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 think computer games deliver on players' demand for instant gratification.  It takes effort and planning to arrange a tabletop game. Few locations I know offer an environment where I can walk in and get a game going immediately without effort on my part. It can be very frustrating to spend hours modeling and painting an army if I am unable to find an oppenent. Gaming companies like Privateer Press and Games Workshop can make it easier for players by offering support through demonstration teams and online resources, but they can't compete with the plug and play of online games.  If there was an online wargame with customizable armies, I think the hobby might collapse. I predict purely competitive players would move to the online game, leaving behind only the grognards who enjoy the modeling and painting as well as competitive play.

 

Thanks for the information guys. The 1st person "hack and slay" element of WoW is something that kept me from even opening the box, so it is interesting to find out what is so attractive to others about that particular game which is held by many to be the "bete noir" of wargaming and the reason why many at the fringes of the hobby get distracted and thus 40k (as arguably being the most accessible wargame to kids) suffers. I appreciate it is slightly OT for this particular thread, but this thread is one of many that are about what is happening in the wider wargaming industry that we all inhabit, so I hope enlightening this poor soul will not derail the wider discussion!

My point is I'm trying to understand what is happening to the market - how it is contracting/expanding. It is possible (through threads such as the original topic for this one) to get some inkling of how the pie is currently divided up, but much harder to understand what is happening to the industry as a whole.

Fact: GW's turnover is falling in "real" terms and their profit has collapsed to virtually zero for the last two years.

Supposition A: GW's market share is being eroded by competitors like PP and R.

Supposition B: The overall market is falling and GW is suffering because of that.

Trying to get a grasp of the relative importance of suppositions A and B is of interest to me, and of relevance to this thread and all "wargames industry"/"GW business" type discussions I hope.

Anyhow. I can now see why WoW may be sucking more gamers away from other pursuits than other previous big computer gaming developments have. The 7 million accounts may or may not be comparable to the number of Gameboys that were bought in 1990, but it sure seems like a lot of people!

The question is, will the effect last. From the comments made of what it is that is addictive, then it seems to trigger some latent addictive personality that is probably not present in all gamers. When I first played D&D back when Noah was a lad and it came in three tatty brown books, "dungeons" were well-primitive affairs - mere "hack and slay gp-fests". That trend morphed over time into whole new fantasy realms that were a lot more engaging. As things stand WoW seems to only attract "certain types" of gamer. Whether they will remain addicted in large enough numbers to keep them away from other pursuits forever, or whether it is another passing fad (just larger than many others) is not clear yet. Most likely technology will develope so that WoW does become more interactive like D&D did (i.e. the Trolls stay dead, and "raids" are more than just slaying regenerating monsters) if so more gamers will be sucked in. In which case the industry as a whole will continue to face this challenge to its existance. Maybe the industry has reached "saturation point" and has to do a lot more to attract new business. If the cost of attracting that new business is more than the revenue will be from it, then saturation point has been reached.

Manufacturers will have to work in partnership with retailers to make their product more attractive and "easy" to get into if they are to attract the "kiddie dollar" then.

Maybe the growth of PP is partially about smaller, warband-size games being easier to get into. It will be interesting to see next year's figures when AT-43 will have had a chance to make some impact. Will the "prepainted" side of things make them more attractive to the "WoW generation", keen on an "instant fix"?

I hope that in the world of the internet which opens up global markets to the small manufacturer in a way undreamed of just a dozen years ago, there will be enough "old farts" left to support an industry producing the kind of high quality, reasonably--priced models that we want, and that it won't be squeezed out entirely by the large corporates who need the massive sales levels that "easier access" type games can genearate in comparison to the more traditional fare.

The kind of thing that gives me hope is that for instance the internet has saved Grenadier and Epic which had disappeared off the radar a few years back. Maybe 40k and the like will go that wa. Maybe the days of "easy access" to 40k will get shafted by WoW, but I doubt that the games will go away entirely. Although we'll probably have to work harder to find opponents. But honestly guys, since I started my gaming interest in 1979 there has never been a time when finding fellow players for anything other than GW-core games was *that* easy so I see the "40k phenomenon" as a bit of an abberation, and it's maybe no surprise that those that were attracted to the lieks of 40k purely "because it is easy to find a game", then get put off "because it is easier to play WOW".

Anyway, time to end my ramblings. Interesting thread (for me at least).

