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.

nkelsch wrote:
Edit: Oh, please don't pretend all tourney goers are WAAC powergamers, it simply isn't true. Most tourneys promote the hobby as a WHOLE and I go as I see some of the most amazing models and paintjobs and meet amazing people. I probably am gonna lose my ass on the battlefield but there is so much more to the tourney than just the game. Most tourneys really are amazing hobby-centric events and most people are going for all aspects even if they are playing to win.

This is totally true. One of the best parts of going to a large regional or national tournament is when you have free time to go around and look at everyone else' armies. There are some absolutely amazing painters and conversion artists out there, and you'd never get to see them if you didn't happen to be at the same tournament on the same day, because they're sure as heck not likely to spontaneously drive 500 miles to play at your LGS.

Milisim wrote:I don't see why people believe GW should be hosting events....

Most companies don't GW most of the time does not support their products after you make the initial sale.

Fixed that for ya milsim

You really should give a turney a try mil, I am in no way a competitive gamer but I have played in two turnies and had a blast. It was totally not what I was expecting, then again I got curb stomped so hard early on I didn't get to play with the local TFG's =o] Sisters for the win.

Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:well, maybe next time you'll actually read (and comprehend) the entirety of a post before you make false assumptions and hasty conclusions.

...Aww hell, who am I kidding, I'm guilty of the same thing sometimes!

Haha, fair enough. I probably over-reacted a bit myself. No hard feelings.

Well, we'll see what actually happens long term. As other have said, if I were the one making the call, I would roll out a huge support program for organized events to build excitement and grow the hobby. Not just tournaments either, but national paint competitions, narrative campaigns, etc.

The intangible benefits are huge.

But hey, I am not in charge and we don't know what is to come. The Indy GT circuit will continue to grow and thrive. With the increased support we are offering one another, it will only continue to get better.

Something else ... Tourney events move the standard of the hobby. What was an acceptable level of army finish at AdeptiCon ten years ago and would have placed well from a paint and theme standard point would not do near as well this year. The bar has been raised.

A certain percentage of folks that come to an event will get inspired to do better .. be it painting, theme, “spirit” , or playing. That inspiration typically also involves a reinvestment in ones collection.

That is so very, very true.

My own painting was incomplete at best before my first tournament. Now I tend to score in the top 3rd of most events I attend on paint score, and I've had to learn and improve a lot in order to do that. The team themes/paint jobs, and individual things (ahem, GMM Studios, ahem) seen at AdeptiCon alone is a freaking inspiration (I still show everyone I talk to about high level painting the Pirate CSM army that GMM did for AdeptiCon singles 2010).

Frankly, I never understand the "WAAC non-hobbyist" thought process people develop toward tournaments. I won my last GT at BFS 2011 with a close-range assault-capable and heavy outflanking guard army that scored high on painting, while earning good sportsmanship scores. What part of that is "WAAC netlist" I'll never know, but I and every other GT/multi-GT winner always gets swathed into the same unsubstantiated bucket.

C'est la vie

Aye doc dragon i do agree its always fun running in to you at these events .

Redbeard... You're picking a huge outlier to prove your point. You're comparing a single tournament player army versus an army that you've built through years and years of collecting. I'm a tournament player and I probably have 6 or 7 40K armies. That rivals what you have, so did I just disprove your point? Using an outlier against the average doesn't really progress the argument.

You're also missing a key point. A well-supported tournament circuit creates an entirely new type of customer for GW to target. They make incremental profit by supporting people who like to play for competition. The basement gamer will exist regardless. The bottom line is that you need to create a reason for people to play this game. A certain subset will play it for the fact they love war gaming and seeing epic battles (you and your buddies). However, a large majority will abandon the game if there's not some hook. As I said before, there is a reason video games have achievements, levels, carrots, etc. They need to give you a reason to come back.

The tournament tournament circuit simply expands GW's market. That's what a good business strives to do. How many people do you think say to themselves "Man, GW isn't supporting tournaments.. I'm going to stop playing for fun with my friends in our basement. I'm going to stop playing massive apoc games with my buddies." And now how many people do you think say "Man, GW isn't supporting tournaments.. I'm going to go play Warmachine/Hordes, because I like minis games, I like tournaments and PP cares about the tournament player."

If you have a good business reason why they shouldn't support tournaments, then by all means, please let us hear it. But there really isn't a good reason, unless they are trying to make less money, or they have poor management. Basement gamers certainly spend money on the hobby and aren't a segment that should be ignored. But supporting tournament players has little to no effect on basement gamers.

Leenus, you nailed it. That is pretty much the most succinct argument for it that I have read so far.

