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.

OP, you really don't understand how the share market works if you just want it to change management over. Share price has no effect on the company (with that being said, it's tripled since 2009 IIRC) at all besides raising capital, and the market could move positively or negatively to an announcement of takeover (let alone the fact that the shareholders, i.e. GW board of directors have to approve it and put themselves out of a job).

GW's best bet would be to invent a time machine to go back and take a better look at the 1990's to get a better idea of what made them such a juggernaut in this hobby in the first place. They could take a look at the games and material they used to put out, how they gave support to those games to make them popular, and how they interacted with the people who were buying their product.

I would give anything to go back and get even more involved in the hobby when I first started at age 13, back in the days of 2nd edition 40K, Gorkamorka, Necromunda, Battlefleet Gothic, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:
6) Hire the worst WAAC TFGs to balance the game. Let them play with the rules, find every possible exploit and badly balanced unit, and then fix it. It's nice that there are more frequent FAQs now, but far too many of those issues never should have made it into the book in the first place. And while we're at it, playtest competitively and professionally like WotC does with MTG, don't just play a "fun" game occasionally with "cool" random events and "fluffy" armies. That's not what playtesting is.

7) Stop excluding "wrong" player types. Some people play casually. Some people play competitively. Some people like the art. Learn from WotC and sell to all of them. Don't just declare that you make a "beer and pretzels" game and write off an entire section of the market, that just makes competitive players take their money to other companies.

Those two things are what drove me from the hobby. Too many people start calling people names if they don't play the 'right' way. If the game was more balanced and the rules tighter, a lot of the animosity in the community would go away, which would result in a more open and welcoming community which results in more players. Currently, we have a situation where people do their best to try to drive other people from the hobby.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Why is this seen as a criticism of Wizards? The alternatives are to always allow use of any cards, which would make it impossible for new people to compete. Or to always ban all older cards from competitive play, which would let those with older collections go to waste.

Instead WotC offer events and supported play styles designed to cater for different types of players, but they are criticised for it. Why is that? The number of totally banned cards are few, and they're usually overpowered and no fun when used because they distort the game.

My original point is that you can't really expect a game with rules spanning across multiple editions written by people who go out of their way to make it a "non-competitive" game to have as air-tight of a ruleset as one specifically designed to be competitively played with rules designed to fit into a single small booklet, and that can be taught in an afternoon.

Whether or not you agree with GW, or the way they do things, it's illogical to compare 40k to MTG because they're not similar games. 40k isn't a competitive game, no matter how much you or I want it to be.

 daedalus wrote:
40k isn't a competitive game, no matter how much you or I want it to be.

Well, you and I play different versions of the game then. Also, the point of a game is to be competitive, to strive to win. The most recent game I can think of that tried to disarm itself of its competitive side was Super Smash Bros Melee to Brawl. The game was a failure in most respects to anyone who enjoyed the game, even so much to a point that older players went back to Melee.

In short, this quoted statement is wrong. If you don't want something to be competitive, don't write a rules system for it. Then this becomes 'painting models and soldiers', which is -not- what got me into the game.

 daedalus wrote:
Whether or not you agree with GW, or the way they do things, it's illogical to compare 40k to MTG because they're not similar games. 40k isn't a competitive game, no matter how much you or I want it to be.

Saying that 40k isn't a competetive game is just an excuse. It is not a competetive game because GW doesn't want to put the effort into making the rules tighter. Making the rules tighter and balance better in no way takes anything away from being able to play casually.

Magic can be played competetively or casually. There are formats like EDH and similar that encourage a casual game. Pauper is also another format that can be played. Magic rules are tighter and simpler but the game has more breadth than GW games.

 daedalus wrote:


Whether or not you agree with GW, or the way they do things, it's illogical to compare 40k to MTG because they're not similar games. 40k isn't a competitive game, no matter how much you or I want it to be.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/competitive

 Squigsquasher wrote:


Get rid of Kirby.

Yep. That is a start.

This exact same thread has appeared many times over the past 10 years. Almost word for word. and yet...

