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.

 daedalus wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Dont think its real, but if it is, it can only be good news.

Why? Because GW has supposedly been producing crappy miniatures and overcharging their customers for them as well as treating them like crap? Have you ever considered what might happen if a big commercial company buys over GW? Worst case scenario, every boxed set becomes a snap-together pack and is now sold in Toys'R'Us pre-painted with rules to play them. That's what happens when you introduced too much commercialism, the hobby aspect is going to die.

I'm just sick of all the anti-GW sentiments - like any company they have their bad points, but it's saddening to see that sometimes people only look at their bad side.

They brought it on their own, if they were worthy of more, you would not come across this that often. PP does not have this PR issues, and i dont even play their games, so no i dont like them better.

Give them 15 years.

Sure but even if they manage make this PR gak storm them selves, that does not make GW any better thou.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Dont think its real, but if it is, it can only be good news.

Why? Because GW has supposedly been producing crappy miniatures and overcharging their customers for them as well as treating them like crap? Have you ever considered what might happen if a big commercial company buys over GW? Worst case scenario, every boxed set becomes a snap-together pack and is now sold in Toys'R'Us pre-painted with rules to play them. That's what happens when you introduced too much commercialism, the hobby aspect is going to die.

I'm just sick of all the anti-GW sentiments - like any company they have their bad points, but it's saddening to see that sometimes people only look at their bad side.

They brought it on their own, if they were worthy of more, you would not come across this that often. PP does not have this PR issues, and i dont even play their games, so no i dont like them better.

Right, and how big is Privateer Press as a company? Oh, that's right, they're not even a listed company. GW is. PP can afford to pay more attention to and listen to their customers, because they have to please their customers. GW has shareholders. GW has to please them, not us, and sometimes, this comes at cost to us (increasing costs to cover decreasing sales, for example). This is the problem of scale that happens in all large corporate entities. You learn this in Business 101. Your "if they were worthy of more" argument is so baseless that it just reeks of arrogance. If PP gets to, let alone survives, the next two decades as a company, I promise you that you'll be spouting this exact same thing about them. You often hear old-timers (including myself) talking about how "GW used to be better", and if you look at the timeline, that's before they started carrying a dozen other different lines and expanding so rapidly as a company.

GW doesn't even own themselves completely. So what if they come up with a grand new business strategy? If their stockholders vote it down, there's nothing they can do.

I'm not defending GW to say that there aren't things that they could have done better, but it's better to understand the party you're criticizing rather than making yourself look like a fool by blindly jumping on the bandwagon of "OMG GW SUX" hate.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


Give them 15 years.

Sure, that does not make GW any better thou.

I'll give you that, but what you're hating is the nature of the beast, not the company itself. Look what happened to D&D.

 Enigwolf wrote:

Right, and how big is Privateer Press as a company? Oh, that's right, they're not even a listed company. GW is. PP can afford to pay more attention to and listen to their customers, because they have to please their customers. GW has shareholders. GW has to please them, not us, and sometimes, this comes at cost to us (increasing costs to cover decreasing sales, for example). This is the problem of scale that happens in all large corporate entities. You learn this in Business 101. Your "if they were worthy of more" argument is so baseless that it just reeks of arrogance. I'm not defending GW to say that there aren't things that they could have done better, but it's better to understand the party you're criticizing rather than making yourself look like a fool by blindly jumping on the bandwagon of "OMG GW SUX" hate.

And why would we care if they are a big company when we pass judgment on them?, what do they get a "too big to fail" pass because they have more moneys?. I regard them as high as their customer relations and their business practices deserve. To give companies a pass because they are big is idiotic and masochistic, being big is their problem not the customer´s.

 daedalus wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


Give them 15 years.

Sure, that does not make GW any better thou.

I'll give you that, but what you're hating is the nature of the beast, not the company itself. Look what happened to D&D.

