Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I won't deny I got a lot of fun from GW products over the years when I played their games, and a lot of my fellow dakka members still enjoy GW products and I respect that, but I do wonder where the profits are coming from, because a lot of their prices are still crazy IMO.
GW PVA glue is £5 for 120ml. I get 568ml for £2 from the budget art store.
GW plastic glue is £4 for 0.7 fl oz. I buy Revell poly cement, also the same amount, for £2.20 from the same art store.
GW superglue is £5.25. I get 10 tubes for £1 from poundland, and it's not bad. Just make sure the area is well ventilated before using it
And of course, Vallejo textured paint and brush on primer is cheaper and bigger than their GW counter-parts, and so on and so on....
And the mini prices are even worse. A box of Genestealer hybrids is £50 for 15 models
and a box of bolt action minis is £25 for 30 minis...
As always, each to their own, but these GW prices are crazy to my eyes.
When was the last time you went into a 'Bolt Action' store to have a game and do some hobbying, or used the 'Bolt Action' You Tube site for hobby tips, etc., etc., etc.? It's not really just as simple as an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I won't deny I got a lot of fun from GW products over the years when I played their games, and a lot of my fellow dakka members still enjoy GW products and I respect that, but I do wonder where the profits are coming from, because a lot of their prices are still crazy IMO.
GW PVA glue is £5 for 120ml. I get 568ml for £2 from the budget art store.
GW plastic glue is £4 for 0.7 fl oz. I buy Revell poly cement, also the same amount, for £2.20 from the same art store.
GW superglue is £5.25. I get 10 tubes for £1 from poundland, and it's not bad. Just make sure the area is well ventilated before using it
And of course, Vallejo textured paint and brush on primer is cheaper and bigger than their GW counter-parts, and so on and so on....
And the mini prices are even worse. A box of Genestealer hybrids is £50 for 15 models
and a box of bolt action minis is £25 for 30 minis...
As always, each to their own, but these GW prices are crazy to my eyes.
When was the last time you went into a 'Bolt Action' store to have a game and do some hobbying, or used the 'Bolt Action' You Tube site for hobby tips, etc., etc., etc.? It's not really just as simple as an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?
Warlord Games have a store (just the one mind). Warlord Games have a Youtube channel. Of course there is no direct comparison, but its obvious why people make it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I won't deny I got a lot of fun from GW products over the years when I played their games, and a lot of my fellow dakka members still enjoy GW products and I respect that, but I do wonder where the profits are coming from, because a lot of their prices are still crazy IMO.
GW PVA glue is £5 for 120ml. I get 568ml for £2 from the budget art store.
GW plastic glue is £4 for 0.7 fl oz. I buy Revell poly cement, also the same amount, for £2.20 from the same art store.
GW superglue is £5.25. I get 10 tubes for £1 from poundland, and it's not bad. Just make sure the area is well ventilated before using it
And of course, Vallejo textured paint and brush on primer is cheaper and bigger than their GW counter-parts, and so on and so on....
And the mini prices are even worse. A box of Genestealer hybrids is £50 for 15 models
and a box of bolt action minis is £25 for 30 minis...
As always, each to their own, but these GW prices are crazy to my eyes.
When was the last time you went into a 'Bolt Action' store to have a game and do some hobbying, or used the 'Bolt Action' You Tube site for hobby tips, etc., etc., etc.? It's not really just as simple as an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?
Yep.
If a company makes operational decisions such as maintaining a chain of retail stores that obligates it to charge significantly more than another competitor that doesn't, that has absolutely zero bearing on the validity of the comparison. The only thing up for debate is whether it's a good idea or not.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I won't deny I got a lot of fun from GW products over the years when I played their games, and a lot of my fellow dakka members still enjoy GW products and I respect that, but I do wonder where the profits are coming from, because a lot of their prices are still crazy IMO.
GW PVA glue is £5 for 120ml. I get 568ml for £2 from the budget art store.
GW plastic glue is £4 for 0.7 fl oz. I buy Revell poly cement, also the same amount, for £2.20 from the same art store.
GW superglue is £5.25. I get 10 tubes for £1 from poundland, and it's not bad. Just make sure the area is well ventilated before using it
And of course, Vallejo textured paint and brush on primer is cheaper and bigger than their GW counter-parts, and so on and so on....
And the mini prices are even worse. A box of Genestealer hybrids is £50 for 15 models
and a box of bolt action minis is £25 for 30 minis...
As always, each to their own, but these GW prices are crazy to my eyes.
When was the last time you went into a 'Bolt Action' store to have a game and do some hobbying, or used the 'Bolt Action' You Tube site for hobby tips, etc., etc., etc.? It's not really just as simple as an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?
Yep.
If a company makes operational decisions such as maintaining a chain of retail stores that obligates it to charge significantly more than another competitor that doesn't, that has absolutely zero bearing on the validity of the comparison. The only thing up for debate is whether it's a good idea or not.
Huh? What are you talking about, it's absolutely axiomatic to the comparison!
It's not for me to tell people how they should spend their money, and there are some good points above, but people making the retail comparison between GW and its competitors are forgetting one important point:
that art store I bought the PVA glue from is also part of a retail chain with employee wages to pay, business tax, utilities, etc etc
and their PVA glue is still cheaper than GW's, and you still get more...
Rayvon wrote:Aye, not everyone cares about getting the most out of their pound notes, there are plenty of people that prefer convenience over value for money and would rather get everything in a one stop shop rather than scour different outlets for different hobby equipment.
I used to think anyone who bought GW's branded hobby equipment was ... let's say inefficient. Then I had a run of special orders through local FLGSs go wrong. And while it wasn't for hobby equipment, it did cause me to reach the point that my number one concern is now whether or not something is in stock. I'll even pay above retail if I get what I want for a project without delays. I am now the opposite of a bargain hunter. I'm now the guy who sees something for a project in stock and then pays for the upgraded shipping.
So while they are paying way more than if they went elsewhere for the hobby equipment, I no longer think they are doing something against their own interest. People who buy GW's glues, clippers, brushes etc., are simply getting what they want in the most convenient mode possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's not for me to tell people how they should spend their money, and there are some good points above, but people making the retail comparison between GW and its competitors are forgetting one important point:
that art store I bought the PVA glue from is also part of a retail chain with employee wages to pay, business tax, utilities, etc etc
and their PVA glue is still cheaper than GW's, and you still get more...
So what is it about GW and how it does business that allows GW to sell their PVA at the price they do and sell enough that they can keep doing it?
Every single retailer, if they are smart, has certain products where the margins are just amazing. This helps average things out when other products have margins that are less great. I promise that if you look around that art store you'll find something where their margins are just as good as GW's on the PVA. Where if you went somewhere else you'd find a lower price to the same degree as the PVA glue difference between them and GW.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I won't deny I got a lot of fun from GW products over the years when I played their games, and a lot of my fellow dakka members still enjoy GW products and I respect that, but I do wonder where the profits are coming from, because a lot of their prices are still crazy IMO.
GW PVA glue is £5 for 120ml. I get 568ml for £2 from the budget art store.
GW plastic glue is £4 for 0.7 fl oz. I buy Revell poly cement, also the same amount, for £2.20 from the same art store.
GW superglue is £5.25. I get 10 tubes for £1 from poundland, and it's not bad. Just make sure the area is well ventilated before using it
And of course, Vallejo textured paint and brush on primer is cheaper and bigger than their GW counter-parts, and so on and so on....
And the mini prices are even worse. A box of Genestealer hybrids is £50 for 15 models
and a box of bolt action minis is £25 for 30 minis...
As always, each to their own, but these GW prices are crazy to my eyes.
When was the last time you went into a 'Bolt Action' store to have a game and do some hobbying, or used the 'Bolt Action' You Tube site for hobby tips, etc., etc., etc.? It's not really just as simple as an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?
Warlord Games have a store (just the one mind). Warlord Games have a Youtube channel. Of course there is no direct comparison, but its obvious why people make it.
Yep, it's the same recycled gripe I've heard for 15 years and over those years, innumerable miniature manufacturers have come and gone but GW is still around. Corporate missteps notwithstanding, I think it's obvious that maybe there's something to promoting the hobby the way they do. Their longevity and latest FY results kind of bears that out.
Consider Royal Tunbridge Wells. It's been a while since Ballards, Ballards 2 and EM Models all shut down. That leaves GW as the sole dedicated model shop in town - unless you fancy battling your way to the industrial estate to visit Hobbycraft.
So the convenience is there for me. It's bad enough having to schlep back up the shop when I forget I needed glue - and I only live at the other end of town. If I lived further away (lots of very quaint villages, infested with the middle class), that's a right pain - especially if I need to go elsewhere to get them. Such as the aforementioned Hobbycraft. On the industrial estate. The industrial estate nobody goes anywhere near if they can possibly avoid it due to a terrible road layout, and cretins that don't understand how to use roundabouts.
Same with paints and brushes. Yes, higher end brushes are out there. And that's great for pros. But for beginners and reluctant painters like myself, GW's will do well enough. The quality is decent, if not quite up the price tag. But there's my brush right there. The one I need. I'll grab that, rather than wander round to the snooty mcsnootsnoot art shop round the corner which stocks Windsor and Newton.
We live in a society hooked on convenience. GW provide that.
BigWaaagh wrote: Yep, it's the same recycled gripe I've heard for 15 years and over those years, innumerable miniature manufacturers have come and gone but GW is still around. Corporate missteps notwithstanding, maybe there's something to promoting the hobby the way they do? Their longevity and latest FY results kind of bear that out.
I think the biggest problem of the years following the LOTR boom and then through Mark Wells' departure was the neglect of their proven customer recruitment model. GW actively pursued lower volumes at higher margins. They reduced store hours. They increased barriers to entry. They sold less product to less people at higher prices. And when a hobby works as much as it does with word of mouth and people getting their friends into it, this has an effect like compound interest. When you look at the rate of price increases and the decline of revenue during that period, it's apparent GW gave away nearly half their market share. It was a price of Kirby's priorities of margins uber alles.
The latest FY results being so much better than previous results doesn't really bear out much at all about GW still being around. The change in results is from things changing with GW. Imagine where GW would be if they didn't, for a decade, drive away customers and cede massive chunks of the market to competitors? And those competitors are not an endless sea of companies that popped up and faded away. They're now established companies in the market place. Many of whom grew and thrived doing not what GW did for a solid decade, but what GW showed to work during their period of greatest growth. Warlord, for example, is full of ex-GW people who were with the company when they grew from a UK based importer of D&D to a world wide company.
Consider Royal Tunbridge Wells. It's been a while since Ballards, Ballards 2 and EM Models all shut down. That leaves GW as the sole dedicated model shop in town - unless you fancy battling your way to the industrial estate to visit Hobbycraft.
So the convenience is there for me. It's bad enough having to schlep back up the shop when I forget I needed glue - and I only live at the other end of town. If I lived further away (lots of very quaint villages, infested with the middle class), that's a right pain - especially if I need to go elsewhere to get them. Such as the aforementioned Hobbycraft. On the industrial estate. The industrial estate nobody goes anywhere near if they can possibly avoid it due to a terrible road layout, and cretins that don't understand how to use roundabouts.
Same with paints and brushes. Yes, higher end brushes are out there. And that's great for pros. But for beginners and reluctant painters like myself, GW's will do well enough. The quality is decent, if not quite up the price tag. But there's my brush right there. The one I need. I'll grab that, rather than wander round to the snooty mcsnootsnoot art shop round the corner which stocks Windsor and Newton.
We live in a society hooked on convenience. GW provide that.
Convenience? There is this thing called the internet.
You can buy things from it, and if you have something called a letterbox, someone will come along and put that thing through it for you. Even from the other side of the world.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I won't deny I got a lot of fun from GW products over the years when I played their games, and a lot of my fellow dakka members still enjoy GW products and I respect that, but I do wonder where the profits are coming from, because a lot of their prices are still crazy IMO.
GW PVA glue is £5 for 120ml. I get 568ml for £2 from the budget art store.
GW plastic glue is £4 for 0.7 fl oz. I buy Revell poly cement, also the same amount, for £2.20 from the same art store.
GW superglue is £5.25. I get 10 tubes for £1 from poundland, and it's not bad. Just make sure the area is well ventilated before using it
And of course, Vallejo textured paint and brush on primer is cheaper and bigger than their GW counter-parts, and so on and so on....
And the mini prices are even worse. A box of Genestealer hybrids is £50 for 15 models
and a box of bolt action minis is £25 for 30 minis...
As always, each to their own, but these GW prices are crazy to my eyes.
When was the last time you went into a 'Bolt Action' store to have a game and do some hobbying, or used the 'Bolt Action' You Tube site for hobby tips, etc., etc., etc.? It's not really just as simple as an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?
Yep.
If a company makes operational decisions such as maintaining a chain of retail stores that obligates it to charge significantly more than another competitor that doesn't, that has absolutely zero bearing on the validity of the comparison. The only thing up for debate is whether it's a good idea or not.
Huh? What are you talking about, it's absolutely axiomatic to the comparison!
Not as a consumer it isn't. If I'm comparing the price of BA minis to 40K minis, I'm seeing that the Bolt Action ones are a lot less. I'm not going to then conduct a detailed research project into the ins and outs of each company's financial liabilities in order to determine the reasons that may or may not explain the difference. Outside of subjective criteria, one company is offering plastic wargaming models at a significantly lower price than the other with no notable reason why they should. Citing things that one company has chosen to obligate itself to pay for as some point of difference when, at the end of the day, they're both companies offering ~30mm hard plastic wargaming models, as a reason that it's not a valid comparison is bordering on apologism.
BigWaaagh wrote: Yep, it's the same recycled gripe I've heard for 15 years and over those years, innumerable miniature manufacturers have come and gone but GW is still around. Corporate missteps notwithstanding, maybe there's something to promoting the hobby the way they do? Their longevity and latest FY results kind of bear that out.
I think the biggest problem of the years following the LOTR boom and then through Mark Wells' departure was the neglect of their proven customer recruitment model. GW actively pursued lower volumes at higher margins. They reduced store hours. They increased barriers to entry. They sold less product to less people at higher prices. And when a hobby works as much as it does with word of mouth and people getting their friends into it, this has an effect like compound interest. When you look at the rate of price increases and the decline of revenue during that period, it's apparent GW gave away nearly half their market share. It was a price of Kirby's priorities of margins uber alles.
The latest FY results being so much better than previous results doesn't really bear out much at all about GW still being around. The change in results is from things changing with GW. Imagine where GW would be if they didn't, for a decade, drive away customers and cede massive chunks of the market to competitors? And those competitors are not an endless sea of companies that popped up and faded away. They're now established companies in the market place. Many of whom grew and thrived doing not what GW did for a solid decade, but what GW showed to work during their period of greatest growth. Warlord, for example, is full of ex-GW people who were with the company when they grew from a UK based importer of D&D to a world wide company.
Even if the 'new' GW had been around these past 15 years, its competitors would still grab a share of the market, because games like X-Wing boast bigger and better IP than GW.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I won't deny I got a lot of fun from GW products over the years when I played their games, and a lot of my fellow dakka members still enjoy GW products and I respect that, but I do wonder where the profits are coming from, because a lot of their prices are still crazy IMO.
GW PVA glue is £5 for 120ml. I get 568ml for £2 from the budget art store.
GW plastic glue is £4 for 0.7 fl oz. I buy Revell poly cement, also the same amount, for £2.20 from the same art store.
GW superglue is £5.25. I get 10 tubes for £1 from poundland, and it's not bad. Just make sure the area is well ventilated before using it
And of course, Vallejo textured paint and brush on primer is cheaper and bigger than their GW counter-parts, and so on and so on....
And the mini prices are even worse. A box of Genestealer hybrids is £50 for 15 models
and a box of bolt action minis is £25 for 30 minis...
As always, each to their own, but these GW prices are crazy to my eyes.
When was the last time you went into a 'Bolt Action' store to have a game and do some hobbying, or used the 'Bolt Action' You Tube site for hobby tips, etc., etc., etc.? It's not really just as simple as an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?
Warlord Games have a store (just the one mind). Warlord Games have a Youtube channel. Of course there is no direct comparison, but its obvious why people make it.
Yep, it's the same recycled gripe I've heard for 15 years and over those years, innumerable miniature manufacturers have come and gone but GW is still around. Corporate missteps notwithstanding, I think it's obvious that maybe there's something to promoting the hobby the way they do. Their longevity and latest FY results kind of bears that out.
Don't mistake my gripes with GW pricing on some items as an ecuse for anti-GW bashing. The Space Hulk remake of a few years ago is one of the finest hobby products I have ever purchased
BigWaaagh wrote: Yep, it's the same recycled gripe I've heard for 15 years and over those years, innumerable miniature manufacturers have come and gone but GW is still around. Corporate missteps notwithstanding, maybe there's something to promoting the hobby the way they do? Their longevity and latest FY results kind of bear that out.
I think the biggest problem of the years following the LOTR boom and then through Mark Wells' departure was the neglect of their proven customer recruitment model. GW actively pursued lower volumes at higher margins. They reduced store hours. They increased barriers to entry. They sold less product to less people at higher prices. And when a hobby works as much as it does with word of mouth and people getting their friends into it, this has an effect like compound interest. When you look at the rate of price increases and the decline of revenue during that period, it's apparent GW gave away nearly half their market share. It was a price of Kirby's priorities of margins uber alles.
The latest FY results being so much better than previous results doesn't really bear out much at all about GW still being around. The change in results is from things changing with GW. Imagine where GW would be if they didn't, for a decade, drive away customers and cede massive chunks of the market to competitors? And those competitors are not an endless sea of companies that popped up and faded away. They're now established companies in the market place. Many of whom grew and thrived doing not what GW did for a solid decade, but what GW showed to work during their period of greatest growth. Warlord, for example, is full of ex-GW people who were with the company when they grew from a UK based importer of D&D to a world wide company.
And to my point, through all that, they're still around as countless others drop by the wayside. I know the guys at Warlord personally and with relation to GW, they're still pups. GW has survived and flourished through the strategic missteps and has a longevity nearly unparalleled in the space. With regards to the topic and their model, it's shown the test of time and that absolutely bears out the thesis.
Consider Royal Tunbridge Wells. It's been a while since Ballards, Ballards 2 and EM Models all shut down. That leaves GW as the sole dedicated model shop in town - unless you fancy battling your way to the industrial estate to visit Hobbycraft.
So the convenience is there for me. It's bad enough having to schlep back up the shop when I forget I needed glue - and I only live at the other end of town. If I lived further away (lots of very quaint villages, infested with the middle class), that's a right pain - especially if I need to go elsewhere to get them. Such as the aforementioned Hobbycraft. On the industrial estate. The industrial estate nobody goes anywhere near if they can possibly avoid it due to a terrible road layout, and cretins that don't understand how to use roundabouts.
Same with paints and brushes. Yes, higher end brushes are out there. And that's great for pros. But for beginners and reluctant painters like myself, GW's will do well enough. The quality is decent, if not quite up the price tag. But there's my brush right there. The one I need. I'll grab that, rather than wander round to the snooty mcsnootsnoot art shop round the corner which stocks Windsor and Newton.
We live in a society hooked on convenience. GW provide that.
Convenience? There is this thing called the internet.
You can buy things from it, and if you have something called a letterbox, someone will come along and put that thing through it for you. Even from the other side of the world.
Consider Royal Tunbridge Wells. It's been a while since Ballards, Ballards 2 and EM Models all shut down. That leaves GW as the sole dedicated model shop in town - unless you fancy battling your way to the industrial estate to visit Hobbycraft.
So the convenience is there for me. It's bad enough having to schlep back up the shop when I forget I needed glue - and I only live at the other end of town. If I lived further away (lots of very quaint villages, infested with the middle class), that's a right pain - especially if I need to go elsewhere to get them. Such as the aforementioned Hobbycraft. On the industrial estate. The industrial estate nobody goes anywhere near if they can possibly avoid it due to a terrible road layout, and cretins that don't understand how to use roundabouts.
Same with paints and brushes. Yes, higher end brushes are out there. And that's great for pros. But for beginners and reluctant painters like myself, GW's will do well enough. The quality is decent, if not quite up the price tag. But there's my brush right there. The one I need. I'll grab that, rather than wander round to the snooty mcsnootsnoot art shop round the corner which stocks Windsor and Newton.
We live in a society hooked on convenience. GW provide that.
Doesn't help if I need the glue now though!
Convenience? There is this thing called the internet.
You can buy things from it, and if you have something called a letterbox, someone will come along and put that thing through it for you. Even from the other side of the world.
I know, I know. I jest with you
In saying that, in times past, I've bought glue from corner shops and even the local petrol station when it's been an emergency.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I won't deny I got a lot of fun from GW products over the years when I played their games, and a lot of my fellow dakka members still enjoy GW products and I respect that, but I do wonder where the profits are coming from, because a lot of their prices are still crazy IMO.
GW PVA glue is £5 for 120ml. I get 568ml for £2 from the budget art store.
GW plastic glue is £4 for 0.7 fl oz. I buy Revell poly cement, also the same amount, for £2.20 from the same art store.
GW superglue is £5.25. I get 10 tubes for £1 from poundland, and it's not bad. Just make sure the area is well ventilated before using it
And of course, Vallejo textured paint and brush on primer is cheaper and bigger than their GW counter-parts, and so on and so on....
And the mini prices are even worse. A box of Genestealer hybrids is £50 for 15 models
and a box of bolt action minis is £25 for 30 minis...
As always, each to their own, but these GW prices are crazy to my eyes.
When was the last time you went into a 'Bolt Action' store to have a game and do some hobbying, or used the 'Bolt Action' You Tube site for hobby tips, etc., etc., etc.? It's not really just as simple as an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?
Yep.
If a company makes operational decisions such as maintaining a chain of retail stores that obligates it to charge significantly more than another competitor that doesn't, that has absolutely zero bearing on the validity of the comparison. The only thing up for debate is whether it's a good idea or not.
Huh? What are you talking about, it's absolutely axiomatic to the comparison!
