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.

 triplegrim wrote:
In Norway the demographics is very young. So young that i in my late 20's feel embarrassed to go into the gw shops. In the US where I live now, it seems to be slightly older, and most people are in their 20s. Depends what day you go as well.

And likely what time of the day. People tend to develop different habits and routines when their responsibilities and commitments evolve and change, which is not intended to be condescending to you as I am sure that you are aware of this.

These days I got to the shop around 8:00 pm because I have to get my son into bed before I leave, and I like to leave earlier than midnight, so I am really only at the shop for 2-3 hours, essentially enough for a bit of socializing and a single game. And in line with your observation above I generally go on the weekend if I go at all.

In college I left for the shop right after dinner on Wednesdays, or earlier, and played until the manager closed up shop around 1 am.

I have noticed that high school kids tend to patronize the FLGS on weekdays after school or earlier in the day on weekends. Consequently, I rarely see anyone younger than 20 at the FLGS when I am there.

 cincydooley wrote:
I keep reading this "Dragging kids into the store that won't stick with it" argument and it confuses me.

I don't think I've ever seen someone that wasn't in their 20s or older in the local GW. At the LGS, I RARELY see anyone that isn't in their 20s, and when I do, its almost exclusively for CCGs....

Is the patron demographic in the UK and Oz really that different than the US? Does anyone else have similar experiences, or is Cincy just an 'older' market?

I'm not sure I have ever seen someone under the age of 16 in my FLGS and all the guys that play warhammer would be in their 20s (or at least 18ish, I'm terrible with guessing ages but I don't think any are still in high school). On the other hand at my local GW I rarely see anyone over the age of 16, and on busier days it does fill up with the 10-14 crowd.

 cincydooley wrote:
I keep reading this "Dragging kids into the store that won't stick with it" argument and it confuses me.

I don't think I've ever seen someone that wasn't in their 20s or older in the local GW. At the LGS, I RARELY see anyone that isn't in their 20s, and when I do, its almost exclusively for CCGs....

Is the patron demographic in the UK and Oz really that different than the US? Does anyone else have similar experiences, or is Cincy just an 'older' market?

Yes - the markets are completely different...and it confounds GW management to no end.

The US gaming market tends to be older and more established than overseas - at least when it comes to GW. The largest portion of the base in the US are active duty or veterans (late 20s to 30s). Elsewhere it tends to be about 10 years less than that.

 BryllCream wrote:
Oh yeah, I remember the old White Dwarf articles back in the day, about making your own terrain etc. I think things like that help bring kids into the hobby, now GW are foccussed on milking the vets/addicts.

I would still classify that as part of the "GW hobby" though, as much as that might annoy some people.

As much a part of the hobby as fixing the flaws in Finecast models.... (I still can't believe that they tried to put a shine on lousy QA by calling it 'part of the GW hobby'.... )

The Auld Grump

 NAVARRO wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Oh yeah, I remember the old White Dwarf articles back in the day, about making your own terrain etc. I think things like that help bring kids into the hobby, now GW are foccussed on milking the vets/addicts.

I would still classify that as part of the "GW hobby" though, as much as that might annoy some people.

Does not annoy me a bit I just find it inaccurate...

As Winterdyne pointed out.... if you like painting GW minis you are inside the wider painting minis hobby, if you like to play with the GW minis or core games your inside the wargaming hobby, if you like sculpting GW minis you are inside the sculpting hobby etc...

This is not turning anyone against GW this is pointing out that GW is just part of the overall wargaming hobby and if you pick x wargaming company products you are included in the that wider wargaming hobby... Its not even semantics.

If you like to surf with just quicksilver boards is your hobby quicksilver surfing or simply surfing?

So in short I don't care how GW marketing department twists reality to sell their stuff ( its their job) and I'm not annoyed by people who believe in that ( it's their call) I'm just pointing out that I find that claim inaccurate.

