Switch Theme:

GW employee bonus  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Ian Sturrock wrote:
For me the issue is that by pretty much any metric, GW *is* worse on this matter than comparable companies. Even allowing for capitalism being a bit crap generally.

It is hard to figure out which companies to compare them to, admittedly.

Still. My experience of the tabletop games industry is that the big-ish names in any field (RPGs, boardgames, and wargames) all pay a bit better than GW does, for game design. These days I also teach computer games design and have a bit of a sense of what designers, games writers, etc. are paid in that field, thanks to talking to alumni, and... GW still falls significantly short.


Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.



   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

MaxT wrote:
stratigo wrote:
Look up what is considered poverty in 2014. 20k is close to it.


OK.

The threshold for being at risk of poverty in 2014 was a disposable income of £9,956 for a single-person household without children


https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/articles/persistentpovertyintheukandeu/2014

The ONS is regarded as an excellent source of statistical data in the uk.


After tax, £20k becomes £17,264.

Okay, so we have to end up with more than £9,956 a year to not be classed as being at risk of poverty. What is the average rent in Nottingham for a one bedroom flat? ~£700pcm so that is ~£8400 per year.

So after rent we are left with £8864. Oh dear. We haven't factored in water, electricity, gas, travel costs for getting to work or food yet and we are already under the disposable income bracket which characterises us as being at risk of poverty.

Also, having read through that, they are using a very strange definition of "disposable income". They say that disposable income is what is left after Income Tax, National Insurance and Council Tax are subtracted. So before factoring in any living costs, such as rent or mortgage payments. That seems a very strange definition seeing as council tax is determined by the value of the property you live in, which will also determine your monthly rent or mortgage payments.

This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2021/07/31 21:57:25


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 A Town Called Malus wrote:
MaxT wrote:
stratigo wrote:
Look up what is considered poverty in 2014. 20k is close to it.


OK.

The threshold for being at risk of poverty in 2014 was a disposable income of £9,956 for a single-person household without children


https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/articles/persistentpovertyintheukandeu/2014

The ONS is regarded as an excellent source of statistical data in the uk.


After tax, £20k becomes £17,264.

Okay, so lets round up to £10k disposable income for ease of maths. What is the average rent in Nottingham for a one bedroom flat? ~£700pcm so that is ~£8400 per year.

So after rent we are left with £8864. Oh dear. We haven't factored in water, electricity, gas or food yet and we are already under the disposable income bracket which characterises us as being at risk of poverty.


That's still worlds better than a minimum wage worker in the US.

Imagine a worker in Oklahoma City. Minimum comes to $15,080 annually. Average rent is $845 leaving under $5,000 for everything else.

No vacation.
No health insurance.
No pension / retirement.
No paternity leave.
No sick days.
Little public transport.

It makes me less concerned for Hewitt's position when he can still take time off, has no medical cost concerns, and lives in a country that recognizes the value of public transit.

Which isn't to say that I don't believe in a rising tide lifting all boats regardless.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/31 21:54:42


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




"He was better off than a minimum wage worker in a country and state famous for its lack of worker rights and protections."

LOL. Talk about damning with faint praise.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 A Town Called Malus wrote:
MaxT wrote:
stratigo wrote:
Look up what is considered poverty in 2014. 20k is close to it.


OK.

The threshold for being at risk of poverty in 2014 was a disposable income of £9,956 for a single-person household without children


https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/articles/persistentpovertyintheukandeu/2014

The ONS is regarded as an excellent source of statistical data in the uk.


After tax, £20k becomes £17,264.

Okay, so we have to end up with more than £9,956 a year to not be classed as being at risk of poverty. What is the average rent in Nottingham for a one bedroom flat? ~£700pcm so that is ~£8400 per year.

So after rent we are left with £8864. Oh dear. We haven't factored in water, electricity, gas, travel costs for getting to work or food yet and we are already under the disposable income bracket which characterises us as being at risk of poverty.

Also, having read through that, they are using a very strange definition of "disposable income". They say that disposable income is what is left after Income Tax, National Insurance and Council Tax are subtracted. So before factoring in any living costs, such as rent or mortgage payments. That seems a very strange definition seeing as council tax is determined by the value of the property you live in, which will also determine your monthly rent or mortgage payments.


So as per the ONS definition, a salary of £20k =£17,264 after income tax+NI = ~£16k after council tax (approx band C + single person discount). Pretty sure £16k is well above £9,956.

