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.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen. The debate has concluded. Age of Sigmar seems to be contributing quite heavily to the growth of the company:


http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36971/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2016


Age of Sigmar is the 4th best selling game in the north-american table top miniatures market. Still not as good as old Fantasy (top 3) in its heyday but it's a tendency and it certainly shows a noticeable growth in the game, since they didn't feature in the previous top 5s.

Lol.

*someone uses ICV2 to show AOS hasn't been selling well*
GW Defenders: "Yeah, but ICV2 is a flawed system."
*ICV2 shows growth in AOS*
GW Defenders: "Look, ICV2 shows AOS is growing!!"

I haven't used such a statement, so not sure why you're saying that on my comment (in fact I've said it was a perfectly valid system, only that the growth of AoS wasn't enough yet to make it to the top 5). Oddly enough, though, the one who's said it's not a 100% tool is chiming in that it isn't a 100% (AKA Grostnik)

 Azreal13 wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen. The debate has concluded. Age of Sigmar seems to be contributing quite heavily to the growth of the company:


http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36971/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2016


Age of Sigmar is the 4th best selling game in the north-american table top miniatures market. Still not as good as old Fantasy (top 3) in its heyday but it's a tendency and it certainly shows a noticeable growth in the game, since they didn't feature in the previous top 5s.

Lol.

*someone uses ICV2 to show AOS hasn't been selling well*
GW Defenders: "Yeah, but ICV2 is a flawed system."
*ICV2 shows growth in AOS*
GW Defenders: "Look, ICV2 shows AOS is growing!!"

I think you mis-read my post, where I again demonstrated, and explained why, the ICV2 isn't entirely reliable.

A pox upon those pesky facts, eh?

I wasn't referring to any specific post, it's just a general trend that ICV2 always gets cited when it supports someone's argument and rubbished when it doesn't.

It been like that for years now.

Yeah you were....c'mon man. We're not as daft as we look.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I wasn't referring to any specific post, it's just a general trend that ICV2 always gets cited when it supports someone's argument and rubbished when it doesn't.

It been like that for years now.

*Shrug*

That can be actually said about virtually anything though. Still, it's interesting that, even with the heavy releases it had this fall, 40k didn't reclaim top spot. Maybe because of the percentage of its sales made in GW stores but, who knows.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yeah you were....c'mon man. We're not as daft as we look.

No, I wasn't. You can accept that or are you going to call me a liar?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yeah you were....c'mon man. We're not as daft as we look.

I'm pretty sure this is something you guys can sort out via PMs.

I'm calling you a liar, yeah.

Given you quoted Lord Kragan's post - where he used ICV2 to show AoS is in fact doing 'alright' at the very worst.

It's possible you posted just after I posted my explanation though - but given my well known 'I like GW' stance - well, benefit of the doubt is a tad stretched....

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yeah you were....c'mon man. We're not as daft as we look.

No, I wasn't. You can accept that or are you going to call me a liar?

Also, Azreal, get Director Krennic back in there, it feels so frigging jarring seeing you with another avatar.



Back on topic. I think this points out (a bit) the kind of malaisie going on with 7th ed. This fall has been filled with 40k additions, great ones to boot. I think this goes to show that people are burnt out with the current system, a bit like what happened in WHFB's last iterations.

I just hope the "ultra" ultramarines is a hoax though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'm calling you a liar, yeah.

Given you quoted Lord Kragan's post - where he used ICV2 to show AoS is in fact doing 'alright' at the very worst.

It's possible you posted just after I posted my explanation though - but given my well known 'I like GW' stance - well, benefit of the doubt is a tad stretched....

Grostnik, cut it out and calm down, no need to get on each others throats.

So that shows its doing somewhere in the same ball park than WHFB was until recently?

All we know is that it's sold less than 40K and more than Hordes, though the indy channels surveyed.

I'm always curious as to where things like Warhammer Quest are accounted, and things like the legacy WHFB stuff, but they should pretty much be cleared now.

That said, a new club near me plays it, so it's slowly gaining traction, and by all acounts it's a better game than the clusterfeth that they launched with.

Herzlos wrote:
So that shows its doing somewhere in the same ball park than WHFB was until recently?

All we know is that it's sold less than 40K and more than Hordes, though the indy channels surveyed.

I'm always curious as to where things like Warhammer Quest are accounted, and things like the legacy WHFB stuff, but they should pretty much be cleared now.

That said, a new club near me plays it, so it's slowly gaining traction, and by all acounts it's a better game than the clusterfeth that they launched with.

Warhammer Quest is its own game and it would be, going by ICV2's metric, in the cathegory of boardgames.

That's one of the reasons I'd love to have a read of the stats behind the numbers - is it units sold, cash taken? What's the response rate to companies polled? How do they account for 'double dipping' stats (for instance, if Esdevium respond in full, do they then 'weed out' FLGS that stock that game via Esdevium).

Would be a fascinating (if dry) read.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

It's possible you posted just after I posted my explanation though - but given my well known 'I like GW' stance - well, benefit of the doubt is a tad stretched....

Actually, that's exactly what happened.

