must be some other reason for AOS doing well" etc.

Plus it did not help that the last CEO priced people out of the old game(look at witch elves 30 pounds for 10 which is barely a unit) plus if at least half of those people who only play the video games of warhammer or just buy books did the table top WHFB would of still been here I think(I liked the old world AND 8th but money constraint's and the like turned me off it since I wanted to play vampire counts and friends were not interested due to the size of the rulebook, this changed with AOS.) . My friend who is a GW manager said the simple fact why his AOS stuff is selling more is that it's simply an easier sale than fantasy considering how it's setup and price ranges. Plus considering the new starting set it should be easier. At the end of the day I am a firm believer that's it's going to be the IP video games which keep GW afloat that's what most people are into for warhammer what we do with the models is a niche hobby.

Honestly I think I should stop thinking hard about this financial stuff and just enjoy the hobby.





GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 22:26:40


Post by: motski


 Brutus_Apex wrote:

You might be slightly annoyed at people not wanting AOS to succeed. Imagine how the rest of us feel after spending years (in my case a decade and a half) enjoying a game only to be destroyed and replaced with something we despise. I gotta tell you, I feel a little bit more than "annoyed".


I think people are perfectly entitled to their own opinion regarding AoS and anything else.

The thing I take objection to is reading the same repeated negative arguments, often from the same posters, over and over and over again in AoS forums and threads. I don't see AoS players intruding into forums for 9th age or KoW or whatever and doing this sort of thing.

It's pretty annoying when I see a new post in the rumour thread or on the forum and it turns out to be the same kind of negative post I've read a million times before. After twelve months of this it starts to get really irritating.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 22:28:15


Post by: Brutus_Apex


Indeed, Fantasy was too costly to get into at the end there. One of it's major downfalls for sure.

It's pretty annoying when I see a new post in the rumour thread or on the forum and it turns out to be the same kind of negative post I've read a million times before. After twelve months of this it starts to get really irritating.


Sure, I can get that. It's one of the main reasons I stay out of the AOS forum.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 22:55:16


Post by: Davor


 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Indeed, Fantasy was too costly to get into at the end there. One of it's major downfalls for sure.


Sadly Age of Sigmar did not fix this problem though. Product was just as expensive as Fantasy. Only thing AoS did was we didn't need as much. All the other problems Fantasy had, AoS had. Just a shame that Fantasy had to go when when the same problems still existed. GW still had the same policies in place that destroyed Fantasy. It looked like it was going to destroy AoS as well. Only January 2016 changed things for AoS. Maybe we cans say it changed GW. So here is hoping that Mr Roundtree can steer the ship straight first, and then someone how bring back Fantasy and fix the bridge that got destroyed so everyone can be happy. Thing is that takes time, so we just have to wait and see what happens now.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 22:57:55


Post by: Compel


Let me preface this that, typically at my club, I'm seen as the "anything but GW" guy,

Warhammer Fantasy had a ton of support during the end times period, from GW, didn't it? And pretty poor support before then.

So, it would seem to me that if Age of Sigmar is compared to End Times, then that's a pretty good feather, and even if it was a jerky move fanwise, financially it would appear to have been a good idea. Conversely, if End Times is lumped in with AoS, then, with all the support it had it's NOT kicking rear and is not a "shouting from the rooftops" style increase, then that's pretty shockingly bad. So basically, there seems to be a lot of factors one way or another, that I'd have to agree that statement is relatively meaningless.

Overall as the "anything but GW" guy, I would quite happily admit that GW at least *look* like they're doing better now. They've even done better than the last cynical thing I had, which was the "these new board games are just ways to get people to spend £85 for 4 new models" with Silver Tower at least appearing to be a proper attempt at a game.

I do feel like, unless GW radically diversifies, they are completely doomed. - Taking advantage of Total Warhammer is the first step, though. - However, they'd need to go in for AAA console titles and film deals too.

Otherwise, I think GW are just going to die a slow death. It's no real surprise to me that the top selling miniatures games now include Star Wars and Star Trek. You then add in Marvel (Covering both Avengers AND the X-Men), Batman (Including TV's Arrow and The Flash), Halo and even a frigging Doctor Who miniatures game now.

Then you add in the Board Games with (surprisingly fair) quality miniatures such as Ghostbusters, Turtles, Dark Souls and Walking Dead.

Unless GW can get themselves into the same level of public awareness as them, I think it's only a matter of time until they're dead. EG: "Oh, I want to start this modelling wargaming malarkey. What's that a Sylvaneth Drycha Hamadreth... How the heck do I pronounce that... Nevermind know what it is Wait. Is that The Incredible Hulk?!"



GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 23:08:12


Post by: Baron Klatz


@Brutus_Apex, Thanks for that, honestly.

@Shinros, yeah, even if AoS could get GW enough money to surround their headquarters in golden Stormcast statues the haters would still say "doesn't prove anything".

Like you said, better to just enjoy the hobby and ignore them.

Not sure why profits from 9th and KoW players is used as a anti-AoS position, though. They keep buying the models and converting them for their armies which is just more profit for GW.

There's plenty of those players continuing to buy non-legacy figures and even after a year or two they'll continue to because they like new stuff, good deals and nice models.

In anycase, awesome to hear GW are going strong.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 23:18:08


Post by: Azreal13


Er, they're not? Their revenue is flat and their profits have fallen, for the third or fourth year in a row.