Not as a consumer it isn't. If I'm comparing the price of BA minis to 40K minis, I'm seeing that the Bolt Action ones are a lot less. I'm not going to then conduct a detailed research project into the ins and outs of each company's financial liabilities in order to determine the reasons that may or may not explain the difference. Outside of subjective criteria, one company is offering plastic wargaming models at a significantly lower price than the other with no notable reason why they should. Citing things that one company has chosen to obligate itself to pay for as some point of difference when, at the end of the day, they're both companies offering ~30mm hard plastic wargaming models, as a reason that it's not a valid comparison is bordering on apologism.
Oh, please. You're actually trying to paint GW's "product" as just a miniature and that's where you're argument is just flat out wrong. There's always been a wholistic offering from recruitment, i.e. GW Hobby Centers ensuring longevity of the product all the way to hobby support, i.e. GW Hobby Centers, You Tube channel, White Dwarf, Warhammer World that absolutely must be figured into the equation. Those "things" that you're trying to claim is irrelevant as a consumer are the "things" that have helped GW exist for what, 30+ years. Do some diligence on cheap miniatures and game systems that were just plopped out there inexpensively and woefully unsupported by some flash-in-the-pan miniatures/game company...there's been LOTS of them over the years that GW's been around...and you'll find that you've got one company still standing after all these years. This isn't apologism, this is fact.
Azreal13 wrote: And you're trying to argue that comparing two companies that sell plastic miniatures is invalid because one has chosen to run its own shops...
No. I'm pointing out, with relevance to my original post, that the "product" you're buying when you buy miniatures isn't...particularly in this case...a simple $ comparison when you have an understanding of the whole product being sold.
BigWaaagh wrote:
And to my point, through all that, they're still around as countless others drop by the wayside. I know the guys at Warlord personally and with relation to GW, they're still pups. GW has survived and flourished through the strategic missteps and has a longevity nearly unparalleled in the space. With regards to the topic and their model, it's shown the test of time and that absolutely bears out the thesis.
There really isn't much of a thesis here though. They're still around so what they're doing must be working? That's it? It's sort of a tautology.
And you don't flourish through strategic misteps, at best it's despite them, not through them. And I'd argue that GW didn't flourish for a long, long time. Years have gone by where they shrank while the rest of the market grew around them. Stagnation is not flourishing. The very fact that things have improved so dramatically in the last two financial years shows that things change and it's not just GW proving they were always right by merit of still existing.
This "test of time" idea just doesn't really say anything at all given you have GW doing very different things over different periods of time.
Azreal13 wrote: And you're trying to argue that comparing two companies that sell plastic miniatures is invalid because one has chosen to run its own shops...
No. I'm pointing out, with relevance to my original post, that the "product" you're buying when you buy miniatures isn't...particularly in this case...a simple $ comparison when you have an understanding of the whole product being sold.
Yes it is a simple £ comparison! You're just trying to argue that all the other gak that GW have chosen to load on top of that in an attempt to justify the disparity somehow invalidates the comparison to a competitor who runs a leaner model with less overhead. None of which you've cited has any value to me at all, and I know I'm not going to be the only one who doesn't game at GW or spend any time using their online resources, so whether you frame it as "GW are overpriced" or "GW force me to spend money on product I have no use for" the outcome for me as a consumer is the same.
I think he's more arguing that given the wider market, GW's approach definitely works when you see the number of former competitors that have fallen by the way side. (response was to frozenwaste)
Azreal13 wrote: And you're trying to argue that comparing two companies that sell plastic miniatures is invalid because one has chosen to run its own shops...
No. I'm pointing out, with relevance to my original post, that the "product" you're buying when you buy miniatures isn't...particularly in this case...a simple $ comparison when you have an understanding of the whole product being sold.
Yes it is a simple £ comparison! You're just trying to argue that all the other that GW have chosen to load on top of that in an attempt to justify the disparity somehow invalidates the comparison to a competitor who runs a leaner model with less overhead. None of which you've cited has any value to me at all, and I know I'm not going to be the only one who doesn't game at GW or spend any time using their online resources, so whether you frame it as "GW are overpriced" or "GW force me to spend money on product I have no use for" the outcome for me as a consumer is the same.
Hmmm. I don't agree, and I think you're argument is self defeating.
When I buy a GW product, it includes the option for me to use their models in any of their shops. It also means I get value out of their online resources in a way someone who doesn't play their systems can't.
If you don't utilise the resources they put at your disposal, that's not them. That's you. It's you, for reasons best known to yourself, choosing not to extract the maximum value out of the purchase you just made.
They're not forcing you to do anything. Nor are their products overpriced in that regard. It's you, you, you and the decision you made that's preventing you enjoying the other goodies GW offers as part and parcel of their company.
Or, they could not front load that cost into the retail price of the actual product they're selling and let the consumer make a choice, rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase an element of what they offer to be liable for it whether they want it or not.
Because if those things actually have a value, then people will pay for them right? Otherwise it means they're just a thinly veiled excuse for charging a lot more for a very similar product.
So by that same rationale, a restaurant that chooses to offer seating rather than take away shouldn't factor in the cost of the table space just in case you choose to sit on the pavement to eat it, yes?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think he's more arguing that given the wider market, GW's approach definitely works when you see the number of former competitors that have fallen by the way side. (response was to frozenwaste)
Except for that's not reality. Their competitors didn't just fade away. They got entrenched and are now established in the market. And in some areas, GW has lost the top spot (X-Wing in North America). GW stagnated for years while the hobby gaming industry exploded.
This idea that because GW is still around that must prove the effectiveness of their actions is meaningless when they do very different actions and get different results. The current GW plan is very different than the post-LOTR boom Wells-Kirby plan. The recognition that margins are improved through volume rather than reducing volume is huge. It's a total departure. As is their change in customer communication. And pricing with start collecting boxes. And reducing up front costs with lower cost starter sets. They now also have an actual social media strategy. And go to major conventions. And work with podcasters and youtubers by sending them review products.
So not only did the competitors not fade away, GW isn't even doing the same thing as before. So this notion of GW still being around doesn't say anything of substance.
Azreal13 wrote: It's not unheard of for a restaurant to offer different pricing for eat in and takeaway, no, if that's what you mean?
If you're think of McDonalds etc, that's because take-away food didn't (possibly still doesn't, but the Greggs hoo-ha makes me think otherwise) attract VAT - only eat-in.
But please, do present evidence to support that. And even if they do, other restaurants don't, and those that don't aren't obliged to discount your food just because you're insistent on sitting on the pavement instead of the restaurant in this example.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think he's more arguing that given the wider market, GW's approach definitely works when you see the number of former competitors that have fallen by the way side. (response was to frozenwaste)
Except for that's not reality. Their competitors didn't just fade away. They got entrenched and are now established in the market. And in some areas, GW has lost the top spot (X-Wing in North America). GW stagnated for years while the hobby gaming industry exploded.
This idea that because GW is still around that must prove the effectiveness of their actions is meaningless when they do very different actions and get different results. The current GW plan is very different than the post-LOTR boom Wells-Kirby plan. The recognition that margins are improved through volume rather than reducing volume is huge. It's a total departure. As is their change in customer communication. And pricing with start collecting boxes. And reducing up front costs with lower cost starter sets. They now also have an actual social media strategy. And go to major conventions. And work with podcasters and youtubers by sending them review products.
So not only did the competitors not fade away, GW isn't even doing the same thing as before. So this notion of GW still being around doesn't say anything of substance.
Some competitors kept pace. But very far from all. Anyone remember Void or Vore? Rackham anyone?
As for X-Wing - remember, the poll that produced that figure doesn't have GW's own figures included, as they've declined to take part. When we look at the percentage of GW's North Americans sales that are direct or Own Store, that's a significant number of sales not being accounted for.
Azreal13 wrote: Or, they could not front load that cost into the retail price of the actual product they're selling and let the consumer make a choice, rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase an element of what they offer to be liable for it whether they want it or not.
Because if those things actually have a value, then people will pay for them right? Otherwise it means they're just a thinly veiled excuse for charging a lot more for a very similar product.
It's also important to note that their trade sales are way, way more efficient than their retail operation. Even bringing in less money per product (the trade accounts get a wholesale price so they can resell the product at a profit) trade sales drastically outperform their retail operation. For years, GW's retail operation was costing them more than it was bringing in.
And this notion that part of GW's prices cover things like the Warhammer TV painting video? It's the other way around. That's marketing. People don't pay for GW's miniatures so they can have the painting videos. The painting videos are there to induce purchases.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Some competitors kept pace. But very far from all. Anyone remember Void or Vore? Rackham anyone?
You had to go really far back for those examples, didn't you? This argument was valid during that time, when there were endless companies trying and failing. Now we have many many companies that have established themselves.
As for X-Wing - remember, the poll that produced that figure doesn't have GW's own figures included, as they've declined to take part.
This idea that ICv2 is doing an industry survey and then not counting GW's own published numbers when they can just open up the PDF and read them is probably off the mark.
When we look at the percentage of GW's North Americans sales that are direct or Own Store, that's a significant number of sales not being accounted for.
Yeah... there's no way they could have just read the same numbers we did and added them in. We don't actually know that the market analysis excluded GW's own numbers do we? And since they are just right there to read, it seems odd to exclude them, doesn't it? I get that people might not want X-Wing to be outselling 40k in North America, but it probably is.
I expect though that 40k will retake the top spot in the survey period covering this summer. 8th is probably going to accomplish that.
Azreal13 wrote: It's not unheard of for a restaurant to offer different pricing for eat in and takeaway, no, if that's what you mean?
If you're think of McDonalds etc, that's because take-away food didn't (possibly still doesn't, but the Greggs hoo-ha makes me think otherwise) attract VAT - only eat-in.
No, that's not what I'm talking about, the Vat issue is with hot or cold food, not takeaway.
But please, do present evidence to support that. And even if they do, other restaurants don't, and those that don't aren't obliged to discount your food just because you're insistent on sitting on the pavement instead of the restaurant in this example.
No need, as you're moving the discussion away from the original point, to use your restaurant analogy in the correct context, it would be arguing that it isn't fair to compare two burger houses because one is significantly more expensive because it chooses to offer free Sky Sports in the back room and passes that cost onto every single customer whether they go in and watch it or not, whilst the cheaper one charges less for the core product (the burgers) and lets people decide whether they want their own Sky Sports and to pay for it if they choose to.
Oh yes. One simply adds the cost to the prices you're asking the consumer to pay because that's just how things work in the real world.
This is irrelevant to his point. There's pretty much no industry where the customer goes "They have a big advertising budget, so I'm willing to pay more for this product over the other one." That's totally backwards. The advertising budget is there to get them to buy the product, not the other way around. I don't buy a kitchen table to keep Ikea's advertising department in work.
ICV2 have said they don't include data from shops or manufacturers that decline to take part.
So therefore, it's more likely than not GW's direct sales and Own Shop sales aren't in fact included - rendering the ICV2 interesting, but far from accurate.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: ICV2 have said they don't include data from shops or manufacturers that decline to take part.
So therefore, it's more likely than not GW's direct sales and Own Shop sales aren't in fact included - rendering the ICV2 interesting, but far from accurate.
If that's the case, then it's more than just "far from accurate" it's stupid. Though we don't actually know what counts as declining to participate. GW could simply say "we have our annual reports available here" and then they'd be included.
My point about X-Wing though is that there are areas in which is outsells 40k. And it's an established competitor. As are many others. This picture of GW standing triumphant over the corpses of their fallen competitors is just a fantasy.
Even if ICv2 is stupid and doesn't use the available information, I think we can agree that GW is not in possession of the same degree of market share as when Rackham imploded or Void whatever faded away. I am simply challenging this contentless assertion that GW's continued existence is somehow proof that they are doing things right. The fact that they have changed course and are now doing better shows that they have become less wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I think Azrael13 and I have some fundamental differences about GW's pricing policy. I'm of the opinion that they can go higher. That something like GW Australia pricing can be extended to more locations and GW can still turn a profit. Or even grow. That the 3% average price increase from only increasing prices on new releases can likely be pushed up to 5% or more and GW can still have volume growth.
I see the most important factor in pricing a new release is to cover the design and tooling costs as quickly as possible. They can make money on volume when the new product eventually ends up in some sort of start collecting type box and becomes part of the two thirds of GW's sales that are not new releases. In their new releases, the products should be priced such that the amount they produce to sell produces the best return on investment with the least risk of dead stock sitting there. It's also worth noting that dead stock can be caused by going too high in prices. There's probably an optimal price that is higher in some cases and lower in others depending on the nature of the individual new release.
Is that not all speculation on your behalf though?
ICV2 say it's based on
ICV2 wrote:This chart of the Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines (hobby channel) reflects sales in Fall 2016. The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.
Interviews. Not publically available information. Just interviews.
Then there's the temporal lens. How long has Warmahordes been around? 16 or so years, give or take. X-Wing? 5, tops?
GW have proven not just longevity, but enough base sales to ride out pretty rough periods without a great deal of borrowing. How are PP and FFG funding their new toys? I ask because I genuinely don't know, and I'm not suggesting any 'declare it or it must be borrowing' tripe.
But any company that is borrowing money to drive a new product is putting itself in no doubt calculated jeopardy. If it flops or even disappoints, they could wind up with the debt being called in, or finding future credit restricted.
GW have proven over more than 30 years that they've got what it takes to keep on plugging away. Very little is done on the Never Never - they prefer to do it from cash in hand. Indeed, as per the 2016/2017 press statement
Press Statement wrote:
Funding and liquidity The Group pays for its operations entirely from our cash flow[/b]
For any business, that's solid position. Gives you total control over your costs, as you don't have to worry about rate jumps etc.
Much of the 2007/2008 financial crash was because so many businesses were highly leveraged. They were borrowing money to expand. So when sales suddenly dropped off, the loss of income meant they struggled to service their debts - and a suddenly cautious banking sector made securing new terms of lending very difficult indeed.
So if their competitors are borrowing to do new projects, be it a faction or whole new system, they're still not in the same position as GW. And that counts for a lot when the next, ultimately inevitable financial whoopsie comes along.
BigWaaagh wrote:
And to my point, through all that, they're still around as countless others drop by the wayside. I know the guys at Warlord personally and with relation to GW, they're still pups. GW has survived and flourished through the strategic missteps and has a longevity nearly unparalleled in the space. With regards to the topic and their model, it's shown the test of time and that absolutely bears out the thesis.
There really isn't much of a thesis here though. They're still around so what they're doing must be working? That's it? It's sort of a tautology.
And you don't flourish through strategic misteps, at best it's despite them, not through them. And I'd argue that GW didn't flourish for a long, long time. Years have gone by where they shrank while the rest of the market grew around them. Stagnation is not flourishing. The very fact that things have improved so dramatically in the last two financial years shows that things change and it's not just GW proving they were always right by merit of still existing.
This "test of time" idea just doesn't really say anything at all given you have GW doing very different things over different periods of time.
Name a company, any company, that doesn't veer off course or change strategies over the course of their existence... You've stated exactly the point here, they've survived in spite of their missteps so that kind of proves the basic model is sound.
Azreal13 wrote: And you're trying to argue that comparing two companies that sell plastic miniatures is invalid because one has chosen to run its own shops...
No. I'm pointing out, with relevance to my original post, that the "product" you're buying when you buy miniatures isn't...particularly in this case...a simple $ comparison when you have an understanding of the whole product being sold.
Yes it is a simple £ comparison! You're just trying to argue that all the other gak that GW have chosen to load on top of that in an attempt to justify the disparity somehow invalidates the comparison to a competitor who runs a leaner model with less overhead. None of which you've cited has any value to me at all, and I know I'm not going to be the only one who doesn't game at GW or spend any time using their online resources, so whether you frame it as "GW are overpriced" or "GW force me to spend money on product I have no use for" the outcome for me as a consumer is the same.
No, you're just recycling the same incorrect concept that GW's product is a simply a miniature costing $X. It's like saying the Ritz Carlton is the same as Motel 6 simply because they both are hotels that have rooms to offer. It's not the same, not even close.
We can also look at what GW is now doing compared to the past.
In the past, they made choices widely considered bone-headed. Their prices did indeed keep on going up and up and up.
But this is now.
Consider Calth and Prospero. What incredibly amazing value those boxes are. Whether for Heresy or 40k, you get a solid amount of models, based on full kit sprues as opposed to the more traditional Starter Set Simples. So when one can get the backbone of an army at such a discount (even more if you buy online. I got three Prospero from Darksphere), paying extra for the other units isn't as daunting.
Can X-Wing and PP offer the same if they hit the skids? I don't know. Open question is open.
Then there's the IP to consider. FFG have made a good game of X-Wing. But it's based on someone else's IP that they've rented. What if Disney want to take that back in-house as GW did? Where does that leave FFG?
There's an opinion in my local area that each new wave for X-Wing diminishes the game, introducing as it does ever more exception to exceptions of rules, and worse looking ships (come on, that Wookiee one is bobbins!). With it not being their IP, they're more restricted in adding nice new stuff in a way PP and GW aren't. Of course, many players will feel a need to buy Ship X, even though it doesn't suit their playstyle or taste in aesthetics just to get Card Y so that Ship Z becomes extra deadly. That's a business model that put me off continuing with the game.
Azreal13 wrote: Or, they could not front load that cost into the retail price of the actual product they're selling and let the consumer make a choice, rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase an element of what they offer to be liable for it whether they want it or not.
Because if those things actually have a value, then people will pay for them right? Otherwise it means they're just a thinly veiled excuse for charging a lot more for a very similar product.
They're "forcing" you...to buy a toy soldier. Erm, no. They're offering a product, take it or leave it.
Azreal13 wrote: It's not unheard of for a restaurant to offer different pricing for eat in and takeaway, no, if that's what you mean?
If you're think of McDonalds etc, that's because take-away food didn't (possibly still doesn't, but the Greggs hoo-ha makes me think otherwise) attract VAT - only eat-in.
No, that's not what I'm talking about, the Vat issue is with hot or cold food, not takeaway.
But please, do present evidence to support that. And even if they do, other restaurants don't, and those that don't aren't obliged to discount your food just because you're insistent on sitting on the pavement instead of the restaurant in this example.
No need, as you're moving the discussion away from the original point, to use your restaurant analogy in the correct context, it would be arguing that it isn't fair to compare two burger houses because one is significantly more expensive because it chooses to offer free Sky Sports in the back room and passes that cost onto every single customer whether they go in and watch it or not, whilst the cheaper one charges less for the core product (the burgers) and lets people decide whether they want their own Sky Sports and to pay for it if they choose to.
No I'm not.
You said that when you buy GW, you're 'forced' to pay extra for stuff you choose not to use. If you're not using the ancillaries that come with the GW hobby in the UK (I appreciate outside of the Motherland, GW stores are fewer and further between), then that is entirely your problem. There, you're the one choosing to limit yourself. Not GW.
"...rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase..." Yeah, it kind of is.
Only if you just look at individual words and don't read the sentences. I wasn't referring to their core product (the kits) but all the extra stuff which you claim they're lumping on top as "added value" which you are forced to buy if you wish to buy the kit, whether it represents added value to you or not.
But I'm tired and this conversation is descending into the idiotic, so I'm going to stop having it now.
Azreal13 wrote: It's not unheard of for a restaurant to offer different pricing for eat in and takeaway, no, if that's what you mean?
If you're think of McDonalds etc, that's because take-away food didn't (possibly still doesn't, but the Greggs hoo-ha makes me think otherwise) attract VAT - only eat-in.
No, that's not what I'm talking about, the Vat issue is with hot or cold food, not takeaway.
But please, do present evidence to support that. And even if they do, other restaurants don't, and those that don't aren't obliged to discount your food just because you're insistent on sitting on the pavement instead of the restaurant in this example.
No need, as you're moving the discussion away from the original point, to use your restaurant analogy in the correct context, it would be arguing that it isn't fair to compare two burger houses because one is significantly more expensive because it chooses to offer free Sky Sports in the back room and passes that cost onto every single customer whether they go in and watch it or not, whilst the cheaper one charges less for the core product (the burgers) and lets people decide whether they want their own Sky Sports and to pay for it if they choose to.
No I'm not.
You said that when you buy GW, you're 'forced' to pay extra for stuff you choose not to use. If you're not using the ancillaries that come with the GW hobby in the UK (I appreciate outside of the Motherland, GW stores are fewer and further between), then that is entirely your problem. There, you're the one choosing to limit yourself. Not GW.
Again, equally dumb. I can't choose not buy something I have no use for, and it's my fault I have no use for it. Ridiculous argument.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: There's an opinion in my local area that each new wave for X-Wing diminishes the game, introducing as it does ever more exception to exceptions of rules, and worse looking ships (come on, that Wookiee one is bobbins!). With it not being their IP, they're more restricted in adding nice new stuff in a way PP and GW aren't. Of course, many players will feel a need to buy Ship X, even though it doesn't suit their playstyle or taste in aesthetics just to get Card Y so that Ship Z becomes extra deadly. That's a business model that put me off continuing with the game.
Great post in total.
I'm seeing the same thing. I don't know if FFG needs to do something to shake up X-Wing. It's now becoming incredibly hard for new players to get enfranchised. And the emphasis on organized play leads to lots of new players having their initial experience being crushed by the utter power level difference between one 100 point list and the next.
My point in objecting to the notion that GW's survival is somehow evidence of their correct decision making or opposing this notion that GW stands triumphant over a sea of corpses of their competitors is that it really only serves to take one's eye off the real issues. The actual differences in what GW is doing that is producing different (better) results.
GW should not compete on price with Warlord. Or anyone else. They should continue to provide a complete package and price their products to maximize revenue. Their complete package approach will indeed mean that their customers on average will pay more, but it's also a strength. People like it. They like when the rules make their models feel awesome. And the GW's approach to hobbying and selling paint as a system.
