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.

damage is well done wherei I live. They need a miricle to revive from this point.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
More is not necessarily best. Though if it is for you, good on you.

Nailed it. Although it suits GW just fine to push the big kits and in turn the scale of the game, it doesn't help us, the people that can't invest more than 4 hours to playing a game. I can see a lot of people leaving 40k simply because everyone they ask for a game wants to play 3000pts.

This is my problem with the war gaming hobby that has resulted in me being a painter/collector. Between my wife and constantly ringing work phone I'm lucky if I get an hour of peace and quiet, much less the several hours required for a proper game. I need bite sized pieces.

I don't think you're alone in that, and to an extent it's a symptom of the modern age. Probably why we have seen an explosion in popularity of skirmish war games, and pick up and play boardgames.

The all-day recreation of Omaha beach that my club put on years ago was wonderful to behold, but it took so much work to set up and these days people don't seem to have (or want to make perhaps) the time.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Right track. It seems that GW focusses at supplementary or expansion rules atm.
This seems to be a different track.
The same holds for AoS where we see books with warscrolls and formations in there.

This would not be a bad thing if the core rules/armies were all updated and balanced. Then they could focus on campaigns (or AoS equivalent) with additional formations/supplemental things. Instead, it seems like they are ignoring updating some things to push out these supplements, and follow the same tired approach (e.g. Marines/Not-Marines get more than everyone else because they are more popular, because they get more than everyone else because they are more popular repeat ad infinitum).

I could spend pages commenting on The Good, The Bad and The Fugly of GW and it's policies, past and present. But to wit, and to the point...yes, they're tacking back nicely. Shame they had to go so off track and do so much damage before doing so, though.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
I could spend pages commenting on The Good, The Bad and The Fugly of GW and it's policies, past and present. But to wit, and to the point...yes, they're tacking back nicely. Shame they had to go so off track and do so much damage before doing so, though.

That's what happens when you have a greedy moron running things. Rountree is trying to fix that.

Trying to pin all the blame on Kirby alone is delusional to say the least.

GW's biggest issues are stupidly overpriced models and garbage rules, so far Rountree has done very little to fix either. The discounted boxes are a step in the right direction, but still far from fixing the issue as a whole (hello Wulfen and new AoS kits) and probably more a strategy to clean warehouse space. They also appeared all of a sudden at past Christmas, barely weeks before we learnt from Rountree himself that December had been quite disappointing in terms of sales (so a panic button smashing move too).

How is it delusional? If he (Kirby)was CEO and the company performs poorly under his reign, then it's absolutely his fault. A lot of the new stuff, has spent several years in the pipeline.

 Korinov wrote:
Trying to pin all the blame on Kirby alone is delusional to say the least.

GW's biggest issues are stupidly overpriced models and garbage rules, so far Rountree has done very little to fix either. The discounted boxes are a step in the right direction, but still far from fixing the issue as a whole (hello Wulfen and new AoS kits) and probably more a strategy to clean warehouse space. They also appeared all of a sudden at past Christmas, barely weeks before we learnt from Rountree himself that December had been quite disappointing in terms of sales (so a panic button smashing move too).

Thing is.. the "stupidly overpriced models" are largely part of the "push bigger and bigger games" mindset. On their own, they aren't THAT terrible. The problem is when you A) Need multiple $50 boxes for a normal army, and B) Often need to buy "supplemental" boxes to get the option you want because GW won't give all available options in a single box (presumably to encourage this kind of supplemental purchase).

$50 for a tactical squad (I think it's $40 but whatever let's pretend) in and of itself isn't bad. It's when you need to add a Rhino (another $40?) and a Devasatator kit (because you want a heavy weapon that's not a missile launcher) that it gets stupid for a single unit (although you get bits left over at least from the Dev kit), because you need to repeat most of that 3 times, maybe 4 times or more. Or nonsense like Assault Marines being $41 for a half-size unit, so you need to pay $82 to get a full unit. Either make the rules so that a 5-man squad is the normal size, or put 10 guys in a box. Instead, the big issue is GW pricing is all over the place and really seems to boil down to "How much can we get away with charging" which IS a problem. Also their stupid "one-click collections" that save you nothing over buying the units individually.

