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.

 notprop wrote:
While others retail chains are shrinking GW has grown it's retail locations. As it says in the Chairman's Preamble "our store are our castles moat". They thrive off of their dominating presence in the UK and they wish to recreate this effect globally. If we see the retail chain reducing then I would suggest GW will need saving. They can not maintain Turnover without it at this point.

So.. with the move to one man stores and the fact that in at least some parts of Australia GW are removing their relief managers and letting stores close when the designated manager is sick would suggest they need saving then?

Perhaps it has been mentioned and I just missed it, but what about GW franchises?

I would figure GW would love to put the risk is put on the individual and still be able to get their investment fee.

Btw, I know nothing about franchises or running/owning a small business, so I could have this all wrong.

Franchising is not really a common thing here in the UK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 notprop wrote:
While others retail chains are shrinking GW has grown it's retail locations. As it says in the Chairman's Preamble "our store are our castles moat". They thrive off of their dominating presence in the UK and they wish to recreate this effect globally. If we see the retail chain reducing then I would suggest GW will need saving. They can not maintain Turnover without it at this point.

So.. with the move to one man stores and the fact that in at least some parts of Australia GW are removing their relief managers and letting stores close when the designated manager is sick would suggest they need saving then?

I don't really see any evidence that that is the case from your news post.

There are many reasons why there aren't any suitable staff available.

Also high Australian minimum wage, for whatever reason its always the minimum wages fault in Oz!

aclive wrote:
Perhaps it has been mentioned and I just missed it, but what about GW franchises?

I would figure GW would love to put the risk is put on the individual and still be able to get their investment fee.

Btw, I know nothing about franchises or running/owning a small business, so I could have this all wrong.

It's actually a pretty good idea, I know a few redshirts around here who are actually pretty cool guys that I like talking too but cringe whenever they spout an obvious company line. I think that if they were given free reign they could do a lot better with their stores. The problem is that no matter how much it saves GW money, or increases sales, or any of that, GW would lose a great deal of control and that seems to be the most important thing to upper management at the moment.
WD isn't selling well and the idea of trying to make a magazine relevant in this day and age is somewhat silly but they like it because there is no danger of exposing their customers to other aspects of the hobby so they won't scrap it. FLGSs are growing the hobby and 3rd party advertisement has grow the 'GW hobby' quite a bit in the past but they would have to hand over control to someone else to do that, so they wont, instead they are trying to squash FLGSs and force people to buy from GW direct.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Minimum wage! OF COURSE!

D'ya think he resets at the start of each day and forgets everything he's read here before? I ask because he didn't just make that tired old argument did he. My eyes are actually deceiving me, right?

I guess I missed the opposition argument that amounted to anything other than 'gw should charge below market rates so I can buy more stuff'. And I have no idea where minimum wage comes from, I didn't mention minimum wage.

 BryllCream wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Minimum wage! OF COURSE!

D'ya think he resets at the start of each day and forgets everything he's read here before? I ask because he didn't just make that tired old argument did he. My eyes are actually deceiving me, right?

I guess I missed the opposition argument that amounted to anything other than 'gw should charge below market rates so I can buy more stuff'. And I have no idea where minimum wage comes from, I didn't mention minimum wage.

No, you didn't, and the fact you don't understand why I responded in the way I did shows your fundamental lack of understanding of the argument you're trying to make.

Feel free to explain why gw should do what Apple and Microsoft are not doing.

 BryllCream wrote:
Feel free to explain why gw should do what Apple and Microsoft are not doing.

Because emulating mainstream company business models who produce everyday appliances for both businesses and home when you're a fringe market company producing luxury goods makes about as much sense as a jeweler emulating the same business model as Burger King.

You can keep this on file, and if I'm wrong feel free to taunt me with it.

Apple and Microsoft will normalise their prices in the next few years (I'll say 3, just to put hard facts in) as pressure from their customer base grows on them to do so.

Customers will tolerate a modest price difference for logistic costs etc, but out and out gouging they will not. The only reason this is tolerated now is likely ignorance amongst the wider population. As more people become better informed, pressure will grow and prices will fall.

Just look at the video games situation over there, since public outcry, while still more expensive, the price has come a lot closer to the ROW.