I dont care why, if the shoe fits its fits.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

Right, and how big is Privateer Press as a company? Oh, that's right, they're not even a listed company. GW is. PP can afford to pay more attention to and listen to their customers, because they have to please their customers. GW has shareholders. GW has to please them, not us, and sometimes, this comes at cost to us (increasing costs to cover decreasing sales, for example). This is the problem of scale that happens in all large corporate entities. You learn this in Business 101. Your "if they were worthy of more" argument is so baseless that it just reeks of arrogance. I'm not defending GW to say that there aren't things that they could have done better, but it's better to understand the party you're criticizing rather than making yourself look like a fool by blindly jumping on the bandwagon of "OMG GW SUX" hate.

And why would we care if they are a big company when we pass judgment on them?, what do they get a "too big to fail" pass because they have more moneys?. I regard them as high as their customer relations and their business practices deserve. To give companies a pass because they are big is idiotic and masochistic, being big is their problem not the customer´s.

Read my post again, I never said that it excuses them from poor performance. If you think you can run the company better than they can, I welcome you to become a majority shareholder and show us how it's done.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


Give them 15 years.

Sure, that does not make GW any better thou.

I'll give you that, but what you're hating is the nature of the beast, not the company itself. Look what happened to D&D.

I dont care why, if the shoe fits its fits.

This right here further proves my point and just shows that you don't actually care about the details of what goes on. You see what happens on the surface, and then just pass ignorant judgment.

I don't need to, I am a consumer, my responsibility is not to manage the company only pass judgement on them and support them or not accordingly. I dont pay apple to solve their problems.

 Jidmah wrote:
Considering that both WotC as well as Hasbro have had failed attempts to enter the miniature market, I can see that they would be interested in GW. I honestly think that Wizards of the Coast would be the best thing that could possibly happen to WH40k.

What failed attempts are those (not being a gakker, just wondering)?

X-Wing is doing VERY well for itself since its release. And they already have a better set up tournament system





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Qcbob wrote:

silent25 wrote:
Sold? No.
For sale? Yes.

Couple people back from Reapercon said the buzz there was Hasbro is talking to them. As any merger/buyout goes, even if it is officially announce, it isn't necessarily a done deal. Things can fall apart.

Hasbro seem a perfect compagnie to buy GW on my opinion, seeing how GW evolve thoses last years focussing more on toys soldiers than real game system perfect for young children in a Toy'R'us. Prepare to see some GW product sold next to Monopoly and Risk games... I can sell them the idea of a Risk 40k... or even a Imperial Monopoly lol. I won't be suprise to see GW product sold on a WalMart in the next decade... (sarcasm).

They would probably give it to Wizards Of The Coast. 40k doesn't quite fit the Kid Friendly Hasbro Brand.

Or maybe they would keep GW itself alive. But they would also probably be smart and make Action Figures, Merch and maybe a Show or a Movie

It would be interesting to see if they took back the RPG's once FFG's licence runs out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


Give them 15 years.

Sure, that does not make GW any better thou.

I'll give you that, but what you're hating is the nature of the beast, not the company itself. Look what happened to D&D.

At least Wizards has shown they are trying to address concerns with D&D, With a public play test for next and a republishing of the old books.

There's no public news. It hasn't been sold.

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Dont think its real, but if it is, it can only be good news.

Why? Because GW has supposedly been producing crappy miniatures and overcharging their customers for them as well as treating them like crap? Have you ever considered what might happen if a big commercial company buys over GW? Worst case scenario, every boxed set becomes a snap-together pack and is now sold in Toys'R'Us pre-painted with rules to play them. That's what happens when you introduced too much commercialism, the hobby aspect is going to die.

I'm just sick of all the anti-GW sentiments - like any company they have their bad points, but it's saddening to see that sometimes people only look at their bad side.

They still make a bunch of money on the miniatures and with buying the company they would get the manufacturing capability's aswell. There's no reason that they would destroy a VERY profitable way of making money. And 40k is too dark for Toy's R Us shelves, and too expensive. It would be easier for them to make there own Space Wars brand. OR KEEP SELLING STAR WARS TOYS.