Maybe we armchair economists and CEOs should leave the businessing to the businessmen, and just play whatever toy soldier games grab our fancy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
6) Hire the worst WAAC TFGs to balance the game. Let them play with the rules, find every possible exploit and badly balanced unit, and then fix it. It's nice that there are more frequent FAQs now, but far too many of those issues never should have made it into the book in the first place. And while we're at it, playtest competitively and professionally like WotC does with MTG, don't just play a "fun" game occasionally with "cool" random events and "fluffy" armies. That's not what playtesting is.

7) Stop excluding "wrong" player types. Some people play casually. Some people play competitively. Some people like the art. Learn from WotC and sell to all of them. Don't just declare that you make a "beer and pretzels" game and write off an entire section of the market, that just makes competitive players take their money to other companies.

Those two things are what drove me from the hobby. Too many people start calling people names if they don't play the 'right' way. If the game was more balanced and the rules tighter, a lot of the animosity in the community would go away, which would result in a more open and welcoming community which results in more players. Currently, we have a situation where people do their best to try to drive other people from the hobby.

Maybe in your local area. I have encountered nothing even close to this. Just a local scene of about 60 dudes all excited to get games in when they can.

Problem is that a group of incompetent managers not in touch with reality hijacked the company and destroyed every possible feedback loop in the company and fired almost every free mind. Every good dictator does this to secure his reign. For GW, no simple change is possible from within, the whole corporate culture has changed to a "yes-master-not-the-whip" company. So without a crash, no change will happen, as the shareholders don't interfere as long as they get dividends.

Otherwise basically what Peregrine and Easy E have said.

Making introductory products (selling Space Hulk, Bloodbowl, Necromunda and Mordheim at normal toy stores), advertising them in TV (including previews) and lowering prices to realistic levels would form the basis for a 50% customer number and sales increase within 1-2 years. Like it has done in the past.

 Peregrine wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
MTG? That game that has one unified set of rules the size of a Chick Tract written by a cadre of authors updating it at once where the solution to dealing with kludgy parts of the system from 10 years ago is just to declare them disallowed? Quite.

Err, lol? The only parts of the rules that have been banned have been ante cards (since nobody wanted to play for ante once the game became expensive), the "throw this on the table and destroy anything it hits" cards (for being a tournament nightmare), and the "play a sub-game" card (for being a tournament nightmare). That's a handful of irrelevant cards that nobody used anyway. Meanwhile, unlike GW, WOTC seems to be capable of making rules that work. There is no possible situation where you have to argue over how the rules work in MTG, everything is covered explicitly in the rulebook. And that's with a game that is much more complicated than 40k.

And of course there's also the fact that WOTC doesn't ignore the competitive tournament market, understands how to market a game, etc.

Ante cards were eliminated so they would not run afoul of jurisdictions where gambling is strictly prohibited.

Even though Peregrine had a good list of things GW is doing wrong, there is still the fact that I have been reading threads about the eminent demise for as long as there have been online forums and it hasnt happened yet. When I think back to the early nineties, there is so much more product and overall more going on with at least 40k, that it is hardly comparable.

Even if GW does diminish and say loses first place, that is still a long way from going out of business.

 scarletsquig wrote:
Releasing a licensed MLP wargame.

Sadly, that would probably bring in amazing amounts of income

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ugavine wrote:
WOTC are a hundred times worse than GW will ever be. They killed D&D minis, killed star Wars minis with power creep, killed Heroscape and are killing D&D RPG. Their errata is in volumes. Their rules wording is TERRIBLE (the word 'can' means 'must' in their CMGs). They're owned by Hasbro so are more money, money, money than any other games company and they treat they staff like dirt with annual redundancies at Christmas.

Meanwhile MTG has none of these problems and is doing far better than GW could even dream of.

Other than MTG of today being a boring competition game with no difference between colours and huge power creep, they're doing great.

 daedalus wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Why is this seen as a criticism of Wizards? The alternatives are to always allow use of any cards, which would make it impossible for new people to compete. Or to always ban all older cards from competitive play, which would let those with older collections go to waste.

Instead WotC offer events and supported play styles designed to cater for different types of players, but they are criticised for it. Why is that? The number of totally banned cards are few, and they're usually overpowered and no fun when used because they distort the game.

My original point is that you can't really expect a game with rules spanning across multiple editions written by people who go out of their way to make it a "non-competitive" game to have as air-tight of a ruleset as one specifically designed to be competitively played with rules designed to fit into a single small booklet, and that can be taught in an afternoon.