This is the danger of "ignoring the haters," you stick your fingers in your ears and don't notice that the building's collapsed around you.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 23:21:46


Post by: shinros


Yeah I don't think they are going "strong" but they are correcting the ship I think that's what I gather from this report. At least it's flat instead of a huge loss like the last time and the fact they invested a lot of money in opening stores and new tech.

As I said before more people play the warhammer video games that's the thing that is going to keep them going I think.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/27 23:59:10


Post by: Baron Klatz


Hmm, okay, going strong was too positive a term. Staying afloat and fixing the leaks is a better description, I believe.

@Azreal13, that's true up to a point but giving into the haters can result in a worse situation as well. Broken base and all that.

@Compel, that's a good point.

If they do a AoS mini-movie they need to get the guy who made that first Marvel Thor movie and tell him "remember the awesome first part of that movie? Yeah, just keep doing that through the whole film."

@Shinros, The videogame profits are impressive...


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 00:04:47


Post by: Ghaz


 Azreal13 wrote:
motski wrote:
hobojebus wrote:
I bet they count all those last chance to buy sales as AoS though, I'd be incredibly surprised if panic buying of old miniatures didn't outstrip AoS.


I was wondering how the hater crowd were going to try and spin this.

You can't keep using that excuse forever I'm afraid.


What excuse?

Based on the information presented, hobojebus' assumption is as valid as any.

Here's what Lady Atia had to say about the 'Last Chance' sales and their effects on AoS from her BLOG

Lady Atia wrote:Too bad that the "panic buying", at least for the last chance to buy section stuff isn't really huge - the warehouses weren't full of the stuff, especially characters. That's why most of it was sold within minutes


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 00:12:50


Post by: Azreal13


Again, without numbers, that statement from Atia has no context. While no doubt true, whether that small amount of stock selling out was insignificant or a critical amount of the total we just don't know.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 00:16:58


Post by: TheAuldGrump


As for AoS doing better than Warhammer... I can say that is not the case in the local market.

But I can only directly comment on that local market. It is possible that in the broader theater the game is doing better than what I can see locally.

But I think that the bulk of the sales had been lost with 8th edition - that AoS is not competing with Warhammer at its prime, but rather with the game at its nadir.

I have no interest in the games for either 8th edition or AoS. And I like the miniatures for AoS considerably less - which matters not a whit, since I had already stopped buying GW miniatures before AoS fell in a steaming pile on the gaming scene.

I know that it was 8th edition that sent local players to Kings of War, and that in my own circle more people bought the boxed Warhammer for use in Kings of War than wanted the game for its own sake. (The high elves in the box are excellent. The skaven... maybe not so much. But both armies have seen use, so....)

It is possible that adding points costs has helped AoS, but... meh.

The Auld Grump


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 00:29:31


Post by: Compel


Truth be told, I dunno what to think. I know, for example, that Age of Sigmar is very much so NOT the game for me. I would also say that it is objectively NOT the game for people who want the 'mass battle' total war style experiences on the tabletop, where I would point someone towards Kings of War.

In saying that, I know that locally is one of the strongest places in the country for AoS fans. - EG, local tournaments sell out, all the local players are well known in "The Scene." All that sort of business. Additionally, Kings of War never even got a look in.

However, what I want in a game, may not be what the majority of the paying public want. OR, and I think this is a big factor, economically speaking. People who are playing fantasy for a while already own their fantasy armies. I imagine there could be a critical mass of those who moved over to Age of Sigmar and decided to start a round base army from scratch for AoS, which could account for an improvement of X% over the moneywise people were putting down for fantasy.

EG, hypothetically less people *playing* the game, but instead of many people buying 2 boxes each release, you have significantly less people, but with each person *buying* literally 15 boxes each release.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 03:06:04


Post by: HoundsofDemos


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Total War:Hammer is getting a lot of good press and seems to be genuinely a great game.
Given the pedigree of the Total War series that's not surprising.
It's all the more disappointing that GW canned WHFB the year before this potential big boost to recruitment came on stream.
I'll put that down to the tail end of the baleful Kirby era.


Them partnering with Total war was smart. The series has not had a bad game yet.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 03:40:21


Post by: Baron Klatz


Well, Rome 2 wasn't well received...

The rest are great though with TWW excelling.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 03:59:33


Post by: tneva82


Baron Klatz wrote:
In anycase, awesome to hear GW are going strong.


Except they aren't going strong. Their core profit fell by 27% or so. That's huge. Their sales keep declining. Now if AOS sales are roughly on bar with FB or bit more than it was in the end(which wasn't that much due to GW deliberately cutting support from FB which killed their sales. Last 2-3 years low sales were GW's own doing...) then this means 40k, despite hugely popular calth box, started stalling big time.

And that's _very bad_ for GW. If their flagship and biggest money maker started to stall 27%+ worth of profits then this is very grave news. 40k has been for years what's kept GW going up. Remove that...

Problem with license income is that it's not something you can count. What total war caliber release there is going to be this year? Dawn of war doesn't seem to be particularly loved by testers so unless there's big changes there it's entirely possible that game flops. Then what?

Just because there was total war:warhammer one year doesn't mean there's same every year. Assuming there is so core sale drops don't matter is foolish. Also unless they can reverse the trend with 40k then doesn't matter if they release new total war(in terms of sales). You would STILL have profits dropping again. You need BIGGER than total war warhammer and THAT is tough order.