GW simply does not need extra services to justify their prices. That's just post hoc justification by fans. Azrael's objections have merit, but in a way they miss the point. GW is not asking him to pay more to cover things like their retail operation. They are asking him to pay more because they want to make as much money as possible and those extra things that Azrael13 may or may not have any use for are done to sell more product. It doesn't really matter if Azrael has use for it or not. Buying GW's product isn't done to pay for those things, those things are paid for to sell more product.
The Kirby era is a perfect example of GW offering less and less in terms of these "bonus" services. It used to be that GW provided their full range of paints for people to use in their stores. They used to have dedicated available tables in all their stores, now it's a case by case basis. Why the change? GW was in cost cutting mode and didn't necessarily see the connection between offering these things and making more money. It even got to the point where *nothing* was given away. Even simple painting guides were charged for. I was actually quite surprised when Warhammer TV's painting videos weren't behind a pay wall from Day 1.
"...rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase..." Yeah, it kind of is.
Only if you just look at individual words and don't read the sentences. I wasn't referring to their core product (the kits) but all the extra stuff which you claim they're lumping on top as "added value" which you are forced to buy if you wish to buy the kit, whether it represents added value to you or not.
But I'm tired and this conversation is descending into the idiotic, so I'm going to stop having it now.
Sorry, I'll quote everything next time. It doesn't change the fact that as I have repeatedly said, theirs is a product offering beyond just a miniature and you are free to take it or leave it. There's still absolutely nobody forcing you to buy anything. Saying otherwise is, indeed, idiotic.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: There's an opinion in my local area that each new wave for X-Wing diminishes the game, introducing as it does ever more exception to exceptions of rules, and worse looking ships (come on, that Wookiee one is bobbins!). With it not being their IP, they're more restricted in adding nice new stuff in a way PP and GW aren't. Of course, many players will feel a need to buy Ship X, even though it doesn't suit their playstyle or taste in aesthetics just to get Card Y so that Ship Z becomes extra deadly. That's a business model that put me off continuing with the game.
Great post in total.
I'm seeing the same thing. I don't know if FFG needs to do something to shake up X-Wing. It's now becoming incredibly hard for new players to get enfranchised. And the emphasis on organized play leads to lots of new players having their initial experience being crushed by the utter power level difference between one 100 point list and the next.
My point in objecting to the notion that GW's survival is somehow evidence of their correct decision making or opposing this notion that GW stands triumphant over a sea of corpses of their competitors is that it really only serves to take one's eye off the real issues. The actual differences in what GW is doing that is producing different (better) results.
GW should not compete on price with Warlord. Or anyone else. They should continue to provide a complete package and price their products to maximize revenue. Their complete package approach will indeed mean that their customers on average will pay more, but it's also a strength. People like it. They like when the rules make their models feel awesome. And the GW's approach to hobbying and selling paint as a system.
GW simply does not need extra services to justify their prices. That's just post hoc justification by fans.
I would agree with this, one of the big issues we have had with players over the years is abandonment. GW Should focus on everyone getting something, even 2 or 3 models in a year for a faction and up to date rules Will go a long way to keeping people invested.
"...rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase..." Yeah, it kind of is.
Only if you just look at individual words and don't read the sentences. I wasn't referring to their core product (the kits) but all the extra stuff which you claim they're lumping on top as "added value" which you are forced to buy if you wish to buy the kit, whether it represents added value to you or not.
But I'm tired and this conversation is descending into the idiotic, so I'm going to stop having it now.
Sorry, I'll quote everything next time. It doesn't change the fact that as I have repeatedly said, theirs is a product offering beyond just a miniature and you are free to take it or leave it. There's still absolutely nobody forcing you to buy anything. Saying otherwise is, indeed, idiotic.
Except you're justifying the higher price GW charge by citing the intangibles they offer beyond the core product of miniatures.
If I don't value those intangibles, then, if I want to buy GW product, I am being forced to pay for them regardless.
That is what I am referring to.
I actually disagree with the whole assertion and agree with frozenwates that it's just post hoc consumer justification, but if we take your argument at face value, then that's my reaction to it.
"...rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase..." Yeah, it kind of is.
Only if you just look at individual words and don't read the sentences. I wasn't referring to their core product (the kits) but all the extra stuff which you claim they're lumping on top as "added value" which you are forced to buy if you wish to buy the kit, whether it represents added value to you or not.
But I'm tired and this conversation is descending into the idiotic, so I'm going to stop having it now.
Sorry, I'll quote everything next time. It doesn't change the fact that as I have repeatedly said, theirs is a product offering beyond just a miniature and you are free to take it or leave it. There's still absolutely nobody forcing you to buy anything. Saying otherwise is, indeed, idiotic.
Except you're justifying the higher price GW charge by citing the intangibles they offer beyond the core product of miniatures.
If I don't value those intangibles, then, if I want to buy GW product, I am being forced to pay for them regardless.
That is what I am referring to.
I actually disagree with the whole assertion and agree with frozenwates that it's just post hoc consumer justification, but if we take your argument at face value, then that's my reaction to it.
This isn't a matter of justifying their prices, it's an attempt to get the bigger picture across. I don't understand the inability to accept and acknowledge the strategy GW uses. What you value, or don't value, may or may not line up perfectly with their model. GW is in the business of selling a hobby, not just miniatures. That is their product. Their physical products are therefore priced accordingly to reflect the overall cost of that. This is simple budgeting and the whole post hoc argument is wrong.
AoS dropped off the chart and Armada is back on, plus WTF is D&D Nolzur’s Marvelous Minis? I though Nolzur's was just like Repear's Bones line and not a game.
"...rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase..." Yeah, it kind of is.
Only if you just look at individual words and don't read the sentences. I wasn't referring to their core product (the kits) but all the extra stuff which you claim they're lumping on top as "added value" which you are forced to buy if you wish to buy the kit, whether it represents added value to you or not.
But I'm tired and this conversation is descending into the idiotic, so I'm going to stop having it now.
Sorry, I'll quote everything next time. It doesn't change the fact that as I have repeatedly said, theirs is a product offering beyond just a miniature and you are free to take it or leave it. There's still absolutely nobody forcing you to buy anything. Saying otherwise is, indeed, idiotic.
Except you're justifying the higher price GW charge by citing the intangibles they offer beyond the core product of miniatures.
If I don't value those intangibles, then, if I want to buy GW product, I am being forced to pay for them regardless.
That is what I am referring to.
I actually disagree with the whole assertion and agree with frozenwates that it's just post hoc consumer justification, but if we take your argument at face value, then that's my reaction to it.
This isn't a matter of justifying their prices, it's an attempt to get the bigger picture across. I don't understand the inability to accept and acknowledge the strategy GW uses. What you value, or don't value, may or may not line up perfectly with their model. GW is in the business of selling a hobby, not just miniatures. That is their product. Their physical products are therefore priced accordingly to reflect the overall cost of that. This is simple budgeting and the whole post hoc argument is wrong.
I'll simply restate that if these things had legitimate value then they could be sold as services alongside their core product (they're self confessedly a model company, remember? Jewel like items of wonder and all that bs?) and sell their actual models for less.
The reality is they sell their models for so much more than many competitors for two reasons 1) they've found themselves in a position where they can and 2) they have a burden of overhead where they must to some degree.
Everything else is marketing bs or consumer justification.
The price of that straw, just as all other prices, is factored into MaccyD's overheads when they're planning their pricing.
Just not sure why you expect GW to act any differently is all? I mean, a straw has legitimate value, does it not?
Come to think of it, care to explain your definition of 'legitimate value'. Because when it comes to a well run business, all the overheads are factored in when it comes to their pricing decisions - whether or not the customer takes the straw or the napkin, they've still paid for them.
Because they're not in the least bit the same, unless you are going to argue straight faced that you happily pay a premium, a significant premium, for a McDonalds drink because it comes with a straw.
Legitimate value means that there are enough consumers who would find sufficient value to actually pay for the item, subscribe to Duncan's paint tutorials, pay to use a table in store etc.
If they are only 'valued' when they are 'free,' then using them as a justification for higher prices is a flawed argument. If nobody would pay for them if the costs weren't already built into the price of the core product, then what are they really worth?
"...rather than forcing anyone who wishes to purchase..." Yeah, it kind of is.
Only if you just look at individual words and don't read the sentences. I wasn't referring to their core product (the kits) but all the extra stuff which you claim they're lumping on top as "added value" which you are forced to buy if you wish to buy the kit, whether it represents added value to you or not.
But I'm tired and this conversation is descending into the idiotic, so I'm going to stop having it now.
Sorry, I'll quote everything next time. It doesn't change the fact that as I have repeatedly said, theirs is a product offering beyond just a miniature and you are free to take it or leave it. There's still absolutely nobody forcing you to buy anything. Saying otherwise is, indeed, idiotic.
Except you're justifying the higher price GW charge by citing the intangibles they offer beyond the core product of miniatures.
If I don't value those intangibles, then, if I want to buy GW product, I am being forced to pay for them regardless.
That is what I am referring to.
I actually disagree with the whole assertion and agree with frozenwates that it's just post hoc consumer justification, but if we take your argument at face value, then that's my reaction to it.
This isn't a matter of justifying their prices, it's an attempt to get the bigger picture across. I don't understand the inability to accept and acknowledge the strategy GW uses. What you value, or don't value, may or may not line up perfectly with their model. GW is in the business of selling a hobby, not just miniatures. That is their product. Their physical products are therefore priced accordingly to reflect the overall cost of that. This is simple budgeting and the whole post hoc argument is wrong.
I'll simply restate that if these things had legitimate value then they could be sold as services alongside their core product (they're self confessedly a model company, remember? Jewel like items of wonder and all that bs?) and sell their actual models for less.
The reality is they sell their models for so much more than many competitors for two reasons 1) they've found themselves in a position where they can and 2) they have a burden of overhead where they must to some degree.
Everything else is marketing bs or consumer justification.
Wow. Your posts have gradually devolved into nothing but sour grapes. They "could be sold as services alongside their core product", yeah, but they aren't and that's their business decision to make with regards to their model, not yours. If you're not happy about it or don't agree with it, cool, that's your prerogative. But this constant rage against reality is an absurd exercise. Next time you're passing by that GW Hobby Center whose existence you can't wrap your head around because it "forces" you to pay too much for toy soldiers, save yourself some grief and just walk on by...
Where the feth are you getting rage? Talk about projection.
Lets recap.
You said it wasn't fair to compare Bolt Action to GW, because GW spend more money on stuff.
I said as a consumer that they spend more money on stuff makes no odds to me when I want to buy toy soldiers if that stuff offers no extra value.
You've subsequently failed to make any sort of coherent argument about why it's unfair to compare the prices of two companies selling wargaming miniatures simple because they've got different business models and financial imperatives.
Azreal13 wrote: Where the feth are you getting rage? Talk about projection.
Lets recap.
You said it wasn't fair to compare Bolt Action to GW, because GW spend more money on stuff.
I said as a consumer that they spend more money on stuff makes no odds to me when I want to buy toy soldiers if that stuff offers no extra value.
You've subsequently failed to make any sort of coherent argument about why it's unfair to compare the prices of two companies selling wargaming miniatures simple because they've got different business models and financial imperatives.
Everything else has been tangenital.
No rage? Okay, so the profanity in your posts is just your daily go to vocabulary, okay.
I don't know what you've been reading, but everything I've posted has been to point out that comparing these two companies selling minis, on the simple basis of mini-for-mini cost comparison, is inaccurate because there's more to GW's product than just a toy soldier in a box on a shelf. I haven't made a coherent argument? That's rich! There's no argument to be made because I've relied on stating the facts about their business model and you just don't like it, or you don't get it, but it's that simple. The facts regarding their pricing have been presented, not argued. Their prices don't sit right with you because their minis simply cost you more and unfortunately you're unable to accept that this is the way they run their business and value their product. Sour, whiny grapes.
It's not that I don't like it or understand it, I don't agree with your stance that it somehow absolves them from being compared to other companies selling the same type of product into the same market under different criteria. You seem to think it does, but there's no basis for that outside your own opinion.
You've also made huge assumptions about what I do and don't think about their prices and all sorts of other things in the absence of any evidence, when all I'm saying is that it's legitimate to compare the pricing of different war games models from different companies on the basis of price and I disagree with you when you say it isn't.
Plus yes, people swear when they aren't angry, I'm British, it's a thing.
Azreal13 wrote: It's not that I don't like it or understand it, I don't agree with your stance that it somehow absolves them from being compared to other companies selling the same type of product into the same market under different criteria. You seem to think it does, but there's no basis for that outside your own opinion.
You've also made huge assumptions about what I do and don't think about their prices and all sorts of other things in the absence of any evidence, when all I'm saying is that it's legitimate to compare the pricing of different war games models from different companies on the basis of price and I disagree with you when you say it isn't.
Plus yes, people swear when they aren't angry, I'm British, it's a thing.
C'mon, it's painfully obvious you don't like it, at least be honest with yourself and that has clouded your argument from the get-go. Nobody is being absolved here, I've presented their model factually...you're the one that keeps using words like "absolves" and "apologism", or whatever it was, not me...and in consideration of said model thereof, it does create a barrier to simple comparison by virtue of the fact that the "products" being offered and discussed are vastly different. I've made no apologies on GW's behalf. If they want to raise their prices tomorrow, guess what, that's their prerogative and I could care less! This isn't opinion, it's obvious and at this point you're just being belligerent to the facts.
I've commented on your statements about their prices without any assumption. Either stand by your comments or don't make them. This just keeps circling back to your sour grapes and disdain for GW's higher prices, you were quite clear about that. You were quite clear and irked about being "forced"...the use of that word alone, belies the essence of your position...to pay their padded prices when other miniature companies sell toy soldiers cheaper. All this without any seeming ability to acknowledge, not agree with, but acknowledge the business model repeatedly presented and why said comparison is not simply apple-to-apple. I even threw a Ritz-Carlton/Motel 6 comparison your way for what I consider a relevant parallel in the hopes of a moment...both sell hotel rooms, simple comparison, right? NOT...but apparently to no avail.
People also swear, I find, when they're frustrated trying to make a point without much merit.
Yeah, snide comments implying you think I'm lying and yet another restatement of an argument I've already said I understand and don't agree with means we're done here.
Edit: Although it is surprising that you seem to think constantly restating the facts of GW's business model constitutes an argument against comparing them with their competitors, it's even more surprising that, from the tone of your posts, that you seem to think that rather than an elementary one it's really rather insightful.
Azreal13 wrote:You [BigWaaagh] said it wasn't fair to compare Bolt Action to GW
In the history of wargaming there are very few products that could compare more directly than Bolt Action and GW's offerings. Both are part of a package of rules plus miniatures. Both rules sets (written by the same person no less) are based on the same tradition of wargaming with the same underlying mechanics (roll dice per soldier to hit, then wound, that sort of thing). They are even roughly the same scale (with some difference in proportions) and, on top of all that. The miniatures are even made out of the same material!
I have no idea why someone would need to somehow diminish that comparison by pointing to GW's costs as the cause of their pricing. It just doesn't actually diminish any of those commonalities to make that claim. It also is pretty ignorant of GW's financial report. Just look at GW's margins (I know, i talk about them a lot). They are incredibly high. Much, much higher than during the height of the LOTR boom. Much much higher than before GW did it's year over year price adjustments of 7-15% a year. GW's prices are not as high as they are because they have to be to pay for things like painting videos. They are as high as they are because GW has a business plan they are executing that is different than in the past when they were happier with lower margins but at a higher volume* like from 1995-2005.
GW's prices are not caused by them needing to pay for stores or painting demos or videos or their social media staff. They are caused by GW wanting a higher return on captial for each project than any of those things could ever require. They have goals of making the most money possible, not a scheme of subsidizing videos or something. All of that "added value" type stuff is done as part of selling the product. This idea that the prices (and thus sales of the product at those prices) are done to pay for things like that is just backwards. Ikea doesn't sell tables to justify the money spent on their catalogues. The business is selling miniatures for GW and housewares for Ikea.
People can tell themselves that all those videos with Duncan and the stuff on the Warhammer Community site are something they get as part of buying the miniatures, but it's actually not the case. Those initiatives are not part of the product, but part of the marketing of the product. You get them whether you buy or not. They are there to encourage you to buy. If GW didn't believe they induced purchasing in their customers, they could cancel them. Just like how if a local store doesn't meet its sales goals, it gets shut down.
* Rountree has already demonstrated an awareness that this is a false dichotomy. When you do injection moulded plastic higher volume doesn't have to reduce your margins, it actually helps them stay high. If you put $50,000 into design and tooling, that cost stays the same whether you sell 10,000 units or 50,000 units and the cost of each individual box and sprue are really low. So if you can keep your prices high enough to cover that cost as quickly as possible and find a way to sell higher volumes you have the best of both worlds. Probably the saddest thing about the Kirby years of selling less product at a higher price to less people in order to prop up margins is that it was unnecessary. The trade off simply didn't have to be made.
There's an opinion in my local area that each new wave for X-Wing diminishes the game, introducing as it does ever more exception to exceptions of rules, and worse looking ships (come on, that Wookiee one is bobbins!). With it not being their IP, they're more restricted in adding nice new stuff in a way PP and GW aren't. Of course, many players will feel a need to buy Ship X, even though it doesn't suit their playstyle or taste in aesthetics just to get Card Y so that Ship Z becomes extra deadly. That's a business model that put me off continuing with the game.
Haven't you pretty much described GW?
GW releases (inc rules) often get more and more powerful as time goes by.
Players need to get some of the latest releases even if they don't like the models.
Isn't this how games companies stay in business?
Some however, press 'reset buttons' more regularly than others, enouraging players to buy stuff like basic models and rules all over again.
GW are the market leaders, it's shocking why so many need to defend them in every post up here on dakka and are often unable to see anything beyond that.
As for GW financials, with the sales of new 40k stuff, GW will be rolling in money for a while. I just wish their rules and books had a better shelf life.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When looking at GW's model, it's good for what it doe i.e get teenage kids into the shop and get them handing over as much cash as possible.
The one stop shop, the tutorials, somewhere to play etc etc all help achieve this goal.
Hell, even their paint range is geared around this concept: base/shade/base again/highlight and then some textture paint for no fuss painting.
I do admire the way they do it - it's very effective.
But for me, as a veteran who knows that PVA glue is PVA glue no matter the label, it does fall flat.
The range of companies out there offering cheaper and better paints and models, makes GW a less apealling option to these old eyes.
Its not just teenage kids, It is people of all ages, mainly adults and plenty of veterans, in fact if anything the prices are prohibitive to the average teenagers I would say.
Some just prefer the GW to the competition and thats all there is to it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When looking at GW's model, it's good for what it doe i.e get teenage kids into the shop and get them handing over as much cash as possible.
The one stop shop, the tutorials, somewhere to play etc etc all help achieve this goal.
Hell, even their paint range is geared around this concept: base/shade/base again/highlight and then some textture paint for no fuss painting.
I do admire the way they do it - it's very effective.
But for me, as a veteran who knows that PVA glue is PVA glue no matter the label, it does fall flat.
The range of companies out there offering cheaper and better paints and models, makes GW a less apealling option to these old eyes.
Its not just teenage kids, It is people of all ages, mainly adults and plenty of veterans, in fact if anything the prices are prohibitive to the average teenagers I would say.
Some just prefer the GW to the competition and thats all there is to it.
I'm not knocking GW fans and collectors - I was one myself for a number of years, but those teenage kids have parents, and I've witnessed it myself where the parent will happily throw down a few hundred pound on the counter.
It's a model that works for GW and good luck to them. I suppose I've wasted a lot of time trying to say that it's not for me.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I do admire the way they do it - it's very effective.
But for me, as a veteran who knows that PVA glue is PVA glue no matter the label, it does fall flat.
The range of companies out there offering cheaper and better paints and models, makes GW a less apealling option to these old eyes.
I have never bought GW PVA, super glue or plastic glue. I totally get where you are coming from and agree. GW does, to some extent, rely on the ignorance of their customers. While the convenience factor is there, I also think there's an aspect of consumer ignorance that contributes to the ongoing sale of these sorts of products.
Gimgamgoo wrote:Haven't you pretty much described GW?
GW releases (inc rules) often get more and more powerful as time goes by.
Players need to get some of the latest releases even if they don't like the models.
Isn't this how games companies stay in business?
It's one way. I don't think it can really replace offering a cool game that's fun to play with nice components at a price people are willing to pay (even if that price is high). I think if you hit a tipping point where your miniatures are only being purchased because of the rules for those models and not on their own merit, the product line becomes very vulnerable to game design mistakes.
Some however, press 'reset buttons' more regularly than others, enouraging players to buy stuff like basic models and rules all over again.
I've heard from ex-GW employees (not just store staff but people who worked at national offices) that GW believes their customers don't usually stick around more than 2 years or so. So if you're expecting them to quit within a couple of years, why not sell them the game twice before they go?
I think GW is moving away from that though. I think Rountree is telling the truth when he says he wants to focus on keeping customers and getting back lapsed customers. So I think annual rules update (Generals Handbook 2017 available in August) and the like can be a substitute to selling everyone the rules over again. And campaign and stand alone game boxes like Calth or Gangs of Commorragh can take the place of new starter sets. I think both Age of Sigmar and 8th edition 40k are going to have longer lives than the editions that preceded them.
GW are the market leaders, it's shocking why so many need to defend them in every post up here on dakka and are often unable to see anything beyond that.
I'm not sure they were the market leaders from 2010-2015. They seemed to be retracting and not innovating and giving up market share. Being the biggest company doesn't mean you are leading the market. Maybe they are now? Maybe they are going to be the ones causing other companies to respond to them again? The only leadership they provided in the marketplace during the years that saw the death of WFHB, the shut down of customer communication, restricted marketing time lines and the stagnation of their revenue was as an object lesson of what not to do.
As for GW financials, with the sales of new 40k stuff, GW will be rolling in money for a while. I just wish their rules and books had a better shelf life.
