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.

Jack_Death wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

You haven't seen an official number because no official number exists, GW's competition doesn't release the financial reports that GW is obligated to show as a publicly owned company. However, we do know three things:

1) GW's sales volume is stagnant or declining. They're required to publish their revenue numbers, and after a few years of decline GW's total revenue has been increasing a bit over the inflation rate. However, this is happening at the same time as price increases, and the increase in revenue isn't (or at least isn't significantly) more than the increase in prices. Therefore the total volume of sales (and, presumably, the number of customers) is dropping.

2) There is anecdotal evidence from distributors/store owners/etc that the miniature wargaming market as a whole is growing. These are people who have a direct interest in GW continuing to be a profitable business for as long as possible, so it's not very plausible that they'd just make stuff up to criticize GW. And "the industry is doing well" is a common enough statement that it's unlikely to be a case of the occasional town breaking the general rule, there probably is legitimate growth.

3) There have been successful kickstarter projects for new miniatures games/accessories/etc adding up to millions of dollars in sales, across a wide range of products. Yes, in theory these sales could all be coming from the same bitter vets in a dying community, but the more likely explanation is that there is strong demand for miniatures games and plenty of room to get new customers or launch new ideas.

So add those that all together and GW has declining market share and a business plan that is directly causing that decline, while GW's competition is thriving. And even the best-case scenario for GW is that they're declining, but everyone else is declining too.

All very excellent points, thank you. That said, making a series of perfectly reasonable assumptions, as you have done, is a very different ballgame than saying something like "the industry is growing at 15% and GW is not, therefore their market share is collapsing". We have seen variations on that argument in every thread. My point is that a. the 15% number is a fabrication, we have no verifiable data and b. a company with over a hundred million in revenues selling toy soldiers is not "collapsing".

I should probably point out that I AGREE that they could be better managed, should advertise, should be working towards operations that can be sustained at a lower gross margin, etc. I AGREE, I am not a GW apologist in any sense of the word. It does prompt me to reply, however, when the lack of engagement in these areas of potential improvement is projected forward into scenarios that include the imminent collapse of the company or various cloak and dagger scenarios about senior executives.

It's taken me bloody ages to find a link to this, but here is a link to the 15% figure. Absolutely, definitively not a fabrication..

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/25373.html

You can also find from the links in the article that WHFB is the 4th placed miniatures game, behind 40k, X Wing and Warmachine.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of their rankings come from informal polls of distributors, right? For some reason I remember reading that and it was, in essence, misleading because they don't consider any GW direct sales.

They don't have to, as GW are legally obliged to tell us what they are.

Believe me, informal or no, there won't be one shop owner who won't have a pretty good idea what his shops performance is, year on year, or wouldn't be able to look it up off a spreadsheet in short order.

No, it's not a precise document like formal accounts would be, but its a reliable source and a good indicator. In my opinion its no less accurate than GW financial reports, which can be fluffed and spun to portray the message GW want to broadcast.

Simply put, independents are growing in a substantial way, GW is not keeping pace with this growth, so it must be coming from somewhere else. Now, that could be Magic, PP games, FFG games or whatever, but sector growth is outpacing GW growth, and that simply isn't good.

Sorry. Should have been more specific. I simply meant in terms of rankings for sales.

Oh, right.

Well, no, these wouldn't include those figures, but they can still be considered a useful indicator, especially as I believe the independent retail element is a much bigger part of the US market?

Like it or not, Kirby has fulfilled his obligations to the shareholders by increasing the value of their stock. Accordingly, the question is not "how to save GW", but how to improve their P.R. Goodwill goes a long way to a company's perceived health.

To that end, one of the best tools is customer interaction. I find it odd that people still complain about GW not engaging with the internet, when they have a "What's new today" section on their website, which regularly posts user content. It may not have the depth of the Dakka/Warseer/etc. forums, but its something. Perhaps a monthly Q & A would help gamers feel they are more involved, and overcome the dissatisfaction with the release secrecy? As a Facebook page for commercial enterprises are essentially advertisements, it is understandable to want to exclude any negative publicity. Using the monthly Q & A feature would establish and contain discourse with the consumers cheaply and effectively.