GW pay gak, deffo. But let’s not pretend it’s poverty.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




United Kingdom

Also, having read through that, they are using a very strange definition of "disposable income". They say that disposable income is what is left after Income Tax, National Insurance and Council Tax are subtracted. So before factoring in any living costs, such as rent or mortgage payments. That seems a very strange definition seeing as council tax is determined by the value of the property you live in, which will also determine your monthly rent or mortgage payments.


It's no stranger than any other term which has a technical meaning. For income and poverty calculations it is a fairly well understood term (but often calculated slightly different in various regions of the world to represent differences in economies or social norms etc).

It includes pretty much all income coming into the household (including benefits and tax credits) minus the major taxes/contributions. That last bit of course varies by country, as countries have different taxes. The UK includes council tax, as it is a major tax on a household and is fixed by the rateable value of the house and, contrary to your view, often has little relation to rent/mortgage. E.g. I pay the same council tax as most people down my street, as most houses on it probably fall in the same band, but I very probably pay a very different mortgage/rent on it given I've been here over 20 years and almost paid the mortgage off. someone renting a house like mine would pay a lot more, someone who just bought it this year on a 95% mortgage would be paying more. Most pensioners who own a place probably have no rent/mortgage at that point in their lives, but will still have council tax which relative to their pension could be significant (but likely offset by a rebate, which will count as income).

It is also looking at the household as much as the individual income. The income used is also 'equivalised' by house hold size, again following well recognised concepts, The euro version maths is different to the OECD one, but it is in essence doing the same thing. Therefore, any figure that would be given for an individual does not of necessity represent their actual income.

For example (and I may be overly simplifying here) if 2 people live together with no one else and they both earn 17k (after taxes and benefits etc) they will be considered to have an income for purposes of poverty discussion, I believe, of 22.6K. This represent that 2 earners in the same household are usually far better off than a lone person as they are sharing a lot of the household costs. On the other hand if only 1 of them works then that 17k is equivalised to only 11.3K representing that a single earner supporting an additional adult is in a worse position as someone on their own.

which goes back to what I said in an earlier post. You cannot simply look at what pay you were offered and say that is poverty level; as poverty is household based and not simply 1 persons salary.

The point here is to get to some notion of 'disposable' income that you then have available to spend on things like rent/mortgage/food etc after accounting for size of household.

However, note there are many ways of measuring poverty and there are versions based on post housing costs (usually just rent/mortgage, not usually energy, food, water etc), but they are, to best of my understanding or at least based on when I see them used, more commonly used when trying to measure relative poverty rather than absolute poverty.

If we take the above 9.9K as true (I didn't go and check) then I would assume it could represent something along the following lines (just very finger in the air to give a feel, and subject to late night maths failure).

1 person on their own on whose income is probably about ~10.5K.
1 person with a partner who does not work, earning about 18K. way above 9.9K but paying Income tax/NI and supporting the other person.
1 person living with someone else earning the same as them, 8K. they are each lower than the 9.9K, but sharing household costs mitigates.
The above person but with 2 children, they each earn 10k. The children alter the household factor against them, but offset by child benefit income.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/08/01 01:30:38


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




You couldn't afford to have your own 1-bedroom place in Nottingham on that salary; more than half your post-tax income would go to rent, which is nearly double what the common definition of affordability is.

"We don't pay our game designers enough to rent a place on their own, but it's not technically a poverty wage!" isn't a great tagline for GW to have to roll out.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




United Kingdom

They don't use that tag line though do they!

Trying to argue a salary is poverty level, when it isn't is just ranting for the sake of it. Yet people are saying just that.

GW pay a low wage compared to the average certainly. It is, however, at or above the minimum set by the successive governments of both left and right wing, and that is for the most part going to keep most people out of what would normally be accepted as poverty. It is, indeed, sort of the whole point of the minimum wage.

The median rent in Nottingham for a 1 bed place is 8,400 per year, but note that is median not the minimum you have to pay. There are places for 6000 or less per year in the area. If it is a young person in particular it is not uncommon to share a larger place to reduce the rent and council tax burden (My own child is currently looking to share with a couple of friends and looking at quite nice places that will be cheaper than a 1 person flat between 3 of them).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/01 00:40:33


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
"He was better off than a minimum wage worker in a country and state famous for its lack of worker rights and protections."

LOL. Talk about damning with faint praise.


I know, I know.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




puree wrote:
They don't use that tag line though do they!

Trying to argue a salary is poverty level, when it isn't is just ranting for the sake of it. Yet people are saying just that.

GW pay a low wage compared to the average certainly. It is, however, at or above the minimum set by the successive governments of both left and right wing, and that is for the most part going to keep most people out of what would normally be accepted as poverty. It is, indeed, sort of the whole point of the minimum wage.