I play Age of Sigmar without the Battletomes. I plan on playing 40k without the codexes. From what we've seen about Codex: Space Marines is that the individual data sheets aren't really changing that much. I expect we're entering a period of prolonged game utility for GW's rules. Unless all people do is play tournament games or insist on pretending their average game with a friend is also a tournament game, people can get years of enjoyment out of their index books and the free rules document alone. People just get pulled into a way to play that diminishes their enjoyment out of a fear based need to protect themselves from their fellow gamer.
I spend a lot of time in and around WW and there are very few kids going in there, its mostly adults of all ages ( anecdotal I know)
It is the same with the GW based facebook groups and the stores that I frequent, in and around the midlands.
The majority of GW buyers I see are adults with an interest of their own.
Whether its the style, the fluff, or maybe they are just not aware of other wargames, I am not so sure, but the " its all just for Teenage kids " thing is fallacy.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: ICV2 have said they don't include data from shops or manufacturers that decline to take part.
So therefore, it's more likely than not GW's direct sales and Own Shop sales aren't in fact included - rendering the ICV2 interesting, but far from accurate.
For the population that it serves (indy retail shops), it's totally accurate.
But not as an actual study into which games are selling best.
GW's store sales in the US aren't that much less than their trade.
So when the widely accepted 'biggest fish' is having only 60% of their sales reported, assuming all their distributors and sellers partake, you inevitably wind up with a report that, factually, is largely useless for analysis.
There's an opinion in my local area that each new wave for X-Wing diminishes the game, introducing as it does ever more exception to exceptions of rules, and worse looking ships (come on, that Wookiee one is bobbins!). With it not being their IP, they're more restricted in adding nice new stuff in a way PP and GW aren't. Of course, many players will feel a need to buy Ship X, even though it doesn't suit their playstyle or taste in aesthetics just to get Card Y so that Ship Z becomes extra deadly. That's a business model that put me off continuing with the game.
Haven't you pretty much described GW?
GW releases (inc rules) often get more and more powerful as time goes by.
Players need to get some of the latest releases even if they don't like the models.
Isn't this how games companies stay in business?
Some however, press 'reset buttons' more regularly than others, enouraging players to buy stuff like basic models and rules all over again.
GW are the market leaders, it's shocking why so many need to defend them in every post up here on dakka and are often unable to see anything beyond that.
As for GW financials, with the sales of new 40k stuff, GW will be rolling in money for a while. I just wish their rules and books had a better shelf life.
Needs to be read in conjunction with the preceding line paragraph - that FFG do not own the Star Wars IP, they're just renting it.
That's a hurdle. Yes Star Wars is popular, and more so than ever with two frankly brilliant films release in the past 19 months.
But with that comes limitation. So far, FFG to the best of my knowledge have only come up with one uniquely new ship, the Imperial Raiser (and very nice it is too. I'm a particular fan of the semi-concealed weapon batteries). Everything else is pulled from films and comics. As in the quote above, my local scene kind of feels they're now scraping the barrel a bit, and have been since the bloody-awful-design-wise-in-that-it-doesn't-even-look-Star-Wars K-Wing.
That lack of true creative control is an issue. You're always going to be limited by the owner in terms of what you can and can't do. Marry that to X-Wings limited rule set, and you've got a recipe for pissing off your customers.
The Disco Biscuit dial is cool, don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of X-Wing as a system. But, as a game I find it damned difficult to maintain my interest, because each wave seems to introduce something uniquely new, in a way that can render my current fleet ponk. Be it stopping on a dime, or simply reversing.
Then there's the 'pay to play' approach I seriously disapprove of. Yes, GW likes to churn its codecies, and you just can't predict how that's gonna work out. Sometimes it's very very good (5th to 6th Ed Dark Elves, and now shockingly hard my 'deliberately composed of allegedly underpowered units' army became as a result. But I'd rather it be every few years than X-Wings 'if you want to stay competitive, you have to continually buy the latest ships, whether or not they're your Faction because feth you we want to milk you for every penny' model.
Let's consider one of the most iconic ships of Star Wars, Vader's experimental TIE. In the film, it's great. It's a different shape, and seems better than the 'sneeze and it comes apart' TIE Fighter. In the game? It's crap. Properly properly crap. But hey, don't worry, kiddo. We've bundled in some cards to make it not-crap with the Imperial Raider. So that £10 ship we probably made sure was crap, chuck us another £55 for an Epic Ship you'll use once in a blue moon because that's how the game works, and we'll give you the cards for that to happen.
That's a horrible business plan, and one that in my opinion only absolute suckers would repeatedly buy into, hence why I sold my otherwise extensive X-Wing collection around18 months ago. The game just isn't worth the continual drip drip drip of spending. At all.
How many ships have you bought for X-Wing that swiftly became redundant due to new waves? How many now gather dust because a more recent wave introduced a ship which just does it better?
As for AoS falling off the chart, I am a bit surprised. I thought it was on an upswing, but I suppose things like the new D&D miniatures are on an even greater upswing in North America.
It is true that of the five stores within an hour's drive, only 2 have GW and one's a GW store. Four have the new D&D miniatures.
Unrelated quote from the latest financial report about the upcoming year:
We will continue to review our product range and in store merchandising. We have not made as much progress
as I would have liked on range management and in store merchandising (busy year!), so I will be reviewing my
structure to ensure we have the right focus on this important sales opportunity.
I think we will see further consolidation of what stores carry in stock. It would probably make sense to continue to expand Start Collecting! type boxes to make sure every faction has one and to keep it in stock at their locations.
Azreal13 wrote:You [BigWaaagh] said it wasn't fair to compare Bolt Action to GW
In the history of wargaming there are very few products that could compare more directly than Bolt Action and GW's offerings. Both are part of a package of rules plus miniatures. Both rules sets (written by the same person no less) are based on the same tradition of wargaming with the same underlying mechanics (roll dice per soldier to hit, then wound, that sort of thing). They are even roughly the same scale (with some difference in proportions) and, on top of all that. The miniatures are even made out of the same material!.
Maybe because Bolt Action is yet another WW2 game, using plastics rather than the age-old metals, but that is who Bolt Action is competing against - other historicals manufacturers. If Bolt Action priced their ww2 Germans the same as GW's Space Marines, no one would buy them. GW charges what they can because there is no effective competition. Apples and Oranges.
Sorry, but one difference in a sea of similarities doesn't make it apples and oranges.
This notion that GW has no effective competition is ridiculous. This has been discussed to death in other threads, but if we've hit a point where a miniature wargame with the same original rules author, similar mechanics, similar scale, same packaging of rules and figures together, and the exact same material doesn't count as competition, then the criteria used have totally failed.
Probably the only degree to which I would accept another miniature wargame not being competition for GW is the degree to which they have managed to keep their customer base ignorant of other options. This segregated market they are continually trying to create allows them to function in a more monopolistic fashion than they otherwise would. It's not actually based on a substantial difference between their products and those of their competition, but on the maintenance of customer ignorance.
frozenwastes wrote: Sorry, but one difference in a sea of similarities doesn't make it apples and oranges.
This notion that GW has no effective competition is ridiculous. This has been discussed to death in other threads, but if we've hit a point where a miniature wargame with the same original rules author, similar mechanics, similar scale, same packaging of rules and figures together, and the exact same material doesn't count as competition, then the criteria used have totally failed.
Probably the only degree to which I would accept another miniature wargame not being competition for GW is the degree to which they have managed to keep their customer base ignorant of other options. This segregated market they are continually trying to create allows them to function in a more monopolistic fashion than they otherwise would. It's not actually based on a substantial difference between their products and those of their competition, but on the maintenance of customer ignorance.
What hogwash. "A sea of similiarities."? Where? Both make miniatures, sure. Both HQ'd in UK, sure. For all serious purposes, I really see this as the end of the line and this ridiculous canard.
IMHO:
Miniatures? No comparison.
Proprietary, fictional gaming system vs Historical gaming system? No comparison.
Network of staffed, proprietary Hobby Centers as support and recruiting mechanisms to provide longevity to the hobby? No comparison.
Development Team creating, maintaining and supporting proprietary "universe"? No comparison.
Multi-media hobby support? No comparison.
Premium Collector's level product? No comparison.
Publishing arm? No comparison.
Global Centerpiece Hobby destination? No comparison.
And on, and on, and on. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Warlord or Bolt Action, I have quite a bit of their product, but this isn't a comparison that holds water. This is about addressing this crusty, old GW bashing masquerading as an attempt to draw comparison to two very different product offerings.
Your criteria is a failure. You cite superficial examples as a representative of significant similiarity for purposes of trying to establish a competition comparison, i.e. scale, packaging. Well apples and oranges are both round, about the size of a baseball and fruit, but that's about it, and as I stated earlier in this post's thread, I'm pretty sure the Ritz-Carlton doesn't consider Motel 6 competition...and I could draw exponentially more comparisons between them and what you've done with GW's miniatures and Bolt Action.
This is just more tired and bitchy GW bashing because of what? You rag on their margins, so I'm guessing cost? Well they're a publicly held company that has a primary obligation to their shareholders, not your sense of what their margin should or shouldn't be. To put an even finer point on that, they're a niche business that the model of which...by definition...lives and dies by it's margins. That's simply business 101. Costs too much? Move on. Margins keep you up at night? Move on. Not everybody was meant to drive a Mercedes, should drive a Mercedes or can afford a Mercedes, that's life! But the vitriol driving your attempt at a point is just childish and is obvious. "...maintenance of customer ignorance." Wow, how can somebody be so broken over playing games with toy soldiers?
GW products are so expensive because you are paying for the brand. Citadel, Warhammer, Games Workshop. They offer you a "feeling".
Generic historical soldiers don't. Now, if that "feeling" is enough to justify those prices is only something that only you can decide. Because this is a free market where items don't have a price in relation with how much did they cost, but in relation to their perceived value. Of course GW could sell a Tactical Box for 15€ and still have benefices. And the supermarket buy every milk box at 0,07€ and I pay it at 0.60€!
I don't buy Iphones, or Lacoste clothes. A 15€ T-shirt just do the trick for me. But theres people paying millions for exclusive clothes, or cars, or other things like that.
Did I find the price of ferrari cars absurd? Yes I do.
Did I find the price of many, many kits GW does absurd? Yes I do.
Do I pay prices I find absurd for products that don't offer me a subjetive value? No, I don't.
I disagree tought that historicals or X-wing aren't competition of GW. You can bet they are. Even tabletop games are competition for GW.
Heck, EVEN videogames are the biggest competitor of the tabletop and wargaming industry in general, for example.
What hogwash. "A sea of similiarities."? Where? Both make miniatures, sure. Both HQ'd in UK, sure. For all serious purposes, I really see this as the end of the line and this ridiculous canard.
IMHO:
Miniatures? No comparison.
Proprietary, fictional gaming system vs Historical gaming system? No comparison.
Network of staffed, proprietary Hobby Centers as support and recruiting mechanisms to provide longevity to the hobby? No comparison.
Development Team creating, maintaining and supporting proprietary "universe"? No comparison.
Multi-media hobby support? No comparison.
Premium Collector's level product? No comparison.
Publishing arm? No comparison.
Global Centerpiece Hobby destination? No comparison.
I must say, this is the worst "comparision" I've ever read on this forum. Like seriously?
What hogwash. "A sea of similiarities."? Where? Both make miniatures, sure. Both HQ'd in UK, sure. For all serious purposes, I really see this as the end of the line and this ridiculous canard.
IMHO:
Miniatures? No comparison.
Proprietary, fictional gaming system vs Historical gaming system? No comparison.
Network of staffed, proprietary Hobby Centers as support and recruiting mechanisms to provide longevity to the hobby? No comparison.
Development Team creating, maintaining and supporting proprietary "universe"? No comparison.
Multi-media hobby support? No comparison.
Premium Collector's level product? No comparison.
Publishing arm? No comparison.
Global Centerpiece Hobby destination? No comparison.
I must say, this is the worst "comparision" I've ever read on this forum. Like seriously?
Yeah, I thought it was a strange comparison myself.
Of course you can compare a Bolt Action German grenadier to say, a Space Marine. You can compare quality of plastic, or design, or detail, or whatever. It's a valid comparison.
When it comes to retail stores and profile, GW are ahead, no argument there, but warlord do painting videos on youtube, and their books are stocked in a high street bookstore chain in the UK, so there commercial reach is good.
Comparing Warlord to GW is a fair comparison in my book.
Bolt Action just make a game and the models for it. GW have taken a different approach, instead selling a full hobby.
It's easy for us older gamers to forget, but you can partake in the full gamut of hobby war gaming activities using solely GW branded goods, including gaming venues and tournaments if one so wished.
GW aren't the war gaming hobby in totality. But there is very real GW Hobby (note the capitalisation for effect).
In that, GW are pretty unique as a business model. The closest that I can think of right now would be Marks and Spencers - a British institution. Until relatively recent, that bulwark of the aspirational middle classes only ever sold it's own brand goods - including in it's foodhalls (where it's branded as St Michael). And just like GW, they built a retail empire solely selling their own branded goods, unlike competing and contemporaneous department stores.
Your own country, wherever you may be dear reader, may have something similar, but I'm afraid my ignorance on that is getting the better of me!
If you want
Hobby Centers: Go to a FLGS Gaming Universe: Does WW2 really need more people working on it? They're also publishing "all" the theatres to they ARE working on it.
Multi-Media Hobby support: Like what? Apps? gakky games? That's not part of the hobby and even IF, they're paying for itself. GW just hands out the rights to the IP and gets the cash. So it is completely wrong here.
"Premium" collectors level products: GW does have zeroPremium" collectors stuff. Like seriously. Even the bigger kits are a joke to a propers 1/35 scale model tank. Forgeworld maybe.. but even than... That's of zero point. Those things make money on their own and have no point in a comparision like this.
Publishing arm: You mean books and stuff? Warlord Games works closely with Osprey publishing who are writing books you know? And again: who cares?
Global hobby centers: This is on the list twice. Or do you mean all the stuff in Nottingham? That's not global. Our GW store in Bremen, Germany is not worth the visit. You can just ignore it and miss nothing.
Again: Your comparision is not worth the ink used :x
On the pricing thing, it says a lot to me personally that I now earn more than I ever have in my life and have more disposable income, but find GW too damn expensive. Their boxed games are good, I bought both the Prospero game and the Deathwatch game, the sheer amount of high quality plastic is superb, my only purchases of the last five years. But their regular product lines, where single plastic miniatures are as much as £15-20, that disparity I find confusing compared to other products. I can afford it, but I just can't justify it.
Rayvon wrote: I spend a lot of time in and around WW and there are very few kids going in there, its mostly adults of all ages ( anecdotal I know)
It is the same with the GW based facebook groups and the stores that I frequent, in and around the midlands.
The majority of GW buyers I see are adults with an interest of their own.
Whether its the style, the fluff, or maybe they are just not aware of other wargames, I am not so sure, but the " its all just for Teenage kids " thing is fallacy.
I suspect a lot of the current players were teenagers in the first "golden age of gaming", and are now somewhere in their 30's. They are presumably the same ones buying ForgeWorld stuff.
Maybe because Bolt Action is yet another WW2 game, using plastics rather than the age-old metals, but that is who Bolt Action is competing against - other historicals manufacturers. If Bolt Action priced their ww2 Germans the same as GW's Space Marines, no one would buy them. GW charges what they can because there is no effective competition. Apples and Oranges.
Bolt Action comprises of plastic or metal minis, and plastic or resin vehicles (with metal bits).
GW is pretty much all plastic, with some resin.
You're right no-one would buy ww2 Germans at Space Marine costs, because it'd be obscene. The only reason GW can sell Space Marines at Space Marine prices is the fanbase.
That said, from the perspective of someone who doesn't know the fluff and isn't already a gamer. How do you explain why that inch tall plastic dude in a space suit is 3x the cost of that inch tall plastic dude from all Call of Duty games?
They both have to be built and painted in the same way, and can be played with in the same way. The WW2 guy potentially has even more opportunity for games, since it's not tied to a ruleset.
What hogwash. "A sea of similiarities."? Where? Both make miniatures, sure. Both HQ'd in UK, sure. For all serious purposes, I really see this as the end of the line and this ridiculous canard.
The same guy wrote 40K and Bolt Action. Bolt action is widely regarded as what 40K should have become (or Gates of Antares in sci-fi guise). The guy who runs Warlord used to be a senior manager at GW, and is the guy responsible for White Dwarf in the 90's and the idea to put 2 armies and a rulebook in a box and call it a starter. Pretty much the "who's who" of Games Workshop in it's prime now work for/with Warlord.
Miniatures? No comparison.
Roughly inch tall figures made from a range of spin-cast metal/resin, or injection moulded plastic? Made by the same sculptors in a lot of cases? Stylistically totally different, but in every other way pretty much identical.
Proprietary, fictional gaming system vs Historical gaming system? No comparison.
Beyond the proprietary nature (and ignoring the fact that 40K is pretty much a rip off of the Dune universe), sure. Derivative sci-fi is not the same as historical settings.
Network of staffed, proprietary Hobby Centers as support and recruiting mechanisms to provide longevity to the hobby? No comparison.
Why do the hobby centres need to be staffed? There are far more independents than GW stores, and they can support Bolt Action just as well as 40K.
Development Team creating, maintaining and supporting proprietary "universe"? No comparison.
Why does the development need to be for a proprietary universe? At least the historical one can't shoehorn in Centurions or Primaris Marines.
Multi-media hobby support? No comparison.
Yeah, GW has more video content. I think Warlord has some, but not much. You have a point here.
Premium Collector's level product? No comparison.
You've got a point here, there's no premium Bolt Action stuff. Does there need to be?
Publishing arm? No comparison.
That would be a big deal before, but since GW's publishing arm was rolled into it's writing arm it's largely become a marketing tool.
Global Centerpiece Hobby destination? No comparison.
Yeah, Warlord HQ isn't as visually impressive as WHW. But GW have closed down all of the other HQ's and cut down on WHWs opening hours to the point it can be hard to visit.
It's also of zero use to anyone who isn't in middle England.
Once you factor out the proprietary, they are remarkable similar except for the scale of the company.
What hogwash. "A sea of similiarities."? Where? Both make miniatures, sure. Both HQ'd in UK, sure. For all serious purposes, I really see this as the end of the line and this ridiculous canard.
IMHO:
Miniatures? No comparison.
Proprietary, fictional gaming system vs Historical gaming system? No comparison.
Network of staffed, proprietary Hobby Centers as support and recruiting mechanisms to provide longevity to the hobby? No comparison.
Development Team creating, maintaining and supporting proprietary "universe"? No comparison.
Multi-media hobby support? No comparison.
Premium Collector's level product? No comparison.
Publishing arm? No comparison.
Global Centerpiece Hobby destination? No comparison.
I must say, this is the worst "comparision" I've ever read on this forum. Like seriously?
The comparison is absolutely valid. There's been an attempt to draw a comparison from Bolt Action to GW miniatures for purposes of showing price disparity and allowing for another GW price bashing whinefest. My counterpoint response was that the "product" offered by GW and, accordingly, priced into their price point is vastly different than that of Bolt Action. Hence, a simple attempt to present an apples-to-apples comparison is an exercise in absurdity. The list you're questioning highlights some of those cost inputs affecting, or not affecting said pricing. So, like, seriously.
Apples and Oranges are both fruit that taste sweet and nice.
I never understood this figure of speech to be honest..
Anyways, Bolt Action and Warhammer miniatures can and will be compared. You can put your head into the sand as deep as you want. Does not change the fact that Warhammer minis usually are way too expensive compared to such as Bolt Action.
RoninXiC wrote: If you want
Hobby Centers: Go to a FLGS Gaming Universe: Does WW2 really need more people working on it? They're also publishing "all" the theatres to they ARE working on it.
Multi-Media Hobby support: Like what? Apps? gakky games? That's not part of the hobby and even IF, they're paying for itself. GW just hands out the rights to the IP and gets the cash. So it is completely wrong here.
"Premium" collectors level products: GW does have zeroPremium" collectors stuff. Like seriously. Even the bigger kits are a joke to a propers 1/35 scale model tank. Forgeworld maybe.. but even than... That's of zero point. Those things make money on their own and have no point in a comparision like this.
Publishing arm: You mean books and stuff? Warlord Games works closely with Osprey publishing who are writing books you know? And again: who cares?
Global hobby centers: This is on the list twice. Or do you mean all the stuff in Nottingham? That's not global. Our GW store in Bremen, Germany is not worth the visit. You can just ignore it and miss nothing.
Again: Your comparision is not worth the ink used :x
Really?
Multi-Media Hobby Support...White Dwarf ring a bell?
"Premium" collectors level products...Forge World ring a bell?
Publishing arm: You mean books and stuff...Black Library ring a bell?
Global hobby centers: This is on the list twice...no, it isn't. Hobby Centers once, "Centerpiece" aka WHW once.
You really might want to research the company you bash before you post commentary like this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RoninXiC wrote: Apples and Oranges are both fruit that taste sweet and nice.
I never understood this figure of speech to be honest..
Anyways, Bolt Action and Warhammer miniatures can and will be compared. You can put your head into the sand as deep as you want. Does not change the fact that Warhammer minis usually are way too expensive compared to such as Bolt Action.
And we get to the crux of it...which is the crux of all the GW rag-ons I've heard over the last 20+ years...and that is price. Little bit of insight, the market will bear what the market will bear with regards to price. Maybe it's too expensive for you, but GW's Financials, which is at the epicenter of this thread, showed results that they're apparently priced right for a hell of a lot of people who obviously bought them.
Rayvon wrote: I spend a lot of time in and around WW and there are very few kids going in there, its mostly adults of all ages ( anecdotal I know)
It is the same with the GW based facebook groups and the stores that I frequent, in and around the midlands.
The majority of GW buyers I see are adults with an interest of their own.
Whether its the style, the fluff, or maybe they are just not aware of other wargames, I am not so sure, but the " its all just for Teenage kids " thing is fallacy.
I suspect a lot of the current players were teenagers in the first "golden age of gaming", and are now somewhere in their 30's. They are presumably the same ones buying ForgeWorld stuff.