Several users clearly feel marginalized by the company. These range from WAAC players who want a more precise rule system, and 'veteran' players, who feel that the company is too focused on younger consumers.
Addressing the WAAC category is difficult; an select Beta is impractical, and runs the risk of piracy, however the company is (understandably) reluctant to make its ruleset freely available in a public Beta, before releasing the finished product. GW hosted Tournamnets, where rules are regularly discussed and evaluated is one possible solution. Yet, this seems like a quality control issue to me, with perhaps more rigorous playtesting, and acknowledgment of community contributions in FAQs, and amended Codex editions being a simple, but effective way of increasing P.R.

Tackling 'veterans' gripes is more difficult, as the category is by its very nature capricious and multifaceted. A system of advanced products, such as kits and books could be introduced, but this is already covered by Forge World. A subtle re-branding could perhaps be enabled to draw focus to this element, with more features incorporated on the main webpage. This coupled with 'Advanced' nights at clubs, where difficult techniques are demonstrated, and Advanced Kits are stocked would attract customers and increase sales of these more exclusive products. A 'traveling roadshow' distribution model could be an effective way of ensuring customers were aware of dates/availability.

A more minor complaint is the lack of variety in 'conversion' articles, with buying GW kits being the focus. Clearly advertising competitors products is counter-intuitive, but I can see no reason not to address this issue, when increased positive P.R. is available.

Litigation should be conducted in a more amicable matter. In the digital age, confidentiality is non-existent, and pursuing a claim is dangerous from a P.R. standpoint. A focus on mediation and the pre-trial process should be encouraged. Acceptance of reasonable settlements whilst protecting the company's legitimate IP would greatly assist the company's image.

Finally, the #1 complaint from the community appears to be prices. (N.b I've been playing for years, and have been all but priced out by the company). As the company is most likely unwilling to drop prices permanently, a system of discounts could be introduced, based on repeat custom. I.e, the more you purchase, the better your savings. A detailed breakdown of this system is beyond the scope of this discussion, but it would undoubtedly help connect with the community, and reward the most loyal customers. This has the added benefit of redressing the balance of focus between one-shot customers, and aggrieved 'veterans'.
Furthermore, periodic sales should be implemented to increase goodwill. A simple 20% reduction on the main lines twice a year (summer & Christmas) would boost sales, increase foot traffic in stores, and establish an image of a company more in-touch with its consumers in these economic times.
I am unsure how the price disparity in Aus. etc. can be addressed quickly, and without substantial cost to the company. Some sort of comparative advantage should be implemented to ensure customer retention however.


Just some ideas. If they were implemented, I bet there would be fewer 'the sky is falling' posts. Now whether their long term investment plans are economically sound is a different matter, and I leave that to wiser minds than my own.

You really shouldn't conflate Win at all costs with wanting a tight rules set.

 azreal13 wrote:

Jack_Death wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

You haven't seen an official number because no official number exists, GW's competition doesn't release the financial reports that GW is obligated to show as a publicly owned company. However, we do know three things:

1) GW's sales volume is stagnant or declining. They're required to publish their revenue numbers, and after a few years of decline GW's total revenue has been increasing a bit over the inflation rate. However, this is happening at the same time as price increases, and the increase in revenue isn't (or at least isn't significantly) more than the increase in prices. Therefore the total volume of sales (and, presumably, the number of customers) is dropping.

2) There is anecdotal evidence from distributors/store owners/etc that the miniature wargaming market as a whole is growing. These are people who have a direct interest in GW continuing to be a profitable business for as long as possible, so it's not very plausible that they'd just make stuff up to criticize GW. And "the industry is doing well" is a common enough statement that it's unlikely to be a case of the occasional town breaking the general rule, there probably is legitimate growth.

3) There have been successful kickstarter projects for new miniatures games/accessories/etc adding up to millions of dollars in sales, across a wide range of products. Yes, in theory these sales could all be coming from the same bitter vets in a dying community, but the more likely explanation is that there is strong demand for miniatures games and plenty of room to get new customers or launch new ideas.

So add those that all together and GW has declining market share and a business plan that is directly causing that decline, while GW's competition is thriving. And even the best-case scenario for GW is that they're declining, but everyone else is declining too.

All very excellent points, thank you. That said, making a series of perfectly reasonable assumptions, as you have done, is a very different ballgame than saying something like "the industry is growing at 15% and GW is not, therefore their market share is collapsing". We have seen variations on that argument in every thread. My point is that a. the 15% number is a fabrication, we have no verifiable data and b. a company with over a hundred million in revenues selling toy soldiers is not "collapsing".

