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.

Backfire wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Backfire wrote:
I find it laughable how people in same sentence condemn GW from codex creep and praise WotC, which is way worse in this department.

Easily, because anyone who thinks that MTG suffers from power creep never played competitive MTG until recently.

I've never played competive MtG, but expansion creep was very notable at around Visions, when I quit. Don't really know what has happened since.

So all of the top Legacy decks only use cards from the latest sets?

No. That's demonstrably untrue.

Backfire wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Backfire wrote:
I find it laughable how people in same sentence condemn GW from codex creep and praise WotC, which is way worse in this department.

Easily, because anyone who thinks that MTG suffers from power creep never played competitive MTG until recently.

I've never played competive MtG, but expansion creep was very notable at around Visions, when I quit. Don't really know what has happened since.

If you would look closely the older cards are actually more powerful than the new ones because they haven't figured out balance yet before then. Even a highly competitive standard deck would fall easily to a Legacy/Modern one.

And Visions was like what, 16 years ago? even during Visions, every card from the Power 9 came from the older sets.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
But WotC don't just make MtG, they make D&D as well, which is pretty robust.

A lot of the criticism that is leveled at GW can be applied to the way WoTC handles D&D, though.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
But WotC don't just make MtG, they make D&D as well, which is pretty robust.

A lot of the criticism that is leveled at GW can be applied to the way WoTC handles D&D, though.

But even in the way they handle D&D there are some improvements over GW. Can you see GW doing a re-release of 1st ed./Rogue Trader? Keeping the last edition of the rules in print? Letting the players have input on the new edition?

xxvaderxx wrote:
Before we talk about how WotC or Hasbro would be better or worse in the marketing and sales part of the hobby, lets please take a minute and remember GW is the company that said no to Wallmart when they wanted to carry their line.

Hasbro sells its games there, so does Asmodee, Mayfair, North Star, and whoever it is that makes Apples to Apples. I remember seeing several of these at Origins, never once thinking that they would go mainstream - but they did, and how!

GW's upper management has said that they don't want to sell to the masses, that is why they don't make use of advertisment media. I understand not advertising on TV but really no print ad campaign in comic books? How the do you think TSR sold its product, or WotWC sold MTG, or Mage Knight, Pokemon and Yu-gi-oh even have print campaigns even though they have a 30 minute commercial every saturday morning. Get with it GW you are 35 years behind the curve!

xraytango wrote:
GW's upper management has said that they don't want to sell to the masses, that is why they don't make use of advertisment media. I understand not advertising on TV but really no print ad campaign in comic books? How the do you think TSR sold its product, or WotWC sold MTG, or Mage Knight, Pokemon and Yu-gi-oh even have print campaigns even though they have a 30 minute commercial every saturday morning. Get with it GW you are 35 years behind the curve!

It never quite made sense to me that GW supposedly wants Little Timmy's money, yet refuses to advertise where little Timmy can see it. Meanwhile, they annoy/antagonize those who would appreciate their efforts to look elite. If they really wanted to chase away stingy older players and empty ten-year-olds' pockets, they'd already have a Saturday morning cartoon.

Personally, I never would have heard of Warhammer if I didn't just happen to see the boxes sitting on my FLGS's shelves when I was in to play MTG (which incidentally, I learned about through the magazine advertisements).

 daedalus wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Yes, but most people aren't Bill Gates, and most hobbyists don't have the money to buy every single one of their dirty shares. Anyway, chappies like Kirby aren't likely to be selling their shares any time soon.

You don't need ALL the shares. Just enough to have controlling interest. Something like every person who's been a customer of GW just needs to shell in some $1000 or something like that. Can't remember how much exactly, but I calculated it in a previous thread about more or less the same topic.

Also, LOL @ this thread past about page 2.

I thought I read somewhere that the current going rate for a single standard share of Games Workshop PLC was 669 pence, not pounds... So, 66.9 pounds a share... For about a 110 dollars USD, you too can be a part of the gravy train. Think about it, want to buy a new Space Marine Vehicle? Buy a GW share! lol

 Alfndrate wrote:

I thought I read somewhere that the current going rate for a single standard share of Games Workshop PLC was 669 pence, not pounds... So, 66.9 pounds a share... For about a 110 dollars USD, you too can be a part of the gravy train. Think about it, want to buy a new Space Marine Vehicle? Buy a GW share! lol

Well, google finance has it expressed in GBx, which I'm told is indeed the pence, but I was referring to what it takes for gamers to acquire controlling interest, not just a share.

To be honest, I forget how precisely I figured it last time, but at a Market Cap of 207 million (GBP, in this case), and almost 68,000 registered users on Dakka, you'd have to have every user ever registered on this site chip in about 1500 GBP in stock for those users to own half the shares of the company.

This is of course neglecting other minor details, like that the price inevitably would increase as it started getting bought up, and other economic factors even beyond me. This is also for 50% of the stock. I'm not sure how much controlling interest would be. Could be less.

This is of course, entirely academic, and of no significant import beyond that. Personally I think that the company being in control of "the fans" would probably damage it more than it currently is.

 daedalus wrote:

This is of course neglecting other minor details,

Like the fact that there are very few people on Dakka I'd trust on being able to work together, or even have the basic understanding of how not to screw up to run a bake sale, much less a company. Also, the fact that for those few who are at least that capable, I'd highly doubt that they'd have mutually compatible views for how things should be run.

 daedalus wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

I thought I read somewhere that the current going rate for a single standard share of Games Workshop PLC was 669 pence, not pounds... So, 66.9 pounds a share... For about a 110 dollars USD, you too can be a part of the gravy train. Think about it, want to buy a new Space Marine Vehicle? Buy a GW share! lol

Well, google finance has it expressed in GBx, which I'm told is indeed the pence, but I was referring to what it takes for gamers to acquire controlling interest, not just a share.

To be honest, I forget how precisely I figured it last time, but at a Market Cap of 207 million (GBP, in this case), and almost 68,000 registered users on Dakka, you'd have to have every user ever registered on this site chip in about 1500 GBP in stock for those users to own half the shares of the company.

This is of course neglecting other minor details, like that the price inevitably would increase as it started getting bought up, and other economic factors even beyond me. This is also for 50% of the stock. I'm not sure how much controlling interest would be. Could be less.

This is of course, entirely academic, and of no significant import beyond that. Personally I think that the company being in control of "the fans" would probably damage it more than it currently is.

Bah! Details! This is plastic space mans we're talking about we're all about the RAI not the RAW We'd be forging one hell of a narrative!

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

This is of course neglecting other minor details,

Like the fact that there are very few people on Dakka I'd trust on being able to work together, or even have the basic understanding of how not to screw up to run a bake sale, much less a company. Also, the fact that for those few who are at least that capable, I'd highly doubt that they'd have mutually compatible views for how things should be run.

Yeah, absolutely. Like I said, the point is just academic wankery, but interesting nonetheless.

If you could work all that out, a Kickstarter designed to raise capital to buy out GW to put it back in the "hands of the fans" would be utterly hilarious.

Regarding Dakkanaughts agreeing, the schism created would probably destroy the company. I mean, when you consider the militant holy war that almost happened as a result of the 5th ed autocannon discussions, having control over the writers would be pretty much having one hand on the self-destruct button.

I doubt you could buy enough shares to get a controlling interest anyway. Pretty sure Kirby owns enough of them to make that impossible, but I don't really know much about this kinda thing admittedly.