Cheers
Paul

China has laws regarding MMORPGs because they are just as addictive as cigarettes, drugs and alcohol if not more. For example, for the game to be legal in China the player character has to stop gaining experience after 6 or 8 hours of playing and starts gaining experience the following day.

I played WoW hardcore before the Burning Crusade expansion and a little afterwards but I've quit completely now. I completed all the dungeons and quests with one of the best guilds in the world, chasing after world first kills of particularly difficult boss mobs and so forth. What I can say is that the game is designed so that everything can be attained but it will take hours and hours of time. Blizzard is ever simplifying the game, making dungeons easier and better available for smaller groups all the while making player versus player rewards easier to achieve. However the change to easier is only regarding individual player skill and team communication and coordination. Gaining the rewards you crave will still take hundreds of hours of time to acquire.

As a parent I would never allow my son to get sucked into the MMORPG circus. We all know all the great businesses sell something people really depend on or get addicted of and these games are all the same. Blizzard is happy if all of your personal lives go to ruin, you start skipping school or taking extra vacations off work just so that you can keep gathering epic items in your little personal universe where you aren't the normal guy with a normal job but a hero of unlimited power.

WoW has had a hit on the mini-wargaming scene.

I play WoW and know 5 people in my guild that played WHFB/40K and since getting into WoW, haven't pushed a miniature around on the table since then. And they have been playing for 2 years or more. There are possibly more, but I really don't know them because of the small groups that have formed within the guild.

Now, back to the original subject. PP is destroying GW locally. We have a couple of guys getting stuff for WHFB armies, but the speed that that product is moving is nothing compared to how fast WM/Hordes moves. The Primetime tournament last Sat had 8 players and our league had 10 players(all local.) The last 40K tournament here only had 10 players with at least 4 of them being from out of town.

Local distrubutions mean very little though.
Tigers might be common in some locales, but they're still massively endangered.

Posted By G.I.Journalist on 04/04/2007 3:09 AM

If there was an online wargame with customizable armies, I think the hobby might collapse. I predict purely competitive players would move to the online game, leaving behind only the grognards who enjoy the modeling and painting as well as competitive play.

This is a very interesting statement, to me at least. It's not the argument he's making that intrigues me (as a matter of fact, I think he's probably right) but his concept of the hobby. He sees the hobby as a purely 40k/WFB pasttime.

Now, I realise that this is, primarily a 40k/WFB forum with the occasional bit of WM/H, Conf/Rag, FoW or even SST thrown in, so it's only natural that most people on here are going to talk about those games most of the time.

However, it seems, from a comment like this, that G.I.Journalist has partly bought into the concept that Games Workshop has been pushing the last fifteen years, i.e. it's the Games Workshop Hobby and not wargaming. ("Wargaming is boring, with old fat men pushing around badly painted clumps of Napoleonic 15mm figures and using d10s and rulebooks that are twice the size of telephone book. But the Games Workshop Hobby is fun, kids! See well-painted minis! And they're huge - 28mm heroic scale and growing! And the rules are so simple a chimp could understand them - or write them..."

Now, the reason I said partly is because that's what I meant. He's buying into the lie that one kind of wargaming is not only better than others but also that it really isn't wargaming at all (that's the "it's cool because it's not really like the others" effect often used in advertising), but only partly so because (I'm assuming) he doesn't only play GW games. So he (and again, this is pure assumption - sorry G.I.Journalist, just using you as an example) has a belief that the wargames he plays are either not real wargaming (they're better) or are the only real wargaming (others are worse).

This seems to be a common belief on this forum and elsewhere but again, maybe that's only to be expected given the forum's nature.

My point is, his comment that only the Old Grognards would be left is not out-of-place. After all, historical wargaming is alive and well, just less flashy and needy than 'the GW hobby' and the like. If, as he says, such an occurrence happened, then would 40k players and the like become a twin image of what historial wargamers are now?

Or maybe I'm just thinking too much.

Sorry for taking the thread OT.

I'm not buying into the whole WoW is destroying mini gaming.  While I know many folks who have fallen prey to the mighty MMORPG, Ultima Online and Everquest were at their peak at the SAME TIME that GW was at its peak.

In the early 2000's, GT's were growing, Games Days were spreading, RT stores were opening all over the place, and the RT tourneys in White Dwarf took up 2-3 pages to list.  It was at this very same time that UO and EQ were huge.  In fact, I remember my brother and I visiting GW HQ and chatting with them about UO and their guilds.  Most gamers did both.

So if MMORPG's existed then and now, and GW existed then and now, what has changed?