GW has been doing very good job of bandaiding falling sales but problem with that is that the more you lose your customer base the more bandaid you need. What was enough last year isn't enough this year. What's enough this year isn't enough next year. You need constantly bigger bandaid because shrinking customer base leaves every year bigger hole to fill. That just ain't sustainable. They need to start actually selling more. They have been selling less and less for years. Otherwise this "buff profits in other ways" strategy will eventually run into dead end.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 05:45:06


Post by: Baron Klatz


Well, as you can see above, I corrected my overly optimistic response with a more subdued one.

Total war warhammer should see alot of growing strength and profits if their massive expansions that include more races, lands and content are delivered right.

You are correct on 40k, that's GW's juggernaut that keeps them up. No clue on how they'll address the issues but here's hoping they make the most out of their community interaction and give the player-base a game they can continue to enjoy and draw new players in.

Only time will tell, though.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 06:01:35


Post by: Kirasu


While it's good they'll beat market expectations... I don't see how it's positive at all that they are relying on licensing to do it.

When your company's core business is stagnate for years that's not the best sign.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 06:22:39


Post by: Kilkrazy


The top line results are similar to the last few years. Revenue down a bit. Still profitable, still throwing off lots of cash. This year there is great licensing income, certainly thanks to Total War:Hammer. Without this, sales of the core lines (40K, AoS and LoTR) were down nearly 5%. That is not good.

GW stated AoS has done better this year than WHFB did the year before. Given an entire new line of figures, books and terrain pieces I should hope that would happen. There have also been several boxed games that should have lifted sales.

The bad news is that this means 40K sales must have weakened substantially. There haven’t been any major 40K releases for a year, because GW concentrated on AoS and boxed games. That may be a bad strategy.

I don’t think GW can rely on a major success in video games every year. I don’t think it can be supported with only two core games to licence. Where are they going to find 800,000 people to buy Total War:Hammer 2 in 2018?

On the plus side, GW can look forwards to a bonanza in the coming year due to the weak GBP. AoS may forge ahead and become the major success that WHFB used to be years ago. There are the Specialist Games to be revived, and the opportunity to relaunch 40K.

Thus, things are not all bad in the longer term. We've seen a lot of reversals of Kirby's policies. This may start to produce actual growth over the next year or two.

There's no doubt that something needs to be done about 40K, though.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 06:32:41


Post by: Selym


HoundsofDemos wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Total War:Hammer is getting a lot of good press and seems to be genuinely a great game.
Given the pedigree of the Total War series that's not surprising.
It's all the more disappointing that GW canned WHFB the year before this potential big boost to recruitment came on stream.
I'll put that down to the tail end of the baleful Kirby era.


Them partnering with Total war was smart. The series has not had a bad game yet.
Rome 2, E:TW.

And there is a general feeling that TW dumbed down a lot for Warhammer.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 06:35:20


Post by: tneva82


 Kilkrazy wrote:
On the plus side, GW can look forwards to a bonanza in the coming year due to the weak GBP. AoS may forge ahead and become the major success that WHFB used to be years ago. There are the Specialist Games to be revived, and the opportunity to relaunch 40K.

Thus, things are not all bad in the longer term. We've seen a lot of reversals of Kirby's policies. This may start to produce actual growth over the next year or two.

There's no doubt that something needs to be done about 40K, though.


Yeah. Bad news is GW needs to do something. No matter how one tries to spin it the current situation is not good or sustainable. Good news is they do have possibilities to fix the problems and have been taking good steps toward that.

Low key releases in 40k has likely some effect on 40k sale stalling so getting big releases there should help. Campaigns don't seem to catch same selling spree as codexes do. Which is bit unfortunate. And 8th ed(for which the long silence lends credit to. Feels like they are preparing for something big) could certainly change course if it's good.

Also the GBP is certainly going to help them at least in short term. That's good.

GW is btw now good example of why you shouldn't try to piss of your existing customer base. They kept increasing prices which drove unit sales down. Now that they made some correction moves with discounted boxes seems the number of boxes sold hasn't increased in same rate as price discount was. Too many people who got burned and aren't going to come back at least that easily. They could cut prices to what they were in '90's without factoring inflation(so effective price drop to '90's...) and sale # wouldn't go to same levels nevermind profits which would crash...


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 06:37:34


Post by: Silent Puffin?


 Ghaz wrote:

Here's what Lady Atia had to say about the 'Last Chance' sales and their effects on AoS from her BLOG

Lady Atia wrote:Too bad that the "panic buying", at least for the last chance to buy section stuff isn't really huge - the warehouses weren't full of the stuff, especially characters. That's why most of it was sold within minutes


'Panic buying' wasn't just the last chance to buy stuff though, as soon as it became obvious that GW was going to kill WHFB people would have started buying stuff to finish off armies before they were Squatted. People with absolutely no interest in AoS would have been buying WHFB stuff all year and those sales are all but certain to have been classified as being for AoS.

At this stage that process should have been completed by now so AoS will be standing on its own feet for next years report.

 Selym wrote:

And there is a general feeling that TW dumbed down a lot for Warhammer.


I don't see how given its strong similarity to Rome 2.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 06:56:57


Post by: Bottle


-


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 07:16:27


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Bottle wrote:
Saying AoS currently has better sales than WHFB did for the past few years means it is selling better than the End Times too, and most people say the End Times sold very well.
Without any breakdown, it's all just guessing. We don't know how well ET sold, even if ET sold well it was followed by 6 months of silence where I'm sure many people halted their buying, we don't even know if or how ET numbers were added to WHFB numbers to make the statement....