Hell, even a number of recent GW releases have had some people surprised that the prices haven't been as disparate as before, so maybe its already happening.

 azreal13 wrote:


Customers will tolerate a modest price difference for logistic costs etc, but out and out gouging they will not. The only reason this is tolerated now is likely ignorance amongst the wider population. As more people become better informed, pressure will grow and prices will fall.

iiiiiiiiiiiii disagree. Most of the stuff I've handled that's produced by apple is utter garbage. The entire product line is overhyped and overpriced for what it really is: gadgets that don't even permit full functionality. Then, to even unlock something approaching full functionality, I have to pay even more for the services? Yeah, come on, give me a break. People still run screaming for the newest trash from crapple, utterly ignorant of the fact that the changes from the previous version of the product can really be chalked up to "cosmetic". I use crApple as an example because it's more easily accessible to me, though given a few minutes I could think of plenty of examples from macrohard that illustrate the same point.

Hell, even a number of recent GW releases have had some people surprised that the prices haven't been as disparate as before, so maybe its already happening.

Canadian wraithkniggit is $140, same thing in the states is $115. This is still in par with the usual price gap between US and Canadian prices. Plastic wraithguard are still as expensive as their resin/metal predecessors... I haven't checked prices in other countries, but seems to me like things haven't changed all that much. If anything, it seems to be getting worse. $90 for a land-raider? If GW wants the argument that they are a miniatures manufacturer, then they need to sort things out, because at that price, I'd rather go over to dragon models and spend on real models instead of a hollow brick of cartoony plastic.

 poda_t wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


Customers will tolerate a modest price difference for logistic costs etc, but out and out gouging they will not. The only reason this is tolerated now is likely ignorance amongst the wider population. As more people become better informed, pressure will grow and prices will fall.

iiiiiiiiiiiii disagree. Most of the stuff I've handled that's produced by apple is utter garbage. The entire product line is overhyped and overpriced for what it really is: gadgets that don't even permit full functionality. Then, to even unlock something approaching full functionality, I have to pay even more for the services? Yeah, come on, give me a break. People still run screaming for the newest trash from crapple, utterly ignorant of the fact that the changes from the previous version of the product can really be chalked up to "cosmetic". I use crApple as an example because it's more easily accessible to me, though given a few minutes I could think of plenty of examples from macrohard that illustrate the same point.
[

I think we're looking at slightly different things here, I wasn't so much commenting on the overall price, as difference of the same product in different parts of the world. Apple is an extremely poor example as they have a following that would make the most fanatical GW fanboy look like a reasoned and considered consumer.

Canadian wraithkniggit is $140, same thing in the states is $115. This is still in par with the usual price gap between US and Canadian prices. Plastic wraithguard are still as expensive as their resin/metal predecessors... I haven't checked prices in other countries, but seems to me like things haven't changed all that much. If anything, it seems to be getting worse. $90 for a land-raider? If GW wants the argument that they are a miniatures manufacturer, then they need to sort things out, because at that price, I'd rather go over to dragon models and spend on real models instead of a hollow brick of cartoony plastic.

Again, different things. I was specifically addressing Aus pricing, as Bryllopad was trying the minimum wage gambit.

Maybe it's Canada's turn to bend over? Time will tell.

A 20% drop in all prices.

 Sekai wrote:
A 20% drop in all prices.

Would be akin to trying to cure a headache by using a shotgun.

Unless you were absolutely certain that increased volume would offset the fall in revenue, a wholesale drop in revenue like this could well finish the company off.

 Sekai wrote:
A 20% drop in all prices.

Thought exercise: If Burger King dropped the prices on their entire dollar menu down 50%, would people buy twice as many hamburgers?

Why or why not?

20% is what an online retailer sells at, and those prices are more reasonable in my opinion. I would happily buy from GW at those prices.

 Sekai wrote:
20% is what an online retailer sells at, and those prices are more reasonable in my opinion. I would happily buy from GW at those prices.

While I agree with your thought process, if you give an inch, people want a yard. There will be a constant demand for lowering the prices further. But honestly, in the end, I DO think that a decrease by 20% would help a lot. Would they feel it right away? No, but it would surely see an increase in new entrants to the hobby.

 Coldhatred wrote:

 Sekai wrote:
20% is what an online retailer sells at, and those prices are more reasonable in my opinion. I would happily buy from GW at those prices.

While I agree with your thought process, if you give an inch, people want a yard. There will be a constant demand for lowering the prices further. But honestly, in the end, I DO think that a decrease by 20% would help a lot. Would they feel it right away? No, but it would surely see an increase in new entrants to the hobby.