Well, Battlefront (Flames of War) and Privateer Press (Warmachine) were both born around then, and have been slowly growing from small start up companies to real corporations with solid product lines.

GW has some amazing strengths:

• Awesome number of armies
• Exceptional models
• Great universe and background
• Big company with deep pockets
• Large, established fan base running exceptional events (like Adepticon)
• Lots of games of various sizes and genres.

But GW has also taken some questionable adventures since 2000:

• Increased prices by 30-40% since then
• Invested lots of money in LoTR licenses, which appears to have been a short term gain, long term lost
• Tryied some questionable expensive over seas adventures (China? Japan?)
• Clamped down on Internet sales
• Clamped down on the use of thier IP on fan sites
• Aborted the Outrider program
• All but dropped RT tournies, by increasing the price of the "kits".
• Pulled back on GT's and Games Days.
• Provided little or no support for Specialist games

Regardless of wheather or not your fully believe in the ICv2 report, the fact that it is even conceivable that WM and Hordes could outsell WHFB should give GW pause.  If the mini game market is indeed shrinking, and GW is loosing sales how is it possible that Privateer and Battlefront are growing?  Either they appeal to a different group of of people that don't play GW games (which would mean the market is growing, not shrinking) .... or ... they are eating into GW's market share.

 

You do realize Russ though that EQ and Ultima didn't have the same impact on the tabletop gamer crowd. It was popular, but not that popular with a lot of the hobbyists. It was more popular with the RPG crowd. I think there are maybe one or two people from our group in that era that played either game. The long load times and hours of extended camping where nothing happened gave you time to also do other things. WoW has changed a lot of that, and I see a more diverse crowd getting into WoW that never would have touched the previous games.


The interesting thing is that Warmachine is a lot like a collectible card game without the collectible part. It is all about combos, and each release there is more to figure out and use. It really is an entirely different machine than most other TT games and has a different drive. I don't see it slowing down. But it does eventually hit a wall, like Rakham. You can only release so much before it starts weighing down the entire system. Stores don't want to carry that much stock, and certain models seen as less efficient are left on the shelves. Rakham does an entire system overhaul. Will that be what PP has to do?

If GW are losing profits, I wouldn't be suprised if it's to do with the 30-40% price rise. I bought BfSP, a box of wolf riders, an orc army book and some fanatics and a pair of burna boyz in the last 7 months, a period where I've had more disposable income than ever before in my life. In times gone by, I'd probably have bought edited more, but D'n'D minis were just cheaper and more attractive to me, with the tighter ruleset and lack of effort. Now I'm getting back into GW games, but I have no planned purchases until the new Ork codex comes out.

Which it is looking more and more like the Ork army box is released Christmas.

I am going to have to chime in here a little and say that before this year, GW has had a lot of releases that just weren't must haves or exciting. The Eldar dex was quite a change from that with a lot of models purchased "just because".

@ Osbad

You may have strcuk a slight chord with certain type of gamers being drawn away. Even Mannahnin admitted that WoW brought out all of his latent dep seated Obsessive compulsive behaviors.

Many people who play and collect games hav an obsessive compulsive personality type (OCD), and I beleive that those types are the ones being drawn away from the tabletop wargaming niche.

It is pretty apparent that OCD personalities are present in gaming. Look at any collectible game craze and you can see the urge arise.

While I dont beleive the OCD's are the most prevalent types of gamers, they do serve to make up a fair share of the gamers I have encountered. Perhaps it is becaus I have the same personality type as well. As I am attracted to such games that "reward" me for amassing large quanitities of collectible games.

Even in 40K it is present. how many GW gamers do you know that collect 12 armies yet barely have one that is playable?

I've never once met someone in a game store who is certifiably OCD. I would say that it has more to do with addictive personalities, which are far more common. It's just a matter of what your bent is in regards to your addictions. Buying new releases that you don't need isn't obsessive-compulsive, it's an addiction. Gamers don't tend to display the anxiety and repetitive "rituals" that are a part of OCD.

Oh yes they do. Most of them are at manageable levels that don't actively interfere with their lives, but OCD tendencies are pretty common.

Collecting models cannot be physiologically habit-forming, so it must be mental. I am more inclined to see excesses of this behavior as representing compulsive behavior than addictive. Mind you, I'm just writing from the perspective of someone who did his undergrad studies in psych, and whose family has low-level (and occasionally full-blown) OCD in spades. I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist by any means, though that's the direction I was headed before I elected not to go to grad school.