I should probably point out that I AGREE that they could be better managed, should advertise, should be working towards operations that can be sustained at a lower gross margin, etc. I AGREE, I am not a GW apologist in any sense of the word. It does prompt me to reply, however, when the lack of engagement in these areas of potential improvement is projected forward into scenarios that include the imminent collapse of the company or various cloak and dagger scenarios about senior executives.

It's taken me bloody ages to find a link to this, but here is a link to the 15% figure. Absolutely, definitively not a fabrication..

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/25373.html

You can also find from the links in the article that WHFB is the 4th placed miniatures game, behind 40k, X Wing and Warmachine.

I stand corrected, sir. I will have to amend "fabrication" to "growth rate based on a distributor survey without links to the underlying data or methodology". For all we know, the growth category could be Games Workshop products;->

Except it can't be, because GWs inflation adjusted income is pretty much flat, despite widespread price increases.

GW is not growing, our best reference for the market sector suggests it is.

 CadianXV wrote:
Several users clearly feel marginalized by the company. These range from WAAC players who want a more precise rule system, and 'veteran' players, who feel that the company is too focused on younger consumers.

First off, bit dismissive there just labelling people who want more precise rule system to be WAAC, not to mention inaccurate. I'd say it's people who dislike WAAC who want more precise rule, go look up YMDC, tell me how many people are trying to argue the poorly written rules to their favour. Having more precise and better rules make it harder to WAAC/TFG the game. Playing by the rules isn't WAAC, it's called playing the god damn game.

 CadianXV wrote:
Addressing the WAAC category is difficult; an select Beta is impractical, and runs the risk of piracy, however the company is (understandably) reluctant to make its ruleset freely available in a public Beta, before releasing the finished product. GW hosted Tournamnets, where rules are regularly discussed and evaluated is one possible solution. Yet, this seems like a quality control issue to me, with perhaps more rigorous playtesting, and acknowledgment of community contributions in FAQs, and amended Codex editions being a simple, but effective way of increasing P.R.

I'm participating in D&D 5th ed beta, and I've joined some FFG RPG beta as well. There are probably MtG beta, and whatnot floating about as well, so no, select beta isn't impractical. Piracy? Trolls? Well, don't dismiss the majority of the fanbase as morons, that's probably the 1st step in PR. For every 1 troll/pirate, there are plenty more reasonable and honest players who'd like to see their favourite product grows, and they're the one GW should focus on, give them the chance to help. I can tell you that it feels good when I provide feedback for the game, then see in revised version, some part of it shows up, it made me more invested in the product as I've been a part of it since the conception stage. Also, on piracy issue, they don't have to release the full rule set, and all beta testers could be made to sign an NDA. Will some people break it? Sure, but they have enough lawyers to deal with that, I hope. If WotC, FFG and many other companies can do it, what is the reason that GW can't?

 azreal13 wrote:
Except it can't be, because GWs inflation adjusted income is pretty much flat, despite widespread price increases.
GW is not growing, our best reference for the market sector suggests it is.

Here we go, butting heads again. Self-reported sales figures from a single distributor do not have to correlate to GW's revenue at all. The hot products generating the increased sales could be quite literally anything in their catalog and those results do not necessarily have to align with other results in the same period, either manufacturer data or any other channel partner. Any vendor could have a bad year but be selling well in a particular market through a particular channel partner, it happens all the time. And not all players in the market have the same results, there are winners and losers in every group. Alliance could be the outlier for any number of reasons - maybe they offer bigger discounts or better terms. Who knows, the referenced article doesn't shed any light at all on the specifics. Here's one scenario, for example - GW sales through Alliance are going gangbusters but they are cannibalizing higher margin sales through GW's own retail stores and website. An Alliance partner cranking out GW stuff would report higher sales figures, but from the GW perspective it would be Volume+, Revenue-, Profit-. Of course that is just one possibility of many, but that is kinda my point. It is possible.

Where are you getting self reporting from a single distributor?

ICv2 stands for Internal Correspondence version 2 (see more about Internal Correspondence below in "History"). The ICv2 website -- www.ICv2.com -- provides news and information for pop culture retailers from "inside the world of pop culture products," with the only daily trade news, in-depth analysis, and product and sales information available anywhere. The ICv2 Guides provide bestseller lists, info on upcoming releases, market reports, previes, reviews and features to help retailers better manage their businesses and librarians better manage their collections.

