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.

How many new games did GW publish between 2001 and 2010?

Yes but so are you. Lets hope 40k is the first to die

You know I'd actually love GW putting their money where there mouth is and becoming a model company.
Start producing in metal again, and real resin.
Release things like busts, 52 or 75mm models that don't suit their game scale.
40k civilian models that don't belong on a battlefield.

GW can't claim to be a model company while only producing models in what is very much the gaming, not display, material and only producing models that have rules and a place in their game.

Fix that and they could be a great model company.

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know I'd actually love GW putting their money where there mouth is and becoming a model company.
Start producing in metal again, and real resin.
Release things like busts, 52 or 75mm models that don't suit their game scale.
40k civilian models that don't belong on a battlefield.

GW can't claim to be a model company while only producing models in what is very much the gaming, not display, material and only producing models that have rules and a place in their game.

Fix that and they could be a great model company.

 hanshotfirst wrote:
i like 30k

G4U

Have a look at the Warhammer app. Here you find new stuff every day, from Black Library, to Warhammer Digital, to Apps & Games. This shows that GW is working hard to increase sales at all levels.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Have a look at the Warhammer app. Here you find new stuff every day, from Black Library, to Warhammer Digital, to Apps & Games. This shows that GW is working hard to increase sales at all levels.

If only there was something they could do to find out what their customers actually wanted. Some sort of research, say, perhaps into their market.

 Peregrine wrote:

Bartali wrote:
He’s been very competent in pushing his vision of 40K out to the world.

And his "vision" is one of almost unbelievable incompetence. You could write an entire book on the way that Jervis fails to grasp incredibly basic concepts of game design and, through either stupidity and/or sheer narcissism, proudly declares that he has found the One True Way To Play Games. He's a small child smearing the contents of his diaper all over the walls and saying "look mommy, I made a picture".

Come on now, I don't really believe this. JJ is oldschool, his roots are likely in the old historical wargaming societies of yore. In those circles, even today, you don't really have points or organization charts, you talk with your opponent to set up a "narrative" if you aren't refighting a particular battle from history, and you have a good time and discuss the finer points of history while doing so. It's clear that's the "vision" that JJ has for 40k. To be perfectly honest... it sounds like a good concept. I play(ed) Warmachine, which is much more balanced and competitive, yet games feel very mechanical and lackluster, and the fluff almost never comes into it. Part of why I wanted to dabble in 40k again is because the background is very rich (silly in some cases such as with Wulf McWolf the Wolf Lord riding a Thunderwolf with the Wolf Talisman et all) but the background is intriguing. The problem is that 40k sucks eggs when it comes to pick-up games, and not everyone has a gaming club/good friends that they can "fix" rules issues with and decide amongst themselves that we won't bring FW titans to play except in really big points and even then only when it fits, etc.

JJ's vision isn't necessarily wrong, per se, because that's how most historical gaming works. The thing is that 40k is trying to be more commercialized than that, and fails because of those design points.

They can easily measure downloads at all levels. I think the downloads of the AoS update files can be good hint how good the game is going. I guess the download curve has decreased exponentially from August to December.

 wuestenfux wrote:
They can easily measure downloads at all levels.

That tells them whether or not people are buying. It doesn't tell them why.

 vipoid wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
They can easily measure downloads at all levels.

That tells them whether or not people are buying. It doesn't tell them why.

But it can count as some kind of market research. Asking what customers want would be awesome. But then you have to ask the right questions which can only be set if they do market research.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Bartali wrote:
He’s been very competent in pushing his vision of 40K out to the world.

And his "vision" is one of almost unbelievable incompetence. You could write an entire book on the way that Jervis fails to grasp incredibly basic concepts of game design and, through either stupidity and/or sheer narcissism, proudly declares that he has found the One True Way To Play Games. He's a small child smearing the contents of his diaper all over the walls and saying "look mommy, I made a picture".