50$ for 10 basic Troopers is not bad?

You can get 100 or so Perry Miniatures for the same price.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
How is it delusional? If he (Kirby)was CEO and the company performs poorly under his reign, then it's absolutely his fault. A lot of the new stuff, has spent several years in the pipeline.

Therefore it makes sense to credit those things to Kirby?

It's like people who credit Rafa Benitez with winning the Champions League with Liverpool, but fail to account for the fact that the squad had been assembled over previous seasons by Gerard Houllier and Benitez had done very little to add to it.

Besides, the impact of a CEO on company performance is debatable..

http://www.inc.com/ilan-mochari/why-ceo-effect-company-performance-smaller-than-you-think.html

Now, I think GW go against this trend to some degree, as they do with so many things, and the cult of personality around Kirby is a lot stronger than with faceless executives in, say, financial services companies, and consequently a lot more responsibility for any performances, or lack thereof, can be laid at his feet, but there is a statistically supported argument that it wasn't all him. Or, more accurately, his involvement was moot.

RoninXiC wrote:
50$ for 10 basic Troopers is not bad?

You can get 100 or so Perry Miniatures for the same price.

It's all relative. $50 for a hundred historical minis is all well and good if that's what you want. But it means didly when what you want is space marines. I spent £70 on a dozen models from hasslefree minis this morning (great site btw). Price per mini isn't my number one concern.

(But I was clever. I trawled eBay for a load of riders and warriors of Rohan, and they're gonna do for me as my stand in historical figures with my mates!)

 angelofvengeance wrote:
How is it delusional? If he (Kirby)was CEO and the company performs poorly under his reign, then it's absolutely his fault. A lot of the new stuff, has spent several years in the pipeline.

It's slightly more complicated than that. There are often factors that are beyond the control of the CEO or company -- so sometimes, success or lack thereof is not within the control of the executive. As an example, music album sales have plummeted, and it's nobody's fault that there will likely never be a title that dethrones MJ's Thriller.

The question to ask, really, is, under other leadership, would shareholders likely have seen better returns in the short, medium and long term? It's not a very simple question to answer, and it's better answered by a dispassionate third party than by people who are invested in the hobby/game, because the latter will tend to conflate, "I don't like the state of things" with, "this wasn't profitable for the company".

Also, there are different metrics by which to measure performance. Revenue, profit, growth, market share, share price, and dividends, for instance -- and by some of those metrics, GW has done better than by others. Keep in mind that I'm not defending Kirby; only that it's more complicated than "Poor performance = bad CEO". It could even be "Great performance = bad CEO", because with another CEO, it might be much better performance.

Rather than dismaying about GW I am hopeful about them now. I like their discounted intro boxes and all of the boxed games. Formations were a smart way for them to increase the value of terrible models without needing a new codex, new rulebook, or something else drastic.

I think GW has made significant strides to get back into customer's good graces, but the hard part will be dealing with the long-term effects of their previous errors.

GW's games are such significant investments of capital that sales shift at a delayed pace to the actions of the company itself. We might still see years of GW sales diminishing from customers who decided to quit and not enough new blood working to replacement. So much of 40k's success was based on its ubiquity which IMO was their most valuable asset. The damage to that attribute alone cannot be understated.

Hopefully, GW will continue to right their path and we might begin to see a return to the game's more universal popularity. I know personally I've seen less and less of the game played. If GW can really look into the core reasons why customers are choosing other games over their own, I believe that they will then be on a better track than they might have ever been previously.