And its hard to look at GW's good side when its practically non-existent


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Enigwolf wrote:

SNIP

Read my post again, I never said that it excuses them from poor performance. If you think you can run the company better than they can, I welcome you to become a majority shareholder and show us how it's done.

SNIP

That's so dumb. Its like someone criticizing a movie or a game and you yelling MAKE A BETTER ONE THEN!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I honestly think that Wizards of the Coast would be the best thing that could possibly happen to WH40k.

I don't. WotC really has a horrible track record with anything other than Magic. Their business model is set up to drive cardboard crack, not support the well being of a line of plastic model kits that aren't expected to simply "phase out" after a two year product cycle.

I dont think "Horrible Track Record" is quite fair

They created 3rd ED D&D which most people love.

Then they made 4th ED which half HATE.

We'll see how they go with NEXT. At least they are having a BIG public play-test. Something that GW would never do

 Enigwolf wrote:

If PP gets to, let alone survives, the next two decades as a company, I promise you that you'll be spouting this exact same thing about them. You often hear old-timers (including myself) talking about how "GW used to be better", and if you look at the timeline, that's before they started carrying a dozen other different lines and expanding so rapidly as a company.

Where GW was around 2000, PP is about there now. PP has it's own set of problems, that I got to see with my own eyes, GW isn't alone in being the "bad guy". PP is already starting to get some hate, that I've observed, mostly about lack of availability of product and quality. They have production issues they just can't seem to fix, mostly due to their own inexperience.

What PP does well is make good rules and a good game, everything else there is a mess. Other than that they are already on their way to being the next "GW" for gamers to hate on.

EDIT:

I just remembered another difference between PP and GW. When people GW bash, GW staff mostly won't come to the rescue and post anything, Some PP staff will. What I noticed when I worked at PP was that some of the staff at PP have a type of "blind obedience" to the company and will defend it no matter what, even if they don't know many facts about the issue they will still defend PP.

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Dont think its real, but if it is, it can only be good news.

Why? Because GW has supposedly been producing crappy miniatures and overcharging their customers for them as well as treating them like crap? Have you ever considered what might happen if a big commercial company buys over GW? Worst case scenario, every boxed set becomes a snap-together pack and is now sold in Toys'R'Us pre-painted with rules to play them. That's what happens when you introduced too much commercialism, the hobby aspect is going to die.

God forbid the company lowers the bar to entry into the hobby! We'll just be swamped with budding young players who got into the game with the entry skill level kits... I dread the day when the hobby store across the world are filled with prepainted fully snap assembled armies just waiting for potential games instead of the relatively empty spaces most weeknights that are largely filled with partly assembled and unpainted but ideologically pure armies. /sarcasm

If a big commercial company buys out GW, we may get *some* of the kits you're talking about but those kits haven't replaced normal ones in the older model airplane business despite being out for over a decade. Why are you chicken littling that they'll somehow do that in the wargame model industry?

ChocolateGork wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


Give them 15 years.

Sure, that does not make GW any better thou.

I'll give you that, but what you're hating is the nature of the beast, not the company itself. Look what happened to D&D.

At least Wizards has shown they are trying to address concerns with D&D, With a public play test for next and a republishing of the old books.

They had to do something at that point. The vast majority of their player base had been undermined by what said base had considered a superior product.

Edit: quoting is hard

 Frazzled wrote:
There's no public news. It hasn't been sold.

Well, sure it has, just not in the sense of the ongoing and quite silly internet rumor-fest. It is a listed company and was sold to the public years ago. I think you mean that there are no credible takeover rumors

 prplehippo wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

If PP gets to, let alone survives, the next two decades as a company, I promise you that you'll be spouting this exact same thing about them. You often hear old-timers (including myself) talking about how "GW used to be better", and if you look at the timeline, that's before they started carrying a dozen other different lines and expanding so rapidly as a company.

