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.

Hold on. Is Foundry different from Wargames Foundry?

I though Fat Bloke set up Wargames Foundry? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

GW is very important now as it was in the past... although the idea that GW somehow created this hobby is somewhat... err how should I put this in a polite way... naive?
Wargaming with miniatures goes way, way back so back we probably dont know for a fact when all this started... chess is a popular way to dig into the past because as we know its one of the wargaming starters...

Also miniatures goes back to primitive man...

I dont know, but it seems way to much credits, on our rich/old games history, for just a 25 year reality.

As for more ontopic opinion, I understand what OP is trying to say, its like the tacticas of brainwashing GW employs may not be in the best interest of us as hobby persons... In some way the futurologies some of us make with arguments like " If it wasnt for GW we would not have this"... how do you know these things for sure? Maybe we would have just the same things in diferent moulds, I dont know ( and dont think anyone can know that), kind of gives the OP a good point on how bombarded and assimilated we are about the brainwashes...

I think there are diferent levels of hobby persons, some are happy with just GW, others try diferent things etc what I do know is that GW hobby as we know it, is just a parcel of the hobby as hole... both in past and in the present...

Of course GW didn't create wargaming. What they did was make it accessable, internationally available with real support and logistics to back it up. They encouraged miniature painting and converting by producing magazines, books and international contests. They created a fictional universe to encourage artisits and gamers' imaginations. Before GW you had to work pretty hard to even discover the existence of wargaming. Shipbuilding and chess may have been around for centuries, but GW made the wargaming hobby mainstream.

Mastiff wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm not saying anything against GW -- they've done a lot for wargaming -- it just annoys me to hear people seem to say that GW invented or reinvented the TTWG hobby. What happened is they rode the crest of a wave of change that was already moving.

This statement fascinates me. They rode the crest of change? Horsepucky. 25 years ago they weren't any other companies offering organized miniature fantasy wargaming.

Ral Partha was producing nice minis, but no rules. TSR was the major force in driving RPGs, but no minis (except as placeholders and game aids). Later came Battletech and Car Wars, but still not minature wargaming, they were cardboard. There were historical games available, but very obscure poorly supported. Most wargames used chits, not minis, except for home-grown rules for 1:72 plastics.

Warhammer was the first TTMG to start advertising in Dragon magazine, and get a toehold in North America. There really wasn't any TTMG competition until the mid 90s, when GW was releasing 3rd ed. Warhammer and 2nd ed. 40k.

So I'm not sure what crest they rode. I'm pretty confident they were the crest that made VOR and Void and Hordes and Confrontation and Infiniti worth investing in by hobby shops.

Clearly you weren't around in the 1970s and you've never heard of Jack Scruby, Empire Of The Petal Throne, WRG, and many other examples which refute your argument.

Clearly you weren't around in the 1970s and you've never heard of Jack Scruby, Empire Of The Petal Throne, WRG, and many other examples which refute your argument.

Hell, I've never heard of most of those, and I've run a games store for 22 years.)
EotPT was this really cool game I'd see up at Clash of Arms whenever I swung by to see my friend Paul. It never, ever, ever sold in my stores, think it was past it's prime by the time I opened. Jack Scruby i've never heard of, and while WRG sounds familiar, that might just be because those are 3 of my favorite consonants.)

GW, Magic, and D and D, all have something in common. Their success made possible the success of many games that followed. And, they still survive when many of the things that followed them in their respective niches have died off.

GW's not the entire hobby. Silly idea. One trip to historicon or similar gaming convention can abuse you of that notion pretty quick. At the same time, all the gnashing of teeth and cursing them isn't that necessary, and looks just as silly.

Of course GW isn't the entire Hobby, but they do have a legitimate claim to being a Hobby unto themselves, as they sell everything you could possibly need to play their games.

Quite why Lanrak has a bee in his bonnett about this I'm not sure. How can being able to source all your materials in a single place be bad?