We wouldn't have to keep butting heads if you just admitted I was right.

Baronyu wrote:
There are probably MtG beta

Nope. WOTC does all playtesting within the company, there's no open beta for non-employees to participate in. Of course this isn't a problem because WOTC actually does professional playtesting where former professional players and experienced game designers play countless test games in a structured process with defined testing objectives and constant connection with every other product in the MTG line being developed at the time.

Of course there's nothing stopping GW from doing the same and hiring the worst WAAC TFGs to find every problem with their rules (and then fix those problems), it just seems like GW's idea of playtesting is to play a "fun" scenario with "cool" special rules occasionally, as if playtesting is about having fun instead of being a full-time job.

Baronyu wrote:
I'm participating in D&D 5th ed beta, and I've joined some FFG RPG beta as well. There are probably MtG beta, and whatnot floating about as well, so no, select beta isn't impractical. Piracy? Trolls? Well, don't dismiss the majority of the fanbase as morons, that's probably the 1st step in PR. For every 1 troll/pirate, there are plenty more reasonable and honest players who'd like to see their favourite product grows, and they're the one GW should focus on, give them the chance to help. I can tell you that it feels good when I provide feedback for the game, then see in revised version, some part of it shows up, it made me more invested in the product as I've been a part of it since the conception stage. Also, on piracy issue, they don't have to release the full rule set, and all beta testers could be made to sign an NDA. Will some people break it? Sure, but they have enough lawyers to deal with that, I hope. If WotC, FFG and many other companies can do it, what is the reason that GW can't?

Breaking an NDA would also give them a valid reason to use their expensive lawyers. For once.

I remember saying years ago when the Blood Bowl Rules Council and the fan produced content for Epic: Armageddon was operating at its best that GW should take a similar approach for their main games. That their next hire should be a global volunteer coordinator who's job it is to organize playtest groups, take submissions for rules, do free proof-reading and the like. They should have leveraged their fanbase rather than hiding everything behind a veil of secrecy.

Baronyu wrote:First off, bit dismissive there just labelling people who want more precise rule system to be WAAC, not to mention inaccurate. I'd say it's people who dislike WAAC who want more precise rule, go look up YMDC, tell me how many people are trying to argue the poorly written rules to their favour.

A fair point; however it has been my personal experience that casual gamers are more willing to simply 'dice off' problems, rather than search for the true ruling. Of course YMMV when it comes to groups clamoring for a precise ruleset, which I agree is desirable, hence why I was speaking in very general terms.

Baronyu wrote:I'm participating in D&D 5th ed beta, and I've joined some FFG RPG beta as well. give them the chance to help. I can tell you that it feels good when I provide feedback for the game, then see in revised version, some part of it shows up, it made me more invested in the product as I've been a part of it since the conception stage. I hope. If WotC, FFG and many other companies can do it, what is the reason that GW can't?

Some more good points here, and I accept that Beta's are brilliant ways to improve products and involve the community. However, given the size and value of the IP I still believe a complete GW beta to be impractical. In a more tightly controlled setting, perhaps embracing your idea of select rules, rather than the full product, it could be made to work. Hence my suggestion for tournaments specifically designed to evaluate rules. Heck, you could even market it as "having the chance to influence the game you love". Throw in accreditation, and you cement participants loyalty.

Baronyyu wrote:Piracy? Trolls? Well, don't dismiss the majority of the fanbase as morons, that's probably the 1st step in PR. For every 1 troll/pirate, there are plenty more reasonable and honest players who'd like to see their favourite product grows... all beta testers could be made to sign an NDA. Will some people break it? Sure, but they have enough lawyers to deal with that,

Insulting the majority of the fanbase was not my intention when addressing company piracy concerns; however, under the established GW model, it is a real threat to the company. (Arguing the benefits of the model itself is another discussion entirely). Also, I do not share your conviction in the effectiveness of NDAs. If everyone conformed to the agreements, then it would be great, but there are already signatories who breach them. Opening up a wide Beta would increase the risk of leaks, and potentially harm the product. Granted the legal team could probably handle the extra work, but sending them after the very people who are vocal enough to leak information may result in wiping out any good P.R. created. It is a great shame that the actions of the few impact on the reasonable and honest players who want to see the product grow.
The best way to tackle piracy is to be more open about your product. Channel the innate curiosity down constructive routes, perhaps making it an open secret that during the (proposed) monthly Q & A there may be something in the background relating to a new release. I recall the intense speculation surrounding Planetstrike when the Bastion model appeared in the 5thed rulebook. Regaining that sense of wonder and excitement should be a priority for the company.

