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.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:Sadly, I think HBMC called it right here.

GW has shown for years that it has no long term strategic goals. Constant change in policy and emphasis have only reinforced this.

Actually, I think that's completely wrong. They've had clear long-term goals built around plastics manufacturing. They lurch around with everything else they do because those details really aren't all that important to them. They're just vehicles for selling their manufactured plastics. And as long as those other things keep pushing plastics, management is happy.

The reason we keep getting burned is because we keep thinking of GW as a hobby or game company. We kinda put a personal and emotional investment into the company because it's our hobby. But GW as a corporate entity seems mostly concerned about margins and manufacturing efficiency. That's not to say there aren't plenty of people within GW that are passionate about the hobby. Clearly there are. It's just that GW as an entity is more internally-focused and less customer-centric than a small startup run by a group of guys passionate about gaming and just hoping to make a buck or two.

I almost feel like we need to think of them as PlastiCo from now on, just so we can start seeing them for what they mostly are.

GW wont close its doors its IP will survive ; also I think that some of the original creators of the IP still own part of i or its partially partially owned.


I am unsure of that. I do see GW being bought by a larger company ALA Mattel or Hasbro.

Hasbro owns WOTC so it would not be surprising at all as they have from what I understand tried to purchase GW in the past.

Hi all.
All I can say is if you look hard enough you can always find positives .Even if the negatives vastly outnumber them.

I am sure if the OP was on the 'Titanic ' he would be pointing out the 'free bar' and the fact the band were playing very well ,and optimisticaly ignoring the fact the ship is sinking.

I agree the quality of the sculpts and the artistry of the GW studio IS on the up.

And I am sure the corperate types might actualy be listening to RP and JJ more than they used to perhaps?
After the corperate managment decryed the 'gamer managment' for 'devalueing the product' by placing product in non GW stores and having free give aways.They are now embracing those same ideas originaly implemented by the gamer manegment. .....

But consistantly sticking to an outdated and inefficient buisness model is leading GW in to a negative spiral.

TTFN
Lanrak.

I have never been to a GW store and it is extremely unlikely that my hometown will ever get one. If they pull all of their products from my FLGS, I will no longer have a place to play and my armies will be on Ebay the next day. Unfortunately, I believe that they are becoming PlastiCo, contracting and pricing themselves into a corner. Hasbro/WOTC buying them out and rebooting the entire IP would be the best thing.

I'm pretty happy with GW focusing on "casual gamer" stuff in the past few years. I'm having a lot more fun, and I've bought way more stuff than when GW was pushing Touranments.

Even though, in theory, all of this stuff is "unnecessary". After all, we were making scenarios and stuff fr themed gaming sessions long before Apoc and the other stuff came out. But having it standardized and easy is a huge help.

I also like the fact that GW is working hard to differentiate games and armies, even though I disagree with some of the specifics. 40k will be an objectives game. WFB will be about attrition. Overall, it's all good.

GW is gaining strength of no fault of their own.

If you look at GW's profit margins they make about 1M GBP a year from what they do after overheads with a turnover of about 120M GBP. This is grossly inefficient.

They however are currently making approx 3-5M GBP a year from royalties, and what we can see the companies doing this; Mythic, FFG, etc approached GW and not the other way around.

Meanwhile GW think they are the roxxor. The sooner they are taken over the better.

If every Dakkaite gave a grand, (Sterling), we could try and buy GW between us, and run it as a cooperative. Gamers of the internet, unite!

OK, assuming we buy a controlling stake, who speaks for Dakka?

Everyone who would like to makes a CV, and everyone votes. Or Yakface. Or, everyone votes on all matters. We'd still be able to run it in a way which upsets less gamers, a more hobby-centred way.

Hard to say - gamers want very different things. For example, what should be the next Codex / Army Book / whatever? Deep divides among various pet projects, I think.

Hi all.
In my experiance , most of the best game systems have one lead developer that guides the project to reralise his/her objective.These games systems have a very definate well defined scope and objective.

The real problem with GW is it tries to apeal to all gamers /collector types with a team of developers that are have as diverse 'ideals' as the 'confused 'customer base.

And they all get to influence the game system when they get thier 'turn in the sun'.
As a result 40k has a very 'confused amalgim' of diametricaly opposed ideas.

I belive finding new ways to use your minatures is FAR better than promoting umpteeen shades of SM, for example.

I personaly would prefer to have different rule sets to suit the wide diversity of gamers that are intersted in GW IP.

Skirmish.(Starter)
Detailed Skirmish.

Battle game (Starter )
Narrative Battle game .(To allow larger games )
Competative Battle game.(Develooped for ballanced competative play.)

Rather than have mainly asthetic differences in minatures, wouldnt it be better to alow greater diversity in game play ?

If GW SGs prove anything , its that the GW devs can produce far more focused and better defined game systems .(If they are free of legacy issues .)

TFN
Lanrak.

TTFN
lanrak.