Were it not for GW's hordes of customers, the Hobby overall would be a much smaller and niche affair. They blew it wide open, and have held it open. PP, Rackham et al all seem to admit they exist thanks to GW, so surely GW are only a good thing for the wider hobby?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Were it not for GW's hordes of customers, the Hobby overall would be a much smaller and niche affair. They blew it wide open, and have held it open. PP, Rackham et al all seem to admit they exist thanks to GW, so surely GW are only a good thing for the wider hobby?

Agreed. Imo GW's has been the best thing for tabletop wargaming since...well, ever and no one comes close to the impact they've had in this niche hobby. GW also has had a lot of impact in other industries and geek ways of life like video games as seen in the incredibly successful Blizzard Entertainment. It'd be a much less fun world for me if GW wasn't around as sad as that might sound!

However like Microsoft, GW is somewhat of a monopoly and perhaps solely for being the uncontested top dog they're bad guys to many and will always have a target painted on their back.

Mastiff wrote:Of course GW didn't create wargaming. What they did was make it accessable, internationally available with real support and logistics to back it up. They encouraged miniature painting and converting by producing magazines, books and international contests.

Hardly, it was quite common for armies to be fully painted long before GW appeared. In fact among many historical wargamers, it's simply not the done things not to paint, if anything GW has encouraged the acceptability of not painting your armies. And international painting contests have also existed before GW and entirely independently of them. Lets not get ahead of ourselves, GW aren't breaking new ground with the concept of painting your stuff.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Clearly you weren't around in the 1970s and you've never heard of Jack Scruby, Empire Of The Petal Throne, WRG, and many other examples which refute your argument.

Jack Scruby gave miniature wargaming a boost based on historicals, but Chainmail didn't really get too far. EofPT was an RPG that died out because it was impossible to relate to (great artwork though). WRG is also historical. The reason no one's heard of those examples is because they were already obscure when Warhammer was first published.

Yes, they deserve credit. No, they don't diminish GW's success in pushing the TTMG hobby into the mainstream.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Mastiff wrote:Of course GW didn't create wargaming. What they did was make it accessable, internationally available with real support and logistics to back it up. They encouraged miniature painting and converting by producing magazines, books and international contests.

Hardly, it was quite common for armies to be fully painted long before GW appeared. In fact among many historical wargamers, it's simply not the done things not to paint, if anything GW has encouraged the acceptability of not painting your armies. And international painting contests have also existed before GW and entirely independently of them. Lets not get ahead of ourselves, GW aren't breaking new ground with the concept of painting your stuff.

Yes, historical wargaming existed before GW. Yes, painting contests existed before. And the hobby was devoted to historically-accurate detailing and strategic recreations. I think Warhammer's quite a different animal in that it allowed and encouraged more personal creativity, and got a new generation of hobbyists involved that wasn't inspired by history books and museums, but rather Tolkein and Gygax. Personally I'm inspired by both groups, and am completely jealous of most historical modellers, but again, I think they are separate markets with some overlap.

I want a 15mm GW product.

Going sideways a bit...

The thing I remember about going into Clash of Arms warehouse was huge shelves full of Empire of the Petal Throne games. Bright, lovely colors. Cool boxes. You literally ached to take them home and start up a group. If I hadn't already done that with a dozen other games at that time, and never played them, I would probably have a set on my shelf right now, mostly in yellowing shrinkwrap. CoA was located in the same warehouse at the time that my game distributor was there. I'd pick up an order, and once in a while walk in with a friend. Probably 20 years ago.

Back on topic -
I think it's quite obvious that many people have pointed out positives about GW. So the answer to the OP's question is: "No, GW isn't just negatives". Equally obvious should be the related answer of "No, TTMG is not all positives". Easily proven on day 3 of any wargaming convention, when you realize a few too many of the guys are thinking of showers as something optional.

