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.

Well whats your thoughts on GW?

I spent 13 years playing their games, and had a great time while doing it.

Now i'm playing other games, and just dabbling.

They have my fix, and they charge quite a bit for it.

GW is awesome and always will be. I buy their products without consideration for my wallet or common sense

I think the company has been through a bad phase but I like the new CEO and I like how things currently seem to be going.

Well this is an open ended question.

I like GW's creative guys - the fluff writers, artists, sculptors, and even the rules folks. I loathe their corporate division.

+1 to brother SRM's post

I think GW has a phenomenal product, great customer service, but are completely unrealistic about their pricing.

I agree that the games are great. Good models and fluff too. But their prices are just too high. You get what you pay for usually, but not all the time. I also wish they would release stuff more frequently, but maybe they are making stuff as fast as they can already?

Grey Templar wrote:+1 to brother SRM's post

+2

I predict great things for this thread...

I hate many things about the company, like their secrecy of high prices, but they will always be my favourite.

Samus_aran115 wrote:GW is awesome and always will be. I buy their products without consideration for my wallet or common sense

A-men to that. Do you really think I'd spend anywhere near what I do if I objected to the company overly?

I love the games, love the models, have a fantastic social life thanks to it (literally everyone I now know is either directly or indirectly through my local store).

And to be honest, many people criticise their business decisions. I don't. I'm either utterly apathetic about them (don't really impact on my gaming experience) or don't know enough to form something even resemblin a proper opinion.

They are the hobby.

FACT!

Nothing else would exist without GW, Their product is well worth what they charge for it and their support is magnificent and cannot be compared to anything else.

Without the corporate evil doers the creatives would all be working at Starbucks or Crappydonalds, writing two bit rule systems, that their mums say are really good whilst shaking their heads regretting that their off spring are not working for a company like GW.

Bow before GW's awesome mightiness !

The good:

Fantastic model range. Quality is in general, very high. Great range of plastic models with lots of conversion possibilities.

Paints are very good. Foundation paints and washes are among the best quality available.

Setting and background is excellent.

Gamer network is the best for any miniature wargame. Bar none.

Excellent dedicated retail network and extensive independent retailer support.

The meh:

There's lots of talk about the price. I don't have any issues with price when talking purely about models. GW's modern plastic infantry and plastic monsters (last 2 years) are unmatched within the industry. The per-unit cost is at the extreme high side compared to what their competitors offer, though - you get what you pay for. Old plastic infantry on the other hand, still packaged in the old regiment boxes are of middling to high quality and follow the older price scheme at the mid-high price-point. Metal models maintain a generally high level of quality and again, are priced per/unit similar to other manufacturers. Plastic vehicles have benefitted from the new CAD system, though they are IMHO overpriced on a per unit basis compared to other non-gaming vehicle manufacturers. As a hobby however, GW is IMHO overpriced. Given the base-size of most GW games - the typcial buy in requires dozens of models at a non trivial dollar amount. GW is known for a lack of lasting support past the initial spurt on any new release. While this is magnified in any add-on supplements (Planetstrike support didn't even last a quarter...) or specialist game releases - it is true to an extent for any army that is not within their core selling group. Fringe armies (or core armies that suffer from depressed sales well due to poor rules - like V3 Orks) can easily go 10 years without new models or rules updates. So while the models themselves are IMHO not overpriced - by the same token, I consider the hobby itself to be - due to a percieved lack of lasting value.

The bad:

The rules: While 5th ed. 40k is the best 40k that has been released - there is not enough of a world view when it comes to integrating codecies into the ruleset. The first codex immediately began the trend adding abilities by breaking the core ruleset e.g. Vanguard Veterans trumping deep strike USR - instead of utilizing different combinations of USRs. This lack of an overarching goal or world-view in terms of games design also results in noticable shifts in design philosophy between codex blocks leading to game balance issues.

The release cycle: codexes can languish up to 2 editions before a new release. No army updates are provided with new editions since 3rd edition. This has the unfortunate side effect of causing balance issues due to changes in how core mechanics differ between editions. GW's slow release cycle combined with their insistence of adding codex specific exceptions to core mechanics makes old hold-over codecies even more cumbersome.

GW's chosen target of impulse buying youth - while this maximizes short term profit, in my gaming experience - wresting their target demographic away from the instant gratification of video games requires more energy than retaining existing customers - many of whom have magnitudes more disposable income. Correcting the slow release cycle and uneven ruleset would go far to improve mid to long-term player retention. In addition, their practice of drastic belt-tightening to improve profitability is unsustainable in the long-run.

They make some cool games.

I just wish they would show more support for things like Necromunda.

GW is pretty good all around, my only issue is the slow speed of codex updates... well and the prices seem a tad high.

Oh by the emperor could the codex's please be bound differently? That half assed glue doesn't hold for a damn.