Has anyone has thought that perhaps this is just another symptom of GW's financial streamlining process? To me this is more of a response to what is happening to the global economy.

It looks good on the books and to the share holders if they make additional profit from not shelling out money and resources in supporting the tournament circuit. IMHO the company has been doing a lot of this in the past year here in the US.

Leenus wrote:Redbeard... You're picking a huge outlier to prove your point. You're comparing a single tournament player army versus an army that you've built through years and years of collecting.

Not making it personal - wasn't talking about me. I don't even own one company of marines, let alone three.

I'm a tournament player and I probably have 6 or 7 40K armies. That rivals what you have, so did I just disprove your point? Using an outlier against the average doesn't really progress the argument.

But, I'm not sure they are the outliers. I think we can all agree that there are a large number of different approaches to the game. I'm as much a tournament gamer as anyone else posting here, although one more into the painting than the high-competition sort. But, I talk to a lot of people, both tournament players and basement players. And I've yet to see a tournament player with the depth of collection that many basement players seem to have. It's a different mindset. I collect huge armies - I've got 20k of daemons painted - and yet I don't have more of any given model than could fit in one force-org chart. I can pick from a lot of different things, but I tend not to go beyond what I could run in a normal game. The apoc players - they don't think like that. They will happily buy multiple titans because titan are cool.

I'm not trying to argue that these players will spend more than any given tournament player, but I don't think you can just assume that tournament players spend more, and there are far more basement players. And some of them do codex hop when something new comes out - they just don't do it to play the new competitive stuff in organized tournaments, they do it to play the new stuff and get the new models.

And there are also the tournament players who will spend as little as possible, and paint their models as generically as possible so that they can use the same guys for any of a half-dozen MEQ codexes. So there's that too.

You're also missing a key point. A well-supported tournament circuit creates an entirely new type of customer for GW to target. They make incremental profit by supporting people who like to play for competition. The basement gamer will exist regardless. The bottom line is that you need to create a reason for people to play this game.

I am not sure I agree with this. I don't think that a tournament circuit creates a new type of customer, I think that a tournament circuit gives a certain type of customer an outlet, where playing 'hard' armies is considered more acceptable. I say this because I've seen people build armies as if they were playing in tournaments just to play at the local store against whoever walks in. Heck, if you read the Battle Reports section of this site, look for Mercer's reports, where he runs a Purifier spam GK army, just at his local club, and self-admittedly has no interest in tournament games.

So, no, I don't think that a tournament circuit creates a new type of customer. I think that it has value for a certain type of player, and that possibly, that value includes keeping that sort of player away from the less-competitive types

I also come to this conclusion because you say that you need to create a reason for people to play the game. I think that reason is that people want to play with toy soldiers. I think that it most certainly isn't that they're seeking a highly-competitive outlet. Consider that the manufacturer of the game states publicly that they don't want to support a competitive game, and don't design the game with competition in mind, and that there are many better and more competitive intellectual outlets (such as chess, or M:tG, or even Warmachine) available. Why would someone seeking competition pick up GW? They wouldn't - the tournament circuit isn't creating customers.

Instead, people who are interested in playing with toy soldiers (and, I am not using this term as a knock on anyone. As I've already stated, I am also a tournament gamer) pick up this game because it's got a cool story and cool models. And they learn to play. And some of them will be more interested in the tabletop than in the fluff, and they'll dominate games among their friends and maybe then, they'll start to look for the bigger pond, the tournaments. But that's not why they started playing.

A certain subset will play it for the fact they love war gaming and seeing epic battles (you and your buddies). However, a large majority will abandon the game if there's not some hook.

And GW is just fine with those people. Half their business model seems to be selling toys to kids who they know will play for a few years, then figure out that girls are interesting, and girls aren't into toy soldiers, and they'll lose interest in the toys.

As I said before, there is a reason video games have achievements, levels, carrots, etc. They need to give you a reason to come back.

This is a tangent that I could spend quite a bit of time on. If you're interested in why this analogy is incorrect, PM me. I will simply restate the above; GW doesn't need you to come back. Buy your toys once and they'll be happy. There are always more kids at the target age who will pick up the game if you don't come back.

The tournament tournament circuit simply expands GW's market. That's what a good business strives to do. How many people do you think say to themselves "Man, GW isn't supporting tournaments.. I'm going to stop playing for fun with my friends in our basement. I'm going to stop playing massive apoc games with my buddies." And now how many people do you think say "Man, GW isn't supporting tournaments.. I'm going to go play Warmachine/Hordes, because I like minis games, I like tournaments and PP cares about the tournament player."