GW Hobby doesn't mean they are implying they are the ONLY TTMG out there. They are using the term in sort of a fethed up first person.

I honestly don't see how anyone can read "GW Hobby" and assume GW means they are the only hobby/gaming source in the world. Either people read too much into stuff or need to go back to school and learn reading comprehension.

Let’s just say there are two opposing views of the history of wargaming.

In the first one, GW explodes on the scene in the early 80s and singlehandedly creates the modern hobby.

In the second one, wargaming develops over a period of 150 years from basic toy soldiers, through Kriegspiel, Little Wars etc. the explosion of historicals in the 50s, and the introduction of SF and Fantasy in the 70s. RPGs start to bring skirmish level gaming to a new audience. By the early 80s, the scene is set, many systems and ranges of figures are available in historical periods and some in SF/F. GW, impelled by its history as an RPG and figures publisher, seizes the day and launches WHFB, followed by 40K.

Which view people adopt tends to depend on whether they are relatively young and were brought into wargaming through GW games, or whether they were brought into wargaming by other games.

Although GW has a lot to offer, there is lots more available by looking outside its fairly narrow focus.

Mastiff wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Mastiff wrote:Of course GW didn't create wargaming. What they did was make it accessable, internationally available with real support and logistics to back it up. They encouraged miniature painting and converting by producing magazines, books and international contests.

Hardly, it was quite common for armies to be fully painted long before GW appeared. In fact among many historical wargamers, it's simply not the done things not to paint, if anything GW has encouraged the acceptability of not painting your armies. And international painting contests have also existed before GW and entirely independently of them. Lets not get ahead of ourselves, GW aren't breaking new ground with the concept of painting your stuff.

Yes, historical wargaming existed before GW. Yes, painting contests existed before. And the hobby was devoted to historically-accurate detailing and strategic recreations. I think Warhammer's quite a different animal in that it allowed and encouraged more personal creativity, and got a new generation of hobbyists involved that wasn't inspired by history books and museums, but rather Tolkein and Gygax. Personally I'm inspired by both groups, and am completely jealous of most historical modellers, but again, I think they are separate markets with some overlap.

Its getting hard for you not to see what Killkrazy meant by "rode the crest of a wave of change that was already moving"...
GW dindt appeard on a sterile scene and created from scratch, they only adapted what was already outhere... both gaming wise ( they started with rpg right?) & miniatures wise there was already some fantasy miniatures and tons of historicals & little lead soldiers and painting Hobby wise... what they have done is what any other modern company would do and that was - adapt and modernise things to enhance profits.
Glad they did that to be honest... but If they didnt have done that I believe, sooner or later, other company would just do the same because the market for fantasy realms games was growing wild in those times, it was a matter of time IMO.

GW important on the wargaming scenario? very! But the obscure past you talk about was only as obscure as GW was when started... Diference is GW is still present today and they make sure to say they are the best thing ever and forever...(the point of OP i think) If you choose to believe that or not is your perrogative.

I think people are a bit defensive on this thread, GW has merits and big ones, pushing things for so much time is nothing to sniff about but I wonder if theres the need to continually doutrinate newcommers in such, a as kk said "narrow focus".
Besides we all know vets are not GW target but only the fresh young blood... so its kind a contradiction to doutrinate so much if you only want newcommers to buy stuff and go away... But life full of contractitions I suppose.

In short... painting, collecting and playing wargames with little toy soldiers was not GW creation, they only adapted it to fantasy and modernised distribution...

And a funny note... history about something is not limited only to our short lifes experiences
Most of us grew only on GW stores so I understand the feelings involved.

Hi all.
Is it just scemantics?
Why do so many new players feel they have to ask permision to move away from GW PLC examples then?
The term GW hobby infers the hobby belongs to GW!

If the venue and equipment lets you participate in the activity , do the owners of said venue and equipment have the right to name the activity after thier corperate identity?