"we finished the year with sales of Warhammer: Age of Sigmar at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years".

To me it sounds like they had to do some dodgy fudging of the numbers to make that statement because the wording is such that their calculation method could have been damned near anything. There is soooo many ways that could be interpreted.

What does "we finished the year.... at a higher rare" mean? Does that mean the rate for the entire year, or just some portion at the end of the year?

What is "several years"? What time period did they use?

How did they calculate their rate for WHFB? Was it a year by year rate, was it averaged over several years?

What does "Warhammer" mean? All their games are called "Warhammer", does that include "Warhammer: End Times"?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 07:24:23


Post by: Baron Klatz


 Silent Puffin? wrote:


 Selym wrote:

And there is a general feeling that TW dumbed down a lot for Warhammer.


I don't see how given its strong similarity to Rome 2.


Well off the top of my head from the complaining TW players:

Magic siege ladders troops pull out of their pants, no dismounting cavalry, formations being race-based, lords begin at same position at campaign's beginning, knights use lances constantly without changing to side-arms, heroes are OP and restriction on region conquests.

Reason why mod support was so highly requested.




GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 07:52:53


Post by: zedmeister


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Bottle wrote:
Saying AoS currently has better sales than WHFB did for the past few years means it is selling better than the End Times too, and most people say the End Times sold very well.
Without any breakdown, it's all just guessing. We don't know how well ET sold, even if ET sold well it was followed by 6 months of silence where I'm sure many people halted their buying, we don't even know if or how ET numbers were added to WHFB numbers to make the statement....

"we finished the year with sales of Warhammer: Age of Sigmar at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years".

To me it sounds like they had to do some dodgy fudging of the numbers to make that statement because the wording is such that their calculation method could have been damned near anything. There is soooo many ways that could be interpreted.


I'd also just like to point out that Hastings posted on Warseer sometime between October last year and January this year that AoS is doing badly in all markets. I'd link to the thread but Warseer is, well...

The point I'm trying to make is if that were true, assuming October last year, what have they done between then and now that boosted those sales to be in a better position? Last chances? Raft of new models? Silver tower? Other factors? Sounds like a combination of those factors along with the accelerated release schedule for AoS and prominence over 40k which has a more modest year. However, has that affected their 40k cash cow? What a pickle GW find themselves in. Continue what they are doing with AoS to boost its appeal or refocus on 40k. Of course, in an ideal world, they'd do both. But that means investing in the creative studio which may possibly end up with some of the GW marketing department loosing out and we can't have that!


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 07:57:19


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


It is interesting to look at the royalties over the years.

2005 - can't find, the year DOW 1 was released.
2006 - 1.2M
2007 - 1.4M
2008 - 1.7M
2009 - 3.5M (year DOW2 was released)
2010 - 3.1M (I think Blood Bowl came out under this financial report)
2011 - 2.4M
2012 - 3.5M (year Space Marine video game was released, also the year THQ died)
2013 - 1.0M
2014 - 1.4M
2015 - 1.5M
2016 - 5.9M (Total War, Vermintide)

I can't remember when GW started giving out their IP like candy to mobile developers, would that have fallen under the 2014 or 2015 reports?

They definitely make more royalties if they can get their IP in to the hands of developers who are willing to make AAA games occasionally rather than the shotgun effect of lots of cheap games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 zedmeister wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Bottle wrote:
Saying AoS currently has better sales than WHFB did for the past few years means it is selling better than the End Times too, and most people say the End Times sold very well.
Without any breakdown, it's all just guessing. We don't know how well ET sold, even if ET sold well it was followed by 6 months of silence where I'm sure many people halted their buying, we don't even know if or how ET numbers were added to WHFB numbers to make the statement....

"we finished the year with sales of Warhammer: Age of Sigmar at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years".

To me it sounds like they had to do some dodgy fudging of the numbers to make that statement because the wording is such that their calculation method could have been damned near anything. There is soooo many ways that could be interpreted.


I'd also just like to point out that Hastings posted on Warseer sometime between October last year and January this year that AoS is doing badly in all markets. I'd link to the thread but Warseer is, well...

The point I'm trying to make is if that were true, assuming October last year, what have they done between then and now that boosted those sales to be in a better position? Last chances? Raft of new models? Silver tower? Other factors? Sounds like a combination of those factors along with the accelerated release schedule for AoS and prominence over 40k which has a more modest year. However, has that affected their 40k cash cow? What a pickle GW find themselves in. Continue what they are doing with AoS to boost its appeal or refocus on 40k. Of course, in an ideal world, they'd do both. But that means investing in the creative studio which may possibly end up with some of the GW marketing department loosing out and we can't have that!
I had forgotten about Silver Tower, including that in the AoS numbers may sway things a bit, though I'm not really sure how popular it was.

One thing that is a worry for GW is they are a company that seems to rely on perpetual new releases. They can't take a break for a few months to let the games settle, they constantly have to release 2-3 new boxes each and every month.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 08:40:29


Post by: Herzlos


frankr wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Mymearan wrote:
AoS is doing well and getting better then.
We really have no basis for making an argument either way. Too many things occur over the course of a financial year to pin anything down unless GW gave us an actual breakdown, which I don't think they ever will.