Posted By fleshcross on 04/04/2007 11:11 AM
I've never once met someone in a game store who is certifiably OCD. I would say that it has more to do with addictive personalities, which are far more common. It's just a matter of what your bent is in regards to your addictions. Buying new releases that you don't need isn't obsessive-compulsive, it's an addiction. Gamers don't tend to display the anxiety and repetitive "rituals" that are a part of OCD.

I may not have as much formal education as Ragnar concerning Psych, I have been a Habilition Aide (glorified babysitter who has to be keenly knowledgable about certain clients conditions) for developmentally disabled adults long enough to know the behavioral tendencies of OCD intimately.

Even my psych professor urged his students who were gamers to try to write a thesis concerning the behavioral tendencies of certain personality types who involve themselves (sometimes the involvement could be considered all encompassing passion) in gaming of all types and its possible correlations to clinical OCD.

That was 8 years ago, I hear no one has taken him up on the difficult challenge as of yet. Probably because it would mean a new entry into the DSM.

Well, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, Video game/internet addiction is recognized in several foreign countries and treatment programs have appeared. If for that, why not Tabletop games as well?

I don't know if it would need a new entry in the DSM or an expansion on gambling addiction, but that's not my training...

Posted By Stu-Rat on 04/04/2007 5:39 AM

However, it seems, from a comment like this, that G.I.Journalist has partly bought into the concept that Games Workshop has been pushing the last fifteen years, i.e. it's the Games Workshop Hobby and not wargaming. ("Wargaming is boring, with old fat men pushing around badly painted clumps of Napoleonic 15mm figures and using d10s and rulebooks that are twice the size of telephone book. But the Games Workshop Hobby is fun, kids! See well-painted minis! And they're huge - 28mm heroic scale and growing! And the rules are so simple a chimp could understand them - or write them..."

Now, the reason I said partly is because that's what I meant. He's buying into the lie that one kind of wargaming is not only better than others but also that it really isn't wargaming at all (that's the "it's cool because it's not really like the others" effect often used in advertising), but only partly so because (I'm assuming) he doesn't only play GW games. So he (and again, this is pure assumption - sorry G.I.Journalist, just using you as an example) has a belief that the wargames he plays are either not real wargaming (they're better) or are the only real wargaming (others are worse).

This seems to be a common belief on this forum and elsewhere but again, maybe that's only to be expected given the forum's nature.

My point is, his comment that only the Old Grognards would be left is not out-of-place. After all, historical wargaming is alive and well, just less flashy and needy than 'the GW hobby' and the like. If, as he says, such an occurrence happened, then would 40k players and the like become a twin image of what historial wargamers are now?

 

I think you are spot on with this assessment.  The wargaming hobby may not be the exclusive property of Games Workshop, Privateer Press, or any other gaming company, but when I buy into a particular ruleset like Warhammer, by and large I am accepting a single interpretation of what "the hobby" is.

The Warhammer rules were created solely for the purpose of selling Citadel models. Games Workshop has stated this themselves. The rules are a brilliant marketing tool, so when I bought the rules I bought into the entire marketing campaign.  I don't play Warhammer because it's a superior product.  I play Warhammer for the same reason I drink Coca-cola products when I go to a fast food restaraunt; it's what's readily available.  Privateer Press is Pepsi to Games Workshop's Coke.  I'm hoping that the competion pushes both companies to improve their product. 

I suspect it's only a matter of time before someone creates an online customizable wargame like the one I described.  Tabletop gamers from all genres are likely to find themselves lumped into the same group if an online wargame is able to tap into the tabletop customer base.  If Games Workshop is smart they'll make good use of their intellectual property and existing fan base to create such a game themselves, but I suspect they are unlikely to change their way of doing business until someone threatens their market share.

Very likely. The question predicated by this thread though is that the "top five" rankings showed PP had successfully threatened GW's market share by causing WFB to tumble down the ratings. At least in the US, and according to the (probably) unscientific survey.

The question remains how much of GW's fall in profits is down to a decline in market or a decline in market share or some combination of both.

GW take the official line that their problems are down to declining market - particularly the impact of new generation computer games. My suspicion is that GW are more threatened than they let on by PP, and that the impact of video games (and the "LotR bubble" is less than they claim. My suspicion is that people are preferring to play games other than 40k and WFB rather than quitting the hobby altogether.

My evidence for this suspicion is that PP seems to be marching ahead and bucking the "trend" (which may indicate it isn't a trend after all). This is interesting because PP's tactics on the whole are those GW used a few years back - the creation of unique IP, tournament circuits, own-brand paints etc.