Where GW was around 2000, PP is about there now. PP has it's own set of problems, that I got to see with my own eyes, GW isn't alone in being the "bad guy". PP is already starting to get some hate, that I've observed, mostly about lack of availability of product and quality. They have production issues they just can't seem to fix, mostly due to their own inexperience.

What PP does well is make good rules and a good game, everything else there is a mess. Other than that they are already on their way to being the next "GW" for gamers to hate on.

EDIT:

I just remembered another difference between PP and GW. When people GW bash, GW staff mostly won't come to the rescue and post anything, Some PP staff will. What I noticed when I worked at PP was that some of the staff at PP have a type of "blind obedience" to the company and will defend it no matter what, even if they don't know many facts about the issue they will still defend PP.

You could argue that GW doesn't need their staff to come defend the indefensible, there are already plenty of people lining up to do that for them

And, I think while PP remains a privately owned company then it's impossible for them to earn anything like the scorn that GW receives, simply because so many of the latter's policies that grate are enacted solely for the benefit of shareholders.

Hi Pacific.
''And, I think while PP remains a privately owned company then it's impossible for them to earn anything like the scorn that GW receives, simply because so many of the latter's policies that grate are enacted solely for the benefit of Tom Kirby.''

There fixed that for you...

The one thing that really grouses me about discussions like these is when someone makes the argument, 'GW has to please its shareholders.'.

Actually the shareholders do nothing for the company and most if them could care less about GW other than getting a dividend check because the GW share is in a package with other shares of other companies, most shareholders never consciously bought GW stock it was just part of the mutual package.

GW needs to please its customers, that is where the money comes from. You can only get so far on selling shares unless you are running a ponzi scheme.

xraytango wrote:

GW needs to please its customers, that is where the money comes from. You can only get so far on selling shares unless you are running a ponzi scheme.

Yes. Just like Verizon, EA, BP, Citigroup, Facebook, and Comcast, some of which are actually the most hated companies in the world.. You can actually run a profitable business simply by making sure that you stay on the correct side of the "convenience of not switching vs customer dissatisfaction" line.

More importantly, you're absolutely right to a certain extent, but if GW's customers are so dissatisfied, who keeps buying their widgets? I suspect far more people here (including the 'angry' ones) than you'd think. They simply can't be sustainable from new customers alone.

 Pacific wrote:
And, I think while PP remains a privately owned company then it's impossible for them to earn anything like the scorn that GW receives, simply because so many of the latter's policies that grate are enacted solely for the benefit of Sherry and Matt Wilson.

Secondary fix.

IMHO it isn't that GW has to please it's shareholders, it's that there are a number of staff at GW that might not be right for GW in positions of authority. If GW just stuck to making good models and games the shareholders would naturally be pleased since they are selling product.

But it seems, at least to me, that GW's policies are being made by people who aren't familiar with the industry and are "ladder climbing suits" looking for something to pad their resume till they find something better and move on.

I think that was the one real advantage PP had when I worked there is that the company is still, to a degree, dominated by gamers. Not all of them are as competent as they should be, a few should definitely be removed, but they at least are trying to do what's best for the company by producing a good game because they love what they do rather than just seeing the job as a temporary position till they find something better.

That's what I see as missing from GW now, passion for "The Game".

 daedalus wrote:

xraytango wrote:

GW needs to please its customers, that is where the money comes from. You can only get so far on selling shares unless you are running a ponzi scheme.

Yes. Just like Verizon, EA, BP, Citigroup, Facebook, and Comcast, some of which are actually the most hated companies in the world.. You can actually run a profitable business simply by making sure that you stay on the correct side of the "convenience of not switching vs customer dissatisfaction" line.

More importantly, you're absolutely right to a certain extent, but if GW's customers are so dissatisfied, who keeps buying their widgets? I suspect far more people here (including the 'angry' ones) than you'd think. They simply can't be sustainable from new customers alone.