Whether or not you agree with GW, or the way they do things, it's illogical to compare 40k to MTG because they're not similar games. 40k isn't a competitive game, no matter how much you or I want it to be.

But MTG doesnt get new Editions'. And if you change the rules of the game even a little bit, then you can invalidate thousands of older cards and break the fine balance.

40k (or even fantasy) gets new editions every 4 years where they have the opportunity to completely re-write the rules. The previous editions don't have to mean anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ugavine wrote:
WOTC are a hundred times worse than GW will ever be. They killed D&D minis, killed star Wars minis with power creep, killed Heroscape and are killing D&D RPG. Their errata is in volumes. Their rules wording is TERRIBLE (the word 'can' means 'must' in their CMGs). They're owned by Hasbro so are more money, money, money than any other games company and they treat they staff like dirt with annual redundancies at Christmas.

Meanwhile MTG has none of these problems and is doing far better than GW could even dream of.

Other than MTG of today being a boring competition game with no difference between colours and huge power creep, they're doing great.

You dont have to play standard.

Backfire wrote:


Other than MTG of today being a boring competition game with no difference between colours and huge power creep, they're doing great.

No difference between colors? You're obviously not playing the same game I am.

 Xzerios wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
40k isn't a competitive game, no matter how much you or I want it to be.

Well, you and I play different versions of the game then. Also, the point of a game is to be competitive, to strive to win.

I find the point of the game is to have fun.

While I play to win I don't care who wins. Chatting and having a good time with mates is far more important to me, and that's how I play 40K.

And therein lies part of the problem. Different attitudes towards the game. Just refer to the thread about Rick Priestly games, he doesn't generally write competitive games, and 40K is just following on from his design. And to be honest, I like it and thoroughly enjoy the rules. But I play lots of games and have plenty to choose from if I want to play a tight rules system - not that I personally find much wrong with 40K to be honest.

Backfire wrote:

Other than MTG of today being a boring competition game with no difference between colours and huge power creep, they're doing great.

I dare you to count the number of cards finding their way into legacy or vintage play every edition. While I was still actively playing, I could count the interesting cards every edtion for those formats on two hands.
Then compare, say, the 4th Edition Era codices and the 5th Edition Era.
THAT'S huge power creep. Hell, going from a 16 points vanilla Marine to a 20 points Marine with a Storm Bolter, psi-weapons and special rules out the ass, THAT'S huge power creep.
Of course there's power creep in MTG. That's what keeps long running systems interesting. Who'd give a frick about the new edition if there isn't anything interesting in there?
But all in all, they managed to keep it pretty low. Not like a certain miniatures company.

As for the distinctions of the colour pie... Show me unconditional red card draw that generates card advantage. Or unconditional white single target creature destruction. Or black enchantment removal. Sure, there are a few oddballs, but I'd hardly call that "no difference."

But who died and gave you the power to determine what's fun and what isn't anyway?


The thing that amazes me times and times again is the stubborness with which some people defend their "fun beer and pretzels non competetive game." As if "working rules" and "fun" are mutually exclusive. Sure, you can laugh it off and throw a dice, you are just playing for fun anyway! But what is there to lose from creating a ruleset that doesn't break down if you give it a stern look? What do you gain from a ruleset that is riddled with holes?

Even though it seems like this thread is getting lost down a rabbit hole of MTG stuff, I am going the throw my 2 cents in here.


1) There are a lot of things that GW could do to make the game more fun for different types of players. The game should have multiple additional rules or formats to allow for different types of players to enjoy the game.

MTG has different formats and different rules to appeal to different types of players, and they all work. Casual play with MTG is fun. Commander is great for making silly or "themed" or "Fluffy" decks. Limited is for the casual competitor, constructed for the more serious competitor.

With 40k, there is always the issue of "I have a fluffy list, he has a Tournament list, this is not going to be a fun game for us". Magic gets around that by having different formats. 40k should have the same.


a) Casual rule set
Basically what 40k is in 6th edition, but perhaps a bit more simplified. These rules would the be more similar to introductory rules; Simple, fun, easy to learn and to pick up rules.