The median rent in Nottingham for a 1 bed place is 8,400 per year, but note that is median not the minimum you have to pay. There are places for 6000 or less per year in the area. If it is a young person in particular it is not uncommon to share a larger place to reduce the rent and council tax burden (My own child is currently looking to share with a couple of friends and looking at quite nice places that will be cheaper than a 1 person flat between 3 of them).


This wasn't a young, inexperienced person. He was the lead designer on a number of specialist games. And they were paying him a wage so low that he wouldn't have been able to afford a 1 bedroom place of his own in the city he had to work in - even at 6000 a year, which would get you a real dump of a place, that's still comfortably above the normal criteria for rent affordability. Arguing that well actshually that isn't a poverty wage, it's technically slightly above a poverty wage is missing the point. The point is that they were paying a guy they were giving responsibility as a lead designer too little to afford his own 1 bedroom apartment. If that isn't a poverty wage, it's a distinction without a difference.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




United Kingdom

The lead designer you talk about wasn't a single person from what I understood, he was in a family of 3 and we don't know the rest of the details.

I noted the 1 person rent because that is what you referred to in a generic sense.

Where did he say he couldn't afford a place at 6000 a year?

Or am I confused between two people who were offered jobs.

To also note, if I followed correct, that was 20k in 2014 so comparing to todays rent is not really correct. Not sure what the salary today would be, but inflation generally would equate it to ~23k, or about 18k after income tax, NI and council tax.

If that isn't a poverty wage, it's a distinction without a difference.


I'd argue it a very important distinction, indeed one the person I thought you were talking about called out himself. The salary was low, but not poverty.

It matters because there are people who live in genuine poverty, not the sort of low wage you want to call poverty, and when you start to refer to any wage you don't like as poverty you distract from and devalue work being to done to help those who are a damn site worse off.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/08/01 01:09:27


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
This wasn't a young, inexperienced person. He was the lead designer on a number of specialist games. And they were paying him a wage so low that he wouldn't have been able to afford a 1 bedroom place of his own in the city he had to work in - even at 6000 a year, which would get you a real dump of a place, that's still comfortably above the normal criteria for rent affordability. Arguing that well actshually that isn't a poverty wage, it's technically slightly above a poverty wage is missing the point. The point is that they were paying a guy they were giving responsibility as a lead designer too little to afford his own 1 bedroom apartment. If that isn't a poverty wage, it's a distinction without a difference.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the twitter post made it sound like he was in publishing at 19K and then moved to the designer role. Did he ever get credited as the designer? I forget which games he mentioned.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




IIRC he was the lead designer on Silver Tower and Blood Bowl, and had a host of credits for other stuff too, including a couple AOS and 40k codexes. Somebody posted the full list here, can't remember if it was in this thread or a different one. He wasn't one of the biggest movers and shakers like Jarvis or Thorpe, but he was a major designer for them. Which is why him being paid barely enough to live on is so shocking. He wasn't the coffee guy - paying that guy that much would frankly be bad enough - he was a major player on their design team.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/01 02:54:13


 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Low pay for game designers isn't a GW problem BTW, it's an INDUSTRY problem. most gaming companies have few actual employees, using instead freelancers who write stuff in the evening as, essentially a paid hobby. GW may well be paying the industry standard here. not saying this doesn't mean GW is innocent here (there's one of the few companies with a profit margin to the degree that they CAN pay their people better) but we should DEF be aware how wide this issue is.

I've had a few folks who work for other companies tell me "you don't do this for the money, you do it because you love the game" which as was noted, is basicly what GW tells their people

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/01 03:13:55


Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




There is a guy in another thread on this topic on these very forums who actually works in the game industry who explains that GW pays worse than the competition, despite being more profitable. The industry as a whole isn't known for high pay, but GW is especially well known for underpaying its employees, even by the general standards of the indsutry.

So no, it actually *is* to a large extent a GW problem.

   
Made in gb
Fanatic with Madcap Mushrooms







BrianDavion wrote:
Low pay for game designers isn't a GW problem BTW, it's an INDUSTRY problem. most gaming companies have few actual employees, using instead freelancers who write stuff in the evening as, essentially a paid hobby. GW may well be paying the industry standard here. not saying this doesn't mean GW is innocent here (there's one of the few companies with a profit margin to the degree that they CAN pay their people better) but we should DEF be aware how wide this issue is.