I'm not arguing that their decision here is a good one. Like you, I'm disappointed in this choice. But, it is irresponsible for you or I or anyone else without access to their sales numbers to say that their decision is a poor financial one. For all you know, they believe they're losing casual sales because of the WAAC seemingly presented by tournament players. For all you know, cutting these events isn't about saving a few dollars, it's a direct attack on the tournament gamer because that's not the sort of game they want to be part of, and they think they can sell more to casual gamers if the uber-competitive, vocal, minority goes off and plays warmachine instead.

If you have a good business reason why they shouldn't support tournaments, then by all means, please let us hear it. But there really isn't a good reason, unless they are trying to make less money, or they have poor management....

Maybe it's a calculated move, knowing that very few gamers will quit playing their games, in spite of their approach to the tournament circuit, because the independents have done such a good job at taking up the slack. Maybe they see Adepticon, Nova, BAO and the like as doing their job for them, for free. Is Adepticon going to go away next year because GW isn't giving them a box of free terrain? Is Nova? Of course not.

Are you going to stop buying GW products because of this? Or are you going to get a new army with the onset of 6th ed, and go to the independent events in your area, or that interest you? If you're in the later category, then you're part of this calculation that tells them they made the right business decision. If you're in the former camp, well, you're taking a stand, but I think you're taking it as part of a minority.

So, in answer to your question, the good business reason why they shouldn't support tournaments is that they no longer believe they need to. The tournament scene is mature and thriving without them, they're reaping the benefits of an active tournament scene without needing to dedicate resources (manpower probably even more so than the material giveaways) to it.

It is completely false that GW 'Doesn't need you to come back" Redbeard.

More than just the percentage of their sales that are to repeat customers, it is an expensive hobby to get into, so how do people usually get into the game? Someone, usually a friend, brings you into it. Or people you know at the game store show you the ropes, give you a demo, whatever.

Either way. THESE PEOPLE are what get new people into the hobby. Seeing models on the wall doesn't get people interested, seeing people playing painted armies gets people interested.

I think this is being painted as too black and white- it's entirely possible that GW doesn't view tournament players as the driving factor behind their business. In fact, it's incredibly likely.

This doesn't mean that tournament players don't buy a lot of stuff. It just means that they're not the bulk of GW's income- which surely, they're not.

It also doesn't justify neglecting them. However, if this argument held, GW would've been doing a lot more for "veterans" of the hobby all along- and they haven't been. Hence, from what I've seen, more of those types of gamers being drawn into other game systems. It's also an age thing. Most of us here are adults, adults buy tons of GW's stuff- but maybe it's not the majority, or at least not the group GW wants to focus their energy/funds towards.

These things could all be true without negating the fact that tournies are good for the hobby, tourney players buy lots of stuff, etc.

More than likely, imo, it's not an extreme- it's just GW stopping one program before starting another in a year or two. Personally, I think it will lose them some business, but that hasn't stopped them before . And I think indy tournies will adapt, and the tourney scene could in the end be better off for it. Weaned off of the "subsidies", forced to bring in other forms of sponsorship, etc.

keithb wrote:It is completely false that GW 'Doesn't need you to come back" Redbeard.

More than just the percentage of their sales that are to repeat customers, it is an expensive hobby to get into, so how do people usually get into the game? Someone, usually a friend, brings you into it. Or people you know at the game store show you the ropes, give you a demo, whatever.

Either way. THESE PEOPLE are what get new people into the hobby. Seeing models on the wall doesn't get people interested, seeing people playing painted armies gets people interested.

Honestly do you understand GW's business model? Get little kid into one of the big three, get a birthday, X-mas or two out of them and get another "Little Timmy" into the GW PLC,c,tm, Hobby,c,tm. Rinse and Repeat, newbies can't bitch about the price rises and shody Finecast QC because they are not around long enough to know any better.

Think how easy it is to get a 10-14 kid into 40k. The game is rather easy to pick up play wise. Sell them a AoBR, hobby starter set, around 1000-1500 points of Space Marines, codex, some more paints, some glue, FineCast(c,tm) clean up kit, some sand and flocking, paint brushes and you are on your way in the GW PLC Hobby. There are a lot more new players out there then vets, GW has figured this out a while ago and moved it's business model to this.

Honestly, I think store recruitment and word of mouth go along more ways in getting people in GW games turnies do. But that is just personal opinion and not hard fact.

@Lee, Ask me some time to spin you the wonderful, harrowing tale of my pitch to the honchos at GW US HQ back when I worked for them in days of yore. It will... end your life.

keithb wrote:It is completely false that GW 'Doesn't need you to come back" Redbeard.