From page 6 of the financial report:
"we finished the year with sales of Warhammer: Age of Sigmar at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years"



Does Warhammer Quest count as AoS? What about all of the "Last Chance to Buy" WHFB?
Is that "rate" a percentage or a cash total? If a percentage, does that mean AoS sales have gone up, or 40K sales have gone down?
Reports are that WHFB sales stopped dead first half of 2015, between End Times and AoS, so it shouldn't be hard for AoS to beat that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baron Klatz wrote:

@Shinros, yeah, even if AoS could get GW enough money to surround their headquarters in golden Stormcast statues the haters would still say "doesn't prove anything".


I think if GW releases a report that shows growth, a lot of the haters will stop. Currently we're still seeing a decline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baron Klatz wrote:
Total war warhammer should see alot of growing strength and profits if their massive expansions that include more races, lands and content are delivered right.


Will it bring in as much licensing revenue as the first couple of months after launch? Presumably we're into the longer tail now where whilst some people will still be buying it at full price, that number will be dwindling, and in a year people will be buying a half price legacy edition or whatever. It'll bring in lots of money, but not as much as it's already done.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 09:04:58


Post by: Thud


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Bottle wrote:
Saying AoS currently has better sales than WHFB did for the past few years means it is selling better than the End Times too, and most people say the End Times sold very well.
Without any breakdown, it's all just guessing. We don't know how well ET sold, even if ET sold well it was followed by 6 months of silence where I'm sure many people halted their buying, we don't even know if or how ET numbers were added to WHFB numbers to make the statement....

"we finished the year with sales of Warhammer: Age of Sigmar at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years".

To me it sounds like they had to do some dodgy fudging of the numbers to make that statement because the wording is such that their calculation method could have been damned near anything. There is soooo many ways that could be interpreted.

What does "we finished the year.... at a higher rare" mean? Does that mean the rate for the entire year, or just some portion at the end of the year?

What is "several years"? What time period did they use?

How did they calculate their rate for WHFB? Was it a year by year rate, was it averaged over several years?

What does "Warhammer" mean? All their games are called "Warhammer", does that include "Warhammer: End Times"?


Based on the information we have, we can make some fairly decent guesses.

1. Assumption: WHFB didn't do particularly well. Why? Because it was axed.

2. Assumption: AoS started off terribly. Why? Because they did a 180 on one of the major changes (points) from WHFB nine months after release, including the (for GW) unprecedented step of actually telling everyone before doing it.

3. Assumption: AoS has ended the year better than it started. Why? Otherwise it would have been difficult to include any positive mentions of performance in the report.

My end assumption about AoS is that sales compared to itself are growing more than WHFB sales grew over the last 2-3 years, which, another assumption, isn't terribly amazing as WHFB was probably declining in its last years. Why? If AoS were doing better, the language would have been very different. Instead of even mentioning expectations, they compare it to the swan song of a product line so bad it had to be axed.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 09:42:36


Post by: Horace


I don't get why people have such sandy vags about some of the comments. It is not meant as an attack on AoS it is just a summary of the facts (as far as we can tell because sales are not broken down in the report)

Fact
WFB is in effect contributing to the AoS sales this past financial year. The interest in WFB will continue to wane and die out over the next year(s) and there will be no more last chance sales so this will reduce. This is why it is difficult to state 100% how well AoS has done this year, it will become progressively clearer in subsequent years. I do not see why this is hard to grasp and is "hating"

GW sales this year have fallen 0.8% so they are doing no better than they were last year (which was also down on the year before)


I think it is safe to infer from this AoS has not been a runaway success. It is probably doing something in the region of WFB but has had a massive amount of support


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 09:58:45


Post by: Yodhrin


 Bottle wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Baron Klatz wrote:
In anycase, awesome to hear GW are going strong.


Except they aren't going strong. Their core profit fell by 27% or so. That's huge. Their sales keep declining. Now if AOS sales are roughly on bar with FB or bit more than it was in the end(which wasn't that much due to GW deliberately cutting support from FB which killed their sales. Last 2-3 years low sales were GW's own doing...) then this means 40k, despite hugely popular calth box, started stalling big time.


You're looking at profits in isolation and drawing the wrong conclusion. Revenue of core products only fell by 0.9% the drop in profits is due to the increased spending which is investment which will hopefully see a return in the years to come.

Saying AoS currently has better sales than WHFB did for the past few years means it is selling better than the End Times too, and most people say the End Times sold very well.


Relative to how WHFB had been selling up to that point.

GW just spent the best part of a year pushing AoS including more new model releases than WHFB saw in five+ years, End Times included, plus what was apparently a pretty popular reboot of WHQ, and the result was "it's doing a bit better than ET did" and a dip in 40K.

So, what do you think is going to happen this (financial)year when 40K is apparently going to be getting a much more "normal" share of the release slots and at least two of the new SGs(Adeptus Titanicus, looks set for April '17 if the tie-in novel's release date is anything to go by, and ofc Blood Bowl later this (calendar)year) plus one or two new box games(the new HH one later this year for sure) will be coming out, and most of the people buying up kits to finish off their WHFB armies will have bought all they're going to buy?

Don't get me wrong, I no longer think AoS is going to be a complete failure, but AoS fans should maybe do a bit less "ignoring the haters" and recognise how precarious their chosen game's position is right now; the General's Handbook and associated volte face on strategy was a positive move by GW but the coming release schedule slowdown will offset that benefit to a not inconsiderable degree and as far as I can tell the main reason GW are willing to overlook AoS not being the saviour of Fantasy they wanted, is the studio being bored of creating content for WHF and wanting to do something new for the sake of doing something new.