If I go to Wimbledon to watch a Slazenger sponsored tournament where ALL players use Slazenger equipment , do a watch the sport of Slazenger or a sport of tennis?

If I go to St Andrews at a Titelist sponsoerd event where ALL the players uses Titelist equipment ,do I watch the sport of golf or the sport of Titelist?

The name of the activity doenst chage dependant on what product you use, unless GW PLC are concerned!

Refering to the wider 'table top minatures gaming hobby' means GW have to admit to being one of many companies producing product for this hobby.
GW ARE part of a wider hobby , so simply saying 'the hobby' does not imply corperate ownership.

Therfore the misnomer of the 'GW hobby' is an insular marketing ploy.(As GW PLC have conciously make this distinction NOT me).

If it realy is no big deal, then GW wont mind changing to 'the hobby'. As this remove the possible confusion of ownership, so it can be 'YOUR hobby' for you to do with as you want to.

I percived restrictive atitudes atributable to the misnomer 'GW Hobby'.I have voiced my concern.
You either understand my reasoning or you dont.

Happy Gameing,
Lanrak.

I don't mind GW asking that people only use their products on their premises, they are a business. I do find it baffling that this attitude rubs off on some players who become GW purists and think that this rule absurdly applies in your own house to games played between private individuals.

Lanrak wrote:Hi all.
Is it just scemantics?
Why do so many new players feel they have to ask permision to move away from GW PLC examples then?
The term GW hobby infers the hobby belongs to GW!

If the venue and equipment lets you participate in the activity , do the owners of said venue and equipment have the right to name the activity after thier corperate identity?

If I go to Wimbledon to watch a Slazenger sponsored tournament where ALL players use Slazenger equipment , do a watch the sport of Slazenger or a sport of tennis?

If I go to St Andrews at a Titelist sponsoerd event where ALL the players uses Titelist equipment ,do I watch the sport of golf or the sport of Titelist?

The name of the activity doenst chage dependant on what product you use, unless GW PLC are concerned!

Refering to the wider 'table top minatures gaming hobby' means GW have to admit to being one of many companies producing product for this hobby.
GW ARE part of a wider hobby , so simply saying 'the hobby' does not imply corperate ownership.

Therfore the misnomer of the 'GW hobby' is an insular marketing ploy.(As GW PLC have conciously make this distinction NOT me).

If it realy is no big deal, then GW wont mind changing to 'the hobby'. As this remove the possible confusion of ownership, so it can be 'YOUR hobby' for you to do with as you want to.

I percived restrictive atitudes atributable to the misnomer 'GW Hobby'.I have voiced my concern.
You either understand my reasoning or you dont.

Happy Gameing,
Lanrak.

If Slazenger, Titleist etc owned the venue, or sponsored the event, then yes.

And again mate, what are GW doing that any other company wouldn't? I understand your reasoning, I just don't agree with it.

@Lanrak As much as I see what your trying to say and agree on some points lets not forget that even if GW tries to glue themselves to the concept that they are the full extent of the hobby we are free to not believe that and discard it.

I know I know you can experience being rejected, but when we make up decisions we have to take the good with the bad.
Many corporations believe they are the ultimate thing since sliced bread yet we dont have to agree... Just giggle and go do your things since corporative behaviour only changes when... money talks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:I don't mind GW asking that people only use their products on their premises, they are a business. I do find it baffling that this attitude rubs off on some players who become GW purists and think that this rule absurdly applies in your own house to games played between private individuals.

Agreed 100% Yet you have to understand some people are happy that way... Not everyone wants to get out of the GW bubble and just feel safe about being "purists"... In some way they dont want to risk to look around.
Much like console games wars or other hobbies, for some its the all or nothing policy.

Some companies are more flexible about all this and adopt a friendly posture and try to atract clients/fans with diferent plans, but we all know GW is kind of oldschool corporation and still thinks competition is something to obliterate.

