Switch Theme:

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

Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/01 17:11:31


Post by: Davor


I have been using the term Smoke and Mirrors a lot last year when it came to Games Workshop on their changes. Now that 8th edition for 40K is out and seeing the prices come in now, besides the better rules, and community involvement, has Games Workshop really learned their lesson? By that I mean $45 Canadian dollars for one figure. Then for a "web exclusive" only you can buy 2 minis for $90. So what is so web exclusive or savings for that from buying separately at your local friendly gaming store?

To me this is same ole same ole GW from the past. Maybe because it's 40K and GW knows they can get away with it, but you would think from all the good they were doing, they wouldn't want to do a "step back" so soon. Just coming back to 40K and seeing the great stuff GW was doing, these prices are putting the breaks to my excitement getting back. Before I would buy GW products after not buying their stuff pre 2016. Now I am leary of going full steam back into 8th edition now. I guess time will tell.

So do you think GW is going back to old way to milk and fleece 40K? Yes I know, GW is a company to make money, but there are other companies out there, that make lots of money for selling a lot less. I still don't see 40K as the "Premium" game and to be charging the "premium" prices I just shake my head. I mean over $100 Canadian with taxes for two small minis just seem ludicrous and insane.

What are your thoughts on two minis for almost $100? What are your thoughts on GW going back to their old ways in pricing and seeing they haven't learned one of the reasons we stopped buying was because of price increases and crazy prices.

Davor


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/01 17:38:47


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


I'd never expect a web exclusive to be cheaper than buying elsewhere.....

but the prices are higher than I'm comfortable with even for a single character mini (especially as there's not an excuse that they're a character you'd only ever want one of like Draigo)

on the other hand they're NOT going back to their old pricing (ie everything is expensive) as we've got some pretty reasonably priced other starter versions coming up next week

they may well be looking to see if people will pay more for the new Primeris (they can't just ask, people would just say no even if it wasn't true), its important info for the company to have (I'm sure the Fyreslayer prices were a similar question for AoS and there then answer was NO)

so people should avoid buying them


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/01 22:05:39


Post by: Davor


Good points there Orlando. So GW is testing the waters what they can get away with, with 40K. I know I will be voting with my wallet and not buying them. The price for a single mini over $35 Canadian is just turning me off now and leaving a bad taste in my mouth.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/01 22:34:24


Post by: Azazelx


They're better than they were, mostly via bundle packaging such as Start Collecting, and boxed games that are stealth-miniatures-compilation boxes. Their community engagement is far, far better than it was, but they're still a large corporate entity.

But they're not the GW of 1989, or even 1999. Anyone expecting such is deluding themselves with unrealistic expectations and ideas. Even under Ansell, they were run as a business and not our friend. There's an article (on RoC '80's, I think) that describes when one particular employee figured that leader/hero models could be sold for more even though they cost the same to produce (in lead), and passed that idea to Ansell, who ran with it, leading to the market standard that we now have across all games.

People were complaining about their pricing back in the mid-1990s, so nothing has changed there except that they got worse. As Orlando said, they're not ever going to be dialling it back to "only" a bit bad. "Better than Kirby" is as good as we're going to get, and we know, that particular bar was pretty low...


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/01 23:43:50


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


Has anyone thought maybe the high price for the Primaris characters is because they have their rules in the box as well?


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/02 00:25:59


Post by: insaniak


I think they've learnt a lesson, which is that if you're going to call your game a 'premium' product, you have to actually put some effort into making it. And because it's a game, that means the rules as well, not just churning out a stream of pretty miniatures.

I don't think that 'Your products are over-priced' is a lesson that they're at all receptive to, yet. And whether or not it's one they actually need to learn remains to be seen... the fact that you or I, or anyone else on this forum thinks the minis are still too expensive is not automatically a sign that they are too expensive. It's possible that the excitement for 8th edition will be sufficient to bring in enough newcomers with bottomless wallets to keep things on the up for them.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/02 00:44:19


Post by: Azazelx


 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Has anyone thought maybe the high price for the Primaris characters is because they have their rules in the box as well?


I doubt that makes any difference at all. It's simply going to be on one page of their assembly instructions, after all. Their rules will doubtlessly be in the Codex: Space Marines book that we'll have in hand inside 2 months, not to mention all over the web shortly before the official release. I think it's much more likely that they're simply testing the waters on the wave of enthusiasm that 8th has generated.

I think Inasniak's point on a lesson learned is also a good one, along with being a more outwardly friendly and receptive company with social media, etc. So they've gotten better in some ways, including pricing - at least in the manner I discussed earlier.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/02 00:57:36


Post by: Chute82


 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Has anyone thought maybe the high price for the Primaris characters is because they have their rules in the box as well?


Yeah the 1 cent baseball card they could print the rules on raised the price


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/02 01:01:30


Post by: HumblePenitent


They're about to post some remarkable financials, possibly the best they've ever recorded as a public company.

What lesson do we think we've taught them about pricing that they haven't listened to?

I read a lot more than I post, but I've quietly dispaired of people who've been vocallly critical of GW, often prominently about the prices, who then just crumble and throw money as soon as the "right" sort of shiny hits the pre release part of the web store.

From my perspective, the only thing GW have been taught, and they learned it a long time ago, is if people are sufficiently excited by a product, they can charge pretty much what they like and be sure of making money.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/02 04:17:50


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


 Chute82 wrote:
 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Has anyone thought maybe the high price for the Primaris characters is because they have their rules in the box as well?


Yeah the 1 cent baseball card they could print the rules on raised the price


As opposed to the nickel's worth of plastic already there? Costs don't really determine their prices, its perceived value. But thanks for the condescension.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/02 09:56:38


Post by: Stormonu


They are starting to do better in some areas, but not the important ones.

The indexes feel like the right sort of price for what you get, and the free 8-page rules is a start.

But it feels like they went the wrong direction with the rules - going for stripped down instead of straightened up - and the models are still fairly expensive. Moreso than they should be, I believe.

Have they learned anything? Yep, that the new shiny sells, and if you offer the same thing at multiple price points folks will buy a copy of each version. Not sure it's gone much beyond that.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/02 22:12:48


Post by: Azazelx


Stripped down, or streamlined is exactly what 40k needed in terms of rules at this point. 6th/7th has been the polar opposite of accessible to new (and returning) players. But far more important has been the barrier to new blood.

The rules have been a huge barrier to entry for new players for years, particularly younger ones where they're competing directly with Sony and Microsoft for youth entertainment dollars (though Sony and MS are hardly needing to compete with GW).


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/03 12:24:39


Post by: Peregrine


 Azazelx wrote:
Stripped down, or streamlined is exactly what 40k needed in terms of rules at this point. 6th/7th has been the polar opposite of accessible to new (and returning) players. But far more important has been the barrier to new blood.

The rules have been a huge barrier to entry for new players for years, particularly younger ones where they're competing directly with Sony and Microsoft for youth entertainment dollars (though Sony and MS are hardly needing to compete with GW).


The problem is that 40k has been stripped down in terms of strategic depth but hasn't really lost much complexity. The core rules are shorter, but now each individual unit has its own special snowflake rules to copy most of the old USRs. And with so many weapons having random stats it's even harder for a new player (or even an experienced player who doesn't feel like doing the math) to figure out what option is best. It's not really that much friendlier to new players, and I suspect that with time people are going to realize that it's not a very good game for more experienced players either.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/03 12:47:12


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 insaniak wrote:
I think they've learnt a lesson, which is that if you're going to call your game a 'premium' product, you have to actually put some effort into making it. And because it's a game, that means the rules as well, not just churning out a stream of pretty miniatures.


I think GW has learnt two lessons in recent days:

1. They don't own what they think they own (that court case proved that).
2. Social media is a good way of seeming to be doing good without needing to do good.

In the case of the former, their response was to burn their longest legacy to the ground and salt the earth, replacing it with Age of Sigmar. They're following that up in 40K with the Primaris, essentially abandoning the product line that kept them in business for larger and more expensive models. They learnt to not put out rules for things that don't have models, which was a real "Careful what you wish for!" moment for a lot of us who thought that the court case would see them finally release models for things that just had rules. We got the opposite, and this bizarre "No models, no rules" nonsense reached its nadir (or zenith, depending on your point of view) with the Deathwatch Codex, a book full of so many utterly arbitrary and asinine restrictions that they still linger in the new edition (DW Chaplains can't have powerfists, DW Librarians cannot have Storm Shield, but only if they're in Terminator armour, etc).

To put it simply: I'm tired of breathing the smoke.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/03 13:26:37


Post by: Wayniac


I think they have improved small things, but the core things are still bad and show no sign of improvement. A lot of good things they did with AOS (such as freely available warscrolls) was removed from 40k, seemingly just because they know 40k is more popular and they can get away with it. Them putting out an FAQ is good, but there's a lot of glaring issues still that have no fixes or, if intended, are nonsensical and most of it was saying you can't abuse the rules.

So for me, I think they've improved but it's still mostly smoke and mirrors, just less smoke and mirrors than before.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/03 14:59:34


Post by: Genoside07


Just look at what GW did late last year with the "earn points to buy" miniatures. I loved the new Chaplin Terminator that was release and the information
being released that it was available at new store opening. My sister in law lived in an area that just got a store so I asked her to go there to pick one up for me.
She found out that you had to collect points buy either buying merchandise or signing up for games. She would need to spend $250 just to be able to purchase
the figure. I passed.

As for lower entry cost and model count for newer players in the new 40k; I don't really see it either. If a player wasn't sure what he wanted to play and just bought the main box
set, he would then have to turn around and buy $125 more of books. I know many old timers that went this route and bought everything. I am sure that a few of the books will
be obsolete with in six months.

AOS was no better with the free rules, The product was correctly valued though.. Remember the train wreak it was when it came out?? There was not way many people
would have gave the game a look if not for being free. If a new player needed to spend the same amount for AOS as the current 40k release, I think the game would have never
recovered.

Not wanting to start another AOS verses the world thread, just agreeing that though GW has gotten better in many things. They are still troubled to reach levels of their past.
Things like the White Dwarf Magazine and Warhammer was great before and was high rated in most people's eyes.. they allowed it to drop way before fixing it and returning to a better place.
So it was an 8, dropped to a 2 then raised back to a 5... GW can now say they are doing better than before..


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/04 15:47:53


Post by: Geifer


Smoke and mirrors going on? That's a clear yes and no.

They're doing marketing now. Not just any marketing, but the ever so popular everything we do is awesome marketing. It's easy to get caught up in the high spirits, but of course we are being lied to. Sometimes more heinously than other times. But of course, with marketing they are certainly not straight with us. They're trying to sell us a narrative, that of New GW. The good guy who listens to and values your opinion.

On the other hand, as a perk of being a publicly traded company, Rountree was so nice to tell us that there would be no price drops but that they would look into how they can make pricing more attractive, which ended up as bundle deals and more expensive overall, but cheaper per miniature reboxings. Sure, financial reports aren't immune to stretching the truth as far as legally possible, but overall, GW has been pretty straight with us.

GW hasn't changed because they are suddenly listening to us. They've been listening alright, but to their accountants telling them all the crap they pulled under Kirby wasn't sustainable. GW still obeys economic laws. They had to make their product more attractive to us, because at the end of the day, us customers are the ones from which they get their money. But I think it's a grave mistake to buy into their marketing. They have the opportunity to sell their change of direction as listening to us, and so they do, but I see nothing in New GW that isn't easier explained as a product of internal assessment than market research:

- The same crew that ran 7th ed 40k and 8th ed Fantasy into the ground is still at it. Background and rules have been burned to the ground, and the earth has been salted. There has been complete shift from the previous target group to a different one, with sweeping changes that do not consider the old customer base at all (presumably) because it has been eroded to the point where building up a new customer base and perhaps bringing some of the old one over is more viable than repairing the damaged relationship with the old one.
- Prices have not dropped. The image of a premium product is still maintained by having stupidly high prices. The only concession is a range of starter products because GW had to admit that customers have to be won over before they can be milked instead of just flocking to GW awesomeness, as was Kirby's approach.
- GW keeps an iron grip on the narrative, both through consistently positive emotional appeal in their marketing as well as removing critical posts on their facebook pages. This naturally extends to their financial reports, in which they are no failures, just manageable challenges with suggested solutions.

I see none of this influenced by customer input. Neither vocal nor majority customer opinion. I do believe that internal evaluation did involve market research (shocking, I know, but let's not hold Kirby to his word too much) into how they might change both Warhammers into something modern youth is interested in. As far as I'm concerned, and bear with me here as I'm using sweeping and probably incorrect imagery here (no offense, comic fans ), is that they changed the background to a super hero comic universe in which only the big names matter, those big names can be everywhere at once to battle other big names, a straightened good versus evil narrative and false drama (bad guys stomp face, good guys pull magic trick out of their arse, win in the nick of time against impossible odds - every time). On the gaming side, the streamlined core rules and the advertised bespoke unit rules are geared towards presenting each unit as something special in a very basic framework, allowing players to pick their hero team with exactly those special rules rules that appeal to the player (I differ in my assessment of this to others who correctly suggest that thanks to stuffing special rules into unit rules, no actual streamlining has happened, in that I believe the design behind this is not to streamline and as such a failure on GW's part, but a calculated effort to sell a hero unit with special powers for something that would in any sane ruleset be a normal line unit). I see this as an effort to move away from army creation in the classic sense to a more deck building system you can get in card and video games.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/04 19:21:06


Post by: Vertrucio


I agree with similar middle road statements. GW is still a business, and the people running it are still businessmen. However, the people in charge are capable businessmen instead of just men that happen to be in charge and entrenched both in ownership and money making.

All these changes recently is only motivated by the fact that they have a hugely popular product that is easy to sell and want to sell it, it's just that the people who got in the way of selling product have stepped back.

However, if some of those actual good business decisions happen to align with consumer interest, fine by me so long as people get what they want for the premium they've been paying.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/05 06:30:12


Post by: silent25


Except that you haven't been paying attention and this has been standard pricing for two sprue characters for a while now. The Tzaangor Shaman on Disk, Changling, Lord Castellant, Lord Cellestant, and Ahriman all say hi. Those are all similar sized or similar sprue count characters that go for $35 to $40. In that time they have also still released a number of $25 characters. That these NuMarines are larger models that require two sprues up their cost. Is it pricey? Yes it is. Does it mean that GW is gouging us? No more than what has been the case over the past year plus since the new CEO took over. The prices are in line with what they have been releasing. No new sinister plan to gouge everyone beyond what was already normal.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/07 04:18:56


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


If you're referring to the primaris librarian and primaris captain, I have a personal theory for why those were bundled with no discount.

Basically, I think they were thinking that they would quickly sell out on pre-order, and basically created a "one click" option to attempt to ease people's fears that one would sell out while adding the other to the cart. . . or something.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/07 04:38:20


Post by: Mitochondria


Prices continue to be their weakest area.

Starter bundles are great if you are starting. However, no one uses the models from the starters very often.

The "good" stuff is highly overpriced.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/07 18:11:01


Post by: Azazelx


 Genoside07 wrote:
Just look at what GW did late last year with the "earn points to buy" miniatures. I loved the new Chaplin Terminator that was release and the information
being released that it was available at new store opening. My sister in law lived in an area that just got a store so I asked her to go there to pick one up for me.
She found out that you had to collect points buy either buying merchandise or signing up for games. She would need to spend $250 just to be able to purchase
the figure. I passed.


Agreed. gak like that is ridiculous.



As for lower entry cost and model count for newer players in the new 40k; I don't really see it either. If a player wasn't sure what he wanted to play and just bought the main box
set, he would then have to turn around and buy $125 more of books. I know many old timers that went this route and bought everything. I am sure that a few of the books will
be obsolete with in six months.


Ridiculous example. No new player is that stupid that they're going to spend $125 on all of the index books to have a look because they're not sure what they want to play. I am an old timer and bought them all (including the FW ones), but then, I have all of the armies, so c'est la vie.



AOS was no better with the free rules, The product was correctly valued though.. Remember the train wreak it was when it came out?? There was not way many people
would have gave the game a look if not for being free. If a new player needed to spend the same amount for AOS as the current 40k release, I think the game would have never
recovered.


AoS was a clusterfeth at launch. However, they did do some things right (free rules) and many things horribly (gimmick rules, no points, etc)



Not wanting to start another AOS verses the world thread, just agreeing that though GW has gotten better in many things. They are still troubled to reach levels of their past.
Things like the White Dwarf Magazine and Warhammer was great before and was high rated in most people's eyes.. they allowed it to drop way before fixing it and returning to a better place.
So it was an 8, dropped to a 2 then raised back to a 5... GW can now say they are doing better than before..


"Better" is all relative, as you say.
I wouldn't ever call pre-weekly WD an 8/10. WD had two real high periods. Those being around the release of Rogue Trader for a few years, and then again during Paul Sawyer's reign as editor. Individual issues and articles outside of those times have of course been great, but overall ...not 8/10.




Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/07 19:33:45


Post by: Galas


They have reboxed the Stormcast Eternals boxes for their infantry lowering the price like 37% per model. So they are willing to learn. You need to vote with your wallet.

A reboxed that actually lowered the price a significant amount per model. Whats the last time have you seen that before they did it with stormcast Liberators, etc...?


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/07 21:13:42


Post by: Geifer


 Galas wrote:
They have reboxed the Stormcast Eternals boxes for their infantry lowering the price like 37% per model. So they are willing to learn. You need to vote with your wallet.

A reboxed that actually lowered the price a significant amount per model. Whats the last time have you seen that before they did it with stormcast Liberators, etc...?


The term you are looking for is Reverse Dire Avengered. They Reverse Dire Avengered those Sigmarines right good!

The principle isn't all that spectacular. They've done this with old unit boxes like Juggernauts upping them from 3 to 6 per box at a lower price per models. Little tree thingies Wood Elves used to have, too. Chaos Marauders, Saurus, too, I think. The thing that sticks out is that they did it with a new Sigmarine kit. That should tell us Sigmarines didn't perform as they were supposed to as the flagship line on the fantasy side.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/07 22:03:50


Post by: Kanluwen


 Geifer wrote:
 Galas wrote:
They have reboxed the Stormcast Eternals boxes for their infantry lowering the price like 37% per model. So they are willing to learn. You need to vote with your wallet.

A reboxed that actually lowered the price a significant amount per model. Whats the last time have you seen that before they did it with stormcast Liberators, etc...?


The term you are looking for is Reverse Dire Avengered. They Reverse Dire Avengered those Sigmarines right good!

The principle isn't all that spectacular. They've done this with old unit boxes like Juggernauts upping them from 3 to 6 per box at a lower price per models. Little tree thingies Wood Elves used to have, too. Chaos Marauders, Saurus, too, I think. The thing that sticks out is that they did it with a new Sigmarine kit. That should tell us Sigmarines didn't perform as they were supposed to as the flagship line on the fantasy side.

Or it could tell you that they listened to feedback.

A lot of people had early on commented that buying Liberators or Prosecutors as their own kit was ill-advised, since they were 5 models for $50 and 3 for something like $60. The kits had new options certainly, but they were easy enough to either convert or kitbash or just plain ignore that people just went for the stuff in the starter set instead.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/08 00:20:10


Post by: CREEEEEEEEED


It doesn't seem like smoke and mirrors to me at all. It seems like there are some genuine improvements GW has made over the last year.
8th, personally, I enjoy as a rule set. Some of it's dumb, (no more fire arcs for vehicles) but it's better than 7th, and unlike some people you occasionally see on dakka, I'm not waiting for GW to be perfect, I want to see them be better, to improve. So rules wise, for me and for a lot of people, (if the local FLGS and dakka are to be trusted) there has been a definite improvement from 7th to 8th.
As regards pricing, some of it is still 'bullgak' (as far as a luxury product's price can be defined as such, more in a moment) but the start collecting boxes or the transport/infantry boxes are good for bulking out your forces easily. Take for example the tau start collecting box and the pathfinder/devilfish box. People are always going to want fire warriors, pathfinders, crisis suits and devilfish. Personally I don't have an ethereal yet so that's a plus too, but even without that, it's normally £45 for three crisis suits (Imo a bit much but that's just personal, links to the above bracket) and with the start collecting, you're effectively buying your crisis suits and getting ten fire warriors plus drones for £5 (and the ethereal but that's more situationally important). As with the 'Optimised Pathfinder Team', normally you're paying a total of £42.50 when buying separately, here you're paying £32.50 for two units you were, as a tau player, almost certainly going to be buying anyway. Obviously this doesn't apply to all factions, eg the SM box is not great unless you want multiple venerable dreads because no one wants multiple same pose terminator captains and if you don't want the dread why not just buy a tactical box. However, on the most part the start collecting boxes are good value, and the combined transport/infantry are all good, unless you drunk an army with neither (which would be a little weird to me, but different strokes for different folks and all that).
As for the pricing of this luxury product, we must remember it is exactly that. A luxury. GW doesn't owe you anything other than the model you get for giving them money. They are a business, not your local wargaming club where everyone's here to have fun. And they can set the prices wherever they please, and provided enough people pay that price and they cover their costs (which is the tens of thousands of pounds to create the moulds, as has been said the plastic and cardboard itself means nothing to them) while making a profit, well bully for them and they aren't going to budge, nor should they, they're there to supply a demand in return for profit, just because you personally disagree with their pricing model means they have to change it for you. So yes, if you do think it's all smoke and mirrors and GW is evil and 'oh god they're ripping us off' then vote with your wallet, and if enough people agree and don't buy, prices will come down in the next batch of models.
Remember though what I said about how I personally don't care if they become perfect, only better? Well look at the pricing this way. In some areas, like the new primaris models, they've kept the same or similar 'bullgak' prices as all the other two sprue character models they've produced recently. But in other areas, they've made the game cheaper with the combination boxes, the start collecting boxes and the boxed games. So for me, on the pricing, it's not all smoke and mirrors, they've genuinely made some improvements, both in terms of intention and in reality.
And as regards "Social media is a good way of seeming to be doing good without needing to do good." Bully for you m8 that you dislike their efforts on social media, but frankly I don't care, especially when it comes to Warhammer TV. Ever since GW set up that channel and the facebook page to go with it, my enjoyment of the hobby has skyrocketed because I have learned so much regarding painting from the free service that GW has provided. Yes it does help them sell models, so 'oh look smoke and mirrors, ooooo the deception' but I don't mind. I can use the techniques I've learnt on any model range. I choose to paint mainly GW stuff, but that doesn't preclude what they've done being of genuine value to both mine and I'm sure others' enjoyment of the hobby.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/08 07:26:33


Post by: LunarSol


They've definitely improved, but that doesn't mean they've necessary become the company you want them to be. People are excited because things are trending upward, but that trend isn't necessarily going to rise to meet your expectations, its just exciting to be on an upward swing.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/08 10:13:45


Post by: StygianBeach


Agree, with LunarSol. They are better now and that is good enough for the moment. If they roll back the embargo and move all their printing to the UK/EU (other 1st world country) then I will have very little to gripe about.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/08 11:29:38


Post by: Orlanth


GW's pricing is all over the place, and that is smarter than it first looks.

Kirby was 99% wrong, but price hikes did help GW a little, or they would not have perpetuated the policy. Now there are several levels of pricing, cheaper bundle deals that are spammable, average priced unit and character boxes/blisters and some individual character boxes which are heavily priced.

You can have a large army of Primaris without much cost if you repeat buy the 40K starter components, or buy the Getting Started sets,you can add variety at reasonable price by buying a different unit or two in boxsets, if you want to you can pay through the nose for a different character model not otherwise available.

GW win both ways, those on tight budgets can cost up ad buy an army for 8th or AOS effectively, those who need their plastic crack habit can pay what GW charges for the maximum variety in their collection, most players will end up somewhere between the two.

Furthermore those on a tight budget might still impulse buy an overpriced character box at a later time swallow the cost and feel fairly good about it as a they get to complete their collections. As for the correct gripes the Primaris Captain is window dressing, you can make up officers of any rank from the boxset officers. The Librarian is somewhat more problematic, but a gamer n a budget will convert and those conversions will be valid for play if based on genuine Primaris marines. By highlighting select character boxsets as the high price items GW is not constraining anyone to a corner, if you need them for your collection kitbash them, or buy them. Its not like they are putting a high tier price (relative) on Tacticals.

A tiered price structure works, and it is smart business.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/08 12:18:10


Post by: Geifer


 Kanluwen wrote:
 Geifer wrote:
 Galas wrote:
They have reboxed the Stormcast Eternals boxes for their infantry lowering the price like 37% per model. So they are willing to learn. You need to vote with your wallet.

A reboxed that actually lowered the price a significant amount per model. Whats the last time have you seen that before they did it with stormcast Liberators, etc...?


The term you are looking for is Reverse Dire Avengered. They Reverse Dire Avengered those Sigmarines right good!

The principle isn't all that spectacular. They've done this with old unit boxes like Juggernauts upping them from 3 to 6 per box at a lower price per models. Little tree thingies Wood Elves used to have, too. Chaos Marauders, Saurus, too, I think. The thing that sticks out is that they did it with a new Sigmarine kit. That should tell us Sigmarines didn't perform as they were supposed to as the flagship line on the fantasy side.

Or it could tell you that they listened to feedback.

A lot of people had early on commented that buying Liberators or Prosecutors as their own kit was ill-advised, since they were 5 models for $50 and 3 for something like $60. The kits had new options certainly, but they were easy enough to either convert or kitbash or just plain ignore that people just went for the stuff in the starter set instead.


The question isn't whether they listen to feedback or not, but whose feedback they listen to. Of course they listen. They have trained businessmen working for them who should have a reasonable idea of what they're doing. GW has been around long enough that you should assume they didn't stay in business through sheer luck.

"Voting with your wallet" is customer feedback, but not very specific. If you don't buy, GW doesn't know why you don't buy. By and large, they don't even know that you don't buy. Given that many a kit has been criticized over the years for its price, picking out of the constant drone that these two specific kits, and not a single other one, are just that little bit too expensive for customers and as a result GW should lower their price is simply not a plausible scenario. Not when you have competent accountants, sales goals and actual sales for those accountants to draw conclusions from.

Obviously you don't get one without the other. GW interacts with us even if it is as simple as a buy/sell interaction. How we react does not go completely unnoticed by the company. There is no way customer feedback is not a thing, even at the lowest point GW reached. That doesn't mean our feedback has any meaningful impact, though.

 Orlanth wrote:
GW's pricing is all over the place, and that is smarter than it first looks.

Kirby was 99% wrong, but price hikes did help GW a little, or they would not have perpetuated the policy. Now there are several levels of pricing, cheaper bundle deals that are spammable, average priced unit and character boxes/blisters and some individual character boxes which are heavily priced.

You can have a large army of Primaris without much cost if you repeat buy the 40K starter components, or buy the Getting Started sets,you can add variety at reasonable price by buying a different unit or two in boxsets, if you want to you can pay through the nose for a different character model not otherwise available.

GW win both ways, those on tight budgets can cost up ad buy an army for 8th or AOS effectively, those who need their plastic crack habit can pay what GW charges for the maximum variety in their collection, most players will end up somewhere between the two.

Furthermore those on a tight budget might still impulse buy an overpriced character box at a later time swallow the cost and feel fairly good about it as a they get to complete their collections. As for the correct gripes the Primaris Captain is window dressing, you can make up officers of any rank from the boxset officers. The Librarian is somewhat more problematic, but a gamer n a budget will convert and those conversions will be valid for play if based on genuine Primaris marines. By highlighting select character boxsets as the high price items GW is not constraining anyone to a corner, if you need them for your collection kitbash them, or buy them. Its not like they are putting a high tier price (relative) on Tacticals.

A tiered price structure works, and it is smart business.


I can be a working business model. I wouldn't want to speculate whether it's better or worse than some alternatives, but tiered pricing could work to GW's advantage by providing people on a budget a relatively inexpensive way of building a a functioning, if potentially dull army while speaking to the desire of others to stand out and personalize their army with special, albeit expensive units.

It solves one of GW's biggest problems, getting a player base large enough to draw in more customers on its own. That's been missing in the last decade and bundle deals are finally winning people back.

And at the same time anyone who wants anything special and customized has to reach deeper into their pockets, but gets to have their super special army that's different from the plain standard.

It's much cleverer to have a premium section next to an affordable baseline. Much better than being all premium all the time as they tried before.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/08 13:06:48


Post by: Rolsheen


GW has improved a lot since the Dark Lord left. The new edition of both systems is a vast improvement. The interaction with the community has taken a giant leap, the new community website, Duncan's videos, listening to genuine feedback. The pricing has always been contentious, but with the new starter sets, start collecting boxes, online retailers deal, it is easier to get into the hobby than it has been for the last decade. I think GW has started valuing their customers more, but also understand they can't make everyone happy and they ignore the customers who just complain for the sake of complaining.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/11 14:11:36


Post by: Arbitrator


The bar for improvement was so low already that even the smallest changes were going to look pretty good by contrast.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/11 18:32:00


Post by: Barfolomew


I pulled a random Tau list from the forums as that is an army that interests me that should be relatively low model count.

2000 Points
Commander with 2x DX-4 Drones - $50
3x Crisis Suit with 6x Drones - $75
3x Crisis Suit with 6x Drones - $75
3x Broadside - $150
3x Commanders in detachment - $150

Total = $500

Does not include paint, books or adding any models for some options. Additions of 1 in each category for mild options:

1x Ethereal - $16
1x Riptide - $85
1x Fire Warrior team - $50
1x Pathfinder team - $35
1x Hammerhead - $60

Total of $246

Grand Total $746 for 2000 points with an option at each slot. Still needs paint, books and miscellaneous items. That is still way to high.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/11 18:36:33


Post by: Desubot


Im pretty sure quite a lot of the management and rules department learned some sort of lessen

the bean counters though?

bean counters never change.

the double character bundle is a garbage web bundle designed to catch parents thinking that its a deal for little timmy.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/12 12:22:52


Post by: auticus


Per several polls in the past on various sites, the average amount a player is willing to spend on an army in any system is $250.

GW games will never be that.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/12 12:45:26


Post by: Ragnar69


Honestly if you are in it just for the game, I think you have chosen poorly. Collecting/assembling/painting is part of the "value" as well.

You also have to see the long term. I don't have any other hobby where I still have a benefit from money spent over 20 years ago.

Plus, whenever I hear what my friends and colleagues spend on their hobbies, I always cringe


PS: I spent much more nowadays, so GW must have done something right. I'm by no means a rabid fanboy, I even completely stopped buying/playing from early 4th to start of 6th edition because I was so fed up with GW. So I would say they have definately improved a lot.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/13 00:42:07


Post by: Peregrine


Barfolomew wrote:
Grand Total $746 for 2000 points with an option at each slot. Still needs paint, books and miscellaneous items. That is still way to high.


I really don't see that. You're talking about a list for the highest normal point value, plus even more options to customize that list, for $750. Add in paint and rules and you're probably still under $1000 for a "complete" collection. Are you aware of the costs of other hobbies? $1000 isn't a trivial amount of money, but it's very easy to spend that on other hobbies. Even going out for dinner and drinks will quickly add up to $1000. And when you consider how many hours of entertainment that $1000 is going to provide the GW purchase looks like a pretty good deal.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/13 01:12:32


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Peregrine wrote:
And when you consider how many hours of entertainment that $1000 is going to provide the GW purchase looks like a pretty good deal.
That's only a good measure of entertainment value if you have a lot of free time to kill or REALLY enjoy repetitive tasks like cleaning mould lines and painting slight variations of the same model a couple of hundred times


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 auticus wrote:
Per several polls in the past on various sites, the average amount a player is willing to spend on an army in any system is $250.

GW games will never be that.
Wasn't there a huge poll a few years back and the average amount people spent in a year on 40k was more like $700 or some such? It was a really big poll that someone made on an external site and then linked to in several forums. I remember being shocked at the average (given how many people took the poll who were retired vets spending $0 or close to $0).


