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 GW could disclose their production pipeline and costs. Tabletop gaming is a niche market, that much I have to admit. I assume it is a hard job offering what they offer over 25 years, in that time many systems an companies came and closed. If they showed that is is costly to model things, that the material is x% of the price, that marketing and the shops take x% then maybe it would be easier to accept the prices and the problems. After all I prefer a price increase to having the game discontinued.

But somehow I'm afraid that they don't do it because their margin is not that bad... It's about investors, and not about creating games for the players and earning some money with it as well. So I guess they would need to shift the balance a bit in that direction and show it to the players. They have done so much to piss us off... establishing themselves as a partner of players would be a loooong way I guess.

Toofast wrote:

What has GW done?
- Throw a bunch of ideas out there and see what sticks. You could've asked 1000 long time players, I doubt a single one would list close combat dreads and Logan Clause on a stupid sleigh pulled by wolves as holes in their product line.

After some years in the video game industry I have to say that doesn't work in most cases. Players are not always the best people to ask about how to improve a game. E.g. if you ask 1000 players of some MMORPG if everyone should receive a free top tier sword or a lot of gold the majority will answer yes. If this was a majority decision you might ruin your game economy. Sometimes you need someone impartial to design this - and this could mean that he may not be too involved in the game. In terms of GW this could mean that 60% of all players play Space Marines and would appreciate if SM got some more love and power. Still that might be exactly the wrong thing. Many people would only realise that it is not much fun to be overpowered until after they won 99 out of 100 games and nobody wants to play them anymore.

Herzlos wrote:


That is all in the annual reports. Cost of manufacture is pretty low as a percentage of RRP (<20%), and most of the cost is in the stores.

Thanks, I will have a look at that. The big question is then: if they stopped having the stores, could they still maintain a customer base big enough to support such a model range and all the other stuff? How many people play because of the stores, how many would stop if they couldn't go to one?

I, for one, always hated playing with the people in the stores and almost entirely play with friends, aquaintances and their friends.

WayneTheGame wrote:

I think they could. The stores are really only a big thing in the UK; they are too scattered in the US and I would assume Canada, Europe and Australia. Most games in the US (and I would assume elsewhere) take place in independent game stores, not in a GW store because often there are established independent game stores. In my state (Florida) for example I think there's only 1 GW store in the entire state, but dozens of independent stores all over in most metro areas. So I think they're keeping the stores out of this delusional idea that the GW store is the "hub" of gameplay all over the world, when it really isn't.

In Germany there are quite some official stores, at least one in every major city. However, I avoid those stores, even more in the last years. In the past those stores allowed some discussions with fellow hobbyists and I liked picking up some impulse buy, e.g. some character model I still missed. But at least in those stores I was in they rarely have what I want. The standard answer is "You can order it and have it delivered here". Usually I reply with "If I wanted to do that I could order from my couch and have it delivered to my door without having to drive here again." Also the clerks are usually not that deep into the hobby. Maybe you can sell Chaos Havocs to a 12 years old as a viable AA option, but I feel like they are either stupid or trying to cheat me. These days I rather order, either with Wayland or with GW's store for those models I can't get elsewhere.

Herzlos wrote:

But the same fanbase are largely pleased by other companies. Is that because they are running things better, or are they just popular as some sort of protest?

The gist of the matter is that the fanbase of GW is rather large, arguably the largest customer base in tabletop gaming. It's heterogeneous and consists of many groups (e.g. painters, gamers, those who love the fluff, those who like the brutal setting, those who like the models...). Now the other companies are smaller and it's easier to design something that pleases one or two of those subsets. Usually since they are smaller companies, have no shops, etc. they are also more flexible and can fulfil their wishes easier and more spontaneously.

I am pretty sure that if one niche games got very successful and their marketing guys realize that the next big step can only be achieved by getting into existing toy shops ...they would become more and more like GW is now. The RPG history has quite some examples of how this happens. Here in Germany the biggest local RPG system, 'The Dark Eye' basically has the same history as GW and the fanbases' attitude towards them is very similar. People think they are greedy, regardless of how they publish something there is always a group that cries "the end is nigh" and so on. I had the chance to speak with someone of their core team at a gaming event and learned that this system is mostly a zero sum game. And that it has been sold twice or thrice in all the years confirms that this is not really a money maker.