And miniture gaming is part of the gaming hobby, so I could say that you are in the same category as people who play the Wii, or people who play monopoly.

tldr; don't tell people how to define themselves.

 BryllCream wrote:

And miniture gaming is part of the gaming hobby, so I could say that you are in the same category as people who play the Wii, or people who play monopoly.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever...

 cincydooley wrote:
I keep reading this "Dragging kids into the store that won't stick with it" argument and it confuses me.

I don't think I've ever seen someone that wasn't in their 20s or older in the local GW. At the LGS, I RARELY see anyone that isn't in their 20s, and when I do, its almost exclusively for CCGs....

Same. The one or two times I see a kid in GW (say, under 18) they buy something little if they buy something at all. Most of the regulars are in their 20s with full-time jobs. Which is what you'd expect if you look at their product releases - £20 to £40 kits that are of no use to anyone who doesn't already have a substantial army. Whereas the starter set is specifically aimed at kids, but has the lowest profit margin


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

And miniture gaming is part of the gaming hobby, so I could say that you are in the same category as people who play the Wii, or people who play monopoly.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamer

Gamers. Those who game.

Tabletop wargames are a subsection of "gamers", and GW is a subsection of tabletop wargames. This isn't hard.

Trasvi wrote:
Personally, I think GW struck gold with the collectors editions.

1) Its a well known fact that there are is a certain subset of nerds who will fork out for limited/collectors edition anything.

2) As long as it comes with *something* extra/different, those nerds will buy it.

GW could have put the price up to $1000 for the privilege of getting a limited edition black-and-white paperback rulebook, and they would still sell out.

The only problem with that is that 99.9% of what GW makes, limited or not, never increases in value. The old collectors edition rulebooks are worth nothing, and still will be worth nothing in 20 years. There are some exceptions to this, but in general no one gives a damn about a $500 legion of the damned sergeant. Power to people that buy the LE dexs, but they open the door for comments concerning their dollars vs sense.

Orktavius wrote:
. As for Ravenous, it wasn't meant as a personal attack it was meant as an observation since I recall seeing a few posts by ravenous stating that he/she has not purchased GW products in years.

Negative, was not I. I dont think I ever said I stopped buying GW stuff, I might have said I dont buy their stuff at full price however.

 azreal13 wrote:
I had a discussion at our club with a younger member this week, it opened my eyes to a mindset I haven't previously encountered, and if its widespread enough, will mean GW can continue on their path for some time.

His response to my assertion that they're too expensive?

"I don't care how much they charge, because I only spend spare money on it, so it doesn't matter."

I discontinued the discussion rather than get embroiled in the massive flaws in that statement, but if that's the attitude of a significant enough percentage of the customer base, they're on easy street.

Why?

The money I spend on minis is most certainly "spare," in the sense that it comes budgeted after I pay the important crap (rent, tuition/books, beer, food. In that order )

That's a bit pedantic Brill. That humans, chimpanzees, and dolphins are all mammals is not a very good basis from which to deride a comparison of the similarities between humans and chimps.

weeble1000 wrote:
That's a bit pedantic Brill. That humans, chimpanzees, and dolphins are all mammals is not a very good basis from which to deride a comparison of the similarities between humans and chimps.

Right. You're an ape so how dare you define yourself as human?

My point is that people choose their own categories. I don't want to be lumped in with tabletop gamers, so I just say I'm into GW, not tabletop battling as a whole.

I would argue that for one to be "into GW" they would have to be "into war gaming". Just like to be an ape one must first be a mammal.
Just because you don't want to self identify with whatever stigma that you feel the larger subset has... Either you do it or you don't.

No sports fan would say, "I loooooove ManU (or whoever), but since I don't care for the other teams I'm not a football/soccer (or other sport) enthusiast.

Or a mechanic saying, "I spent 4 years refurbishing this old Mercedes, but I'm not a car enthusiast because I only do Mercedes."

Or a painter saying, "I love to create art, but I'm not an artist because I only paint."