Maybe because Bolt Action is yet another WW2 game, using plastics rather than the age-old metals, but that is who Bolt Action is competing against - other historicals manufacturers. If Bolt Action priced their ww2 Germans the same as GW's Space Marines, no one would buy them. GW charges what they can because there is no effective competition. Apples and Oranges.
Bolt Action comprises of plastic or metal minis, and plastic or resin vehicles (with metal bits).
GW is pretty much all plastic, with some resin.
You're right no-one would buy ww2 Germans at Space Marine costs, because it'd be obscene. The only reason GW can sell Space Marines at Space Marine prices is the fanbase.
That said, from the perspective of someone who doesn't know the fluff and isn't already a gamer. How do you explain why that inch tall plastic dude in a space suit is 3x the cost of that inch tall plastic dude from all Call of Duty games?
They both have to be built and painted in the same way, and can be played with in the same way. The WW2 guy potentially has even more opportunity for games, since it's not tied to a ruleset.
What hogwash. "A sea of similiarities."? Where? Both make miniatures, sure. Both HQ'd in UK, sure. For all serious purposes, I really see this as the end of the line and this ridiculous canard.
The same guy wrote 40K and Bolt Action. Bolt action is widely regarded as what 40K should have become (or Gates of Antares in sci-fi guise). The guy who runs Warlord used to be a senior manager at GW, and is the guy responsible for White Dwarf in the 90's and the idea to put 2 armies and a rulebook in a box and call it a starter. Pretty much the "who's who" of Games Workshop in it's prime now work for/with Warlord.
Miniatures? No comparison.
Roughly inch tall figures made from a range of spin-cast metal/resin, or injection moulded plastic? Made by the same sculptors in a lot of cases? Stylistically totally different, but in every other way pretty much identical.
Proprietary, fictional gaming system vs Historical gaming system? No comparison.
Beyond the proprietary nature (and ignoring the fact that 40K is pretty much a rip off of the Dune universe), sure. Derivative sci-fi is not the same as historical settings.
Network of staffed, proprietary Hobby Centers as support and recruiting mechanisms to provide longevity to the hobby? No comparison.
Why do the hobby centres need to be staffed? There are far more independents than GW stores, and they can support Bolt Action just as well as 40K.
Development Team creating, maintaining and supporting proprietary "universe"? No comparison.
Why does the development need to be for a proprietary universe? At least the historical one can't shoehorn in Centurions or Primaris Marines.
Multi-media hobby support? No comparison.
Yeah, GW has more video content. I think Warlord has some, but not much. You have a point here.
Premium Collector's level product? No comparison.
You've got a point here, there's no premium Bolt Action stuff. Does there need to be?
Publishing arm? No comparison.
That would be a big deal before, but since GW's publishing arm was rolled into it's writing arm it's largely become a marketing tool.
Global Centerpiece Hobby destination? No comparison.
Yeah, Warlord HQ isn't as visually impressive as WHW. But GW have closed down all of the other HQ's and cut down on WHWs opening hours to the point it can be hard to visit.
It's also of zero use to anyone who isn't in middle England.
Once you factor out the proprietary, they are remarkable similar except for the scale of the company.
Two of your points are meritless.
Scale of miniature is the criteria for valid comparison? Please. That's like saying a tub of 'Green Army Men' are comparable to Forge World because they're "roughly" the same size. No, IMHO, the difference in miniatures on several levels is evident. As to the GW alma mater behind Warlord, that's great but hardly a grounds for comparison especially since we're discussing Bolt Action, a historical game based on a storyline...actual history...that's been written and just needed to have a rules set put to it. WH40K, on the other hand, a unique and proprietary game system/universe created, developed and continually added-on to. What's new that's being added on to WW2? Yeah, nothing...no comparison. Need Bolt Action minis? Open a history book and sculpt. Need WH40K minis? Artist researches and draws up concept art, game designers review for "fit" and authenticity, sculpts are made, etc., etc....once again, no comparison.
Also, with regards to WHW, it's head and shoulders above anything else I've ever seen offered by any miniatures company, ever, so there's no comparison to anything out there really. And as I stated in the description of it, I clearly acknowledged it as a 'destination', so it's not supposed to be a "Hey, let's pop over to WHW for a game." facility...although Nottingham residents get to enjoy this as an option...but it functions as a destination perk for GW enthusiasts worldwide.
Scale of miniature is the criteria for valid comparison? Please. That's like saying a tub of 'Green Army Men' are comparable to Forge World because they're "roughly" the same size. No, IMHO, the difference in miniatures on several levels is evident.
Army men are made from cheap plastic, Forge World from cheap resin.
Take the aesthetics out of it (because of course they look different. Bolt Action is WW2, 40K is Sci-Fi), but take in factors like the size of the minis, the detail of the minis, the size of the sprues, weight of the plastic, etc. It's essentially the same. Warlord could produce a Space Marine and GW could produce a US Marine and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
As to the GW alma mater behind Warlord, that's great but hardly a grounds for comparison especially since we're discussing Bolt Action, a historical game based on a storyline
From a mechanical point of view they are the same guys making the same stuff.
just needed to have a rules set put to it.
Just needs a rules set to it that fits with the history.
WH40K, on the other hand, a unique and proprietary game system/universe created, developed and continually added-on to.
There's nothing unique about WH40K, down to the God-Emperor and the Warrior Monks. It is continually developed and added on to, just as Bolt Action is continually developed and added onto with new units, theatres, campaigns.
What's new that's being added on to WW2? Yeah, nothing...no comparison.
There's new units, theatres and campaigns being added on a regular basis. WW2 covers most types of battles in most environments in the world. Jungle, desert, snow, city, rural, mass tank, small skirmish.
Also, with regards to WHW, it's head and shoulders above anything else I've ever seen offered by any miniatures company, ever, so there's no comparison to anything out there really.
Agreed. It's the only custom-built headquarters for a gaming company, because it's also (currently) the only gaming company big enough to justify it. But it's still only on a single industrial estate in Nottingham, England. It's of no use to gamers anywhere else. It's definitely impressive, but it's no more accesible to the gaming community than the Warlord HQ about 2 miles up the road. The Warlord one, incidentally, gives you 10% off anything you buy there, and they'll give you a tour of the production facilities. WHW used to give you offers and tours about 20 years ago, too.
And as I stated in the description of it, I clearly acknowledged it as a 'destination', so it's not supposed to be a "Hey, let's pop over to WHW for a game." facility...although Nottingham residents get to enjoy this as an option...but it functions as a destination perk for GW enthusiasts worldwide.
True. But how many people do you think travel from abroad to go to WHW? Or even across the country? It's no Disneyland. There's not much to keep anyone occupied for more than a couple of hours unless you're gaming there. It's not open long enough to make a day/weekend of it. It's a pub, a big gaming hall, 3 shops and a pretty cool museum.
I've been, maybe 3 times, when I've been in the area.
Azrael13 made a completely valid point that from a customer's perspective, the difference between Bolt Action figures and GW's figures in terms of price is large. For some reason, that fact has to be nullified by some. They have a need for the comparison to be made invalid.
What this has to do with GW's financials is that part of Rountree's approach is to be more price conscious. They have increased sales volume and one of the things that's different about the current GW approach is that you actually can get savings in both Start Collecting boxes as well as in stand alone games like Gangs of Commorragh or whatever.
GW has also embraced using content creators like youtubers to preview their product. For example, they sent the relatively new channel WargamerOnline some product like Dark Imperium and the easy to build Reivers. And the aggressor kits and multipart reivers. Guess who else sent them review product? Warlord/Osprey.
I don't know why some people need GW to be supah speshul and have no competition when they clearly do. Does Big Waaagh take Azrael's price comparison as some personal slight of having paid more for no good reason? I have no idea.
This year I have bought GW products but have not bought Warlord products. Despite the price difference. I feel no need, however, to totally dismiss reality and claim there is no competition there when there clearly is (both are trying to promote their product to the exact same audience).
I actually also see GW's re-entry into the convention circuit and their working with bloggers, youtubers and other content creators as an acknowledgement that they are indeed in competition with someone like Warlord. If they weren't, then they certainly would not be going into the same places and trying to sell their product to the same people Warlord is.
I actually think GW is going to compete well in the larger gaming sphere that they are re-engaging. Price is not the only consideration people make when selecting a wargame. As well, the rules approach of both AoS and 8th edition 40k supports lower model count games pretty well, so there isn't this massive barrier in place before you get to the "real" game. If you watch a 1000 point or 50 power level battle report on youtube, it's obvious that they are having the full game experience.
I hope GW is thinking more in terms of total customer experience going forward. Not just the experience of buying their product, but the experience of every part of the actual use of the product. They seem to be. On the AoS side of things this Skirmish into Path to Glory into larger games approach seems to indicate they want people to enjoy every aspect of Collect-Build-Paint-Play as early as possible.
Azrael13 made a completely valid point that from a customer's perspective, the difference between Bolt Action figures and GW's figures in terms of price is large. For some reason, that fact has to be nullified by some. They have a need for the comparison to be made invalid.
What this has to do with GW's financials is that part of Rountree's approach is to be more price conscious. They have increased sales volume and one of the things that's different about the current GW approach is that you actually can get savings in both Start Collecting boxes as well as in stand alone games like Gangs of Commorragh or whatever.
GW has also embraced using content creators like youtubers to preview their product. For example, they sent the relatively new channel WargamerOnline some product like Dark Imperium and the easy to build Reivers. And the aggressor kits and multipart reivers. Guess who else sent them review product? Warlord/Osprey.
I don't know why some people need GW to be supah speshul and have no competition when they clearly do. Does Big Waaagh take Azrael's price comparison as some personal slight of having paid more for no good reason? I have no idea.
This year I have bought GW products but have not bought Warlord products. Despite the price difference. I feel no need, however, to totally dismiss reality and claim there is no competition there when there clearly is (both are trying to promote their product to the exact same audience).
I actually also see GW's re-entry into the convention circuit and their working with bloggers, youtubers and other content creators as an acknowledgement that they are indeed in competition with someone like Warlord. If they weren't, then they certainly would not be going into the same places and trying to sell their product to the same people Warlord is.
I actually think GW is going to compete well in the larger gaming sphere that they are re-engaging. Price is not the only consideration people make when selecting a wargame. As well, the rules approach of both AoS and 8th edition 40k supports lower model count games pretty well, so there isn't this massive barrier in place before you get to the "real" game. If you watch a 1000 point or 50 power level battle report on youtube, it's obvious that they are having the full game experience.
I hope GW is thinking more in terms of total customer experience going forward. Not just the experience of buying their product, but the experience of every part of the actual use of the product. They seem to be. On the AoS side of things this Skirmish into Path to Glory into larger games approach seems to indicate they want people to enjoy every aspect of Collect-Build-Paint-Play as early as possible.
Nothing I can disagree with there FW, except to be totally precise, it wasn't me who raised the issue of price GW vs Warlord, I stepped in when the comparison of the two was dismissed because reasons.
Hence when I was accused of "raging" because I somehow had some sort of issue with GW pricing that I had taken personally it was completely ridiculous, when the reality is I'm largely insulated from GW pricing due to 2nd hand, third party and non GW purchases, and I've been perfectly content with the prices that I've paid for new GW product, such as it is, because I accept they're priced as they are, and while I might shake my head and scoff at some of the more extreme cases, I just don't buy.
It's a bit unfair to blame Azreal13 when it was myself who raised the comparison between Warlord and GW.
I merely wondered where GW was making the profits from, when you consider that things like GW PVA glue is more expensive and less product than another high street chain selling PVA glue.
But it's probably best if the conversation heads for another path IMO. We all know where we stand on this particular issue of GW Vs. Warlord and there is no point repeating it.
It's ok, I don't feel blamed, I simply felt that in the context of the whole back and forth, it was pertinent to point out that while I'd been accused of all sorts of stuff re: GW pricing, it was an issue I'd never raised in the first place!
WRT where their profit comes from, for personal interest I'd dearly love to see a breakdown of what sells and where. We can estimate their gross margin by simply comparing their revenue to their declared cost of sales, but that only gives us an average, and things like paint I'm fairly sure operate on a much thinner margin than their models, and the hobby gear, as mentioned, sells at vastly inflated markups.
One thing's for sure, licensing has been a money machine for them in recent years, and that's almost free money.
I do think that with GW's new turnaround, the other companies will be having a harder time and I do think that the turnaround is a result of positive business practices.
A few years ago, I semi-privately made a prediction that unless GW does a major overhaul, rethink and a completely new approach, they're doomed to go down the toilet. I think, broadly thinking, a new approach is precisely what they've done.
So, yay for GW but for the other companies, many whom I've bought lots and lots of product for in the 4 years since I've given up GW, are probably in for a real hard time going forward. - For example, when GW relaunch BFG, I imagine Hawk Wargames are properly up a creek without a paddle and I'm a big fan of Hawk Wargames.
Fortunately, for me at least, the main thing I've been investing, collecting, painting and even gaming with right now is Knight Models Batman and DC Universe games which is something that GW can never really echo. Even if I were to never find someone to play the game with again, I'd be fine with that. Because it's the GODDAMN BATMAN.
So, yay for GW but for the other companies, many whom I've bought lots and lots of product for in the 4 years since I've given up GW, are probably in for a real hard time going forward. - For example, when GW relaunch BFG, I imagine Hawk Wargames are properly up a creek without a paddle and I'm a big fan of Hawk Wargames.
I don't see what evidence there is to support this at all. None of GW's minor games seem to have much impact. Generally speaking, they're simply re-releases with the same rules which were great in 1991.
Bloodbowl is a good game but Dreadball is still produced with new models. Somehow I don't think Wryd is worried about Mordheim considering Malifaux has an incredible ruleset, same with dropzone commander.
While decent releases, GW's specialist games are almost entirely based on nostalgia.
Yeah the specialist stuff is dated and rarely that well supported. They could change that though.
In general, I'd assume that a relaunch of BFG may stop people picking up one of the Hawk games, but it's going to cause very few people to drop them entirely.
Beyond the fact they are space ships, I don't think there's that much in common. Hawk have the Halo game, which might have a bigger market than BFG, and there's the Dropfleet range which seems to have pretty good mechanics and the different tiers of linked games (space ships fighting, ground landings, ground combat).
Same for Star Wars Armada - it's kinda like BFG, but I assume a much better game* with a better franchise.
Same for the new games - I really enjoyed Lost Patrol, but I'm not sure how replayable it'll be without house ruling new stuff, and whilst it's a great quick game, it's not going to cause me to give up any of the other skirmish games I've got.
*BFG was on the way out when I got into the hobby, I don't think I've ever seen a game of it or even the mini's, and I don't know more than a couple of people who still have any of it.
Spartan have the Halo game, not Hawk. And, broadly speaking, Halo fleet battles as far as I can see has been Dead on Arrival.
From what I've seen locally, Blood Bowl has completely obliterated Dreadball, same with Shadow War and Deadzone.
Don't get me wrong, Fantasy Flight Games will still stand and thrive (although I'm not so sure about their new Rune Wars line, I might have to wait and see on that) but X-Wing doesn't have any direct GW equivalents and, of course, being Star Wars helps a great deal.
Mordheim, I dunno. Frostgrave is pretty popular locally rather than Malifaux. If Mordheim does get rereleased, that would be a good test case.
The main ones though, so far, are certainly Shadow War, Blood Bowl and, I would imagine BFG.
Don't get me wrong, Fantasy Flight Games will still stand and thrive (although I'm not so sure about their new Rune Wars line, I might have to wait and see on that) but X-Wing doesn't have any direct GW equivalents and, of course, being Star Wars helps a great deal.
GW (Well, Forge World) did make and sell a similar game that pre-dated X-wing, Aeronautica Imperialis. It was quite good, and used FW's already-made Epic-Scale flyers on special bases. never really took off, though, which was a shame.
I don;t know if anyone at FFG played it, but I always felt there was more similarity between AI and X-wing than there was between Wings of War and X-wing, which is the usual comparison.
On Hawk - I think they'll be fine. Dropzone's still their core product and I don;t see that really under threat from GW's new activity, DZC has a scale niche almost to itself for the time being.. unless GW decided to go for a full restart of Epic.but even with the Titan game coming, they seem very keen to pour cold water on any rumoured return of Epic.
Blood Bowl seems to be maintaining it's presence. And I suspect would sell even better if they could shoehorn at least the plastic teams into the stores. But, space is of course at a premium, and I won't for a second pretend I know better than GW.
We've also got Adeptus Titanicus coming out at some point (end of the year? Next year? Who knows!), and if that's delayed by a switch to plastics following Blood Bowl's success, that could be another decent seller.
And if that sells well, we might see fully fledged Epic make a return (ideally with the Space Marine rules set, which I for one hold in extremely high esteem)
Compel wrote:So, yay for GW but for the other companies, many whom I've bought lots and lots of product for in the 4 years since I've given up GW, are probably in for a real hard time going forward. - For example, when GW relaunch BFG, I imagine Hawk Wargames are properly up a creek without a paddle and I'm a big fan of Hawk Wargames.
I don't think it'll be that bad. If somebody bought BFG for the models (or for it being a GW game) then they probably were not that interested in whatever Hawk Wargames were offering anyways. And for the people who like what Hawk Wargames are selling a return of BFG might lead to a complete switch back (unlikely), playing both (GW siphoning of some attention/money), or them being really wary of GW prices and rules/writing quality (GW loses out on that one).
GW is not some wargaming vacuum cleaner that just sucks up everything. They have stumbled quite a few times and that gave other companies a way to grab some of their old customers and convince them of their own games with better rules, cheaper minis, and whatever else. GW needs to do better than just to reappear with a new game, they have to actually compete with those companies. People like the new games and might not trust GW to not do the stupid things they did the first time around and I would say that's rather a point against GW and not for them.
Compel wrote: Spartan have the Halo game, not Hawk. And, broadly speaking, Halo fleet battles as far as I can see has been Dead on Arrival.
From what I've seen locally, Blood Bowl has completely obliterated Dreadball, same with Shadow War and Deadzone.
Don't get me wrong, Fantasy Flight Games will still stand and thrive (although I'm not so sure about their new Rune Wars line, I might have to wait and see on that) but X-Wing doesn't have any direct GW equivalents and, of course, being Star Wars helps a great deal.
Mordheim, I dunno. Frostgrave is pretty popular locally rather than Malifaux. If Mordheim does get rereleased, that would be a good test case.
The main ones though, so far, are certainly Shadow War, Blood Bowl and, I would imagine BFG.
Got an email the other day from Warlord about their 10th anniversary celebrations.
So some of GW's competitors are in it for the long haul, and as you say, FFG won't be going anywhere any time soon.
Compel wrote:So, yay for GW but for the other companies, many whom I've bought lots and lots of product for in the 4 years since I've given up GW, are probably in for a real hard time going forward. - For example, when GW relaunch BFG, I imagine Hawk Wargames are properly up a creek without a paddle and I'm a big fan of Hawk Wargames.
I don't think it'll be that bad. If somebody bought BFG for the models (or for it being a GW game) then they probably were not that interested in whatever Hawk Wargames were offering anyways. And for the people who like what Hawk Wargames are selling a return of BFG might lead to a complete switch back (unlikely), playing both (GW siphoning of some attention/money), or them being really wary of GW prices and rules/writing quality (GW loses out on that one).
GW is not some wargaming vacuum cleaner that just sucks up everything. They have stumbled quite a few times and that gave other companies a way to grab some of their old customers and convince them of their own games with better rules, cheaper minis, and whatever else. GW needs to do better than just to reappear with a new game, they have to actually compete with those companies. People like the new games and might not trust GW to not do the stupid things they did the first time around and I would say that's rather a point against GW and not for them.
Good point.
There seems to be this idea that because GW have started doing what 99.9% of other companies have been doing for decades i.e listening to customers, interacting with the community, etc etc
then other people will drop everything, rush back to GW, and all will be forgiven for the last 10 years.
GW are doing well right now, and good luck to them, but it only takes another Kirby like figure to take the wheel and everything could go backwards again.
It's also not the 1990s again, with the GW behemoth brushing the opposition aside.
Compel wrote:So, yay for GW but for the other companies, many whom I've bought lots and lots of product for in the 4 years since I've given up GW, are probably in for a real hard time going forward. - For example, when GW relaunch BFG, I imagine Hawk Wargames are properly up a creek without a paddle and I'm a big fan of Hawk Wargames.
I don't think it'll be that bad. If somebody bought BFG for the models (or for it being a GW game) then they probably were not that interested in whatever Hawk Wargames were offering anyways. And for the people who like what Hawk Wargames are selling a return of BFG might lead to a complete switch back (unlikely), playing both (GW siphoning of some attention/money), or them being really wary of GW prices and rules/writing quality (GW loses out on that one).
GW is not some wargaming vacuum cleaner that just sucks up everything. They have stumbled quite a few times and that gave other companies a way to grab some of their old customers and convince them of their own games with better rules, cheaper minis, and whatever else. GW needs to do better than just to reappear with a new game, they have to actually compete with those companies. People like the new games and might not trust GW to not do the stupid things they did the first time around and I would say that's rather a point against GW and not for them.
That other companies have helped fill the Specialist Games void isn't necessarily a bad thing for GW, depending on how you look at it.
At face value, they're re-entering a market which is already well served by both Dropfleet and Armada. Now personally I've not played either, but other than the start up cost of Armada, I've not exactly heard a bad word about either.
So GW have their work cut out for them.
But....those two games also show GW what the market appetite and preference is. Used wisely that can be bloody useful market research, whether they ape them, or attempt to slot their game into an area that isn't seen to be served. Or a curious mix of both. So there is opportunity there.
Plus, 40k remains 40k, a unique setting with its own design ethos. So there's appeal there.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There seems to be this idea that because GW have started doing what 99.9% of other companies have been doing for decades i.e listening to customers, interacting with the community, etc etc then other people will drop everything, rush back to GW, and all will be forgiven for the last 10 years.