 Accolade wrote:
I think GW has made significant strides to get back into customer's good graces, but the hard part will be dealing with the long-term effects of their previous errors.

I really don't think we can say that they have made significant strides.

Well, in a way it is significant strides for being GW, but have they really started doing anything above what any other game company worth it's salt has been doing for years?

And as you say, they haven't really done much to adress the core problems. Until they do, all the half-arsed FAQ's and discount bundles of overpriced models achieve is re-arranging the deck-chairs of the sinking ships.

I should say, when I say "significant strides," I'm talking about compared to GW of the last six years

I don't think GW will get on the right track until they realize that good rules matter just as much, if not more, than cool figures, and also that you can't charge an arm and a leg AND nickle and dime people to death by putting only 5 models in a $50 box but encourage/"require" 10 models, or not giving all the options in a box so you force people to buy a second box just to get options for the box they already bought.

I really think GW has done it for themselves they tore their own world down just for the sake of more sales and ended up with a half-made game. I might sound harsh but i really think they deserve the damage!

 angelofvengeance wrote:
How is it delusional? If he (Kirby)was CEO and the company performs poorly under his reign, then it's absolutely his fault. A lot of the new stuff, has spent several years in the pipeline.

Probably includng the stuff you is praising the new fellow for.

I wouldn't pin the blame solely on Kirby, as he would answer to the Board of Directors as well as being fed info by the various other parts of the company, like marketing, finances and so on. The horrid streak GW was on may have had a large part owed to Kirby, but something like that can't be done by one man with skewed priorities (basically there's fault at every level of GW for it to happen).

While their rules and pricing are still toilet-circling bad, it is being improved. The new Orruk sets are actually decently priced (save for maybe the clampack characters who arent the Warboss) and they're offering actual deals again (in the form of combined box sets and Start Collecting! sets). The board games are also a good move since it caters to the casual boardgame scene while also giving us oldbloods something we'd like in a cheap, no-nonsense package.

Since GW also want to move towards a tournament scene again, we might actually see true playtesting happen again. It might be too soon to be hurling praise but this is the brightest we've seen from them from literally half a decade now.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I wouldn't pin the blame solely on Kirby, as he would answer to the Board of Directors as well as being fed info by the various other parts of the company, like marketing, finances and so on. The horrid streak GW was on may have had a large part owed to Kirby, but something like that can't be done by one man with skewed priorities (basically there's fault at every level of GW for it to happen).

It is, however, a sterling example of why the CEO for a company should never also be the Chairman of the Board - the two roles should have different priorities, and a single person serving both roles is quite likely to address one priority without addressing others.

The Auld Grump

RoninXiC wrote:
50$ for 10 basic Troopers is not bad?

You can get 100 or so Perry Miniatures for the same price.

That's related to what he was saying. It's high individual prices coupled with many required purchases. You get lots of Historial models for cheap, but that's because Historicals tend to have higher limits of models needed and manufacturers know this. They know if they push the prices higher, customers will go elsewhere.

Games Workshop is pricing their models along the lines of skirmish games like Malifaux and Infinity. Getting a box where you're paying around $5-$8 for a single 32mm infantry sized miniature in those games is acceptable because you only need about 20 to have a completely rounded collection, and then you can move on. Some buy more, expand to other armies, etc but that's the same with any game. When you pick up a tactical squad box and a Rhino, you've already spent about as much as you would on those 10-20 models in a skirmish game, and then need to spend much, much more to buy repeats of that tactical squad and Rhino, more tanks, characters, different flavours of Marine for different roles, etc.

Basically, GW's prices aren't bad for the average on the market when compared to games of much smaller model counts. But for the amount of models that are needed for an average sized game (1500pts before I left, so not sure where it is now), they're far, far too pricey.

 -Loki- wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
50$ for 10 basic Troopers is not bad?

You can get 100 or so Perry Miniatures for the same price.