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/13 01:39:30


Post by: Peregrine


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
That's only a good measure of entertainment value if you have a lot of free time to kill or REALLY enjoy repetitive tasks like cleaning mould lines and painting slight variations of the same model a couple of hundred times


Ok, so don't count the tedious cleanup time. Even just looking at the gaming time it looks pretty good, as once you've spent that $1000 you're set for a long time. If you play 20 games of 40k at ~3 hours per game you're paying about $16 per hour, a cost that seems pretty reasonable compared to "cheap" things like going out for dinner or a movie. And most people are going to play more than 20 games over their entire involvement in 40k, and get some enjoyment from all of the painting/list building/etc hours that happen outside of the game time. That brings the cost per hour down even more.

And that's just comparing 40k to "cheap" everyday things, not even expensive adult hobbies. Looking at my hobby choices 40k seems pretty cost-effective. That $1000 for a whole 40k army buys a new camera lens or two, a weekend trip somewhere by plane (but not too far, at $170/hour, and no hotels/entertainment/etc while I'm there), or a full buy-in to Armada that I'm considering. Buy a nice car? Have fun paying 40k levels of cash every month just on the loan payments. Want a vacation somewhere? You could probably buy multiple 40k armies for that price. Etc. The price of playing 40k once you're committed to it is simply not that much. The real problem is not the ongoing price relative to other hobbies, it's the up-front cost to a new player who has no idea if they even like the game.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/13 18:22:07


Post by: Herzlos


 Peregrine wrote:
And most people are going to play more than 20 games over their entire involvement in 40k, and get some enjoyment from all of the painting/list building/etc hours that happen outside of the game time. That brings the cost per hour down even more.


I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't. Since I rejoined gaming about 8 years ago, with the budget for the $1000 buy in, I think I must have only played 40K about 10 times before I stopped. I probably played dozens of games as a kid, though, but no budget.

Compared to Malifaux, which I've probably spent $300 on and played about 12 games in the last 3 years. Or Flames Of War which I've spent maybe $300 on and played at least 10 games in the last years. GW can be good value for money, particularly if you play a starter set army, but other gaming companies are usually even better.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/14 17:44:13


Post by: Barfolomew


 Peregrine wrote:
Barfolomew wrote:
Grand Total $746 for 2000 points with an option at each slot. Still needs paint, books and miscellaneous items. That is still way to high.


I really don't see that. You're talking about a list for the highest normal point value, plus even more options to customize that list, for $750. Add in paint and rules and you're probably still under $1000 for a "complete" collection. Are you aware of the costs of other hobbies? $1000 isn't a trivial amount of money, but it's very easy to spend that on other hobbies. Even going out for dinner and drinks will quickly add up to $1000. And when you consider how many hours of entertainment that $1000 is going to provide the GW purchase looks like a pretty good deal.

As someone who has played and spent time in the hobby, that is why I used the numbers I did.

Variable that increase or decrease price:
- Points played at your local store or play group is what dictates how many points you need. Most groups I played with used tournament points as the standard value (ITC is 2000). You can always go down, but its hard to go up.
- You have to have some options in the list or it gets very boring to play or the army will get shelved.
- Time value of money isn't factored in AND time has to be invested in the army to even allow it to hit the table. A new purchase is not table read.

For this discussion, I won't even count the time value of money, where a squad typically takes about 10 man hours before it can hit the table. We'll assume the joy offsets the cost.

What does $1000 get you in other hobbies in the same vein?

40K Army - If someone buys a new army for $1000 and plays it twice every other week, about 50 games a year and does so for 2 years, that comes out to $10 per game. A game takes 2 hours, so $5 per hour in the cost. That is a pretty dedicated play mind you.

MTG Draft - Weekly cost is $15 for 4 hours of play. $3.75 per hour.

DnD play group - Players Handbook is $50, most sessions are 4 hours occurring every other week for this example. $0.5 per hour

X-wing miniature game - $250, which you will only need to play 50 games, I'm being generous, to equal a 40K army's 200 games.

Typical video - $60 for 20 hours = $3 per hour, call it $4 if you include system

More engrossing video game like WoW - Cost is $150 for 6 months of subscription and expansion, when played for 10 hours a week over 6 months, it is $0.58 per hour, even if $2 when you include the computer, it is far less.

The only hobbies 40k beats in terms of cost are stuff like golf, skiing, shooting, some types of hunting and fishing, motor sports and travel.

I'm not saying 40K is a bad hobby or those who play it don't get their enjoyment out of it, but I am saying that it is too expensive for the market it is playing in and prohibitively expensive for new players and players looking to grow within the hobby.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
The price of playing 40k once you're committed to it is simply not that much. The real problem is not the ongoing price relative to other hobbies, it's the up-front cost to a new player who has no idea if they even like the game.
This is true, but unless you have a large and diverse army which you are completely happy with AND manage to dodge rule changes which severely impact the game, chances are you'll need to spend a couple hundred a year. In addition, if you are part of an active play group, you'll probably want to pick up a second or third army for no other reason than to have something different to play.

I haven't play 40k since 5th edition for various reasons. I own a huge CSM army. For me to return to the hobby I need to buy:
- Core rules - $60
- Index: Chaos - $20
- At least 1 Helldrake cause it seems to be mandatory in order to have a remotely decent list - $74

Total: $154 for a game I might not even like that much. Granted I could probably play with someone else's rules initially, but I find that rather steep.

In addition, while I am not 100$ confident in this remark, GW has crapped on CSM that last 3 editions, so I have little confidence they haven't continued that trend. Due to this, I assume that if I returned to 40K, it would be under the premise of a new army because I would probably want one. That new army would be Imperial Guard (gasp!) or Tau.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/15 11:37:24


Post by: Chikout


The pricing on that tau list is not accurate. Firstly you can knock 15% off the total price at most independent retailers. Secondly a couple of start collecting boxes will also reduce the overall spend. Also a list largely composed character models is usually more expensive.

If you factor in painting time that price per hour comes down considerably. It is also worth mentioning that a well painted army has a pretty good resale value. If you take your time and paint it well you can probably sell it for as much as you paid for it.
In terms of good pricing moves this week has seen two. The first is the fyreslayers sc box which is a straight discount for the magmadroth and some extra minis thrown in.
The second is the ebook version of the path to glory book being half the price of the physical version.

As for the on ramp for new players it is cheaper to get stated than ever with the mini box sets, which are enough for someone to learn if they like the idea of pushing minis around a table.
GW still has a very high price cap but no more so than many other hobbies.
Where they have improved, is by giving more options at the other end of the price scale with bloodbowl, skirmish, shadow war, the intro box sets, standalone games like gorechosen and gangs of commoragh. This seems likely to continue with Shadespire and adeptus Titanicus on the way.

So we have a very beginner friendly game in AoS with lots of ways to play as you build your force and a reasonably balanced rule set with a thriving tournament scene. We have a pretty well regarded version of bloodbowl with regular updates. We have Continued support for lotr. We have an expanding range of decent standalone games. We have an improved white dwarf (though that's not saying much)
We have a decent skirmish version of 40k (though maybe not as good as Necromunda)
We have the heresy game which has maybe had a bit of a dip lately though that is understandable given recent sad news.
We have an increasing range of discounted bundles.
The models are for me the best they have ever been, but that is just down to personal taste.
We have a new edition of 40k but it is much to early to make a judgement call on it yet.
On the downside we have some questionable fluff, some imperfect rules and some very expensive models.
For me GW is doing much better than 5 years ago but still not as good as the 90's to 2000's high with mordheim, Necromunda. BFG, inquisitor, epic and warmaster ( my personal favourite)


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/15 17:00:41


Post by: SilverAlien


Well... as people have pointed out it is a company, a publicly owned one i believe. They aren't going to massively cut their profit margin unless they think it leads to higher sales. Even if they did, the person responsible would be fired for massively hurting their overall profits.

What you can hope for is more models, particularly in starter sets, priced to encourage people to start playing the game or a new army. Which is something they seem to be embracing... albeit a bit slowly.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/15 17:48:04


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Ultimately, it makes no difference to me if GW have improved or not, because there is cheaper and better out there.

Vallejo and Tamiya paints are cheaper and IMO, better than their GW equivalent.

As I type this, I'm looking at a giant bottle of surface primer from Vallejo, and comparing it to the tiny bottle of surface primer I bought from GW a few years back. The difference is night and day and all for a couple of bucks of difference.

And of course, thee are so many games companies out there churning great models, and great games, at far lower prices than GW.

It amazes me that anybody still buys GW products such is the quality and availability of competitor products.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/15 17:56:58


Post by: beast_gts


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It amazes me that anybody still buys GW products such is the quality and availability of competitor products.

Players. In my local area I can't get games of DFC/DZC/Bolt Action/Battletech/etc. but have no problem with 40k/30k/AoS - even Blood Bowl.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/15 18:02:33


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


beast_gts wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It amazes me that anybody still buys GW products such is the quality and availability of competitor products.

Players. In my local area I can't get games of DFC/DZC/Bolt Action/Battletech/etc. but have no problem with 40k/30k/AoS - even Blood Bowl.


I had that problem as well for years, but sometimes taking models along to your club, and running a few demo games can convert people.

For Bolt Action, tell them that the creators used to write the 40k rules. That sometimes helps win people over

I appreciate it's not always easy to run demo games.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/16 01:31:23


Post by: rmeister0


Chikout wrote:
The pricing on that tau list is not accurate. Firstly you can knock 15% off the total price at most independent retailers. Secondly a couple of start collecting boxes will also reduce the overall spend. Also a list largely composed character models is usually more expensive.

If you factor in painting time that price per hour comes down considerably. It is also worth mentioning that a well painted army has a pretty good resale value. If you take your time and paint it well you can probably sell it for as much as you paid for it.


A. Not everybody has local retailers that do discounts.

B. "If you factor in painting time" only matters if you actually enjoy painting. For some people, its more of a chore than a joy.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/16 02:47:16


Post by: Mitochondria


Barfolomew wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Barfolomew wrote:
Grand Total $746 for 2000 points with an option at each slot. Still needs paint, books and miscellaneous items. That is still way to high.


I really don't see that. You're talking about a list for the highest normal point value, plus even more options to customize that list, for $750. Add in paint and rules and you're probably still under $1000 for a "complete" collection. Are you aware of the costs of other hobbies? $1000 isn't a trivial amount of money, but it's very easy to spend that on other hobbies. Even going out for dinner and drinks will quickly add up to $1000. And when you consider how many hours of entertainment that $1000 is going to provide the GW purchase looks like a pretty good deal.

As someone who has played and spent time in the hobby, that is why I used the numbers I did.

Variable that increase or decrease price:
- Points played at your local store or play group is what dictates how many points you need. Most groups I played with used tournament points as the standard value (ITC is 2000). You can always go down, but its hard to go up.
- You have to have some options in the list or it gets very boring to play or the army will get shelved.
- Time value of money isn't factored in AND time has to be invested in the army to even allow it to hit the table. A new purchase is not table read.

For this discussion, I won't even count the time value of money, where a squad typically takes about 10 man hours before it can hit the table. We'll assume the joy offsets the cost.

What does $1000 get you in other hobbies in the same vein?

40K Army - If someone buys a new army for $1000 and plays it twice every other week, about 50 games a year and does so for 2 years, that comes out to $10 per game. A game takes 2 hours, so $5 per hour in the cost. That is a pretty dedicated play mind you.

MTG Draft - Weekly cost is $15 for 4 hours of play. $3.75 per hour.

DnD play group - Players Handbook is $50, most sessions are 4 hours occurring every other week for this example. $0.5 per hour

X-wing miniature game - $250, which you will only need to play 50 games, I'm being generous, to equal a 40K army's 200 games.

Typical video - $60 for 20 hours = $3 per hour, call it $4 if you include system

More engrossing video game like WoW - Cost is $150 for 6 months of subscription and expansion, when played for 10 hours a week over 6 months, it is $0.58 per hour, even if $2 when you include the computer, it is far less.

The only hobbies 40k beats in terms of cost are stuff like golf, skiing, shooting, some types of hunting and fishing, motor sports and travel.

I'm not saying 40K is a bad hobby or those who play it don't get their enjoyment out of it, but I am saying that it is too expensive for the market it is playing in and prohibitively expensive for new players and players looking to grow within the hobby.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
The price of playing 40k once you're committed to it is simply not that much. The real problem is not the ongoing price relative to other hobbies, it's the up-front cost to a new player who has no idea if they even like the game.
This is true, but unless you have a large and diverse army which you are completely happy with AND manage to dodge rule changes which severely impact the game, chances are you'll need to spend a couple hundred a year. In addition, if you are part of an active play group, you'll probably want to pick up a second or third army for no other reason than to have something different to play.

I haven't play 40k since 5th edition for various reasons. I own a huge CSM army. For me to return to the hobby I need to buy:
- Core rules - $60
- Index: Chaos - $20
- At least 1 Helldrake cause it seems to be mandatory in order to have a remotely decent list - $74

Total: $154 for a game I might not even like that much. Granted I could probably play with someone else's rules initially, but I find that rather steep.

In addition, while I am not 100$ confident in this remark, GW has crapped on CSM that last 3 editions, so I have little confidence they haven't continued that trend. Due to this, I assume that if I returned to 40K, it would be under the premise of a new army because I would probably want one. That new army would be Imperial Guard (gasp!) or Tau.



I like your breakdown on price.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/16 11:16:56


Post by: Peregrine


Barfolomew wrote:
The only hobbies 40k beats in terms of cost are stuff like golf, skiing, shooting, some types of hunting and fishing, motor sports and travel.


But beating it isn't really the point, because entertainment choices aren't determined primarily by cost per hour. Whether or not 40k is the best possible cost per hour available it's at least on par with the alternatives in your examples, in the same $5-10/hour range (depending on how you calculate each option's price). Compare that to, say, going out to dinner where you're going to spend $15-20+ for an hour, maybe two at most. But nobody who isn't poor thinks "I can't afford to go out to a low-end restaurant ever, it's so expensive". The simple fact is that 40k is an affordable hobby if you can afford hobbies in general.

And you can't really ignore those expensive hobbies that 40k beats. You're essentially saying "once you exclude all the things that are more expensive than 40k you find that 40k is the most expensive hobby option". Well of course it is, you've carefully crafted the price comparison to "prove" your point. For example, yeah, MTG draft events are pretty cheap, but if you want to keep up with constructed and have any chance at winning you're going to be spending quite a bit more money than 40k costs.

This is true, but unless you have a large and diverse army which you are completely happy with AND manage to dodge rule changes which severely impact the game, chances are you'll need to spend a couple hundred a year. In addition, if you are part of an active play group, you'll probably want to pick up a second or third army for no other reason than to have something different to play.


That's not really what I meant about "committed". I don't mean people who have an entire army, I mean people who have decided that 40k is a game they want to play. 40k has a major price issue for new players, where there's really no option to start playing for less than $500-1000. You have to make that significant financial investment before you can even decide if you like the game. Contrast that with things like MTG, where the long-term price can actually be significantly more expensive than 40k but there are cheap starter options that let you try out the game for a much lower price. But once you make that decision that 40k is a thing you're going to invest in the cost isn't really that much compared to other things you're buying without much second thought.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/16 11:34:40


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It amazes me that anybody still buys GW products such is the quality and availability of competitor products.
It's hard to beat GW for the sheer size and diversity of their ranges. Even if you lump all Space Marines together as 1 faction, there's still got to be, what, 10 to 15 factions in 40k, each of which is pretty well fleshed out. Warhammer has a similarly huge range even after they culled a lot of the old WHFB models.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/16 12:38:18


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It amazes me that anybody still buys GW products such is the quality and availability of competitor products.
It's hard to beat GW for the sheer size and diversity of their ranges. Even if you lump all Space Marines together as 1 faction, there's still got to be, what, 10 to 15 factions in 40k, each of which is pretty well fleshed out. Warhammer has a similarly huge range even after they culled a lot of the old WHFB models.


Historical war gaming has arguably a bigger scale and scope, and is stuffed with high quality products at very competitive prices.

Bolt Action is a prime example. FOW another. They're not perfect, but they're damn good games, and Bolt Action's unit activation system is far superior to anything from GW these days, and it's cheap.

As an example, I have here the FOW Grey Wolf Book and a heavy tank company list.

All I need for a legal army is 1 HQ and two platoon choices = 3 king tiger tanks = 1000+ points.

I can get 3 Zvezda king tigers for 18 British pounds, or 23 US dollars or 30 Australian dollars.

Yeah, it's not a well balanced army, but the models are high quality and it's a very cheap entry cost. Even if I choose to flesh out that force with some infantry, I can get a Plastic soldier infantry company for around 20 British pounds. So getting into the game costs me as little as 40 British pounds, 65 Austrlian dollars or 50 US dollars.

GW could never compete with that.

For Bolt Action, I can buy 38 Perry Miniatures Afrika Korps troops for around £20. That gives me the legal 1 HQ and 2 platoons minimum, and left overs for snipers, a heavy weapon etc etc

High quality miniatures. Compare that to the 10 Cadian shock troops for £20 from GW, and even then you needed at least 30 to make the troop choice legal.

I could do something similar for other games and hobby materials.

My message to everybody else is this: other companies are doing better and cheaper, and most importantly, they listen to their companies. Again, I wonder why anybody would stick to GW. Best hobby decision I ever made was selling off my GW stuff.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/16 13:15:44


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It amazes me that anybody still buys GW products such is the quality and availability of competitor products.
It's hard to beat GW for the sheer size and diversity of their ranges. Even if you lump all Space Marines together as 1 faction, there's still got to be, what, 10 to 15 factions in 40k, each of which is pretty well fleshed out. Warhammer has a similarly huge range even after they culled a lot of the old WHFB models.


Historical war gaming has arguably a bigger scale and scope, and is stuffed with high quality products at very competitive prices.

Bolt Action is a prime example. FOW another. They're not perfect, but they're damn good games, and Bolt Action's unit activation system is far superior to anything from GW these days, and it's cheap.

As an example, I have here the FOW Grey Wolf Book and a heavy tank company list.

All I need for a legal army is 1 HQ and two platoon choices = 3 king tiger tanks = 1000+ points.

I can get 3 Zvezda king tigers for 18 British pounds, or 23 US dollars or 30 Australian dollars.

Yeah, it's not a well balanced army, but the models are high quality and it's a very cheap entry cost. Even if I choose to flesh out that force with some infantry, I can get a Plastic soldier infantry company for around 20 British pounds. So getting into the game costs me as little as 40 British pounds, 65 Austrlian dollars or 50 US dollars.

GW could never compete with that.

For Bolt Action, I can buy 38 Perry Miniatures Afrika Korps troops for around £20. That gives me the legal 1 HQ and 2 platoons minimum, and left overs for snipers, a heavy weapon etc etc

High quality miniatures. Compare that to the 10 Cadian shock troops for £20 from GW, and even then you needed at least 30 to make the troop choice legal.

I could do something similar for other games and hobby materials.

My message to everybody else is this: other companies are doing better and cheaper, and most importantly, they listen to their companies. Again, I wonder why anybody would stick to GW. Best hobby decision I ever made was selling off my GW stuff.


Historical wargames quickly get boring imo. I have a small FoW force, but I really miss the diversity of armies you get in games like 40k, AoS, Dropzone Commander and WarmaHordes. In historical games, every army is basically the same thing.
Historical wargames are always cheaper than fantasy/sci-fi wargames, but they usually tend to draw a different crowd. The vast majority of people that I know play historical wargames would never look at 40k, and vice versa. Not many people like both in my experience. GW and historicals aren't really competitors. They do not draw the same audience.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/16 13:26:51


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


With all due respect, Iron Captain, this is nonsense.

The diversity of historical wargames is vast.

World War 2 is probably the most popular, but from my own collection:

I have skirmish games from the 16th century set in Europe and Japan, the wild west, ancient Rome and Greece etc etc

Large scale Napoleonic battles and American civil war battles.

I have sailing ships fighting in Age of Sail, and now Warlord games are briiging out an X-Wing style, battle of Britain game...

The diversity is as long as my arm.

And on another note, Zvezda is a good Russian company that makes good models. Why aren't you doing your patriotic duty and buying their products?



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/16 13:53:33


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It amazes me that anybody still buys GW products such is the quality and availability of competitor products.
It's hard to beat GW for the sheer size and diversity of their ranges. Even if you lump all Space Marines together as 1 faction, there's still got to be, what, 10 to 15 factions in 40k, each of which is pretty well fleshed out. Warhammer has a similarly huge range even after they culled a lot of the old WHFB models.


Historical war gaming has arguably a bigger scale and scope, and is stuffed with high quality products at very competitive prices.
Unless I was taught bad history, playing a historic wargame doesn't let you pit tanks against demons, space bugs against robots or lizardmen against ratmen.

That's kind of what I meant by "diverse", it allows players with different interests collect an army they like and then pit them against someone else who might have very different tastes.

Don't get me wrong, I like WW2 as a setting, I collect model planes and they're almost exclusively WW2 variety as well as have tiny British and German 15mm forces.... BUT, the scope is limited to an opponent who has a similar interest. When I was trying to get a WW2 game off the ground in my local gaming group it was almost immediately shot down with "nah I have no interest in WW2" from a couple of players and still a couple of other "I would do XXXXX period instead". You can potentially get the same problem with 40k/WHFB (people not wanting sci fi or not wanting fantasy) but it seems to me players seem to be able to find something they like in at least 1 of the armies available.

Bolt Action is a prime example.
Bolt action does have a big range of cheap models, but they will always look weird to me, the proportions are funky and not in a good way. Not that the plastic Cadians are any better, but Cadians are only 1 troop type out of an immense range of 40k models.
FOW another.
For whatever reasion it's hard to get people in to 15mm gaming. I love 15mm for the tanks but it seems many people hate it because of the infantry.

Don't take it the wrong way, I understand the appeal of those other games as well, but you made the statement it amazes you people still buy GW stuff, I'm just giving what I think is one of the biggest reasons why; the diverse options for army selection, the fleshed out ranges within each army and also the fact it has a critical mass thing still going where it's usually not terribly hard to find an opponent.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/16 16:16:47


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Plenty of other companies do fantasy ans sci-fi for cheaper and better than GW IMO.

Osprey wargames books are well written, cheap, cover sci-fi and fantasy, and I would recommend them to anybody.

Malifaux is a great game. Otherworld miniatures, I've been looking into Arcworlde and it looks a nice game. Hell, digging out my old Mordheim rules is another option and I can use miniatures from other nations.

I say again, even if historicals is not your thing, the depth of non-GW competition for fantasy and sci-fi is a joy to behold.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/16 17:10:57


Post by: Hulksmash


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Plenty of other companies do fantasy ans sci-fi for cheaper and better than GW IMO.

Osprey wargames books are well written, cheap, cover sci-fi and fantasy, and I would recommend them to anybody.

Malifaux is a great game. Otherworld miniatures, I've been looking into Arcworlde and it looks a nice game. Hell, digging out my old Mordheim rules is another option and I can use miniatures from other nations.

I say again, even if historicals is not your thing, the depth of non-GW competition for fantasy and sci-fi is a joy to behold.


I do think you're vastly under valuing easily to find games. There are more than a few games out there I would love to play. But I'm a parent of two littles in my 30's and i work the relatively normal 40-45 a week after traffic. That said my gaming time is hyper limited. Building a community for a game simply isn't something I have time to do nor, honestly, do I have an inclination and probably the ability There is a club or two locally but they stick to pretty much KoW/X-wing/Armada/40k/AoS so even there the only non-"mainstream" game is KoW (depending on your area). I basically get to play 1-2 days a month and normally maximize that time with a tournament of some sort. So I'm event limited which means 40k, AoS, Warmachine, X-wing, or Armada. Diversity sounds great if you're lucky enough to be in an area that supports it. I live in the 2nd largest game store per person city in the country (at least in 2015 it was) and if you want tournaments it's still pretty much card games, ffg, or gw. If it's not one of the three almost dont' bother.

And I say that with a 2 fully painted dystopian war fleets, 3 full factions of Wrath of Kings (best f-ing game ever), lots of board games, a Drop Zone fleet (small) and a small DZC force outside of my GW stuff. Guess how much of that comes out of the house and how often? Shoot, I've got 4 5k Epic armies fully painted and I can't entice people into playing it. Sometimes getting games is the most important thing and at least GW of this year is almost unrecognizable from 3 years ago.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/16 17:44:29


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Hulksmash wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Plenty of other companies do fantasy ans sci-fi for cheaper and better than GW IMO.

Osprey wargames books are well written, cheap, cover sci-fi and fantasy, and I would recommend them to anybody.

Malifaux is a great game. Otherworld miniatures, I've been looking into Arcworlde and it looks a nice game. Hell, digging out my old Mordheim rules is another option and I can use miniatures from other nations.

I say again, even if historicals is not your thing, the depth of non-GW competition for fantasy and sci-fi is a joy to behold.


I do think you're vastly under valuing easily to find games. There are more than a few games out there I would love to play. But I'm a parent of two littles in my 30's and i work the relatively normal 40-45 a week after traffic. That said my gaming time is hyper limited. Building a community for a game simply isn't something I have time to do nor, honestly, do I have an inclination and probably the ability There is a club or two locally but they stick to pretty much KoW/X-wing/Armada/40k/AoS so even there the only non-"mainstream" game is KoW (depending on your area). I basically get to play 1-2 days a month and normally maximize that time with a tournament of some sort. So I'm event limited which means 40k, AoS, Warmachine, X-wing, or Armada. Diversity sounds great if you're lucky enough to be in an area that supports it. I live in the 2nd largest game store per person city in the country (at least in 2015 it was) and if you want tournaments it's still pretty much card games, ffg, or gw. If it's not one of the three almost dont' bother.

And I say that with a 2 fully painted dystopian war fleets, 3 full factions of Wrath of Kings (best f-ing game ever), lots of board games, a Drop Zone fleet (small) and a small DZC force outside of my GW stuff. Guess how much of that comes out of the house and how often? Shoot, I've got 4 5k Epic armies fully painted and I can't entice people into playing it. Sometimes getting games is the most important thing and at least GW of this year is almost unrecognizable from 3 years ago.


I can sympathize with your struggle to get game time with non-GW systems, and the fact that you don't have much time as it is.

As somebody who lives in the middle of nowhere, I struggle for games as well.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/16 18:53:28


Post by: DarkBlack


I would not buy those 2 models.

Gw is still a company and (rightly) want as much as they can get for their product. Seeing as GW has shareholders, they are actually obliged to. It's not my preference, but it's not a problem.
A good example is the AoS fyreslayers. Those models are too expensive and GW lost sales as a result. The SC that got released recently has a magmadroth and 10 infantry, for less than the price of one magmadroth.

As for the rest, GW is significantly better under their new(ish) leadership. They actually bother with making a decent game and have started doing their market research again.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/16 20:45:04


Post by: Elbows


GW's attitude is definitely better as of late.

Cost-wise, they're still in the spastic area they were prior, with some items being a very reasonable deal, and many not. I think the hardback codices coming up will be a mistake. I don't think we'll see some massive 180-degree swing in terms of prices.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/16 22:04:22


Post by: Hulksmash


The AoS ones are generaly $40 instead of the $50 for the hardbacks they used to be. With the exception of the Stormcast which was 50 but some have been $35. I think the codex cost will likely be reasonable for all except SM. SM are boned because they are huge and because they are popular so that one will be $50 for sure.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/17 12:55:03


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Plenty of other companies do fantasy ans sci-fi for cheaper and better than GW IMO.
I don't know of any comparable ranges that are equally well fleshed out. You often have nice or cheap models from other companies, occasionally models that are both cheap and nice, but the range within a given faction is often quite weak.

That's what I'm saying with 40k/AoS/WHFB, they not only has a large number of factions, but they're well fleshed out factions. Lizardmen for example are one of GW's weaker ranges IMO because they rely on ancient Saurus models that are mediocre, but try and find good substitute non-GW Lizardmen models is a pain in the arse. One company might make some nice looking models, but only 3 of them so you can't exactly make and army, another company might have a bigger range but they look like hairy arse.

And GW have put out some quality decent value models recently too, £20 for a Blood Bowl team ain't half bad, it's very competitive with other fantasy football options on the market.

I don't think GW are the be all and end all, but there's definitely good reasons people keep buying them. I think it's a bigger mystery why people buy Macs rather than why people buy GW stuff


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/17 19:02:54


Post by: rmeister0


AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I don't think GW are the be all and end all, but there's definitely good reasons people keep buying them. I think it's a bigger mystery why people buy Macs rather than why people buy GW stuff


Because when you compare equal specs to equal specs, the Mac does not have a significant price premium. The machines hold more of their value over a longer period of time and, unless you get a lemon off the line, are shown to be more reliable and receive better service in study after study.

And on that peer to peer basis, the only thing that GW has that is significantly better than anybody else is market share.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/17 19:42:13


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Biggest market share also means the widest range of opponents.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/17 20:55:33


Post by: Azreal13


Not necessarily, GW themselves seem utterly convinced (or at least have been historically) that the majority of their customers don't play the game.

I'd not argue that there are more gamers playing any other one system than 40K, indeed, GW still likely being the main introduction into wargaming for many probably means most gamers are potential GW gamers almost by default, but I'd go out on a limb and suggest we're now in an era where players of other systems collectively can now match GW, and even that is a significant change from a relatively short time ago.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/18 02:37:45


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Azreal13 wrote:
Not necessarily, GW themselves seem utterly convinced (or at least have been historically) that the majority of their customers don't play the game.
To be honest I think they're probably right, and I'd suggest the same applies to most wargames. People are sold on the idea of a game but rarely get an army together to play said game, or might only play a couple of games in a year.

Of course where GW were going wrong was that people are still sold on the idea of the game, so even if they don't end up playing it, having a crappy game disincentivizes people from buying the models for it.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/18 07:42:19


Post by: Stormonu


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
Not necessarily, GW themselves seem utterly convinced (or at least have been historically) that the majority of their customers don't play the game.
To be honest I think they're probably right, and I'd suggest the same applies to most wargames. People are sold on the idea of a game but rarely get an army together to play said game, or might only play a couple of games in a year.

Of course where GW were going wrong was that people are still sold on the idea of the game, so even if they don't end up playing it, having a crappy game disincentivizes people from buying the models for it.


I'd fit into that demographic. I've around eight 40K armies that I can easily field over 2,000 pts. apiece, including half a chapter of space marines (consisting of models collected since Rogue Trader days). I dare say I have only played (since near the end of 5e) about a half-dozen games or so. Primarily because GWs game is so cumbersome - it takes hours for me to finish simple games in the 1,000 pt range. For example, my son and I are in the middle of a 1K tau vs. necron fight, bottom of the second turn and its already taken 3 hours! (We left the game up, so we can finish it the next night) Our previous 1k CSM vs. nids fight ( our first 8E game), took about 5 hours. It just doesn"t engender a desire to play, though the models are beautiful.

As for the model range discussion, its true that GW does have the largest and probalby most fleshed out model lines. However, there are plenty of models companies who provide a single model army line that is equal or superior to GWs lines. If people were not so locked into the lore and army rules GW has bound the likes of 40K with, then there is a lot of value in non-GW miniatures. Gw has just done a very good job of binding its customers to its specific world and appearance, creating a market that looks down on models that don't fit the 40k " asthetic".


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/18 14:38:40


Post by: f2k


Have they learned their lesson?

I'd say no. They've gotten better on the social media - I'll give them that - but their prices are still way out there.

Been looking at 8th edition, but just can't get myself to pay that kind of money. There are better, and cheaper, games out there.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/18 15:38:20


Post by: Just Tony


Geifer wrote:
 Galas wrote:
They have reboxed the Stormcast Eternals boxes for their infantry lowering the price like 37% per model. So they are willing to learn. You need to vote with your wallet.

A reboxed that actually lowered the price a significant amount per model. Whats the last time have you seen that before they did it with stormcast Liberators, etc...?


The term you are looking for is Reverse Dire Avengered. They Reverse Dire Avengered those Sigmarines right good!