Actually, it's the other way around. Warmahordes, Flames, etc. have taken a page from GW and raised prices to GW levels (or more!), forced retail price floor and internet sale restriction agreements, and so on. Model for model, Warmahordes is actually *more* expensive than GW! Warmahordes faction internal balance is arguably *more* broken than GW.
If anyone is a returning customer to GW, I would recommend going onto their warhammer tv facebook page and sending them a direct message outlining why you have returned and possibly why you stopped buying the first place. You can open up the message saying how you read in their financial report that their CEO is interested in getting back lapsed customers and you figured they may want to hear from people who are returning. If you keep it respectful and short/to the point, I think they'll pass it along. I think they'll be doubly likely to pass it along if Warhammer TV is one of the reasons you returned as a customer.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There seems to be this idea that because GW have started doing what 99.9% of other companies have been doing for decades i.e listening to customers, interacting with the community, etc etc then other people will drop everything, rush back to GW, and all will be forgiven for the last 10 years.
Actually, it's the other way around. Warmahordes, Flames, etc. have taken a page from GW and raised prices to GW levels (or more!), forced retail price floor and internet sale restriction agreements, and so on. Model for model, Warmahordes is actually *more* expensive than GW! Warmahordes faction internal balance is arguably *more* broken than GW.
They all suck.
Out of all those games you list, Flames is the only one I play, and luckily, you get round BF's prices due to the high number of other companies making WW2 stuff e.g Plastic Soldier Company. As for your other point, I don't know much about that, but if that's the case, and I have no reason to doubt you, then it's a shame.
But....those two games also show GW what the market appetite and preference is. Used wisely that can be bloody useful market research, whether they ape them, or attempt to slot their game into an area that isn't seen to be served. Or a curious mix of both. So there is opportunity there.
I don't think GW going for some even smaller niche could work. They, as a company, really need to use economies of scale to address a wider audience. At their size spending time and money only to end up with a profit of 500000€ (or something similar) is just not worth it while it could mean for a smaller company that they survive another year and can also re-invest some of that money in new products
Plus, 40k remains 40k, a unique setting with its own design ethos. So there's appeal there.
40k is unique but people have left them for a reason. If the reason is "because GW abandoned Specialist Games" then GW should have an easy time by just releasing their old games (or course with refinements). But if even 40k's uniqueness wasn't enough to keep players who loved that and they left for other games then GW won't have it that easy. If somebody left 40k because it became too big (knights, flyers, too many miniatures for a skirmish ruleset) the a new edition might not be enough even if they pack in some skirmish rules.
I like the GW aesthetic (maybe not most of the miniatures' exaggerated proportions) and the new Marines (Primaris? writing it feels new and odd) look like they would be really fun to paint (although I detest the little rim on the kneepads), maybe even play the new edition (although I am wary of GW's rule writing competence and how many miniatures I would need) but the cost is still too high (they jumped my comfort level too long ago) for me to just say "Sure,I'll give it a try". As much as I like the aesthetic I'll probably end up painting a few things for friends but not start a new GW based project in the near future (it's just not there yet).
It's good they are doing well, maybe the'll stay alive a few more years , until whatever they release fits my needs better but a long line of business decision made their product "not that interesting" for me. I paint so slow that I can wait it out and see what happens. Others (who like the aesthetics, paint armies and play more) have it harder to weight those arguments against each other (and they tend to buy in with much bigger piles of money than I would).
I have to admit I've become hugely impressed with GW recently. If I didn't have another nurgling on the way I'd probably have bought back in.
Went into a GW yesterday as I'd heard a rumour about free Primaris Marines, and got a pretty good overview (no freebie). The 3 starter box thing is genius though, with the box-as-scenery, different coloured plastics and the tiers of entry from collector (big box, full fluff book, lots of figures), normal (decent sized box, cut down rules & fluff, about half the number of figs), to complete beginner (tiny box, quick rules, tutorial scenarios).
I couldn't figure out where I'd get the rules for any of the non-starter units yet without buying the collector box, but the store manager was pretty confident that data cards would come out very soon.
So they really seem to be getting more right than wrong at the moment.
I have state for many years until that fool Kirby is completely out of the picture that GW will not go anywhere. I have also stated that they will license their IP's out, making a transition to the video/digital games. These things have come to pass and GW has gone in a positive manner. But I don't I'll go back to playing this game anytime soon. I've gotten more involved in the video gaming industry where the real money is as well as the board gaming industry, where it is far less in losing your IP's than video games.
I've been in the entertainment industry for over 40+ years so all of this is nothing new to me. Good luck GW in your future but I'm not going to invest into your corporation in any manner. You have to an opportunity to go main stream but instead you went dividend heavy with little R&D to its line of products. You are only a niche company and will continue to do so while the hobby in general is on the decline, (sorry guys the truth is that hard copy games and digital are multi billion dollar industries and an the younger audiences do not think that wargaming is not cool.) and that is wholly your fault since you are the biggest fish in a small pond. You are more or less too late for the party and did not nurture the growth of miniature gaming.
For me as a gamer first and foremost.
GW plc still deliver no where near the quality of rules, that I expect from a games company.
They make nice minatures,(if expensive in comparison to other games systems.)
And while Games Workshop plc, see themselves as a 'minatures company' I can not see that changing.
Eventually GW plc might realize that great rules add value to the minatures. Poor /rushed rules detract from minature sales.
6 editions of a 40k battle game to arrive at rule set, that still fails to address the core issues highlighted by A.C . nearly 20 years ago. Every other game company I can think of has the game play and rules sorted by 3 editions of the rules.
I am sure minature collectors will keep GW plc in business though.
I have state for many years until that fool Kirby is completely out of the picture that GW will not go anywhere. I have also stated that they will license their IP's out, making a transition to the video/digital games. These things have come to pass and GW has gone in a positive manner. But I don't I'll go back to playing this game anytime soon. I've gotten more involved in the video gaming industry where the real money is as well as the board gaming industry, where it is far less in losing your IP's than video games.
I've been in the entertainment industry for over 40+ years so all of this is nothing new to me. Good luck GW in your future but I'm not going to invest into your corporation in any manner. You have to an opportunity to go main stream but instead you went dividend heavy with little R&D to its line of products. You are only a niche company and will continue to do so while the hobby in general is on the decline, (sorry guys the truth is that hard copy games and digital are multi billion dollar industries and an the younger audiences do not think that wargaming is not cool.) and that is wholly your fault since you are the biggest fish in a small pond. You are more or less too late for the party and did not nurture the growth of miniature gaming.
I'll make my money and take my money else ware.
Where do I start...
GW has always stated they are niche and want to stay niche, they have invested considerable amounts of money in R&D and have some of the best model tooling equipment in the world. The things they are doing with plastic far exceed every other miniature company with maybe the only exception being Bandai. If you don't like getting a few dividend checks a year, then I don't know what to say. Investors in companies like GE live off the Dividend checks and I still don't see GE going away anytime soon either.
As for not nurturing growth in miniature gaming is patiently false. Besides all the companies that live off GW IP in compatible part and accessories. You have company's born from GW like Warlord Games and Mantic, in fact their is an article that is escaping me at the moment that goes into all the businesses GW has directly or indirectly fostered by its mere existence.
GW will never rise to the level of the video game industry, but from the sounds of it you rather they just become a video game maker? The fact they have not sold themselves to a bigger fish actually does say something about the desire of the company being ok with its lane. I also glad you seem to speak for the "kids" on what is and not cool. As someone so in-tuned I am shocked you have missed the growth in everything nostalgic or analog, as you referenced board games which are a gateway to Miniature games.
Your main argument is GW is should be mainstream like that should be the goal of every everyone like mainstream = the best. It is ok to be profitable and make things people enjoy, you don't need to blow up and lose the thing that got you where you are in the first place.
I get it you might be upset that GW is doing well again and probably are struggling with urges to dive back into the hobby, because you been burned by GW before and rather nay-say to keep whatever online persona you want to maintain. Please don't throw I know what I am talking about banter when you clearly don't.
GW's plastic production is like where Bandai and Tamiya were in 2005. Having put together both the latest 40k stuff and the latest Gundam, there's just no contest--Bandai wins hands down.
That said, GW probably shouldn't spend the resources needed t close that gap. I don't want the same thing from a GW kit as from a Bandai kit.
tastytaste wrote: GW has always stated they are niche and want to stay niche, they have invested considerable amounts of money in R&D and have some of the best model tooling equipment in the world. The things they are doing with plastic far exceed every other miniature company with maybe the only exception being Bandai.
GW kits are far sturdier than Bandai / Tamiya. I would not play Bandai / Tamiya on a tabletop week in-week out.
That said, Kingdom Death, DreamForge and Wyrd all produce minis that are at least equal to what GW produces, if not better.
Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.
RoninXiC wrote: Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.
The above poster was correct that you wouldn't want to put those scale models on the table, onstantly shifting around and balancing on terrain. Wargaming models and scale models are entirely different types of model. Wargaming models need to be more robust because they're used more often.
However, the claim that GW make the 'best' plastic wargaming products hasn't been true for a few years. Other companies have gotten in on their ranges being HIPS and several, as pointed out already, surpass GW's models. The fact that GW keep saying they make the best wargaming miniatures in the world means very little. A local bakery says they make the best pies in the world, but I'm sure no one takes them seriously when they say it.
RoninXiC wrote: Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.
The above poster was correct that you wouldn't want to put those scale models on the table, onstantly shifting around and balancing on terrain. Wargaming models and scale models are entirely different types of model. Wargaming models need to be more robust because they're used more often.
However, the claim that GW make the 'best' plastic wargaming products hasn't been true for a few years. Other companies have gotten in on their ranges being HIPS and several, as pointed out already, surpass GW's models. The fact that GW keep saying they make the best wargaming miniatures in the world means very little. A local bakery says they make the best pies in the world, but I'm sure no one takes them seriously when they say it.
Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.
There are companies who make simpler kits than GW. There's companies that make far more detailed kits than GW. GW themselves seem to be aiming for a middle ground.
I recently built Magnus The Red, and was expecting a bit of a headache. What I found was a doddle for such a large and impressive kit. No dodgy joints which require support when drying, and only a little bit of time spent trying to figure out precisely how the horns say in their sockets (once you've figured it out, they sit in there quite nicely!).
For a beginner, it's challenging without having any obvious 'oh sod it' points. For an experienced gamer like myself, it's a solid, satisfying build.
My Rubricae? Managed to vary the Sorceror's leading them by using leftover gubbins from the Exalted Sorceror box.
Now that's stuff I value and appreciate in my kits. So I naturally consider GW right up there. Others have different parameters to judge by.
However, best or not, I think people would struggle to say GW's kits are objectively terrible.
morgoth wrote: Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.
Wargaming or not? That's the issue here. There are obviously better model kits not meant for wargaming out of the likes of Bandai or Tamiya. That said, they are not as soft in their plastic choices and are not necessarily sufficiently robust for regular transport. To straight up answer your question, I think almost all HG Gundams top GW's current plastic process and all the MG (especially the Ver.Ka kits) definitely do. I'd add to that list the many, many scale tank kits where the tracks are all individual links that fit together and all the road wheels and drive wheel actually work. GW is just only now showing signs of using the plastic injection technology that makes those kinds of kits possible. Bandai and Tamiya have been doing it for 15 years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: However, best or not, I think people would struggle to say GW's kits are objectively terrible.
GW's kits are good. Not terrible. They just don't stack up in the larger model building sphere. They'd be middle of the road simple kits for kids in that sphere.
That said, for wargaming, things are about as far as I'd want them in a plastic kit. Yes, GW could make harder plastic stuff or do more engineering for posability like they are with the redemptor dreadnought. I don't think they should do either of those things. I think they should concentrate on their full product experience of:
collect - build - paint - play
and not make model kits that are not good for the last stage. Or simply take too much time in the build stage that a given customer might find them to be a barrier to get to paint and play.
The best thing about the newer Dark Imperium/First Strike plastics is that the go together easily without the seems going through difficult places. Compare this to the Stormcast Eternal easy to build stuff where they put the seem line right through the shoulder pads. If GW continues to put that amount of thought into their easy to build stuff, I'll keep buying it. I'll also buy a smattering for their full kits as well. Though given their pricing policy of new releases getting jacked up to cause an overall 3% price increase, I'll concentrate on existing kits.
Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.
Take you're pick from Kingdom Death to Dreamforge really. And that's just the start.
The Dreamforge APC by far and away technically surpasses any armoured vehicle that GW has done lately. Tis a thing of beauty with a highly detailed interior, moving parts and the Eisenkern troopers actually fit in it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: And if that sells well, we might see fully fledged Epic make a return (ideally with the Space Marine rules set, which I for one hold in extremely high esteem)
Off-topic, but at Warhammer Fest, Tony Cottrell described adding Ork and Eldar titans to Adeptus titanicus, and the Space Marine game (and the next 20-odd years of the Epic game system) as a distraction from the core idea of giant gothic robots fighting each other in the Horus Heresy. Don't hold your breath.
Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.
Take you're pick from Kingdom Death to Dreamforge really. And that's just the start.
The Dreamforge APC by far and away technically surpasses any armoured vehicle that GW has done lately. Tis a thing of beauty with a highly detailed interior, moving parts and the Eisenkern troopers actually fit in it.
I don't own any KDM miniatures myself (yet, backed the latest KS) but I've seen numerous complaints about dodgy joints, fragile parts, and tons of gap filling required on KDM miniatures. Compared to the latest GW kits which go together like a dream I can't see KDM coming anywhere close, which isn't that weird considering the resources for and experience of mould engineering GW has. If you want to argue aesthetics that's another matter of course, I certainly think both companies have amazing art direction.
As for Dreamforge, their minis do look great. Moving parts is something I wouldn't want in a gaming miniature though, adds time to assembly, makes it more fragile and doesn't serve any purpose in-game. Same for things like individual track links etc, they have no place on a gaming mini.
I don't own any KDM miniatures myself (yet, backed the latest KS) but I've seen numerous complaints about dodgy joints, fragile parts, and tons of gap filling required on KDM miniatures. Compared to the latest GW kits which go together like a dream I can't see KDM coming anywhere close, which isn't that weird considering the resources for and experience of mould engineering GW has. If you want to argue aesthetics that's another matter of course, I certainly think both companies have amazing art direction.
As for Dreamforge, their minis do look great. Moving parts is something I wouldn't want in a gaming miniature though, adds time to assembly, makes it more fragile and doesn't serve any purpose in-game. Same for things like individual track links etc, they have no place on a gaming mini.
Would love to hear more examples though!
Fair enough. I don't have a lot of the Kingdom Death plastics, but the few I do have, have been a dream to put together. None of the large kits, mind.
As for the APC, I can't comment on preferences as they are just that, but they are glorious kits meant for gaming. For other examples, Plastic Soldier Company seem to generally get very positive comments on their kits.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: And if that sells well, we might see fully fledged Epic make a return (ideally with the Space Marine rules set, which I for one hold in extremely high esteem)
Off-topic, but at Warhammer Fest, Tony Cottrell described adding Ork and Eldar titans to Adeptus titanicus, and the Space Marine game (and the next 20-odd years of the Epic game system) as a distraction from the core idea of giant gothic robots fighting each other in the Horus Heresy. Don't hold your breath.
Well, it's a distraction at the moment.
But Adeptus Titanicus has a similar issue to X-Wing....there's just not a great deal of variety to be had, unless you introduce new factions.
So whilst I fully support the decision to just keep it simple at the outset, I think we will see more and more in time. Especially if the game sells anywhere near as well as Blood Bowl!
Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.
Take you're pick from Kingdom Death to Dreamforge really. And that's just the start.
The Dreamforge APC by far and away technically surpasses any armoured vehicle that GW has done lately. Tis a thing of beauty with a highly detailed interior, moving parts and the Eisenkern troopers actually fit in it.
And that is my point right there.
To me, Dreamforge kits are mostly ugly, low detail and part of a very limited range selling alternate cheap models to 40k players.
If you want to compare a single kit, the new Eldrad is a million times better than that APC in terms of design and detail.
RoninXiC wrote: Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.
The above poster was correct that you wouldn't want to put those scale models on the table, onstantly shifting around and balancing on terrain. Wargaming models and scale models are entirely different types of model. Wargaming models need to be more robust because they're used more often.
However, the claim that GW make the 'best' plastic wargaming products hasn't been true for a few years. Other companies have gotten in on their ranges being HIPS and several, as pointed out already, surpass GW's models. The fact that GW keep saying they make the best wargaming miniatures in the world means very little. A local bakery says they make the best pies in the world, but I'm sure no one takes them seriously when they say it.
Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.
I'm not going into aesthetics at all. Some people will like the look of the Imperial Knight (ad does look badass) over the Dreamforge Leviathan. But they're technically better kits (for example, the Leviathan is pose able) designed for tabletop use. Some people will prefer the Chaos Spawn over the Insidious Madnesses. Those people are utterly insane. But the kits are more detailed with more technical accomplishment than the aforementioned GW kits.
RoninXiC wrote: Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.
The above poster was correct that you wouldn't want to put those scale models on the table, onstantly shifting around and balancing on terrain. Wargaming models and scale models are entirely different types of model. Wargaming models need to be more robust because they're used more often.
However, the claim that GW make the 'best' plastic wargaming products hasn't been true for a few years. Other companies have gotten in on their ranges being HIPS and several, as pointed out already, surpass GW's models. The fact that GW keep saying they make the best wargaming miniatures in the world means very little. A local bakery says they make the best pies in the world, but I'm sure no one takes them seriously when they say it.
Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.
I'm not going into aesthetics at all. Some people will like the look of the Imperial Knight (ad does look badass) over the Dreamforge Leviathan. But they're technically better kits (for example, the Leviathan is pose able) designed for tabletop use. Some people will prefer the Chaos Spawn over the Insidious Madnesses. Those people are utterly insane. But the kits are more detailed with more technical accomplishment than the aforementioned GW kits.
What's technically advanced about the Malifaux model? They're great sculpts (certainly better than any Chaos Spawn GW has put out) but don't look very advanced, especially after looking at photos of the models and the very obvious join lines all over. I'll give you the Leviathan, even though I think it's butt-ugly it does have poseability which I wish the plastic knight had. The APC is great as well, but that's two Dreamforge kit, and Dreamforge seems to be inactive and not putting out any new product. What other companies are there that clearly surpass GWs plastics?
edit: Actually, I remember Mirror's Edge talking about their advanced sliding mold technology. The less said about their sculpts, the better, IMO, but I'm pretty sure technically that's something GW doesn't do.
morgoth wrote: To me, Dreamforge kits are mostly ugly, low detail and part of a very limited range selling alternate cheap models to 40k players.
If you want to compare a single kit, the new Eldrad is a million times better than that APC in terms of design and detail.
All subjective. I think it looks excellent and crammed with detail. Though, of course, that's my subjective view as well. Same again for the plastic Farseer - design and detail of it are subjective. In terms of technical implementation, the Farseer is a pretty standard that a lot of other manufacturers such as Perry Miniatures (Renedra) produce easily.
As for the APC, being a cheap model that can be used in 40k as an alternative model doesn't invalidate the technical superiority of the kit. Same for the Knight V the Dreamforge Leviathan. Personally, I prefer the visual look of the Knight over the Leviathan. However, the Leviathan is, technically, a far superior Kit to the Knight
RoninXiC wrote: Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.
The above poster was correct that you wouldn't want to put those scale models on the table, onstantly shifting around and balancing on terrain. Wargaming models and scale models are entirely different types of model. Wargaming models need to be more robust because they're used more often.
However, the claim that GW make the 'best' plastic wargaming products hasn't been true for a few years. Other companies have gotten in on their ranges being HIPS and several, as pointed out already, surpass GW's models. The fact that GW keep saying they make the best wargaming miniatures in the world means very little. A local bakery says they make the best pies in the world, but I'm sure no one takes them seriously when they say it.
Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.
I'm not going into aesthetics at all. Some people will like the look of the Imperial Knight (ad does look badass) over the Dreamforge Leviathan. But they're technically better kits (for example, the Leviathan is pose able) designed for tabletop use. Some people will prefer the Chaos Spawn over the Insidious Madnesses. Those people are utterly insane. But the kits are more detailed with more technical accomplishment than the aforementioned GW kits.
See, pose-able is definitely an objective metric, one I don't give a gak about.
The rest of your assessment is subjective.
I haven't assembled a Leviathan but I can tell you the latest stuff I've assembled from GW was really really nice.
What I can tell you is that to me, the Leviathan has absolutely no detail whatsoever and looks like a cheap 3D model made by a beginner who overuses large curved areas.
I.e. what you get when fans add models within mods of a professionally designed game.
Process-wise, all of the detail seems totally blunted, with zero sharpness, and doesn't look like quality plastic to me.
So basically you called for a comparison you had no intention of honouring because you, probably well in advance, knew you could call out on the basis of subjective criteria?
How disengenuous.
Basically, any plastic model kit that can be assembled without notably extensive clean up or remedial action such as gap filling can be considered objectively as good as GW, as how precisely the kit is manufatured is essentially the only objective measure. Then again, GW still sell the Rhino and Land Raider, so they don't necessarily do all that well in that comparison either!
Everything else, pretty much, is subjective, and, as you've so amply demonstrated on so many occasions, can be argued to fit with the agenda the individual is trying to push.
Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.
Take you're pick from Kingdom Death to Dreamforge really. And that's just the start.
The Dreamforge APC by far and away technically surpasses any armoured vehicle that GW has done lately. Tis a thing of beauty with a highly detailed interior, moving parts and the Eisenkern troopers actually fit in it.
Sorry, having put together a number of Kingdom Death and a couple Malifaux (both Wargames Factory) GW is superior for three reasons:
1. No warpage. KD pieces don't line up and require clamping to hold together for relatively small figures. GW pieces go together with minimal gaps.
2. No fiddly bits. Sorry, after struggling with the Future White Speaker to put her hand together because the thumb was a separate bit, KD doesn't come close. GW has small bits, but nothing on the scale KD inflicts upon you where you need tweezers to put stuff together.
3. Instructions. We're dependent on a fan site to figure out how stuff goes together for KD. If you're figure isn't on there, sucks to be you.
RoninXiC wrote: Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.
OK, now play the two of them on the tabletop for 3 games a week over a year. I guarantee that the Tamiya tank will be far more beat up and busted than the GW Land Raider. That Land Raider is a fething brick.
Heck, if you want to do a quick test of durability, just drop both from 42" bar height tabletop onto a concrete floor. The Land Raider might lose a sponson, but the Tamiya will be be ruined.
I actually useda 1/48 Armoured Car for Bolt Action for years. The MG once broke but that happened to lots of my figures as well.
They're not as fragile as you think they are. The plastic is the same and only very, VERY few parts are flimsical.
One could also leave some of the more vulnerable parts off as a concession to using them as wargaming models and the core of the model would still have a greater resolution of detail than your average GW kit.
Plus, as you say, there's possibly more people out there using scale models in historical games than there are people using GW models in GW games without, one assumes, significant issue.
Basically to hold the position that nothing in the plastic model world is as good as GW's stuff requires some combination of ignorance of the larger plastic model world, or the willingness to shift goal posts.
This pops up every now and again. I don't know why it can't just be that GW is good. Some people need the thing they like to be the best I guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: One could also leave some of the more vulnerable parts off as a concession to using them as wargaming models and the core of the model would still have a greater resolution of detail than your average GW kit.
Plus, as you say, there's possibly more people out there using scale models in historical games than there are people using GW models in GW games without, one assumes, significant issue.
I've done a lot of gaming with gundam models and they are both stronger and weaker than GW models in different ways. People pose them and play with them like they are action figures, so they're stronger than GW in that way, but because people appraoch them like they are action figures, they tend to break them more. Some of my friends that I game gundam fights with tend to repose their mobile suits multiple times in a given 90 minute game. Where in a game of 40k, they might turn their turret every now and again.
So more instances of broken stuff than 40k, but way, way more in game handling to get it to that point.
morgoth wrote: To me, Dreamforge kits are mostly ugly, low detail and part of a very limited range selling alternate cheap models to 40k players.
If you want to compare a single kit, the new Eldrad is a million times better than that APC in terms of design and detail.
All subjective. I think it looks excellent and crammed with detail. Though, of course, that's my subjective view as well. Same again for the plastic Farseer - design and detail of it are subjective. In terms of technical implementation, the Farseer is a pretty standard that a lot of other manufacturers such as Perry Miniatures (Renedra) produce easily.
As for the APC, being a cheap model that can be used in 40k as an alternative model doesn't invalidate the technical superiority of the kit. Same for the Knight V the Dreamforge Leviathan. Personally, I prefer the visual look of the Knight over the Leviathan. However, the Leviathan is, technically, a far superior Kit to the Knight
And the detail that Dreamforge crams in actually serves a purpose - as opposed to MOOOAAAR SKULLLLLZZZ!!!1!
And, for a fair comparison - go with the Taurox vs. the Keilerkopf.... Dear gods, the Taurox is a silly vehicle....
The Auld Grump - mind you, the Keilerkopf is also a good deal more expensive, these days... but it is so much the better model....
RoninXiC wrote: Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.
OK, now play the two of them on the tabletop for 3 games a week over a year. I guarantee that the Tamiya tank will be far more beat up and busted than the GW Land Raider. That Land Raider is a fething brick.
Heck, if you want to do a quick test of durability, just drop both from 42" bar height tabletop onto a concrete floor. The Land Raider might lose a sponson, but the Tamiya will be be ruined.
When the demand is "can you throw it on the floor, eh?? Can you?" then some serious justification is afoot
Some manufacturers pack on more detail. Some make more intricate kits. Some make lower detail, lower priced kits (Mantic).
But GW do their kits. Bits of detail here and there so even a relatively new painter can get good results - but enough blank open space, particularly on tanks, to allow for the high end painter to do mental freehand.
The models are robust enough to stand up to regular gaming (dice bouncing off, perhaps being dropped), and the kits able to be assembled with relative ease and minimal gap filling etc.
This isn't a design deficiency. This is a design decision - the kits are accessible in terms of complexity, whilst still be satisfying to build.
Display Historical tank kits have more detail because they are designed functional vehicles.
Wargame Toys of vehicles imagined 38000 years in the future have no such functionally.
The radio frame on the former wouldn't last 5 minutes in a wargame so why should the later have to have the same detailing?
This is a silly comparison particularly in a thread on the financial reporting of GW. Their kits whatever the detail sell and well enough for a decent profit so I would proffer that they are sufficiently detailed for both gaming and business purposes.
Some manufacturers pack on more detail. Some make more intricate kits. Some make lower detail, lower priced kits (Mantic).
But GW do their kits. Bits of detail here and there so even a relatively new painter can get good results - but enough blank open space, particularly on tanks, to allow for the high end painter to do mental freehand.
The models are robust enough to stand up to regular gaming (dice bouncing off, perhaps being dropped), and the kits able to be assembled with relative ease and minimal gap filling etc.
This isn't a design deficiency. This is a design decision - the kits are accessible in terms of complexity, whilst still be satisfying to build.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't actually saying the kits are mediocre, it was a continuation of the facetious commentary on robustness - they can't stand up to immersion in lava, therefore garbo.
Look I like GW kits, but yeah I don't see "you can throw them atta wall and probably only have to glue back on a sponson" as being a special selling point. Then again I don't even let other people touch my models unless I've known them for years and can be sure they're not clumsy, inconsiderate oafs, so the idea that dropping models is something so commonplace it requires special consideration is completely alien: "robust enough for tabletop" for me has always meant it can stand up to regular handling and occasionally being balanced on terrain at a wierd angle, not that it has to be tough enough to stand up to the kind of punishment you'd see in a ludicrous informerical where they drive cars over things and hit them with sledgehammers or whatever
Most scale model kits in the types of pricerange that would be appealing to a wargamer easily pass that test, and as folk have said you can simply leave off a few fragile details and have a model that is both suitable for gaming(unless you're the sort of person who used to use Dreadnought-inna-sock as a blackjack or the like) and more detailed than GW kits.
You won't find many who object to the idea that GW kits, by and large, achieve what they set out to achieve which as you say is to provide a "balance" between complexity/detail and simplicity/ease of assembly aimed at the beginner-to-intermediate modeller, but that wasn't the contention some folk were making, they were claiming that GW's plastic kits are objectively, technologically the best, and that's simply farcical. They've made great strides since switching to CAD in terms of parts breakdown(though a lot of stuff does suffer from looking a bit, for want of a better term, "plastic" - but that's an inveitable consequence of using software that lets you "polish" a project free of any imperfection at every stage), but as other have mentioned they don't even seem to be using slide-core tooled molds yet, and it's demonstrably true that there are more detailed kits available.
Some manufacturers pack on more detail. Some make more intricate kits. Some make lower detail, lower priced kits (Mantic).
But GW do their kits. Bits of detail here and there so even a relatively new painter can get good results - but enough blank open space, particularly on tanks, to allow for the high end painter to do mental freehand.
The models are robust enough to stand up to regular gaming (dice bouncing off, perhaps being dropped), and the kits able to be assembled with relative ease and minimal gap filling etc.
This isn't a design deficiency. This is a design decision - the kits are accessible in terms of complexity, whilst still be satisfying to build.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't actually saying the kits are mediocre, it was a continuation of the facetious commentary on robustness - they can't stand up to immersion in lava, therefore garbo.
Look I like GW kits, but yeah I don't see "you can throw them atta wall and probably only have to glue back on a sponson" as being a special selling point. Then again I don't even let other people touch my models unless I've known them for years and can be sure they're not clumsy, inconsiderate oafs, so the idea that dropping models is something so commonplace it requires special consideration is completely alien: "robust enough for tabletop" for me has always meant it can stand up to regular handling and occasionally being balanced on terrain at a wierd angle, not that it has to be tough enough to stand up to the kind of punishment you'd see in a ludicrous informerical where they drive cars over things and hit them with sledgehammers or whatever
Most scale model kits in the types of pricerange that would be appealing to a wargamer easily pass that test, and as folk have said you can simply leave off a few fragile details and have a model that is both suitable for gaming(unless you're the sort of person who used to use Dreadnought-inna-sock as a blackjack or the like) and more detailed than GW kits.
You won't find many who object to the idea that GW kits, by and large, achieve what they set out to achieve which as you say is to provide a "balance" between complexity/detail and simplicity/ease of assembly aimed at the beginner-to-intermediate modeller, but that wasn't the contention some folk were making, they were claiming that GW's plastic kits are objectively, technologically the best, and that's simply farcical. They've made great strides since switching to CAD in terms of parts breakdown(though a lot of stuff does suffer from looking a bit, for want of a better term, "plastic" - but that's an inveitable consequence of using software that lets you "polish" a project free of any imperfection at every stage), but as other have mentioned they don't even seem to be using slide-core tooled molds yet, and it's demonstrably true that there are more detailed kits available.
I'm fairly sure nobody made the argument of technical superiority, or intended to, because that makes no sense whatsoever.
Sure, poseable kits require more thought, but does that matter if you don't want pose-ability?
Just like nobody cares if you can get way more detailed kits of something that is of no interest. Let's take a turd for example... would you consider a plastic model of a turd with 1 micron detail resolution a "better" or "best" plastic model? Of course not.
What that means is that it remains entirely subjective what consists of the "best" plastic miniatures out there.
For me, GW offers the best plastic miniatures out there because:
- Their range is huge
- Average quality is pretty good
- The more recent models are truly awesome
- General aesthetics are quite pleasing
That entirely disqualifies any other competitor, because they all have smaller ranges, and while a few may have similar or better detail levels, their general aesthetics suck balls.
Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.
I've been pretty impressed at the level of detail and how well the Malifaux minis fit together avoiding seam lines (with the occasional issue with tiny parts - Yan Lo has a separate beard, Burt Jebson has a separate jaw).
The GW stuff goes together well now they've moved away from resin/metal, but a lot of it just has a huge amount of detail for the sake of it. It's objectively no better a product that any of the mainstream manufacturers.
That entirely disqualifies any other competitor, because they all have smaller ranges, and while a few may have similar or better detail levels, their general aesthetics suck balls.
Well, yeah, I you want to set the criteria such that nothing gets a look in, then GW is clearly the best. No-one else has such a complete single sourced range of heroic sized grimdark space soldiers. But most people are happy to mix and match, using alternatives that fit in, aesthetics they like and so on.
The Wraithlord, Wraithknight and that Tau support suit? They're all easy to build in their 'pre-set' poses. But the design of the kit is such that you're by no means tied to the same pose.
Simply clip off the post on the relevant joint, and you've got 'ball and socket' to play with.
Is it Gundam '30,000,000 points of articulation'? Nope. But it is a 'crack at having best of both worlds'.
And this is why I say it's all entirely subjective.
Historically speaking, GW have been the innovators in the hobby wargame model realm. They were the first to do Drastik Plastik. They came up with the slottabase over a cast base. And they've not really stopped since.
Personally, I think their design zenith came with the easily interchangeable kits - stuff like all Empire models being cross compatible etc. I think the modern kits look better, but I still hanker after the multipart era that was.
This is a really fething silly conversation, comparing apples to oranges. Don't compare GW kits to Gundam or Tamiya. Compare them to their direct competitors and equivalents: Mantic Games, Privateer Press, Warlord Games, Perry Miniatures, Gripping Beast, Fireforge Games, Spartan Games etc.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: This is a really fething silly conversation, comparing apples to oranges. Don't compare GW kits to Gundam or Tamiya. Compare them to their direct competitors and equivalents: Mantic Games, Privateer Press, Warlord Games, Perry Miniatures, Gripping Beast, Fireforge Games, Spartan Games etc.
Indeed.
I loved the Gundam animes but I probably won't ever buy one of the toys tbh, although they seem to be awesome from hearsay.
That entirely disqualifies any other competitor, because they all have smaller ranges, and while a few may have similar or better detail levels, their general aesthetics suck balls.
Well, yeah, I you want to set the criteria such that nothing gets a look in, then GW is clearly the best. No-one else has such a complete single sourced range of heroic sized grimdark space soldiers. But most people are happy to mix and match, using alternatives that fit in, aesthetics they like and so on.
Very true.
But my criteria are very basic too:
- Wide range, because I like to collect more than Dreamforge could provide
- Aesthetics, because I hate ugly things, like Dreamforge and a large part of the GW range - good news, it's wide enough so I don't have to collect the ugly ones.
- Mainstream enough to get a game now and then (yes, that comes into the value of a plastic miniature).
- Models that go together easily and leave minimal seams to green stuff (vast improvement over the years).
This is not "I love GW" by any means, it's just that out there, there is noone with a comprehensive range of plastic miniatures that is wide enough to incorporate design elements I appreciate (I like Infinity japanese anime guys too, but they're metal).
Also, the range has come to be consistent, mostly through brainwashing, but that's still a good thing.
GW manages the coherency of their range (in a weird way I know), but that's a million times better than mix-and-matching Dreamforge with GW or going true-Gundam Tau.
But you're not restricted to a single supplier, and the game and miniatures aren't absolutely linked. Plus, what's wrong with metal?
Nothing stops you using Dreamforge minis in a 40K game (as long as you're not in a GW store).
Aesthetics is purely subjective - there's no answer there.
GW kits are nice. But I don't think most of it's competitors kits are any worse. I've built kits recently from North Star, Warlord, Battlefront (15mm plastics are a pain in the rear), Wyrd and none of them have been any worse than GW kits.
I've got and built a few Gundams (my current hobby) and the production methods put GW to shame - slide moulds, pre-moulded multi-part pieces, multicoloured sprues. I wouldn't use them to game with unless I set all of the joints, but there's nothing stopping me.
For a kit to build for the sake of building, I'd choose Bandai over GW every day. For the price of, say, a Knight, you can get some pretty serious Gundam kits. Most of my Gundams cost less than a single GW clampack figure.
I mean, take this as an example. Tiny bit more expensive than a Knight, but is 38cm tall (double a knight) and comes with LED lighting whilst being fully posable.
RoninXiC wrote: Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.
OK, now play the two of them on the tabletop for 3 games a week over a year. I guarantee that the Tamiya tank will be far more beat up and busted than the GW Land Raider. That Land Raider is a fething brick.
Heck, if you want to do a quick test of durability, just drop both from 42" bar height tabletop onto a concrete floor. The Land Raider might lose a sponson, but the Tamiya will be be ruined.
When the demand is "can you throw it on the floor, eh?? Can you?" then some serious justification is afoot
So you've NEVER, EVER seen a model fall from the tabletop to the floor? Never? Really?
Sorry, but I've seen this happen several times. Some models survived, others, not so much. I have 1/35 Tamiya scale models, and they would NOT do well. I have 1/35 Dragon models of even higher quality (individual track links!) - that would be a disaster if it fell off a tabletop.
That's not the point. If you're going to buy your models based solely on their ability to survive being knocked off a table, buy kiddy toys or lego (which would be fully repairable.)
If it were truly a priority for all but a tiny few wargamers, resin and metal would be totally non-viable as a comemercial material, as nobody would buy them because they are so ill equipped to deal with impact damage without bending and snapping, shattering or exploding into pieces.
I mean, sure, perhaps it's somewhere on the list of priorities, but down the end of the list with "I like the smell when I open a new box" or "the shade of grey of the plastic is particularly pleasing to me" rather than any significant factor informing the buying decision.
RoninXiC wrote: Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.
OK, now play the two of them on the tabletop for 3 games a week over a year. I guarantee that the Tamiya tank will be far more beat up and busted than the GW Land Raider. That Land Raider is a fething brick.
Heck, if you want to do a quick test of durability, just drop both from 42" bar height tabletop onto a concrete floor. The Land Raider might lose a sponson, but the Tamiya will be be ruined.
When the demand is "can you throw it on the floor, eh?? Can you?" then some serious justification is afoot
So you've NEVER, EVER seen a model fall from the tabletop to the floor? Never? Really?
Some manufacturers pack on more detail. Some make more intricate kits. Some make lower detail, lower priced kits (Mantic).
But GW do their kits. Bits of detail here and there so even a relatively new painter can get good results - but enough blank open space, particularly on tanks, to allow for the high end painter to do mental freehand.
The models are robust enough to stand up to regular gaming (dice bouncing off, perhaps being dropped), and the kits able to be assembled with relative ease and minimal gap filling etc.
This isn't a design deficiency. This is a design decision - the kits are accessible in terms of complexity, whilst still be satisfying to build.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't actually saying the kits are mediocre, it was a continuation of the facetious commentary on robustness - they can't stand up to immersion in lava, therefore garbo.
Look I like GW kits, but yeah I don't see "you can throw them atta wall and probably only have to glue back on a sponson" as being a special selling point.
It is for me. Between moving several places and therefore knowing crazy people in bad neighborhoods, durability is a huge selling point for me. My current Ghost Ark that I had since 5th (and didn't perish in that fire) survived a 4 foot drop from my dresser in an earthquake. I don't know if that is a norm, but it happened for me...
I only want to say that I don't understand this "They made it with CAD so they look monre toy-ish". Infinity also does his models with digital sculpting and they look realistic.
Isn't the tool. Is how you uses it.
Maybe GW minatures are suffering from the same problem as their rules?
Trying to be everything to everyone, and not being as good at any one thing, as the competition.
A high quality resin kit for display has lots of detail and dynamic posing.The artistry of the sculpt is paramount, and durability and value for money requirements are lower.(Collectors only usually want one of a particular sculpt, and usually put it in a display case after painting.)
Wargaming minatures are the other end of the spectrum.Where durability and value for money is of higher priority to gamers.
As the minatures are needed in higher numbers for a game, and they have to stand being (mis)handled much more.
As GW want their minatures to be 'display quality for their collectors, and durable enough for gaming.They end up with a compromise.(Too expensive for gamers, and not quite as 'fine' as collectors might want.)
However, if the GW rules were of a similar quality to the GW minatures I would not have much to complain about.
GW financials...?
Nah... Just one of those threads where Morgoth (et al) tell us there's nothing as good as a GW miniature unless it is actually a GW miniature.
As to the financials... GW will make a killing this year in all the 8th edition sales. I for one have spent more money with them this year than the last 5. As for the miniatures? Well... if any other company was bringing out such monopose stuff, we'd have the GW fans tell us the models were sooooo 90s.
Gimgamgoo wrote: GW financials...?
Nah... Just one of those threads where Morgoth (et al) tell us there's nothing as good as a GW miniature unless it is actually a GW miniature.
As to the financials... GW will make a killing this year in all the 8th edition sales. I for one have spent more money with them this year than the last 5. As for the miniatures? Well... if any other company was bringing out such monopose stuff, we'd have the GW fans tell us the models were sooooo 90s.
I hate the monpose HQ's and stuff. Always built my own because I hate bling anyway.
The claims that a Land Raider can drop off a table and maybe only pop off a sponson are interesting. Because I did drop my Land Raider many years ago, off a table, about 4' to the tiled floor. This Land Raider wasn't just superglued, it was done properly with plastic cement to get the best join possible, held together with elastic bands to set. It was solid.
It was not fine after the impact. It didn't just pop off a sponson. The body twisted and warped from the impact, enough to separate the track modules from the body. Not entirely, but there were visible gap along where the body joined to the track module.
It took a lot of effort to get it back to normal, and even then it was always slightly twisted along the body.
-Loki- wrote: The claims that a Land Raider can drop off a table and maybe only pop off a sponson are interesting. Because I did drop my Land Raider many years ago, off a table, about 4' to the tiled floor. This Land Raider wasn't just superglued, it was done properly with plastic cement to get the best join possible, held together with elastic bands to set. It was solid.
It was not fine after the impact. It didn't just pop off a sponson. The body twisted and warped from the impact, enough to separate the track modules from the body. Not entirely, but there were visible gap along where the body joined to the track module.
It took a lot of effort to get it back to normal, and even then it was always slightly twisted along the body.
I've seen many big models fall, several times, and none of them ever got hurt that badly, even on a tiled floor.
A tervigon broke his nose, a WraithKnight lost one of his wraithbone antennas, things like that.
I think your Land Raider may not have been glued properly tbh.
A good plastic cement bond will never break, you are more likely to break the pieces than the bond.
That said, if you used any kind of GW plastic cement, or didn't exactly use the cement as it's supposed to (it happens to me too), you can have a weak-ish bond that will break just like superglue bonds.
-Loki- wrote: Blame the victim? You can tell it's Dakka.
I know what I'm doing when I build models. I know what happened to that Land Raider.
And I'm telling you that you cannot possibly break a proper plastic cement bond with such minimal force.
When it's done right, you will need plyers to separate the two plastic bits, and it will almost never break at the bond.
As I said, I also get it wrong sometimes. So don't take it personally, plastic cement bonds are tricky and easy to get half-right.
For all the people claiming that GW kids are weirdly proportioned and poorly detailed so they'll handle abuse as gaming pieces; how does that fit with models like this:
That thing ain't even going to survive a transport case.
I've dropped and broken plenty of GW stuff, and drop and broken plenty of non-GW stuff, and there's been minimal difference, with the exception of things like spears and rifles on real 28mm scaled stuff - those things are seriously thin. So now I base them on magnets and the spears don't have to touch anything.
I feel the more recent and more detailed GW kits are quite a bit more fragile than the old ones - I guess you can't really have detail and toughness together.
-Loki- wrote: The claims that a Land Raider can drop off a table and maybe only pop off a sponson are interesting. Because I did drop my Land Raider many years ago, off a table, about 4' to the tiled floor. This Land Raider wasn't just superglued, it was done properly with plastic cement to get the best join possible, held together with elastic bands to set. It was solid.
It was not fine after the impact. It didn't just pop off a sponson. The body twisted and warped from the impact, enough to separate the track modules from the body. Not entirely, but there were visible gap along where the body joined to the track module.
It took a lot of effort to get it back to normal, and even then it was always slightly twisted along the body.