I know, they really do need me to come back. I spend far too much...

On a more serious note, yes, you're right, they do need some people to come back. But, not in the same way that a video game does. And, while they'd like repeat sales, they don't need repeat sales, because they're happy with new sales too.

It's because you're buying goods, not services - and this is actually an evolution that's happening to the video game market right now. Video games can be divided into two categories - those where you buy game, and play a game, like Portal, and those where you buy a service, like World of Warcraft.

The former is essentially the traditional 'buying goods' model. The developer makes a game, you buy it, you pay them once. They're happy for the sale. If they did a good job, then you'll get excited about a sequel, and when that's released, you might buy it too. They like to have the repeat sale, but really, you bought their game, and they're happy that you did.

World of Warcraft, Farmville, and other games where you are essentially paying to play operate on a different model. WoW's prime revenue stream is from subscribers. You're buying a service - the ability to play - and you pay every month. If you don't come back, you stop paying, and they make no more money. They "need" you to come back. And so they make achievements, to hook you and get you to try and get them all. They use all sorts of other psychological tricks to get you to keep coming back and keep paying - it's actually pretty disturbing, and at some point, people realize that they're treating their 'game' like a second job, with terms like "farming".

GW sells a luxury (as in, not a necessity) good. They're happy to sell it to you once. If you drop $600 on an army, they had a good day. They hope that you like the product and that maybe you'll buy another. But, they don't need you to - not like WoW needs its subscribers to return month after month.

More than just the percentage of their sales that are to repeat customers, it is an expensive hobby to get into, so how do people usually get into the game? Someone, usually a friend, brings you into it. Or people you know at the game store show you the ropes, give you a demo, whatever.

This is true. Their marketing does require game ambassadors - and in fact, the game requires enough participants that you can find someone to play against. But, I don't think they need as many of these ambassadors as there are customers. They need some, but realistically, not that many.

To play Devil's Advocate, I've got some questions for you:

Firstly, If I buy my army once, and never buy anything else, but I keep going into the store and acting as the advert that you rightly claim GW needs, am I actually a "repeat customer"? I think we all know someone who is still using rhinos and marines from the 90s. These people still act as game ambassadors, but I don't think you can still call them customers.

Secondly, is a tournament, especially a big circuit tournament, really a positive recruitment tool? Does GW need a tournament player to come back because tournaments are such a good recruitment activity? And to this, I'd say, no, they're not. I think that tournaments aren't good recruitment tools because the players are too busy with their games to take the time to talk to prospective customers. I think that they're also not good recruitment tools because, unfortunately, tournaments can bring out some of the worst behaviours in people, and you don't necessarily want prospective customers getting that idea of the hobby.

Regardless of business models, I just don't understand why GW doesn't support all aspects of the hobby, including the Tournament scene.

If they wanted to maximise sales wouldn't it be prudent to encourage all potential consumers?

If they took the time to actually send someone to independent events, they would see only a small portion of the players are "in it to win it" if that is really the type of people they are scared of. The vast majority playing in events go to them to just play games against other people that wouldn't normally play against. Instead GW probability randomly read forums and blogs and think the comment sections are reflective of most tournament players.

Either way I still think GW has something in the works as a replacement what it is is I cannot say.

Anyway I put together some thoughts on the matter on my website if anyone is interested.

Games Workshop Kills the Scene

The North American Games Workshop Business Support team along with our management team has spent an extensive amount of time reviewing the current tournament circuit and the best way to offer support to hobbyists interested in hosting events of their own.

As you are undoubtedly aware, there is a Games Workshop tournament circuit in which tournaments must apply and those chosen are offered support. After serious consideration, we will continue with the current 2012 circuit ending in May 2012 and host the culminating Throne of Skulls tournament this October. Going forward, in order to be more supportive of events of all types, especially those in our retail and trade outlet stores, we will discontinue the GW tournament circuit.

We would like to thank all the organiser's from the 2012 Circuit and we wish everyone the most success with their events in the future.

Regards,

Desiree Dorsey
Director of Business Support
Games Workshop

Anyone catch that possesive 'our' retail stores? Maybe I'm reading alot into to that but doesn't that imply actual GW stores? (which don't exist in huge swathes of the US)



On a related note don't think 40k can't get knocked down a peg or two- it happened to DnD in the nineties due to TSR's bad choices, allowing white wolf, fasa, and other companies to take up the slack and pick up huge swathes of their market. For a while there DnD seemed damn near dead, where before it was THE pen and paper RPG, its name virtuallly synonymous with the hobby, It recovered of course with the WoTC buy out and 3e, but it just goes to show no matter how big the name, a game in a hobby full of iritable, picky, geeks anyone can wind up in the trash bin of nostalagic old OOP games.