Then you would have 2 different additional rule sets you could add onto the "Casual" rules

b) Tournament rule set.
There is no reason for GW to completely ignore this demographic. There should be a set of rules which are very tight, not open to debate, and reasonably balanced. There should be strict rules on terrain placement, objective placement, and mission types. More consistency and less random events that swing the game one way or another.

c) Narrative rule set
More complicated than the Casual set of rules, but not intended for tournament play. Lots of random events that can swing the game; random terrain, random objectives, ect. More opportunities for characters to develop or show their personalities.


d) Scaling rule set
Lastly, there should be some ways that the rules can scale with the size of the game. Give the people who like to collect and paint a ton of stuff a way to play without having to take an entire weekend (IF THEY WANT TO). Maybe things like movement trays for open terrain, embarking into area terrain where movement trays don't fit, Faster rolling for blast weapons. Maybe even simplified wound allocation or something similar as well.

Also, make some rule for SMALL games as well. let us play a fun and balanced game with just the contents of a Battleforce. This would also be a great marketing move, as it would give players a quick way to get into the game without shelling out fora 1500 pt list where the game starts to get balanced.



These types of rules would not just be in the BRB, but also contained within each codex as well. Example: The random Daemon table thing would only be applicable in the "Narrative" format and not in "Casual" or "Tournament".

=================

2) Introductory Product
For a while I worked for a company that demoed remote controlled helicopters. The sales system was based on impulse sales. Get people excited by a demonstration, put a product in their hand, and they will buy it on their own. No need to be super pushy or aggressive. Impulse sales like this only really work when you have a price point that is not so high that it forced the customer to think about the purchase.

~$100 is not something you will just drop without thinking about it first, but spending ~$20 to maybe even $50 is going to be much less of an issue.

GW should redesign their rules and product such that each Battle Force is a true introductory product. One box, with a good price point for an impulse buy, that has everything in it you need to get started. Paint, Glue, Rules, Models, tools.

Right now, if you want to get going in a GW game, you need to buy a $100 bow, and then get a whole pile of paint, tools, brushes, glue, rules ect. If you are not stopping and thinking about the $100 box, you certainly are thinking about this whole pile of stuff. You are not going to make an impulse buy after all of that.

One box that you can put in someone hands, get them checked out, and get them hooked. Get people to have that first impulse purchase to get them into the hobby. Then you can market your other products as "expert" level or something like that. Everyone wants to be an expert and not just a scrub with the beginner set.

=========

3) Community building

MTG does this with Friday Night Magic. Every Friday there is some event, small tournament, draft, ect. that you can be a part of. WotC gives stores that run events like this some prizes (nothing huge, usually just some individual cards) to give players some incentive to show up. These prizes can even lead to further sales. (I won this Eldar farseer, guess I need to get an Eldar army now...)

GW should have some kind of similar events, both in their own stores and with FLGSs. It would not need to always be "competitive" in the sense of a tournament. Painting contests, narrative events, conversion contests, all kinds of things. The point is to have a set time and place where people meet, play together, and get to know each other.

This will be how you can get your introductory impulse buyers to become regulars and veterans. They come to the events and the other players there do all of the marketing for you. The company gets to look friendly and inviting, while the other players there show all all their cool models and convince each other to buy more product.

============

If you look at MTG, this is exactly what they are doing. They have only become a bigger and more popular game as time has gone on. They get you into the game with introductory, casual decks. They get you coming back week after week for Friday Night Magic, They get you to go deeper into the game by exposing you to the community. Their are formats and cards that appeal to all the types of players.

I do not really know enough about the business end of things to know if this is really feasible, but it is just what I would like to see from them. The biggest issue is that this would require GW to rebuild the game from the ground up. New rulebooks and all new codexes, new products, ect.

Yeah, I've long advocated such an approach, using Apcalypse as an example. That was clearly written with narrative and not competetive gaming in mind.

Now, let's have GW turn around and write a really tight Codex: Tournamanets type of supplement.

That's actually a really good idea svendrex.

 Easy E wrote:
Yeah, I've long advocated such an approach, using Apcalypse as an example. That was clearly written with narrative and not competetive gaming in mind.

Now, let's have GW turn around and write a really tight Codex: Tournamanets type of supplement.

you'd have to rewrite all the codexes of course. 130 point vendettas won't fit into any attempt at a balanced ruleset.