In case you have not been following their reports, their sales have been dropping increasingly. Their sales volume has declined, their increase in revenue is not congruent with their price increases, this ofcourse does not mean it is all gloom and doom for them, but to think they have been unaffected is naive.

xraytango wrote:The one thing that really grouses me about discussions like these is when someone makes the argument, 'GW has to please its shareholders.'.

Actually the shareholders do nothing for the company and most if them could care less about GW other than getting a dividend check because the GW share is in a package with other shares of other companies, most shareholders never consciously bought GW stock it was just part of the mutual package.

GW needs to please its customers, that is where the money comes from. You can only get so far on selling shares unless you are running a ponzi scheme.

Well, if every shareholder were to suddenly go out and sell their shares... The results wouldn't be very good for GW, let's put it that way. GW needs their shareholders, and the only real reliable way to keep them in a global economy that is still uncertain is to ensure that they still get dividend payouts. A company that has been having regular dividend payouts that suddenly stops will have a lot of explaining to do in their shareholder and fiscal reports.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

xraytango wrote:

GW needs to please its customers, that is where the money comes from. You can only get so far on selling shares unless you are running a ponzi scheme.

Yes. Just like Verizon, EA, BP, Citigroup, Facebook, and Comcast, some of which are actually the most hated companies in the world.. You can actually run a profitable business simply by making sure that you stay on the correct side of the "convenience of not switching vs customer dissatisfaction" line.

More importantly, you're absolutely right to a certain extent, but if GW's customers are so dissatisfied, who keeps buying their widgets? I suspect far more people here (including the 'angry' ones) than you'd think. They simply can't be sustainable from new customers alone.

In case you have not been following their reports, their sales have been dropping increasingly. Their sales volume has declined, their increase in revenue is not congruent with their price increases, this ofcourse does not mean it is all gloom and doom for them, but to think they have been unaffected is naive.

This decrease in sales is congruent with product lines that have been axed, or slowly been axed over time. This explains your disconnect between increase in revenue and price increases, of which is a terrible assumption to make because a change in price changes all the microeconomic factors, and that's just for one product, not to mention multiple products or product lines. This isn't some simple Business 101 comparison of single-widget income statements. Next.

 Enigwolf wrote:

xraytango wrote:The one thing that really grouses me about discussions like these is when someone makes the argument, 'GW has to please its shareholders.'.

Actually the shareholders do nothing for the company and most if them could care less about GW other than getting a dividend check because the GW share is in a package with other shares of other companies, most shareholders never consciously bought GW stock it was just part of the mutual package.

GW needs to please its customers, that is where the money comes from. You can only get so far on selling shares unless you are running a ponzi scheme.

Well, if every shareholder were to suddenly go out and sell their shares... The results wouldn't be very good for GW, let's put it that way. GW needs their shareholders, and the only real reliable way to keep them in a global economy that is still uncertain is to ensure that they still get dividend payouts. A company that has been having regular dividend payouts that suddenly stops will have a lot of explaining to do in their shareholder and fiscal reports.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

xraytango wrote:

GW needs to please its customers, that is where the money comes from. You can only get so far on selling shares unless you are running a ponzi scheme.

Yes. Just like Verizon, EA, BP, Citigroup, Facebook, and Comcast, some of which are actually the most hated companies in the world.. You can actually run a profitable business simply by making sure that you stay on the correct side of the "convenience of not switching vs customer dissatisfaction" line.

More importantly, you're absolutely right to a certain extent, but if GW's customers are so dissatisfied, who keeps buying their widgets? I suspect far more people here (including the 'angry' ones) than you'd think. They simply can't be sustainable from new customers alone.

In case you have not been following their reports, their sales have been dropping increasingly. Their sales volume has declined, their increase in revenue is not congruent with their price increases, this ofcourse does not mean it is all gloom and doom for them, but to think they have been unaffected is naive.

This decrease in sales is congruent with product lines that have been axed, or slowly been axed over time. This explains your disconnect between increase in revenue and price increases, of which is a terrible assumption to make because a change in price changes all the microeconomic factors, and that's just for one product, not to mention multiple products or product lines. This isn't some simple Business 101 comparison of single-widget income statements. Next.