Redbeard... I don't get it. First you say GW doesn't need people to come back, now you say they do. But then you say not really.

Which is it?

Also:

1) I think we'll have to disagree about how to run a successful company. Pretty much every retailer wants you to continue to shop at their store. No retailer wants you to buy once and never come back. I think this idea is pretty much business 101. I can't really think of business off hand that is happy you purchased once and never came back (ok.. I lied.. a vaccination business would be happy with you only showing up once, since they can generally only sell you a vaccine once).

To thrive as a company (especially when public) you need to grow your business (by growing customers or growing purchases per customer). You simply do not grow a business by replacing customer 1 with customer 2, as you suggest.

2) I wish you and others would stop with the hyperbole about tournaments and bad behavior. Adepticon hasn't grown by thousands of players over the past few years because "tournaments can bring out some of the worst behaviors in people." MVBrandt shows real data through a survey that says people spend more BECAUSE of tournaments. I've yet to see anything that shows people spend LESS because of tournaments. Or that a people really quit the hobby, because there are tournaments held which they are in no way forced to attend.


I don't get what is hard to understand. Tournament support helps GW profit from competitive minded players at no real cost to the "hobbyists." In fact, I'd say tournament support ALSO helps you profit from the hobbyists, because they spend a lot of money on armies to try to win the Best Appearance at Adepticon. Just answer me this. If tournaments didn't exist, do you think people, on average, would spend less, more or the same?

Leenus wrote: Just answer me this. If tournaments didn't exist, do you think people, on average, would spend less, more or the same?

Less money. I would probably have quit the hobby or simply reverted to a model collector and paint only collector models that look cool on a shelf. I simply don't have the time to game 3 nights a week and every weekend like I used to. Organized play is my best shot to turn a full day into compact quality gaming. If I didn't have tourneys, mega battles or other organized 'all day' events, I doubt that the casual FLGS play would have kept me going. GW almost lost me with the death of the GT which was an amazing event. I do miss the GW battle bunker in Glen Burnie, in 2000, I was able to bounce up there almost 3 times a week, but now I barley have time to make it to bowie which is way closer!!! And it does sound like they are very active and GW has really done a good job with organized play, it simply is an hour plus drive through traffic to play there.

Tourneys are fantastic for people like me. They give me exactly what I am looking for in social, hobby and competitive nature. And when I want to be fluffy and compy, there are megabattles and compy tourneys, and when I want to crush skulls there are no soft score best geenral events. All of them are great and what keep me gaming (and spending monies)

I think Redbeard is right... the Indy events are doing things SO AMAZINGLY WELL, why should GW 1: foster an employee or staff to try to do things that good and 2: spend a dime even attempting to run an event when we do seem to be getting what we want from indys. Of course MORE is BETTER, but MORE CRAP is not necessarily better especially if it turns people of indy events by them only experiencing unfair, poorly run GW messes.

Leenus wrote:Redbeard... I don't get it. First you say GW doesn't need people to come back, now you say they do. But then you say not really.

Which is it?

You're trying to make this combative, and it's not. There are different definitions of need. One could argue that GW needs every customer because they're a publicly traded company and therefore have a mandate to return as much value to their investors as possible. In this definition, yes, GW needs every customer to buy multiple armies for all of their game systems, and many thousands of points of each.

That, however, is not realistic.

Another definition of need would be what is required to remain in business. This is more realistic, because it allows for the fact that they do actually make a profit when someone buys one army, and then doesn't buy another. Does that maximize their profit? No. Does selling to enough one-shot customers allow them to stay in business? Yes. Is one of these definitions of need superior to the other? Well... that's up to you. You're asking for a sound-bite answer to a complex question. If you want to refine the question to the point where it's legitimately answerable with a yes or no, I'll attempt to answer as such.

Also:

1) I think we'll have to disagree about how to run a successful company. Pretty much every retailer wants you to continue to shop at their store. No retailer wants you to buy once and never come back. I think this idea is pretty much business 101. I can't really think of business off hand that is happy you purchased once and never came back (ok.. I lied.. a vaccination business would be happy with you only showing up once, since they can generally only sell you a vaccine once).