Come on now, I don't really believe this. JJ is oldschool, his roots are likely in the old historical wargaming societies of yore. In those circles, even today, you don't really have points or organization charts, you talk with your opponent to set up a "narrative" if you aren't refighting a particular battle from history, and you have a good time and discuss the finer points of history while doing so. It's clear that's the "vision" that JJ has for 40k. To be perfectly honest... it sounds like a good concept. I play(ed) Warmachine, which is much more balanced and competitive, yet games feel very mechanical and lackluster, and the fluff almost never comes into it. Part of why I wanted to dabble in 40k again is because the background is very rich (silly in some cases such as with Wulf McWolf the Wolf Lord riding a Thunderwolf with the Wolf Talisman et all) but the background is intriguing. The problem is that 40k sucks eggs when it comes to pick-up games, and not everyone has a gaming club/good friends that they can "fix" rules issues with and decide amongst themselves that we won't bring FW titans to play except in really big points and even then only when it fits, etc.

JJ's vision isn't necessarily wrong, per se, because that's how most historical gaming works. The thing is that 40k is trying to be more commercialized than that, and fails because of those design points.

I disagree with this. As an old-timer historicals player, my experience is that narrative scenarios are part of the fun but certainly not the majority. Straight up competitive battles using points, campaigns, and recreation of historical scenarios are equally popular.

There is no one right way to play wargames. There is room for all these approaches with the right set of rules. What is certain is that you can play narrative games using tight competition rules, but you can't play tight competition games using 'narrative' rules.

GW ought to appeal to the widest spectrum of players to maximise sales of the one game.

 vipoid wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
They can easily measure downloads at all levels.

That tells them whether or not people are buying. It doesn't tell them why.

Does it really matter if the players tell GW why they think they buy models ?
I'm quite sure that most players don't know it themselves. While GW might have a good guess.
Some GW experiments I can think off that don't need extra player input. Aside from that they do have communication with their stores and we all vomit our opinons on the web

GW: Changing some Tzeeentch 40k daemon rules
Results: Sales went up by x for y amount of time.

GW: upped the prices of a and not model b
Results: Sales went up or down by x and y

GW: Released book with some formations that buffed models lacking in sales
Results: Sales went up or down by x

GW: Models are released before the codex.
Results: Impulse buying went up or down by x

GW: Made new expensive models with good rules
Results: Sales went up or down by x

GW: Made new expensive good looking models
Results: Sales went up or down by x

I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you saying GW doing naff-all market research is a good thing?

I am saying that the community underestimates their knowledge of the costumer. The fact that they don't hand out surveys or openly hire external marketing research experts doesn't mean that they don't have good methods to figure how we would react to future changes they make.

Methods that require no market research whatsoever?

I guess they're employing psykers to foresee the future.

There is no one right way to play wargames. There is room for all these approaches with the right set of rules. What is certain is that you can play narrative games using tight competition rules, but you can't play tight competition games using 'narrative' rules.

But that is not what JJ is saying. He says that we should some sort of rpg/historical game, and that the thing the majority plays is the wrong thing. Followed by how rules/balance/points are bad and forging the narrative is the bomb.

I wonder if he even knows that FtN now stands for.

 vipoid wrote:
Methods that require no market research whatsoever?

I guess they're employing psykers to foresee the future.

The point is that you don't need psykers of expensive paper pushers who hand out surveys, when you have actual sales data that shows the responses of your costumers to all the changes you make.

 oldzoggy wrote:

The point is that you don't need psykers of expensive paper pushers who hand out surveys, when you have actual sales data that shows the responses of your costumers to all the changes you make.

Do you have any proof that this data is in any way comprehensive, or that they're using it at all? Or, are you just making it up because you can't bear the idea that GW is run by idiots?

I mean, despite numerous cost-cutting methods and significant price-hikes across the board, their revenue has been declining for years. That really doesn't sound like the mark of a company that's in touch with what its customers want.

I don't have the data for GW since I don't work there. But I have worked in some other companies and seen the data and plans of their competitors and isn't just used it is one of those things they build their strategy around.