People CAN indeed choose to narrow their hobbies and descriptors, but to the objective world, and literally by definition: if you are a part of a subset, you must be a part of the whole.

In this case you are a mammal, who is an ape, who is a human, who is a gamer, who likes wargames, who plays only GW.
I am a mammal, who is an ape, who is a human, who is a gamer, who likes wargames, who holds no allegiance to a particular manufacturer.
Regardless of where we put the emphasis all of those statements are true

Kiwidru wrote:

No sports fan would say, "I loooooove ManU (or whoever), but since I don't care for the other teams I'm not a football/soccer (or other sport) enthusiast.

Uhh yes they would. I enjoy watching England play rugby but I'm not a rugby enthusiast.

I am more than happy with my hobby, having someone on the internet leering over and trying to group me with a load of people? I'm not cool with that. Obviously you're free to think however you will

 BryllCream wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Oh yeah, I remember the old White Dwarf articles back in the day, about making your own terrain etc. I think things like that help bring kids into the hobby, now GW are foccussed on milking the vets/addicts.

I would still classify that as part of the "GW hobby" though, as much as that might annoy some people.

Does not annoy me a bit I just find it inaccurate...

As Winterdyne pointed out.... if you like painting GW minis you are inside the wider painting minis hobby, if you like to play with the GW minis or core games your inside the wargaming hobby, if you like sculpting GW minis you are inside the sculpting hobby etc...

This is not turning anyone against GW this is pointing out that GW is just part of the overall wargaming hobby and if you pick x wargaming company products you are included in the that wider wargaming hobby... Its not even semantics.

If you like to surf with just quicksilver boards is your hobby quicksilver surfing or simply surfing?

So in short I don't care how GW marketing department twists reality to sell their stuff ( its their job) and I'm not annoyed by people who believe in that ( it's their call) I'm just pointing out that I find that claim inaccurate.

And miniture gaming is part of the gaming hobby, so I could say that you are in the same category as people who play the Wii, or people who play monopoly.

tldr; don't tell people how to define themselves.

What? Going nonsense is not a good way to expose your points.
From that reply I can only assume you either have not read my post and are talking about some random stuff or that you are just arguing about something for the sake of arguing... It's hard for me to follow your nonsense so I will just leave at that.
People define themselves? WTH!?

 NAVARRO wrote:

What? Going nonsense is not a good way to expose your points.
From that reply I can only assume you either have not read my post and are talking about some random stuff or that you are just arguing about something for the sake of arguing... It's hard for me to follow your nonsense so I will just leave at that.
People define themselves? WTH!?

I'm giving up on you. You clearly have a very "specific" view of the world. I wish you luck in life, I think you'll need it.

 BryllCream wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
That's a bit pedantic Brill. That humans, chimpanzees, and dolphins are all mammals is not a very good basis from which to deride a comparison of the similarities between humans and chimps.

Right. You're an ape so how dare you define yourself as human?

My point is that people choose their own categories. I don't want to be lumped in with tabletop gamers, so I just say I'm into GW, not tabletop battling as a whole.

But why? Why do you have a problem being called a tabletop wargamer?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
That's a bit pedantic Brill. That humans, chimpanzees, and dolphins are all mammals is not a very good basis from which to deride a comparison of the similarities between humans and chimps.

Right. You're an ape so how dare you define yourself as human?

My point is that people choose their own categories. I don't want to be lumped in with tabletop gamers, so I just say I'm into GW, not tabletop battling as a whole.

But why? Why do you have a problem being called a tabletop wargamer?

Better that you don't ask... just let it go man...

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
That's a bit pedantic Brill. That humans, chimpanzees, and dolphins are all mammals is not a very good basis from which to deride a comparison of the similarities between humans and chimps.

Right. You're an ape so how dare you define yourself as human?

My point is that people choose their own categories. I don't want to be lumped in with tabletop gamers, so I just say I'm into GW, not tabletop battling as a whole.