And yet, pretty much every retailer is also happy if you do buy one thing at their store, and pretty much every retailer is aware that they're not going to get a 100% repeat rate. That's realism. No company is going to say, "we're going to fail if we cannot ensure 100% repeat customers." And, this is more true for 'luxury' goods (again, the definition of luxury as non-necessity, not Ferraris). A 2000 point army is going to cost between $500-$1000 at retail. That's a fairly major purchase for what is essentially a toy. Do they want to sell you more than one? Sure. Is it realistic that most people will buy more than one?

To thrive as a company (especially when public) you need to grow your business (by growing customers or growing purchases per customer). You simply do not grow a business by replacing customer 1 with customer 2, as you suggest.

But you have to admit that, while infinite growth is an ideal, it's not actually going to happen. What's more, I'm not sure GW fancies itself as a growth industry - not in the sense that its investors are looking for. GWs investors aren't looking for a company that's going to double in size in the next three years, they're looking for a company that pays a reasonable dividend on a regular basis and that can continue to generate a profit, even if it grows slowly. There's nothing wrong with this approach to business either. This isn't Amazon, sacrificing profit for growth, this is a steady business that's simply looking to remain in the black.

If a steady dividend is what your investors are looking for, selling the same thing to a new teen audience every couple of years suddenly doesn't sound like the worst business model in the world. Of course they'd like to also expand their customer base, and they'd like to also get every customer to spend more, but there are trade-offs that need to be considered. Consider advertising. You could claim that if they advertised on TV, especially during shows targeted at teen boys, they might get more customers. And yet, they don't. The people making these decisions aren't forum posters without data, they're MBAs with sales forecasts and cost analysis', and a bigger picture view than we have. What do they know that we don't? Maybe they understand that playing with toy soldiers is not a mainstream activity, and so pursing mainstream advertising isn't going to generate a return that justifies its cost.

Maybe tournament support falls into the same category. Not because tournaments are useless, or have no value, but because they believe that the tournament scene is mature enough to survive without their direct involvement. So here's a business 101 question for you. If you can spend nothing, and get a return of $1000 for each of 140 people who plan to play at NOVA, why would you spend $1000 - plus the human resources required to manage the program, to get the same return?

2) I wish you and others would stop with the hyperbole about tournaments and bad behavior. Adepticon hasn't grown by thousands of players over the past few years because "tournaments can bring out some of the worst behaviors in people."

Having experienced some of the bad behaviour first-hand, I don't think it's a non-topic at all. And yet, the positive experiences outweigh the negative, and it is because of this that the events grow. I do know that if I wanted to get a friend into 40k, I would not bring them to Adepticon for their first experience. I don't think it is a good environment for an introduction.

MVBrandt shows real data through a survey that says people spend more BECAUSE of tournaments. I've yet to see anything that shows people spend LESS because of tournaments. Or that a people really quit the hobby, because there are tournaments held which they are in no way forced to attend.

Okay. Show me the data that says people won't go to NOVA because GW is cancelling a very small percentage of NOVAs prize support. NOVA doesn't need a GW circuit anymore. Adepticon existed before there was a GW circuit.

I don't get what is hard to understand. Tournament support helps GW profit from competitive minded players at no real cost to the "hobbyists."

You have no proof to back this up. What you mean to say is that Tournaments help GW profit from competitive minded players. Whether GW provides support for those tournaments or not doesn't change the outcome.

Just answer me this. If tournaments didn't exist, do you think people, on average, would spend less, more or the same?

I'll give you the straight answer you're obviously begging for here. People would spend less on average. This isn't difficult math. So, I played your game - now you just answer me this: Are you going to skip any independent tournaments in the next year solely because GW has cut their support for the circuit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:. Of course MORE is BETTER, but MORE CRAP is not necessarily better especially if it turns people of indy events by them only experiencing unfair, poorly run GW messes.

And this too. There has to be a point of diminishing returns when it comes to large tournaments. People only have so many vacation days, so much travel money, and the like. Between Adepticon, BOLScon, BAO, NOVA, as well as plenty of other existing events, is adding another new event simply dividing the pool further? If there was a GT every weekend, would that be a good thing, or would it dilute them all to the point that none were really grand? How many large events is ideal? Would you rather see twelve events with 30 players each, or four with 120?

I'm wading into this really late, but is GW canceling the monthly prize support they send to FLGS's around the US?

GW as of late is turning into a money hungry monster........

You tournament players have proven to everyone that tournaments are good for Business..........

You will ALL still continue to compete in 40k based tournaments and GW isnt spending a single penny for them....


How is making it fall upon the fan base to support their models not a good thing? You guys start up your own leagues and tournaments and continue competing with each other as always driving up sales of GW product and GW sits back and thanks you for the money while spending NONE.