The principle isn't all that spectacular. They've done this with old unit boxes like Juggernauts upping them from 3 to 6 per box at a lower price per models. Little tree thingies Wood Elves used to have, too. Chaos Marauders, Saurus, too, I think. The thing that sticks out is that they did it with a new Sigmarine kit. That should tell us Sigmarines didn't perform as they were supposed to as the flagship line on the fantasy side.


Ohhhhh, don't suggest AOS is ANYTHING but the bestest most awesomest highest sellingest thing GW has ever done. You will be barraged by the players on here who push the game. All ten of them.

Ragnar69 wrote:Honestly if you are in it just for the game, I think you have chosen poorly. Collecting/assembling/painting is part of the "value" as well.

You also have to see the long term. I don't have any other hobby where I still have a benefit from money spent over 20 years ago.

Plus, whenever I hear what my friends and colleagues spend on their hobbies, I always cringe


PS: I spent much more nowadays, so GW must have done something right. I'm by no means a rabid fanboy, I even completely stopped buying/playing from early 4th to start of 6th edition because I was so fed up with GW. So I would say they have definately improved a lot.


I also collect Transformers, MUCH better return on investment. It's also half the reason my GW purchases over the last 10 years or so have dropped off. That, and the fact that very few sets were worth the price vs. contents. And then it came to a choice: Superion in a new form that will complete that side of my collection, or one Isle of Blood box. Bear in mind that I'd need to eventually get THREE of those sets to get the Swordmasters, Lothern Sea Guard, and Rat Ogres to a decent playable level.

Not even a contest four years ago, and it hasn't gotten any better now.

auticus wrote:Per several polls in the past on various sites, the average amount a player is willing to spend on an army in any system is $250.

GW games will never be that.


$15-20 per HQ unit

$20-30 per infantry unit, depending on the elite status

$35-50 per vehicle or monstrous creature, depending on size, use, etc.

Doesn't exactly add up to $250, especially given how many of the pricier units you'd need, but still more realistic than current prices. Almost $60 for a Vindicator? Ridiculous. You can't even justify that.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/18 16:03:10


Post by: mikosan


Ragnar69 wrote:

PS: I spent much more nowadays, so GW must have done something right. I'm by no means a rabid fanboy, I even completely stopped buying/playing from early 4th to start of 6th edition because I was so fed up with GW. So I would say they have definately improved a lot.


Ohhhhh, don't suggest AoS is ANYTHING but the worstest most evilest lowest sellingest thing GW has ever done. You will be barraged by the players on here who push hatred of the game. All ten bazillion of them. Just take a look at the latest sales numbers and stock price, GW is doomed any day now amiright...

Seriously though, this isn't the Kirby era anymore. under $300 bucks can get you an army of anything with a start collecting box or one of the holiday battleforce boxes. It may not be uber optimized or anything but a start collecting box or two and another box or two of troops and you are pretty much there.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/18 16:16:55


Post by: Geifer


 Just Tony wrote:
Geifer wrote:
 Galas wrote:
They have reboxed the Stormcast Eternals boxes for their infantry lowering the price like 37% per model. So they are willing to learn. You need to vote with your wallet.

A reboxed that actually lowered the price a significant amount per model. Whats the last time have you seen that before they did it with stormcast Liberators, etc...?


The term you are looking for is Reverse Dire Avengered. They Reverse Dire Avengered those Sigmarines right good!

The principle isn't all that spectacular. They've done this with old unit boxes like Juggernauts upping them from 3 to 6 per box at a lower price per models. Little tree thingies Wood Elves used to have, too. Chaos Marauders, Saurus, too, I think. The thing that sticks out is that they did it with a new Sigmarine kit. That should tell us Sigmarines didn't perform as they were supposed to as the flagship line on the fantasy side.


Ohhhhh, don't suggest AOS is ANYTHING but the bestest most awesomest highest sellingest thing GW has ever done. You will be barraged by the players on here who push the game. All ten of them.


Worry not! I'm clad in the armor of contempt, and perfectly safe from rabid fanboys!

But really, I don't have a problem with people enjoying Age of Sigmar for what it is. I occasionally play it myself, but it's not something that can hold my interest for long.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/18 16:41:25


Post by: Barfolomew


mikosan wrote:
Seriously though, this isn't the Kirby era anymore. under $300 bucks can get you an army of anything with a start collecting box or one of the holiday battleforce boxes. It may not be uber optimized or anything but a start collecting box or two and another box or two of troops and you are pretty much there.

Help me out here because I don't any of the rule books.

How many points is the following?

1x Ethereal on Hover Drone
3x Crisis Battlesuits with drones
1x 10 man Fire Warrior squad with 2x drones and 1x support turret

The above is $85, out of stock and doesn't include any rules.

How about the Space Marine starter?

1x Terminator Captain (storm bolter and power sword)
1x Venerable Dreadnaught
1x 10 man tactical squad

All of the starter boxes are 1x HQ, 1x Troop and 1x Elite. Again, as I don't own the rules, I'm not even sure these are legal armies to start with. One used to have to have 2x troops minimum.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/18 16:49:10


Post by: auticus


Doesn't exactly add up to $250, especially given how many of the pricier units you'd need, but still more realistic than current prices. Almost $60 for a Vindicator? Ridiculous. You can't even justify that.


IIRC from said past polls, the most the average gamer (of any game) wants to spend was broken down as:

HQ - $15 max
Troop - $1.50 a model. $15 for a box of 10 guys, regardless of elite status.
Vehicles - $25 max

This would be for a system that has around 50 models in it or more.

Games like X Wing where you only need 5-8 models or so the price could be higher per model but the spending was about the same.

So with those numbers, 2 HQ = $30, four units of 10 guys would be roughly $60, and four vehicles or so would be $100.

Models would come out to be about $190, and then price for army book $25 max brought it to $215 with $35 left over for expanding a couple more units or vehicle into the collection.

Thats what the polls average (of course running a horde army would be higher in cost, but that was the rough average of an ":army:" that people on average wanted to assemble and pay for.

40k was always much higher than that, even back in 1999, but people have complained about the price of GW games (WHFB and 40k) since 1999 and before as well. When a $45 land raider debut in 2000, people lost their mind.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/18 17:57:50


Post by: Stormonu


Don't forget to include the cost of a rulebook as well.

(Also in X-Wing, a list can be as few as 2 ships, but is about as likely as someone running HQ + 2 troops as an army).


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/18 18:02:42


Post by: Azreal13


Not true, double large base ships as a total list has been a persistent thing in X Wing for as long as there's been large base ships more or less. Dengaroo (a double Jumpmaster list) became so dominant competitively that it prompted an FAQ intervention to reign it in just this last few months.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/18 18:42:03


Post by: mikosan


Barfolomew wrote:
mikosan wrote:
Seriously though, this isn't the Kirby era anymore. under $300 bucks can get you an army of anything with a start collecting box or one of the holiday battleforce boxes. It may not be uber optimized or anything but a start collecting box or two and another box or two of troops and you are pretty much there.

Help me out here because I don't any of the rule books.

How many points is the following?

1x Ethereal on Hover Drone
3x Crisis Battlesuits with drones
1x 10 man Fire Warrior squad with 2x drones and 1x support turret

The above is $85, out of stock and doesn't include any rules.

How about the Space Marine starter?

1x Terminator Captain (storm bolter and power sword)
1x Venerable Dreadnaught
1x 10 man tactical squad

All of the starter boxes are 1x HQ, 1x Troop and 1x Elite. Again, as I don't own the rules, I'm not even sure these are legal armies to start with. One used to have to have 2x troops minimum.


Lol I don't play 40K so don't own any of the rulebooks either, but I did say a start collecting box or TWO because the number being thrown around was $250 bucks so two start collecting boxes and another unit box or characters would certainly be right around that 1500-2000 pt benchmark, at least in AoS. Is it optimized for tourney play? absolutely not, but the point stands. Saying you can't get an army for around $250 bucks is pushing a false narrative. If the Tau box is out of stock that tells me that a not insignificant amount of people found the box to be a good enough value to buy.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/19 12:42:54


Post by: frozenwastes


Space Marine Start Collecting is 25 Power Level
Tau Start Collecting is 18 Power Level

50 is where most people would start saying a real game is happening. There are loads of 50 and 75 power level battle reports on youtube and watching them definitely gives the sense of a real game going on.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/19 12:44:38


Post by: Hulksmash


The above is more relevant in AoS but the Tau one is around 500pts if I remember correctly. 4 of them would give you a playable army (especially in the case of the Tau even taking out the additional etherals) for $289. The marine one is fairly terrible as it's about 350-400 before the termi captain depending on the weapons you equip.

In general you can get actual legal playable armies with 3 start collecting and a different unit of your choice for all non-horde armies. That'll run you pre-rules around $300. Which isn't terrible honestly. That said a competitive-ish army or a more one of everything style of play will cost a pretty penny. Or if you heaven forbid decide to play nids/orks/ig.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/19 12:52:52


Post by: little-killer


They don't change, only upgrade communication and raise price as always, 40 euros for sm codex, yeahhh BUT we just bought your index a month ago? hello?


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/19 14:49:20


Post by: judgedoug


OP is wrong.

Two mistakes:

A. You think you know what it cost and
B. Price should be proportionate to cost

Neither is true, of course.

Doesn't matter if it cost GW only 10 cents to make a model. The price it sells for is based on a perceived value.

Everything you buy in life is priced as perceived value, and 100% luxury items are absolutely no different.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/19 15:01:30


Post by: Just Tony


I would have waited at least two months before getting an index, to at least find out what the codex release schecdule would be like. Unless I played every army, then maybe I'd consider getting them.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/19 15:09:35


Post by: DrNo172000


 judgedoug wrote:
OP is wrong.

Two mistakes:

A. You think you know what it cost and
B. Price should be proportionate to cost

Neither is true, of course.

Doesn't matter if it cost GW only 10 cents to make a model. The price it sells for is based on a perceived value.

Everything you buy in life is priced as perceived value, and 100% luxury items are absolutely no different.


Which is one of the reasons comparing GW miniatures to other brands is pointless, unless you are going to bring up intangibles like the brand itself. I can buy a nice pair of off brand jeans that are high quality in terms of manufacturing. Gucci is still going to cost more because the brand carries a high perceived value and people are still going to pay for Gucci no matter how much I think it may be silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be sure the only smoke and mirrors here is the original post which is a price complaint post in the guise of a discussion about whether or not GW has pivoted it's business practices for the better.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/19 16:04:08


Post by: Rainbow Dash


It was never the price of the minis that really ever bugged me, things can be bought second hand, it was the rules.
At the end of the day its a game I want to play not things I want to put on a shelf, and GW dropped the ball for me.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/19 16:27:04


Post by: frozenwastes


The original post really was just a post all about price, which for many is actually not the most important factor. I've maintained that if GW can get their rules to a state where they make the miniatures feel valuable rather than devalue them, they can charge GW Australia/Forge World prices for their normal plastic kits all over the world.

They've been doing that. AoS and 8th 40k have been made into something that supports lower model count games. They're even publishing stand alone books for AoS that are all about getting a full and engaging gaming experience with less models (Skirmish and now Path to Glory)

For the OP, the issue is price. For me, I like the background of both 40k and AoS (especially AoS: Skirmish) actually makes the table top experience line up with the novels. As does 8th edition 40k (especially smaller games).

For years and years GW's core games were all about only having the real game experience when you put tons and tons of models on the table. This was especially so for WHFB. Now you can have a great day of gaming using AoS:Skirmish with like 20 models tops. The games are deep with lots of hard choices and great scenarios.

Thread after thread of arguing about GW's prices always had people point to the total cost to play a "real" game of 40k or Fantasy. And they had a point, the cost was disgusting once you combined the premium price of individual miniatures with the need to have so many of them. Their new game design approach actually makes games fun with less models, so you get to the "real" game experience that much sooner.

So I think the higher price can be sustainable.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/19 18:37:40


Post by: judgedoug


We've had $35 ogre-sized models for years now. It's only now that the OP has noticed and decided to expose themselves with a complaint about prices from 2013.

Not to mention how friggin' nice the kits are; comparable or exceeding other $35+ resin kits from other manufacturers. And not as brittle.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/19 18:43:59


Post by: DrNo172000


I'd say based on the fact Age of Sigmar was basically a textbook example of a Lean Startup that GW has learned to apply some top business techniques that you usually only see in the cutthroat world of the tech industry. Picking out just the pricing strategy seems to be a slight strawman in fact, because if ICV2 or GW's own recent financial reports are to be believed their pricing strategy isn't slowing them down to much.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/19 20:18:41


Post by: rmeister0


 DrNo172000 wrote:
I'd say based on the fact Age of Sigmar was basically a textbook example of a Lean Startup that GW has learned to apply some top business techniques that you usually only see in the cutthroat world of the tech industry. Picking out just the pricing strategy seems to be a slight strawman in fact, because if ICV2 or GW's own recent financial reports are to be believed their pricing strategy isn't slowing them down to much.


I don't agree it is a strawman since the price is the single most consistent complaint leveled against the company in its entire history; and if you looked at their financial statements over the last decade they've been making more and more margin on fewer and fewer unit sales. That is not a trend that can continue indefinitely., because eventually it will mean selling one hand crafted space marine for 20 million pounds to one guy once a year.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/19 21:12:30


Post by: frozenwastes


Isn't it a trend that has likely already reversed? In a week we're going to see the next annual financial report. I think it's going to demonstrate a return to real growth in terms of sales volume.

I honestly never thought I'd type that sentence.

Also, have they really been jacking things up over the last couple of years? The Primaris characters are large and are on 40mm bases. The Blood Angels captain is $33 and came out in early 2015. The new ones are $35. I don't think that's much of an increase.

Especially during the same time we have start collecting boxes, boxes like the battle maniple or scion storm or talons of the emperor. And GW is now making sure the barriers to entry are lowered with multiple starter sets at different price points for both 40k and AoS.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/19 21:45:58


Post by: Stormonu


One of GW's worst examples of price-jacking was the shift of the Eldar Dire Avengers from a box of 10 to 5, with anincrease in price to boot (I remember it fairly well as I bought the 10, was going to go back the next week to buy another box and it had changed to the 5-man box).

Overall, I wouldn't say the trend has reversed - at best it has leveled out and on the SC boxes dipped to sane levels. In many cases, its still rising at a dramatic rate - look at the costs of boxed set since 6E's starter to now; the cost of each box set was noticably more than the last until we have a "starter" set that is $165 USD (though First Strike and Know No Fear are far more sane as introductory sets).


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/19 22:06:22


Post by: Korinov


They certainly have learned some lessons.

It doesn't seem many of their customers have learned any lesson though.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 00:24:09


Post by: Peregrine


 DrNo172000 wrote:
Which is one of the reasons comparing GW miniatures to other brands is pointless, unless you are going to bring up intangibles like the brand itself. I can buy a nice pair of off brand jeans that are high quality in terms of manufacturing. Gucci is still going to cost more because the brand carries a high perceived value and people are still going to pay for Gucci no matter how much I think it may be silly.


The difference is that those brands actually carry perceived value. Yeah, you're over-paying for it, but it still has the "wow, {brand}" factor from random people who see it. And buying that luxury image is worth it for some people. But who thinks that about GW? Who looks at a person with a GW product and says "wow, that's a really classy person with those high-end miniatures"? Nobody. GW is the Walmart or McDonalds of miniatures, they make an adequate product that is widely available and profit from sales volume over per-item price. Other companies, even GW's own FW brand, have a much stronger brand identity as high-end luxury products. And anyone who cares enough about the hobby to have an opinion on miniatures instead of just dismissing it as "that weird nerd thing" knows this. Owning GW products gives you no social status among the only people who could possibly care.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 01:03:14


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


rmeister0 wrote:
 DrNo172000 wrote:
I'd say based on the fact Age of Sigmar was basically a textbook example of a Lean Startup that GW has learned to apply some top business techniques that you usually only see in the cutthroat world of the tech industry. Picking out just the pricing strategy seems to be a slight strawman in fact, because if ICV2 or GW's own recent financial reports are to be believed their pricing strategy isn't slowing them down to much.


I don't agree it is a strawman since the price is the single most consistent complaint leveled against the company in its entire history; and if you looked at their financial statements over the last decade they've been making more and more margin on fewer and fewer unit sales. That is not a trend that can continue indefinitely., because eventually it will mean selling one hand crafted space marine for 20 million pounds to one guy once a year.


Yes, but at the same time, in my 30+ years of living, my grand-parents have griped over the cost of bread, gas, cars, car insurance, phone lines, cell phones, computers, internet, Y2K, and I could go on and on and on. . . Point here is, people gripe about money. Doesn't matter whether it is a "necessary" expense or a hobby which carries absolutely no necessity to it.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 02:29:47


Post by: Galas


After I saw the prices in plastic historicals (Like Perrys War of the Roses Knights. 40 28mm very nice knights for like 25€ :O ) I measure everything in historical minis.


A Primaris HQ that cost 30€? Thats 60 Perry foot Knights. A box of 10 Tacticals for 35€? Every tactical marine is 7 Perry foot Knights.

I cry everytime I buy a GW product... but after receiving the box they are so pretty...
But at the end of the day, I pay what I think is reasonable for models that I like. I play AoS, 40k, but Kings of War too and Infinity. I buy 80% of my models on ebay. But I have actually buy some sculpts for Mierce (Normally at a discount, like when they sell metal surplus at 50%), Dreamforge games, Mantic, etc...
At the same time I paid 24€ postage included for Krell, direct from GW. Why? Because Krell, Lord of Undeath, is my all time favourite model. I had the opportunity to had for the same price or even cheaper other HQ undead king from many other manufacturers. But I just didn't liked them as much.
As I play in a club we don't have "GW only policy", so everyone has minimun 20-30% of non GW miniatures in their Warhammer armies.

GW has done some things good this past two years. They have done some things bad for us the customers. As they are a business, in two years in the future we will se if those bad decisones for the customers were bad too for Games Workshop, or not.
This comes down to "Did you feel that you are receiving a good value for the money you invest?" If the answer is yes, just do it. If the answer is no... this is a hobby. Nobody is forcing you.
Obviously theres much legitimate critizism do to, for GW, for Mantic, even Corvus Belly that normally I defend just for the fact that I'm a Galician too. But at the end of the day, they are a business, not your friend that you care for him to take good decisions, and theres a point where one has to think "Why I'm I still interested in this business that don't offer me value for my money?"


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 03:26:16


Post by: privateer4hire


And part of that good value is whether you ever get to play a game with your toys (assuming you want more than just to buy product and possible build, paint and display).

Like it or not, GW stuff tends to have an in-built audience. If you've ever had to evangelize for a game (buy and build at least two forces), you know what a blessing it is to not have to do that.

That said, $35 for those latest character primaris guys is banana sauce.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 04:35:55


Post by: frozenwastes


 Stormonu wrote:
One of GW's worst examples of price-jacking was the shift of the Eldar Dire Avengers from a box of 10 to 5, with anincrease in price to boot (I remember it fairly well as I bought the 10, was going to go back the next week to buy another box and it had changed to the 5-man box).


That was in 2013. Which I think was the same year as the WHFB witch elves also released as a 5 miniature set in a game about big blocks of troops. GW decided to put their "elite" stuff in half sized boxes and dire avengers got the switch. At least with the sternguard/vanguard and the scions and all the necron stuff you got a ton of bits and options. Dire Avengers just got less models with no options to make a second aspect warrior type and no real options for the models themselves. It's just brutal.

And the Dire Avengers weren't really materially different from the guardians. At least when comparing the Vanguard with a Tactical Squad the sheer amount of parts and specialty equipment set them apart. Or Immortals being a different size than Necron Warriors. Dire Avengers have what? A helmet crest, some extra crap on their belts and maybe a cloth tabard?

GW prices have been hilariously bad (and in some ways still are). Though I don't think they've done this sort of price hiking lately. All of the Age of Sigmar reboxing has been at the exact same price as before but with round bases instead of square bases and in the new box with the AoS logo instead of the Warhammer fantasy logo. No price hikes or half models on any of that.

Overall, I wouldn't say the trend has reversed


The trend I'm talking about is the one where they intentionally seek to sell less models to fewer people at a higher price. I think they are actually starting to go for volume again. Wanting their products in more people's hands.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 12:46:00


Post by: Geifer


 Galas wrote:
After I saw the prices in plastic historicals (Like Perrys War of the Roses Knights. 40 28mm very nice knights for like 25€ :O ) I measure everything in historical minis.


While it's a good indication of what's possible for companies to get away with without going out of business, it's worth keeping in mind that historical miniatures have no IP protection and there is a real, actual competition situation at work there.

GW (or other companies with unique IP) doesn't have that kind of competition and can and do set their prices more liberally. I find it more useful to compare them to other IP protected manufacturers myself.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 16:12:58


Post by: frozenwastes


I do historicals as well and I also think of them as a separate category, but if anyone is price conscious they are simply a superior option. You get the same plastic as GW and a much wider range of rules sets to choose from. The main difference though is that you'll have to approach it like a board game where you supply everything that's needed. Even the popular games like Bolt Action or Flames of War often don't have the critical mass needed to rely on others to supply the rest of the pieces needed to play the game.

For me, this has also been a feature as I find I enjoy gaming with only about 25% of people who play games like 40k, AoS Infinity, Warmachine, etc.,. out there. I get along with everyone, but a solid majority of the time I finish a game thinking "wow, this person has a totally different approach to this hobby than I do."

Whereas when I build two historical armies and make all the terrain and design a scenario and host a dinner party followed by gaming, I've invited only those who I actually know I want to spend time with.

It's a really rewarding approach, but it's far less casual in terms of time invested (painting two armies for a start) and it did take me a few years to build up my contacts list to the point where I can reliably play any game I want by just sending out an email. It has also meant that things need to be more strongly connected with the general narrative as you can't rely on gamey mechanics that require system mastery to gain advantage. You need rules where basic expectations play out in a way that makes sense to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the period and also those without any knowledge. "Would you charge on a horse into a wall of spears?" needs to be the basis of decision making rather than "I'll get a -2 modifier from that, but then I'll use this event card, etc., etc.,"

If anyone is thinking of giving the approach a go, I'd recommend One-Hour Wargames by Neil Thomas. The scenario section alone can totally change how you think about gaming, but largely only if you actually play them. What's intelligent there is not immediately obvious to everyone just on reading it.

Combine that with some of the great plastic kits for the period that interests you.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 16:39:11


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Besides the game, the other factor GW used to inflate the perceived value of their minis was the strength of their background. Without getting into an argument over how original it is or was, there was a time when GW's worlds were as widely discussed as Star Wars, when GW fiction made it to the NYT bestseller list and the BL stock at bookstores out shelved SW, ST and DnD combined. That is mostly gone now. For many GW customers, like myself, the decline in background quality, destruction of the Old World and 5th edition Wardening have all reduced the value of the brand, especially the miniatures. I probably would have bought Trollslayers at Fyreslayer prices back when Gotrek and Felix were written by William King; there's no reason for me to pay even half that today.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 17:00:20


Post by: frozenwastes


Is it possible to know if the appearance, growth and then decline of Black Library books in book stores has anything to do with writing quality rather than being a natural progression of a fad? Or of a major book distributor or book marketer being done with their campaign? Or some change in how Black Library deals with book distribution?

How they're now direct only for a months before book stores can get them? Take Dark Imperium. It's available from GW right now, but it won't be in book stores until January, 2018. Maybe policies like that lead to book stores dropping Black Library rather than a dip in writing quality? GW has also seems to be really concentrating on direct sales of their books, limited editions and direct sales of eBooks. If I was a book store operator, I would be hesitant to place large orders of any book that the publisher has already been selling to all the dedicated fans for 6 months before I can get it on the shelves.

I thought the writing quality was always relatively unimpressive. They are schlock genre novels after all. Some better than others.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 17:40:11


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 frozenwastes wrote:
Is it possible to know if the appearance, growth and then decline of Black Library books in book stores has anything to do with writing quality rather than being a natural progression of a fad? Or of a major book distributor or book marketer being done with their campaign? Or some change in how Black Library deals with book distribution?

How they're now direct only for a months before book stores can get them? Take Dark Imperium. It's available from GW right now, but it won't be in book stores until January, 2018. Maybe policies like that lead to book stores dropping Black Library rather than a dip in writing quality? GW has also seems to be really concentrating on direct sales of their books, limited editions and direct sales of eBooks. If I was a book store operator, I would be hesitant to place large orders of any book that the publisher has already been selling to all the dedicated fans for 6 months before I can get it on the shelves.

I thought the writing quality was always relatively unimpressive. They are schlock genre novels after all. Some better than others.


Actually, the writing quality was very good for tie in fiction. Back in 2005-2010, BL novels had a reputation for quality that ST, SW, and non-Drizzt DnD/FR books simply could not match. Eisenhorn, Gaunt's Ghosts, Ciaphas Cain, Gotrek and Felix all had mainstream (well, mainstream for SF readers) appeal. There were lesser writers, but back then BL had enough quality control to keep the Gotos from harming the brand. The background had enough of a unique flavor to be a selling point even when the writers weren't that hot (sorry, Gav Thorpe and Ben Counter). At the time, though, SW had just shot the bed with NJO and then Swarm War and Karen Traviss' self-love fantasies, while ST never really had quality until the post-Nemesis relaunch. DnD never really appealed outside of their niche. SoBL had little competition in that regard.

When the Horus Heresy novels first came out, they were a big deal. There was real anticipation. By the release of A Thousand Sons (and NYT bestseller status), many 40k terms had entered the popular online consciousness and you would see Star Trek or Star Wars nerds debating what would happen next. This was quashed when BL switched to publishing hardcovers first...almost overnight active threads filled up with "I'll read it in paperback" and died. Also, GW began usurping the BL editors, and it became very noticeable when the aim of the editors wasn't to ensure a fun sandbox to explore but rather to sell specific toys. BL openly stated that they would not explore new aspects of the universe, but rather every new writer had to write one guard-centric novel before moving on to Space Marine Battles or some crap. They also started releasing crucial story chapters as limited edition books, which turned off a lot of the 'casual' fans BL had won over in the previous half decade.

I've got to go, but I'll be happy to go on again later. TL;DR: BL used to be a successful proselytizing arm that was snuffed into a less successful cash cow machine.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 18:12:27


Post by: frozenwastes


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
When the Horus Heresy novels first came out, they were a big deal. There was real anticipation. By the release of A Thousand Sons (and NYT bestseller status), many 40k terms had entered the popular online consciousness and you would see Star Trek or Star Wars nerds debating what would happen next. This was quashed when BL switched to publishing hardcovers first...almost overnight active threads filled up with "I'll read it in paperback" and died.


That's probably the largest factor, IMHO. This period of exclusive sales means everyone who is psyked about the new release has to wait 6+ months and the hype of the new release dies away and they forget about it and move on to other stuff.

Also, GW began usurping the BL editors, and it became very noticeable when the aim of the editors wasn't to ensure a fun sandbox to explore but rather to sell specific toys.


I recently read the Genestealer Cult (Peter Fehervari) and Tempestus (Braden Campbell) ones and now that you point it out, I think I thought the same thing. And they were really strangely written with contrived endings. I borrowed the Genestealer Cult book and while I'm out a few dollars for the Tempestus ebook, I'm totally unimpressed by them. On the other hand, I did enjoy Dark Imperium which is definitely a "sell primaris" novel, so I think it might come down to inconsistent editing and individual writer talent.

BL openly stated that they would not explore new aspects of the universe, but rather every new writer had to write one guard-centric novel before moving on to Space Marine Battles or some crap. They also started releasing crucial story chapters as limited edition books, which turned off a lot of the 'casual' fans BL had won over in the previous half decade.


What a mess. I read those interviews that popped up with ex-GW people about the changes to BL and didn't quite understand the implications of everything being merged into the common marketing department of "GW Publications."

I've got to go, but I'll be happy to go on again later. TL;DR: BL used to be a successful proselytizing arm that was snuffed into a less successful cash cow machine.


I guess as someone who's only recently got back into reading 40k novels, it just looks like they have this huge library of content. I didn't experience the ups and downs of following the heresy novels and having things suddenly go direct only in limited edition or whatever.

I also did a quick look on various ebook market places (Google Play, Amazon Kindle Store, Kobo, Nook, etc.,) and there's nothing there. If you want an ebook, it's direct only.

Seems like a perfect storm of stupid. Dumb editing policies, trying to turn novels into marketing vectors for models, taking the momentum out of any hype or marketing by withholding books for half a year from major sellers, not appearing in ANY ebook platforms. Pissing off your existing fans and driving away the casual novel readers.

With Dark Imperium still having a January 2018 release for book stores, I guess this is a definite case where "have they learned their lesson?" is answered with a big no.

That said, perhaps this direct sales at a high price accomplishes the goals for the department. If they make pennies per copy sold through book stores but a few dollars per ebook sold thorugh their website, the fewer number of copies they need to sell to hit their revenue goals is quite significant. Maybe this is more of GW's approach from 2006-2015 where they intentionally wanted to sell less product to fewer people at a higher price.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 18:52:54


Post by: Llamahead


It arguably is part of GW's policy to encourage direct sales with as few middle men between the customers revenue and GW as possible. Just as it is with most Wargames companies.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 19:01:18


Post by: JohnHwangDD


GW is definitely improved, there's no question about that.

Whether you believe in the value proposition, that's a separate question. Is the comparable miniature for Malifaux / Warmachine / Hordes significantly cheaper? If not, then the model is fairly priced relative to market.

Either you can afford the luxury of miniatures gaming, or you need to quit and find something cheaper.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 19:32:15


Post by: frozenwastes


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Either you can afford the luxury of miniatures gaming, or you need to quit and find something cheaper.


With plastic historicals and a low model count rules set (often free) and easy terrain making techniques using stuff from the dollar store, it's a super cheap hobby for those who want it that cheap.

There's no reason to give up the hobby for lack of money, just certain companies and approaches. For some, maybe that means GW's products need to be passed over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Llamahead wrote:
It arguably is part of GW's policy to encourage direct sales with as few middle men between the customers revenue and GW as possible.


And to be far, this has been a revolutionary effect of the internet in general. It can put in touch content creators with those who might want to buy their wares across the entire planet.

I've bought 2 GW ebooks. Will I buy another? Maybe. Would I impulse buy them if I saw them in the sci-fi section of my eBook marketplace of choice? Probably. Are the terms or costs of using such a market place incompatible with GW's own internal policies and goals? Maybe? What level of sales would be needed for GW to make more money using the market places instead of their own site? That's impossible to know from the outside.

For me, GW has changed enough to get my money again. The rules produce the kind of play that I like now. Lower model counts are supported. They're communicating both ways with the fan base (people working there say when the social media guys say "I'll pass that along to the person in charge of that" they actually do). They've been more reasonable with their litigation and legal requests (the only person we know of that got asked to take something down admitted they were in the wrong).

Price didn't quite make that list. I'm okay with 5 tempestus scions in a box. And I also am okay with buying legs and torso from 3rd party accessory makers to make use of the extra tempestus bits. I see the start collecting and multiple starter sets as a real difference in terms of the cost of getting games in as well.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 20:35:37


Post by: BunkhouseBuster


And no one on this thread has noticed that GW actually lowered the price on one of their miniatures, and then bundled it with others into a Start Collecting box...

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Start-Collecting-Fyreslayers

They cut the price of the Magmadroth, and it is now available WITH a infantry kit in the box under their Start Collecting banner. This, along with the other new Start Collecting boxes is a positive sign of GW recognizing their customers requests for not only less expensive model/bundles, but they gave three Start Collecting boxes, one of which was heavily requested by fans of that army line.

Yes, GW is expensive, but it is getting better.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 20:40:27


Post by: frozenwastes


I was definitely encouraged to see more rather than less start collecting bundles.

The main lesson I want GW to learn in regards to things like start collecting bundles as well as support for lower model count games is that things like that work.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 20:48:48


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 frozenwastes wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Either you can afford the luxury of miniatures gaming, or you need to quit and find something cheaper.


