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.

 -Loki- wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Mantic is competition. That's hilarious. GW doesn't have any "serious" competition yet in a single company. They're are lots of companies taking small bites, but even a game that seems to becoming exponentially more popular in infinity didn't even bring Corvus Belli $1MM USD last year.

While they haven't started making the ludicrously big bucks, Corvus Bellis growth has been phenomenal for a small studio. Note that this stops at the 2011 financial year, and they were already at $888k operating revenue. There's still another financial year after that we haven't seen.

The company also reported 75% growth in the last 2 years at Gencon.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

Also, I have a hard time believing people who have seen what other companies produce can say GW's models are consistently superior.

I mean, this looks like a chapterhouse conversion kit. Compared to this? There's not even any contest.

Indeed. I see GW as the Ford of miniatures - perfectly fine on their own but there are so many superior miniatures out there. Take this as another example. Which is the more superior model in terms of detail, look and concept:

This:

Spoiler:

Or this:

Spoiler:

Weirdly the second one was sculpted by Forgeworld sculptor Daniel Cockersell. Go figure.

Which are some of the best models to be produced by Forgeworld. I wish GW went for this kind of style, instead of the new really exaggerated models like said Chimera.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
The way that Plcs are organised is antithetical to long-term investment, there is a lot of debate going on about its effect on British companies in general.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24344418

Interestingly, if the institutional investors had their gak together (or cared about something as small as GW), they'd band together and vote down any increase in renumeration at GW on the basis that their essentually dealing with "lifers" that aren't really at risk of jumping ship leaving chaos in their wake if they don't get their way.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

GW is just another company and, you know what, I reckon it's more moral than most. Look at some of Apple's sourcing policies, the energy companies, facebook, most clothing manufacturers... personally, I save my anger for them, and don't worry about paying a couple of quid more for models where the biggest investment is actually the time spent painting them. But hey, we all like to get angry about different things I guess.

To be fair, that's a bit like saying people in the US should not be upset with Congress because other people in the world are living under oppressive dictatorships. Granted, it is a perfectly fine count-your-blessings sentiment, but the context here is the table-top fantasy wargaming industry, not international commerce writ large.

Within the niche industry it occupies, which is the principal reason we are at all interested in it, Games Workshop is a particularly bad actor, and as actively participating consumers in that particular niche market, it is perfectly reasonable to debate the impact (positive or negative) that Games Workshop's behavior has had, is having, and will have in the future on that niche market. In much the same manner, as a voting US citizen, I have some very strong opinions about this morning's government shutdown, and it is absolutely a vital topic of public discourse, even if my standard of living and the freedoms I enjoy dwarf those of the majority of the world's population.

Arguing that one should not complain about or debate an issue because the conditions under discussion are seemingly inconsequential when compared to something far beyond the scope of the topic is a fine way to discourage discourse. I for one believe that reasonable discourse is a good thing, regardless of the topic.

I appreciate your sentiment that there are circumstances that perhaps merit human effort and attention much more than table-top miniature wargaming, but with all due respect, we're not hanging around here debating nuclear proliferation or the price of tea in China. I am here selfishly devoting my attention to issues that directly affect me, and in particular my leisure activities, and little else beyond that. This is implicit in reading DakkaDakka.

I could be blogging about the US government shutdown. I could be protesting fossil fuel emissions. I could be serving in the Peace Corp or working in a soup kitchen. Instead, I am chatting on a gaming forum about one of the largest and most influential companies in the table-top fantasy wargaming industry, as are you I might add. Consequently, I don't really care, for the nonce, where and how Apple sourced the components for my new iPhone. I do however care about the price of Games Workshop model kits.

Compared to the vastness and sterility of the cosmos, all human concerns seem parochial to an absurd degree.

Does that mean we should ignore absolutely everything in our lives?

/rhetorical

This thread is rather humorous.

That said, all of my experiences with GW upper management have demonstrated to me that they are collectively a group of people who behave in a consistently inscrutably irrational manner. For a long time I thought that there must be some sort of mad genius to it all, because the company has clearly enjoyed comparatively great success and I had trouble fathoming how intelligent human beings could apparently have such a fundamentally distorted view of reality.

There is no mad genius to GW. Luck, momentum, and a culture that deliberately breeds automatronic yes men. That's GW's formula for "success." It is a tiny community bound by recursive group think that becomes ever more distorted with each successive iteration. If something GW does seems weird, 10 to 1 they understand what they are doing abut as well as you do.

weeble1000 wrote:
This thread is rather humorous.