It has been mentioned already, but my biggest gripes are
1) Slow speed in updating existing armies, there is no reason for any army to lag 2+ editions behind, it just seems ridiculous.
2) High Prices, which create a huge barrier to entry by new gamers. Yes the models are amazing, but there comes a time where it isn't simply about value (price vs perceived worth) but simple economics. A new army costs as much if not more then my car payment, that is a lot for a hobby.
3) Poorly worded, inconsistent rules. As people have pointed out, its like they don't even have an editer to clarify anything. It just feels very haphazard sometimes, like even they didn't want to put in the effort to make a rule clear to everyone.

That being said, its such an incredible setting, fun game and interesting hobby I am very happy to be playing it.

GW is a company founded on imagination and fun operated by people who understand neither.

The legal crack dealer.

Mr Mystery wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:GW is awesome and always will be. I buy their products without consideration for my wallet or common sense

A-men to that. Do you really think I'd spend anywhere near what I do if I objected to the company overly?

I love the games, love the models, have a fantastic social life thanks to it (literally everyone I now know is either directly or indirectly through my local store).

And to be honest, many people criticise their business decisions. I don't. I'm either utterly apathetic about them (don't really impact on my gaming experience) or don't know enough to form something even resemblin a proper opinion.

Not sure if serious.

I was kidding, mostly. I buy basically everything I use from them directly, as well as their paint and brushes....I may criticize them occasionally, but I don't really mind spending the money at all. I love their models, love the worlds they've created, love their books and supplements....Everything

To be honest, if models still cost what they used to, I'd probably have way too many models anyway How much was a box of tacticals 15 years ago?

Aside from their prices.... I have no complaints (yet! )

They are the worst of firms and the best of firms.

If only they weren't run by zombie Hive scum, I would like GW a great deal more.

Skarshak wrote:I have no complaints (yet! )

You must be new to this then.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Skarshak wrote:I have no complaints (yet! )

You must be new to this then.

i don't have any complaints either.

this is likely due to not having a GW within 100 miles and only visiting one once a year or so.

their Customer Service and quality control is impeccable(just don't ask them any rule questions )

I really only dont care for the price hikes, they are a bit crazy. So basically my complaint is with the corporate side of things

keezus wrote:The good:

Fantastic model range. Quality is in general, very high. Great range of plastic models with lots of conversion possibilities.

Paints are very good. Foundation paints and washes are among the best quality available.

Setting and background is excellent.

Gamer network is the best for any miniature wargame. Bar none.

Excellent dedicated retail network and extensive independent retailer support.

The meh:

There's lots of talk about the price. I don't have any issues with price when talking purely about models. GW's modern plastic infantry and plastic monsters (last 2 years) are unmatched within the industry. The per-unit cost is at the extreme high side compared to what their competitors offer, though - you get what you pay for. Old plastic infantry on the other hand, still packaged in the old regiment boxes are of middling to high quality and follow the older price scheme at the mid-high price-point. Metal models maintain a generally high level of quality and again, are priced per/unit similar to other manufacturers. Plastic vehicles have benefitted from the new CAD system, though they are IMHO overpriced on a per unit basis compared to other non-gaming vehicle manufacturers. As a hobby however, GW is IMHO overpriced. Given the base-size of most GW games - the typcial buy in requires dozens of models at a non trivial dollar amount. GW is known for a lack of lasting support past the initial spurt on any new release. While this is magnified in any add-on supplements (Planetstrike support didn't even last a quarter...) or specialist game releases - it is true to an extent for any army that is not within their core selling group. Fringe armies (or core armies that suffer from depressed sales well due to poor rules - like V3 Orks) can easily go 10 years without new models or rules updates. So while the models themselves are IMHO not overpriced - by the same token, I consider the hobby itself to be - due to a percieved lack of lasting value.

The bad:

The rules: While 5th ed. 40k is the best 40k that has been released - there is not enough of a world view when it comes to integrating codecies into the ruleset. The first codex immediately began the trend adding abilities by breaking the core ruleset e.g. Vanguard Veterans trumping deep strike USR - instead of utilizing different combinations of USRs. This lack of an overarching goal or world-view in terms of games design also results in noticable shifts in design philosophy between codex blocks leading to game balance issues.

The release cycle: codexes can languish up to 2 editions before a new release. No army updates are provided with new editions since 3rd edition. This has the unfortunate side effect of causing balance issues due to changes in how core mechanics differ between editions. GW's slow release cycle combined with their insistence of adding codex specific exceptions to core mechanics makes old hold-over codecies even more cumbersome.

GW's chosen target of impulse buying youth - while this maximizes short term profit, in my gaming experience - wresting their target demographic away from the instant gratification of video games requires more energy than retaining existing customers - many of whom have magnitudes more disposable income. Correcting the slow release cycle and uneven ruleset would go far to improve mid to long-term player retention. In addition, their practice of drastic belt-tightening to improve profitability is unsustainable in the long-run.