That's related to what he was saying. It's high individual prices coupled with many required purchases. You get lots of Historial models for cheap, but that's because Historicals tend to have higher limits of models needed and manufacturers know this. They know if they push the prices higher, customers will go elsewhere.

Games Workshop is pricing their models along the lines of skirmish games like Malifaux and Infinity. Getting a box where you're paying around $5-$8 for a single 32mm infantry sized miniature in those games is acceptable because you only need about 20 to have a completely rounded collection, and then you can move on. Some buy more, expand to other armies, etc but that's the same with any game. When you pick up a tactical squad box and a Rhino, you've already spent about as much as you would on those 10-20 models in a skirmish game, and then need to spend much, much more to buy repeats of that tactical squad and Rhino, more tanks, characters, different flavours of Marine for different roles, etc.

Basically, GW's prices aren't bad for the average on the market when compared to games of much smaller model counts. But for the amount of models that are needed for an average sized game (1500pts before I left, so not sure where it is now), they're far, far too pricey.

The problem i have with GW's pricing structure is that the production cost for GW is much lower than other small companies as they can do everything in house (overhead is higher though) I am into Kingdom death monster and it is very expensive, i payed about 8000yen for the Dung beetle expansion which is essentially 4 miniatures, a booklet, lots of cards, and a location card for the town, but for a small operation KD's stuff is very high quality, so i value them higher, than some of the stuff GW has released recently.

 Talys wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
How is it delusional? If he (Kirby)was CEO and the company performs poorly under his reign, then it's absolutely his fault. A lot of the new stuff, has spent several years in the pipeline.

It's slightly more complicated than that. There are often factors that are beyond the control of the CEO or company -- so sometimes, success or lack thereof is not within the control of the executive. As an example, music album sales have plummeted, and it's nobody's fault that there will likely never be a title that dethrones MJ's Thriller.

The question to ask, really, is, under other leadership, would shareholders likely have seen better returns in the short, medium and long term? It's not a very simple question to answer, and it's better answered by a dispassionate third party than by people who are invested in the hobby/game, because the latter will tend to conflate, "I don't like the state of things" with, "this wasn't profitable for the company".

Also, there are different metrics by which to measure performance. Revenue, profit, growth, market share, share price, and dividends, for instance -- and by some of those metrics, GW has done better than by others. Keep in mind that I'm not defending Kirby; only that it's more complicated than "Poor performance = bad CEO". It could even be "Great performance = bad CEO", because with another CEO, it might be much better performance.

KIrby kept a tight rein on things at GW. For several years he filled both seats of CEO and Chairman, which put him in such a powerful position that this practice is recommended against by UK company ethics.

There was a strong culture of recruitment for fit into the existing (i.e. the Kirby) culture.

The company's key activities were concentrated in Nottingham. Regional offices that were strong enough to oppose the central HQ were closed, centralising power even more. Long-serving creative staff with high reputations and therefore moral authority to oppose GW's changes of direction, were eased out of the company.

This all happened under Kirby. The results at best were mixed.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
While their rules and pricing are still toilet-circling bad, it is being improved. The new Orruk sets are actually decently priced (save for maybe the clampack characters who arent the Warboss) and they're offering actual deals again (in the form of combined box sets and Start Collecting! sets). The board games are also a good move since it caters to the casual boardgame scene while also giving us oldbloods something we'd like in a cheap, no-nonsense package.

Is anyone buying the boxed games for the game, or are they buying them as a discounted source of models? I've never heard of anyone playing Execution Force or Betrayal at Calth; people bought them for the minis. You can buy BaC game components on eBay for peanuts. I've never even heard anyone mention that Scout game.

Sure, retro games sell well, because they've already got a player base (Space Hulk, Blood Bowl), but the new stuff doesn't seem to be making any impact.

As for all the good new things going on; I get the feeling it's all very reactionary, rather than a planned series of improvements.