I've had a few folks who work for other companies tell me "you don't do this for the money, you do it because you love the game" which as was noted, is basicly what GW tells their people


Sorry but you cannot really compare apples and oranges like that and say they are all the same.

GW is multimillion dollar profit company and the job was an onsite 9 to 5.
The majority of the other companies will probably not turn half a million ( many dont have any relevant profits) and give you sometimes some freelance work... I can assure you that many rely on people good will to cruise these difficult times...

Is not that GW can pay people better... The onsite people are stuck in the studio, need to commute ( very expensive) and probably have on their contracts that they cannot do work outside the company work etc etc... So its more they need to pay accordingly...
Did not the designer in question took a pay cut from store manager to studio designer? Its crazy.

Yes many of the freelancers just do it for the kicks and yeah GW clearly looks at the non existent competitors and pays as low as they possibly can apparently.

BTW its not poverty guys you know its a privilege to work for GW, specially with bonuses.
A family can sure live of that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/01 10:33:29


   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





 NAVARRO wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Low pay for game designers isn't a GW problem BTW, it's an INDUSTRY problem. most gaming companies have few actual employees, using instead freelancers who write stuff in the evening as, essentially a paid hobby. GW may well be paying the industry standard here. not saying this doesn't mean GW is innocent here (there's one of the few companies with a profit margin to the degree that they CAN pay their people better) but we should DEF be aware how wide this issue is.

I've had a few folks who work for other companies tell me "you don't do this for the money, you do it because you love the game" which as was noted, is basicly what GW tells their people


Sorry but you cannot really compare apples and oranges like that and say they are all the same.

GW is multimillion dollar profit company and the job was an onsite 9 to 5.
The majority of the other companies will probably not turn half a million ( many dont have any relevant profits) and give you sometimes some freelance work... I can assure you that many rely on people good will to cruise these difficult times...

Is not that GW can pay people better... The onsite people are stuck in the studio, need to commute ( very expensive) and probably have on their contracts that they cannot do work outside the company work etc etc... So its more they need to pay accordingly...
Did not the designer in question took a pay cut from store manager to studio designer? Its crazy.

Yes many of the freelancers just do it for the kicks and yeah GW clearly looks at the non existent competitors and pays as low as they possibly can apparently.

BTW its not poverty guys you know its a privilege to work for GW, specially with bonuses.
A family can sure live of that.


apparently what I was trying to say got lost so lemme expand.


my point is that this is a problem in the entire industry and that a company like GW should be paying better and trying to create a higher standard. which yeah, they're not.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




puree wrote:

The median rent in Nottingham for a 1 bed place is 8,400 per year, but note that is median not the minimum you have to pay. There are places for 6000 or less per year in the area. If it is a young person in particular it is not uncommon to share a larger place to reduce the rent and council tax burden (My own child is currently looking to share with a couple of friends and looking at quite nice places that will be cheaper than a 1 person flat between 3 of them).

It's not poverty salary cause you can have roommates is a hot take, ngl.
   
Made in nz
Road-Raging Blood Angel Biker



New Zealand

Needing multiple incomes to afford rent/mortgage is common in my part of the world, whether as a couple or with flatmates.

£6000 a year in rent? I wish my rent was that low. My rent is more than double that and at the low end. And £20,000 is almost double my income. Yes I am one of the working poor.

I guess its all a matter of perspective.
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block





Tygre wrote:
Needing multiple incomes to afford rent/mortgage is common in my part of the world, whether as a couple or with flatmates.


Needing multiple incomes to afford a mortgage is pretty standard in the UK, aside from the very cheapest parts of the North.

Paying £20k p/a for a highly creative job on the other hand is not. You can rock up to a basic civil service admin job and earn more than that and get a defined benefit pension as well.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 NinthMusketeer wrote:
What are other companies paying their rules writers? What are other rules writers at GW paid?


This was my immediate thought when I saw the comment of if they paid more they’d get more experienced rules writers, maybe some of the others do.

Not that it makes a difference, but a lot of people earn less than £20k and manage all their payments fine etc, because of the area they live in. Nottingham is getting closer to London in cost of living etc so it’s hard to compare to like somewhere in Yorkshire or something, where the same job as a manager etc is getting that too..

But, I would have thought once you get to head office/main team roles like this, it would have been higher..
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




I guess part of the question is how it compares to the rest of the business. For someone in a similar role - in charge of a whole line - what are they getting paid.

Store managers I'm sure are not paid well, nor are the Community team from what we've heard previously.

Black Library authors are mostly freelance but would certainly be earning more than 20k for a years' work.