So your explanation for flat revenue (give or take) over the last few years, in spite of regular price increases, is what exactly?

Especially where strong anecdotal evidence suggests that more money is being spent in GWs market sector than ever before?

To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

 prplehippo wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
And, I think while PP remains a privately owned company then it's impossible for them to earn anything like the scorn that GW receives, simply because so many of the latter's policies that grate are enacted solely for the benefit of Sherry and Matt Wilson.

Secondary fix.

IMHO it isn't that GW has to please it's shareholders, it's that there are a number of staff at GW that might not be right for GW in positions of authority. If GW just stuck to making good models and games the shareholders would naturally be pleased since they are selling product.

But it seems, at least to me, that GW's policies are being made by people who aren't familiar with the industry and are "ladder climbing suits" looking for something to pad their resume till they find something better and move on.
.

That's an interesting point, and funnily enough a quote you keep reading about Atari, describing that company just before it fell on it's arse (although I'm not suggesting that the same thing will necessarily happen to GW) - "a company run by suits on all levels".

We've heard it on several occasions from big names to leave the company; the sales department now dictates what path the company follows, what is and what isn't released. I've no doubt that there is still a core of extremely talented, enthusiastic and imaginative people working in design - but, their creativity is being filtered by the 'suits' as it were, and we are left with releases that are remarkably by-the-numbers and predictable. The odds of the next codex coming out without some kind of massive robot/vehicle are the same as seeing a BMW-Mini soft top being driven by anyone other than a 30-something woman with dyed blonde hair; simply unthinkable.

So yes you can call it a loss of 'passion', 'soul' or whatever - whether it's something that is inevitability of smaller companies growing large is open to question, but I don't think that many of us who have been around for a while would argue against such a change happening.

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

I read it that way too, but I'm willing to offer the benefit of the doubt. He use words like microeconomic factors, so he must know what he's talking about...

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

Talk to GW staffers and every single one of them will confirm that Epic sales have steadily been decreasing over the past decade as their community's focus shifted to 40k. Microeconomically speaking, there are five classic Scenarios of Operation under the Pure Competition market model for companies to operate in (based off of the Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Average Variable Cost, and Average Revenue/Marginal Revenue curves):

1. Operate at profit
2. Break-even
3. Minimize losses by remaining open
4. Operate with barely enough to cover variable costs
5. Operate below coverage of variable costs AKA shutdown.

GW's Epic range has seen a shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 5 over the past decade. Once they go from 4 to 5, it's time to shut down. You as a customer only see stage 5 when they shut down if you don't look at their financials or talk to their staff. LoTR was another range that started at 1 with the release of the movies, dropped to 3, and then went back up to 1 with The Hobbit. This isn't even factoring in their other Specialist Games range (which, hey, look, Battlefleet: Gothic and Aeronautica are also being axed) or licensing revenues, the latter of which had boomed with the Dawn of War series primarily.

It's all about market economics. Indeed, perfectly logical.

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

Talk to GW staffers and every single one of them will confirm that Epic sales have steadily been decreasing over the past decade as their community's focus shifted to 40k. Microeconomically speaking, there are five classic Scenarios of Operation under the Pure Competition market model for companies to operate in (based off of the Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Average Variable Cost, and Average Revenue/Marginal Revenue curves):

1. Operate at profit
2. Break-even
3. Minimize losses by remaining open
4. Operate with barely enough to cover variable costs
5. Operate below coverage of variable costs AKA shutdown.

GW's Epic range has seen a shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 5 over the past decade. Once they go from 4 to 5, it's time to shut down. You as a customer only see stage 5 when they shut down if you don't look at their financials or talk to their staff. LoTR was another range that started at 1 with the release of the movies, dropped to 3, and then went back up to 1 with The Hobbit. This isn't even factoring in their other Specialist Games range (which, hey, look, Battlefleet: Gothic and Aeronautica are also being axed) or licensing revenues, the latter of which had boomed with the Dawn of War series primarily.