If the coming year's schedule results in a proportionate drop in AoS sales it'll be back down to the region of pre-ET WHFB, and the money-men part of the compnay's management won't be prepared to tolerate that forever as we know from experience.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 10:27:23


Post by: Selym


 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Selym wrote:

And there is a general feeling that TW dumbed down a lot for Warhammer.


I don't see how given its strong similarity to Rome 2.
I haven't played TW:Warhammer, but the points I'm aware of are:

Previous TW games had Warhammer mods that were much more extensive
Rome 2 was never liked, and being reminiscent of it is hardly a boon
There are far fewer factions to interact with
Half the playerbase feels that TW have gone off their rocker and forgone all sense of realism by making a fantasy game
TW tried to screw people over by making a faction that was guaranteed for release into a DLC


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 11:25:39


Post by: Tailessine


Im sure AOS will grow much more strongly now there is the Generals Handbook, and some genuinely popular factions coming out (ironjawz, sylvaneth etc).


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 11:36:10


Post by: Kilkrazy


I think GW's problem is how they can continue to grow AoS without letting 40K slide into the lavatory pan. They need to be able to fully support at least two core games.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 13:10:37


Post by: TheAuldGrump


 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think GW's problem is how they can continue to grow AoS without letting 40K slide into the lavatory pan. They need to be able to fully support at least two core games.
And they do need to support at least two.

Kirby's focus on the monoculture of WH40K is a good deal of what killed GW profits.

I like seeing GW broadening it's lines again. (I am really, really, really hoping that any reboot of Mordheim is set in the Old World, not Sigmar's Moist Nightmare. I will actually buy a new Mordheim, if it is in line with the old setting.)

As I mentioned - AoS is not competing with WHFB at its peak - the game had been in decline for a while. Locally, it was not AoS that killed the game, it was 8th edition.

Unfortunately, there is nothing that I like about AoS - and it is unfortunate, I like the direction that Rountree is taking GW, and I would reward such behavior... if GW had anything that I wanted. Bundles are a good direction to take, boardgames are a good direction to take, bringing back Specialist Games is a good direction to take.

While I would like to see improved rules, Kings of War (and perhaps 9th Age) means that the rules are covered - maybe not by GW, but miniatures gaming is all about the razor blades, not about the razors. The money is not in the rules, it is in the miniatures. If I buy GW miniatures to play Kings of War then I am still buying GW miniatures*.

I would have no problem with buying AoS figures and rebasing them for WoW - if I liked the danged figures. (But I don't, so I don't.)

Heck, Kings of War has me looking at Tomb Kings on eBay.

Ah, well. As it is, I don't like the setting for AoS, I do not like the rules for AoS, and I do not like the miniatures for AoS - the game, currently, has nothing for me.

The Auld Grump

* Many years ago, GW sent out a mailing to hobby shops, telling them to not allow people to use GW miniatures with other rules sets... I have never understood that - so what if people are using GW miniatures for D&D? The point is that they are buying the miniatures....


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 13:13:47


Post by: Selym


 TheAuldGrump wrote:

* Many years ago, GW sent out a mailing to hobby shops, telling them to not allow people to use GW miniatures with other rules sets... I have never understood that - so what if people are using GW miniatures for D&D? The point is that they are buying the miniatures....
"But don't you get it? Games Workshop IS the hobby! You're stealing our IP if you do it any other way. We own the rights to plastic, miniatures, wargaming, space, tables, paint, glue and gamers. If you don't use solely GW products then you are a criminal scumbag!" - The mind of Kirby


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 16:00:23


Post by: Silent Puffin?


 Selym wrote:

Previous TW games had Warhammer mods that were much more extensive
Rome 2 was never liked, and being reminiscent of it is hardly a boon
There are far fewer factions to interact with
Half the playerbase feels that TW have gone off their rocker and forgone all sense of realism by making a fantasy game
TW tried to screw people over by making a faction that was guaranteed for release into a DLC


Those mods were just reskins of standard TW and there are numerous mods that significantly expand the unit roster for W:TW
Irrelevant to the original statement
Actually there are a lot of factions, probably about the same as in Shogun 2, if not more.
Irrelevant
Standard practice. The original Shogun had extra factions DLC, they were just called expansions then.

Warhammer:TW is very similar mechanically to Rome 2 and Shogun 2, if TW has been dumbed down (there is evidence for and against this) then the dumbing down happened years ago.

OT I know.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 16:05:22


Post by: hobojebus


 Selym wrote:
 TheAuldGrump wrote:

* Many years ago, GW sent out a mailing to hobby shops, telling them to not allow people to use GW miniatures with other rules sets... I have never understood that - so what if people are using GW miniatures for D&D? The point is that they are buying the miniatures....
"But don't you get it? Games Workshop IS the hobby! You're stealing our IP if you do it any other way. We own the rights to plastic, miniatures, wargaming, space, tables, paint, glue and gamers. If you don't use solely GW products then you are a criminal scumbag!" - The mind of Kirby


My friend once got told off for buying a litre of pva glue from a hobby store instead of paying more for much less from GW.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 19:28:14


Post by: Selym


hobojebus wrote:
 Selym wrote:
 TheAuldGrump wrote:

* Many years ago, GW sent out a mailing to hobby shops, telling them to not allow people to use GW miniatures with other rules sets... I have never understood that - so what if people are using GW miniatures for D&D? The point is that they are buying the miniatures....
"But don't you get it? Games Workshop IS the hobby! You're stealing our IP if you do it any other way. We own the rights to plastic, miniatures, wargaming, space, tables, paint, glue and gamers. If you don't use solely GW products then you are a criminal scumbag!" - The mind of Kirby