Because PP's financial results aren't a matter of public record (unlike GW and R) this suspicion is only a suspicion of course.

All good grist for the rumour mill though!

Why does this matter?

Because if it is a declining market then its pretty much bad news for customers and there's not a lot that management can do to win as everything will result in lower profit. Consequently they have little incentive to innovate and develop, and every incentive to cut long-term costs.

On the other hand, if the market isn't declining much, but GW's woes are down to competition from the likes of PP, then its all wonderful for the consumer - competition rewards innovation and competitive pricing structures. Competition in a stable market is of great benefit to the consumer (us!)

See where I'm getting at?

Posted By Osbad on 04/05/2007 5:28 AM

I
(snippity snippers)
Why does this matter?

Because if it is a declining market then its pretty much bad news for customers and there's not a lot that management can do to win as everything will result in lower profit. Consequently they have little incentive to innovate and develop, and every incentive to cut long-term costs.

On the other hand, if the market isn't declining much, but GW's woes are down to competition from the likes of PP, then its all wonderful for the consumer - competition rewards innovation and competitive pricing structures. Competition in a stable market is of great benefit to the consumer (us!)

See where I'm getting at?

NO, you have completely talked yourself in a circle..  I am finding this thread less and less informative the longer it goes on.. it's not your fault really, but the general lack of knowledge about said survey.. All the speculation and conjecture lies fully on whether that survey has any validity at all. If it is valid then you have a point, if it is not valid the point is moot..

If the market is declining, is this not just another form of compettition?
All leisure activities must compete for my time. (and money)
By innovating and keeping me interested (instead of, oh I dunno, ignoring my faction for 8-9 years), they'd be scoring a lot of profit from me. As it is, I'm a bitter shell of the enthusiastic gamer I was about 4-5 years ago. I seriously think this sort of thing damages GW more than they realise. But I have no evidence.

I think his point is this.  Can all the following be true?

1. The gaming market IS shrinking
2. GW is NOT loosing market share.
3. The ICv2 report is wrong
4. PP, as a business, is growing
5. Battlefront, as a business, is growing

Lines 1 and 2 CAN'T be true if lines 4 and 5 are.   That is, if the market is shrinking, and GW isn't loosing market share, there is no way other mini companies could be gaining customers.

How do we know 4 & 5 to be true?  Well, I admit this isn't very scientific, but the anecdotal evidence is very strong.  Look at the quality of the products coming out of PP and BF, both are getting better and better, and their range is growing.  If there is no money coming in the door, these companies would be starting to run out of funding, new products would slow, and quality would drop off. 

If you accept that 4 & 5 might be true, then 3 follows, as it supports the evidence.  That is 3, 4, & 5 support each other and disprove 1 & 2.

Lastly, lets look at the source.  We've got two separate companies we can look at who seem to be going along nicely.  We also have a 3rd party report from ICv2 indicating that PP, at least, is eating into GW's market share.

What evidence do we have that 1 & 2 are true? Ironically it comes from the same source.  GW's stock holder report.  Who do you believe?

Whew!  So to get back to the original point made by our lovable "grumpy old fart" if 3, 4, & 5 are true, it is GOOD NEWS for us gamers.  It means that our hobby isn't going away, just that there are now more players (i.e. companies) in the game.  It means more choices for use gamers, and that GW will have to get a bit more competitive and perhaps start adopting some of the standards the other companies are bringing to the industry.

Posted By RussWakelin on 04/05/2007 8:18 AM

On the other hand, if the market isn't declining much, but GW's woes are down to competition from the likes of PP, then its all wonderful for the consumer - competition rewards innovation and competitive pricing structures. Competition in a stable market is of great benefit to the consumer (us!)

I think his point is this.  Can all the following be true?

1. The gaming market IS shrinking
2. GW is NOT loosing market share.
3. The ICv2 report is wrong
4. PP, as a business, is growing
5. Battlefront, as a business, is growing

Lines 1 and 2 CAN'T be true if lines 4 and 5 are.   That is, if the market is shrinking, and GW isn't loosing market share, there is no way other mini companies could be gaining customers.

How do we know 4 & 5 to be true?  Well, I admit this isn't very scientific, but the anecdotal evidence is very strong.  Look at the quality of the products coming out of PP and BF, both are getting better and better, and their range is growing.  If there is no money coming in the door, these companies would be starting to run out of funding, new products would slow, and quality would drop off. 