NAVARRO wrote:Agreed 100% Yet you have to understand some people are happy that way... Not everyone wants to get out of the GW bubble and just feel safe about being "purists"... In some way they dont want to risk to look around.
Much like console games wars or other hobbies, for some its the all or nothing policy.

I assume it's the "brand name" culture. You've got to have branded stuff to be a cool kid and some don't want people opting for the cheaper non-branded equivalent, or in this case bringing stuff that's not GW to a GW game.

wait a second here!!!! did somone actually state above that blizzards success can be attributed to gw? yep yep I see it up there yep. Well plan and simple people it's a hobby as a hole, and truthfully a lot of GW's early "ideas" can be contributed to none other then wait for it.....wait for it....TOLKEN GASP NO NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "but empchild tolken got his inspiration from GW" listen all around as this has gotten well silly. If you honestly souly think that GW made this industry when pioneers of modern wargaming like Brig. Peter Young are forgotten then you people well keep on believing that. That's totally fine as truthfully you are ignorant. In a few more years when GW finally collapses cause well besides the bad business decisions they have made(investing in lord of the rings gamingrights) and many other bad one which they have had to explain at stock holders meetings, you all will find something new, and thats great. GW yes has been a strong influence in the table top gamming world, but they are NOT a strong influence in the consul gaming world as well all of the games minus DOW have really flopped HARD!!!!!!! Warhammer online is rated as one of the worst online games by the PC community and who here remembers that horrible fire warrior game for the PS2. Overall have they helped yes, but have they helped overall IE the independent retailer FAR FROM IT.

GW has smacked the indys down hard, and overall really allienated the hobby community from their product. With the drastic price increases and the harder time they have made for indies to sell and weild their products(I used to own a store believe me my 6 different trade and sales I had in 2 years sucked). All in all people are gonna believe what they want, but I seldom ever say this if you feel GW is the end all be all then I can't wait to watch your faces when they fall....end communication.......


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cane wrote:
GW also has had a lot of impact in other industries and geek ways of life like video games as seen in the incredibly successful Blizzard Entertainment.

To good btw not to be my new sig. Thanks cane

Owning rights to LotR games a bad business move?

On which Planet my friend?

GW aren't likely to go anywhere anytime soon. They have a lot of assests which can be shed to satisfy debtors, and for a multi-national market leading customer, their overall level of debt is absolutely tiny by comparisson.

This one mad doc. GW has to shell out 15million euros a year for the rights to produce lord of the rings minis. They have reported only making 11million a year off that peticular hobby.... Yep looks like a loss to me. READ THEIR STOCK REPORT PEOPLE. GW has averaged a 12-20 percent loss quarterly since 2003. This si straying from topic but thanks for proving a point.

And where are you getting your information from?

It is my understanding that the costs associated with the License were projected to be made back in profits by halfway through Return of the Kings release. The reality? All monies expended for the License were recouped halfway through Fellowship Of The Ring. Sounds like a success to me?

End of year results don't seem to mention it, nor do they show a loss....http://investor.games-workshop.com/downloads/results/results2009/gw_year_end_09.pdf

Also, quarterly stuff? Seems GW operate with stuff done every 6 months?

pm'd not straying any further from topic.

To Kilkrazy and NAVARRO;

The more I think about this, the more I wonder how much of our difference in opinion is based on where we live. I think Europe has had better support and maybe better acceptance of "little soldiers" than North America. I started gaming in the late 70s and knew people who wargamed using 1:72 scale models, but Warhammer was an entirely new experience. Rather than recreate wars and poring over Osprey books to ensure accuracy, this was the first time we had complete control over the painting, the scenarios, the troops, everything. I see that as a fundamental shift, from hairy, bespectacled hermits slavishly shuffling around their exquisite replicas of english longbows at the battle of Agincourt, to a hobby with broader appeal.