PhantomViper wrote:

Why? What does the customer base size has to do with it being more or less heterogeneous? Why wouldn't other companies customer bases also be as diverse as GW's? Also, what proof do you have to make those claims?

GW is not a unique snow flake, they cater and sell to the exact same demographics as every other wargaming miniature company out there. The reason that they receive a much larger amount of criticism than any of its competitors is because their attitudes towards their customers and fans is allot worse than that of their competitors. There is no mystery here.

I've seen GW stuff in toy shops that do not even have RPGs, all over Europe. To my knowledge this is unique, and no other tabletop has ever been available outside of specialist game stores. Also, what proof do YOU have for your opinion.

They are unique in that they are the biggest company in the tabletop sector and have managed to stay in business for over 25 years. Is there any other comparable company? And sorry, but "their attitude towards fans" is inevitably "worse" since they are a bigger company than most. Comes with the requirements of bigger turnovers, owners, stakeholders, etc. Just compare the video/computer game industry, people also whine there about companies "ripping them off", even companies they once loved like Blizzard. They are friggin companies. They are there to make profit, not to make people happy. Smaller, newer companies come from the scene themselves usually. They often start since they wanted to make the game that GW doesn't make anymore. If they stay small and niche they can continue to do this. If they become a big international company, go to the stic market and so on they will change. For sure. Success seems to doom gaming companies.

 heartserenade wrote:

MtG has a larger fanbase than GW. Sure, they can't please all of their fans and some people will complain no matter what, but they're taking less criticisms for what they do. Hell, look at their official forums. There's a negative thread here and there but not as much as the flak that GW is taking right now.

A larger fanbase might be harder to please, but that doesn't mean you have to stop trying to please them.

I'm afraid MtG can't be compared that well to tabletop gaming. If you're pissed off by MtG's constructed environment and do not want to pay 1000$ for rares that you need to play in a vintage tournament you can still choose to play just in standard or the latest block. Or (like me) you just play drafts in tournaments and retro highlander decks in a friendly environment. You don't really have that choice in 40k. Also, for the price of an edition playset of commons and uncommons I get one vehicle in 40k or maybe 2 squads.

However, I think that Wizard is doing a better job updating their rules. They were the first ones to use USR like removing the card text and just calling it "Deathtouch". GW picked that up in 6th and 7th... poorly, compared to MtG.

PhantomViper wrote:

Stop moving the goalposts.

Your statement was that the reason that GW received more criticisms was because they have a more eclectic customer base. What does having their product available for sale through toy stores has anything to do with this?

Also, you're the one making claims, so you're the one with the burden of proof.

And X-Wing is also available outside of specialist stores, so are a myriad of other similar products including card games and board games: why aren't those companies subjected to the same amount of criticism as GW?

(quote removed)

No, it doesn't. That is just a load of bullgak!

GW might be the biggest miniature wargaming company but they are barely a blip in the gaming and toy market and you don't see any of the big boys in that industry having the same problems with customer relations as GW have.

And your statements don't make any sense: "They are friggin companies. They are there to make profit, not to make people happy." Really? Do you think that companies don't make money by keeping their customers happy?

These companies make luxury goods, if people don't like them then they will stop buying their products and the companies will shutdown, like its starting to happen to GW.

Oh, so we are at the "calling the others' arguments BS" point now. Can we please just have a discussion? Its not like any of our lives depended on this And yes, I know we're on the Internet here

Their product being available in non-specialist stores (and other tabletop strategy games not) is just a strong hint at their unique position and market power. X-Wing is not available in toy stores in Germany at least to my knowledge, only in gamestores/RPG stores. Your mileage may vary.

And yes, you are right, there are other big companies in games and toys, but we're discussing the miniature wargaming market here... talking about shifting the goalposts.