It's a pretty shrewd business model really....

You have invested too much in the hobby to just quit and most likely they know that.......

Thunderfrog wrote:I'm wading into this really late, but is GW canceling the monthly prize support they send to FLGS's around the US?

Monthly? As far as last month, not at my FLGS. He gets a "x" amount of dollars per year based on sales of the product in question.

I am continuously dazzled by Redbeards insites into vastly different topics. I feel I'm ready to take a final exam in a Psychology of Buisness course after reading his posts.

TBH the Red Kid is spot on with his assessment. I'm an old time tourney player and tourneys bring the worst out in me. I'll also have a rotating supply of 4-6 2000pt armies at any one time. I sell off ones I think have no future (because of rules changes for instance) and pick up a new one as cheaply as possible.

A number of years back I was introduced to my first basement gamer. He was an older fellow, a reverend actually, who had passed away. His widow couldn't afford to live in the house the church provided so she wanted to sell some of his stuff. He had been a basement 40k player for years and few people knew it. I went to sort through his stuff with a store owner and to get it ready for sale. When I walked into that basement I was shocked with what I saw. He had 6 large folding tables put together with cloth covering them. On the tables was a humongous battle scene of Orks vs. Guard. Imagine a toy train collector who has a town and railway station all modeled up on a 20' x 15' table and this is what it was, but with 40k stuff dating back to the 1980's. He had everything and in lots of numbers. The guy never played. I'm sure he barely knew the rules. He treated it as a scenic modeling collection. We spent over a week trying to catalog everything. This was one basement gamer, but I have never seen anyone with more models in all my life.

Catering to the young teen is a common buisness strategy with lots of products. From teen magazines to skinny jeans, many industries are in business to get money from 12-16 year olds as they progress through that age. It's not far fetched to see a sic-fi modeling company do the same thing. I have said for a while now the proof will be in 6th edition. Will the rules become more random, like the current edition of fantasy? Or will the rules become more competitive with predictable outcomes to tactical decisions? That will be my clue as to where the company wants to go.

Leenus wrote:If you have a good business reason why they shouldn't support tournaments, then by all means, please let us hear it

Just as a thought, but perhaps the tournament scene will continue to thrive and grow regardless of GW's input.

Perhaps the benefits to GW are not related to their input in the tournament scene.

GW canned their events, and support for other events in Australia a long time ago. Our tournament scene has only gotten better, and no one misses the old GTs (although it would be nice to add to the trophy collection!). Even just looking through the last new pages at the reasons people give for playing in Tournaments: Meeting new players, challenging themselves, seeing new awesomely painted and converted armies, motivation for finishing armies and buying new ones. Not to mention the other 'standard' reasons for a weekend away from home, such as recharging the batteries, taking a break from regular life, etc.

Not one person has said they only go to tournaments because of the financial support given by GW, and I would be shocked to hear if even one person said they were to quit attending tournaments, or quit 40K altogether, entirely because GW stopped giving prize support to tournaments.

DarthDiggler wrote: I have said for a while now the proof will be in 6th edition. Will the rules become more random, like the current edition of fantasy? Or will the rules become more competitive with predictable outcomes to tactical decisions? That will be my clue as to where the company wants to go.

Oh, what a load of crap. The 'more random' element serves to increase the importance of tactical decisions, not decrease it. As the old saying goes: Only through adversity is genius revealed.

Reecius wrote:The Indy GT circuit will continue to grow and thrive. With the increased support we are offering one another, it will only continue to get better.

Kaldor wrote:
Just as a thought, but perhaps the tournament scene will continue to thrive and grow regardless of GW's input.

this is what I was thinking. Perhaps GW has faith in the 3rd-parties to grow the hobby/game. Maybe this is their super-subtle way of telling the community to try to spread the hobby more (not sure that makes sense as a business model...)? Maybe they're expecting those 3rd-parties to up the ante of their tournaments in hopes of getting the word spread even more? Or even find other, more creative, ways to promote the hobby? Really not sure haha. Who knows how, why, or what GW thinks sometimes...

...or maybe they're cutting back on their tourney support finances to focus their finances elsewhere long term (pre-painted minis? venturing in another medium - return of the Warhammer Monthly comic or a live-action movie?)?

Milisim wrote:GW as of late is turning turned into a money hungry monster........ after Tom Kirbys managment buy out and fired on all cylinders around 1998

You tournament players have proven to everyone that tournaments are good for Business..........

You will ALL still continue to compete in 40k based tournaments and GW isnt spending a single penny for them....