With plastic historicals and a low model count rules set (often free) and easy terrain making techniques using stuff from the dollar store, it's a super cheap hobby for those who want it that cheap.

There's no reason to give up the hobby for lack of money, just certain companies and approaches. For some, maybe that means GW's products need to be passed over.


Plastic historicals are NOT cheap, particularly if you look at something like Flames of War or Bolt Action. Price-wise, they're comparable to GW. Actual plastic scale models (e.g. Tamiya, Dragon) are not cheap, either.

Low model count games like Infinity or Malifaux or Kingdom Death aren't that cheap, either. Particularly Kingdom Death.

I still say that wargaming is a luxury hobby, moreso if you want any of the "big" product lines.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 21:00:12


Post by: Gimgamgoo


 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Plastic historicals are NOT cheap, particularly if you look at something like Flames of War or Bolt Action. Price-wise, they're comparable to GW. Actual plastic scale models (e.g. Tamiya, Dragon) are not cheap, either.


Ok. So I bought a box of 25 US infantry and a tank for Bolt Action. Both were around £20 each.

The infantry box made; a HQ officer, a Sniper unit of 2, a Bazooka unit of 2, and 2 sets of 10 troop units along with the tank.

Although I play and buy GW stuff. That amount of money would not get me 5 units and a tank. Especially where one single hq sprue is around the £20 mark.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 21:16:07


Post by: frozenwastes


 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Plastic historicals are NOT cheap, particularly if you look at something like Flames of War or Bolt Action. Price-wise, they're comparable to GW. Actual plastic scale models (e.g. Tamiya, Dragon) are not cheap, either.

Low model count games like Infinity or Malifaux or Kingdom Death aren't that cheap, either. Particularly Kingdom Death.

I still say that wargaming is a luxury hobby, moreso if you want any of the "big" product lines.


I guess we have different ideas about cheap. When I say wargaming can be done cheaply, I mean I know two guys married with kids who work minimum wage jobs and also send money back to their families in the Philippines who manage it.

I also think looking at these product lines meant to sell you a complete package of rules and miniatures is a mistake if you are looking for affordable options.

Spoiler:
You can get a box of Gripping Beast dark age stuff and split it in half for skirmish gaming for two forces out of one box. That's £22 for 40 plastic miniatures with loads and loads of weapon options for pretty much everything a warrior might have for the period.



Or we could also talk about gaming with 1/72 plastics. People have been doing it for 60ish years now. A box of german infantry, a box of brits or americans or soviets and you're good to go for skirmish gaming for years. The plastic is different so you'll need to keep your primer, paint and varnish flexible, but they certainly work:



Not awesome, but they'll work for sure. And Strelets (the figures above) are super cheap. There are much nicer 1/72 figures out there, but I figured the Strelets ones are a good budget example.

http://freewargamesrules.wikia.com/wiki/Freewargamesrules_Wiki <-- more free rules than you could likely play in a life time



GW is expensive in comparison to other options, but this notion that it's some luxury hobby that people need to quit... Even if you can't afford GW, Privateer, Corvus Belli, Warlord, Perry, Gripping Beast, Wyrd, or any of the other known companies, you can still get some figures to paint on the cheap and combine it with some free rules and cheap terrain making ideas and get playing. I've even seen people paint and play with cheap green plastic army men (not my cup of tea, but they'll work).

Spoiler:


I'd go so far as to say that anyone (not currently in real danger) can afford it. People on social assistance often still manage to pay their cable bills for TV, so why not cancel that and get some wargaming going instead? Working on projects is probably better than watching TV anyway.

This idea that wargaming is some expensive luxury hobby is just the result of companies like GW pushing up the average cost and people getting totally trapped in complete package thinking (there are even people out there who refuse to play on non-GW terrain). I happen to think many of GW's products are worth it, but we shouldn't pretend they're the only option or that every other option is equally expensive.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gimgamgoo wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Plastic historicals are NOT cheap, particularly if you look at something like Flames of War or Bolt Action. Price-wise, they're comparable to GW. Actual plastic scale models (e.g. Tamiya, Dragon) are not cheap, either.


Ok. So I bought a box of 25 US infantry and a tank for Bolt Action. Both were around £20 each.

The infantry box made; a HQ officer, a Sniper unit of 2, a Bazooka unit of 2, and 2 sets of 10 troop units along with the tank.

Although I play and buy GW stuff. That amount of money would not get me 5 units and a tank. Especially where one single hq sprue is around the £20 mark.



Yeah, it's just false that "Bolt Action. Price-wise, they're comparable to GW."


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/20 23:59:15


Post by: -Loki-


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW is definitely improved, there's no question about that.

Whether you believe in the value proposition, that's a separate question. Is the comparable miniature for Malifaux / Warmachine / Hordes significantly cheaper? If not, then the model is fairly priced relative to market.

Either you can afford the luxury of miniatures gaming, or you need to quit and find something cheaper.


I can afford to play miniatures games and I do. I play Infinity and Malifaux, and I've kickstarted The Other Side in a big way. I play miniature heavy boardgames like Zombicide and Imperial Assault. I play X-Wing and Dropzone Commander.

I can't afford to play Games Workshops games, and so I don't.

While I don't have qualms with paying a lot for a miniature (I paid over $100au for a limited edition 30mm Infantry miniature for Malifaux, but that was a one off and again, very limited), I take issue with the cost GW put out. For a single 40k character, I can buy a whole starter for Malifaux or Infinity. That starter is a good half to two thirds of what I need to play at the maximum point level of the game. Expanding on it is basically that cost again, which goes over the maximum point level of either game. So basically for the cost of two characters, or a character and a squad from Games Workshop, I've got what I need to play a full game of either, with options to swap things in and out.

Yes, those examples are skirmish games. But GW made the choice to require a lot of miniatures, and also made the choice to price them as high as they do. When I see a box of 3 cavalry for AoS cost as much as two, almost three starter boxes for either game, I've just got to shake my head and walk away.

Honestly, their recent aesthetic direction also isn't helping with me. It's just awful.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/21 05:55:45


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Yes, GW is expensive, but it is getting better.


It really isn't. Look at the prices of the Primaris crap that's coming out this week and the two characters from the week before. They're not 'getting better'.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/21 07:44:20


Post by: frozenwastes


The primaris prices are certainly not better. They are more of the same. I thought for sure they'd be higher than they were. Like $60 USD for the Reivers rather than $50. They're larger miniatures than normal tactical marines. I was not expecting them to be the same price as the MKIII and IV heresy kits. I thought they'd be more.

The dreadnought, on the other hand, is exactly what I expected. Less than a land raider, more than a predator. Definitely too expensive for me to even consider.

I do disagree with the central notion of the original post of this thread though, that price will be the determinant of whether or not GW has "learned their lesson." That primaris characters are the price there are isn't really some indicator that nothing has changed at GW. Obviously things have changed.

From the last financial report:

"The key priority in the period reported has been to give our store managers the appropriate product and sales support to help them recruit new customers, retain our existing customers and re-recruit lapsed customers."

I can't think of a single previous financial report that even mentioned the idea that a customer could be retained. Or that lapsed customers could be gotten back. GW had a churn-and-burn strategy where the costs were front loaded as much as possible so they could get as much money as they could out of a new customer before they quit.

Has GW learned the lesson that keeping customers can be cheaper than recruiting new ones? That lapsed customers are already qualified leads who they know are the kind of people who spend money on miniatures? That the revenue from a life long customer is better than a one time churning of a new recruit?

I believe they have. Even if a new dreadnought is more than a predator.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/21 11:34:21


Post by: Herzlos


 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Plastic historicals are NOT cheap, particularly if you look at something like Flames of War or Bolt Action. Price-wise, they're comparable to GW. Actual plastic scale models (e.g. Tamiya, Dragon) are not cheap, either.

Low model count games like Infinity or Malifaux or Kingdom Death aren't that cheap, either. Particularly Kingdom Death.

I still say that wargaming is a luxury hobby, moreso if you want any of the "big" product lines.


Can you show any Bolt Action pack that's near the same price as an equivalent GW pack?

Or a scale model kit that costs the same as a Land Raider?

Mini's for Malifaux/Kingdom death are certainly about as expensive as GW, but my Malifaux horde faction (Gremlins) fields 8-10 minis most of the time, at standard tournament sizes (50ss).

Flames Of War isn't cheap for what it is, but it's much cheaper than GW. It's not a fair comparison though, because it's 15mm Vs 32mm. I can buy a pack of 5 tanks from Battlefront for the cost of 1 from GW, but they are much smaller.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/21 12:14:10


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Plastic historicals are NOT cheap, particularly if you look at something like Flames of War or Bolt Action. Price-wise, they're comparable to GW. Actual plastic scale models (e.g. Tamiya, Dragon) are not cheap, either.
Flames of War is one of the more expensive games. But Bolt Action is quite a bit cheaper, you might be able to find one or two GW kits that match Bolt Action for price per model, but mostly Bolt Action will be quite a large number more models per dollar and you don't need a huge army to play a game of Bolt Action, at least the games I've seen played typically revolve around smaller forces. When you DO need heaps of models they are often much cheaper price per model (eg. Perry models).

Scale plastic models vary massively, cheap ones are cheap, expensive ones are expensive. But usually there's a good reason the expensive ones are expensive. Expensive ones often come with tons of sprues, detailed parts, etched metal details, metal gun barrels, movable parts, etc. You can compare something like an Imperial Knight to a Tamiya 1/32 Spitfire (similar price) but the Tamiya kit will come with a detailed colour reference booklet, 10's of sprues, 100's of components, metal etch, thin cast panels, movable parts (including things like plastic bushings, metal pins and metal screws required to make it movable) and so on and so forth.

Alternatively you can buy something like a Revell 1/32 Spitfire for a quarter of the price of an Imperial Knight and still get a kit that'll take you a few months worth of weekends to build and paint. Having built one I can say it's a pretty damned good kit still.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/21 13:18:31


Post by: BunkhouseBuster


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Yes, GW is expensive, but it is getting better.
It really isn't. Look at the prices of the Primaris crap that's coming out this week and the two characters from the week before. They're not 'getting better'.
And look at the price of other Space Marine plastic HQ character blisters, and they are right on course for those, with a slight increase in price considering the size increase that is coming with Primaris over standard Marines.

Plus there is pricing because of their perception that most players will not buy more than one or two of each model. A line unit of Troops or other infantry that can be repeated? A transport for your guys? Those will be repeat purchases and players are more likely to get multiples of those kits, while there will likely be only so many HQ models in an army or collection. At least, this is my observation based on my years in the hobby and studying the industry.

The point of my previous post is that GW recognizes that customers want less expensive bundles for their models, and they are now listening to their customers and responding in positive ways. If that isn't "better" than the GW of a few years ago, then I don't know what is anymore.

 frozenwastes wrote:
The dreadnought, on the other hand, is exactly what I expected. Less than a land raider, more than a predator. Definitely too expensive for me to even consider.
It's also a lot bigger than other Dreadnoughts, at least as big as (if not larger than) a Leviathan Siege Dreadnought from Forge World. If a regular Dreadnought is X volume of plastic and sold for about X dollars, then a Redemptor Dreadnought at Y volume of plastic will sell for about Y dollars. Like was mentioned before, it's GW trying to keep their "perceived value" across their kits consistent.

I do really like the new Dreadnought. I'm losing my interest in the new Primaris Marines, but that Dread is cool to me.

 frozenwastes wrote:
From the last financial report:

"The key priority in the period reported has been to give our store managers the appropriate product and sales support to help them recruit new customers, retain our existing customers and re-recruit lapsed customers."

I can't think of a single previous financial report that even mentioned the idea that a customer could be retained. Or that lapsed customers could be gotten back. GW had a churn-and-burn strategy where the costs were front loaded as much as possible so they could get as much money as they could out of a new customer before they quit.

Has GW learned the lesson that keeping customers can be cheaper than recruiting new ones? That lapsed customers are already qualified leads who they know are the kind of people who spend money on miniatures? That the revenue from a life long customer is better than a one time churning of a new recruit?

I believe they have.
Because they are listening to their customers and realized that social media is not just a means for people to complain about stuff (I mean, that happens, but there is more to it than that). GW has measurably improved in the past few years. We can just hope that GW keeps this trend up and doesn't mess up this trend.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/21 17:52:51


Post by: Vertrucio


Yeah, although TBH, there's Gundam kits far more advanced that do not cost as much.

Car models are a super niche, and they price accordingly, and those are direct from manufacturer prices.

GW's high prices really aren't up for debate, and the number of models needed for what's generally considered a full game is also high.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/21 19:19:42


Post by: DarkBlack


GW can charge whatever they can get away with. They don't owe you anything (unless you own part of GW?). Making as much money as they can makes them a good company, not a bad one.
The fact that it is inconvenient for you to pay more for a game that a company has a monopoly on is not GW's problem.

While I don't like to exclude people, it is up to you to finance your own hobby. You can get the models for cheaper if you try and there are cheaper wargames.
To have a playable Infinity army cost me half of what a Warhammer army cost me. Historical miniatures cost even less, especially if you go for smaller scales (which I prefer for historical wargaming, I care more about armies than characters in ancients). My 6mm Alexandrian army cost as much as one daemon prince.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/21 19:49:54


Post by: rmeister0


 frozenwastes wrote:

GW is expensive in comparison to other options, but this notion that it's some luxury hobby that people need to quit... Even if you can't afford GW, Privateer, Corvus Belli, Warlord, Perry, Gripping Beast, Wyrd, or any of the other known companies, you can still get some figures to paint on the cheap and combine it with some free rules and cheap terrain making ideas and get playing. I've even seen people paint and play with cheap green plastic army men (not my cup of tea, but they'll work).


I am really getting sick and tired of this "luxury hobby, so shut up" mentality that's on display here. While it is a luxury, that does not mean that GW isn't squeezing the stone beyond reason.

Heck, pick up half a dozen Bones models from Reaper, buy a copy of Song of Blades and Heroes, and you're in business for less than $50. You can get into FrostGrave for less than the cost of the new 40k starter set.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/21 19:50:58


Post by: loki old fart


 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

And look at the price of other Space Marine plastic HQ character blisters, and they are right on course for those, with a slight increase in price considering the size increase that is coming with Primaris over standard Marines.

Your defending GW prices by comparing them to GW prices. How is one over priced model OK, because the other model is over priced.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/21 20:15:26


Post by: JohnHwangDD


rmeister0 wrote:
Heck, pick up half a dozen Bones models from Reaper, buy a copy of Song of Blades and Heroes, and you're in business for less than $50.

Yeah, but then I'd be playing with models that are only marginally better than what one finds at the dollar store. No thanks.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/21 20:30:10


Post by: silent25


 frozenwastes wrote:


GW is expensive in comparison to other options, but this notion that it's some luxury hobby that people need to quit... Even if you can't afford GW, Privateer, Corvus Belli, Warlord, Perry, Gripping Beast, Wyrd, or any of the other known companies, you can still get some figures to paint on the cheap and combine it with some free rules and cheap terrain making ideas and get playing. I've even seen people paint and play with cheap green plastic army men (not my cup of tea, but they'll work).

Spoiler:




Of course you basically just pointed out that anyone who bothers with Warlords WW2 is wasting their money just as much as anyone who bothers with GW.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/21 21:10:36


Post by: BunkhouseBuster


 loki old fart wrote:
 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

And look at the price of other Space Marine plastic HQ character blisters, and they are right on course for those, with a slight increase in price considering the size increase that is coming with Primaris over standard Marines.
Your defending GW prices by comparing them to GW prices. How is one over priced model OK, because the other model is over priced.
I didn't defend their pricing. I justified it within the context of their established pricing model. They won't sell as many HQ/character kits as they will basic Troops and Transports, so they increase the price of those HQ models for that reason. I never said that it was right or fair, just that GW is following their own methods they have established. There is a "perceived" value in the models that GW wants to encourage. I put together many HQ models out of the Sternguard and Vanguard Veteran kits because they had tons of cool bits that I didn't want to use on my basic troops, and so I was "lost sales" to GW for buying the kits with tons of bling options for characters instead of the single-pose blisters that were $30 at the time.

Again, GW recognizes that customers want less expensive bundles for their models, and they are now listening to their customers and responding in positive ways, which is the point of my initial post. GW actually lowered the price of one of their kits, and yet people are still complaining about their price increases. The prices are not increasing, but staying the same or even decreasing. Look at the Age of Sigmar Fyreslayers Magmadroth now and compare it to two weeks ago - about $30 less than before AND bundled with a 10-man box of infantry.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/22 02:45:32


Post by: rmeister0


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
rmeister0 wrote:
Heck, pick up half a dozen Bones models from Reaper, buy a copy of Song of Blades and Heroes, and you're in business for less than $50.

Yeah, but then I'd be playing with models that are only marginally better than what one finds at the dollar store. No thanks.


That's your choice. Doesn't make the statement untrue.

Although your statement about the quality of Bones models is your opinion. They're considerably better than what you're suggesting, and plenty of people are buying them.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/22 06:52:16


Post by: JohnHwangDD


I own some Bones models, and they are not good. Rubbery, soft detail. Huge fills.

The only good thing about Bones is that they come in at well over 100 models for $100. Considering that it's direct sales, it's absolutely the same as dollar store quality.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/22 07:43:50


Post by: frozenwastes


silent25 wrote:
 frozenwastes wrote:


GW is expensive in comparison to other options, but this notion that it's some luxury hobby that people need to quit... Even if you can't afford GW, Privateer, Corvus Belli, Warlord, Perry, Gripping Beast, Wyrd, or any of the other known companies, you can still get some figures to paint on the cheap and combine it with some free rules and cheap terrain making ideas and get playing. I've even seen people paint and play with cheap green plastic army men (not my cup of tea, but they'll work).

Spoiler:




Of course you basically just pointed out that anyone who bothers with Warlords WW2 is wasting their money just as much as anyone who bothers with GW.


I'm of the opinion that nice miniatures are worth buying even if cheaper models exist. How much more they are worth will be up to the individual, but if someone is finding the hobby too expensive, these super cheap options exist.

Just because you can game with toy store plastic toy soldiers doesn't mean it'll be everything you wish it could be. You can make things look better by putting a bit more money in, it's just a question of whether or not it is worth it to you.

And if it is worth it, then it's (pretty much by definition) not a waste of money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I own some Bones models, and they are not good. Rubbery, soft detail. Huge fills.

The only good thing about Bones is that they come in at well over 100 models for $100. Considering that it's direct sales, it's absolutely the same as dollar store quality.


I'm no fan of bones, but this is ridiculous. While the line is inconsistent, for the average gamer a good number of the bones miniatures are indistinguishable from the metal versions once they are painted. Unfotunately many will also require resetting their weapons with hot water and mould line removal is a slower process, but they are hardly "dollar store quality." And they are certainly not bad enough that suggesting using them as a budget alternative should be just dismissed out of hand.

It's also totally 100% irrelevant what your tastes are. The point is that people who don't want to spend a lot of money have options and your idea that people should quit the hobby as a solution to prices they don't want to pay is just stupid. They can instead go for cheaper (often much cheaper) options. Your opinion of those options is irrelevant and will never change the fact that the hobby can be done on the cheap by those who want to go that route. They don't have to quit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
GW actually lowered the price of one of their kits, and yet people are still complaining about their price increases. The prices are not increasing, but staying the same or even decreasing. Look at the Age of Sigmar Fyreslayers Magmadroth now and compare it to two weeks ago - about $30 less than before AND bundled with a 10-man box of infantry.


So even for those who have price as their most important issue, things are different now than a few uears ago. It's just not as far as those people would like. What price would the Primaris characters have to be for me to right this second go order them? $20? Yeah, that would do it. However just because GW doesn't meet my personal price point for an item that all the changes with the company are suddenly imaginary?

That's the real issue here. This notion that if the prices aren't what a given person thinks they should be, that must somehow be GW not having "learned their lesson" and the substantial changes GW has undergone are written off as "smoke and mirrors."


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/28 16:22:11


Post by: judgedoug


There's a huge fallacy comparing historical miniatures - anything pre-existing really - to non-historical miniatures.

Historical miniatures include a relatively short amount of development and design time, because all of the design work has been done for you already, dozens or hundreds of years ago, and is neatly cataloged by professional archivists. As a sculptor, if you wanted to sculpt a Viking or a French Voltigeur, you can buy a $15 Osprey uniform book and start sculpting right away.
Even strange uniforms from strange nations from strange time periods may involve a few dozen hours of research, maybe, more, hell, let's say a hundred hours of research!

Meanwhile, Magnus the Red took 850 hours of design time to sculpt. What is that sculptor's wages?
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/11/28/designing-magnus-the-red-with-matt-holland/
There is no $15 Osprey book on Magnus the Red.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/28 16:36:56


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 judgedoug wrote:
There's a huge fallacy comparing historical miniatures - anything pre-existing really - to non-historical miniatures.

Historical miniatures include a relatively short amount of development and design time, because all of the design work has been done for you already, dozens or hundreds of years ago, and is neatly cataloged by professional archivists. As a sculptor, if you wanted to sculpt a Viking or a French Voltigeur, you can buy a $15 Osprey uniform book and start sculpting right away.
Even strange uniforms from strange nations from strange time periods may involve a few dozen hours of research, maybe, more, hell, let's say a hundred hours of research!

Meanwhile, Magnus the Red took 850 hours of design time to sculpt. What is that sculptor's wages?
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/11/28/designing-magnus-the-red-with-matt-holland/
There is no $15 Osprey book on Magnus the Red.


While I agree with your general premise, I think you may be underestimating the time it takes to design and develop a sprue that works for whatever design you're making. Granted, that is likely not done by the sculptors, but it's still a pretty significant part of the creation of miniatures.

Also, Osprey, while valuable, is as valuable as you'd think. So yeah. . .I don't think even the research phase of creating historical miniatures takes only 100 hours. . .I mean, I truly doubt it takes only 2 and a half weeks. Probably more like multiple months of work, even if a team is working only one project.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/28 16:51:35


Post by: judgedoug


 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

While I agree with your general premise, I think you may be underestimating the time it takes to design and develop a sprue that works for whatever design you're making. Granted, that is likely not done by the sculptors, but it's still a pretty significant part of the creation of miniatures.

Also, Osprey, while valuable, is as valuable as you'd think. So yeah. . .I don't think even the research phase of creating historical miniatures takes only 100 hours. . .I mean, I truly doubt it takes only 2 and a half weeks. Probably more like multiple months of work, even if a team is working only one project.


Haha, that's excellent. You are vastly overestimating the size of the historical miniatures market. "Multiple months of work by a team"?

Warlord has one sculptor on staff, and they shoot out minis constantly. An entire Australian range is on preorder, all sculpted by one guy.

I can't even imagine what you think Front Rank looks like. A high rise office building with teams of designers working on the next pack of Dutch Napoleonic casualties for several months?

Anyways, we have Victrix, one digital sculptor on staff, and near monthly plastics releases. https://www.facebook.com/victrixlimited/


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/28 17:11:07


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


Way to miss the point. . . . You realize a team can comprise of more people than just sculptors, right???


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/28 17:22:02


Post by: judgedoug


 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Way to miss the point. . . . You realize a team can comprise of more people than just sculptors, right???


Wait, I'm missing the point? That was the point I originally made, that a huge amount of work is already done for you, necessitating less development time, by an order of magnitude at least, in the overwhelming majority of cases.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/28 17:28:36


Post by: Azreal13


Which is, at least in part, cancelled out by the ability to make gak up from your arse when sculpting a fantasy model.

Comparing a WW2 infantryman or vehicle (which is essentially the total scope of the range, unless they've retconned giant stompy robots into Dunkirk when I wasn't looking) to one of the largest kits GW make is already inherently lop sided, how's about comparing it to a Space Marine that's already established, has, we are told, a substantial library of 3D objects already on file to drag and drop in and is a much more comparable in terms of workload?

Alternatively, maybe look at a scale Battleship or similar, which is probably comparable to Magnus in terms of size, and despite all the details being established, is going to take a lot of time to ensure those intricacies are faithfully reproduced?


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/28 20:55:16


Post by: Gimgamgoo


Just cover it in skulls and it doesn't matter half the time what it looks like. A large amount of GW customers will buy it because of its rules regardless of how silly it looks.

Make a mistake on a historical miniature and the rivet counters will denounce your entire company forever.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/28 21:33:32


Post by: Captain Brown


I cannot justify GW prices, but the work they have done on 8th has brought out all the former 40K members of my gaming group and now they are playing the game again and some have even bought a box of new figures or two (a first since about 5th edition).

CB


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/29 00:27:59


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 judgedoug wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Way to miss the point. . . . You realize a team can comprise of more people than just sculptors, right???


Wait, I'm missing the point? That was the point I originally made, that a huge amount of work is already done for you, necessitating less development time, by an order of magnitude at least, in the overwhelming majority of cases.


And I've seen some pretty shoddy scultping of historical miniatures. In order to attempt to negate that, finding as many photos (or depictions, for pre-photography period pieces) of the subject, from as many angles as possible alleviates this


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/07/29 00:44:47


Post by: frozenwastes


The new financial reports went into their pricing model on new releases. Basically a third of their sales come from new releases while two thirds of their sales are from existing products. They then price their stuff so that the average new price is increased by 3%. The new primaris character prices pretty much fit right into this paradigm being about 10% more than other 40mm based character miniatures.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/08/15 17:21:47


Post by: Lanrak


''Make the rules look simple so more kiddies can play...''
Is not the same as ,
'Writing clearly defined rules that encompass the intended game play, elegantly and efficiently.''

Major issues from the 3rd ed 40k battle game still have not been addressed.

GW is still in the business of selling toy soldiers to children.
And so gamers will continue to buy from games companies instead of GW ...



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/08/15 17:42:54


Post by: DarkBlack


Lanrak wrote:
'
GW is still in the business of selling toy soldiers to children.

Preferring a simple game does not make one a child. Nor is Warhammer is not appropriate for "kiddies". Being that demeaning is uncalled for.
Not that either Warhammer is a masterpiece in terms good rules writing or tactical depth.


And so gamers will continue to buy from games companies instead of GW ...


40k is still the most popular wargame ever, hands down and it's doing better with the new edition (as is fantasy). Based on the bookings I do for my club and what I have heard.

GW's "Kirby era" did leave other companies time to take root , but Warhammer is still king.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/08/15 18:36:20


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


As I've said before, I anybody is worried about the price of wargaming, then take a leaf out of my book, and go for a FOW heavy tank company from the Grey Wolf book.

Your HQ is 1 King Tiger Tank, and your two platoon choices consists of 1 King Tiger tank in each platoon.

That gives you 1000+ points. Zvezda sell King Tigers for £5 each. Very high quality kits.

Yip, it's horribly imbalanced, but when they're not bogged down, King Tigers are awesome.

Honest to God, that has to be the cheapest wargaming army I've ever bought.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/08/15 19:16:55


Post by: Pacific


 DarkBlack wrote:
Lanrak wrote:
'
GW is still in the business of selling toy soldiers to children.

Preferring a simple game does not make one a child. Nor is Warhammer is not appropriate for "kiddies". Being that demeaning is uncalled for.
Not that either Warhammer is a masterpiece in terms good rules writing or tactical depth.


And so gamers will continue to buy from games companies instead of GW ...


40k is still the most popular wargame ever, hands down and it's doing better with the new edition (as is fantasy). Based on the bookings I do for my club and what I have heard.

GW's "Kirby era" did leave other companies time to take root , but Warhammer is still king.


I wonder if we are only now starting to see Kirby's master plan?

All of the law suits, the price rises, the poor development of rules, death of WHFB etc. Without these, it would have given a number of other wargaming companies very little chance of establishing a foothold.

But, gain a foothold they did, and gained enough market share to force GW to start to take notice, and to try and do things better.

And then, out of it all, GW emerges stronger than ever?

..

Just think about it!


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/08/15 21:51:49


Post by: Stormonu


I think you are ascribing an intelligence to Kirby that simply wasn't there. He was literally attempting to throttle the golden goose to get that last egg out of it, and had he remained at the helm, would have sunk GW.

That doesn't make Roundtree a saint (yet) though. GW still has issues, though it seems they are slowly attempting to rectify the most offensive ones. Fixing pricing just isn't a big concern for them as it is for most of us.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/08/16 00:36:57


Post by: -Loki-


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As I've said before, I anybody is worried about the price of wargaming, then take a leaf out of my book, and go for a FOW heavy tank company from the Grey Wolf book.

Your HQ is 1 King Tiger Tank, and your two platoon choices consists of 1 King Tiger tank in each platoon.

That gives you 1000+ points. Zvezda sell King Tigers for £5 each. Very high quality kits.

Yip, it's horribly imbalanced, but when they're not bogged down, King Tigers are awesome.

Honest to God, that has to be the cheapest wargaming army I've ever bought.


I know your being funny with this post, but 'if GW is too expensive, play a game where you can buy 3 cheap models for a full army' is kind of missing what's so great about the wargaming hobby at the moment. You don't need to go from the most expensive game on the market to £15 for a 3 model army.

The market is saturated right now with games that are cheaper to fully enjoy than what Games Workshop offers.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/08/16 07:19:19


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 -Loki- wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As I've said before, I anybody is worried about the price of wargaming, then take a leaf out of my book, and go for a FOW heavy tank company from the Grey Wolf book.

Your HQ is 1 King Tiger Tank, and your two platoon choices consists of 1 King Tiger tank in each platoon.

That gives you 1000+ points. Zvezda sell King Tigers for £5 each. Very high quality kits.

Yip, it's horribly imbalanced, but when they're not bogged down, King Tigers are awesome.

Honest to God, that has to be the cheapest wargaming army I've ever bought.


I know your being funny with this post, but 'if GW is too expensive, play a game where you can buy 3 cheap models for a full army' is kind of missing what's so great about the wargaming hobby at the moment. You don't need to go from the most expensive game on the market to £15 for a 3 model army.

The market is saturated right now with games that are cheaper to fully enjoy than what Games Workshop offers.


Yeah, I take your point. Going from one extreme end of the spectrum to another, doesn't address the general issue of the middle ground.

We all remember the days when you were getting, say, 20 Cadians in a box for £20, but now it's 10 or something for the same price.

GW are not the only companies doing this. Sweet manufacturers in the UK are shrinking their products but still charging the same.

I suppose that's why games like Mordheim were popular due to the low model count. Ideal if you're on a budget

Skirmish games are the way forward for those one a budget.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/08/16 08:11:27


Post by: doktor_g


GW has learned their lesson. They have realized that collectors collect. They will collect regardless of price, but maybe not regardless of rules. Solution? Make more rules... Their business model is ruthlessly brilliant.

I'm not only a GW owner, but I am also a customer... my only regret is that I am addicted to the product... arrrrrgh....


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/08/17 17:08:54


Post by: Lanrak


@DarkBlack.
I do not have a problem with simple games with simple rules.Or with complicated games with straight forward rules.

I just have issues with simple games with badly applied rules , that look simple but need lots of exceptions to work.And end up being pointlessly over complicated.(EG 40k bloat from 3rd to 7th ed.)

Writing rules to make the new minatures sound awesome to their target demographic, (13 year old boys), with little concern for game play issues.Is what GW still does.

And therefore is still in the mind set of 'selling toy soldiers to children' and NOT focusing on the game play that would appeal to collectors and gamers a like.(Higher volume sales means lower prices!)

I have no issue with the art or background that GW produce as it is purely subjective. (There is enough variety to appeal to everyone. )

But rule sets are functional instructions sets.And as such should be objectively compared to arrive at the best combination of game mechanics and resolution methods to deliver the intended game play.





Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/08/17 21:21:46


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As I've said before, I anybody is worried about the price of wargaming, then take a leaf out of my book, and go for a FOW heavy tank company from the Grey Wolf book.

Your HQ is 1 King Tiger Tank, and your two platoon choices consists of 1 King Tiger tank in each platoon.