How to fix it, I will try my very best:

More connection with the customer.

As stated, they have withdrawn almost as if the customer is viewed as a distraction.

- Bring forums back that employees can openly participate.

- Bring events back that employees can openly participate.

- Create surveys with incentives for customers to get valuable feedback.

- Bring shining examples of the hobby to their facility to talk to their staff (loved the large remote control Landraider that had them all excited at GW).

- Anything that gets them outside the corporate culture so they do not run contrary to customer wants.

- Look at successful kickstarters to do with the hobby, they show in a measureable way what people want.

- Publish fan based works, they can easily turn out better than what GW can do.

Most companies are no longer "product based" we are just getting out of "service based" businesses and now getting into "social based / group funded / products" so they need this more personal connection to be successful.

My two cents.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Yeah, I've long advocated such an approach, using Apcalypse as an example. That was clearly written with narrative and not competetive gaming in mind.

Now, let's have GW turn around and write a really tight Codex: Tournamanets type of supplement.

you'd have to rewrite all the codexes of course. 130 point vendettas won't fit into any attempt at a balanced ruleset.

Nope, you create mini-lists in the Codex: Tournamanets, that are updates in newer versions of Codex: Tournaments. Therefore GW makes money all around!

Gw still need to build and maintain two separate rulesets, with the non competitive one having rules/points changes arbitrarily. There'd be no reason to play the fluff one, and arguments would ensue - why would I play against 130 point vendettas if I can argue to play in a ruleset where they're 180 points?

it is not that there would be 2 different sets of rules.


There would be the basic rules. The simple stuff you need to know in order to have a game. Preferably these rules would include list writing rules for very small point levels, so it would be very easy to pick up the game and get going. Also include rules for balancing games with unequal points. Put whatever you have on the table, and get playing.


Then you would have additional rules for competitive play. You don't change anything in the basic rules. simply add rules to help balance the game. How to have a balanced board set up, Additional rules for list writing, rules for balanced objectives, for example. Rules that make the game more consistent, and based more on competitive, tactical play.


Alternatively, you could have rules for narrative play. These would be additional rule for things like additional terrain effects, narrative mission types, rules for army lists that are consistent with the fluff, rules for more character customization. Include rules that add more "randomness" to the game.



All of the rules sets would all be based on the basic rules. Point costs would be consistent, as they are part of the basic rules. If a unit is too cheap or too expensive, then it should have a price adjustment in all types of play.

The competitive rules would have one set of list restrictions, based around gameplay balance.
The Narrative rules would have a second set of list restrictions based on representing the world of 40k/fantasy/LotR.


EXAMPLE:
40k space marine codex

Basic rules FOC: must have 1 troops unit. Other than that, you can take whatever you want. Contain options to balance armies of different points. (ie. stratagems or similar)

Competitive rules FOC: Basically the current way. 2 troops, 1 HQ minimum, ect. Some limitations on the number of copies of specific units you can take.

Narrative rules FOC: Half of your units need to be Tactical squads, certain equipment limited in number for the list (like plasma guns, terminators ect.) that are supposed to be rare.
Gain access to rules letting you build a custom Captain and Chapter Tactics.


========

Additionally, I think that if GW really wants to make their game balanced in some form, they need to abandon paper codex for their rules.

The rules would be digital in some form. The BRB could still be a big paper book that is updated all at once. Each codex really needs to be digitally distributed. If you look at any competitive video game (e-sports), the one thing they have in common is frequent patching. Game designers make mistakes. There is no reason for a game to suffer for the next 5 years, because of a design mistake. Digital codex rules would give the developers more tools to fix mistakes that they have made. Frequent patching of the rules is the only way to reach some kind of balance.

There are a lot of different models to monetize a digital rule set. pay for each file, subscription, ect. Maybe even give a player a free download of the rules for every $50 worth of models they buy for a given army. Give the customer an incentive to buy models for their old force in order to get the newest set of rules for them, for Free. Give the store a reason to track their sales, and give you a way to market to veteran customers. "There are new rules out for your Space Marines. You only need to spend another $15 to get those rules for free."