How is making it fall upon the fan base to support their models not a good thing? You guys start up your own leagues and tournaments and continue competing with each other as always driving up sales of GW product and GW sits back and thanks you for the money while spending NONE.


It's a pretty shrewd business model really....

You have invested too much in the hobby to just quit and most likely they know that.......

Again fixed

But yes it is a good business model, no cost and nothing but gain, sounds like a win-win for the bean counters again.

One of the things that worries me about GW is that their current business model continues to cut costs, and I see very few attempts to grow new markets. The following is a list of things (just from semi-recent memory) that GW has done:

1. Cut all staff from all stores down to single-employee stores for almost every store in the world.
2. Cut tournament support.
3. End Ard Boyz.
4. Close Australian stores
5. Increase shipping to australia
6. Increase shipping to Japan
7. Increase salaries of top execs
8. Still more price increases.
9. Develop finecast
10. Dreadfleet oops
11. Re-release Lotr

Many of these things cut costs. In other words, I see programs/employees being cut, an average series of numbers for profits, and an increase in price over all product lines. This looks a lot like a company that is losing sales and is cost-cutting and attempting to drive sales by marking up their product, and to anyone on this side of the pond that should be worrying, because we have seen a lot of bad things resulting from that sort of behavior recently.

Their business model seems to require them selling models in a large-scale, per-customer bulk purchase, with the hope that said customer continues to pay small parts of that investment to them over time. They continue raising prices and asking people to pay greater and greater amounts for the same bulk purchase, but what happens when the average person can no longer afford the purchase, or the payments, and has to sell their house? Oh, I meant models. Yeah, sell their models.

Of the three items on that list that are not cost-cutting, executive bonuses, or price increases, one of them (finecast) did not expand the market or grow consumer business as it was simply a replacement for existing products (unless it is actually less expensive for them to make things finecast instead of pewter, but then it would just be another cost-cutting strategy anyway). Another (Dreadfleet) was another example of good intentions poorly executed or thought out, and resulted in product failure and what I'll bet is a net loss. The last (lotr) is a product line that already massively failed once, but should bring in or rekindle old interest, and is therefore what I'd call a market growth decision. This seems to directly contradict with the crowd who thinks GW isn't interested in old flames, but I could see it getting a lot of attention in the year of The Hobbit. Should they choose to continue the line for another decade after the movie's release, it will probably end up like like it did the last time (not well) but I can always hope they'll learn from their mistake.

Also, anyone who says that GW giving up on something because someone 3rd party is doing it better should take a look at their lawsuit with chapter house and the old fights against the internet ordering sites from the 90s. Losing a part of your company that can generate revenue because a 3rd party does it better is not a "good business decision." Unless GW also intends to make fandexes, 3rd-party modelers, 3rd party distributors, and its competitors a part of its business model, they need to seriously rethink their current run of business decisions imho.

Also, as a disclaimer, I am no expert in business or economics. I'm just calling this as I see it in relation to how I see other companies succeed and do well, or fail and do poorly.

Yeah, I see a far better painting standard, overall, at tournaments than I do gaming with my friends or at the local club.

(Oh, that goes for my own armies too -- I'm much more likely to have unpainted or unfinished minis in a friendly game than at a tourney!)

I might have been lucky, too, but I've never actually had an unfriendly opponent at a tournament. I suspect most people make a special effort to be friendly, because that is (or should be) part of the game -- it's a social experience.

I've also found that the majority of tournament players are also scrupulously fair. In fact, the most consistent, ongoing cheat I've enountered wasn't at a tournament -- it's a local player who plays close combat heavy armies and will always turn a 6" move into 7" or 8" if you're not watching him like a hawk. As far as I know, he's never played at a tournament in his life.

Kaldor wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote: I have said for a while now the proof will be in 6th edition. Will the rules become more random, like the current edition of fantasy? Or will the rules become more competitive with predictable outcomes to tactical decisions? That will be my clue as to where the company wants to go.

Oh, what a load of crap. The 'more random' element serves to increase the importance of tactical decisions, not decrease it. As the old saying goes: Only through adversity is genius revealed.

All I've heard from the fantasy crowd is how 7th edition has killed fantasy. There are threads on that topic that say random charge distances is killing the game. All your genius is thrown out the window when your tactical movement is stopped not from anything your opponent does, but when you roll poorly for your random charge distance. (above and beyond the 16% chance to fail by rolling a one.)

Players like to know that when they make a move it will lead to X, not that when they make a move any number of random outcomes can come about. That's not a competitive tactical gam, that's Chuts and Ladders. Look to the battle reports, and complaints, when you have random deployment, random movement of objectives, etc...