I am basing my assumption on the principle of occams razor.
There are 2 competing hypotheses here:
-GW uses their sales data just like all their competitors.
-GW is the exception and doesn't use their sales data at all.

We have no reason to assume the more unlikely hypothesis until evidence is shown.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Bartali wrote:
He’s been very competent in pushing his vision of 40K out to the world.

And his "vision" is one of almost unbelievable incompetence. You could write an entire book on the way that Jervis fails to grasp incredibly basic concepts of game design and, through either stupidity and/or sheer narcissism, proudly declares that he has found the One True Way To Play Games. He's a small child smearing the contents of his diaper all over the walls and saying "look mommy, I made a picture".

Come on now, I don't really believe this. JJ is oldschool, his roots are likely in the old historical wargaming societies of yore. In those circles, even today, you don't really have points or organization charts, you talk with your opponent to set up a "narrative" if you aren't refighting a particular battle from history, and you have a good time and discuss the finer points of history while doing so. It's clear that's the "vision" that JJ has for 40k. To be perfectly honest... it sounds like a good concept. I play(ed) Warmachine, which is much more balanced and competitive, yet games feel very mechanical and lackluster, and the fluff almost never comes into it. Part of why I wanted to dabble in 40k again is because the background is very rich (silly in some cases such as with Wulf McWolf the Wolf Lord riding a Thunderwolf with the Wolf Talisman et all) but the background is intriguing. The problem is that 40k sucks eggs when it comes to pick-up games, and not everyone has a gaming club/good friends that they can "fix" rules issues with and decide amongst themselves that we won't bring FW titans to play except in really big points and even then only when it fits, etc.

JJ's vision isn't necessarily wrong, per se, because that's how most historical gaming works. The thing is that 40k is trying to be more commercialized than that, and fails because of those design points.

I disagree with this. As an old-timer historicals player, my experience is that narrative scenarios are part of the fun but certainly not the majority. Straight up competitive battles using points, campaigns, and recreation of historical scenarios are equally popular.

There is no one right way to play wargames. There is room for all these approaches with the right set of rules. What is certain is that you can play narrative games using tight competition rules, but you can't play tight competition games using 'narrative' rules.

GW ought to appeal to the widest spectrum of players to maximise sales of the one game.

I stand corrected, then. I don't play historicals (want to, but nobody around me does) but frequent TMP often and have the old books (Featherstone, Bath, etc.) that I read from time to time and they seem to indicate back in those days that you didn't use points and the like, and I get that sort of impression from GW/JJ about how 40k "should" be played, although the irony there is they do nothing to help you play in that manner. I would honestly love for a GW/40k-ized version of Featherstone's Wargame Campaigns...

 vipoid wrote:


I mean, despite numerous cost-cutting methods and significant price-hikes across the board, their revenue has been declining for years. That really doesn't sound like the mark of a company that's in touch with what its customers want.

It isn't about what makes you happy, you might not even be their primary target group. It is about what makes the biggest sales and profits, not what makes games happy. I have no data for it ( and I would love to get my hads on it if I could) but it might just be that impulse sales or sales of models that will never be used on the table are actually a major part if not the largest part of their sales in contrast to what the majority of the vocal on-line community seems to believe.

 oldzoggy wrote:
I don't have the data for GW since I don't work there. But I have worked in some other companies and seen the data and plans of their competitors and isn't just used it is one of those things they build their strategy around.

I am basing my assumption on the principle of occams razor.
There are 2 competing hypotheses here:
-GW uses their sales data just like all their competitors.
-GW is the exception and doesn't use their sales data at all.

We have no reason to assume the more unlikely hypothesis until evidence is shown.

Does GW constantly bragging that they don't do market research count as evidence?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldzoggy wrote:
It isn't about what makes you happy, you might not even be their primary target group. It is about what makes the biggest sales and profits

...

So, GW is losing revenue because they are focussing on whatever makes the most revenue?

I'm seeing a flaw in this argument.

No not at all.