That gives you 1000+ points. Zvezda sell King Tigers for £5 each. Very high quality kits.

Yip, it's horribly imbalanced, but when they're not bogged down, King Tigers are awesome.

Honest to God, that has to be the cheapest wargaming army I've ever bought.


The local Ross has Magic The Gathering boardgames at "flushing it now" prices. For $15 one could buy about four or five Frostgrave bands. The figures are about Heroscape quality, too.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/08/18 01:51:54


Post by: Digclaw


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As I've said before, I anybody is worried about the price of wargaming, then take a leaf out of my book, and go for a FOW heavy tank company from the Grey Wolf book.

Your HQ is 1 King Tiger Tank, and your two platoon choices consists of 1 King Tiger tank in each platoon.

That gives you 1000+ points. Zvezda sell King Tigers for £5 each. Very high quality kits.

Yip, it's horribly imbalanced, but when they're not bogged down, King Tigers are awesome.

Honest to God, that has to be the cheapest wargaming army I've ever bought.


The local Ross has Magic The Gathering boardgames at "flushing it now" prices. For $15 one could buy about four or five Frostgrave bands. The figures are about Heroscape quality, too.


The MTG Boardgame was basically HeroScape 2.0. It was just marketed badly. The core sets were distributed with no discounts promising that the profit would be in the expansions, but no expansions were released with the Core Set, so by the time they did come out 2-3 months later, the game was already dead because game stores refused to get expansions for game they made no profit from and couldn't move.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/06 15:16:54


Post by: Scott-S6


Herzlos wrote:

Or a scale model kit that costs the same as a Land Raider?


Larger 1:35 tanks from Dragon, Tiger Models, Trumpeteer, etc. are £50-70 (compared to a land raider at £45 from GW or £36 from independent mail order).


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/07 05:21:49


Post by: RoninXiC


It is by law impossible and illegal to buy 1:35 vehicles from independent stores.

You truely cannot compare Tamiya and stuff to a GW Land Raider. That is just a cruel joke on the land raider.

The amount of detail, sprues, photoetched parts, decals, moving parts, options and such is SO MUCH BETTER, HIGHER; MORE AWESOME in any of the 1:35 tank... the land raider has to feel like the unloved son.

Honestly.. don't compare them. It is just not fair.

(damn the land raider is a gakky model)


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/07 06:39:08


Post by: Pseudomonas


 Scott-S6 wrote:

Larger 1:35 tanks from Dragon, Tiger Models, Trumpeteer, etc. are £50-70 (compared to a land raider at £45 from GW or £36 from independent mail order).




Frozenwastes posted this earlier in the thread. Compare these army men to your favourite GW sculpt. Now imagine that the land raider is the army men and the 1/35 scale kits are the GW model.

The difference is that pronounced.

GW has made some minor improvements, or in reality normalised their business models after the Kirby Krazy years of 'moats' and ' we don't need market research'.

The return of specialist games is very welcome and eminently sensible and there appears to be a functional edition of 40k for the first time in years (I am interested in playing it for the first time since the demise of 2nd ed nearly 20 years ago).

On the other and their pricing is still ridiculous, WHFB is still needlessly dead and their fluff has continued its downward spiral.

Even though I am contemplating getting back into 40k to at least a small degree I will be buying everything from ebay supplemented by some 3rd party manufacturers. This is significantly cheaper and, to me at least, more satisfying. Additionally I don't like the new aesthetic that GW seems to be going for so older models are a plus for me.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/07 07:49:42


Post by: Scott-S6


They're also substantially more expensive. The point is, it was suggested that the price of a land raider is high for a tank model (and that military scale models are all cheaper) when it's actually more middle of the road.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/07 08:14:04


Post by: Pseudomonas


 Scott-S6 wrote:
They're also substantially more expensive. The point is, it was suggested that the price of a land raider is high for a tank model (and that military scale models are all cheaper) when it's actually more middle of the road.


Like for like a Land Raider is indeed high.

https://store.warlordgames.com/products/king-tiger-with-zimmerit

£28 for a 28mm (1/56) King Tiger, and thats resin and metal. Plastic BA tanks are £20 each.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/07 08:48:37


Post by: TheDraconicLord


Pseudomonas wrote:


On the other and their pricing is still ridiculous, WHFB is still needlessly dead and their fluff has continued its downward spiral.


And this is where I beg to differ and it's all subjective, because while I would not touch WHFB with a 10-foot pole, I am now finishing painting an army for the first time. An AoS one. Granted, the destruction of the WHFB was far too swift and brutal, but (anecdotal evidence warning) from 0 interest in WHFB in my LFGS, now there are regular AoS game each saturday, be it skirmish or matched play.

(Also, the fluff was brand spanking new, it needed time, and now it's pretty enjoyable with room to expand, unlike WHFB where everything was set in stone)


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/07 09:19:27


Post by: Pseudomonas


I was referring to the 40k fluff.

If you want to throw out AoS anecdotes: I have still not seen a single game played in the 2 clubs that I go to.

I have seen quite a lot of 9th age and Kings of War though.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/07 09:47:32


Post by: TheDraconicLord


Ah, my mistake, sorry, I thought you were talking about AoS fluff. 40k I can't give any opinion, I loved the Gathering Storm event but I haven't followed anything after it.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/08 17:18:57


Post by: TheCustomLime


Pseudomonas wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
They're also substantially more expensive. The point is, it was suggested that the price of a land raider is high for a tank model (and that military scale models are all cheaper) when it's actually more middle of the road.


Like for like a Land Raider is indeed high.

https://store.warlordgames.com/products/king-tiger-with-zimmerit

£28 for a 28mm (1/56) King Tiger, and thats resin and metal. Plastic BA tanks are £20 each.


In all fairness the Land Raider is also much larger. It's still overpriced for what a simple (and surprisingly old!) kit it is but it's not far comparing it to a WW2 tank. WW2 tanks are actually quite small with a few exceptions.

Plus there is also this...

https://us-store.warlordgames.com/collections/german-army/products/panzer-viii-maus-super-heavy-tank

Which is actually more expensive than a Land Raider!


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/15 12:10:47


Post by: hobojebus


Pseudomonas wrote:
I was referring to the 40k fluff.

If you want to throw out AoS anecdotes: I have still not seen a single game played in the 2 clubs that I go to.

I have seen quite a lot of 9th age and Kings of War though.


Anytime I pop into stoke I never see aos played, and last couple of times I went to lenton with my mates I saw nothing but 30k and 40k, couple of blokes playing blood bowl in bugmans but zero aos.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/15 16:55:16


Post by: Pseudomonas




Well it is resin and metal.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/15 21:24:32


Post by: Scott-S6



Which in a low volume item should make it cheaper.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/15 22:37:30


Post by: Mario


 Scott-S6 wrote:

Which in a low volume item should make it cheaper.
Startup cost for the mould/production yes but otherwise not really. It works for the company if you don't except a huge number in sales because then a mould for plastic production isn't worth it. Why pay (tens of) thousands for the mould when you expect sales in the hundreds? If I remember correctly plastic is also cheaper than both (or at least metal) when it comes to raw material.

That was supposed to be the benefit of plastic, that it allowed for cheaper miniatures on a per unit basis once you hit a certain number (like GW numbers). Look through a WD from the late 90s for those quotes.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/15 23:20:14


Post by: Azreal13




^^ This.

Resin/metal production costs are evenly distributed on a per unit basis, plastic kits have the majority of their costs loaded up front. Consequently, the more plastic kits you sell, the cheaper each unit gets, this doesn't happen with metal or resin. Hence you get a line graph where the total amount of cash you spend on producing a model keeps increasing as you sell a resin or metal kit, and never falls as a per unit average, and keeps falling as a per unit average as you sell more plastics with a much smaller increase in total expenditure with greater volume.

Once those lines intersect, the plastic model is the cheaper option, despite requiring greater initial outlay.

Resin and metal casting is much more labor intensive, has greater ongoing costs in terms of replacing molds etc, and uses a more expensive raw material.

So there are lots of factors that determine whether a given model will be cheaper to produce in resin or plastic, and when you ignore those factors you get £85 Primarchs.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/16 06:15:57


Post by: Pseudomonas


 Scott-S6 wrote:

Which in a low volume item should make it cheaper.


In normal practice plastic miniatures are always cheaper than resin/metal per model as plastics are designed to be produced in sufficiently large quantities to make the use of that materiel worthwhile and as has been said production of plastic is far cheaper than metal/resin. This falls down for GW of course as their plastics appear to be made from freshly squeezed dinosaurs, angel tears and the cure for cancer.

The mark up for GW's plastics must be gigantic.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/16 11:30:39


Post by: hobojebus


Each sprue costs 5p for them to produce the box costs more than the sprues.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/19 03:36:30


Post by: Chamberlain


Pseudomonas wrote:
Frozenwastes posted this earlier in the thread. Compare these army men to your favourite GW sculpt. Now imagine that the land raider is the army men and the 1/35 scale kits are the GW model.


Frozenwastes is local to me, so I was like "why did he post a picture of some painted army men?" So I had to go back and read it. I get what he was on about now. Just an tangent in response to the stupid idea that wargaming should be quit by anyone who can't afford GW.

I read more of the thread. As if price was the way you'd know if GW "learned their lesson." I think GW has been operating in two very different ways under the last CEO and the current one even if their prices are high in both cases. And their sales numbers on their investor relations website shows what they are doing now is working great.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/19 14:53:30


Post by: frozenwastes


Yeppers. GW should only lower their price for bundles and introductory products. Things like start collecting boxes are a good enough deal for the price conscious and the expensive primaris characters just aren't aimed at them.

As for plastic army men though, I've started a 54mm colonial wargaming project using the 19th century army men made by Armies in Plastic. I'll shoot you an email when the painting and terrain is done.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/19 16:05:19


Post by: Chamberlain


I guess the primaris characters aren't aimed at either of us then! Though I did spend $25 on bits from ebay to build my captain just the way I wanted him. Probably wouldn't have bothered with bits and just would have bought the new primaris captain instead if it came with a ton of options and parts. I would have totally paid the extra if it actually came with parts. And options in the rules. Though it is cool how flexible everyone is at the club days. Just pay the points for whatever weapons you have modeled regardless of what the entry says about primaris captains not having things like combi-plasmas.

I think one of the reasons we are okay with GW's prices is we don't buy much. Neither of us go to tournaments and we have a couple 500ish point skirmish forces for each of 40k and Sigmar each? Most of our stuff is Inquisimunda type games.

Urm... I guess 2x500 skirmish forces for 40k + 2x500 skirmish forces for Sigmar = 2000 points.

Never mind

Though I guess it is all start collecting boxes and splitting starter sets and the like.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I did a search on 54mm armies in plastic. very interesting. $12 for 20 infantry is really cheap, but they do look very "toy soldier." I guess that's part of the appeal.

Spoiler:


Some black lining and maybe a shade colour painted into the folds and these might look pretty cool. Basing on washers I guess?



Totally different style from most miniature wargaming miniatures, but I do like them. Looking forward to the game!




Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/20 07:08:51


Post by: Chamberlain


https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/09/19/starting-a-gaming-club-sep-19gw-homepage-post-2/

A little background

James: Wellington has a strong traditional wargaming scene. It’s also currently the capital of Warhammer Age of Sigmar in New Zealand and has a strong community of all ages playing everything from Warhammer to historical & Napoleonic games.


GW having an article on their website that starts off acknowledging the larger hobby of wargaming? Even to the point of mentioning a popular historical era people wargame? This reminds me of the time White Dwarf had a picture of one's the Perry's historical scale models in it. I think that was during the LOTR years.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/20 21:09:33


Post by: oni


GW has certainly been doing a fantastic job in regards to models and interacting with their customer base.

Their once diamond standard customer service on the other hand has face planted straight into the mud. Very sad.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/21 05:08:11


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 oni wrote:

Their once diamond standard customer service on the other hand has face planted straight into the mud. Very sad.



Care to elaborate on this one??? this has not been my experience at all.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/21 21:24:18


Post by: oni


 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 oni wrote:

Their once diamond standard customer service on the other hand has face planted straight into the mud. Very sad.



Care to elaborate on this one??? this has not been my experience at all.


I'm not able to call them at a time in which they're phone lines are open so I have to rely on email. They're completely unresponsive. And yes, the address is correct.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/22 00:24:46


Post by: Chamberlain


Actually those hours are bad. 9:30 to 6pm means anyone who is doing a longer work day where they can't get to a phone is out of luck. And not open on Saturday at all.

They have a half an hour lunch break in which the, so it's either just one person or for some reason the people on the phones take lunch at the same time.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 09:26:21


Post by: Mymearan


To answer the question in the OP: They are doing what the customers want, judging by their financials. So apparently, customers don't need lower prices on everything, they want what GW has given them: community interaction, an amazing release schedule and responsiveness. I am one of those customers. Price isn't super important to me because I buy far more than I can paint. When I can't do that then I'll start complaining about prices. What they are doing works, and therefore they have "learned their lesson", by which I mean that they have made the changes that their customers wanted, and they are voting with their wallets. Judging by this, prices aren't as important as you seem to think, or alternatively, customers are happy with getting the discounted bundles and then buying expensive characters and vehicles/monsters to complement them.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 09:38:12


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


The prices are quite intriguing at the moment.

For AoS, Death are thoroughly spoiled in terms of discount boxes. We've got three 'Start Collecting', all featuring A Big Expensive, and three smaller expansion boxes.

If one was to get one of each, you'd end up with a fairly large, but more importantly flexible, Undead army.

Just a shame we've only got the one Battletome so far of course....


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 15:44:23


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The prices are quite intriguing at the moment.

For AoS, Death are thoroughly spoiled in terms of discount boxes. We've got three 'Start Collecting', all featuring A Big Expensive, and three smaller expansion boxes.

If one was to get one of each, you'd end up with a fairly large, but more importantly flexible, Undead army.

Just a shame we've only got the one Battletome so far of course....


AoS is certainly in an interesting place. . . I mean, the Stormcast releases have slowed down. . .but there's still so much that's been ignored rules/lore/model wise. For me personally, it's pretty cool that Beastclaw Raiders are a thing. . . but what about the other half of my Ogres?? Then there's my Empire/ "Freeguild" stuff. I'm sure we'll never see it, but what about them? What about the elves in Order? What about Beastmen??

Other than the one boxed set and Generals handbook, AoS has had quite a break recently what with the insane release schedule for 40k.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 16:00:05


Post by: Stormonu


 Mymearan wrote:
To answer the question in the OP: They are doing what the customers want, judging by their financials. So apparently, customers don't need lower prices on everything, they want what GW has given them: community interaction, an amazing release schedule and responsiveness. I am one of those customers. Price isn't super important to me because I buy far more than I can paint. When I can't do that then I'll start complaining about prices. What they are doing works, and therefore they have "learned their lesson", by which I mean that they have made the changes that their customers wanted, and they are voting with their wallets. Judging by this, prices aren't as important as you seem to think, or alternatively, customers are happy with getting the discounted bundles and then buying expensive characters and vehicles/monsters to complement them.


*Customers* may be "happy" with the price, but I can tell you that they have come close to losing me as a customer completely due to their prices. I only rarely buy official GW products now, preferring cheaper 3rd part products where I can find them or purchasing minimal amounts of official GW - in increasingly sparser doses.

I'll put it this way - when I have the choice to buy one box of minis for $60 (Kastellen robots) or an entire boardgame (Terror in Meeple city) for me and my family to play, GW is the one that loses out.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 16:41:26


Post by: Mymearan


 Stormonu wrote:
 Mymearan wrote:
To answer the question in the OP: They are doing what the customers want, judging by their financials. So apparently, customers don't need lower prices on everything, they want what GW has given them: community interaction, an amazing release schedule and responsiveness. I am one of those customers. Price isn't super important to me because I buy far more than I can paint. When I can't do that then I'll start complaining about prices. What they are doing works, and therefore they have "learned their lesson", by which I mean that they have made the changes that their customers wanted, and they are voting with their wallets. Judging by this, prices aren't as important as you seem to think, or alternatively, customers are happy with getting the discounted bundles and then buying expensive characters and vehicles/monsters to complement them.


*Customers* may be "happy" with the price, but I can tell you that they have come close to losing me as a customer completely due to their prices. I only rarely buy official GW products now, preferring cheaper 3rd part products where I can find them or purchasing minimal amounts of official GW - in increasingly sparser doses.

I'll put it this way - when I have the choice to buy one box of minis for $60 (Kastellen robots) or an entire boardgame (Terror in Meeple city) for me and my family to play, GW is the one that loses out.


And you are free to do so. Personally, having a full-time job and two children, I have more money than time (and no, my job isn't fancy). This means that $60 on another board game we won't have time to play (we already have quite a few that rarely if ever get played) would be largely wasted, while $60 on a box of minis I would build, paint and play in my existing army, on my personal hobby time, is a better way to spend my money. Maybe you spend more time playing board games and thus that would be the best purchase for you. Different priorities!


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 17:31:06


Post by: Azreal13


Price isn't super important to me because I buy far more than I can paint.


while $60 on a box of minis I would build, paint and play in my existing army, on my personal hobby time, is a better way to spend my money


There's some sort of cognative dissonance going on here.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 17:39:19


Post by: Chamberlain


I've noticed that friends with small children actually have more hobbying time than many of those without. The child might go to bed at 7pm or whatever, but you're going to be home in the evening while they are sleeping. Put some laundry in the machine, find a podcast or an audio book and start painting.

What got me back into buying GW's stuff was their rules that work well with smaller forces. AoS Skirmish into Path to Glory into 1000 point games is an awesome thing to do.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 18:44:00


Post by: Lanrak


GW has learned there are enough GW collectors who care little about actual game play or quality rules writing.
So GW can just appeal to this 'easy to please demographic,' and chug along nicely , without having to bother with pro active things to grow market share.

GW is still over priced with crap rules.IMO.So no real change from my perspective.





Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 18:52:40


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Have you seen their latest results?

Kind of looks like a growing market share to me?


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 18:53:40


Post by: Azreal13


In oder to determine that, you'd need to know the overall size of the market...


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 19:06:11


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Given their recent advances, they're definitely increasing sales volumes.

If that's not expanding, what is?


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 19:13:15


Post by: Azreal13


You can't just throw around any words you fancy.

If you are trying to say they're growing, then by most conventional metrics, based on the information we have access to, you'd be right.

However, you said market share which isn't the same thing. They could double their turnover, but if the market grows by triple then their share has actually fallen and they've actually underperformed in the context of the wider market.

You can't say their market share has grown with any certainty because we have no solid information on how big the market is, and if we even try and establish what the market consists of, we'll just draw in pedants who'll argue X isn't in the same market because Space Marines.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 19:15:39


Post by: Mymearan


 Azreal13 wrote:
Price isn't super important to me because I buy far more than I can paint.


while $60 on a box of minis I would build, paint and play in my existing army, on my personal hobby time, is a better way to spend my money


There's some sort of cognative dissonance going on here.


Not really. I don't paint everything I buy but I can still build it and play with it.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 19:17:15


Post by: Wayniac


TO me it's fairly clear that they are not doing much stuff better, just putting on appearances. Whether or not that's "good enough" is subjective, but I think the "new" GW is largely just smoke and mirrors, with minor improvements that are lauded as being amazing.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 19:19:51


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 Azreal13 wrote:
You can't just throw around any words you fancy.

If you are trying to say they're growing, then by most conventional metrics, based on the information we have access to, you'd be right.

However, you said market share which isn't the same thing. They could double their turnover, but if the market grows by triple then their share has actually fallen and they've actually underperformed in the context of the wider market.

You can't say their market share has grown with any certainty because we have no solid information on how big the market is, and if we even try and establish what the market consists of, we'll just draw in pedants who'll argue X isn't in the same market because Space Marines.


Well, we'll never know - because no other wargames company publishes their results.

We could turn to the ICV2 results, but we know for a fact their data is incomplete. We can extrapolate some information, but not enough to give safe conclusions. For instance, ICV2 doesn't include GW's direct sales in the US. Yes, we can work out roughly what's missing from that (compare GW's published figures for direct and third party in that territory), but without knowing the metrics and checking involved behind the ICV2 results, or how much more its reporting X-Wing to be selling, that gets us pretty much nowhere.

The only conclusion we can currently draw is that GW are taking in far more than they have in recent years. And that points solely to a greater interest in their product, no?


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 19:24:08


Post by: Mymearan


Wayniac wrote:
TO me it's fairly clear that they are not doing much stuff better, just putting on appearances. Whether or not that's "good enough" is subjective, but I think the "new" GW is largely just smoke and mirrors, with minor improvements that are lauded as being amazing.


These things ARE amazing to me:

- changing rules, creating FAQs and revamping games on the basis of community feedback, and doing it quickly
- binning the disaster that was 40k 7th and creating a great rule set in 8th
- having a social media presence and interacting with their fans via their community site, Facebook, and Warhammer TV, putting out interviews and creating faces for the community
- the painting tutorials, actually an incredibly important tool for newer gamers and intermediate painters alike
- Digging into their back catalogue and doing great release after great release (AdMech, Genestealer Cults, 30k, Warhammer Quest, Necromunda, the list goes on)
- making an effort to seriously support competitive play in AoS, 40k and now with a whole game (Shadespire)

You know what WOULDN'T have been an amazing improvement to me? Simply lowering prices and doing none of the above. That wouldn't have gotten me more excited about the game.

And apparently, most of their customers agree with me.

So you don't get to decide what is "smoke and mirrors" and what is not... because getting customers back and creating excitement around the game is what is important for GW as a company, and what they are doing is exactly that. And that is the problem with this thread. There is an assumption that prices are the only thing that matters, and everything else is "smoke and mirrors". While that may be true for them... the numbers show otherwise.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 19:32:59


Post by: Azreal13


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
You can't just throw around any words you fancy.

If you are trying to say they're growing, then by most conventional metrics, based on the information we have access to, you'd be right.

However, you said market share which isn't the same thing. They could double their turnover, but if the market grows by triple then their share has actually fallen and they've actually underperformed in the context of the wider market.

You can't say their market share has grown with any certainty because we have no solid information on how big the market is, and if we even try and establish what the market consists of, we'll just draw in pedants who'll argue X isn't in the same market because Space Marines.


Well, we'll never know - because no other wargames company publishes their results.

We could turn to the ICV2 results, but we know for a fact their data is incomplete. We can extrapolate some information, but not enough to give safe conclusions. For instance, ICV2 doesn't include GW's direct sales in the US. Yes, we can work out roughly what's missing from that (compare GW's published figures for direct and third party in that territory), but without knowing the metrics and checking involved behind the ICV2 results, or how much more its reporting X-Wing to be selling, that gets us pretty much nowhere.

The only conclusion we can currently draw is that GW are taking in far more than they have in recent years. And that points solely to a greater interest in their product, no?


Which was precisely my point, we will never know, beyond educated guesswork, so to cite it as growing share is possibly erroneous. At best its speculative.

As it stands, they do appear to have grown ahead of the market (~30% for GW as opposed to 21% reported by ICV2 for tabletop gaming in general) but the information is too vague and incomplete to be precise about it.

Edit: Although with the tabletop market being estimated as $1.44bn by ICV2 in the US, in terms of raw currency it's still quite possible to argue that GW have still shrunk relative to the market.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 20:03:36


Post by: Geifer


 Mymearan wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
TO me it's fairly clear that they are not doing much stuff better, just putting on appearances. Whether or not that's "good enough" is subjective, but I think the "new" GW is largely just smoke and mirrors, with minor improvements that are lauded as being amazing.


These things ARE amazing to me:

- changing rules, creating FAQs and revamping games on the basis of community feedback, and doing it quickly
- binning the disaster that was 40k 7th and creating a great rule set in 8th
- having a social media presence and interacting with their fans via their community site, Facebook, and Warhammer TV, putting out interviews and creating faces for the community
- the painting tutorials, actually an incredibly important tool for newer gamers and intermediate painters alike
- Digging into their back catalogue and doing great release after great release (AdMech, Genestealer Cults, 30k, Warhammer Quest, Necromunda, the list goes on)
- making an effort to seriously support competitive play in AoS, 40k and now with a whole game (Shadespire)

You know what WOULDN'T have been an amazing improvement to me? Simply lowering prices and doing none of the above. That wouldn't have gotten me more excited about the game.

And apparently, most of their customers agree with me.

So you don't get to decide what is "smoke and mirrors" and what is not... because getting customers back and creating excitement around the game is what is important for GW as a company, and what they are doing is exactly that. And that is the problem with this thread. There is an assumption that prices are the only thing that matters, and everything else is "smoke and mirrors". While that may be true for them... the numbers show otherwise.


One could argue that happy customers don't get to decide if the magic is magic or smoke and mirrors, because if it is smoke and mirrors, they fell for it.

Worth keeping in mind before you go and decide who is eligible to determine for themselves what GW is and is not.

Since we are talking about a company/customer relationship, it's very subjective anyway. Take your points. I could put a negative spin on most of them quite easily:

- Willingness to change rules at a whim allows them to release sloppy rules and patch them later, so they do
- They bin the disaster that was 7th ed just to release the disaster that is 8th ed
- They've created a working propaganda machine
- They spend so much time and effort on new things nobody asked for instead of releasing needed overhauls of core models
- While they try to cater to competitive play, bleed over from narrative parts means that they don't achieve any significant measure of balance

The only one I'm struggling with is good, free and easily available painting tutorials. Hard to find any fault with that.

Not that I necessarily hold these opinions (like I care about competitive play... GW can support that all day long an earn only a yawn from me), but they're plausible. This stuff is happening right now. And it's not even incompatible with your opinion, because it just takes the same thing and values it differently.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 20:17:10


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


You say 'fell for it'....

It couldn't be that there is no one take on what pleases a Wargamer?

Me, I'm happy enough with GW's offerings, and I've been enjoying their greater efforts to engage with their fan base. In particular, I'm genuinely chuffed they're diversifying their stuff. Greater presence of females in models and background, and a wider variety of skin tones being painted.

To some, that may not mean a lot, or even anything. And fair enough. But to me, it suggests they've entered the 21st century, where it's not just middle class white males that enjoy nerdy things.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 20:54:32


Post by: Geifer


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You say 'fell for it'....

It couldn't be that there is no one take on what pleases a Wargamer?


That's exactly my point. We can look at the same thing and depending on our personal valuation, GW may be a great company or still the same money grubbing gak show.

Or anything in between, really. You can be like me and acknowledge all the changes for the better and still criticize them for things that did not improve. I find a number of things they do these days objectionable, but I still like a good many models they make and accordingly buy them. I'm part of the customers that made the last financial report the success it is.

Perhaps I misunderstood Mymearan or I'm focusing too much on a throwaway comment, but I object to the idea that anyone in the hobby is disqualified from holding an opinion on GW on such a subjective subject.

You can totally be satisfied with GW and emphasize the positives. No problem. All I'm saying is that you can look at all these positives and see something negative because these things affect you differently.

So when I say "fell for it", pretend I'm playing devil's advocate. If we assume that GW is doing well because it's doing right by folks, all those happy customers are happy for all the right reasons and didn't fall for anything. But if we look at things differently and assume GW is being tricksy because they discovered marketing, what would you call that?


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 20:55:54


Post by: Chamberlain


There's nothing fake or not authentic about the enjoyment you get putting some miniatures together, painting them and playing a game with them.

If GW sold someone miniatures and rules and they got exactly what they were looking for, then they didn't fall for anything. They got what they paid for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Geifer wrote:
So when I say "fell for it", pretend I'm playing devil's advocate. If we assume that GW is doing well because it's doing right by folks, all those happy customers are happy for all the right reasons and didn't fall for anything. But if we look at things differently and assume GW is being tricksy because they discovered marketing, what would you call that?


How would you go about distinguishing their intent? And if a particular part of what GW offers has been changed to what people want, how much does the intent matter to the end user under each entirely theoretical speculation?

GW is malicious and has figured out how to give people what they want

vs

GW is not malicious and has figured out how to give people what they want

Good luck with that distinction.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 21:08:19


Post by: Hollow


I really like what GW are currently doing. I'm excited for the games and releases, I like the fact that they are reaching out and interacting with the community. I do think some of the pricing is a little steep, but I don't find myself getting particularly worked up about it.

There are people who will complain regardless of what GW does. They could literally give models away for free and people would still complain.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 21:18:17


Post by: Galas


Propaganda? GW as everything in this life, is not black or white.
In some cases it has got worse (All the strange and inconsistente no model-no rules that some times apply, others don't, other times you have GK GM in DK, etc...), in others it has remain the same (Prices), but in others, many others, it has improved, packs that lower the price point, social media, at least trying to put FAQ's and improve rules (One can say they do that because that way they can do sloppy rules. Well, they did sloppy rules before and you had to eat them 2-3 years, at least now they change them).

So "smoke and mirrors", at least to me, is just a pedantic phrase some people use to feel that they are more inteligent that the poor souls that can't see what they see. But at the end of the day, as every business, GW is not perfect, but isn't your friend. It offers a product and you need to value if you find it good.
Saying that price is all what matters isn't right. I'm more willing to pay X price if they threat me better, offer me other kind of bonuses, etc... than if they nearly call me stupid ("We have no gamers, only modelers") etc...


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 21:37:46


Post by: Arbitrator


Basically, they're doing what they've always done. Absurdly high prices, awful rules with horrendous balance, scummy tactics like removing weapon options from Death Guard Terminators that people will have had on previous versions, removing rules for models that don't have rules for fear of stuff like Chapter House, etc.

The difference is they now practise a basic social media presence, telling us "We're your friends now! We're not those stinky old guys, we're different! Hehe, look at this whacky meme we guys know you find funny, Lol Failbaddon amirite? XDDD". They're still punching you in the stomach, just they're doing it with a smile on their face.

The thing is, people were so desperate to look for an excuse to get back into bed with GW that they - heck, including yours truly - fell for it. People have spent thousands on a hobby, so of course buyer's remorse is going to be a big thing. It's just that under Kirby/7th things were SO bad that all but the most diehard of fanboys couldn't take it anymore. So now they're practising "Look guys, we're NEW! And friendly! You can trust us!" despite puffing a lot of smoke and setting up a lot of mirrors, people fall for it hook, line and stinker. It worked, and now a whole lot more people are willing to defend absolutely anything 'nu'-GW does as "b-but this is the NEW Games Workshop! it's improved so much! W-why don't you give them a chance?!"

It's kind of genius in a way. Games Workshop was SO bad that actually TALKING to it's damn customers was considered such a monumentally massive improvement people are just shy of calling it a whole new company.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 21:42:17


Post by: Geifer


 Chamberlain wrote:
There's nothing fake or not authentic about the enjoyment you get putting some miniatures together, painting them and playing a game with them.

If GW sold someone miniatures and rules and they got exactly what they were looking for, then they didn't fall for anything. They got what they paid for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Geifer wrote:
So when I say "fell for it", pretend I'm playing devil's advocate. If we assume that GW is doing well because it's doing right by folks, all those happy customers are happy for all the right reasons and didn't fall for anything. But if we look at things differently and assume GW is being tricksy because they discovered marketing, what would you call that?


How would you go about distinguishing their intent? And if a particular part of what GW offers has been changed to what people want, how much does the intent matter to the end user under each entirely theoretical speculation?

GW is malicious and has figured out how to give people what they want

vs

GW is not malicious and has figured out how to give people what they want

Good luck with that distinction.


How would I go about it? By myself, for myself.

I wouldn't use your entirely theoretical speculation because you look at it from the wrong angle. And when I say wrong, I mean exclusively from my perspective. Whatever GW is (and it's not malicious, that's nonsense), it gives people what they want is the kind of thinking I don't subscribe to. First, it gives select people what they want. Not just people. This is easily proven because I don't get what I want, so asserting that regardless of any other circumstances people are getting what they want is false. Second, rigging the result to stay the same regardless of the outlook defies logic. If I were to assume GW was malicious, I'd have a hard time reaching the same conclusion as if GW were benign.