It's all about market economics. Indeed, perfectly logical.

But still doesn't explain why you think this accounts for flat revenue despite price rises in an apparently growing market?

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

Talk to GW staffers and every single one of them will confirm that Epic sales have steadily been decreasing over the past decade as their community's focus shifted to 40k. Microeconomically speaking, there are five classic Scenarios of Operation under the Pure Competition market model for companies to operate in (based off of the Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Average Variable Cost, and Average Revenue/Marginal Revenue curves):

1. Operate at profit
2. Break-even
3. Minimize losses by remaining open
4. Operate with barely enough to cover variable costs
5. Operate below coverage of variable costs AKA shutdown.

GW's Epic range has seen a shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 5 over the past decade. Once they go from 4 to 5, it's time to shut down. You as a customer only see stage 5 when they shut down if you don't look at their financials or talk to their staff. LoTR was another range that started at 1 with the release of the movies, dropped to 3, and then went back up to 1 with The Hobbit. This isn't even factoring in their other Specialist Games range (which, hey, look, Battlefleet: Gothic and Aeronautica are also being axed) or licensing revenues, the latter of which had boomed with the Dawn of War series primarily.

It's all about market economics. Indeed, perfectly logical.

But still doesn't explain why you think this accounts for flat revenue despite price rises in an apparently growing market?

When did I ever state that? You're putting words into my mouth.

 azreal13 wrote:

But still doesn't explain why you think this accounts for flat revenue despite price rises in an apparently growing market?

First thing that comes to mind: further market expansion requiring non-linear increases in investment.

I have nothing to show that this is true in this case.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

Talk to GW staffers and every single one of them will confirm that Epic sales have steadily been decreasing over the past decade as their community's focus shifted to 40k. Microeconomically speaking, there are five classic Scenarios of Operation under the Pure Competition market model for companies to operate in (based off of the Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Average Variable Cost, and Average Revenue/Marginal Revenue curves):

1. Operate at profit
2. Break-even
3. Minimize losses by remaining open
4. Operate with barely enough to cover variable costs
5. Operate below coverage of variable costs AKA shutdown.

GW's Epic range has seen a shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 5 over the past decade. Once they go from 4 to 5, it's time to shut down. You as a customer only see stage 5 when they shut down if you don't look at their financials or talk to their staff. LoTR was another range that started at 1 with the release of the movies, dropped to 3, and then went back up to 1 with The Hobbit. This isn't even factoring in their other Specialist Games range (which, hey, look, Battlefleet: Gothic and Aeronautica are also being axed) or licensing revenues, the latter of which had boomed with the Dawn of War series primarily.

It's all about market economics. Indeed, perfectly logical.

But still doesn't explain why you think this accounts for flat revenue despite price rises in an apparently growing market?

When did I ever state that? You're putting words into my mouth.

This decrease in sales is congruent with product lines that have been axed, or slowly been axed over time. This explains your disconnect between increase in revenue and price increases, of which is a terrible assumption to make because a change in price changes all the microeconomic factors, and that's just for one product, not to mention multiple products or product lines. This isn't some simple Business 101 comparison of single-widget income statements. Next.

So your explanation for flat revenue (give or take) over the last few years, in spite of regular price increases, is what exactly?

Especially where strong anecdotal evidence suggests that more money is being spent in GWs market sector than ever before?

No I'm not. I'm asking you to address the question I asked you.

 prplehippo wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
And, I think while PP remains a privately owned company then it's impossible for them to earn anything like the scorn that GW receives, simply because so many of the latter's policies that grate are enacted solely for the benefit of Sherry and Matt Wilson.

Secondary fix.

No it didn't fix it at all. Unless Matt Wilson owns GW now. We get it, you've got a bee in your bonnet about PP. But the above "fix" makes you look petty for no reason at all.