My friend once got told off for buying a litre of pva glue from a hobby store instead of paying more for much less from GW.
I once got kicked out of a GW store for having a photo of non-GW miniatures on my phone.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 19:30:22


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think GW's problem is how they can continue to grow AoS without letting 40K slide into the lavatory pan. They need to be able to fully support at least two core games.
I think killing off WHFB also killed off some of their diversity and some of the benefit of having 2 core games. While there's still differences between 40k and AoS, I think they're going to appeal to the same crowd and thus AoS is going to cannibalise 40k sales, where as WHFB was different enough to appeal to a wide range of people who might not have been interested in 40k.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 21:08:00


Post by: TheAuldGrump


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think GW's problem is how they can continue to grow AoS without letting 40K slide into the lavatory pan. They need to be able to fully support at least two core games.
I think killing off WHFB also killed off some of their diversity and some of the benefit of having 2 core games. While there's still differences between 40k and AoS, I think they're going to appeal to the same crowd and thus AoS is going to cannibalise 40k sales, where as WHFB was different enough to appeal to a wide range of people who might not have been interested in 40k.
After all, they both contain space marines....

The Auld Grump


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 21:24:25


Post by: Bottle


-


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 21:26:24


Post by: Silent Puffin?


 Bottle wrote:
As similar as AoS and 40K may now seem it is still nowhere near how close WHFB and LOTR were.


They were completely different games....

Different ethos, different mechanics, different aesthetic...

They both had Orcs and guys with swords but that's about it.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 21:29:34


Post by: Bottle


-


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/28 23:25:56


Post by: Kilkrazy


I found the difference between WHFB, 40K and WHAoS confusing to understand. GW have started to clean it up by changing the packaging of 40K and AoS kits.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 00:31:28


Post by: herjan1987


While AoS roars in the GW shops to attract new players, a kid on miniwargaming plays 8th Edition Tomb Kings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fnyUofh2_k


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 05:41:49


Post by: Silent Puffin?


 Bottle wrote:

For a new customer walking in, especially a young one, the difference between WHFB and LOTR was confusing to understand.


You wold have to be very small to not notice the difference between blocks of models and single models.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 07:14:25


Post by: Bottle


-


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 07:19:32


Post by: Kilkrazy


It might have been seen as a strategic error by GW ever to have taken on the LoTR licence, but the game was very successful and helped to power GW's glory years back in the early 2000s.

Clearly if there was confusion between LoTR and WHFB back then it actually helped the company.

The more obvious distinction between AoS and LoTR would seem to argue for both games being core lines now.

However, as it seems that GW are having difficulty in properly supporting two core games, it may be wiser for them not to try and support three.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 07:22:51


Post by: f2k


Games Workshop used to support a lot of games back in the day.

Given their size and their in-house capabilities, supporting a handful of games really shouldn't be an issue. I'd suggest it's a case of them choosing not to do so, rather than being unable to.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 08:01:04


Post by: Herzlos


 TheAuldGrump wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think GW's problem is how they can continue to grow AoS without letting 40K slide into the lavatory pan. They need to be able to fully support at least two core games.
I think killing off WHFB also killed off some of their diversity and some of the benefit of having 2 core games. While there's still differences between 40k and AoS, I think they're going to appeal to the same crowd and thus AoS is going to cannibalise 40k sales, where as WHFB was different enough to appeal to a wide range of people who might not have been interested in 40k.
After all, they both contain space marines....

The Auld Grump


They are fundamentally the same game, just with slightly different figures. One is set in the far future with psychic magic and high tech weapons, one is set in a fantasy past with magic magic and low tech magic weapons. But beyond that it's really just a case of a large skirmish game that involves infantry, heroes and monsters, with a similar level of tactical depth.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 08:11:40


Post by: shinros


herjan1987 wrote:
While AoS roars in the GW shops to attract new players, a kid on miniwargaming plays 8th Edition Tomb Kings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fnyUofh2_k


Er what? So?


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 08:54:16


Post by: RoperPG


 shinros wrote:
herjan1987 wrote:
While AoS roars in the GW shops to attract new players, a kid on miniwargaming plays 8th Edition Tomb Kings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fnyUofh2_k


Er what? So?

Yeah, I didn't quite get the relevance either.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 09:53:20


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Herzlos wrote:
 TheAuldGrump wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think GW's problem is how they can continue to grow AoS without letting 40K slide into the lavatory pan. They need to be able to fully support at least two core games.
I think killing off WHFB also killed off some of their diversity and some of the benefit of having 2 core games. While there's still differences between 40k and AoS, I think they're going to appeal to the same crowd and thus AoS is going to cannibalise 40k sales, where as WHFB was different enough to appeal to a wide range of people who might not have been interested in 40k.
After all, they both contain space marines....

The Auld Grump


They are fundamentally the same game, just with slightly different figures. One is set in the far future with psychic magic and high tech weapons, one is set in a fantasy past with magic magic and low tech magic weapons. But beyond that it's really just a case of a large skirmish game that involves infantry, heroes and monsters, with a similar level of tactical depth.
Yeah I never said 40k and AoS were exactly alike, in fact I specifically said "While there's still differences between 40k and AoS". I simply make the point that I think they're going to appeal to the same people which makes the diversity of having 2 core games less useful.