That said, all of my experiences with GW upper management have demonstrated to me that they are collectively a group of people who behave in a consistently inscrutably irrational manner. For a long time I thought that there must be some sort of mad genius to it all, because the company has clearly enjoyed comparatively great success and I had trouble fathoming how intelligent human beings could apparently have such a fundamentally distorted view of reality.

There is no mad genius to GW. Luck, momentum, and a culture that deliberately breeds automatronic yes men. That's GW's formula for "success." It is a tiny community bound by recursive group think that becomes ever more distorted with each successive iteration. If something GW does seems weird, 10 to 1 they understand what they are doing abut as well as you do.

Futurama provides the answer again.

Just like Fry lacks the delta brainwave, but has managed to cobble together a working mind out of other random brainwaves. GW lack competent management, but have somehow managed to cobble together a working company strategy.

 Grimtuff wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
This thread is rather humorous.

That said, all of my experiences with GW upper management have demonstrated to me that they are collectively a group of people who behave in a consistently inscrutably irrational manner. For a long time I thought that there must be some sort of mad genius to it all, because the company has clearly enjoyed comparatively great success and I had trouble fathoming how intelligent human beings could apparently have such a fundamentally distorted view of reality.

There is no mad genius to GW. Luck, momentum, and a culture that deliberately breeds automatronic yes men. That's GW's formula for "success." It is a tiny community bound by recursive group think that becomes ever more distorted with each successive iteration. If something GW does seems weird, 10 to 1 they understand what they are doing abut as well as you do.

Futurama provides the answer again.

Just like Fry lacks the delta brainwave, but has managed to cobble together a working mind out of other random brainwaves. GW lack competent management, but have somehow managed to cobble together a working company strategy.

Actually I think GW may be suffering from severe groupthink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

edit: throwing in a brief overview for the lazy

SYMPTOMS Eight symptoms indicative of groupthink.

Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality

Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

Type II: Closed-mindedness

Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

Type III: Pressures toward uniformity

Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
Mind guards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision-making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking

Incomplete survey of alternatives
Incomplete survey of objectives
Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives
Poor information search
Selection bias in collecting information
Failure to work out contingency plans.

CAUSES Three antecedent conditions to groupthink.[4]:9

High group cohesiveness
deindividuation: group cohesiveness becomes more important than individual freedom of expression
Structural faults:
insulation of the group
lack of impartial leadership
lack of norms requiring methodological procedures
homogeneity of members' social backgrounds and ideology
Situational context:
highly stressful external threats
recent failures
excessive difficulties on the decision-making task
moral dilemmas

KirbyFan wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:


Agreed. . Meanwhile, true hobbyists like myself and SoloFalcon will continue to purchase the best miniatures in the world.

Finecast........

weeble1000 wrote:

That said, all of my experiences with GW upper management have demonstrated to me that they are collectively a group of people who behave in a consistently inscrutably irrational manner. For a long time I thought that there must be some sort of mad genius to it all, because the company has clearly enjoyed comparatively great success and I had trouble fathoming how intelligent human beings could apparently have such a fundamentally distorted view of reality.

Just curious as to what your "experience" with GW upper management is?

As for the OP, would help if you would actually explain what Nixon's Madman strategy actually was. Looks like it is lost on most posters who are just taking it to mean GW's nuts.

Really OP? Richard Nixon sending the US military to bomb another country is equivalent to GW raising their prices, this is stupid enough to be the equivalent of Godwin's law.

Niexist wrote:
Really OP? Richard Nixon sending the US military to bomb another country is equivalent to GW raising their prices, this is stupid enough to be the equivalent of Godwin's law.

That's not what the OP is claiming. The "Nixon is a Madman" was a Nixon White House strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

Sadly, I don't think that is the case for GW.....

What did they do for games day without games?

Relapse wrote:
What did they do for games day without games?

They graciously allow you to buy a small number of Forgeworld kits one or two weeks in advance of everyone who doesn't attend, they let the Forgeworld team off the leash for an hour or so to talk about their future projects, and they magnanimously permit you to bask in their wondrous presence for the day. What else could any sane human being want beyond that?

Sadly, cronyism and 'yes-men' is an endemic issue for a lot of larger companies. Many of them get it to an extent, but I think possibly because of what GW does (in terms of producing a leisure product, which creates an emotional connection with the buyer) GW is quite bad for it. Imagine some of the more apologetic types on the forum, times by 4 and then put them in a position of power.

There were some serious jobsworths when I was there (probably 10 years ago now) among management, going so far as having met one of the guys who worked for WD at the time. Obviously not going to say any names, but the guys eyes practically rolled up into his head to show the whites of his eyes as he started spouting company mantra about how we should all have been pushing a product that everyone else knew was a flop.

Of course I'm not saying that you shouldn't have a positive attitude towards the company you work for, and some belief in what you do. Those things are vital for a company's success. But, the other end of the scale, where no rational dialogue about the quality of a product can exist (and to make negative observation labels you as an 'enemy'), leads to a lessening of the overall standard of those products. It's evident with some of the new releases, of the poor quality control of FC when it was released, the closing down of websites and fan communities, and now Games Days that make no effort to engage with their fanbase.

weeble1000 wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

GW is just another company and, you know what, I reckon it's more moral than most. Look at some of Apple's sourcing policies, the energy companies, facebook, most clothing manufacturers... personally, I save my anger for them, and don't worry about paying a couple of quid more for models where the biggest investment is actually the time spent painting them. But hey, we all like to get angry about different things I guess.

Arguing that one should not complain about or debate an issue because the conditions under discussion are seemingly inconsequential when compared to something far beyond the scope of the topic is a fine way to discourage discourse. I for one believe that reasonable discourse is a good thing, regardless of the topic.

Sir, I agree with you - debate is healthy. But if we are talking about whether GW is an evil agent, to be compared with someone who, as the OP points out, bombed Cambodia and lied about it, it's worth comparing it with other companies.

GW is expensive; one could easily say excessively expensive (I wouldn't, but that's subjective). But it's overall probably typical of most companies, and better than many. For a start, they produce in the UK, pay minimum wage, where some competitors produce in China, an undemocratic, exploitative regime.

In the larger context, of things we all need to function and have fun in our own lives, most of us will deal with companies who are substantially less moral. Why shouldn't I reserve my anger for them, rather than someone who charges a couple of quid more than I'd like to pay for a box of Ork boyz?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

GW is just another company and, you know what, I reckon it's more moral than most. Look at some of Apple's sourcing policies, the energy companies, facebook, most clothing manufacturers... personally, I save my anger for them, and don't worry about paying a couple of quid more for models where the biggest investment is actually the time spent painting them. But hey, we all like to get angry about different things I guess.

Arguing that one should not complain about or debate an issue because the conditions under discussion are seemingly inconsequential when compared to something far beyond the scope of the topic is a fine way to discourage discourse. I for one believe that reasonable discourse is a good thing, regardless of the topic.

Sir, I agree with you - debate is healthy. But if we are talking about whether GW is an evil agent, to be compared with someone who, as the OP points out, bombed Cambodia and lied about it, it's worth comparing it with other companies.

You're right, this is the internet. I demand the OP be changed to "Is GW doing a Hitler?"

If you want to compare them to other companies I am sure all of us here can list a ton of them who have done a lot of gak over the years no one was happy with (remember the BP oil spill, crap like that). And yet I can still go and comment on those company's facebook pages, I can give them feedback, I can criticize them and they look at it and try to fix the problem in many cases because they want my business.

GW have shut down all forms of communication with their fans and seem to expect us to buy anything they put out despite criticism, that is not normal and definitely not healthy.

First off, I would have to respond to the OP with a definitive no. The Mad Man strategy relies upon two or more sides in conflict, and one of those sides attempting to fool the other into believing that it is no longer acting rationally. Because of the 'irrational state' of one of the sides, the other will be more willing to cede to its demands or move out of its way, for fear of unjustifiable retribution.

Imagine a scenario where a guy on the bus asks for your seat. In one case the man is well mannered, and simply asks you to move.
In another case, imagine the man is unhinged, talking to himself, twitching and slightly frothing at the mouth.

Which one of these people would you rather have a reasoned argument with? (Which one will not result in you getting bit by a crazy guy) This is Mad Man theory in action.

Can this theory be applied to GW? Well the company has certainly done several things over the past few years that have confused or angered its fan base, these could possibly be interpreted as irrational.

However where the comparison breaks down is in the reasoning for these said events. In what way would GW profit for acting irrational or out of control? Why would they possibly make intentional mistakes?
In Nixon's theory, the communist block would fear nuclear retribution if he was angered. However if GW is angered by its player base, what could its response be, make prices more expensive or not to sell models at all in order to teach us a lesson?

As a company, GW is attempting to make money, not wage psychological diplomacy with its customers.
Any mistakes they make (If they even are mistakes, I don't work at GW, so how do I know what the facts and figures are), are far more likely to simply be that. Mistakes, and not part of some greater strategy besides trying to make money.

An interesting mix of responses, thanks to all who replied.

I used to think that GW was run on the basis of organised chaos, a plate spinner running around keeping everything upright. That works to an extent, but given the anecdotal evidence about eh company the last few years, the fact that WD magazine has went downhill quicker than a rhino on rollerblades, and the shambles that was finecast (plus a games day without any games) you wonder how GW survive!

In all my years, I have never seen such an open goal opportunity for a rival to pull the rug from underneath GW, but the opposition, quite frankly, isn't up too much. Sure, they can pull some good miniatures, but when are we gonna get a genuine rival to GW. We need a Pepsi to match their Coca Cola!

 silent25 wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

That said, all of my experiences with GW upper management have demonstrated to me that they are collectively a group of people who behave in a consistently inscrutably irrational manner. For a long time I thought that there must be some sort of mad genius to it all, because the company has clearly enjoyed comparatively great success and I had trouble fathoming how intelligent human beings could apparently have such a fundamentally distorted view of reality.

Just curious as to what your "experience" with GW upper management is?

Enough to make hearing an English accent give me the willies (which is terribly unfair to the fine people of the United Kingdom, but sadly only a slight exaggeration). I appreciate the reason for asking, but it is not something I really want to get into in any depth or specificity. You can feel free to take my opinions with a grain of salt, but I have on several occasions conversed with members of the GW "brass" in person, and spent a deal of effort trying to figure out what has been going on at GW HQ as a matter of personal curiosity. As a result, my direct experiences with GW management are tempered by the reactions, experiences, and opinions of many other folks who have known such persons personally or had substantial interactions with them.

Like I said before, for years I thought there was something logical going on that I did not understand, but I eventually and painfully came to the conclusion that GW decision-making and motivations are to a degree inscrutable because they are genuinely illogical, and based on a fundamentally flawed view of reality. Groupthink makes perfect sense actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

Sir, I agree with you - debate is healthy. But if we are talking about whether GW is an evil agent, to be compared with someone who, as the OP points out, bombed Cambodia and lied about it, it's worth comparing it with other companies.

I took the OP as a humorous and not terribly serious comparison. I had written some bits about how Nixon was not really an apt comparison because of the type of things you are talking about, but I deleted those comments because I figured the comparison was not really terribly serious.

I mean, Nixon was an amazingly intelligent man, a shrewd politician, and a reprehensible human being who believed that the ends justified the means who never should have held political office in the United States (hindsight being 20-20 and all, no real offense intended to voters at the time). GW is no real comparison other than in an offbeat humorous sense. I mean, GW did go to China after all .

Weeble: Out of interest, how is their view of reality flawed in your opinion? And, considering this view, aren't their decisions at least logical when adopting the same POV?

I'm really curious as I've rarely met people who actually acted illogically - most behaviors and decisions can be rationalized and get some degree of justification. I must admit that I do not "get" GW's policies anymore, but I always assumed that there was an agenda behind it after all. If you have insight into the thinking of the upper management, I'd love to hear more on their POV.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I'm still having trouble grokking the idea of Games Day with no Games....

The Auld Grump

Can we somehow arrange for Mike to run GW? Lead the revolution Water Brother.










In anycase its all the same points re-hashed a million times over. If you don't like the product or the prices just keep it to yourself we've read these thing a million times and it goes nowhere.

I personally think Infinity and Warmachine are much better priced. But neither set of models interests me. So I buy Gw models that do.

weeble1000 wrote:

Enough to make hearing an English accent give me the willies (which is terribly unfair to the fine people of the United Kingdom, but sadly only a slight exaggeration). I appreciate the reason for asking, but it is not something I really want to get into in any depth or specificity. You can feel free to take my opinions with a grain of salt, but I have on several occasions conversed with members of the GW "brass" in person, and spent a deal of effort trying to figure out what has been going on at GW HQ as a matter of personal curiosity. As a result, my direct experiences with GW management are tempered by the reactions, experiences, and opinions of many other folks who have known such persons personally or had substantial interactions with them.