A more fitting line of thinking for a disgruntled old git like me would be:

GW is out to make money by cultivating its IP to preserve classic ideals and tries to please its core audience

versus

GW is out to make money by revising its IP to meet modern sentiments and tries to appeal to a wider audience

GW's goal isn't in doubt. There is no question as to the goals of a publicly traded company. It's about their methods and how they affect you. And that is entirely down to the individual. No matter how well GW is doing, no matter how many people buy more than they did before, no matter how many people are satisfied with GW, that's a question that only the individual can answer.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 21:50:37


Post by: Chamberlain


 Arbitrator wrote:
Basically, they're doing what they've always done. Absurdly high prices, awful rules with horrendous balance, scummy tactics like removing weapon options from Death Guard Terminators that people will have had on previous versions, removing rules for models that don't have rules for fear of stuff like Chapter House, etc.

...

It's kind of genius in a way. Games Workshop was SO bad that actually TALKING to it's damn customers was considered such a monumentally massive improvement people are just shy of calling it a whole new company.


"basically, they're doing what they've always done"

Isn't this the crux of it? Each person is going to have their pet issue and if GW has changed on it, then they'll think everything is changed and if GW has not, they'll think it's some ellaborate deception and everyone but them is just being fooled.

The things you listed (prices, rules, balance, weapon options, rules entries, etc.) are things that are not my issues and for many think GW's current offerings are actually doing well.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 21:50:58


Post by: MechaEmperor7000


The recent DG releases have me conflicted. On one hand the Foul Blightspawn came at a price that, while not exactly acceptable for canadians, is not that outragous as the other recent clampack releases. On the other hand Morty is really overpriced for what you get and is more expensive than his brother Magnus (who has more sprues).

However there seems to be a show of willingness to lower their prices, as well as releasing bundles that have actual discounts without being outrageously priced (the allies boxes of AoS compared to, say, the army boxes that frequently cost a few hundred).

Given that the majority of the changes are for good, even with hiccups along the way, I think we should give GW a chance for the next few years and see if they implement real changes. Such things won't happen overnight or even in a few months.

And as always, remember to vote with your wallets (and this means purchasing things that you do feel worth it, not just snobbing things you dislike). GW is listening for the first time in a decade so this is more important now than ever.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 22:01:35


Post by: Stormonu


Overall, I do think that GW is beginning to make some real changes (though I feel they still miss the target more often than they hit)

- They now provide several price point entry levels in to their games ( free PDF rules, "Start Collecting" magazine, several levels of the starter set, full BRB, start collecting boxes)

- They are beginning to re-encourage modding (though only using their kits)

- They are providing rules for some cases where there aren't models (Marbo, Rough Riders, Librarian Dreadknight)

- They are providing slightly more advanced warning of upcoming releases (the codex list to the end of the year)

- They are on track to return some old, beloved game systems (Necromunda, Adeptus Titanicus, Bloodbowl) and providing new ones (Gorechosen, Gangs of Commorogh, Shadow War, etc.)

- Return of selling GW product in internet shopping carts

But, they still do have some issues that I wish they would address

- Moving finecast/metal lines to plastic

- Strategms are on track to become the 8E version of Formations

- Codex creep and the "haves" vs. "have-nots"

- Single character/HQ $$ and the prices of some kits

I had some others that were more than niggling annoyances, but for some reason I'm drawing a bank on them :/


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 22:09:41


Post by: Chamberlain


 Geifer wrote:
First, it gives select people what they want. Not just people. This is easily proven because I don't get what I want, so asserting that regardless of any other circumstances people are getting what they want is false.


If GW can meet their business goals without catering to your desires, do you count?

By that I mean, should they bother catering your specific criteria that you will use to determine if they "learned their lesson"? Should you getting what you want matter if people (whoever they may be) are getting what they want? They just happen to be people that are not you.

If giving you what you want is sufficiently easy and cheap, then they should. If it would be expensive and involve large changes to the company itself, they probably shouldn't bother.

Second, rigging the result to stay the same regardless of the outlook defies logic.


It's isolating a variable, so it's actually super logical. We have GW's published results from the last couple years and they have improved. Period. So that outcome cannot be different in the two possibilities. The results staying the same regardless of the outlook is reality itself. The unknown (variable being isolated) is the outlook.

For someone to fool someone else, for them to use "smoke and mirrors" requires an intent to deceive. No one is "fooled" without someone intending to fool. No one is "tricked' into buying GW's stuff if GW actually believes in their product and that what they are offering is actually what people want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll give an example for myself where I am torn as to whether or not GW is actually intending to fool people.

Tournament play.

They wouldn't shut up about how much they consulted tournament players for both 8th edition and General's Handbook 2017.

Does GW actually believe their rules are good enough for tournament gamers or have they been fooling people?

It's my opinion that the matched play approach to both AoS and 8th edition 40k is the inferior of both open and narrative play. If GW believed as I did and then went on pumping their game for tournaments anyway, then there really would be a case for saying "smoke and mirrors!" and "people are falling for GW's marketing."

Or they might be looking at attendance at AoS and 8th edition 40k events and the positive experience people are having there and they actually believe in their product and it actually is working for people.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 22:39:09


Post by: frozenwastes


I think GW's deceptiveness is on a continuum. Organizations are made up of multiple people and have current cultures and trends of opinion within them.

I think between the CHS lawsuit and a bit into 7th edition was the time of GW's greatest levels of contempt for their customers and the lowest level of belief in their own products. The launch of 7th so soon after 6th and current staff talking about how 8th was on the table so soon after that makes me conclude that GW never really believed it was anything other than a edition-as-cash-grab while 8th actually was something GW can believe in with a straight face.

So I think they've shifted away from marketing as deception to marketing as letting people know of a product they actually stand behind with both the GHB and 8th edition.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 22:42:26


Post by: TheAuldGrump


 Mymearan wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
TO me it's fairly clear that they are not doing much stuff better, just putting on appearances. Whether or not that's "good enough" is subjective, but I think the "new" GW is largely just smoke and mirrors, with minor improvements that are lauded as being amazing.


These things ARE amazing to me:

- changing rules, creating FAQs and revamping games on the basis of community feedback, and doing it quickly
- binning the disaster that was 40k 7th and creating a great rule set in 8th
- having a social media presence and interacting with their fans via their community site, Facebook, and Warhammer TV, putting out interviews and creating faces for the community
- the painting tutorials, actually an incredibly important tool for newer gamers and intermediate painters alike
- Digging into their back catalogue and doing great release after great release (AdMech, Genestealer Cults, 30k, Warhammer Quest, Necromunda, the list goes on)
- making an effort to seriously support competitive play in AoS, 40k and now with a whole game (Shadespire)

You know what WOULDN'T have been an amazing improvement to me? Simply lowering prices and doing none of the above. That wouldn't have gotten me more excited about the game.

And apparently, most of their customers agree with me.

So you don't get to decide what is "smoke and mirrors" and what is not... because getting customers back and creating excitement around the game is what is important for GW as a company, and what they are doing is exactly that. And that is the problem with this thread. There is an assumption that prices are the only thing that matters, and everything else is "smoke and mirrors". While that may be true for them... the numbers show otherwise.
Scarily enough - I mostly agree.

I have to add the caveat - 'but not for me', because they did a very good job of turning me into an ex-customer.

So much so that I sold off the Dark Angels army that I have had for decades. (Took up room, I am not playing, and we have a kid.)

But, a long time ago, I said that if GW ever really wanted me back as a customer, all that they would really have to do is re-release, or release a new edition of, either Mordheim or Necromunda....

So, I am watching... nervously, but watching.

I am never going to play 40K again, nor will I ever play AoS. I have lost all interest in the former, and loathe the latter.

But Necromunda?

If the price is right, I might buy it just for the minis.

If the rules are good?

I will be a happy Grump

The Auld Grump


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 22:44:13


Post by: frozenwastes


As for tournaments, I think any time you design a scenario without also controlling the forces involved, balance is impossible. So I think this is one area GW isnot being honest about. I think they know in the design studio that both AoS and 40k aren't truly adequate for the task and their involvement of people in the scene was disengenuious marketing fluff.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 22:49:51


Post by: Chamberlain


It is sort of strange for me to bring my army and you bring yours and then we play a scenario designed with neither of them in mind except in a very general fashion and we expect it to somehow be balanced?

And yet, when I go to ITC events, people have a blast and skilled players consistently come out on top. So even in that environment, there are things you can do to win more consistently, so I would say it is up to the task.

Even if the task is largely about analyzing the meta and making the right call at the army building stage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Shadespire is designed from the ground up to be a competitive game. So even if AoS and 40k aren't perfect, Shadespire will give them a product designed for the competitive player full stop.

Enough wasting time on the internet though. It's painting night.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 23:09:04


Post by: Galas


 frozenwastes wrote:
As for tournaments, I think any time you design a scenario without also controlling the forces involved, balance is impossible. So I think this is one area GW isnot being honest about. I think they know in the design studio that both AoS and 40k aren't truly adequate for the task and their involvement of people in the scene was disengenuious marketing fluff.


They tried the approach of "This game is not for competitive play!" and being honest about it but peoplet didn't liked that.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/26 23:47:28


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 Geifer wrote:

A more fitting line of thinking for a disgruntled old git like me would be:

GW is out to make money by cultivating its IP to preserve classic ideals and tries to please its core audience

versus

GW is out to make money by revising its IP to meet modern sentiments and tries to appeal to a wider audience

GW's goal isn't in doubt. There is no question as to the goals of a publicly traded company. It's about their methods and how they affect you. And that is entirely down to the individual. No matter how well GW is doing, no matter how many people buy more than they did before, no matter how many people are satisfied with GW, that's a question that only the individual can answer.



To bring a completely different take on this issue, I want to use a very apples/oranges comparison. . . Chevrolet. See, here in the US, we're bombarded with advertisements touting their JD Power "best in initial quality" awards. . . Which people have found out is a total farce of an award. Basically, it is a metric that apparently Chevy themselves lobbied to have created, measuring faults/breakdowns/defective vehicles, within the first 90 days of ownership. .. . So, basically, if you buy a brand new Chevy, you're probably "good" for the first 90 days, but a number of other tests show that really, the metric should be the first year, in which the total brand performs about as well, or just slightly below other auto manufacturers.

Why do I use this example?? Because essentially, Chevrolet is using a rather deceptive marketing scheme to draw in customers (for further reference to this deception, there's a ton of "everything wrong with" videos for their truck bed demonstration commercials). Yes, GW is trying to make money. . . but they aren't exactly deceiving anyone. We all know that releases are coming hot, fast, and in a hurry, we all know generally to expect models to be around a certain price point (whether we agree with that or not, is another issue). And, if you have issues with a product purchased through GW, they are still doing largely the same replacement/return policy as they've had for a long time.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 00:22:56


Post by: frozenwastes


Galas wrote:
 frozenwastes wrote:
As for tournaments, I think any time you design a scenario without also controlling the forces involved, balance is impossible. So I think this is one area GW isnot being honest about. I think they know in the design studio that both AoS and 40k aren't truly adequate for the task and their involvement of people in the scene was disengenuious marketing fluff.


They tried the approach of "This game is not for competitive play!" and being honest about it but peoplet didn't liked that.


So the question is are they lying about it now? Since the GHB added matched play and points to AoS?

Chamberlain thinks the competitive scene works, but if only a subset of army list options see play is it really working? I've heard a lot of podcast interviews with tournament AoS regulars and their lists are doing things on a totally different level compared to a non optimzed build.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 03:42:12


Post by: Chamberlain


How much (like as a percentage) would be needed to be possibly present in a winning list for people who want a wider range of top lists to be satisfied?

For those wanting "balance" how much of a codex needs to be tournament playable?

The top level tournament players create their own balance. They identify the best stuff and figure out what works and play a version of the game that only includes those things.

And everyone else in a larger event will select themselves into workable matchups through the way swiss matchings work. Lots of people go to the bigger ITC events just to play with people on the bottom tables.

It only really breaks down in smaller events and in individual games. Anyone thinking GW is going to provide balance when they don't know what I'm taking, what you're taking or how that will work in a given scenario is fooling themselves. Too many variables outside the game designer's control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want an example of a game that mostly gets balance right (or at least way, way better than GW does with warhammers) should check out infinity. The reason they can get it right is they actually have less variables. There is more in common with how any given group of troopers is going to work in that game than in 40k. Less variables so they can actually make it all make sense when doing the scenarios and points.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 04:03:54


Post by: Baron Klatz



AoS is certainly in an interesting place. . . I mean, the Stormcast releases have slowed down. . .but there's still so much that's been ignored rules/lore/model wise. For me personally, it's pretty cool that Beastclaw Raiders are a thing. . . but what about the other half of my Ogres?? Then there's my Empire/ "Freeguild" stuff. I'm sure we'll never see it, but what about them? What about the elves in Order? What about Beastmen?? 

Other than the one boxed set and Generals handbook, AoS has had quite a break recently what with the insane release schedule for 40k.


Of those questions I'd say the ogre one is the only that needs answering by GW. (Though with all the things on their plate for demanded releases down the years it's likely on the low end the list)

Otherwise freeguild and most of Order just got a big focus with FireStorm(elves certainly among them), Elves will likely be focused on with next year's Slaanesh focus and beastmen got attention too rulewise this year as well as the amazing Tzaangors last year and rumored Nurgle beastmen next year.

As for the "break", it's actually better than last year which first half of the year was AoS with little to no focus the other half(except a Stormcast hero upgrade kit). We got a ton of stuff this half of the year with the other half getting FireStorm and ShadeSpire.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 06:15:57


Post by: Scott-S6


 frozenwastes wrote:

Chamberlain thinks the competitive scene works, but if only a subset of army list options see play is it really working?

Is there any tournament game where very unit/model/card is equally playable?


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 06:41:05


Post by: Chikout


GW just put about 30 of the books on Audible. I will now be paying £8 a book instead of £25. This is a meaningful change for me.
With Shadespire at £40 it seems likely that expansions will be about £20. After buying the starter I can set myself a budget of £10 a month and have a realistic chance of buying everything. ( unlike bloodbowl where you have buy expensive resin boosters and star players to make a complete team)
The core product is still very expensive, but there are more and more ways that a someone can enjoy GW products at a relatively low price point.

We now have Shadespire, skirmish, path to glory, shadow war, bloodbowl and soon Necromunda which all have a relatively low barrier to entry pricewise and none of which were supported 3 years ago.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 06:43:38


Post by: NH Gunsmith


 Scott-S6 wrote:
 frozenwastes wrote:

Chamberlain thinks the competitive scene works, but if only a subset of army list options see play is it really working?

Is there any tournament game where very unit/model/card is equally playable?


None that I have seen, nobody is 100% perfect with balance on everything. It is impossible to account for everything that multiple thousands/millions of people will do with the system and rules put out by a company as big as GW, or even Privateer Press.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 08:03:32


Post by: Geifer


 Chamberlain wrote:
We have GW's published results from the last couple years and they have improved.


As long as you are arguing this, we're not going to have a discussion and can just agree to disagree.

If you approach this with "learning their lesson" is all about GW's annual numbers, then they never needed to learn much of a lesson because they have been profitable even through the many declining years before this year's improvement. The company was not in a terrible position, but it did need adjustments.

This is important because I'd argue that usually aside from a company's continued existence, a customer doesn't care about how much money it's making but rather if they sell a product of acceptable quality at an acceptable price. The fact that they have massively improved numbers this year is irrelevant. That's good for them but doesn't help the individual customer.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 Geifer wrote:

A more fitting line of thinking for a disgruntled old git like me would be:

GW is out to make money by cultivating its IP to preserve classic ideals and tries to please its core audience

versus

GW is out to make money by revising its IP to meet modern sentiments and tries to appeal to a wider audience at the expense of its core audience

GW's goal isn't in doubt. There is no question as to the goals of a publicly traded company. It's about their methods and how they affect you. And that is entirely down to the individual. No matter how well GW is doing, no matter how many people buy more than they did before, no matter how many people are satisfied with GW, that's a question that only the individual can answer.



To bring a completely different take on this issue, I want to use a very apples/oranges comparison. . . Chevrolet. See, here in the US, we're bombarded with advertisements touting their JD Power "best in initial quality" awards. . . Which people have found out is a total farce of an award. Basically, it is a metric that apparently Chevy themselves lobbied to have created, measuring faults/breakdowns/defective vehicles, within the first 90 days of ownership. .. . So, basically, if you buy a brand new Chevy, you're probably "good" for the first 90 days, but a number of other tests show that really, the metric should be the first year, in which the total brand performs about as well, or just slightly below other auto manufacturers.

Why do I use this example?? Because essentially, Chevrolet is using a rather deceptive marketing scheme to draw in customers (for further reference to this deception, there's a ton of "everything wrong with" videos for their truck bed demonstration commercials). Yes, GW is trying to make money. . . but they aren't exactly deceiving anyone. We all know that releases are coming hot, fast, and in a hurry, we all know generally to expect models to be around a certain price point (whether we agree with that or not, is another issue). And, if you have issues with a product purchased through GW, they are still doing largely the same replacement/return policy as they've had for a long time.


I added the red part because I was tired when I wrote that. That's how it should have come out. Just adding this here.

Now, I don't think your example is off (or apples to oranges comparison). It's pretty apt. GW uses marketing to gloss over problems, rally a fanbase to defend the company in its stead and spread a more positive image through increased word of mouth propaganda. Or, as the news and rumors thread about GW'S AGM put it, they are putting effort into controlling the narrative.

Is it expected? Sure. We accept that companies use marketing to make themselves look better. Nobody expects that GW says "sure, we still have balancing problems, but bear with us as we fix them to the best of our ability". Instead we get the usual "best balanced edition ever", regardless of any balancing flaws that may still be there. Why? Because there's enough truth in it that they can get away with omitting of any negatives.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 08:32:44


Post by: Rygnan


 NH Gunsmith wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
 frozenwastes wrote:

Chamberlain thinks the competitive scene works, but if only a subset of army list options see play is it really working?

Is there any tournament game where very unit/model/card is equally playable?


None that I have seen, nobody is 100% perfect with balance on everything. It is impossible to account for everything that multiple thousands/millions of people will do with the system and rules put out by a company as big as GW, or even Privateer Press.


While this is the case, GW is an example of something far further from the mark than something like, say, Infinity or Malifaux. While those 'dud' options still exist, they are few and far between (most factions have only 3-4 choices that are bad, and even then they can usually be used to success in the right scenario or with good support). The Warhammers are to this day an example of a new release rolling around, and there are options that are super competitive to the point where they're overpowered, or they're hot garbage. This isn't to say there is a middle ground, but the results are far more skewed in the GW games than in most of their other competitors, where overpowered or horribly weak units are the outliers.

On your other example, Privateer Press, their initial release of Warmachine/Hordes Mk3 was unbalanced as all get out, and quite frankly unplayable because of it. However, they took on a new form of community integrated playtesting (which a fair few companies do nowadays, and in far bigger forms than GW), and the game is rapidly gaining back an uninspired playerbase because of it. While yes, there is a big return back to 40k with 8th edition, it isn't from the people who want tight, balanced rulesets, it's largely people who want something they can play in their garage of a Sunday afternoon for a laugh (where balance isn't as much of an issue). Having seen a few 8th ed tournaments as an outsider (I looked at 8th ed when it launched, saw how AoSed it was and decided it wasn't for me) it appears to be the same kinds of builds as in 6th and 7th in a general sense. Minimal troops to sit on objectives, and then spam whatever strong units the army has to have the strongest firepower possible, which doesn't seem like fun for any party.

I will say though that this is from the perspective of someone who has almost entirely gotten out of Warhammer, and GW as a whole. What I play now is in my sig if anyone is interested, but I will echo the views above regarding the 'smoke and mirrors' line. Anyone who is actively buying and participating in 'The GW Hobby' will say that nu-GW is the most bestest thing ever and they've changed so much, and everyone who's disillusioned and jaded will say that the other party have the wool over their eyes. No one is going to find middle ground easily, and it'll always be a source of conflict so from my point of view there's little point trying to argue business practices that we quite frankly don't know. If GW succeed I'll be happy, because it means there is more potential for people to see other games and expand, although GW themselves actively try and discourage this.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 08:44:13


Post by: Lord Kragan


 Geifer wrote:
 Mymearan wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
TO me it's fairly clear that they are not doing much stuff better, just putting on appearances. Whether or not that's "good enough" is subjective, but I think the "new" GW is largely just smoke and mirrors, with minor improvements that are lauded as being amazing.


These things ARE amazing to me:

- changing rules, creating FAQs and revamping games on the basis of community feedback, and doing it quickly
- binning the disaster that was 40k 7th and creating a great rule set in 8th
- having a social media presence and interacting with their fans via their community site, Facebook, and Warhammer TV, putting out interviews and creating faces for the community
- the painting tutorials, actually an incredibly important tool for newer gamers and intermediate painters alike
- Digging into their back catalogue and doing great release after great release (AdMech, Genestealer Cults, 30k, Warhammer Quest, Necromunda, the list goes on)
- making an effort to seriously support competitive play in AoS, 40k and now with a whole game (Shadespire)

You know what WOULDN'T have been an amazing improvement to me? Simply lowering prices and doing none of the above. That wouldn't have gotten me more excited about the game.

And apparently, most of their customers agree with me.

So you don't get to decide what is "smoke and mirrors" and what is not... because getting customers back and creating excitement around the game is what is important for GW as a company, and what they are doing is exactly that. And that is the problem with this thread. There is an assumption that prices are the only thing that matters, and everything else is "smoke and mirrors". While that may be true for them... the numbers show otherwise.


One could argue that happy customers don't get to decide if the magic is magic or smoke and mirrors, because if it is smoke and mirrors, they fell for it.

Worth keeping in mind before you go and decide who is eligible to determine for themselves what GW is and is not.

Since we are talking about a company/customer relationship, it's very subjective anyway. Take your points. I could put a negative spin on most of them quite easily:

- Willingness to change rules at a whim allows them to release sloppy rules and patch them later, so they do
- They bin the disaster that was 7th ed just to release the disaster that is 8th ed
- They've created a working propaganda machine
- They spend so much time and effort on new things nobody asked for instead of releasing needed overhauls of core models
- While they try to cater to competitive play, bleed over from narrative parts means that they don't achieve any significant measure of balance

The only one I'm struggling with is good, free and easily available painting tutorials. Hard to find any fault with that.

Not that I necessarily hold these opinions (like I care about competitive play... GW can support that all day long an earn only a yawn from me), but they're plausible. This stuff is happening right now. And it's not even incompatible with your opinion, because it just takes the same thing and values it differently.


This is not negativity, but rather skewed and missing several points:

1) You're saying that as if they weren't releasing sloppy rules to begin with. 7th ed for 40k and 8th ed for WHFB was back under the previous period, and it was beyond sloppy.
2) In your opinion. Plenty more people are enjoying the gam.
3) It's a line of tutorials. Don't overthink it.
4) So I guess no one asked for plastic plague marines or thousand sons? No one asked for the return of specialist games or GSC? Yeah, suuuuereeee.
5) [Citation needed]


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 09:10:25


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


It's not just plastic Deathguard and Thousand Sons - it's for Cult chaos armies to feature at all.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 09:37:54


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


Lord Kragan wrote:
3) It's a line of tutorials. Don't overthink it.

It's Warhammer TV openly admitting to having trolled (sorry, purposefully misled very dedicated and very neglected fanbase into raising their hopes for month for a new release that they knew wasn't actually coming as a joke) Sisters of Battle players.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 09:42:58


Post by: DarkBlack


There is a huge amount of bias in this thread. It's clear that some people will not admit GW has improved no matter what. Others overlook crappy things GW does (or deem them acceptable).

I would like to add a distinction the a lot of people seem to miss. If you don't like something; that does not equate to it being bad. It might be, but it could just not be for you.

For example: I don't hold the Warhammers is high regard, I prefer games to be more about what I do [/b]during the game. That does not make them bad games, it just makes them not my preference, or (if you will) not good on the metric I employ to judge games. The current Warhammers actually do well if judged by what GW appears to have been going for; namely an epic battle where crazy things go down (starring your amazing models).
Recall that AoS was released
without points, GW set up competitive play because people insist on playing Warhammer competitively, despite the games being poorly suited for that.

The best change in GW for me is that they have stopped trying to pander to everyone and started making products that not everyone has to like, but a few (at least) love (e.g. Khadron Overlords).
I know a few people (myself included) who have stepped away form Warhammer (either), but that's fine (we have other games we prefer) because the people who love 40k are happier than ever. and the target market (which did change drastically) for fantasy are enjoying AoS (there's KoW for the rest of us).

Finally, GW is a company. Making money is their actual objective, always has been and there is nothing wrong with that. Doing things in a way that makes
business sense is what they should be doing. whether or not it's what you want for your particular army[b].


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 09:51:56


Post by: Geifer


Lord Kragan wrote:
Spoiler:
 Geifer wrote:
 Mymearan wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
TO me it's fairly clear that they are not doing much stuff better, just putting on appearances. Whether or not that's "good enough" is subjective, but I think the "new" GW is largely just smoke and mirrors, with minor improvements that are lauded as being amazing.


These things ARE amazing to me:

- changing rules, creating FAQs and revamping games on the basis of community feedback, and doing it quickly
- binning the disaster that was 40k 7th and creating a great rule set in 8th
- having a social media presence and interacting with their fans via their community site, Facebook, and Warhammer TV, putting out interviews and creating faces for the community
- the painting tutorials, actually an incredibly important tool for newer gamers and intermediate painters alike
- Digging into their back catalogue and doing great release after great release (AdMech, Genestealer Cults, 30k, Warhammer Quest, Necromunda, the list goes on)
- making an effort to seriously support competitive play in AoS, 40k and now with a whole game (Shadespire)

You know what WOULDN'T have been an amazing improvement to me? Simply lowering prices and doing none of the above. That wouldn't have gotten me more excited about the game.

And apparently, most of their customers agree with me.

So you don't get to decide what is "smoke and mirrors" and what is not... because getting customers back and creating excitement around the game is what is important for GW as a company, and what they are doing is exactly that. And that is the problem with this thread. There is an assumption that prices are the only thing that matters, and everything else is "smoke and mirrors". While that may be true for them... the numbers show otherwise.


One could argue that happy customers don't get to decide if the magic is magic or smoke and mirrors, because if it is smoke and mirrors, they fell for it.

Worth keeping in mind before you go and decide who is eligible to determine for themselves what GW is and is not.

Since we are talking about a company/customer relationship, it's very subjective anyway. Take your points. I could put a negative spin on most of them quite easily:

- Willingness to change rules at a whim allows them to release sloppy rules and patch them later, so they do
- They bin the disaster that was 7th ed just to release the disaster that is 8th ed
- They've created a working propaganda machine
- They spend so much time and effort on new things nobody asked for instead of releasing needed overhauls of core models
- While they try to cater to competitive play, bleed over from narrative parts means that they don't achieve any significant measure of balance

The only one I'm struggling with is good, free and easily available painting tutorials. Hard to find any fault with that.

Not that I necessarily hold these opinions (like I care about competitive play... GW can support that all day long an earn only a yawn from me), but they're plausible. This stuff is happening right now. And it's not even incompatible with your opinion, because it just takes the same thing and values it differently.


This is not negativity, but rather skewed and missing several points:

1) You're saying that as if they weren't releasing sloppy rules to begin with. 7th ed for 40k and 8th ed for WHFB was back under the previous period, and it was beyond sloppy.
2) In your opinion. Plenty more people are enjoying the gam.
3) It's a line of tutorials. Don't overthink it.
4) So I guess no one asked for plastic plague marines or thousand sons? No one asked for the return of specialist games or GSC? Yeah, suuuuereeee.
5) [Citation needed]


You're missing the point.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 14:04:40


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


On the subject of competitive play....

We are seeing what purports to be a game designed around competition - Shadespire.

That's the one to judge GW's ability to write watertight rules ala X-Wing.

All the other rules sets are a mix of rules, suggested ways to play, and narrative opportunity.

Shadespire claims not to be that. Let's see how that pans out? It's clearly them going after the X-Wing-a-like market. Low model count, fast play, customisable, 'its-what-you-do-with-it-that-counts' gaming

It may fall wide of the mark, it may prove to be a smash hit, it's probably likely to land somewhere in the middle, either as a slowburn popularity, or 'big splash at first, then simply held it's position', or anything in between.

I'd say it seems a good approach for GW to satisfying the tournament crowd. When games can be repeatedly and reliably wrapped up in half an hour, it means more rounds. It also suggests an unpleasant opponent can't necessarily slow play, and nobody is discouraged from taking a horde army for fear of running out of time.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 16:15:04


Post by: Chamberlain


 Geifer wrote:
 Chamberlain wrote:
We have GW's published results from the last couple years and they have improved.


As long as you are arguing this, we're not going to have a discussion and can just agree to disagree.


The only thing I'm arguing for is variable isolation. We have GW's improved financial results. How did they get there?

I was talking whether or not GW's customers can be thought of as suckers, rubes, victims, deceived, fooled, fell for it, got taken in, or whatever. That requires an intent to do so by GW.

If you approach this with "learning their lesson" is all about GW's annual numbers, then they never needed to learn much of a lesson because they have been profitable even through the many declining years before this year's improvement. The company was not in a terrible position, but it did need adjustments.


Things changed in their financials right after they started to change what they are doing. So did they get that change because they "learned their lesson" or learned how to fool people?

This is important because I'd argue that usually aside from a company's continued existence, a customer doesn't care about how much money it's making but rather if they sell a product of acceptable quality at an acceptable price. The fact that they have massively improved numbers this year is irrelevant. That's good for them but doesn't help the individual customer.


The improved numbers are an indication that more people are buying. That more people are taking a look at what GW is offering and giving them money for it.

I happen to think that both sides of those transactions are operating in good faith. That Rountree was paying attention to the years of declining volume and learned his lesson from it and has reversed several key Kirby era approaches. Just because an individual's pet issue hasn't been addressed doesn't mean it's the same old GW, but now with a shiny veneer hiding their old ways.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Rygnan wrote:
 NH Gunsmith wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
 frozenwastes wrote:

Chamberlain thinks the competitive scene works, but if only a subset of army list options see play is it really working?

Is there any tournament game where very unit/model/card is equally playable?


None that I have seen, nobody is 100% perfect with balance on everything. It is impossible to account for everything that multiple thousands/millions of people will do with the system and rules put out by a company as big as GW, or even Privateer Press.


While this is the case, GW is an example of something far further from the mark than something like, say, Infinity or Malifaux. While those 'dud' options still exist, they are few and far between (most factions have only 3-4 choices that are bad, and even then they can usually be used to success in the right scenario or with good support). The Warhammers are to this day an example of a new release rolling around, and there are options that are super competitive to the point where they're overpowered, or they're hot garbage. This isn't to say there is a middle ground, but the results are far more skewed in the GW games than in most of their other competitors, where overpowered or horribly weak units are the outliers.


I don't know anything about the Malifaux or Infinity tournament meta, but we could do this comparison in both percentage terms and in number of viable units. For each faction key word or grand alliance, how many different armies are there that are tournament viable? Now how many tournament armies are viable for Pan O? Neverborn? Do the warhammer players have as much variety in their experience avaialble when crafting their lists as the Infinity and Malifaux tournament goers? Not because GW's percentage success rate is at all good, but because their range is so large?

It's like Magic the Gathering. Infinity and Malifaux are like the Standard format where you have a card pool of 1500-2000 choices but only 200 or so are actually tournament viable (if that) while GW is like the Modern format where you have a card pool of 11000+ choices but only 200 or so are truly tournament viable. Terrible percentage for one, same actual amount of variety at the top level?


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 16:48:33


Post by: Geifer


 Chamberlain wrote:
 Geifer wrote:
 Chamberlain wrote:
We have GW's published results from the last couple years and they have improved.


As long as you are arguing this, we're not going to have a discussion and can just agree to disagree.


The only thing I'm arguing for is variable isolation. We have GW's improved financial results. How did they get there?