A last reminder: Baronyu and I are merely discussing how to address GW's P.R., not long term strategies for balancing the company accounts. All views expressed are personal, and YMMV.

 azreal13 wrote:
Where are you getting self reporting from a single distributor?

ICv2 stands for Internal Correspondence version 2 (see more about Internal Correspondence below in "History". The ICv2 website -- www.ICv2.com -- provides news and information for pop culture retailers from "inside the world of pop culture products," with the only daily trade news, in-depth analysis, and product and sales information available anywhere. The ICv2 Guides provide bestseller lists, info on upcoming releases, market reports, previes, reviews and features to help retailers better manage their businesses and librarians better manage their collections.

We wouldn't have to keep butting heads if you just admitted I was right.

Well, oops. On first read, I got the impression that the quoted magazine was published by Alliance. Taking a closer look, I'm not sure where I got that impression, but whatever. The reality is quite a bit less convincing than if the report were published by Alliance from their own sales data.

I went and bought a copy to take a look at the "marketing report" for myself - the reason I asked where the growth figure came from in the first place was not to formulate a nerd-fu passive aggressive thinly disguised ad-hominem logical non-conclusion (the old "where is your proof"!! "a-HA you have no proof, therefore my case is proven!!" but to see what the data consist of. The data are not exactly robust. The report consists of the table that has been reproduced here and a few "he said" references to interviews. No data about the survey, no list of questions, none of the detailed responses, no subtotals or tabulation, in fact no detail of any kind at all. It's not much of a "report", more like a gossip column. I won't be shelling out another 8 bucks to confirm, but I get the impression that this is a regular feature of the magazine. Maybe they do an annual report or only provide the full data to distributors or something, there is of course the possibility that there is an actual report out there somewhere validating the conclusions. I can say conclusively that the linked reference isn't it.

Full disclosure - my tongue in cheek "maybe GW products are driving the sales growth" is specifically refuted by the article in the magazine - all the quotes regarding GW take a big dump on them. Their prices have jumped the shark. The release schedule is not communicated far enough in advance. They compete with their partners. The comments could have been gleaned from this thread, in fact. Given GW's anti-reseller moves of late, hardly surprising ;->

Quite.

I bought a copy too, and no, it's not exactly empirical proof is it?

However, as you seem to have already outlined, this is pretty convincing anecdotal evidence. Although possible, its unlikely that the respondents would lie, and these people are best placed to see what's happening on the frontline, and are going to have a much broader view than us as consumers.

As I've already said, any businessman worth his salt will know approximately how his business is performing year on year, and those comments about GW are pretty unambiguous, so while one wouldn't want to bet the farm on this info, you would have to concede it is a very strong indicator of the state of the market and GWs place in it.

 azreal13 wrote:
Quite.

I bought a copy too, and no, it's not exactly empirical proof is it?

However, as you seem to have already outlined, this is pretty convincing anecdotal evidence. Although possible, its unlikely that the respondents would lie, and these people are best placed to see what's happening on the frontline, and are going to have a much broader view than us as consumers.

As I've already said, any businessman worth his salt will know approximately how his business is performing year on year, and those comments about GW are pretty unambiguous, so while one wouldn't want to bet the farm on this info, you would have to concede it is a very strong indicator of the state of the market and GWs place in it.

Yes, quite. Proof that we can agree on something!

I'm not sure I would go so far as "convincing" evidence. More like cheerleading as an indicator of on-field performance. Not that I think any of the anecdotes or the summary are falsified, just that there is no way of knowing what kind of fruits are in the basket in an apples-apples sense.

I know my sanity could be saved if these threads would just disappear.

 pities2004 wrote:
I know my sanity could be saved if these threads would just disappear.

Solofalcon is that you?!

 pities2004 wrote:
I know my sanity could be saved if these threads would just disappear.