But why? Why do you have a problem being called a tabletop wargamer?

To be honest I don't consider 40K and FB to be tabletop wargames.

What do you consider them then?

You are missing the point, as before.
I'm not sure of your level of logic/modern math but ill try to explain further.
A SET is a grouping that shares a common bond. (Apes, Even numbers, wargaming, names that begin with B, whatever)
A SUBSET is a grouping within a SET that further associates members within the SET. (Humans, Numbers that end in 6, GW, names that begin with Bryl, etc)
In order to be a part of a SUBSET, it is required that you are first a member of the SET (must be an ape to be human, must be an even number to end in 6, must enjoy wargames to like GW, names must begin with a B to begin with Bryl).

Here is the first link google popped up, it might be a bit heady if you arnt familiar but it should give you the mathematical proof since you don't seem to follow.
(http://www.people.vcu.edu/~rhammack/BookOfProof/SetProofs.pdf)

Aside from all that pesky logic there is common understanding, that the subset you define only makes sense to those who are already aware that its within a larger set. Someone who only likes Xmen is a mutant lover to those within the marvel set; that same person is a marvel lover to others in the comic book set; and that same person is also a comic lover to those that arnt in the comic book set at all.

At the end of the day there is an old phrase, "it's hard to see the picture when you're within the frame" and if you Honestly haven't figured out that others will judge/stereotype/categorize you outside of the persona you feel you are entitled too... well, there is really little hope that you would ever consider an outsiders opinion, since they don't really know the precious unique snowflake that you truly are.

 angel of ecstasy wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
That's a bit pedantic Brill. That humans, chimpanzees, and dolphins are all mammals is not a very good basis from which to deride a comparison of the similarities between humans and chimps.

Right. You're an ape so how dare you define yourself as human?

My point is that people choose their own categories. I don't want to be lumped in with tabletop gamers, so I just say I'm into GW, not tabletop battling as a whole.

But why? Why do you have a problem being called a tabletop wargamer?

To be honest I don't consider 40K and FB to be tabletop wargames.

Well that's just daft.

 Las wrote:
Why?

The money I spend on minis is most certainly "spare," in the sense that it comes budgeted after I pay the important crap (rent, tuition/books, beer, food. In that order )

What on earth is wrong with you? Tuition and books before beer?

Yeah, "spare" money is a bit of an odd reason. Of course my GW money is spare money, lol, but the less of my spare money I spend on GW the more spare money I have to spend on my sports/race cars

Noo! Don't use the logic!

Edit: damn, the iPad makes deliberate misspelling difficult,

 angel of ecstasy wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
That's a bit pedantic Brill. That humans, chimpanzees, and dolphins are all mammals is not a very good basis from which to deride a comparison of the similarities between humans and chimps.

Right. You're an ape so how dare you define yourself as human?

My point is that people choose their own categories. I don't want to be lumped in with tabletop gamers, so I just say I'm into GW, not tabletop battling as a whole.

But why? Why do you have a problem being called a tabletop wargamer?

To be honest I don't consider 40K and FB to be tabletop wargames.

Unfortunately, by definition, you would be incorrect. Even GW would disagree with you.

 BryllCream wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
That's a bit pedantic Brill. That humans, chimpanzees, and dolphins are all mammals is not a very good basis from which to deride a comparison of the similarities between humans and chimps.

Right. You're an ape so how dare you define yourself as human?

My point is that people choose their own categories. I don't want to be lumped in with tabletop gamers, so I just say I'm into GW, not tabletop battling as a whole.

Sure, and taxonomy is a bit more scientific than categorizations of social behavior.

I do not consider myself to be a scale modeler, even though what I do is very similar. However, I would not be adverse to classification as a model enthusiast, and would be happy to point out that unlike scale modeling for the purpose of dioramas, my priorities in the modeling hobby also rank playing games with my models very highly.