I read in your original posts that you were trying to diminish GW's role in the hobby, but as NAVARRO suggested I'm probably being too defensive. I still think GWs biggest contribution was to bring the hobby mainstream, but maybe I need to specify "mainstream in non-european countries".

Lanrak;

You object to their marketing. I get that, it's a personal feeling at not likely to change. What I've been looking for from you is something beyond that;

1) Why do you stay if you object so strongly?
2) Why do you feel GW has an ethical responsibility to promote the hobby over their own sales?
3) Do you feel there are other companies of the same scale who do a better job promoting the hobby at the expense of their own sales?
4) Do you feel their marketing is so absolutely effective that it makes consumers blind to other options?

Therfore the misnomer of the 'GW hobby' is an insular marketing ploy.(As GW PLC have conciously make this distinction NOT me).

5) Correct. It IS marketing. Why do you feel marketing is unethical?

If it realy is no big deal, then GW wont mind changing to 'the hobby'. As this remove the possible confusion of ownership, so it can be 'YOUR hobby' for you to do with as you want to.

6) Why do you need permission to see it as your hobby? I'm sure you walk by advertising everyday and ignore 99% of it. Why does this marketing stick in your craw?

To answer you original question, the answer is a very strong "NO, the GW hobby is NOT just negatives". There are some negatives, but you seem to feel their consumers are powerless to go beyond them.

Mastiff wrote: I still think GWs biggest contribution was to bring the hobby mainstream, but maybe I need to specify "mainstream in non-european countries".

Theirs the ticket!!! You sir would be strongly correct as here in america we were lucky enough to have conventions form such as gen con, little wars, and historicon, but these took years to work up from the fledgelings they were and as such their wasnt as strong of a foundation here in North America. GW in canada with their events wise can be contributed to the strong few who pushed for great GT's, and GD's such as the most notable Jason " Doc" Dyer who was the first Canadian outrider. Men like him in north america and pete haines and such really brought the GW hobby to the forefront. As such with population seeing more and more I will admit that these smaller conventions showed a little here and their and all across the board north america blew up. REally gaming has only grown in elaps and bounds here int eh past 20 years and I say eventhough the product helped a ton I thinkw ithout diehard individuals like those I mentioned it wouldnt have been as great as it became. I just feel we should give them some notifacation in this forum thats all.

HI all.
Just a quick reply to Mastiff.
I accept that any company will market thier own brand as strongly as they are able to.

Many people on this forum are veterans who are fully aware of ALL the options available and pick freely from them.(I do !)
They have fully developed 'bullpoop dectectors',so they take everything GW PLC says with a pinch of salt.

My concern is purley for the new players getting the false impression of GW products being the ONLY option.
And the inferance that GW owns the rights to the activity they are taking part in!

I simply enjoy MY hobby using the products that suits ME best.

Anything that could deter others from finding thier own hobby , I belive is a cause for concern.

(GW PLC have a strong IP and related asthetics.This is thier only strenght.IMO ,They continue to ignore all thier other weakneses,as its easier to try to pretend the alternatives do not exsist!)

This is the reason I object to the term 'GW hobby.'
This marketing ploy could negativley affect the actual hobby.


1/I do not feel the compulsion to change my hobby for any one.(I buy and use whatever products I want to !)

2/ GW has the responcibility to market thier product efficiently.As they fail to do this,and can not compete in the open market.Forming an insular market dependant on a vunerable demograhpic is ethcaly questionable.IMO.

3/All other companies selling TTMG product do so in the open market.They develop efficient marketing strategies usualy by delivering the highest level of VFM they can.They do NOT have to depend on isolating customers from thier competition to survive!

4/ Any company that chooses a more vunerable demographic ,rather than improve its products is ethicaly questionable, IMO.
GW PLCs marketing MUST have a strong effect on its target demoghraphic.(It has little to no effect on more experianced gamers-hobbiests,and GW PLC has not gone bankrupt yet... )

I hope that clarifies thing s a bit.