Agreed but the one thing that pisses me off about GW is how damn expensive stuff is. OK seriously a Tactical squad when I first started was $30. Now its $37.5!

H.B.M.C. wrote:GW is a company founded on imagination and fun operated by people who understand neither.

I wanted to add to this by saying that the management seems to becoming increasingly myopic these days with heavy focus on efficiency and optimization. These changes decrease expenditures, but none of it is geared towards increasing incoming revenue. To the casual observer, it looks as if the great "re organizational" cuts of the last 5 years might have trimmed a bit more than just fat. As a fan, one can only hope that these were surgical removals - though GW corporate's axing of entire departments in the great merger and downsize into GWNA smacks of butchery to an outsider. Cuts can only sustain a company for so long by artificially boosting profit in the face of declining revenue before it needs to seriously reassess its business strategy.

GW's new strategy of suckling at the teat of IP licensing is a risky strategy as well, as new licensees are hardly guaranteed and thus licensing can not be relied upon to provide a steady revenue stream. GW is branching off into areas outside their "core competency" (and I use that term loosely) like never before - seemingly licensing their IP to anyone who could rub two nickels together. Unfortunately, most of these ventures towards the mainstream have gone on to quickly become nothing. There was the failed mass market collectible statues experiment back in the early 2000's. Their CCG venture died a horrible death - most GW video games not named Dawn of War were mostly rubbish - even ones made by reputable studios. Yakface's review of Ultramarine looks like it will please the fans but won't bring in much new blood - especially considering the narrow release. While these failed ventures don't damage the brand in the eyes of its core customers - it certainly isn't growing the customer base either - and perceived commercial failures associated with the brand might dissuade others from taking it on.

i know GW likes to blame their hikes on inflation.


i certaintly wouldn't begrudge them a cost of production increase, but i belive that something like 50% of the price of a model is pure profit for them(that doesn't include the retailer's price increase)

most products are around a 25% profit.


of course GW doesn't just reap the money in and sit on it(they actually keep very little in cash) and rather put it into Product development, Mold Repair, and paying their lawyers to scoure the planet looking for IP infringments

if GW went back to being a Hobby Orientated Company they could churn out more product(which would make them more money) and weren't so touchy about their IP getting ripped off. i certaintly want warhammer to remain "pure", but how they protect it is overkill.

keezus wrote:GW's new strategy of suckling at the teat of IP licensing is a risky strategy as well, as new licensees are hardly guaranteed and thus licensing can not be relied upon to provide a steady revenue stream. GW is branching off into areas outside their "core competency" (and I use that term loosely) like never before - seemingly licensing their IP to anyone who could rub two nickels together. Unfortunately, most of these ventures towards the mainstream have gone on to quickly become nothing. There was the failed mass market collectible statues experiment back in the early 2000's. Their CCG venture died a horrible death - most GW video games not named Dawn of War were mostly rubbish - even ones made by reputable studios. Yakface's review of Ultramarine looks like it will please the fans but won't bring in much new blood - especially considering the narrow release. While these failed ventures don't damage the brand in the eyes of its core customers - it certainly isn't growing the customer base either - and perceived commercial failures associated with the brand might dissuade others from taking it on.

I quote this section and bolded that one line specifically because it's worth bringing up that this particular example of yours could have been avoided if GW had actually cared about the project. As it has come to be known, GW has put nothing (or as close to nothing as possible) into the Ultramarines movie, using it as a way of just making money of lisencing the IP. I don't claim to be an expert on the movie and video game industries, but you always have a relationship between the 'Developers' and the 'Publishers'. The Developers are responsible for making the product, and the publisher is responsible for promoting that product. Even looking at something closely related, like the Dawn of War series - Relic makes the game, and then THQ does the publishing (and the publicity). Even their CEO has done interviews saying how much he loves the DoW games and 40K in general. He's (and the rest of THQ) are doing what good publishers do - they get the word out. What's GW done with Ultramarines? They put it on their front page and had some trailers at their annual trade show (Games Day), a trade show that is notorious for how little it is used as a platform for upcoming releases.

With the Dawn of War series GW didn't need to be the publisher - they had THQ to front the capital for that. But with this movie... they have to do something to get the knowledge out there, and they're just not. I don't know whether it's that they don't care, that they don't know how to, or that they don't know that they're supposed to (or some combination of those), but it's shocking to see a group like Codex Pictures doing the hard yards and GW's response seems to be "Oh? You made a movie? Ok, well, as long as we get money for the IP, that's cool with us.".


I know a certain someone will be in here soon enough to defend every single criticism levelled at GW, but I thought it worth expanding upon keezus' point that GW seem very... layed back when it comes to making themselves into a more successful company. It wouldn't take much effort to market a bit more (start by not having a newsletter that promises something and then a website that delivers nothing), and we can all see that it wouldn't take much to get the word out. It's so perplexing how they just... don't, and I cannot fathom the reasons for that.