Perhaps revise your sense of position to centre of the universe adjacent and stop casting aspersions. If I was responding to you, I would have quoted you, and addressed the things you were saying. This was unlikely as I already understand the limitations of ICV2 and don't disagree with what you've written, but the "ICV2's value is directly proportional to how well it supports my argument" issue hasn't been a thing for years, and Kragan's is merely the latest occurrence of that, which is what I was highlighting.

As I said in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:

Also, Azreal, get Director Krennic back in there, it feels so frigging jarring seeing you with another avatar.

Actually this is more of a return to normal, historically my avatars have frequently been Wolverine derived, it's been so long I can't remember the details, but I chose one at random once, and another poster commented how, given my posting history, it seemed appropriate given his typical disposition and mine, so I've always looked at Wolvie avatars as "my thing" since!

 Azreal13 wrote:
I wasn't referring to any specific post, it's just a general trend that ICV2 always gets cited when it supports someone's argument and rubbished when it doesn't.

It been like that for years now.

*Shrug* I take it to mean that in spite of my expectations, AoS is doing okay. (It's anecdotal, it disagrees with what I perceive locally - but that does not mean that it is wrong.)

I will admit to being kind of amazed at how quickly things are turning back around for GW since Kirby handed over the reins - and this amazement is a good thing.

I thought that it would take years for the turn around to even get started.

I still have no interest in AoS, beyond maybe picking up the rerelease of IoB, but I am glad to see interest in the game from others, hopefully it will bring new blood into the Hobby (or even the H-H-Hobby).

The Auld Grump

It really can take very little to turn around a business, it depends on the circumstances of course, but if the fundamentals aren't being done correctly, small corrections can have a massive impact very quickly.

GW didn't even actually need to do things, just stopping some of their nonsense would have been enough to start turning things around.

 Azreal13 wrote:
It really can take very little to turn around a business, it depends on the circumstances of course, but if the fundamentals aren't being done correctly, small corrections can have a massive impact very quickly.

GW didn't even actually need to do things, just stopping some of their nonsense would have been enough to start turning things around.

Well...

Yes...

But Games Workshop's burned a LOT of bridges behind them over the years.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I wasn't referring to any specific post, it's just a general trend that ICV2 always gets cited when it supports someone's argument and rubbished when it doesn't.

It been like that for years now.

*Shrug* I take it to mean that in spite of my expectations, AoS is doing okay. (It's anecdotal, it disagrees with what I perceive locally - but that does not mean that it is wrong.)

I will admit to being kind of amazed at how quickly things are turning back around for GW since Kirby handed over the reins - and this amazement is a good thing.

I thought that it would take years for the turn around to even get started.

I still have no interest in AoS, beyond maybe picking up the rerelease of IoB, but I am glad to see interest in the game from others, hopefully it will bring new blood into the Hobby (or even the H-H-Hobby).

The Auld Grump

Honestly? The moment that anyone but Kirby took helm the turnaround would begin. It doesn't mean that they step aside from dickish moves fully, like the mess of releases CSM got or the increase in daemon of tzeentch prizes. But the moment where those dickish moves are splashed with good stuff (like SC! and Warhammer Quests) it does a hell of a job to soothe people's minds.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As an example, I knew somebody who wouldn't buy PVA glue from an art store because it didn't have the GW logo on it.

Despite it being the same stuff, cheaper, and a bigger bottle, he opted for the GW product.

I nearly went blue in the face trying to explain to him that he paid more for the exact same thing

People also don't like their stupidity (inefficiency? irrationality some other less offensive word?) being pointed out. Yes, buying GW PVA is a really bad move when most people can grab a bottle of white glue from their grocery store or a local pharmacy or something and get way more for their money. Point that out to someone who already bought GW PVA glue and they're going to double down on their inefficient behavior as a form of ego protection.

Azreal13 wrote:It really can take very little to turn around a business, it depends on the circumstances of course, but if the fundamentals aren't being done correctly, small corrections can have a massive impact very quickly.

GW didn't even actually need to do things, just stopping some of their nonsense would have been enough to start turning things around.

I think this is a really good point. Kirby was actually accelerating the approach that pissed people off and drove customers away. Rountree at the very least took his foot off the gas and tuned on his indicators and started a course correction. Even just decelerating the stupid would have helped though.

Since the mid 2000s GW has not had great customer retention. They expect most people to quit after a couple years and most people to never play their game other than initial demos and maybe a bring and battle event. So it's okay if they burned bridges with people as they were already planning on replacing those people with new customers (their best source of money is a new customer as they can sell them lots of stuff to get started). What many people on forums like this fail to realize is that the people who buy thousands of points of multiple armies (and sometimes make lists of what they have in their signatures) are not the norm. The norm is someone who enjoys the demo game or the look of the models and buys a bunch and maybe paints some and maybe plays a few times before they quit.