In my view GW lost its mojo under Kirby. This was largely his fault for his focus on profits rather than sales through the fostering of the existing player base and by generation of new lines of business. However the company did become more profitable and this put it in a good position to expand sales and put out new games under the new CEO.

The danger now is that having got rid of so many creatives during the Kirby years, the company seems to be unable to move outside its main, 40K paradigm, which accounts probably for 70-80% of sales.

As noted, people are buying the boxed games and starters for the figures, not for their own merits. The 30K rules are a slightly different matter, but even they are (a) derivative of 40K and (b) represent a rejection by many veteran players of what 40K has become in the past few years, which is a bad sign.

In one sense it doesn't matter to GW why people buy their products as long as they do. However, strip-mining the past and cannibalising their own current games is a strategy without a long term future. At some point GW have to get their mojo back and create some new stuff.

AoS can be seen an attempt to move in that direction. From some angles, it's still only a derivation of the previously existing WHFB rules and fluff. In my view AoS does not innovate successfully in rules while in many veterans' eyes its fluff innovations are disastrous. The "Sigmarines" label shows how many people think AoS is just an attempt to make a fantasy version of 40K, which begs the question "Why bother, we already have 40K?"

The jury is still out on AoS, and we must wait until July for possible news of its financial success.

I don't think GW are back on the right track yet, but I do think they are manoeuvring with some problems to get back to it.

Have to say, the news today once again re-enforces my opening post impression for me. They listened. They acted fast. Points in AoS without throwing out the open format for those who want it too. That was a quick reaction, and very plainly spurred by the audience (well, maybe not the audience who play the game as is, but the large audience that skipped it entirely due to lack of points).

The discount Knight's renegade box too was a fantastic move in my eyes as well.

Once again, certainly not saying everything is fixed (prices and overall rules still an issue), but man oh man, they are getting a lot more right than they were a few years ago. This new CEO is very obviously an entirely different kind of leader and I genuinely feel like he cares about his customer as much as his shareholders if not more.

Now all I need is for someone to make Jes Goodwin put out another sketch book and get me his autograph and I'll be good lol

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The danger now is that having got rid of so many creatives during the Kirby years, the company seems to be unable to move outside its main, 40K paradigm, which accounts probably for 70-80% of sales.

Yeah, made me very sad to see so many 'names' leaving over the last few years.

I wonder if Jes Goodwin and Alan Bligh will dress up like the Blues Brothers and go on a mission to 'get the band back together'...

Herzlos wrote:

Is anyone buying the boxed games for the game, or are they buying them as a discounted source of models? I've never heard of anyone playing Execution Force or Betrayal at Calth; people bought them for the minis. You can buy BaC game components on eBay for peanuts. I've never even heard anyone mention that Scout game.

Sure, retro games sell well, because they've already got a player base (Space Hulk, Blood Bowl), but the new stuff doesn't seem to be making any impact.

For one, I can say that I got Betrayal at Calth (two boxes actually) for the game. Miniatures are nice and definitely something I wanted, but my main motivation was the game. Now having played it couple a dozen times with my friends (including pretty hardcore board / war gamers) it truly shines as an excellent example of GW actually producing good stuff again. Hear me, the game is excellent and you should get one. Shoo, go get it if you enjoy tense gameplay, hard tactical decisions which are all important, very critical manouvering and positioning, risk management which depends on player skill, meaningful weapon loadouts with no dead choices or just plain awesome squad-level skirmish with a delightfully abstract hex grid (no arguing over millimeters here).

It is also very well received at BoardGameGeek, which traditionally has a bit of an aversion to miniature wargaming. It is kind of depressing to see many 40k gamers out there outright dismissing the whole concept of playing the game and just getting the models in the box, when there is actually a very good game in the said package.

On the topic, I also think that GW is making wonderful decisions of late, especially as they're bringing back my loved Specialist Games and actually communicating with their fanbase. Few years of that and we might perhaps see some very good things yet.