But I'd bet anything that the sculptors at a similar level are getting paid a lot more than 20K. And ignoring any notion of what's fair or whether GW are evil or not, that's telling in terms of what parts of their "hobby" GW value against the other parts.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




United Kingdom

Nottingham is getting closer to London in cost of living etc so it’s hard to compare to like somewhere in Yorkshire or something, where the same job as a manager etc is getting that too..


Nottingham is no where near London in cost of living. Like not even close. London is somewhere between 55% and 66% more expensive than Nottingham depending on what stats you look at. It may be getting 'closer' over time but that doesn't say much.

Nottingham costs roughly the same to live in as Leeds (West Yorkshire) and York (north Yorkshire), although some stats make York somewhat maybe more expensive. Sheffield (South York's) or Hull (East York's) are cheapish places compared to Nottingham.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/02 11:41:17


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Tyel wrote:

Realistically though, this is just employee-manager relations the world over. His manager clearly didn't think he was worth going into bat for. That might be a personality clash, it might be some antipathy, it might be you can have £X for your team over all, so if they'd paid him more they'd have needed to get rid of someone else. Odds are we'll never find out - but it happens all over the world. The only solution is to look around - and if you can find a better paying job, take it.
Or it could have been the quality of the work. Silver Tower, which he "poured his heart and soul into" isn't a well-written ruleset.


Since they have hired him back at least twice as a freelancer to do games design, I am guessing they were happy with his work?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Audustum wrote:


All a 'living wage' does is increase inflation and ultimately make itself pointless.

If the economy has 100 widgets and 100 people willing to pay $1 for 1 widget, you have price equilibrium.

If the economy has 100 widgets and 100 people willing to pay $5 for 2 widgets, you don't have price equilibrium. There's too many people who want widgets and not enough widgets. So the widget supplier is going to raise the price above $5 and see if it still clears out of widgets. If it does, it'll raise the price again and see if it clears out again and so on and on until it reaches a new equilibrium point (i.e. where it can clear 100 widgets at the highest price). If $10/widget sells 90 widgets but $9/widget sells 100 widgets, they'll do $9 so they don't have excess widget inventory.

When you pay a 'living wage' all you're doing is increasing the amount of people who have $9 to buy a widget. So the widget supplier will raise prices in response and, ta-da, you'll end up back where the same 20 people are buying widgets as before you made a 'living wage'. All the wage increase did was increase the price of widgets (i.e. inflation). This is why you can't just flood more money to people: giving people more cash doesn't increase industrial capacity. If you want more people to get widgets, the way is actually to find a method of producing more widgets not giving more cash for people to bid up the price of widgets currently out there. That takes R&D, discovery of new natural resources and/or capital investment to build new facilities.

Anyway, good on GW for the bonus. I hope it gives some extra cheer to its employees.


Its a lovely series of theories you put out, yet it does run into problems where you have the counter examples of countries that have large middle classes. The above is tied very much to a system that is systematically reducing the size of the middle class (read say the US or UK) - and yes the middle class is relative to the rest of the economy. There is an awful lot more than just pure economic man theory that goes into what the actual income distribution in a country is.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/03 14:52:55


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




I meaan no wonder the quality of GW rules is so low... you get what you pay for.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Hecaton wrote:
I meaan no wonder the quality of GW rules is so low... you get what you pay for.


But also the difference in sales for a game with good rules compared to one with a bunch of models people want seems to be negative. Fundamentally i don't think we buy GW stuff for the quality of game.
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

there was a reason why 40k sales skyrocket with 8th Edition compared to end of 7th

because the announced "this time we try" and sales increased

and you buy much less stuff from GW because you like them, than if "need" them for the game

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





 kodos wrote:
there was a reason why 40k sales skyrocket with 8th Edition compared to end of 7th

because the announced "this time we try" and sales increased

and you buy much less stuff from GW because you like them, than if "need" them for the game


didn't Warmachine/Hoards also make a few bad moves right around the time 8th edition came out?

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Myrtle Creek, OR

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
I meaan no wonder the quality of GW rules is so low... you get what you pay for.


But also the difference in sales for a game with good rules compared to one with a bunch of models people want seems to be negative. Fundamentally i don't think we buy GW stuff for the quality of game.


Many buy GW not for the quality of the game but for the improved chances of finding others to play. It’s great for everyone who has an established pool of gamers who might play your off brand stuff. But if you want a larger group of players or even players at all, GW and 40k specifically are still the best bet.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I came in to see how the black knights would spin this as a bad thing, not disappointed!

Good on GW for paying it back.


You either die a white knight, or live long enough to see yourself become the black knight.
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: