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.

I'm of the belief that GW is basically in full blown milk mode. They realize their customer base is shrinking. They realize 3d printing technology is rapidly improving & becoming more accessible. They realize more & more competition is emerging each & every year. So GW's solution? For each customer it loses, increase cost of models & have the remaining players pick up the cost. Its similar to what many scummy video game companies do. Commonly referred to as "whale hunting". Essentially they do not care if they lose 99% of their playerbase as long as they retain that 1% of players that fork over insane amounts of cash.

That isn't to say that 40k isn't popular. I think that it is probably one of the most well known/iconic settings out there. While I am still very much a fan/love the setting, I have basically stopped making purchases entirely & will likely continue to do so until either GW shifts gears dramatically or another company purchases the rights to the 40k franchise so we can get some life back into the hobby.

Their sales might be down, but their stock still seems strong. If their stock dropped to 200 I would be concerned.


You could also compare tournament numbers to see the general increase decline. How many players have events like NOVA, BAO, or Adepticon had over the past 10 years. Those numbers will give you a much better guide over everyone's anecdotal evidence.

Losing almost half from few years ago doesn't count as "going strong" in my books.

Fans, or customers?
Lots of people love the 40k universe and background, but will not play the game for whatever reason.
So, losing players, but gaining fans.

 labmouse42 wrote:
Their sales might be down, but their stock still seems strong. If their stock dropped to 200 I would be concerned.

Stock price says very little when it comes to a company like GW. It can fall extremely fast depending on what the big investment funds feel like. GW's share price history is basically gradual climb -> massive fall -> gradual climb -> massive fall -> gradual climb -> medium fall -> sideways.

You could also compare tournament numbers to see the general increase decline. How many players have events like NOVA, BAO, or Adepticon had over the past 10 years. Those numbers will give you a much better guide over everyone's anecdotal evidence.

I don't think they'd be a good guide at all. Tournament players represent such a tiny section of gamers, they're a niche within a niche that can shrink and grow within the larger community without necessarily having a large effect on the overall player base. Forum discussions often come down to discussions about tournaments, but in reality it's sweet feth all gamers who actually go to them.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't think they'd be a good guide at all. Tournament players represent such a tiny section of gamers, they're a niche within a niche that can shrink and grow within the larger community without necessarily having a large effect on the overall player base.

I disagree. The ratio of tournament players is more likely to remain a constant. That represents the kind of people that want to get into competitive playing -- which will not fluctuate. If your constant percentage of competitive people are the same, it's a fine measuring stick.

Tournament players are not as much of a niche as you might think. Look at the State of War polling done earlier this year. 52% of people polled said they played in a competitive 40k event and enjoyed it. 61% said that the ITC and organizations like it add value to the game. 26% of players play in ITC events and 38% more are interested in playing in them.

The top players who fly to different countries to play events is a very small niche, but if a 40k player lives in the greater Chicago area, they are likely to attend Adepticon.

 labmouse42 wrote:
If your constant percentage of competitive people are the same, it's a fine measuring stick.

That's a big assumption.

Tournament players are not as much of a niche as you might think. Look at the State of War polling done earlier this year. 52% of people polled said they played in a competitive 40k event and enjoyed it. 61% said that the ITC and organizations like it add value to the game. 26% of players play in ITC events and 38% more are interested in playing in them.

I'm not familiar with that particular poll.

I'd suggest any online survey is always going to favour tournament players more than real life. In real life, most wargamers I know don't frequent forums and would never even know such a survey exists. I'd suggest the personality of people who are inclined to post on internet forums and thus more likely to discover and then bother to answer any online polls are more likely to have overlap with the people who are likely to attend tournaments.

There is no unbiased polling method. If you go in to a game store and ask people, you are asking the subset of gamers who hang around stores and are ignoring the segment who either buys online or just buys from the store but doesn't hang around. If you ask online, you are asking the subset of gamers who bother to check online forums regularly. And either way you're only going to capture the people who are bothered to answer a poll, a lot of people aren't going to bother answering a poll even if they know it exists. Asking at point of sale is probably the best bet, but you're still going to miss out on the people who just want to buy their stuff and not hang around to answer your poll.

It's like telephone polls, it's a particular mindset of people who are actually willing to answer a telephone poll so your chances of getting a good cross section of the community is questionable.

I think for a lot of people, 40K is stagnant at the moment.
(Not) End Times and 8th ed I think will be the tipping point for most people (either way).

GW also desperately needs 8th ed to offer a cheap route into playing the game for potential new players.

Losing compared to what it's had 10 years ago, but not as bad as I've seen people say it is. My LGS friday night is still huge.

I recently just started getting back into 40K after a two year hiatus.

I live in the Los Angeles area, and in that two years I've seen my favorite store, and the only one within reasonable driving distance, close down completely, as well as a major store that used to host big events and apoc games downsize into the typical "one manager" store with only one or two small tables.

All that seems to left around here are hobby stores that rarely host 40K because the interest in it seems to have slowed down.

 labmouse42 wrote:
Their sales might be down, but their stock still seems strong. If their stock dropped to 200 I would be concerned.


You could also compare tournament numbers to see the general increase decline. How many players have events like NOVA, BAO, or Adepticon had over the past 10 years. Those numbers will give you a much better guide over everyone's anecdotal evidence.

I would avoid using these events as a barometer. These tend to generally attract the most die hard and hardcore people, the kind that often have vast collections they can draw from and will switch from army to army based on what has the best rules, or alternatively may be the only event locals may attend in a year. I know when I was in San Diego, for a time Kingdom Con was really the only 40k event to do all year so it got a huge turnout because there wasnt much of anything else for the year. Their reflectiveness of the larger market is going to be minimized as a result.

Likewise, only Adepticon was even around 10 years ago, the BAO and Nova date back only four or five IIRC.

 labmouse42 wrote:
Tournament players are not as much of a niche as you might think. Look at the State of War polling done earlier this year. 52% of people polled said they played in a competitive 40k event and enjoyed it. 61% said that the ITC and organizations like it add value to the game. 26% of players play in ITC events and 38% more are interested in playing in them.

Poll done...Where? Forum? Not a good indicator. People visiting forums are already much more likely to be competive players than those playing at their home garage or whatever which is majority of players.

tneva82 wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
Tournament players are not as much of a niche as you might think. Look at the State of War polling done earlier this year. 52% of people polled said they played in a competitive 40k event and enjoyed it. 61% said that the ITC and organizations like it add value to the game. 26% of players play in ITC events and 38% more are interested in playing in them.

Poll done...Where? Forum? Not a good indicator. People visiting forums are already much more likely to be competive players than those playing at their home garage or whatever which is majority of players.

Exactly. We have a pool of maybe 25 players at my store, and I only know of a few that visit Dakka, BoLs, etc.

This info might help somehow.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=warhammer%2040k%2C%20%2Fm%2F012ywp%2C%20%2Fm%2F081yd&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4

Interesting how wargaming plateaued while 40k and GW slowly declined.

tneva82 wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
Tournament players are not as much of a niche as you might think. Look at the State of War polling done earlier this year. 52% of people polled said they played in a competitive 40k event and enjoyed it. 61% said that the ITC and organizations like it add value to the game. 26% of players play in ITC events and 38% more are interested in playing in them.

Poll done...Where? Forum? Not a good indicator. People visiting forums are already much more likely to be competive players than those playing at their home garage or whatever which is majority of players.

Google State of The War polling. Over 1000 people responded and gave their input. It was a great polling piece of data.

The trouble with this kind of question is that the majority of people who answer are simply the ones who play 40k. However, if you take a trip around the Painting & Modelling Forum or the Showcase Forum, you'll find a great chunk of people who simply enjoy painting the models and have no interest in going down to a local club and playing the game (Such as myself). Similarly, how many people out there have no interest in the models, but simply enjoy reading the books and playing the game - we never hear about them because they don't come down to a local store or may never want to go on a forum and talk about it.. My point is 'How do you define a 40k fan?' It's not as easy as saying 'Oh, my flgs lost 5 fans and gained 3 so the whole 40k fanbase is going down. Similarly, pointing out their stock is nigh on useless as well. Stock changes all the time and not all of it is dependent on the companies decisions.

If I was to hazard a guess, it's stagnant. Prices put off more established players, but the vast majority of people, with children, cars, mortgages and general life getting in the way, may only buy a couple of kits a year. The slice of the fanbase that buys so many kits a year it hurts to buy more is likely only a small portion of the overall fanbase compared to the 'slow and steady wins the race' portion. Which is not to say GW hasn't been greedy or made bad marketing decisions in the past few years, but they probably rely more on a steady flow of kits being bought here and there than the one plastic crack addict that goes out and buys a whole army in one go. But hey, that's just my take on it.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
This info might help somehow.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=warhammer%2040k%2C%20%2Fm%2F012ywp%2C%20%2Fm%2F081yd&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4

Interesting how wargaming plateaued while 40k and GW slowly declined.

That's an excellent tool. Thank you for sharing it.
It does appear that internet interest in 40k declined in 2012 and has plateaued since then.

Edit : You can also search for the game Warhammer 40k, not the search term. I'm not sure how Google makes the difference here, but I would expect it provides a better summary.
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F0mbr2&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4

 labmouse42 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
Tournament players are not as much of a niche as you might think. Look at the State of War polling done earlier this year. 52% of people polled said they played in a competitive 40k event and enjoyed it. 61% said that the ITC and organizations like it add value to the game. 26% of players play in ITC events and 38% more are interested in playing in them.

Poll done...Where? Forum? Not a good indicator. People visiting forums are already much more likely to be competive players than those playing at their home garage or whatever which is majority of players.

Google State of The War polling. Over 1000 people responded and gave their input. It was a great polling piece of data.

1000 people but were they more likely to be tournament goers to begin with? Non tournament players are less likely to visit forums and generally are less visible. So unless the pollers were going to basements of those players they were unlikely to give input...Which skews the result toward more tournament players than there actually is.

 labmouse42 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
Tournament players are not as much of a niche as you might think. Look at the State of War polling done earlier this year. 52% of people polled said they played in a competitive 40k event and enjoyed it. 61% said that the ITC and organizations like it add value to the game. 26% of players play in ITC events and 38% more are interested in playing in them.

Poll done...Where? Forum? Not a good indicator. People visiting forums are already much more likely to be competive players than those playing at their home garage or whatever which is majority of players.

Google State of The War polling. Over 1000 people responded and gave their input. It was a great polling piece of data.

It means less than you think. dont mistake the online and event-based 'visibility' and the hardcore/competitive types for numbers. Hard core players are 'loud', their 'volume is not proportional to their numbers and no, they're not necessarily numerous, Data like can very easily be skewed as often is self selecting. A small percentage of players go online. Typically the more hardcore followers. This small percentage is then over represented in surveys like this. Having 1000 tournament players talking about stuff means little when, for example there could be fifty thousand players out there that don't go online and don't respond to these polls.

Tournaments are fun. They're a great way to go out and get a maximum number of games in a small slice of time - perfect for people with jobs and family who need to maximise the quality of their gaming time. But not every one goes. Or can go. Whether it's all the time or only some of the time. And being fair, a lot more players than you realise either don't go online, merely lurk, or just go to painting and modelling and don't actively get involved here. There is a larger (and often thriving) 'basement' culture in 40k, which is a lot larger than a lot of people give credit for, and it doesn't tend to be anywhere near as visible as the louder tournament players. Often the basement culture is one thst isn't focused on chasing the meta, with people playing with the aame armies from ten years ago, with maybe a kit or two new every year.

tneva82 wrote:
1000 people but were they more likely to be tournament goers to begin with? Non tournament players are less likely to visit forums and generally are less visible. So unless the pollers were going to basements of those players they were unlikely to give input...Which skews the result toward more tournament players than there actually is.

Did you actually look at the poll? It was spread over facebook and twitter. Are you going to say now that only tournament players use those social media outlets as well?

Honestly, it seems like you just have a negative attitude about GW and are trying to poop on everything in this thread. If it makes you feel better, it 40k interest via google searches has dropped since 2004 and plateaued in 2012. That's a pretty strong indication that it shrunk dramatically.

This is anecdotal, but in my neck of the woods there are a lot of new players around. I'm one of them. I started collecting in March, playing in May.

I've tried to get some of my friends to join in with varying levels of success. I will say there are two major points that keep people from wanting to play.

1) Cost. It's very expensive. There are a lot of threads about this so I won't go on about it.

2) The perception that 40k players are all rules lawyers, and nobody plays for fun. I have to be honest, I haven't been playing very long and I've seen both sides of this already. The first event I went to I thought a guy was going to start a fist fight when somebody rolled for Look Out, Sir! incorrectly. At the same event one of my opponents was giving me real tips on how to play. So, its hard to say whether or not the perception matches reality. At the very least I think there might be some truth behind it.

Deadnight wrote:
A small percentage of players go online.

Why do you believe this? Given that most people today use google, it seems odd that 40k players would not use google to research the game they are playing. Do you suspect it is because of the age group of the average 40k player?

 labmouse42 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
1000 people but were they more likely to be tournament goers to begin with? Non tournament players are less likely to visit forums and generally are less visible. So unless the pollers were going to basements of those players they were unlikely to give input...Which skews the result toward more tournament players than there actually is.

Did you actually look at the poll? It was spread over facebook and twitter. Are you going to say now that only tournament players use those social media outlets as well?

the number of players engaging on such outlets is relatively small to be honest, and people that attend large events are the ones usually most into the game and all its media outlets. Most 40k players may check out things from time to time but dont heavily engage in them. Same for most other hobbies and interests, people may be into something, but it doesnt mean theyre all super engaged with the online community.

For instance, I almost never go to forums about videogames or fencing, despite being very into these things. I love Game of Thrones, but pretty much never venture into forums or discussion sites about it. I'm a big fan of the Civilization series of games but you wont find me on their forums discussing the latesy update.

Of the other people I play 40k with, I'm about the only one that engages on forums and the like. Other people may browse BoLS once in a while or may "like" a cool pic they see on Facebook, but thats about it for most of them.

labmouse42 wrote:Did you actually look at the poll? It was spread over facebook and twitter. Are you going to say now that only tournament players use those social media outlets as well?

Again, it doesn't mean as much as you think. You'd be surprised. For example, I don't use Twitter, and don't use Facebook for wargames, other than to see who of my local mates is going to the store on Saturday. I think I used a trading group once to get rid of some stuff, but I can't claim that I follow any kind of gaming stuff at all on Facebook. When you realise these are self-selecting polls that are really only 'visible' to a particular portion of the community, which will skew it's results, and even then, participation is voluntary, which will skew it more. It's useful for sure, but there are a lot of things to bear in mind that colours and qualifies the data - in other words, you can't just take it at face value.

labmouse42 wrote:Why do you believe this? Given that most people today use google, it seems odd that 40k players would not use google to research the game they are playing. Do you suspect it is because of the age group of the average 40k player?

Pretty much ten years of gaming. I've always been the guy who followed the forums. And I was always the rarity. Pretty much everyone else never bothered, and in all the places I've been to, this has never been any different -those who post online have been severely outnumbered by those who don't. Most people just don't really care. Or those who simply just go and do their own thing, irrespective of the greater community. Heck, even looking at the posters here on dakka, if you read between the lines, despite there being hundreds of thousands of members over the years you can probably boil it down to where you have a few hundred 'active' posters, often transient (of whom the really serious ones number in the dozens-oft en in threads it's the same half dozen people going round in circles) for whom the forums are a big part of their hobby engagement.

Why do you believe the opposite, by the way? Using Google, and Being 'active' on online communities to the extent that you take part in online polls are quite separate things. Bear that in mind.

'Researching the game' very much implies the hardcore elements of gamers in the first place. Your perception bias is showing here when you feel this is the 'obvious' approach for people to take. For a lot of people that is a level of 'investment' that is a step too far. Most people just don't take it that seriously. And again, there is basic research (get your answer/shopping list, and on your way), and there is being an active member online.

Age group is a thing. Definitely. The older you get the less you want to be involved. Two of my best mates are in their fifties. Neither go o. Forums. One is a hardcore Xbox gamer. Great guy. I want to grow old like him. Talk about online gaming, he is all for it. Talk about forums, and no interest whatsoever.
Even more so than 'age' is your activity level and how deeply you want to embrace the hobby and 'stay the course'. I played 40k in third ed, for example. I am probably one of very few people posting here today who has been continually involved in the hobby since then. Most people posting here would have started in fifth. Most people leave after one or two editions. They either leave or go dormant. The 'seriousness' to which people engage is another thing. To a lot of people, forums just aren't all that important in the greater scheme of things. Especially in the grass leagues and 'garage' community, the srs business approach of the forums is irrelevant to how they/we play.

Just by looking at the turnout at warhammer world day to day, you can see the amount of people there is roughly half of what it used to be. When I last went regularly, like I do again now, 12 years ago it used to be rammed and you quite literally had to fight for tables.

Now it looks rather empty by comparison.

Very true Deadnight. I am not sure about others basement groups, but anything GW has dropped out of ours. I am the last person holding on with my Age of Sigmar stuff. All 40k has been sold off in ours for Malifaux, Guild Ball, Warmachine and X-Wing.

I do have to admit, with any of those game systems, I don't get the regret I used to get with buying GW stuff. I don't mind spending my money on those games and am excited about my new purchases.

Edit: Also, it is sad going to the 40k days at my local store. The store I used to go to before it closed down a few years ago had a great group. Now, I at most see one or two games of 40k being played at the store I go to. And the other store in the area is all about Warmachine/Hordes.

Locally, we have all moved on to WM/H. I'm trying to get together a guildball game, but to no avail.

Most of our GW stuff comes from Necromunda and Mordheim nowadays, which is still amazing if you house rule some stuff. Some of the best mini games I've ever played.

But 40k? We do once a month to keep our heads in, though we've given up on fantasy. I use them for RP games now, or necromunda/mordheim. I made a vermin tide style game in mordheim recently that went quite well, made it more co-op with some pvp involved.

 labmouse42 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
1000 people but were they more likely to be tournament goers to begin with? Non tournament players are less likely to visit forums and generally are less visible. So unless the pollers were going to basements of those players they were unlikely to give input...Which skews the result toward more tournament players than there actually is.

Did you actually look at the poll? It was spread over facebook and twitter. Are you going to say now that only tournament players use those social media outlets as well?

Honestly, it seems like you just have a negative attitude about GW and are trying to poop on everything in this thread. If it makes you feel better, it 40k interest via google searches has dropped since 2004 and plateaued in 2012. That's a pretty strong indication that it shrunk dramatically.

Tournament players are more likely to visit those facebook and twitter pages and answer yes. Whatever hobby only small portion is really interested in following forums, facebook pages etc and actively take part of it. Most simply don't care to spend their time on it. They have other ways to spend it. What would they gain by reading poll and answering it? That time they can spend instead with family, playing game, doing home work etc.

Most players are just playing with their friends at garage. That's been the case for decades. As much as it might rub ego of tournament players tournament players aren't majority. They are tiny minority.

I personally agree with the fact that competitive players are more visible. The casual player who's got a game once a month or less rarely spend lot of time on forums, especially. But the second kind of player which is wide spread is the painter: I do think that most people related to 40K are only painters and if any players, barely tried it once or twice.

But those two types have always been as seeable. Those who just paint can afford a box every three months, because of the time they get them painted (most do have a family and work, don't they), those who play competitve are often, sorry for them, fanboys and hardcore gamers. These two community won't really change.

The difference makes from the casual player, the garage general. Those find it either too expensive, either everyone's dropped around them so they can't actually play anymore. That leads to decreasements of the real player base in my opinion.

The revenue argument is a good one however it doesn't tell us an accurate picture. GW never publishes its results by breakdown of 40k vs aos vs forgeworld vs BL vs licensing.

It is appropriate to draw the conclusion that GW as a company is struggling to re-establish itself however the BL books have done a significant amount to drive new fans towards the hobby.

In direct answer to the OP I believe that 40k is growing but AOS is shrinking compared to its WFB days.

Financial reports give a good insight but they are skewed historically in favour of the old LOR money. The last 3 financial reports are the most telling. But we are literally a week away from the publication of their 2015/2016 annual report due 26th July where they have already announced the following,

'Over the year, sales have been largely the same as the prior year across all channels'

I think its a fair argument that 40k is marginally growing while AOS is marginally or massively shrinking