I was talking whether or not GW's customers can be thought of as suckers, rubes, victims, deceived, fooled, fell for it, got taken in, or whatever. That requires an intent to do so by GW.


Yeah. So? They went from putting out a product and simply assuming people would buy it to actively inflating the perceive value of said product through community work. You know, marketing. The art of making people buy things they don't want. Unless you have a very innocent outlook on companies and marketing, yeah, there's intent on GW's part to make people believe they buy more than they actually get.

 Chamberlain wrote:

If you approach this with "learning their lesson" is all about GW's annual numbers, then they never needed to learn much of a lesson because they have been profitable even through the many declining years before this year's improvement. The company was not in a terrible position, but it did need adjustments.


Things changed in their financials right after they started to change what they are doing. So did they get that change because they "learned their lesson" or learned how to fool people?


Let's step back a bit for a moment and go back to the OP, which said:

"So do you think GW is going back to old way to milk and fleece 40K?"

GW has realized that discount bundles and cheaper starter options get people to buy in and hopefully keep buying other products that are not discounted and in many cases more expensive than an equivalent product released shortly before, like Magnus and Mortarion. We get massively expensive boutique items as well, like limited codices and the Plague Brethren, to get as much money as possible out of the collector's section of their customer base.

Does that sound enough like fleecing to you? Because if it does, they did not "learn their lesson", that is to consider their customers' desire first and foremost, and instead look for ways to serve their bottom line best.

 Chamberlain wrote:

This is important because I'd argue that usually aside from a company's continued existence, a customer doesn't care about how much money it's making but rather if they sell a product of acceptable quality at an acceptable price. The fact that they have massively improved numbers this year is irrelevant. That's good for them but doesn't help the individual customer.


The improved numbers are an indication that more people are buying. That more people are taking a look at what GW is offering and giving them money for it.

I happen to think that both sides of those transactions are operating in good faith. That Rountree was paying attention to the years of declining volume and learned his lesson from it and has reversed several key Kirby era approaches. Just because an individual's pet issue hasn't been addressed doesn't mean it's the same old GW, but now with a shiny veneer hiding their old ways.


You are of course free to think that. I don't.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 17:25:47


Post by: Talizvar


GW is doing something that they did not with Kirby in the last few years: sell packaged product at a discount.
When they first came up with Armageddon (yr 2000) they had these 3-pack model kits which were vastly cheaper than buying them individually.
I still laugh over the "one click purchases" that on occasion cost more than the models bought individually only a couple years ago.
The getting started packs have been good and the mini-games with a bunch of models were a great thing to see.
Shadow War Armageddon was a fantastic deal for the money, it was a shame they underestimated the demand.

We still see some insane pricing, the Primaris HQ models I am thinking of in particular.

Remains to be seen but seems to be going ok so-far.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 17:46:04


Post by: timetowaste85


 Mymearan wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
TO me it's fairly clear that they are not doing much stuff better, just putting on appearances. Whether or not that's "good enough" is subjective, but I think the "new" GW is largely just smoke and mirrors, with minor improvements that are lauded as being amazing.


These things ARE amazing to me:

- changing rules, creating FAQs and revamping games on the basis of community feedback, and doing it quickly
- binning the disaster that was 40k 7th and creating a great rule set in 8th
- having a social media presence and interacting with their fans via their community site, Facebook, and Warhammer TV, putting out interviews and creating faces for the community
- the painting tutorials, actually an incredibly important tool for newer gamers and intermediate painters alike
- Digging into their back catalogue and doing great release after great release (AdMech, Genestealer Cults, 30k, Warhammer Quest, Necromunda, the list goes on)
- making an effort to seriously support competitive play in AoS, 40k and now with a whole game (Shadespire)

You know what WOULDN'T have been an amazing improvement to me? Simply lowering prices and doing none of the above. That wouldn't have gotten me more excited about the game.

And apparently, most of their customers agree with me.

So you don't get to decide what is "smoke and mirrors" and what is not... because getting customers back and creating excitement around the game is what is important for GW as a company, and what they are doing is exactly that. And that is the problem with this thread. There is an assumption that prices are the only thing that matters, and everything else is "smoke and mirrors". While that may be true for them... the numbers show otherwise.


Well freaking said!! Couldn't agree more. This is the exact camp I'm in.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 18:38:54


Post by: Chamberlain


 Geifer wrote:
They went from putting out a product and simply assuming people would buy it to actively inflating the perceive value of said product through community work. You know, marketing. The art of making people buy things they don't want. Unless you have a very innocent outlook on companies and marketing, yeah, there's intent on GW's part to make people believe they buy more than they actually get.


So who gets to decide if the product is actually better or if it's perceived value is just inflated with marketing? What critera do you use to determine that people have been made to believe they are getting more than they actually are?

What if they actually are getting more? There are more miniatures for the same price in a variety of GW's current offerings. If you are interested in dark eldar you actually get more miniatures for your money with Gangs of Commoragh. Start Collecting sets actually have you getting more for the same pricing.

The GHB totally changed what people were doing with AoS. It's actually a different product than the pre-GHB AoS. They also cut the cost of many AoS kits from their price at launch.

Then there's the rules side of things. People who play AoS and 8th seem to really enjoy it. My local group is very indy and is championed by a guy who is like "use the best rules, not just the ones the manufacturer sells you" and 8th edition 40k and AoS skirmish is holding up. We keep putting it on the table because it is fun. We know about 100 other games (probably more when you consider how there's endless rules for each historical era), some of which are free or very low cost and we keep coming back to 8th edition 40k and AoS Skirmish each club meeting.

is our fun illusory? Purely the result of us falling for GW's marketing? Or are we have an authentic, enjoyable hobby experience? When we pull out the Open War cards and have a game, did we buy those because of "the art of making people buy things they don't want"? Or did we see their utility and actually want them, buy them, and now use them?

Let's step back a bit for a moment and go back to the OP, which said:

"So do you think GW is going back to old way to milk and fleece 40K?"

GW has realized that discount bundles and cheaper starter options get people to buy in and hopefully keep buying other products that are not discounted and in many cases more expensive than an equivalent product released shortly before, like Magnus and Mortarion. We get massively expensive boutique items as well, like limited codices and the Plague Brethren, to get as much money as possible out of the collector's section of their customer base.

Does that sound enough like fleecing to you? Because if it does, they did not "learn their lesson", that is to consider their customers' desire first and foremost, and instead look for ways to serve their bottom line best.


No part of that sounds like fleecing.

tr.v. fleeced, fleec·ing, fleec·es
1. To defraud of money or property; swindle.

Can you find me one statement about the Plague Brethren product that is fraudulent? Without the intent to defraud, there is no fraud. Here is the text for the Plague Brethern:

Spoiler:
This box set contains 3 plastic Plague Marines, which can be used as alternative models in any Plague marine squad, an exclusive 20-page booklet featuring an interview with designer Maxime Pastourel giving insight into the process behind the miniatures’ creation, along with an ‘Eavy Metal showcase, painting guide, and 3 art cards featuring concept art by John Blanche!

Miniatures

Blight Stalker – a trench warfare expert, resplendent in a sinister gasmask – he is armed with a bolter and blight grenade (featuring a skull), and is accompanied by a nurgling carrying a disease-coated stick – it’s probably best not to dwell on where that stick has been…

Dipteron – evoking the classic Death Guard motif of mutation and corruption, this model is covered in growths and tentacles, and wields a meltagun and blight grenade. He features extra meltagun nozzles on his back, showing his commitment to the long war.

Corpulux – bloated, diseased and in an advanced state of disrepair, his armour is bursting with decay, held together by patches of chain mail. He carries a plague knife and a blight bomb – again, this bomb is made out of an unfortunate victim’s head…

Extra Content

In the 20-page booklet included with the miniatures, you’ll find some incredibly interesting content – an interview with the designer, Maxime Pastourel, giving you an insight into the background of each miniature, its conception and the idea behind every little detail. There are a selection of concept sketches, helping you to understand the evolution of the models, along with some beautifully photographed examples painted by the ‘Eavy Metal team, with paint swatches showing you how to achieve a similar look.

As well as this, there are 3 art cards, featuring a Poxwalker, Plague Marine and Mortarion, rendered lovingly by John Blanche.


Isn't that an accurate description of the product? Isn't the price right on their web page what you will actually pay if you buy it? Will it suddenly fall apart or fail to perform the promised function? From John Blanche's statements, I can even say that describing his process of making the art as "rendered lovingly" is accurate as well. The man loves doing 40k art projects.

There's no lie here. No fraud. No swindle. No fleecing. It's as straight up as it gets. If you buy the product you will get exactly what is on offer. They haven't created an artificial situation where if you don't buy it, your experience with the rest of their products is diminished (like a pay-to-win product at a very high price). I can't really think of anything negative to say about the product at all other than it's aimed at a subset of the customer base that I am simply not part of.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 19:06:08


Post by: TheCustomLime


@Geif

I think you're really reaching to paint Games Workshop in a bad light. Releasing discounted starter army boxes is fleecing? What? Almost every miniature company I know does this. Warlord Games, Privateer Press, Corvus Belli and Wryd to name a few. Yes, Games Workshop's products are more expensive than the discounted boxes. That's why they call them "discounted".

And the Plague Bretheren are entirely optional and aren't actually that expensive for a collector's item.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 19:08:30


Post by: Chamberlain


I actually never noticed just how far a reach that really is. Now GW discounting their product and lowering the barrier to entry is part of some plan to fleece people?



Well spotted.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 19:21:40


Post by: Talizvar


GW in a way has not learned anything.
They are just dusting off stuff they used to do.
The cost and deals are a focus because this is their income you know.

What is wonderful is that they had preceded social media and used to maintain their own culture and forums.
Now in the land of social media, they are engaging their customers again.

GW had created a "culture" of their own with their fans way back when and it looks like they have dusted off the old playbook and willing to give it another shot.
I foresee their bottom line looking very good if they attend to the details and listen to their customers the way they have been lately (or is that, in the past?).

Here, a little trip down memory lane on how they used to do things:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070227065121/http://us.games-workshop.com:80/games/40K/default.htm


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 19:32:52


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


The prices are a bit odd at the moment.

I can't praise the Start Collecting sets and similar bundles enough. They're not simply filled with waff, and off a tangible discount. Hell, the Seraphon one is basically the price of the Carnosaur, with free stuff bunged in.

Then they do Deathguard Plaguemarines. £30 for 7. That's.....that's a bit rich for me, especially when unit upgrades are churned out at £15 a pop.

Compare to my Rubricae? £30 for 10. Includes all possible weapon, upgrade and command options.

They're the same price, but I'd say the Rubricae are just objectively better value.

And just the other month, the Primaris stuff came out with a reasonable price point. £35 for a full squad of 10, again with all options included.

Normally I'm not one to fuss about the price - if I want it, I'll buy it. But the Plague Marines specifically still give me pause. On a personal level, I don't mind paying a price premium for elite units, the sort I might only want or need two boxes of. But when it's the bread and butter, not so much.

It's also one of the reasons my Mechanicus force has few Dragoons. The individual models are just too much for me to overly worry about - especially given their cheap points value. And that is of course about the perceived value.

I don't mind coughing up £42.50 for Kastellan Robots. Points wise and 'ardness, I definitely feel that I'm getting my monies worth. But £29.50 for a Sydonian Dragoon? Perhaps when I get my bonus pay, but not before. Just doesn't offer me the right value.

Do a boxed set of 3 for say, £60, and I'll be on it like nobody's beeswax.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another unit that needs a price incentive would be Electropriests. Oh man they're ace. I love the models, and they're pretty tasty in the game. But at £25 for 5, I fear I won't ever included as many as I'd like, unless I can get a discount set of some description.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/27 20:02:36


Post by: TheCustomLime


I think GW should take more advantage of the "Put more models in a big box and slash the combined price" model. It's made collecting Stormcast Eternals actually affordable!



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 06:01:05


Post by: Mymearan


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The prices are a bit odd at the moment.

I can't praise the Start Collecting sets and similar bundles enough. They're not simply filled with waff, and off a tangible discount. Hell, the Seraphon one is basically the price of the Carnosaur, with free stuff bunged in.

Then they do Deathguard Plaguemarines. £30 for 7. That's.....that's a bit rich for me, especially when unit upgrades are churned out at £15 a pop.
.


Just a small note... the unit upgrades are included in the box, the ones you can buy separately are alternate sculpts.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 06:51:39


Post by: Pseudomonas


I was guardedly pleased with 'nuGW' but I am becoming more disillusioned with it.

As I buy all my GW stuff of Ebay, its ridiculous pricing doesn't directly effect me although it is still an annoyance.

What has been bothering me though is their new rules, basically the lack of customisation and opportunities for conversions. A Death Guard lord has precisely 2 equipment options and both of them are scythes. This goes entirely against the ethos of 40k and I can see no valid reason for it (no model=no rules is not a valid reason).

The new fluff is pretty poor as well, it is certainly inconsistent. This has been an issue for years though.

Upping the base size of marines certainly hasn't endeared them to me either.

Basically GW seem to have made some obvious decisions but they don't seem to fully understand their own games so I would suggest that they still have lessons to learn.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 08:58:49


Post by: Geifer


 Chamberlain wrote:
So who gets to decide if the product is actually better or if it's perceived value is just inflated with marketing


Each individual for themselves.

This whole discussion, on my part anyway, started with me taking exception to the idea that a happy majority can invalidate the opinion of a displeased minority.

You can go on about who gets to decide what GW is or is not, but at the end of the day I can reject your opinion as much as you can reject mine.

 Chamberlain wrote:
No part of that sounds like fleecing.

tr.v. fleeced, fleec·ing, fleec·es
1. To defraud of money or property; swindle.


Merriam-Webster's Advanced Learner's English Dictionary:

fleece... informal:
to deceive and take money from (someone)

See? I can quote a dictionary, too.

Just because you choose the meaning that require criminal intent doesn't mean it's the only meaning of the word.

There is no reason to even discuss if GW is a legitimate business. They are. I'm talking about what they do within the boundaries of the law.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
@Geif

I think you're really reaching to paint Games Workshop in a bad light. Releasing discounted starter army boxes is fleecing? What? Almost every miniature company I know does this. Warlord Games, Privateer Press, Corvus Belli and Wryd to name a few. Yes, Games Workshop's products are more expensive than the discounted boxes. That's why they call them "discounted".

And the Plague Bretheren are entirely optional and aren't actually that expensive for a collector's item.


The funny thing is that I'm not even trying to present GW in a bad light. Would it surprise you to learn that I am reasonably happy with their business conduct?


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 10:00:21


Post by: Rygnan


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Rygnan wrote:
 NH Gunsmith wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
 frozenwastes wrote:

Chamberlain thinks the competitive scene works, but if only a subset of army list options see play is it really working?

Is there any tournament game where very unit/model/card is equally playable?


None that I have seen, nobody is 100% perfect with balance on everything. It is impossible to account for everything that multiple thousands/millions of people will do with the system and rules put out by a company as big as GW, or even Privateer Press.


While this is the case, GW is an example of something far further from the mark than something like, say, Infinity or Malifaux. While those 'dud' options still exist, they are few and far between (most factions have only 3-4 choices that are bad, and even then they can usually be used to success in the right scenario or with good support). The Warhammers are to this day an example of a new release rolling around, and there are options that are super competitive to the point where they're overpowered, or they're hot garbage. This isn't to say there is a middle ground, but the results are far more skewed in the GW games than in most of their other competitors, where overpowered or horribly weak units are the outliers.


I don't know anything about the Malifaux or Infinity tournament meta, but we could do this comparison in both percentage terms and in number of viable units. For each faction key word or grand alliance, how many different armies are there that are tournament viable? Now how many tournament armies are viable for Pan O? Neverborn? Do the warhammer players have as much variety in their experience avaialble when crafting their lists as the Infinity and Malifaux tournament goers? Not because GW's percentage success rate is at all good, but because their range is so large?

It's like Magic the Gathering. Infinity and Malifaux are like the Standard format where you have a card pool of 1500-2000 choices but only 200 or so are actually tournament viable (if that) while GW is like the Modern format where you have a card pool of 11000+ choices but only 200 or so are truly tournament viable. Terrible percentage for one, same actual amount of variety at the top level?


So first off, you claim to no nothing about Malifaux or Infinity metas yet you make a statement you would only be able to make if you were somewhat informed. I'll go into this percentage talk with you for the sake of conversation, but I can tell you now it's nowhere near as close as you make it out to be.

To start, we take a look at Malifaux. Across each of the 7 factions, there are 8 masters you can choose to lead a crew (this is less option to lead than in GW games overall, but the way the game works means that is far less of an issue) Due to the way missions are selected (flipped for out of a deck of cards before lists are built, even in tournaments), you have a far smaller chance of models being useless in an average game. In the Outcasts, the faction I play, there are 12 henchmen, 19 enforcers and 17 minions to choose from, and certain masters are allowed to take other things out of faction. Of these choices, only 2 minions and 3 enforcers are somewhat 'bad', and even then they can work incredibly well if they're in lists that support them or scheme pools that suit their playstyles. Out of faction hires, there are a few more dud choices(5-6 at most over almost half the game), but it is usually due to something natively in faction occupying the same role (read: not an issue of balance in the game, rather something built for one faction having the same niche as something built for another faction). A few masters in the game have traditionally been seen as bad choices, but in the hands of skilled players, and due to buffs they've received in a recent attempt to 'close the gap', they're now at the same level as what is considered playable in a tournament meta.

On to Infinity, where there are even more options, and even less bad choices. Taking a look at PanOceania and Steel Phalanx, again my two factions, we see a heap of options that are competitively viable. First in PanO, we have the 17 Light Infantry options. More granular than Malifaux, and somewhat closer to 40k, almost all of these have different weapon options, the exceptions being doctors and engineers. The bad choices here are few, our doctors aren't as good at their job as other factions (but we shoot better almost as a rule) and the rest are somewhat understandable, like cheap line troops when there are cheaper line troops, and special weapons on any line troop when you have better, tougher guys that can take the same weapons. Both issues become more or less nonexistent with the use of sectorials (basically a sub army) that restricts use of some units but changes how others are played. It is here that certain models can be taken in units, meaning special weapons on cheaper bodies are not only viable, they're encouraged. The other larger issue, comparing line troops, is also gone in sectorial, as you usually don't have the option of other choices, and the 'weaker' ones in the vanilla faction are much more enticing due to expanded options. Of the other PanO unit types, it's much the same, although we have a single example of a unit that is just not good (across an entire faction, one option is bad all of the time). Everything else has it's own use, be it anti-camo, anti-horde, or as a specialist (although roles are much more nuanced than those 3).
Talking Steel Phalanx, there are a lot less options (being a sectorial as opposed to a full faction that is naturally the case) but there is still only 1 unusable unit. The rest are all useful in their own ways, with most filling different variations of a role (for example there are multiple CC units or snipers but each does it in a different way so that they are justified), and the bad option is only bad because she doesn't have a use someone else has. If that weren't the case, and options were lower (as you seem to be implying they are) she would be a good, useful and somewhat competitive choice, but for her points there are better options in every role.

Now we look at Games Workshop, where competitive builds are usually a cookie cutter selection of the best units one can fit in, most of the time with the intention of ignoring scenario and blowing the opponent off the table as quickly as possible (or the opposite, countering this by having the tankiest build possible and bunkering down on objectives). This style of competitive play is entirely stagnant (although it's usually a subset of players who are dedicated powergamers rather than the average gamer) and the only way the meta changes is if some new big gun comes out to blow away what previously existed in a rock/paper/scissors scenario. The game itself isn't intended for competitive play, but they continually claim it is (and that it's extensively playtested, although how a group of 30-40 people at most can make sure every situation is covered is beyond me) which is half of the problem. When you force a square peg (competitive gameplay) into a round hole (GW rulesets, which usually do work for narrative gameplay) you get things that start to break very quickly.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 12:12:52


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But at £25 for 5, I fear I won't ever included as many as I'd like, unless I can get a discount set of some description.
They're priced that way because you can make two different unit types.

"But you can't do both at the same ti-"

TWO UNIT TYPES!!!

The boxes that build two units are inflated for that reason. Just look at the Firewarrior box.

There are other things that people have glossed over as well, like the Primaris release that as the opposite of the Sigmarine release. Sigmarines were released in very expensive 5-man boxes, and a lot of people did not like that. Eventually GW released 10-man Sigmarine boxes that were cheaper than 2 5-man boxes.

With the Primaris Marines they started with 10-man boxes, and then released 5-man boxes that are more than 50% of the cost of a 10-man box. I'd even wager that they always intended to release them as 5-man boxes first (the sprues has just 5 troops on it, not 10, as the 10-man boxes have a double load of sprues) but changed it to releasing 10-man boxes first after the negative reaction to the 5-man Sigmarine boxes. And let's not forget the mono-pose Primaris characters and their astronomical price.

And now they're about to release a US$80/AUD$140 box of cardboard squares.


Their prices are nuts, and they're still going up.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 12:24:57


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Just baffles me that the Mechanicus line, ever before unification, was so schizophrenically priced.

Skitarii, Servitors and Kastelan? All perfectly reasonably priced in my opinion.

Sicarians? Eh. £28 for 5 spindly models isn't great.

Everything else? Erm.....yeah I'll seek out a discount on that (thankfully, I can get to Darksphere with minimum fuss after work)


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 13:12:46


Post by: Geifer


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just baffles me that the Mechanicus line, ever before unification, was so schizophrenically priced.

Skitarii, Servitors and Kastelan? All perfectly reasonably priced in my opinion.

Sicarians? Eh. £28 for 5 spindly models isn't great.

Everything else? Erm.....yeah I'll seek out a discount on that (thankfully, I can get to Darksphere with minimum fuss after work)


Tell me about it. Isn't it funny how my army is made up of Skitarii, Kataphrons, Kastelans, Onagers and the odd character? I wonder why...

And even then, well, I'm not saying anything about Kastelans. They are two Dreadnought sized models and a character for a price less than two Dreadnoughts. But even the Kataphrons are pretty bad in my opinion, considering they are a Troops choice. I bit the bullet to get two to fill out the mandatory Troops (and they are lovely models, so there's that), but the only reason I could justify doubling their number was the Elimination Maniple box couple with a small store discount.

The idea of fielding a lone chicken walker, let alone a full squad, is just disheartening. I could get two Bolt Action armies for the money I'd spend on five of them.

Another example of bad pricing is Witch Elves. Ten slim elf ladies for almost twice the price of other Core choices in the Dark Elf army. Why? Because the alternate build is a Rare choice, so we get to pay the elite bonus GW likes to put on so many models.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 13:18:50


Post by: Galas


Witch Elves are alongside Greatswords the most insanely priced product of all of the Fantasy range. Truly a jewel of the Kirby era. A shame because both of them are very nice models, but when I can have 40 Perry Brothers foot knights for less price than 10 Greatswords....


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 13:19:16


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Yeah there's a reason why we took to calling Greatswords 'Goldswords'.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Sicarians? Eh. £28 for 5 spindly models isn't great.
But they make two different kits!!!




Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 13:21:41


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


And again it becomes mostly frustrating because good value can be found with GW.

But let's dial this back for a mo. We're focussing on recent stuff.

Primaris - well, OK. Lots of ways to buy stuff, I can get with that. Reasonable variety of price points mixed in.

Death Guard - WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED???


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 13:26:10


Post by: Galas


To be honest with Death Guard I have less problems with the prices (They have at least 20€ HQ's, not 30€), but with the limitation of the sprues. But I can understand that making Nurgle is more difficult in a proper good looking multipart kit, with all those tentacles, mutations, etc...


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 13:44:45


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


It's £30 for 7, which isn't the max squad. £10 and you can get the simple-build ones to round it up to 10.

I know 7 is the magic number for Nurgle, but blimey, no need to force the boxed set around it.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 13:54:12


Post by: Geifer


 Galas wrote:
Witch Elves are alongside Greatswords the most insanely priced product of all of the Fantasy range. Truly a jewel of the Kirby era. A shame because both of them are very nice models, but when I can have 40 Perry Brothers foot knights for less price than 10 Greatswords....


You are quite correct that it's a Kirby jewel.

My biggest issue is that they did nothing to rectify this problem. They won't lower price of the individual box, but the only bundle to get Witch Elves in was the recent one that puts them with a Cauldron of Blood for not much of a discount. Sure, the thought is appreciated, but the issue is that you need several boxes of Witch Elves to build one or two suitably big units. But how many Cauldrons could you possibly need?

Whereas, to go back to Mechanicus, a start collecting box gets you a lot further because the rules encourage you to have more than one Onager, so buying multiples is not a problem to get a discount on your Troops and Heavy Support (plus the umpteenth extra Dominus).


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 13:54:13


Post by: Kanluwen


Do we actually have the 7 model box confirmed yet?

I've seen prices but nothing saying exactly how many are in it.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 13:55:44


Post by: Geifer


No confirmation yet. Just speculation based on WD pictures.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 14:00:03


Post by: Talizvar


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just baffles me that the Mechanicus line, ever before unification, was so schizophrenically priced.
This is probably the biggest complaint I have with them in general.
Your statement here encompasses it full-stop.
The pricing is very much on the arbitrary side.
I suppose that is what happens when actual product physical cost is measured in cents or a couple dollars at most (yes I know there is the great big GW corporate overhead to include).
What really underscores this is unfortunately when they give a great "deal" on a bundle, it really highlights the huge markup of the smaller packs.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 14:51:31


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Normally I'm 'immune' to pricing. But when it feels arbitrary within the one army range, I dunno, it just rankles me.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 14:58:42


Post by: Galas


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It's £30 for 7, which isn't the max squad. £10 and you can get the simple-build ones to round it up to 10.

I know 7 is the magic number for Nurgle, but blimey, no need to force the boxed set around it.

I'm expecting that to not be the case and the box to be 10 Plague Marines with options for a Sargeant and a Icon Bearer. If thats isn't the case... I don't think I'll start my plans to a DG army.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 15:04:53


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


I've got WD.

That very much seems to be the case. Although it doesn't state it was such, it does show only 7 models when talking about the Plaguebearers.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 15:07:15


Post by: Galas


That would be the worst dick-move nu-GW had made, to be honest, and I'm been pretty clear that with their pluses and minus GW has keep me happy this past year.
And I expect to bite them in the ass, with no one buying that kit, so they feel forced to do what they did with Stormcast and re-box the unit to do them a proper 10-man box.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 17:35:43


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Normally I'm 'immune' to pricing. But when it feels arbitrary within the one army range, I dunno, it just rankles me.


I hear you there. It's especially bad for me, though, since I'm sensitive to pricing but immune to rules. I don't care how hot the newest sweetness is on the tabletop, the prices are too damn high.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 17:54:51


Post by: Chamberlain


 Geifer wrote:
This whole discussion, on my part anyway, started with me taking exception to the idea that a happy majority can invalidate the opinion of a displeased minority.


Well, what would their opinion be valid for? Getting a hug from a sympathetic stranger on the internet?

There will always be a displeased minority in any customer base. They aren't even the real problem. The real problem is when you have a growing group of ex-customers who just don't care nor think about you any more. That's the group GW is actively trying to get back. The actively displeased? They know that anything they do to please them will just cause other people on the internet to take their place because they don't like how the problem was solved. That's the nature of change in a business where your customers are geeky people who think they always know better. The rules and models should have a broad appeal as possible and not all individual concerns are worth the money and time needed to fix them.

If we're going to be able to say anything at all whether GW has actually changed or if it's just an illusion, we can't be beholden to the gripes of every customer. Under Kirby GW alienated a lot of people. Lots are coming back. The topic of this thread is whether or not GW has actually changed or if it's a trick. If you make the criteria for actual change that everyone's pet issue must be addressed, their change can never be real. The opinions of the "displeased minority" are likely valid, but definitely meaningless to the larger question.



Merriam-Webster's Advanced Learner's English Dictionary:

fleece... informal:
to deceive and take money from (someone)

See? I can quote a dictionary, too.

Just because you choose the meaning that require criminal intent doesn't mean it's the only meaning of the word.


I didn't quote the one I did to emphasize the criminal nature of "defraud" but the deceptive nature. So you can plug your definition into my post and change all instances of "defraud" to "deceive" and nothing changes. Is there anything deceptive about how GW marketed the collectors box of plague marines that I quoted in spoiler tags above? No, there is not.

There is no reason to even discuss if GW is a legitimate business. They are. I'm talking about what they do within the boundaries of the law.


Sorry for my unclear communication. I did not intend to address that whatsoever. My point is that they are being straight up in their offerings, even of their super high priced collectors items. There is no deception.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
@Geif

I think you're really reaching to paint Games Workshop in a bad light. Releasing discounted starter army boxes is fleecing? What? Almost every miniature company I know does this. Warlord Games, Privateer Press, Corvus Belli and Wryd to name a few. Yes, Games Workshop's products are more expensive than the discounted boxes. That's why they call them "discounted".

And the Plague Bretheren are entirely optional and aren't actually that expensive for a collector's item.


The funny thing is that I'm not even trying to present GW in a bad light. Would it surprise you to learn that I am reasonably happy with their business conduct?


Then there may be a communication failure on your end. You presented GW's reduced price bundles as the first part of some nefarious plan to fleece the customers.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/28 21:23:03


Post by: TheCustomLime


@Geif

I understand playing Devil's Advocate but I'm attacking the argument as is. As I believe it's flawed.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/29 05:48:30


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


Pseudomonas wrote:

What has been bothering me though is their new rules, basically the lack of customisation and opportunities for conversions. A Death Guard lord has precisely 2 equipment options and both of them are scythes. This goes entirely against the ethos of 40k and I can see no valid reason for it (no model=no rules is not a valid reason).


Flip the page. . . seriously mate, just do it. . . you're referencing a very specific unit, the Lord of Contagion, which is on the same page as the named guy of the same type (they basically allow you to make a mini-Typhus, should you desire). . .

The Chaos Lord, and Terminator Lord with all their gubbins are still fully available.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/29 06:44:33


Post by: Torga_DW


Smoke and mirrors, or has gw really learned their lesson?

I'd say both. The metrics i follow that are of interest to me (rules balance and prices) haven't changed. The rules are all over the place, and the prices go up with every new release. I can deal with one of the two being off, but not both at the same time.

But yeah, i think they've learned their lesson. Perception is reality. A good salesman can sell ice-makers to Eskimos. They've somehow (and i'm genuinely mystified how they did this) rebranded themselves as nu and improved, and people have accepted that. Sales are up! But they're still doing the same old same old.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/29 11:20:15


Post by: morgoth


 Chamberlain wrote:
I've noticed that friends with small children actually have more hobbying time than many of those without. The child might go to bed at 7pm or whatever, but you're going to be home in the evening while they are sleeping. Put some laundry in the machine, find a podcast or an audio book and start painting.

What got me back into buying GW's stuff was their rules that work well with smaller forces. AoS Skirmish into Path to Glory into 1000 point games is an awesome thing to do.


That must make for a happy couple.

Trust me, you have infinitely more hobbying time when you're single, and generally having kids means you're not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Shadespire claims not to be that. Let's see how that pans out? It's clearly them going after the X-Wing-a-like market. Low model count, fast play, customisable, 'its-what-you-do-with-it-that-counts' gaming


I was told it's 'taste' that counts. or size ... I don't remember.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The prices are a bit odd at the moment.

I can't praise the Start Collecting sets and similar bundles enough. They're not simply filled with waff, and off a tangible discount. Hell, the Seraphon one is basically the price of the Carnosaur, with free stuff bunged in.

Then they do Deathguard Plaguemarines. £30 for 7. That's.....that's a bit rich for me, especially when unit upgrades are churned out at £15 a pop.


Just like the Mortarion vs Magnus case, you have to take into account the expected sales volume, which is vastly higher on Magnus / T.sons vs Mortaion / DeathGuard - maybe .


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/29 12:12:56


Post by: Pseudomonas


 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

The Chaos Lord, and Terminator Lord with all their gubbins are still fully available.


