Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That may be so, but it doesn't feel like it when they replace a £35 metal steam tank with a plastic steam tank that costs, wait...£35!

I'd feel a bit happier if they payed just a little more attention to some of the specialist games. (namely Inquisitor and BFG) reading back through some old White Dwarf mags I find the Battle Reports concerning these to be thoroughly enjoyable.

And maybe if they kept the codexes a bit more shipshape. Some are hardly seaworthy.

I'd settle for them manning up and dropping some specialist games if it meant that the ones they left had some time and effort put into them and came back to the shops.

Specialist - where good old games go to die...

@Calvin: Ahh, but the plastic Steam Tank can be built in an afternoon with no pinning or swearing.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Calvin: Ahh, but the plastic Steam Tank can be built in an afternoon with no pinning or swearing.

very true, i made 10€ a pop putting the ol metal ones together for people because of how akward they were. (did 4)

I am not really upset with GW and thier pricing. I regret the demise of quality Blood Bowl support, but that doesn't make my box set unusable.

Codex creep, spotty codex updating, bad editing and proofreading, and gross inconsistencies in the application of rules are what bugs me... and I'm just a new and very casual player. I can only imagine how irritated tournament players must get over it.

I mean, seriously? Debates on whether a mindless Autonomoton can (or even must) be your general? Is an item one-use (as is implied in fluff) or not (since it doesn't say so in the rules)? Seriously?

All it would take is a careful read-through and a thorough play-test. And given the stuff I've read in WD, they spend plenty of time playing; surely they can find the time to play-test in a systematic and organized manner.

I really don't like what they did to their bitz service. Sure, they've expanded again, but mostly just with marine parts, and it's still not a patch on what it used to be.

What really bugs me about it is, again, there was no need for it. There are several much smaller online stores now picking up the slack by offering bitz. If bitzbox can turn a profit from this service, so could GW if they'd just made some changes. But clearly they thought it wasn't worth the effort. It's sadly symptomatic of their general approach IMHO

I think GW is making excellent strides in recent years. The business seems to be making some good decisions and focusing on robust and balanced codexes/army books with an eye toward future releases such as Fantasy.

I’d say GW’s major issue is lack of a Marketing strategy. I WAS going to say that GW lacked a cohesive marketing strategy – but that would imply that GW had a strategy to begin with. I think a strong and active GW marketing department that expands the website into something more than an online store is the next REAL step for GW.

There is a plethora of customers out there with legitimate issues. A strong marketing message designed to address those issues is FAR better than just allowing those issues to fester and boil which results in customer frustration.

Samus666 wrote:I really don't like what they did to their bitz service. Sure, they've expanded again, but mostly just with marine parts, and it's still not a patch on what it used to be.

What really bugs me about it is, again, there was no need for it. There are several much smaller online stores now picking up the slack by offering bitz. If bitzbox can turn a profit from this service, so could GW if they'd just made some changes. But clearly they thought it wasn't worth the effort. It's sadly symptomatic of their general approach IMHO

There's a *big* difference between a site that gets the majority of its bitz from customers selling their unwanted bitz and maintaining a portion of a company exclusively to take apart products rather than selling them whole.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Calvin: Ahh, but the plastic Steam Tank can be built in an afternoon with no pinning or swearing.

You have to swear. It's in the name of the vehicle the Empire fething Steam Tank


/Old memes never die
//Even on utterly unrelated sites...

xraytango wrote:Way back in 92/93 when they started going plastic they released several sets, High Elves, Goblins, Beastmen, Chaos, as well as a 30 man Imperial Halberdier regiment to which the following statement was applied, "We look forward to releasing more sets in plastic as it is cheaper and we can pass the savings on to our customers." Nearly 20 years later they are now going to price the plastic as though it were metal? This is what has been reported and I for one will not stand for it.

Something that is often overlooked in the 'they said plastic would be cheaper' claims is that when they started producing those particular kits you mentioned, they were cheaper. They were also straight replacements for the metals: single-piece, basic rank-and-file models.

The prices on plastics started creeping when the complexity of the kits started increasing. There's a world of difference in cost of production between a single-piece model and a multi-piece model with a sprue full of extra gubbins.

I choose to complain about their shifting business model.

insaniak wrote:

xraytango wrote:Way back in 92/93 when they started going plastic they released several sets, High Elves, Goblins, Beastmen, Chaos, as well as a 30 man Imperial Halberdier regiment to which the following statement was applied, "We look forward to releasing more sets in plastic as it is cheaper and we can pass the savings on to our customers." Nearly 20 years later they are now going to price the plastic as though it were metal? This is what has been reported and I for one will not stand for it.

Something that is often overlooked in the 'they said plastic would be cheaper' claims is that when they started producing those particular kits you mentioned, they were cheaper. They were also straight replacements for the metals: single-piece, basic rank-and-file models.

The prices on plastics started creeping when the complexity of the kits started increasing. There's a world of difference in cost of production between a single-piece model and a multi-piece model with a sprue full of extra gubbins.

Really? Seems to me that liquified plastic under pressure will fill a properly plotted void whether or not it it has four chunky single elves on it or ten assault marine left arms holding a teddy bear. Building a properly plotted mold is alot easier now with computers, not like the old days.

I know what you are saying but I have worked in a molding facility as well, and the price rise is really not enough to justify the extent of what I like to call "the annual gouge."

New mold $5,000 (I'll even up this to $10,000 if that will make you feel better), artists/artisans hourly rate (the x factor here), and product (about $0.13 worth of plastic.)
Now of course you have shipping costs, but those are nominal when you ship as much as they do. If they sold a thousand kits at $10.00 ea. they have already made back their investment in materials. Argument ad nauseum, you know where I am going with this.

Bottom line is that there is absolutely no reason that they should run around trying to sell a plastic kit for the price of a metal one. They price things on the (surprise, surprise) role that it fills in your army.

Insaniak hit it on the head.

Those moulds cost in the neighborhood of 6-10,000US dollars each.

A one piece model can be made with a single mould. Depending on the size of the die maybe 8-12 men per die.

Multi-piece models will require multiple moulds for the same kit as the newer kits are a lot more detailed and so require more cuts and mould channels in the moulds to compensate for the extra angles and details and it's generally easier to have a mould dedicated to one shape than to try to cut multiple odd shapes on a single mould.

The SH terminators are a good example. Lots of detail for 3 piece models but due to how the moulds had to be engraved some detail is lost (the crux being a big example) because they are designed around the fact that the fewer parts you can fit on a single mould the harder it's going to be to engrave the image.

What Jervis said about 2/3 of their customers being craft hobbyists is very interesting and enlightening.

If 66% of GW's revenue comes from sales to people who don't actively play their games that changes several dynamics about which I have criticized GW for in the past.

1) The low quality of the rules matters less. If I were to take 40k or WFB seriously as games, I'm not using the product for it's intended use. The failures of 40k and WFB when it comes to rules design is natural because they're not supposed to be a well thought out robust set of rules. They're supposed to be an enjoyable past time that provides a framework for a larger hobby in order to sell miniatures. I don't think designing the best games has even been an overall company goal. The overall company goal is to sell miniatures.

2) Miniatures can be freed from the tyranny of being given value by their rules. My biggest problem with GW's rules are that they devalue their own miniatures. A Dark Elf corsair is a cool miniature. A box of Dark Elf Corsairs are equally cool. Now put them in a 2000 point fantasy game and they're just sort of there. They cease to really matter except as a relatively insignificant part of a larger (w)hole. And the individual Corsair miniature becomes almost totally irrelevant.

So why does the fact that two thirds of GW customers stay at home and work on their models free the models from being devalued by the game rules? It does so because it points to the fact that there's a larger process and hobby going on. That the overall experience that GW sells is supposed to be gratifying in more than just game play.

All of this is of no consolation for anyone who's hobby is the game first and foremost. They spend a lot of money and don't get a satisfying experience with those models. With every new release, the number of models needed goes up. The rules devalue the miniatures GW sells to create a need for more.

Despite my post dire predictions, GW is currently profitable. They've given up a bit of market share and close a fair number of stores. They've increased their revenue through video game licensing. Things are looking pretty good for them going forward. I was wrong in my predictions before, so mayble I'll be wrong about my predictions of their future and GW will tank. You never know.

An example of a set of rules that intentionally gives models value rather than take them away is Warmachine. The entire scope of the game is smaller so each individual on the battlefield matters more. Anything that is a big warmachine or beast is a lot more survivable. Individual models and units do more to contribute to the success or failure in a given game.

I don't like Privateer Press' Everblight Cavalry. So I bought some Warhammer Wood Elf Glade Riders. In Warhammer they're relatively cheap points wise and are a core choice. A box set doesn't even come with the 10 you need to get the first rank bonus. Your purchase can't contribute that much to your overall army. But in Warmachine, those cavalry will more than make up a full unit. And it's a big part of my army (10 points out of the standard 35 or 50). And they're highly contributory to my success or failure in a given game. The miniatures now feel a whole lot more valuable to me. And I feel I got a great deal. 8 Cavalry for $42 in local currency? Wow that sure beats the $100 I'd pay for 5 metal cavalry from Privateer Press (not that 5 metal GW cav would be much cheaper in local funds). And of course, I didn't pay $42. I took advantage of global shipping and ordered them from a retailer in a country with a better price after the exchange rate.

But didn't I spend the first half of this email talking about why this matters less? Yep. To those 2/3rds of GW's customers that don't actively particpate in their games. And to me, because I find more value in their products when I separate them from their rules and attach them to another set of rules. I'm making the same smart move as the craft hobbyists that are ignoring WFB's and 40k's rules.

I found Jarvis' quote to be rather inductive, really. If you take a model home and paint it then you are a craft hobbyist. I usually paint my models at home, play at home, and sometimes I will drive over an hour to go play in a shop somewhere. So what does that make me?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:Insaniak hit it on the head.



Multi-piece models will require multiple moulds for the same kit as the newer kits are a lot more detailed and so require more cuts and mould channels in the moulds to compensate for the extra angles and details and it's generally easier to have a mould dedicated to one shape than to try to cut multiple odd shapes on a single mould.

Yes, I get that, but you make it sound like they take the sprue out and have a different mold for each section. Once the mold is done it's done. So you have some extra ports and vents to deliver the product to the void, big deal, not that difficult.

Multi-piece models will require more sprues, not multiple molds. A large enough mold can be made to accomodate two or three spures at at time. Look at the next new frame you pull out and see if it doesn't look as though it was joined to another one in the overall kit. You may even see where it was cut from its neighbor.

IMHO

Their primary problem, at least from what I can tell from commentaries on this and other forums, is PR. I think the combination of the business model shift, the severe dumbing down and lack of fluff in regular publication, and too many armies with too little support all results in an underlying resentment from many in the community.

I think the irony of the whoe thing is, that none of these problems individually is particularly severe. However, it's small problems that people perceive as easily corrected that in fact cause the biggest ill opinion! It is because most of us still have faith that the company has everything it needs to put out great material with great creativity that we are so hard on them.

This would be the analogy, if you have a ferrari with a little dent in it, it will drive you insane... if you have a 1996 for fiesta with duct tape holding the bumper on, chances are you probably don't give that much of a sh*t... after all... it's just a fiesta.

Yes all the little problems add up. One termite cannot eat a house. One thousand termites will have you living in a tent.

IMHO marketing is their biggest problem. No new blood means higher prices to offset lower sales. They are not getting enough new people interested in the "hobby".

So let me get this straight.
66.6% of all sales are from craft hobbyists.
But GW prices units according to their role in the game.

There's a huge disconnect here.

Doube post?

Jervis probably ate some funny mushrooms from the goblin box.
If that ratio were true GW would be selling blisters rather than troop boxes as the average craft hobbyist is not interested in having 3 Valks or 3 Defilers but there is always one spot for the next cool character on their table.

M.

PS: My beef with GW is that they should keep a paradigm within game editions and keep with it, that way we can avoid most trouble with unbalanced lists just because the first two armies were designed with the more only UR and Troop slots paradigm and then the third was made with the Elite at 50% discount and special army rules galore.

Miguelsan wrote:Jervis probably ate some funny mushrooms from the goblin box.
If that ratio were true GW would be selling blisters rather than troop boxes as the average craft hobbyist is not interested in having 3 Valks or 3 Defilers but there is always one spot for the next cool character on their table.

Craft hobbyist doesn't necessarily mean display painter. I know a few people who buy GW stuff just to assemble and paint and they love getting a box of 10-20 guys so that they can make them all different and stuff.

Yes, the 3 valks or 3 defilers are likely not for someone who doesn't actively play the game, but I'd say that box sets like that represent far, far less than a third of their products.

You have a point there if in craft hobbyist you include people like me that collect an army to play but due to some reason or other are unable to.

M.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:That may be so, but it doesn't feel like it when they replace a £35 metal steam tank with a plastic steam tank that costs, wait...£35!

Metal Stank was £50 when I got one (year of release)....

Vladsimpaler wrote:So let me get this straight.
66.6% of all sales are from craft hobbyists.
But GW prices units according to their role in the game.

There's a huge disconnect here.

It is clear enough that GW is not marketing in this grossly primitive way. Although... most good advertising is pretty primitive.

GW sells plastic miniatures, that are linked to a game, and can be manipulated through that game. The fact that GW takes such strict advantage of this, and manipulates the product/ gaming experience so much, that one can only draw the conclusion that Vladsimpaler has.

I would be interested in hearing some number about GW's modeling lines though. I know their paints are pretty popular, and dominant in the overall market, but what about all their assorted knick-knacks? Does anything besides their tiny drills, actually pull any weight in the grand scheme?

GW markets itself to generic gamers, albeit ones interested in Fantasy specifically. A video game (which has done decently, and I think is pretty awesome), an upcoming movie if I am not mistaken... SM snuggie mayhaps?

If 66.6% of GW customers are hobbyists rather than gamers, the first question that springs to my mind is 'why?' Was this always the case, or has the ratio shifted since GW started neglecting rules support? Could be this is because people who buy minis to play the game are being driven away. Chicken and egg question, I know.

Edited for clarity

If 2/3 are hobbyists, and tournament players are a minority of gamers, it's pretty obvious why GW has shifted away from a level of rules support that only matters to the tiniest minority of their customer base.

In all fairness, this is completely analogous to pretty much everything else. Think about car - how many cars are sold (a: 10-14M per year) vs how many see even a *single* track day each year.

No consider how many copies of Monopoly / Scrabble that are played competitively, vs games played for fun at home. Does Parker Brothers spend any effort on the tournament rules for their board games? Is it hypocritical for them to donate some extras to the various board game tournaments as prizes?

JohnHwangDD wrote:If 2/3 are hobbyists, and tournament players are a minority of gamers, it's pretty obvious why GW has shifted away from a level of rules support that only matters to the tiniest minority of their customer base.

In all fairness, this is completely analogous to pretty much everything else. Think about car - how many cars are sold (a: 10-14M per year) vs how many see even a *single* track day each year.

No consider how many copies of Monopoly / Scrabble that are played competitively, vs games played for fun at home. Does Parker Brothers spend any effort on the tournament rules for their board games? Is it hypocritical for them to donate some extras to the various board game tournaments as prizes?

Your example doesn't hold together (and this from a nontourney player):
1. 1/3 of GW gamers ARE tournament players by your above definition. Thats a massive percentage of their client base. Put it another way, there are more tournament players as a % using the above, than sales of LOTR and likely 40K marine items. think about that.

2. Monopoly has no need for special tourney rules as well, they rules set is substantially tighter. GW's isn't.

@Fraz:

I guess I was unclear. I meant that gamers were 1/3, and tournament gamers were a tiny sliver of that (even by Dakka's tournament-friendly numbers. Try this set of numbers to illustrate what I meant:
. 67% non-gaming hobbyist
. 33% *casual* gaming
. <1% tournament gaming


On the Monopoly front, I do a bit of digging...

http://www.hasbro.com/monopoly/en_US/discover/tournaments/tournament-kit.cfm

Turns out Hasbro sponsors an official Monopoly Grand Tournament every year. They have a 16-page 2.3 MB PDF. That seems like a pretty big file for a game that hasn't had a substantial rules or version change in several decades. And the PDF as a full-page FAQ, along with a full copy of the "long" rules.

I guess if GW stripped 40k down to Monopoly level of detail, never released another version of any Rulebook or Codex, and only did tiny little tweaks every year, GW could get us to that same state of Nirvana...

xraytango wrote:Yes, I get that, but you make it sound like they take the sprue out and have a different mold for each section. Once the mold is done it's done. So you have some extra ports and vents to deliver the product to the void, big deal, not that difficult.

Multi-piece models will require more sprues, not multiple molds. A large enough mold can be made to accomodate two or three spures at at time. Look at the next new frame you pull out and see if it doesn't look as though it was joined to another one in the overall kit. You may even see where it was cut from its neighbor.

Multi-piece models also probably require a bit more sculpting, arranging, and general overall work to to make the mold than single-piece models do.

Besides, the sculpt quality of the recent plastic kits has come up a lot since the first plastic minis were released. That extra level of detail doesn't come free.