The departure from Kirby's approach I applaud Rountree the most for: Not distributing more than they take in as profit in dividends. It's like a sane, sustainable pay out ratio has arrived. This leaves the company with money to invest in the future rather than looting it to make the stock look good in the short term and to give Kirby compensation out of line with his accomplishments. The current dividend is still high and a large portion of the profit, but it's not a draining of cash reserves (or worse, when they borrowed to prop up a dividend when LOTR was falling) that Kirby undertook. My guess is that the fall dividend will be even higher, but still represent about 75% of their earnings (which is still a very high ratio).



Automatically Appended Next Post:
My opinion on the Kirby era was that if they could find the right combination of staff and store locations, they could make even Kirby's approach work with a reduced customer base but a higher margin on their product. They could find enough true believer customers that would buy no matter how expensive it was or how little effort was put into the rules side of things.

I think that's still true, but now they get to add in the benefits of stand alone games, reduced barrier of entry with start collecting boxes, an improvement of AoS rules support and a trilogy of very popular computer games adding in extra licensing revenue. Oh, and a depressed pound so all their foreign operations become even more profitable. Everything's coming up Milhouse.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

I will admit to being kind of amazed at how quickly things are turning back around for GW since Kirby handed over the reins - and this amazement is a good thing.

GW still haven't made anything that I am particularly interested in for over a decade now though. Perhaps Adeptus Titanicus will change that?

Lord Kragan wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
So that shows its doing somewhere in the same ball park than WHFB was until recently?

All we know is that it's sold less than 40K and more than Hordes, though the indy channels surveyed.

I'm always curious as to where things like Warhammer Quest are accounted, and things like the legacy WHFB stuff, but they should pretty much be cleared now.

That said, a new club near me plays it, so it's slowly gaining traction, and by all acounts it's a better game than the clusterfeth that they launched with.

Warhammer Quest is its own game and it would be, going by ICV2's metric, in the cathegory of boardgames.

I don't think that's the case. Pretty sure everything that's linked to the system (as Calth and Prospero for 40k) get fused with it. Might be wrong though.

 streetsamurai wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
So that shows its doing somewhere in the same ball park than WHFB was until recently?

All we know is that it's sold less than 40K and more than Hordes, though the indy channels surveyed.

I'm always curious as to where things like Warhammer Quest are accounted, and things like the legacy WHFB stuff, but they should pretty much be cleared now.

That said, a new club near me plays it, so it's slowly gaining traction, and by all acounts it's a better game than the clusterfeth that they launched with.

Warhammer Quest is its own game and it would be, going by ICV2's metric, in the cathegory of boardgames.

I don't think that's the case. Pretty sure everything that's linked to the system (as Calth and Prospero for 40k) get fused with it. Might be wrong though.

*shrug* I haven't checked the previous periods so I don't know right now on this. You might as well be right. Still, ST is pretty much a non-factor on the fall period, most of the people had already bought it months ago. WHQSOH too since this one is just the fall period (as opposed to the Fall+holidays they've done a few years).

That's a good point. I thought that it was for the whole period since the last report. But if it's only for Fall, ST is probably rather negligible


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just downloaded the whole mag. It said that the GW recent growth is mostly based on 40k, and that AOS is selling better than the last years of WHFB (which is something we already knew). Nothing too interesting in it

Are there even enough GW stores in the USA (which I think ICV2 is based on?) for GW's own sales to be particularly relevant? Considering America's independent game store focus...

According to their financials? £7,000,000 of sales through Retail,

Global trade is about 40% of revenue. By the way has anyone pointed out that GW's stock price is the highest it has been possibly ever? I cannot see earlier than 2004.

Chikout wrote:
Global trade is about 40% of revenue. By the way has anyone pointed out that GW's stock price is the highest it has been possibly ever. I cannot see earlier than 2004.

I remember hearing that 2004 was its peak/former peak, so you ain't missing anything.

Yep, took a big dive around about then, when the LotR movies had all been released.

I couldn't tell you what it was immediately prior though - but one suspects if you sniffed around Dakka with searches and that, you might be able to turn up very, very old threads with the info?

Seems to me with the resurgence of AOS on top of the highest stock price pretty much ever, that if GW knocks it out of the park with the new 40k rules that they would be poised to not only NOT die "any day now" like has been said since the plastic land raider debut in 2000 and GW was "price gouging the hell out of us with a $45 tank model", but that they could even reclaim the #1 position again.

 auticus wrote:
Seems to me with the resurgence of AOS on top of the highest stock price pretty much ever, that if GW knocks it out of the park with the new 40k rules that they would be poised to not only NOT die "any day now" like has been said since the plastic land raider debut in 2000 and GW was "price gouging the hell out of us with a $45 tank model", but that they could even reclaim the #1 position again.

I don't think GW ever was out of the #1 position.
They have been really bad in growth rankings sure, but what company really compares?

It's a difficult one to know for sure.

As covered, the ICV2 isn't massively reliable, because as GW don't partake there's at least £7,000,000 worth of sales not taken into account - or around 40% of their US sales.

And to add to that, I've no idea what percentage of companies polled actually respond, nor which products they stock. So we don't know if say, all of FFG's X-Wings sales or PP's Warmahordes sales are taken into account - we don't even know if the responses are substantive or not.

If anyone's got a full copy of the ICV2 thing and can shed any light, please do share with the class