I know you've been getting into this, but the Land Raider was designed improperly - the internal bulkhead is about 1 mm off, so it creates a gap, a seam between the body and the track in most builds. GW official builds included. In your case, I suspect you "forced" it square, like compressing a spring, with a LOT of rubber bands. When it dropped, the internal "spring" released, and that's what tweaked your LR.
After my first LR, I stopped building them with that internal bulkhead, and they all built square and solid. Just sayin'
-Loki- wrote: The claims that a Land Raider can drop off a table and maybe only pop off a sponson are interesting. Because I did drop my Land Raider many years ago, off a table, about 4' to the tiled floor. This Land Raider wasn't just superglued, it was done properly with plastic cement to get the best join possible, held together with elastic bands to set. It was solid.
It was not fine after the impact. It didn't just pop off a sponson. The body twisted and warped from the impact, enough to separate the track modules from the body. Not entirely, but there were visible gap along where the body joined to the track module.
It took a lot of effort to get it back to normal, and even then it was always slightly twisted along the body.
I know you've been getting into this, but the Land Raider was designed improperly - the internal bulkhead is about 1 mm off, so it creates a gap, a seam between the body and the track in most builds. GW official builds included. In your case, I suspect you "forced" it square, like compressing a spring, with a LOT of rubber bands. When it dropped, the internal "spring" released, and that's what tweaked your LR.
After my first LR, I stopped building them with that internal bulkhead, and they all built square and solid. Just sayin'
So what your saying is that it's not the best design?
-Loki- wrote: The claims that a Land Raider can drop off a table and maybe only pop off a sponson are interesting. Because I did drop my Land Raider many years ago, off a table, about 4' to the tiled floor. This Land Raider wasn't just superglued, it was done properly with plastic cement to get the best join possible, held together with elastic bands to set. It was solid.
It was not fine after the impact. It didn't just pop off a sponson. The body twisted and warped from the impact, enough to separate the track modules from the body. Not entirely, but there were visible gap along where the body joined to the track module.
It took a lot of effort to get it back to normal, and even then it was always slightly twisted along the body.
I know you've been getting into this, but the Land Raider was designed improperly - the internal bulkhead is about 1 mm off, so it creates a gap, a seam between the body and the track in most builds. GW official builds included. In your case, I suspect you "forced" it square, like compressing a spring, with a LOT of rubber bands. When it dropped, the internal "spring" released, and that's what tweaked your LR.
After my first LR, I stopped building them with that internal bulkhead, and they all built square and solid. Just sayin'
So the model is flawed in itself? What an amazing miniature!
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Haha, now there's a politicians answer. It's a flawed design then.
A flawed design from what, over 15 years ago?
GW kits have come a long, long way in that time. Around the same time, I was dabbling in Warmachine. Now those were dodgy kits (didn't dabble for long, so can only speak for the kits as they were)
Third Party link - not updated their own investor webpage yet. Important bit for the business highlit yellow.
Dividend and Trading Statement
Tue, 5th Sep 2017 07:00
RNS Number : 7931P
Games Workshop Group PLC
05 September 2017
Games Workshop Group PLC
DIVIDEND AND TRADING STATEMENT
For the quarter to 27 August 2017
For immediate release 5 September 2017
Games Workshop Group PLC announces that the Board has today declared a dividend of 35 pence per share. This will be paid on 27 October 2017 for shareholders on the register at 22 September 2017, with an ex-dividend date of 21 September 2017. The last date for elections for the dividend re-investment plan is 6 October 2017.
Following on from the Group's update in July, trading for the first quarter of the current financial year has continued strongly. Sales and, given the high operational gearing of the business, profits for 2017/18 to date are therefore well above the same period in the prior year.
A further update will be given as appropriate.
Edited to Add Bloomberg article - GW is the biggest %age riser in the FTSE All-Share Index YTD 2017.
Like many outsider financial analyses, this is very uninformed.
He's certain that Games Workshop is doing well because it has brick and mortar stores. This fails to take into account that they had brick and mortar stores last year when they made 1/3 as much in profit.
GW 2017 is doing about as well as GW 2014-16 combined. There's a reason for that.
My analysis- GW has started giving people what they want in a way that they've failed to do before.
They may be bringing in new customers and bringing back old customers by putting out new boxed games rather than treating their customer base like a fixed number and trying to funnel them all into their two main games (I know a lot of people who like Blood Bowl, Necromunda and Warhammer Quest who aren't interested in buying an AoS or 40k army).
In addition, they've addressed fan complaints about 40k with 8th, and turned around Age of Sigmar (by finishing their rules set) and started engaging with their audience online.
And honestly, some of their newest releases are some of the best looking minis they've done (new Lord of Change is amazing).
I think he's more meaning the physical presence of something truly nerdy helps them.
As you know, GW's rise in the U.K. preceded the rise of the FLGS, certainly those with space for gaming. So for their market, GW rule the High Street here - and that's also behind their rebranding stores to Warhammer, as that's a colloquialism they're better known as.
We know the benefits of having actual, physical stores. And for now, that seems to be outweighing the drawbacks (cost, basically).
So whilst their newfound approach is definitely working in their favour, it's helped that the wider range of games is easily found on the UK high street
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think he's more meaning the physical presence of something truly nerdy helps them.
As you know, GW's rise in the U.K. preceded the rise of the FLGS, certainly those with space for gaming. So for their market, GW rule the High Street here - and that's also behind their rebranding stores to Warhammer, as that's a colloquialism they're better known as.
We know the benefits of having actual, physical stores. And for now, that seems to be outweighing the drawbacks (cost, basically).
So whilst their newfound approach is definitely working in their favour, it's helped that the wider range of games is easily found on the UK high street
Actually, it may be that Warhammer stores are outdated.
In the beginning, they made sense because there were no FLGS, and it still makes sense because GW is still responsible for the majority of new entrants to the wargaming hobby.
I can only see it from the UK perspective, because that's the only one I've ever seen.
The UK doesn't have that many FLGS, simply because GW got their first, and then kept on growing.
And as GW seem to have the UK well sewn up as a market, that has a knock-on effect globally, as there's enough UK based Nerds to keep GW's games in the online spotlight.
Why do some gamers get into these financials so much? It's a game. The hobby is a game. When I go see a movie or eat a burger I don't check the financials to see if I should do it or not. What am I missing?
krazynadechukr wrote: Why do some gamers get into these financials so much? It's a game. The hobby is a game. When I go see a movie or eat a burger I don't check the financials to see if I should do it or not. What am I missing?
Some people likes to debate, and economy. I have a friend that is doing a math doctorade and he actually likes maths. To the point that he normally do math problems just for fun! Yeah. Doing maths for fun! To me is insane, but he loves it
krazynadechukr wrote: Why do some gamers get into these financials so much? It's a game. The hobby is a game. When I go see a movie or eat a burger I don't check the financials to see if I should do it or not. What am I missing?
That people have the capacity to be interested in more than one thing, and sometimes those things intersect?
I mean, that's not a hard to concept to grasp is it?
krazynadechukr wrote: Why do some gamers get into these financials so much? It's a game. The hobby is a game. When I go see a movie or eat a burger I don't check the financials to see if I should do it or not. What am I missing?
Some people likes to debate, and economy. I have a friend that is doing a math doctorade and he actually likes maths. To the point that he normally do math problems just for fun! Yeah. Doing maths for fun! To me is insane, but he loves it
Math is fun, especially number theory, which is pretty much party time math.
However, in this hobby, it seems wise to know the financial health of a company before you get too invested. For example, say you just started collecting a force for Firestorm Armada or MERCS 2.... A heads-up would have been really helpful.
frozenwastes wrote: The departure from Kirby's approach I applaud Rountree the most for: Not distributing more than they take in as profit in dividends. It's like a sane, sustainable pay out ratio has arrived. This leaves the company with money to invest in the future rather than looting it to make the stock look good in the short term and to give Kirby compensation out of line with his accomplishments. The current dividend is still high and a large portion of the profit, but it's not a draining of cash reserves (or worse, when they borrowed to prop up a dividend when LOTR was falling) that Kirby undertook. My guess is that the fall dividend will be even higher, but still represent about 75% of their earnings (which is still a very high ratio).
Fall 2016 dividend 25p
Fall 2017 dividend 35p
If your 75% idea holds, that means sales are up 40% over the same period last year.
With 8th coming out during that time I could totally see that.
krazynadechukr wrote: Why do some gamers get into these financials so much? It's a game. The hobby is a game. When I go see a movie or eat a burger I don't check the financials to see if I should do it or not. What am I missing?
I don't look at the local cinemas profit line before I buy a ticket. Nor does anyone here go "oh, okay, tomorrow I'm going to play a match of 40k, let's check their financial report".
I'd take note, however, if they announced they had to close down or if they announced that they're so successful that they'll build another chinema closer to my place. Both would affect me.
But if GWs financials are so uninteresting - why did you look at this thread then? Was "oh I just wanted to ask why there is such a thread and why people are actually talking about it" really your only motivation?
Warren Buffet's "Invest in what you know" idea has a lot of traction with the public. I imagine many gamers past their teenage years actually hold some GW stock and were probably pretty frustrated during the Kirby years that things were basically moving sideways and the future was being sacrificed for the sake of cost cutting in the present.
And then there's the whole checking opinions against reality thing. When GW made decisions or did things that frustrated them, it's a useful check to see if you're being rational to look at their business results. And sure enough as soon as a new CEO gets in and stops doing stupid things the results shoot up like crazy.
Those who were frustrated with GW for years weren't alone. They actually were in touch with reality.
If your 75% idea holds, that means sales are up 40% over the same period last year.
With 8th coming out during that time I could totally see that.
It's possible Rountree will go over the ~75% pay out ratio he's been using since he got the job. I think he'll stick with it and the half year report s going to be impressive. I think Q4 won't be 40% higher than the quarter that had a new edition of the game. So I expect the January dividend to be 30p.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I can only see it from the UK perspective, because that's the only one I've ever seen.
The UK doesn't have that many FLGS, simply because GW got their first, and then kept on growing.
The Uk had a massive number of gaming stores in the 80's, and there were gaming departments of other stores. every Virgin had a gaming centre, and there were one or two pecialist gaming stores mostly with hex boardgames, RPG's and miniatures games. There was a lot around. The downturn started in the late 80's and by around 1990 they were all gone, the independent FLGS's lasted only a year or two longer.
In most parts of the country GW alone survived.
There were catchments for RPG/miniatures stores at a rate of about one per major city, as a niche project. Stores in towns under 150K size tended to fail. However it was more common and survivable outside the home counties and less trendsetting regions. Even now there is no FLGS rennaissance in the UK. Shops exist in central London due to the vast catchment, but tend to fail in the surrounding belt as people in the south east tend to culture towards ever newer entertainments and that cannot really be found outside of electronics. However the zeitgeist is different in the west country, and market towns might have a suriviing even thriving games shop, a GW and one or two gaming friendly cafes.
It is odd that places like Hertfordshire might have a far greater population and wealth than Cornwall or Shrewsbury. But gaming thrives in the latter and is dead outside GW in the former.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Why look into GW financials? They're the best way to get an idea about the overall health of the wider industry.
GW are the big fish in this pond, and over recent times we've seen them experienced something of a boom.
Yes, their change of direction is definitely a factor - but the pace and size of their sales increase seems unlikely to be solely down to that.
If GW are doing well, it seems likely it's not just them.
GW success is survivable, but it has several factors internal and external.
GW policy related changes
1. GW management rebranding. They are still big corporation and after the bottom line, we cant forget that, and its ok, but they are no longer the moustache twirler villains.
2. Effort to move forward on gaming systems. This can have negative applications such as the death of WHFB, but all over it is good. GW games design is trying to get out of its rut, be innovative in a way we have not seen since the 80's.
Age of Sigmar took GW in a new direction and finally it got to work, it also proved to investors that the company was not stuck in a trap, GW management proved they could graw off the rotten leg, this got noticed on the exchanges.
Hopefully WHFB will return someday but...
3. Expansion of secondary product lines. Specialist games are back, and GW are learning how to exploit that. Space Hulk comes back, Dreadfleet stayed dead and critically Gw learned that those involved should not be central parties to games design), they release limited numbers of Blood Bowl stock then make the lines permanent when people resell special dice for 10X their face value when stocks ran out. Necromunda is returning....
4. Rapid turn around of new product. Not just another space marine codex, but whole new lines. GW have never been this active frankly.
5. Getting started boxsets that offer a visual deal. £50 can buy rather a lot nowadays in GW, or so it seems. Prices are still high buy there is an affordable way in offering nice toys to play with. getting Started boxes are filled with fun and offer an illusion of value. The hobby is still overpriced, but no longer seems unbearably so and customers are reacting positively to this.
Changes ancillary to GW policy.
1. End Times/Age of Sigmar/Legacy products. Sales if warhammer fantasy are booming, some of that is legacy 'Oldhammer' players, and a lot of those were panic buying in 2016-17 to complete armies that you can no longer buy. Some are genuine Age of Sigmar converts or new players, also a number of players have converted to 9th Age/8.5 or other continuation projects. All of which despite convoluted legal wording the the contrary is really still just warhammer. Crucially all the army lists mimic old GW products.
So you the following buying Games Workshop fantasy products
- Age of Sigmar fans.
- WHFB rush buyers, though this market will dry out as collections are completed and increasingly involves auction purchase and closing stock.
- Continuation gamers.
2. Media attention. Total War Warhammer has opened a thirst for Warhammer 'lore'. Many online gamers end up staying for more.
3. Regular media merchandising. You can buy a model of your favourite superhero or comic character, you can even get some for gaming. Now admittedly those are normally pre-assembled and coloured. However as interest grows for Total War Warhammer heroes people want to buy them and place them alongside other gaming merchandise. This is mostly niche and a collector with $800 for a Marvel licenced sculpt will want to have their Karl Franz pro painted, so its a limited earner for GW, but its crucially a genre bending market, and a gateway for collectors if not tabletop gamers.
Changes unrelated to GW.
1. Kickstarter fever is opening up more and more people to miniatures gaming, most of those end up or return to GW at some point.
2. The market as a whole is maturing. Upcoming rivals have matured, but without taking over GW's share. Privateer Press for example iis now seen as another Games Workshop, complete with codex creep, overpricing and other bugbears. Other bigger names are disappearing or being drowned out amongst the sea of modrrately profitable also-ran gaming companies. All this means that GW stands out more and more as the industry leader.
3. Chinese outsourcing and resin product explosion. Many of the smaller games companies outsource all manufacturing to China, some make this work very well, PSc is a good example for this. Other fare less well, such as Catalyst, Mantic and Rackham (which died as a result). GW might be expensive, but if they say they will make a new game they will, it wont arrive two years late of not at all, and everyone knows that the manufacturing quality will not be under question - at least since they fixed Finecast.
Customers value quality control both in delivery and manufacturing and are asking questions they took foregranted a decade ago. This is giving GW a rep for reliability in the industry, they always had it (Failcast excepted) but before it was taken foregranted.
In a nutshell 40K is doing will and 8th is popular, most importantly customers are now confident that broken units and rules will get fixed rather than ignored, and ignored races will receive fair treatment post reboot.
Fantasy is now split between those happy with the relaxed and open ended nature of Ave of Sigmar, and those who were never content with WHFB to begin with but now ca play they armies they love in a fan fixed ruleset with the broken stupidity taken away. the death of End Times also frees up nostalgia players to play something other than 8th, those who like 6th, or older editions can relive their own nostalgia day and be happy. in a way Gw fantasy has never been more alive because the idiots ruining it are out of the picture, people gravitate to the ruleset they want and the lore is increasingly and continuously accessible in myriad online products.
Back 20 years also the legendary Mauleed wrote that "GW got rich the same way Forrest Gump got famous, through no fault of their own". GW management is finally getting smarter, but at the same time GW studio's absence is improving the product.
Orlanth... there was no last chance to buy in in this excercise. And it's a tad fallacious to say that 9th-age players only go to GW, so it's not THAT high a market. Other than that, pretty solid statement.
I think the "9th age" players are smaller in number than the WHFB customer base that wasn't buying enough to keep the game going. When a game dies, only a subset continues on using fan rules or keeps playing an old edition.
Lord Kragan wrote: Orlanth... there was no last chance to buy in in this exercise.
I disagree, and am right as I did exactly this. As have others in the 9th age community.
GW did not, and still does not offer warning though. You have to observe stock levels yourself.
An example for you. I m collecting Dark Elves,partly from ebay, partly from Triple Helix Wargames. I have seen Dreadspear boxes come and go with limited restock from GW available. Dark Riders have now completely dried up, they will soon officially be GW mail order only, and Black Guard have gone that way.
In 2016 I could buy the full Ogre Kingdom range including battalion boxsets, and they were being restocked in Waylands Forge and Element Games. I know this because I asked them at Salute that year. I also asked how long I had to buy, as I couldnt afford them all there and then, I was collecting up Warriors of Chaos at the time. Managers from those retailers warned me that lines disappeared from retock without warning. One day they could reorder boxset x, the next time they could not.
Over time I have watched lines disappear, sometime reappearing in AoS packaging, sometimes just disappearing.
I have not been panick buying, but over two years I have been both planning and rush buying as much as can be afforded and prioritising stock I think will disappear. It was just as well that I did, as many of the essentials are no longer available at a reasonable price. At the beginning of 2016 I had two full WHF armies and components for two more, now I have eight, six completed or near completed and two currently under the process, I left for last my Lizardmen as the AoS Seraphon army availability is strong and only have one or two items I need to mail order from GW at full retail price. Once the Lizardmen are done I will try to collect Dwarfs and Skaven, but I have mostly written off both as unlikely, and if I cant realistically cost them I will let them go. I have already written off collecting Beastmen now, and the door is thoroughly shut on my collecting a Tomb Kings army before I even had a chance to begin, and I was very lucky to complete my Bretonnians. I have yet to assemble let alone paint most of this stuff.
And it's a tad fallacious to say that 9th-age players only go to GW, so it's not THAT high a market. Other than that, pretty solid statement.
The 9th Age site actually gives manufacturer lists, and open sourcing is encouraged. However even in 1.3 and a supposed seperation there is no move to introduce new units not matched from old GW items, the one or two exceptions to this in fact hearken back to earlier GW models such as Bretonnian bolt throwers.
As a result completing a 9th Age army is normally done with Gw miniatures though not always.
An example for you. 9th Age will show a large number of wyvern models to use, but only Orc warlords get to ride wyverns, just as in WHFB. Chaos warlords get manticore and chaos dragons with two heads as options, but not wyverns. Now you can get a non GW wyvern for your orc, but GW has you covered and the basing size matches the GW model not the Mierce miniatures one et al.
There is no shoe in, but GW is athe availability default, except where it already wasn't under 8th. A good example here being Mantic zombies, which almost entirely replaced GW ones in all gaming outside GW even back whwn playing WHFB.
Lord Kragan wrote: Orlanth... there was no last chance to buy in in this exercise.
I disagree, and am right as I did exactly this. As have others in the 9th age community.
GW did not, and still does not offer warning though. You have to observe stock levels yourself.
An example for you. I m collecting Dark Elves,partly from ebay, partly from Triple Helix Wargames. I have seen Dreadspear boxes come and go with limited restock from GW available. Dark Riders have now completely dried up, they will soon officially be GW mail order only, and Black Guard have gone that way.
In 2016 I could buy the full Ogre Kingdom range including battalion boxsets, and they were being restocked in Waylands Forge and Element Games. I know this because I asked them at Salute that year. I also asked how long I had to buy, as I couldnt afford them all there and then, I was collecting up Warriors of Chaos at the time. Managers from those retailers warned me that lines disappeared from retock without warning. One day they could reorder boxset x, the next time they could not.
Over time I have watched lines disappear, sometime reappearing in AoS packaging, sometimes just disappearing.
I have not been panick buying, but over two years I have been both planning and rush buying as much as can be afforded and prioritising stock I think will disappear. It was just as well that I did, as many of the essentials are no longer available at a reasonable price. At the beginning of 2016 I had two full WHF armies and components for two more, now I have eight, six completed or near completed and two currently under the process, I left for last my Lizardmen as the AoS Seraphon army availability is strong and only have one or two items I need to mail order from GW at full retail price. Once the Lizardmen are done I will try to collect Dwarfs and Skaven, but I have mostly written off both as unlikely, and if I cant realistically cost them I will let them go. I have already written off collecting Beastmen now, and the door is thoroughly shut on my collecting a Tomb Kings army before I even had a chance to begin, and I was very lucky to complete my Bretonnians. I have yet to assemble let alone paint most of this stuff.
And it's a tad fallacious to say that 9th-age players only go to GW, so it's not THAT high a market. Other than that, pretty solid statement.
The 9th Age site actually gives manufacturer lists, and open sourcing is encouraged. However even in 1.3 and a supposed seperation there is no move to introduce new units not matched from old GW items, the one or two exceptions to this in fact hearken back to earlier GW models such as Bretonnian bolt throwers.
As a result completing a 9th Age army is normally done with Gw miniatures though not always.
An example for you. 9th Age will show a large number of wyvern models to use, but only Orc warlords get to ride wyverns, just as in WHFB. Chaos warlords get manticore and chaos dragons with two heads as options, but not wyverns. Now you can get a non GW wyvern for your orc, but GW has you covered and the basing size matches the GW model not the Mierce miniatures one et al.
There is no shoe in, but GW is athe availability default, except where it already wasn't under 8th. A good example here being Mantic zombies, which almost entirely replaced GW ones in all gaming outside GW even back whwn playing WHFB.
You're not really describing panic buying, but using your own anecdotal experience as a means of the entire sample. Those models ARE available, in the long term, so it doesn't really incite panic buying. Same goes for the 9th age, "third party" are becoming more abundant, as some in the forum noted.
moment...both sell hotel rooms, simple comparison, right? NOT...but apparently to no avail.
, until whatever they release fits my needs better but a long line of business decision made their product "not that interesting" for me. I paint so slow that I can wait it out and see what happens. Others (who like the aesthetics, paint armies and play more) have it harder to weight those arguments against each other (and they tend to buy in with much bigger piles of money than I would).