Alternatively, you could just, you know, not read them since the title of this one is a fairly strong indicator of what is being discussed therein.

Only the resurgence of the God Emperor can save the company.

Bring back card board cut out Dreanought's and Killa cans.

 azreal13 wrote:

Some Other People wrote:
Growing market? [Citation Needed bro.]

It's taken me bloody ages to find a link to this, but here is a link to the 15% figure. Absolutely, definitively not a fabrication..

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/25373.html

You can also find from the links in the article that WHFB is the 4th placed miniatures game, behind 40k, X Wing and Warmachine.

You can also dig around a bit in Census Bureau data to get some information for what's going on in the US. Other countries probably have similar statistics, but I'm not as familiar with their statistical organizations.

The first number I found is related to that ICv2 link. Retail sales for "Hobby, toy, and game stores" increased from 11,251 million dollars in 1992 to 16,353 million dollars in 2011. For those who care, the following are annual estimates for 1992 through 2011 (one for each year.)

11,251 11,651 12,850 13,714 14,502 15,021 15,833 16,651 16,947 16,820 16,909 16,582 16,314 16,255 16,020 16,344 16,171 15,657 15,994 16,353

So, for those three things lumped together, retail sales have looked rather flat (if anything it looks like we had a peak around 2000) Unfortunately the Census Bureau doesn't break the data down into a finer level of aggregation (so hobby shops only.) If anyone feels like digging around they'd be looking at NAICS codes of '451120' for retail sales, and '3399330' for manufacturing... but both will have toys and games lumped in with them as well.

This data is only available in 5 year jumps (because of the frequency of the Economic Census,) but it compiles some information for the retail end: http://web1.rm.census.gov/TheDataWeb_HotReport2/econsnapshot/snapshot.hrml?NAICS=451120

As much as I love to rag on GW, I'm really not willing to put any faith in the ICv2 numbers without some sort of methodology document to support that their numbers aren't complete crap.

@CadianXV

Well, first off, I apologise if I sounded like I was insulting you, not my intention at all, but any case, sorry.

This is gonna be a short post, as I agree with a lot of what you've said, so there's no need to repeat. The only thing I disagree on is going after people leaking NDA beta information is bad PR, I personally think it is good PR, as Sidestyler has said, it'd be the 1st time they have a valid reason to use their legal ninja. I doubt the majority of their fanbase, should they decide to reach out and do closed beta, will react negatively if GW does go after anyone who breach the NDA.

Another way they could run these fantasy-beta(be honest, in this universe, GW would rather burn an orphan alive than to get in touch with their fanbase ) is to have it hosted at FLGS, give a specific build, similar to their DV boxsets, then let the community playtest it. I'm sure FLGS wouldn't mind running WH beta events. I'd say players have to supply their own models though, with the exception of new models. which they could probably sell a few to these local FLGS to be used during beta event, and have them agree not to sell those new models until a date GW has decided.

Which bring up another thing, from what I've read, GW's relation with some FLGS is turning sour? As well as reaching out to these consumers, they should also repair their relationship with these FLGS, I'd say.

 Icarusthepilot wrote:
Only the resurgence of the God Emperor can save the company.

Shhhhhhhh! Don't give them ideas, I like the fluff the way it is and don't want to see 7th ditch the grimdark in favour of 'look everyone, the Emperor is here to save us'.

 Icarusthepilot wrote:
Only the resurgence of the God Emperor can save the company.

Nah, we need Y2J to save us...

Baronyu wrote:
The only thing I disagree on is going after people leaking NDA beta information is bad PR, I personally think it is good PR, as Sidestyler has said, it'd be the 1st time they have a valid reason to use their legal ninja. I doubt the majority of their fanbase, should they decide to reach out and do closed beta, will react negatively if GW does go after anyone who breach the NDA.

Personally though I don't think opening up betas to the public would do any good. They'd actually have to be willing to listen to the players doing the testing and be willing to make changes if necessary, and from what I've heard back when they used to allow the public to help playtest, they essentially ignored everything and did whatever they wanted in the end anyway. I remember once someone was talking about the 4th edition Tyranid codex in particular, that the playtesters saw Nidzilla being a thing and warned GW, but I guess GW had a new carnifex kit to sell so we all know what happened there.

Pretty much. Commercial interests have been tainting the creative process at GW for quite a long time.