There used to be a large number of WHFB who didn't really like 40k, maybe had small armies but never played it, and vice versa plenty of people who liked 40k but had no interest in WHFB. Anecdotally it seems a lot of the people who are interested in AoS are people who were already ardent 40k fans, while many WHFB fans have just moved on completely away from GW.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 10:02:39


Post by: Kilkrazy


I have to say one of the reasons I didn't like AoS is because it is very similar to 40K, which I used to play until 6th edition spoilt it.

If GW introduced an AoSified edition of 40K, I would be all over it like a rash. But I'm not spending hundreds of pounds on fantasy figures for a substitute for the hundreds of pounds worth of 40K figures I already have.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 10:06:46


Post by: Selym


 Bottle wrote:

*Sigh*... Not talking about the mechanics still. If you're new to wargaming they won't at a glance know that difference. Both were generic medieval fantasy, orcs and elves and dwarves with bows and swords and magic. When a new customer used to come in, the GW staffer would ask if they preferred fantasy with Magic and Dragons or Sci-Fi with Tanks and Robots, if they choose fantasy then were then asked if they'd prefer Lord of the Rings or GW's own fantasy game and if they replied with "Which one should I play?" or "What's the difference between them?" couldn't really be answered without going into needless detail or confusing them.
If that's true, your GW manager had a really poor understanding of the product lines.

LotR: A skirmish battle game set in J.R.R Tolkein's LotR universe, [short description of mechanics].

WHFB: A massed battle game set in GW's Warhammer universe, where players take up large armies lined up in formations and battle eachother for control of [Name of the WHFB world].

You can then go into an overview of the lores of each universe.

Simples.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
It might have been seen as a strategic error by GW ever to have taken on the LoTR licence, but the game was very successful and helped to power GW's glory years back in the early 2000s.

Clearly if there was confusion between LoTR and WHFB back then it actually helped the company.

The more obvious distinction between AoS and LoTR would seem to argue for both games being core lines now.

However, as it seems that GW are having difficulty in properly supporting two core games, it may be wiser for them not to try and support three.
They could have release years.

2017: Wh40k releases; new edition, full codex update, month-by-month model line releases/updates.

2018: LotR releases

2019: AoS Releases

2020: Wh40k Releases

That way, when you buy stuff, you can be sure to get a good 2-3 years out of it before anything changes.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 10:37:49


Post by: Kilkrazy


I like the idea of stopping constant change but it doesn't seem realistic to not release anything for 40K for two to three years. New stuff doesn't have to change the game, though.

I do think GW have a fundamental problem with 40K. It has clearly been losing players and sales for several years, now, essentially since 6th edition was released, and this is despite -- or perhaps because of the huge amount of new stuff released (until the last year) that kept changing the game.

At any rate, if the product line that forms 80% of your company is losing users at 5% a year, something needs to be done.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 10:57:05


Post by: tneva82


 Selym wrote:
They could have release years.


This has been basically what they have had...Pre-AOS very little FB releases, lots of 40k releases. This year lots of AOS releases, thin on 40k.

What it resulted in? FB sales were murdered and this year 40k sales seems to have tanked big time.

No. They need to keep excitement going on _both_ systems every year.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 11:12:01


Post by: Kilkrazy


40K sales have been declining since 6th edition if not before. I don't think it has a direct correlation to the number of new releases. It is to do with "quality" and price more than anything.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 11:28:02


Post by: Bottle


-


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 11:28:12


Post by: hobojebus


6th was a bad edition that followed a good one, 7th was salt in the wound it's no wonder people got disgruntled really.

Add ever increasing prices it's no wonder things are spiralling downwards.


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 11:41:21


Post by: Kilkrazy


In my opinion things started to go wrong with the rapid price increases of the late 2000s. That generated a lot of complaint and resentment.

GW have to some extent got around that in the past few years by associating price increases with new and/or revised kit releases. For example the cost of Tau Fire Warriors rose from £12 in 2004 to £22 (?) in 2012, but the new Fire Breacher kit is £30. It's a lot more expensive but at least it is a completely new sculpt and offers different options, though I know many players still don't think it is good VFM. Likewise the Imperial Knight Titans sold like hot cakes, despite a very high price tag.

The killer is that from 6th edition, not only did the rules change a lot in ways many veterans didn't like, but also, the cost of rulebooks increased massively. In particular, codexes doubled in price for no reason. As I've mentioned before in other threads, if I don't like the new rules, and the cost of the new books, pretty soon my existing army is out of date and I've got no reason to buy any new models for it.

From that point in time, GW's annual reports have been unable to obscure an obvious decline in 40K sales which continues in this latest report.

(There is inflation to think about as well, but of course while general price inflation in the UK economy continued quite rapidly between 2008 and 2014, wage inflation was basically stagnant, and real incomes fell rapidly behind the curve.)


GW Financials - page 30 latest @ 2016/07/29 13:15:02


Post by: Nithaniel


GW has almost returned to its routes of being a mailorder (web order) that substitutes advertising costs with the costs of its stores. Its business plan states that it relies on its stores to generate new business.

Thats insane. I think there are plenty of kids and even a few adults that would realy enjoy the hobby but they'll never know about it unless one of their mates plays and drags them into a store.

They need to market their product even if this is online only marketing.

Cost increases however are still roughly in line with inflation. They were a very expensive hobby in the 90's and they are now still a very expensive hobby!