If you accept that 4 & 5 might be true, then 3 follows, as it supports the evidence.  That is 3, 4, & 5 support each other and disprove 1 & 2.

Lastly, lets look at the source.  We've got two separate companies we can look at who seem to be going along nicely.  We also have a 3rd party report from ICv2 indicating that PP, at least, is eating into GW's market share.

What evidence do we have that 1 & 2 are true? Ironically it comes from the same source.  GW's stock holder report.  Who do you believe?

Whew!  So to get back to the original point made by our lovable "grumpy old fart" if 3, 4, & 5 are true, it is GOOD NEWS for us gamers.  It means that our hobby isn't going away, just that there are now more players (i.e. companies) in the game.  It means more choices for use gamers, and that GW will have to get a bit more competitive and perhaps start adopting some of the standards the other companies are bringing to the industry.

Thats not a correct statement Russ. The corporate world is replete with companies gaining market share in industries that are themselves declining.  Television news is an excellent example. A particular network's share may be growing, but the overall pool of people watching network news is shrinking.

Not to try and flame the owner of this website Russ, but your proof of logic sturcture is totally wrong.

4 and 5 do not neccessarily have anything to do with number 1 and 2.

This statement would absolutely be true if there where only these three miniature gaming companies around.

PP could be growing, while GW is not shrinking, at the same time the market could be shrinking.

if 100 people are gamers, 50 play GW, 25 played PP, 25 played other games.

Next ywar, we could have 90 players, 50 play GW, 35 play PP, 5 play other games.

There you have a shrinking pool, a growing PP, as well as a static GW.

As for the whole GW arguemnt, it would be great if they took a great loss. Then we could get a higher standard of quality for rules, and cheaper minis.

Even so, if the market is shrinking, innovation is equally important!
So what if your competition is a video games company rather than another gaming company- it's still competition and the same principle applies. No doubt this is why GW have been dumbing things down a bit lately, to make wargames a bit more "plug and play"-able. The problem is, wargames aren't and never will be a pastime for people with short attention spans or a need for a quick fix.
*shrug*

The only problem with your statement is that it assumes that GW is not loosing money. Their Stock report indicated their sales are down.

But you are correct, there is a third assumption to my argument I did not state, that is that the percentage of miniature gamers that only spend money on games other than PP, BF, and GW is negligible.

In my head it looks something like this....

Market Share (Fictitious numbers made up by Russ for the sake of the discussion)
GW: 60%
PP: 25%
BF: 13%
Other: 2%

For PP or BF to appreciably grow, going after the "Other" market is negligible. Of course this is just my feeling of how the market is right now, I've got no numbers to back that up except for what little I know about event sizes and Internet activity. That is, you simply don't see major events or major fan based web presences for the "Other" companies.

If we accept the new premise I'm adding above, then I think my argument holds. If the Market is GROWING then everyone wins even if market share is constant. If the markets shrinks, every looses if the share remains fixed.

It is possible that the market is shrinking, but PP and BF are growing, but that would require (under the above assumption) that they are eating into GW share.

 

Actually the hobbyist market is already shrinking for quite some time, most being older players and few new ones. Interestingly there is still a strong gamer market, but is put off by having to immerse itself into the full hobbyist stuf to play a game. So in the end the companies need to open up to the gamers without completely ignoring the wishes of the hobbyists.

I never read the entire post because of time. Give me unpainted models and a sci fi setting outside of gw please? especially if the price is right and the models are good. We have seen much better models (with same or better price) in a fantasy setting. Bet we would see some prices level off or even drop than.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.  While there are genre alternatives to WHFB, there aren't many to 40k.  Which may explain, if the ICv2 report can be believed, why 40k is still #1 while WHFB has slipped.

Startship Troopers was a good effort by Mongoose, but only having 2 armies is a tough sell.   AT-43 has yet to prove itself, and hobby purists would rather not have pre-painted stuff.

There are some VERY IFFY rumors going around that PP might be introducing a new game in 2008.  A new game set in the future? 

[DISCLAIMER] The last paragraph is totally unsubstantiated hearsay and should be taken with a grain of salt the size of a VW beetle.  Or better yet, simply ignore it. [/DISCLAIMER]

Russ,

Isn't PP's new game the gobber card game?

Re: SST

I hear Mongoose is moving to prepainted models in the near future (ala BF: Evo). Does this mean that they'll be dropping traditional SST (or if not dropping, then at least severely reducing support)?

Nevermind. The card game is being released this summer.