Happy Gameing .
Lanrak.

Lanrak. You are worrying over nothing mate.

As I said, a NooB is a NooB is a NooB. They know little enough about their entry point, let alone the wider Hobby.

When I first started Gaming about 20 years ago, it was with Heroquest, and a chance copy of White Dwarf. That was my entry.

About 5 or 6 years later, having moved to South East England, I became aware of other non-historical games when Orc's Drift opened (and promptly closed) in Tonbridge.

The Internet does wonders for the wider Hobby. You go online, and you go to the GW Website. So far, so insular. But then you might Google an old model, perhaps one you heard discussed in-store by older gamers. Or you hear them discussing Dakkadakka, Warseer etc. THAT is your entry point to the wider Hobby.

You are making an awful lot of assumptions. I normally very much enjoy discourse with yourself, as you have always done so in a constructive manner, and are open to the ideas of others. But in this case, I really think you're blowing things out of proportion.

You mention other companies in the TTMG Market competing in the open world. Yes, thats true. But if you think for one second it's through choice rather than necessity then you are truly fooling yourself. A great many companies would love to be in GW's position, not only a dominant force in it's market, but with the infrastructure to compete purely on it's own terms.

GW took a massive risk when it went down the Store route all those years ago, and it paid off handsomely. And despite being a real expense for the company, it remains a largely successful strategy. I really don't get why this is so bad.

Rather than knocking GW in this case, I think you are doing a real diservice to the Gamers.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:GW took a massive risk when it went down the store route all those years ago, and it paid off handsomely. And despite being a real expense for the company, it remains a largely successful strategy.

Eh? GW stores were GW. They were importers and sellers of other people's games, where else were they going to do that other than through a shop(s). Running stores isn't a bind it's the way that they're run, selling in essence three sets of the same product, that is a bind. It's the price they pay for what GW really loves, control. Look at their profit vs. turnover, it's not money they love, because if they did they'd make more.

Hi MDG.
I can understand your opinion.You and many others have had exposure to the wider TTMG hobby.
Assuming all people have this knowledge is more of a dis-service to them, than assuming they dont.IMO.

Assuming newbs know nothing about the TTMG hobby is also your assumption.Even GW PLC refer to them as a 'vunerable demoghraphic' .
So anything that could cause confusion should be changed to be on the safe side surely?

I am only expressing a concern over a particular corperate 'buss-word' that may have a resticting influence on new customers.

If it is no big deal, as you belive it has no effect on the customers at all.Then kindly ask your bosses if GW PLC would stop using the term, see what reply you get?

My point is 'the hobby ' has NO possible interpritation of infered ownership.
The phrase 'GW hobby', does.

The TTMG hobby is YOURS to develop to suit YOU.The inferance of pre-ownership to the un initiated could restrict this.

If anything could be negativley effecting the enloyment of a hobby , and could be changed SO easily.Why would anyone object to GW PLC dropping the phrase 'GW hobby'.
And substituting 'the hobby' has the same effect without any inferance of predetermined ownership.

The ONLY reason for GW PLC to keep using it is to help renforce a insular marketing practice.

PS GW didnt take ANY excessive risk taking over all those B&M stores years ago. B&M retail outlets was the ONLY option available.
All other companies have embraced the internet as the main source of efficient retail practice in the last decade.(GW PLC thought it was a passing fad!)

Many companies would like GW market share, but I doubt any other company would adopt GWs buisness practices.

As a long term wargamer ,many of the actions directly atributable to 'GW corperate thinking ' cause concern to me.They appear to be 'easiest to achive short term profit.' at the detriment of 'long term growth'.

I totaly suppport the inspiration and support given by the GW staff.

I belive it is better to offer an aceptable alternative, to a possible cause for concern, than to just condemn or walk away.
And I always try to...even though opinions differ somtimes ...

TTFN
Lanrak.