Digital rules would have another distinct advantage as well. You could include a "free copy" of the rules for a given force in each battle force. Get those impulse buyers to go to the GW website, see all of your products, learn about your events, and get deeper into the hobby.


While the rules for a given force would be digital, there is no need for the rest of the information in a codex to be digitally distributed. The digital codex would be nothing but rules. The paper codex would be Stories, Fluff, Art, Conversions, Painting examples, and a Strategy guide.

The big one is advertising. What got me into the hobby was an old TV ad for the Hero Quest board game. If I'd never seen that, all my money would likely be flowing into some other pastime.

 svendrex wrote:
Additionally, I think that if GW really wants to make their game balanced in some form, they need to abandon paper codex for their rules.

The rules would be digital in some form. The BRB could still be a big paper book that is updated all at once. Each codex really needs to be digitally distributed. If you look at any competitive video game (e-sports), the one thing they have in common is frequent patching. Game designers make mistakes. There is no reason for a game to suffer for the next 5 years, because of a design mistake. Digital codex rules would give the developers more tools to fix mistakes that they have made. Frequent patching of the rules is the only way to reach some kind of balance.

That really doesn't sound like a good idea. Some of us modern primitives still don't like to bring expensive gadgets to every game. And maybe people will buy an extra box of stuff in order to get the errata, but it's slightly more likely they'll just check it on the internet and get annoyed at being charged because the designers made mistakes.

A better model would be the Warmachine / Malifaux route, where you have starter books for each army, and there are regular supplements with new stuff for every army, and copies of any errata (and stat cards with the models when they're released). This also solves the problem of one faction not selling because they have outdated rules and having outdated rules because they're not selling.

 BryllCream wrote:
Gw still need to build and maintain two separate rulesets, with the non competitive one having rules/points changes arbitrarily. There'd be no reason to play the fluff one, and arguments would ensue - why would I play against 130 point vendettas if I can argue to play in a ruleset where they're 180 points?

Vendettas might not even BE in the Tourney lists. Since the GW Tourney Lists in Codex: Tournaments would need to be balanced, the Tourney lists would have to have a streamlned model selection so they could control the interaction of units better for improved game balance and to make everything even.

All the wierd, core mechanic breaking toys are for the narrative/fluff side of things. Part of the cost of doing business and having balanced competitive play. Sorry.

Most of what I would have written (e.g marketing: do it, stop treating the Internet like it'll bite you, take more care writing rules, be less litigious, and so on) has already been posted so I'll just say that I think the most important issue is pricing. I actually think that other complaints, for example those over unbalanced rules, would be much less vociferous (note that I don't think they'd go away entirely, and nor should they) if we weren't being charged such an astronomical amount for the products in the first place.

1) Stop trying to be a huge profit making organisation and remember what you are supposed to be; a wargaming manufacturer.
2) Treat customers better.
3) Listen once in a while.
4) Be more open.
5) Get a book on the internet and realise what it can do for you instead of pretending it does not exist.
6) Accept constructive criticism instead of going in the huff(re; the revamp of WD). You once did long long ago.
7) The car crash law suits really need to stop. They are not funny anymore.
8) Learn that the hobby is supposed to be fun, and not about how much money you can screw out of us.
9) Create a seperate divison to develop the rule and army books, they really need to stand apart from your main business of producing the finest model soldiers in the world!(it still makes me laugh tosay that after all these years!).
10) Bring back Rick Priestly and give him sole control over 40k.
11) Be a bit more helpful and supportive of the independents intsead of placing nothing but restrictions on them. After all they have helped your company grow over the years, surely they should be rewarded instead of punished?
12) Be nicer to your Australian customers. Like I said in (7), it is not funny anymore. Charging them even more than the rest of the world for all your products(how does an ebook cost more in Australia?) is taking the joke too far.

Rick Priestley is happy with life after GW. last time I heard the Perry twins were still working for GW. And as unpopular as I know this is going to be received by you all, GW are supportive of Independent retailers. We don't get any special treatment and are pretty happy with the relationship. Example, check out the GW gaming boards in our gaming centre, the link is in this post signature, all given to us by GW.

We're not happy with everything they do, but we are more unhappy with the things they don't do, like giving trade accounts to "shops" that are never open while we pay the overheads of running a real store 6 days a week.

The reports of GW's death are greatly exaggerated