I just spent $75 on three hive guard, so its working.

GW is a bad business strategy buoyed by an iconic and loved IP and great creative talent.

They are working at cross-purposes.

As much as the internet hates Matt Ward, he doesn't set the prices.

I also think their competition has a long way to go to catch up in terms of distribution, market penetration, and building a retailer network. I could come out with the greatest game and most amazing miniatures ever, but it would still take a long time for it to catch on. (Infinity has been around a while, but is only just starting a splash in the US).

ComTrav wrote:
As much as the internet hates Matt Ward, he doesn't set the prices.

I'm fairly certain the prices isn't the reason people hate Mat Ward

It's getting a little off topic, that is, talking about the Games workshops business strategy when compared to their rivals, but I'll pitch in.

I agree with many other here, that GW is a loved IP whose dedicated fanbase has kept with it loyally and nostalgically, and it is this which is keeping them afloat in the face of some bad business decisions. However imo things will change eventually.

The simple fact is the competition is not large enough to warrant a serious threat to GW at the moment, I suspect GWs attempts to trademark and protect their IP have something to do with it.
However this is changing. As others in the forums have said, smaller modelling companies have seen gains in recent years. Furthermore home printing will become something much more viable in the next 5 or 10 years. On top of this counterfeit models are more redily available now then ever before.

All of these things together indicate to me that GW will have to change something in the future, or face declining profits. Whether it is their prices, or their relationship with their customers.

As it stands, the decision to stop using most GW stores as gaming venues has of course weakened peoples' loyalty to the brand. They no longer have to only buy GW minis to play, unless they are tournament players (which is suspect is a very small percentage of the overall player base). The high costs are working on existing customers, but they are certainly repelling new ones.

When I got into warhammer some 15 years ago, my parents were concerned about the price. If I was a child now trying to get into the hobby, I'm sure my parents would try to guide me onto other things.

I no longer buy official minis, the simple fact is there is more to life than warhammer. That is not to say I don't enjoy the game, fluff or experience it has given me over the years, but rather that I have more important things I need to save my money for. If there was more reason to support GW again, or if their prices were lowered, then maybe I would support them again.

For now, I will be content with my new 2k points Daemon army I bought from other sources, that cost less than half of the GW price tag. I hope in the future they do change, because I respect the modeling and gaming aspects of the company, however they won't change unless they stop making money.

 silent25 wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Enough to make hearing an English accent give me the willies (which is terribly unfair to the fine people of the United Kingdom, but sadly only a slight exaggeration). I appreciate the reason for asking, but it is not something I really want to get into in any depth or specificity. You can feel free to take my opinions with a grain of salt, but I have on several occasions conversed with members of the GW "brass" in person, and spent a deal of effort trying to figure out what has been going on at GW HQ as a matter of personal curiosity. As a result, my direct experiences with GW management are tempered by the reactions, experiences, and opinions of many other folks who have known such persons personally or had substantial interactions with them.

Just surprised to hear you mention this given you have been complaining about GW leadership for a couple years now.

A mild dislike of business practices grew into vehement disagreement with morality which has now grown into sharp personal dislike which I feel is entirely justified. Those people turn my stomach, Alan Merrett in particular. He is a horrible human being.

Talk to genuinely nice, considerate, honest people like Rick Priestly and Bob Naismith, and then talk to Alan Roy Merrett... Games Workshop is a lifeless, soulless husk compared to what the company once was. I'm sure there are decent people still working there, but anyone that's been there over the past decade, like Jes Goodwin, for example, I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them. By now I think I understand what it takes to remain a successful GW employee, and those are not the type of people in whom I expect to find many redeeming qualities.

GW raising prices is frustrating, the company's willingness to alienate fans and customers is baffling and seems counterproductive, but GW is willing to engage in questionable and predatory business practices, and its management is motivated by greed, hatred, paranoia, and vindictiveness.

It's not a good comparison; Nixon was a sharp (if ruthless) politician that knew what he was doing.

With GW I'm becoming less convinced that any of the upper management know anything about either business or wargaming, and are just flailing about wondering why their reputation and IP isn't carrying them like it used to.

I can easily believe what's been said in here about GW's management, and the idea that GW is thriving despite itself.