This

GW press statement wrote:Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle
class, discerning teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things
are otiose in a niche

shows just that they

do not ask the market what it wants

you don't need to if you have good sales data and are using it correctly.
Wasting money on some experts who try to figure out what makes you happy is just a waste of money if you have solid sales data and are using it correctly.
The fact that GW does not care to ask you stuff does not mean that they don't act like all the other companies in the branch.

Lots of companies don't use focus groups or use surveys. It is like your local bakery sure they could order a focus group study. But why the hell would they ever considerer that when they know exactly how the town and his sales reacts to price fluctuation, marketing and new products.

 oldzoggy wrote:
I don't have the data for GW since I don't work there. But I have worked in some other companies and seen the data and plans of their competitors and isn't just used it is one of those things they build their strategy around.

I am basing my assumption on the principle of occams razor.
There are 2 competing hypotheses here:
-GW uses their sales data just like all their competitors.
-GW is the exception and doesn't use their sales data at all.

We have no reason to assume the more unlikely hypothesis until evidence is shown.

Trouble with this approach is it only tells you half the story, and it tells you nothing about things you don't sell.

Firstly, models are as often an emotional purchase as they are a deliberately fulfilling a need (OMG that's so cool! vs I need this to field a legal force.) so it's quite possible that there is correlation without causation in the sales data. (New models come out with new rules, sales spike. Is that because everyone likes the models or the new rules are strong? New rules come out without new models, sales spike, is this because the rules have stimulated demand for that specific model, or simply stimulated interest in the army as a whole? Is there an assumption among the customers that new rules = new models and therefore people who like the existing model pick them up while they're available?)

But the biggest issue with using sales data is that it has absolutely no means of telling you why customers didn't buy something. Say they release an Eldar Avatar, and sell 6k units. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say there's 15k Eldar players in the world. How, using sales data, do you interpret why those 9k players who didn't buy one chose not to?

Sales data tells you what's selling, market research can tell why you're not.

Makumba wrote:

There is no one right way to play wargames. There is room for all these approaches with the right set of rules. What is certain is that you can play narrative games using tight competition rules, but you can't play tight competition games using 'narrative' rules.

But that is not what JJ is saying. He says that we should some sort of rpg/historical game, and that the thing the majority plays is the wrong thing. Followed by how rules/balance/points are bad and forging the narrative is the bomb.

I wonder if he even knows that FtN now stands for.

Well, the fact is that 40K was a lot bigger five years ago than it is now. That is evident from the sales statistics.

 Azreal13 wrote:


Sales data tells you what's selling, market research can tell why you're not.

I agree that sales product doesn't tell you why they are not buying some products. Ideally you could solve this by doing marketing research.
But the real question is if marketing research and focus groups in a niche are good reliable enough to give a better answer then some experimentations in changing the product or new releases.
The thing is that it would be hard very hard compose a decent focus group and to justify that your focus group actually is a good representation of GW's costumer base.

I for one have no Idea how to do this, and I'm a 40k player. You could ask a local player group or some tournament players but that would guarantee that you are not getting a good representation.
Just handing out leaflets in the stores might work but has the risk to backfire and no commercial focus group companies are likely to have a decent database Gw costumers.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the positive side if you manage it GW and other nice companies might make you rich.

Experimenting with your releases is ludicrously expensive in comparison to producing some solid research data.

The issue for GW is the way they've conducted themselves to this point. If they'd not retreated from every centralised platform of feedback then they'd hardly need to spend anything, as we'd be telling them, they'd just need to invest some time in filtering out the bile and hyperbole from the genuine trends of interest and dissatisfaction. Something the sales data would be invaluable in doing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
There's plenty of companies who already specialise in doing exactly what GW would need, GW just need to acknowledge they need it.

These are problems that marketing professionals are good at sorting out.

The key point is that GW regards market research as otiose, in other words pointless and unnecessary.

At least that was their stated position a few years ago under Kirby. It may have changed under Rountree.

 vipoid wrote:
Methods that require no market research whatsoever?

I guess they're employing psykers to foresee the future.

End of Year Report shows double figures - Roll for Perils of the Stock Market