It is fair to call what I do modeling, because I purchase, assemble, and paint scale models. It just so happens that realism or accuracy are not comparatively large priorities for me, and I like to play table-top wargames with my models once I build them.

You play table-top wargames. That you personally choose to restrict yourself to Games Workshop products has little bearing on the fact that Games Workshop designs, manufactures, and sells table-top wargaming products. If you collected sprues of GW models to create subversive modern art as part of your subversive modern art making hobby, then I could understand a negative reaction to an insinuation that your hobby is table-top miniature wargaming.

But unless you choose to not play games with your models, you are a table-top wargame player. That would be an objective fact whether or not you like the label. Activities that fall within that classification are broader than GW, whether or not you personally choose to engage in them. Your interpretation of that activity may be GW centric, but that is just your interpretation of it. I do not see the point of being offended when someone points out that things which are not directly related to Games Workshop are commonly identified in the same manner that GW identifies itself and its products.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Las wrote:
Why?

The money I spend on minis is most certainly "spare," in the sense that it comes budgeted after I pay the important crap (rent, tuition/books, beer, food. In that order )

What on earth is wrong with you? Tuition and books before beer?

Yeah, "spare" money is a bit of an odd reason. Of course my GW money is spare money, lol, but the less of my spare money I spend on GW the more spare money I have to spend on my sports/race cars

Exactly, or girls, or whatever. At the very least you can buy moar toy soldiers. He really couldn't process it, kept saying it was ok as it was spare money and he wanted to play the games. I guess his youth leant him a degree of naïveté but he's going to have to learn quick in a few years. It's not bad to spend money on leisure and luxuries, but it's totally batgak not to want to get as much for that money as you can.

weeble1000 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
That's a bit pedantic Brill. That humans, chimpanzees, and dolphins are all mammals is not a very good basis from which to deride a comparison of the similarities between humans and chimps.

Right. You're an ape so how dare you define yourself as human?

My point is that people choose their own categories. I don't want to be lumped in with tabletop gamers, so I just say I'm into GW, not tabletop battling as a whole.

Sure, and taxonomy is a bit more scientific than categorizations of social behavior.

I do not consider myself to be a scale modeler, even though what I do is very similar. However, I would not be adverse to classification as a model enthusiast, and would be happy to point out that unlike scale modeling for the purpose of dioramas, my priorities in the modeling hobby also rank playing games with my models very highly.

It is fair to call what I do modeling, because I purchase, assemble, and paint scale models. It just so happens that realism or accuracy are not comparatively large priorities for me, and I like to play table-top wargames with my models once I build them.

You play table-top wargames. That you personally choose to restrict yourself to Games Workshop products has little bearing on the fact that Games Workshop designs, manufactures, and sells table-top wargaming products. If you collected sprues of GW models to create subversive modern art as part of your subversive modern art making hobby, then I could understand a negative reaction to an insinuation that your hobby is table-top miniature wargaming.

But unless you choose to not play games with your models, you are a table-top wargame player. That would be an objective fact whether or not you like the label. Activities that fall within that classification are broader than GW, whether or not you personally choose to engage in them. Your interpretation of that activity may be GW centric, but that is just your interpretation of it. I do not see the point of being offended when someone points out that things which are not directly related to Games Workshop are commonly identified in the same manner that GW identifies itself and its products.

It's like they've chosen to be the jock that plays Madden NFL, Baseball, and/or Soccer/FIFA games all day and night and then claims he doesn't like/play video games.

 BryllCream wrote:
My point is that people choose their own categories. I don't want to be lumped in with tabletop gamers, so I just say I'm into GW, not tabletop battling as a whole.

I'm not a table top wargamer... I just buy little man dollies and put them on top of a table and play a game of war with them, but I'm not a tabletop wargamer

You've all fell victim one of the Classic Blunders. The most famous is never get into a land war in Asia. But only slightly well known is this: never get into a semantics war on the internet when absolutely nothing is on the line.

Everybody knows we're all here to argue about pointless things.