Also, again namecalling... my arguments make perfect sense *in my eyes*. They are a company and keeping customers happy may be a means to make profit - but you're mistaking a means for the goal. There are indeed companies that make profit by deciding that profit goes over happy customers. Just take hedgefonds as an example. The German TV market is another one. Cheap productions that many people despise are still the better economical choice since they are so cheap and it takes a lot less viewers to make them profitable... however many viewers (=customers) are not happy with this.

"and the companies will shutdown, like its starting to happen to GW." Now you are the one claiming things without proof. GW's revenue is pretty constant since 2009, so on what do you base your assumption?

WayneTheGame wrote:
Wait so your argument is that GW's problems are due to being a big company, and not because they're run by fething morons?

GW is a small portion of the wargaming market; they might be the largest currently but they're also steadily declining when their competitors are slowly increasing.

No, they're not. These are their figures for the last 9 years.

Year, Rev, Prof, Rev(IA)
2014, 123.5, 12.3, 123.5
2013, 134.6, 21.3, 134.6
2012, 131.0, 19.1, 135.0
2011, 123.1, 15.3, 130.8
2010, 126.5, 16.0, 141.5
2009, 125.7, 9.0, 147.1
2008, 110.3, 2.5, 128.4
2007, 109.5, (1.8), 132.6
2006, 115.2, 4.2, 145.2

WayneTheGame wrote:
Also, a lot of knowledgeable people with backgrounds in finance/economics/business have analyzed GW's financials and statedt that the company is in a bad way. I'd trust the opinion of someone with actual background in running a business or financials than someone who just looks at the profit and says "Well, they were profitable. No issue here".

Blizzard gets a lot of flak with stuff for WoW, but at least they will talk about it. Even if I disagree with some of their reasons for let's say nerfing a class, at least they state their reasons it's not the voice of god from the mountain and no mere mortal may dare question the divine word of truth.

GW gets flak because they are borderline insulting, and consider their customers to be drooling idiots that buy anything with a GW logo on it because it has a GW logo on it, no matter the price or usefulness (which again is outright insulting and insinuates that their customers just think "Oooh shiny!" like an animal or someone with a mental disability) and it shows with some of their releases. That's a big reason why they get flak. It's not some "GW Haters Club" on the internet a la 4chan or similar troll sites that get together and decide to go trolling the web putting down GW, it's legit complaints often from former customers that want to be customers again but don't want to deal with a company that has such vitriol and disdain for the people helping them stay in business.

The point that most critics elude is that if it really was that simple people wouldn't be buying the stuff. The only argument that you get for this (as you do) is claiming they are idiots. Now let's take a step back and look at other possible explanations. And in my eyes the most probable is: summed up the customers like what is offered and they are willing to pay for it. Calling them idiots (or comparing them to disabled people... very mature) is hardly an argument. I rather think people on the internet hate the fact that there are people with another opinion And if someone does not agree to your point of view he obviously must be a moron since he doesn't see the shiny truth, even if it is rubbed into his face...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Murenius wrote:

"and the companies will shutdown, like its starting to happen to GW." Now you are the one claiming things without proof. GW's revenue is pretty constant since 2009, so on what do you base your assumption?

GW's revenue dropped almost 9% in the past year and their profits dropped 42%, despite having re-released their two biggest selling lines during that period (SM and 7th ed 40k), if you don't even know this...

Check the figures above. Compared to the last 9 years this is not really a strong fluctuation. Taking one year out of the context doesn't say anything about the trend.

Their last annual report, put into context with the last 9 year - as posted - is not really showing a company on the downgrade.

Btw, I'm not saying that the criticism is not justified, at least partly. The trush, as always, lies somewhere in the middle of the positions. They COULD do things better and more customer friendly. But many smaller companies revered as being better would become similar if they got more success and their game widespread.

@PhantomViper: As you please, it's not like I'll miss insults to disabled people in the discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:

In the USA, at least, the wargaming market has been growing, year over year, at about a 15% for several years. GW's sales numbers during that time have been flat or declining. That indicates that GW's percentage of the market share is declining.

Do you happen to have those figures about the US market somewhere in context? I'd be very much interested in reading those.