Who isn't Death Guard as he lacks almost all the DG rules. I don't want a random Chaos Lord, I want a Death Guard lord. It would have been trivially easy to give the Lord of Contagion (and all the other DG characters) equipment options yet GW chose not to for reasons I simply cannot understand.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/29 12:17:53


Post by: H.B.M.C.


The whole Death Guard release is just baffling. You've got a whole range of excellent looking models that have next to no options, remove options they could have previously, and are all mostly mono-pose, yet all cost the equivalent units in the Tzeentch release. Why do the 3 mono-pose Deathshroud Terminators cost as much as the massively customisable Exalted Sorcerers? Why are the Death Guard Terminators so expensive when they have so few options/poses? And if the Plague Marine box really is 7 models, why does it cost as much as 10-man squads with a wealth of poses and options?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The Chaos Lord, and Terminator Lord with all their gubbins are still fully available.
Except that's not a Death Guard unit. That's just a bog-standard Chaos Lord with nothing to show/indicate/represent the fact that he's dedicated to Nurgle or part of the Death Guard.

Pseudomonas wrote:
It would have been trivially easy to give the Lord of Contagion (and all the other DG characters) equipment options yet GW chose not to for reasons I simply cannot understand.
The reasons why are unfortunately quite clear. There is no model for a Death Guard Chaos Lord, so you get no rules for a Death Guard Chaos Lord. There's a Chaos Lord model, so you can have rules for that, and a Lord of Contagion model, so you can have rules for him as well. Death Guard Chaos Lord though? Doesn't exist, therefore no rules.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/29 13:33:01


Post by: Pseudomonas


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There is no model for a Death Guard Chaos Lord, so you get no rules for a Death Guard Chaos Lord.


This is what makes no sense. Quite clearly it isn't going to do anything about alternative manufacturers as, even before the DG codex release, there are numerous examples of 'Plagued Lords' wearing heavy armour and wielding a scythe.

I can see absolutely no benefit to this nonsense.

GW can do nothing to stop other manufacturers making proxys for their models and their fumbling attempts are only detrimental to their customers.

Especially when the proxy looks better than the official model.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/29 13:53:17


Post by: Talizvar


GW found out the hard way that they need to have the model before sending out rules or they can get killed in IP law.
It puts them in a strange predicament when they describe a model and a competitor puts it out before them.
The "copier" could actually file a violation since they were the first out with the model.
This is why models are coming with their own rules cards.
I kept promoting that any new models should be released with the full data card in White Dwarf.
With an occasional "Chapter Approved" compilation.
It IS really irritating that a model can be easily converted as needed but due to not having an official model, they do not want to create demand and be preempted.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/29 13:54:27


Post by: Pseudomonas


But there is an official model, in fact there are several.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/29 14:06:56


Post by: H.B.M.C.


There's nothing stopping them from just saying that this guy has DR and T5. Nothing at all.




Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/29 14:42:01


Post by: Talizvar


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There's nothing stopping them from just saying that this guy has DG and T5. Nothing at all.
This is why making a separate codex with death guard rather than as a supplement is rather irritating.
We may be going down the path of a bunch of factions/armies that cannot stand on their own again (Skitarii, Scions and Deathwatch spring to mind from prior editions).
At least they did not lose their minds making Primaris separate but that would have most likely killed that range.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/29 17:25:32


Post by: Chamberlain


morgoth wrote:

What got me back into buying GW's stuff was their rules that work well with smaller forces. AoS Skirmish into Path to Glory into 1000 point games is an awesome thing to do.


That must make for a happy couple.

Trust me, you have infinitely more hobbying time when you're single, and generally having kids means you're not.


For my group of gaming friends who are married with toddlers:

1) sports fanatic. watches sports, listens to sports podcasts, a ton. So they sit together for the hour and listen to a sports podcast or a game
2) nurse with shift work, often not home
3) graphic artist who does her freelance work in the same room as husband who paints and they chat
4) nitter with mad skills to spends the painting time at the painting table making cool things

They get so much more done than they did before the children and more than I do, by far.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/29 18:21:59


Post by: Geifer


 Chamberlain wrote:
 Geifer wrote:
This whole discussion, on my part anyway, started with me taking exception to the idea that a happy majority can invalidate the opinion of a displeased minority.


Well, what would their opinion be valid for? Getting a hug from a sympathetic stranger on the internet?

There will always be a displeased minority in any customer base. They aren't even the real problem. The real problem is when you have a growing group of ex-customers who just don't care nor think about you any more. That's the group GW is actively trying to get back. The actively displeased? They know that anything they do to please them will just cause other people on the internet to take their place because they don't like how the problem was solved. That's the nature of change in a business where your customers are geeky people who think they always know better. The rules and models should have a broad appeal as possible and not all individual concerns are worth the money and time needed to fix them.

If we're going to be able to say anything at all whether GW has actually changed or if it's just an illusion, we can't be beholden to the gripes of every customer. Under Kirby GW alienated a lot of people. Lots are coming back. The topic of this thread is whether or not GW has actually changed or if it's a trick. If you make the criteria for actual change that everyone's pet issue must be addressed, their change can never be real. The opinions of the "displeased minority" are likely valid, but definitely meaningless to the larger question.


The thing with the silent (ex-)customers is that you're not hearing them. I see nothing wrong with stating one's opinion, whether it's positive or negative (or anything in between). It has as much meaning as you want to give it. I'll never get people who say their fun is ruined by constant whining by people who have a beef. Similarly, I have zero issue with being in the apparently small minority of liking Centurions and similar things a great many consider of dodgy design.

I'm going to be a little unrealistic here and say my ideal is that anyone interested in this topic simple discusses their points and chooses a side (or not, as anyone sees fit). If you wanted meaning, you should assume that you can gauge at least roughly which side is the majority and the minority. You also have a chance to turn some heads or maybe have your own opinion changed.

Me, I'm in it for the joy of the discussion. But it's probably safe to say that were also seeing people whose express purpose is political and who actively want to change opinions to their position. So there's meaning to be found in that.

At the end of the day, this discussion has as much meaning as you want it to have. If you don't care or if you are happily part of the majority, the discussion we're having is meaningless. The former is self-explanatory while with the latter you can at least assume that GW, if the were paying attention to the discussion, wouldn't displease the majority to win over the minority.

On the specific point, I'm saying it's an individual decision because we the customer cannot make the call as a collective. But we can make up our own mind and listen to the points made by the other side.

The biggest issue is that being the majority doesn't make you right. Nor does happiness make you right. And the same is true for the opposite. The only way to honestly make that call is to be privy to corporate secrets, and you can imagine how that's next to impossible without also having in interesting in keeping it a secret.

 Chamberlain wrote:

Merriam-Webster's Advanced Learner's English Dictionary:

fleece... informal:
to deceive and take money from (someone)

See? I can quote a dictionary, too.

Just because you choose the meaning that require criminal intent doesn't mean it's the only meaning of the word.


I didn't quote the one I did to emphasize the criminal nature of "defraud" but the deceptive nature. So you can plug your definition into my post and change all instances of "defraud" to "deceive" and nothing changes. Is there anything deceptive about how GW marketed the collectors box of plague marines that I quoted in spoiler tags above? No, there is not.

There is no reason to even discuss if GW is a legitimate business. They are. I'm talking about what they do within the boundaries of the law.


Sorry for my unclear communication. I did not intend to address that whatsoever. My point is that they are being straight up in their offerings, even of their super high priced collectors items. There is no deception.


I'll go back to a point I believe I made before. Marketing is deception.

We may be used to it and we may be ok with is, seeing it as part of the game, but marketing usually works by highlighting the positives, convey a positive attitude and diminishing or completely neglecting any negatives.

This isn't some great revelation, nor anything particularly terrible because, as I said, it's part of the game in a free market, but if you accept that GW does marketing now, you should accept that they employ deception.

The entire existence of their online presence is owed to the pursuit of controlling the narrative. They release product information that they deem garners the most interest, at a time most advantageous to them, and when questioned about anything beyond this, they ignore (sometimes through non-committal replies) or delete posts they see as damaging. All in order to cultivate an appearance. Not the full facts, but the facts they wish to present.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
@Geif

I understand playing Devil's Advocate but I'm attacking the argument as is. As I believe it's flawed.


Sorry, I was tired when I wrote my reply and did not fully address your post. Truth is, I'm half playing devil's advocate, while the other half is actual, genuine criticism. You're right about my argument as presented. It was made very well. I'll address it below the next quote, hopefully better and complete this time.

 Chamberlain wrote:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
@Geif

I think you're really reaching to paint Games Workshop in a bad light. Releasing discounted starter army boxes is fleecing? What? Almost every miniature company I know does this. Warlord Games, Privateer Press, Corvus Belli and Wryd to name a few. Yes, Games Workshop's products are more expensive than the discounted boxes. That's why they call them "discounted".

And the Plague Bretheren are entirely optional and aren't actually that expensive for a collector's item.


The funny thing is that I'm not even trying to present GW in a bad light. Would it surprise you to learn that I am reasonably happy with their business conduct?


Then there may be a communication failure on your end. You presented GW's reduced price bundles as the first part of some nefarious plan to fleece the customers.


This is not what I meant at all. I'm quite happy to see the discounted bundles, even if I don't agree with many that they are a good deal but rather think they make the offered goods palatable. Which is fine. I am very willing to pay a fair price for quality. Just not an inflated one.

What I meant is that GW realized that their high pricing model on the whole range was a dud. Instead of lowering prices across the board, which would be nothing but beneficial to the customer, they instead chose a tiered pricing strategy that retained the premium price on much of the range while using discount bundles as gateways. If we were talking about crack instead of plasticrack, it wouldn't even be a question that this strategy was aimed at getting the customer hooked. But since toy soldiers are a legitimate business and there is no overt dependency as with drugs, it's fair game for GW.

And you know what? I don't agree. It's working alright and we have a fantastic financial report to prove it. But that doesn't mean I can't call out the mechanisms at work, because just because something is legal doesn't mean it's palatable.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There's nothing stopping them from just saying that this guy has DR and T5. Nothing at all.




A good kit to look at is Dark Eldar Wracks that come with extra parts for vehicle crews that are entirely useless on the actual unit but can be used on other models to achieve a theme across an army. GW literally did this. What's stopping them with Death Guard? The whole "no models, no rules" thing is not only bogus but, and I never thought I'd use that term, lazy design.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/09/29 19:15:41


Post by: TheCustomLime


For the record I am not a GW fanboy who thinks they can do no wrong. I have a lot of issues with GW new and old. I think their pricing model is outrageous and frankly arbitrary. Their currency conversion rates is... "creative" let's just say. The time when the AUD is worth less than a koala's fart has come and gone. And the pound isn't exactly as strong as it used to be either. I wish they would make something new for WHFB fans like myself. Maybe a PDF download ruleset and some assurance that we will be able to buy square bases when they inevitably convert all the legacy kits to circle bases? The move to semi and even full on monopose plastic kits is something I abhor. It was bad enough when they started charging $35 for monpose space marine characters with like one or two options. Now they're doing it to infantry kits?! The new Death Guard release does not give me much hope for the quality of new kits. The sculpts are very nice. As kits it's a dumpster fire.

Frankly one of the reasons why I'm not chomping at the bit to dump my old-marines is because Primaris are just lame as multipart plastic kits.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/01 14:22:31


Post by: Wayniac


I mostly buy retail from my GW, and every damn time I feel like a total sucker for not ordering and buying it at 15% off from my FLGS instead.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/01 16:09:07


Post by: Genoside07


I think they have learned their lesson, but it was a hard road for both of us...

Over the years I could say I was a boarder line fan boy and bought most releases..Had about every army and a subscription to white dwarf.
At one point during a vacation in Europe, I convinced the wife to make a day trip to Nottingham just to go to GW HQ.
Then just a few years ago, it seemed like they where trying to drive customers away.. double down on magazines as other companies go digital.
Both of them was just okay.. nothing special more of a money sink than anything..

Then they killed Warhammer..This was my favorite game and it was clearly going off the rails... Dark Elf players finally got a good plastic witch elf release
and they charged $90 for 10, plus made it one of the best units in the game.. Rules had gotten convoluted and people complained of lower model count and
some type of entry level game..

Don't want to turn this into a Age of Sigmar debate but I feel after the magazine problems; followed by the train wreak release of AoS.. That left them with
no choice. Good thing was they did turn it around and fix the magazine.. Attempt to fix AoS shows they are trying .. even allowing the return to internet sales
and having a public forum like Facebook pages to see what people are saying.. That was unheard of five years ago..

BUT... I had already given up on Games Workshop at that point.. I have only bought a few items over the past few years, Shadow Wars was one thing..
Even tried AoS with the Generals Handbook.. but its just not the game for me and with my beloved Empire army seeming to be only a bunch of "People" now..

So they can say everything is improving.. and you can see it is.. but from what level... If they did this change before wreaking everything they would be in even a better place.
Because right now.. My group including my self haven't bought into eighth edition and mostly play other games when we get together. They are in a better place right
now but they are not getting my money... I guess I look at them as an ex wife.. just happy they are doing well but don't want to get back with them.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/01 16:52:37


Post by: Lord Kragan


Pseudomonas wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There is no model for a Death Guard Chaos Lord, so you get no rules for a Death Guard Chaos Lord.


This is what makes no sense. Quite clearly it isn't going to do anything about alternative manufacturers as, even before the DG codex release, there are numerous examples of 'Plagued Lords' wearing heavy armour and wielding a scythe.

I can see absolutely no benefit to this nonsense.

GW can do nothing to stop other manufacturers making proxys for their models and their fumbling attempts are only detrimental to their customers.

Especially when the proxy looks better than the official model.


I generally disliked the DG release but like hell does that ugly (and not in the good way) shaped brick look better than the original.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/01 17:28:28


Post by: Modock


Lord Kragan wrote:
Pseudomonas wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There is no model for a Death Guard Chaos Lord, so you get no rules for a Death Guard Chaos Lord.


This is what makes no sense. Quite clearly it isn't going to do anything about alternative manufacturers as, even before the DG codex release, there are numerous examples of 'Plagued Lords' wearing heavy armour and wielding a scythe.

I can see absolutely no benefit to this nonsense.

GW can do nothing to stop other manufacturers making proxys for their models and their fumbling attempts are only detrimental to their customers.

Especially when the proxy looks better than the official model.


I generally disliked the DG release but like hell does that ugly (and not in the good way) shaped brick look better than the original.


Actually I like this more than the GW one. Looks more primal and the details are sharper. Resin has the upper hand in terms of texture and details.
Also your comparing bare resin to painted one. Gw mortar gives the "cheap" plastic look, well the paint job doesn't help. Didn't this mortar came
out earlier than GW version, so which one is the original.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/01 18:15:21


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


I'd imagine the original is the one Bitspudo ripped off?

And be fair, this one is half cooked. Manky up the front, pristine to the rear. Large areas of no detail.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/01 18:47:51


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Genoside07 wrote:
I think they have learned their lesson...


They just announced the Plague Marine kit will have 7 miniatures in it. It will cost as much as other infantry boxes that have 10-12 miniatures in them, with far more options for posing.

They've learnt nothing.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/01 19:32:22


Post by: Pseudomonas


 H.B.M.C. wrote:


They've learnt nothing.


I have though, I am buying the old metal ones on Ebay to supplement my current Death Guard

I don't even like the new models.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/02 12:15:55


Post by: CREEEEEEEEED


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Genoside07 wrote:
I think they have learned their lesson...


They just announced the Plague Marine kit will have 7 miniatures in it. It will cost as much as other infantry boxes that have 10-12 miniatures in them, with far more options for posing.

They've learnt nothing.

Factually incorrect. If anything they've learned how willing their customers are.
And I'd say they've learned a lot of things positive for the customer, but that's separate.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/02 17:36:13


Post by: Slipstream


No;the only thing that's happened is that they've changed their marketing methods. Currently it's been a blizzard of Primaris, blizzards don't last but they have sold a hell of a lot of them! But high sales don't last forever.

These start collecting boxes have caught my attention though,and what I think they are doing. I'd take a guess and say that they are using them to clear the stock rooms for their eventual discontinuation. That should be interesting when it happens,because already the Primaris suff is expensive,just imagine what the cost will be when you can only buy Primaris stuff?
I'll stick with my normal stuff,thank you!


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/02 19:08:42


Post by: CREEEEEEEEED


Slipstream wrote:
No;the only thing that's happened is that they've changed their marketing methods. Currently it's been a blizzard of Primaris, blizzards don't last but they have sold a hell of a lot of them! But high sales don't last forever.

These start collecting boxes have caught my attention though,and what I think they are doing. I'd take a guess and say that they are using them to clear the stock rooms for their eventual discontinuation. That should be interesting when it happens,because already the Primaris suff is expensive,just imagine what the cost will be when you can only buy Primaris stuff?
I'll stick with my normal stuff,thank you!

Ah, so the start collecting boxes are just a ploy to shift stock until only primaris is avaliable. And that includes the 12/15 start collecting sets that aren't SM, SW or BA. And those three boxes don't even contain anywhere near the full range of minis. Ok. Sure, we'll go with that.
Get real man, come on.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/02 19:13:50


Post by: morgoth


 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Slipstream wrote:
No;the only thing that's happened is that they've changed their marketing methods. Currently it's been a blizzard of Primaris, blizzards don't last but they have sold a hell of a lot of them! But high sales don't last forever.

These start collecting boxes have caught my attention though,and what I think they are doing. I'd take a guess and say that they are using them to clear the stock rooms for their eventual discontinuation. That should be interesting when it happens,because already the Primaris suff is expensive,just imagine what the cost will be when you can only buy Primaris stuff?
I'll stick with my normal stuff,thank you!

Ah, so the start collecting boxes are just a ploy to shift stock until only primaris is avaliable. And that includes the 12/15 start collecting sets that aren't SM, SW or BA. And those three boxes don't even contain anywhere near the full range of minis. Ok. Sure, we'll go with that.
Get real man, come on.


You can't spell GW without evil
If GW did it it must be evil, that's the whole point of them being GW isn't it?


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/03 10:37:37


Post by: Wayniac


I think they learned that a new coat of paint the is enough to get people to forgive you and come crawling back. Nothing they've done really shows me they have changed, but people have forgiven them with the community site and painting videos anyways.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/03 14:28:10


Post by: morgoth


Wayniac wrote:
I think they learned that a new coat of paint the is enough to get people to forgive you and come crawling back. Nothing they've done really shows me they have changed, but people have forgiven them with the community site and painting videos anyways.

So basically, you say that people who appreciate what GW is doing are generally incapable of walking and / or prefer crawling instead?
Does that mean most of them are zombies from zombicide S3 which have been partially shot down?


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/03 15:57:50


Post by: Lanrak


The only lesson GW plc appear to have learned is treating your customers with open contempt, negatively effects sales.

And the minimal amount of effort it takes to engage with customers on the inter-webs can improve your 'good will 'rating a bit.

If GW plc wanted to actually grow market share, and profit.
They should pick what their company actually is, and focus on a business plan accordingly.

GW could be a better minature company if it did not saddle itself with the burden of half hearted rules development, and stores to teach people how to play.
And just sold high quality minatures for display, online.

GW could be a better games company if it focused on addressing game play issues, and sold higher volume lower cost 'table top' minatures.

The current combination of comparative high price minatures and crappy rules, leaves them with much lower market share than they could have.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/03 16:07:00


Post by: Azreal13


morgoth wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
I think they learned that a new coat of paint the is enough to get people to forgive you and come crawling back. Nothing they've done really shows me they have changed, but people have forgiven them with the community site and painting videos anyways.

So basically, you say that people who appreciate what GW is doing are generally incapable of walking and / or prefer crawling instead?
Does that mean most of them are zombies from zombicide S3 which have been partially shot down?


Are you so bereft of intelligent argument you have to write stuff like this?


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/03 16:27:10


Post by: Leth


What I am getting from GW is that they have learned that they are a niche, luxury hobby that has a dedicated fan base who loves the game and the universe. Instead of exploiting that loyalty, they are getting back to their roots. I think in many cases they are stuck between a rock and a hard place in that they did a lot of stupid/questionable things for many years and that set a lot of precedents that they cant ignore(like the chapterhouse lawsuit). This limits their ability to do things like say "Hey we are going to release all of these options that we dont have models for". We have already seen how companies are exploiting them releasing images of their future products before they are launched(see the not-plague crawler that is already on the market). Secondly the allies matrix of the past means people built armies that were all over the place. It is very hard to turn that back and ATTEMPT to balance all the possible combinations. I think the way they are going forward is a nice compromise. Sure you can combine armies but you are going to be missing out on a lot of the benefits. Much better than the old formation system and much better than the old allies matrix.

They are also taking a fine tuning approach rather than a blunt hammering approach to balance. They are trying to straddle the line between having a significant number of people who prefer everything in print hardcopy versus those who want constant iterative changes. Just last week they updated all of the digital index's to reflect the FAQ changes amongst a few other things like points updates. Once again should they be doing this? Yes, however it was much appreciated since they have not done it in the past.

They are making it clear that the individuals who are running the public face really love the hobby, they are making it clear that they are listening and trying to meet the needs of their customers. They are making it clear from the products that they release that they have an idea of what people who are in their hobby want/need. I mean one look at the regimental standard will tell you how much things have changed back to what they used to be.

I mean the free paint app? Freaking AMAZING. I was at the store the other day trying to figureout what paints would work best and I just typed in two colors that were really similar to the colors I used already on my army and it showed me exactly what it would look like layered on top. It was perfect. It also lets me keep track of what I already own so no more cases of having three copies of the same paint and none of the 3-4 I need.

Could they have released an app that was solely for the purpose of helping with sales? Sure, they could have just released a app that was a checklist of paints you own and paints you dont. I would still use it then for free because it offers some value. Instead they released something that is what gamers actually want. I would have happily paid 5-10 bucks for the warhammer paint app. They released it for free.

Do they have a ways to go? Absolutely but I am very happy with the progress they are making and what they are trying to do with their IP. I refuse to let the desire for perfection get in the way of progress.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/03 16:40:40


Post by: Ustrello


Lanrak wrote:
The only lesson GW plc appear to have learned is treating your customers with open contempt, negatively effects sales.

And the minimal amount of effort it takes to engage with customers on the inter-webs can improve your 'good will 'rating a bit.

If GW plc wanted to actually grow market share, and profit.
They should pick what their company actually is, and focus on a business plan accordingly.

GW could be a better minature company if it did not saddle itself with the burden of half hearted rules development, and stores to teach people how to play.
And just sold high quality minatures for display, online.

GW could be a better games company if it focused on addressing game play issues, and sold higher volume lower cost 'table top' minatures.

The current combination of comparative high price minatures and crappy rules, leaves them with much lower market share than they could have.



I am sure this has been said, but their profits are way up and shares in their company have gone up almost 300 percent in 1 year (505 to 1991). If you call that not growing their market share you have no idea what you are talking about


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/03 16:54:47


Post by: Azreal13


No, I'm afraid that would be you who doesn't understand the terminology. You can only grow your market share if your growth is higher than the overall growth of the market, and as we have no reliable metric to judge the overall size of the tabletop gaming market globally, let alone how much it is or isn't growing, we have no reliable means to assess GW's share of that market.

That they have grown as a company is indisputible, that their market share has grown is much, much less easy to argue.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/03 21:52:30


Post by: jbeil


Wayniac wrote:
I think they learned that a new coat of paint the is enough to get people to forgive you and come crawling back. Nothing they've done really shows me they have changed, but people have forgiven them with the community site and painting videos anyways.


Not just a new coat of paint.

Multiple, thin new coats of paint!


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/04 16:05:39


Post by: Wayniac


morgoth wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
I think they learned that a new coat of paint the is enough to get people to forgive you and come crawling back. Nothing they've done really shows me they have changed, but people have forgiven them with the community site and painting videos anyways.

So basically, you say that people who appreciate what GW is doing are generally incapable of walking and / or prefer crawling instead?
Does that mean most of them are zombies from zombicide S3 which have been partially shot down?


What I am saying is that people are quick to forgive GW for figuring out that hey, treating your customers like clueless rubes is a bad idea, they should engage the community more. For me, I like the fact they've approached the community better, but I don't think it absolves everything else and certainly doesn't absolve the fact that prices are still high and there's still too little actual balance in their games. I don't necessarily begrudge people who think GW has "changed" I just feel they are falling prey seeing a fresh coat of paint and thinking that everything is great now.

Basically this:




Time will still tell if it turns out better or worse, but right now while I think they're doing SOME things better, they're still doing a lot of the same things. It's like, and i hate using domestic abuse analogies because I dealt with it in my marriage, being okay with the fact your spouse hits you once in a while because they still buy you nice things the other times.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/04 17:57:34


Post by: Lanrak


@Ustrello.
Well if you do market share by demographics, GW plc are still leaving many customers out they could be selling to.

A) People who actually care about game play.And would like the rules to be focused on game play not short term sales boosts.

B)People who expect the rules written by GW , to be given the same level of attention as the artwork, and be professionally edited and proof read.

C)People who expect plastic table top minatures to be priced accordingly.(Rather than on a par with high quality resin and white metal display pieces. )

D) People who are aware of how much basic hobby tools and materials cost, and are not willing to pay the 'GW tax' for a 'GW logo'.

E)People who do not go to GW stores , yet have to pay extra for GW items to pay for the B&M stores.(Appx 55% of gross profit is spent on GW chain of B&M stores.)

Basically I would like GW plc to learn that,
Adding crappy rules to a minature range devalues the entire product range.Adding quality rules to a minature range adds value to the entire product range.






Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/06 12:34:24


Post by: Herzlos


Not all of those apply to all people though. The hugely overpriced tools and materials are for those that want the convenience or "one shop" nature of them. They don't need everyone (or almost anyone) to touch their tools, sand, flocking etc.

Of the rest, some percentage of them will still buy anyway, due to the social factors. I know GW rules are crap and the figures are overpriced, but I can usually get a game of it in my local clubs so if I was getting back into gaming I'd probably get a smallish (cost optimized) GW army.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/06 15:33:49


Post by: Lanrak


@Herzlos.
I was just giving examples of how GW plc could grow their market share if they wanted to .By appealing to potential customer they are not currently attracting.

Most new customers have not got a clue how much a minature 'should' cost.
But most know how much PVA glue and tape measures cost from the local hardware store.
'
This is where a majority of customers become aware that GW is charging a 'premium price' for the addition of a GW logo. And some think ''..well if they 'over charge' for these basic items, what else are they 'over charging' for...''And may investigate the internet for better value deals...


I was simply pointing out why others may not see value for money in the GW range of products.
And this could be addressed in an effective way, IF GW plc had a clear direction of perpose and had an appropriate business plan.

Here is a simple question,
Would GW plc sell more product to more people if the current retail prices were half what they are now?


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/06 15:58:03


Post by: Bi'ios


Lanrak wrote:
@Herzlos.
I was just giving examples of how GW plc could grow their market share if they wanted to .By appealing to potential customer they are not currently attracting.

Most new customers have not got a clue how much a minature 'should' cost.
But most know how much PVA glue and tape measures cost from the local hardware store.
'
This is where a majority of customers become aware that GW is charging a 'premium price' for the addition of a GW logo. And some think ''..well if they 'over charge' for these basic items, what else are they 'over charging' for...''And may investigate the internet for better value deals...


I was simply pointing out why others may not see value for money in the GW range of products.
And this could be addressed in an effective way, IF GW plc had a clear direction of perpose and had an appropriate business plan.

Here is a simple question,
Would GW plc sell more product to more people if the current retail prices were half what they are now?


Not likely, as everyone in the “hobby” is already aware of GW. But for the sake of arguement, let’s say they do sell more product to more people. Do you realistically think that they’ll OVER DOUBLE their sales? Because they’d have to do that to break even with where they are now.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/06 16:11:40


Post by: Azreal13


Exactly. Which is why I've seldom advocated for GW to cut prices in these sorts of discussions, price cuts are risky if they don't see a commensurate increase in sales volume, and there's no real way of gauging their impact ahead of time, making them a bad idea.

They could damn well slow down the increases a bit, but that's a separate issue.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/06 16:57:05


Post by: Modock


Not a single GW hobby tools are worth buying (even paints) cause the prices are so ridiculously high.
Take for example this PVA glue https://www.games-workshop.com/en-BE/PVA-Glue , they charge 7.5 € for 120ml.
I can buy high quality PVA glue 500 ml for less 4 €. When I talk to people I advise against buying GW products
except minis and this kind of info spreads around a lot I would say. IMO lower prices would lead to better
sales.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/06 17:10:37


Post by: Azreal13


You're making the assumption they want to increase sales.

They cut the price by half and double sales. What happens? They lose money as they're still paying the same for the wholesale, and buying twice as much as before for the same income. They cut the price by half and treble sales? They've made a tiny bit more profit than before, maybe, but increased their logistic costs and generally added to hassle for very little. So on and so forth.

It's priced at a predatory point to take a bite out of the unwary, ignorant and impulsive, and I'm sure GW are quite happy wth how it does that otherwise we'd have seen some sort of change. It's offered as a dubious "convenience," isn't part of GW's core line and I'm sure is a very low priority for them.

I'm not even mad about it, as you say, you can buy substantially more product for a lot less, anyone who pays GW prices only really has themselves to blame.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/06 18:27:02


Post by: Captain Joystick


 Leth wrote:
I mean the free paint app? Freaking AMAZING. I was at the store the other day trying to figureout what paints would work best and I just typed in two colors that were really similar to the colors I used already on my army and it showed me exactly what it would look like layered on top. It was perfect. It also lets me keep track of what I already own so no more cases of having three copies of the same paint and none of the 3-4 I need.


Um... Could you tell me how to do that? I was actually initially disappointed by the app because it only had a limited (if, admittedly, fairly large) list of colour progression examples. I still love it for its colour matching functions, but if you can actually dynamically test out paint schemes that'd be amazing.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/06 18:33:00


Post by: Desubot


 Modock wrote:
even paints


Ehhhhhhhhhh no. other companies may be catching up but gw washes and glazes are hobby gold. so is some of the metallics.

the textured base paints are nice even if its not hard to make your own. the consistency is pretty important.



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/06 18:49:29


Post by: Modock


 Desubot wrote:
 Modock wrote:
even paints


Ehhhhhhhhhh no. other companies may be catching up but gw washes and glazes are hobby gold. so is some of the metallics.

the textured base paints are nice even if its not hard to make your own. the consistency is pretty important.



As a complete product in terms of price, bottle, quantity and quality gw paints are inferior to Vallejo that's no doubt about it.

Model air metallics are second to none
Army painter washes are basically the same as GW washes.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/06 19:29:28


Post by: Azreal13


Unless either of you can cite some sort of objective measurement, you're drifting into the realms of subjectivity here. Even something that could be termed as objectively bad such as poor coverage could be seen as a positive from someone who liked to paint in many thin layers.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/06 19:46:51


Post by: Modock


Yea I see what are you getting at but I'm not just comparing the quality which is roughly on par with Vallejo but the whole package.

Vallejo citadel
price < price
17ml > 12ml
bottle > pot
quality =.quality



Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/06 19:58:07


Post by: Luciferian


I can only speak from my personal experience, but I just can't go back to GW paints after switching to Vallejo and Army Painter. Some of the technicals are indispensable, but when it comes to normal colors there's no contest. Vallejo, for me, has a better consistency and pigment distribution, as well as being much cheaper for almost 50% more per bottle. Don't even get me started on paint pots vs. dropper bottles...


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/06 20:06:56


Post by: Modock


The pots are a thing of the past. Dropper bottle is just superior.


Smoke and Mirrors? Or has [GW] really learned their lesson? @ 2017/10/06 20:12:59


Post by: Azreal13


In your opinion.

Why do people struggle with this? Your opinion is not objective, in any regard.

I agree, I prefer dropper bottles, but many people have professed over time to prefer GW pots because they're more stable (lower and wider) and don't require a palette or similar to use (shock horror, not everyone thins their paints all the time, me included.)