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.

He's making basic smart business decisions like "let's listen to customers", and "let's offer bundles that actually have a discount", and "let's not be dicks and try to sue everyone". These are basic things all companies should do. He's not an amazing CEO, he's simply more competent than Kirby, who, lets be honest, was a dipsh*t in terms of business. We're simply seeing a little light after being hit hard under the Kirby boot.

Wasn't it Wells that started the rot? ISTR that Kirby stepped in after Wells left and carried on the poor decision making.

Anyway, while I'm liking that they are bringing back specialist games and added new stand alone games under Rountree, they won't see me back until they lift their ROTW embargo.

@Aspiring Champion.
I think you will find Tom Kirby mismanaged GW for ages.(With lots of excuses and blaming everyone but himself .)
(The LoTR boom masked the core problems with GW plc that were there before 2000.)

I believe Mark Wells was put in as C.E.O because the share holders were not happy with Tom Kirby as acting C.E.O and Chairman of the board.
(Not illegal, but it is 'frowned upon', due to conflict of interest with Tom Kirby being a major share holder etc..)

We should mail bomb him. Let him know we think he's on a good track, but success will be judged by introduction of plastic sisters. Enough people do it and it will be done.

 techsoldaten wrote:
We should mail bomb him. Let him know we think he's on a good track, but success will be judged by introduction of plastic sisters. Enough people do it and it will be done.

Nah, he might become complacent if he gets too much praise heaped on him.

it seems like he completely transformed GW

anyone agree?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Bi'ios wrote:
The reason GW stopped selling bits is because they’re all plastic now, so they can’t just cast up specific bits to sell you. How this is anything but completely obvious to anybody astounds me. They’re not going to clip sprues just to sell individual bits to you. That’s, frankly, a completely unreasonable thing to ask for. “Hey, let’s clip these guns off the sprues we’ve made, and just throw the rest away, so that it costs us way more to produce, package and sell, and we’ll only make a tiny return! We love literally tossing money and product away”

You know that they used to sell whole plastic sprues through their bits service, right?

That was when their kits were modular and there were 4+ individual sprues in any one kit - a sprue of weapons, a sprue of arms, a sprue of bodies etc. These sprues were often re-used between multiple kits. Classic examples being the IG tank track sprue, tank wheel sprue, the 2nd ed close combat weapons sprue shown already in this thread etc.

Now kits are largely one single sprue (which might be snapped into two or three to fit in the box) with only the huge kits having separate sprues.

A good example is the new range of Ork buggies. They replaced the old buggy set which had:
1 x unique warbuggy sprue
2 x large wheel sprues
2 x small wheel sprues

5 sprues, 4 of them generic and small. All of the new buggies have one single sprue which includes the wheels on the frame.

They might have sold individual sprues in the past, but the size, design and intent of the sprues were vastly different. If you split up the old Ork warbuggy set into its sprues you have 3 unique sprues, two of them with their specific modular intent. Even splitting a plastic infantry box from 3rd ed onwards would give you the basic infantry sprue and a command sprue, and the command sprue would have useful bits that were worthwhile selling.

Now if you split up the majority of GW boxes only have one sprue, so there's nothing to split down and sell separately.

LightKing wrote:
it seems like he completely transformed GW

anyone agree?

Most likely yes?

Though I am positive there will be more consensus on the fact this is thread necromancy.

Indeed, locked for thread necromancy.