Actually, I don't think 20% is enough of a drop to see a significant upturn in new entrants (at least those who are barred by price.) I think a better approach is to maintain current prices, but put out a 'loss leader' faction starter range. I use quotes, because I think a playable 750pt force, plus a codex, perhaps even a mini rulebook for around the cost of £60 could still actually make a small profit.

I don't think that's viable, if they were to decrease prices it would have to be done incrementally. GW don't operate on that great a margin, a short term drop in profits caused by a significant overnight price decrease could really hurt them and hit all the confidence in their stock value. Realistically the best way to reduce prices would be to freeze them and allow inflation to close the gap. Much as I think GW prices are just silly, it's the road they've chosen to go down (soaring prices to cover for decreased sales) and you can't just slam it into reverse, drop the prices and expect sales to shoot up to cover the difference.

If they were to reduce prices by 20+% they would need a surge in sales, which means they need to stock on hand and the infrastructure to distribute it. It requires investment up front and then the extra sales have to cover the reduced profits on sales and cover that investment. Given the issues with the Tau and Eldar releases especially, perhaps they're not in a position to do that. Their pricing structure is a rod they've made for their own back.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't think that's viable, if they were to decrease prices it would have to be done incrementally. GW don't operate on that great a margin, a short term drop in profits caused by a significant overnight price decrease could really hurt them and hit all the confidence in their stock value. Realistically the best way to reduce prices would be to freeze them and allow inflation to close the gap. Much as I think GW prices are just silly, it's the road they've chosen to go down (soaring prices to cover for decreased sales) and you can't just slam it into reverse, drop the prices and expect sales to shoot up to cover the difference. Their pricing structure is a rod they've made for their own back.

Actually, their gross margin on directly sold items is, IIRC ~70%. That's not too shabby. Their main issue is the high costs of maintaining a retail chain.

Saving? Who says GW needs saving? It's doing quite well for itself, but, hopefully, when they've destroyed both online retailers and FLGS and everyone is buying directly from GW (so they retain all of the profit from selling their products) they will lower their prices :/

Before anyone gets up in arms, not the word: 'Hopefully'

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
Saving? Who says GW needs saving? It's doing quite well for itself, but, hopefully, when they've destroyed both online retailers and FLGS and everyone is buying directly from GW (so they retain all of the profit from selling their products) they will lower their prices :/

Before anyone gets up in arms, not the word: 'Hopefully'

 daedalus wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Feel free to explain why gw should do what Apple and Microsoft are not doing.

Because emulating mainstream company business models who produce everyday appliances for both businesses and home when you're a fringe market company producing luxury goods makes about as much sense as a jeweler emulating the same business model as Burger King.

Would you like diamonds with that?

 notprop wrote:

So what $200USD then? That's not a huge barrier to GWs target market; the parents [of 12-16 year old boys]. These parents will invariable be average or above earners and $200 isn't jack at birthday or Christmas time. Hell I paid about that for the entertainer at my 4yo's party never mind the presents and food. A pair of shoes can cost half that and she goes through them at about 3 pair+ a year.

As to the stores, these are what made GW the industry leader it is today. While others retail chains are shrinking GW has grown it's retail locations. As it says in the Chairman's Preamble "our store are our castles moat". They thrive off of their dominating presence in the UK and they wish to recreate this effect globally. If we see the retail chain reducing then I would suggest GW will need saving. They can not maintain Turnover without it at this point.

Re bunker store in key locations, I'm pretty sure these exist, but commercially they make no sense just to provide gaming space to vets who will likely buy at discount online. Each location must sustain itself for the model to work. This is doubly true where gaming clubs exist.

I think that the issue is less to do with the price and more to do with the organization. Having one box that contains everything you need to get going, or one box with models and one hobby starter set (with paints, brush, glue, tools, ect. in small amounts to get you started) would go a long way toward making GW sales method more effective.

When doing a demo it is a lot easier to simply give the customer a box and say "buy this box and you are good to go" than it is to pile up a huge batch of products and convince them that they need to buy all of them.

Personally I would like to see that starter sets be smaller and cheaper. Partially because of the monetary investment, but also because of the investment of time. Making the starter sets smaller and making the game work better at smaller point levels would mean that you would not have to dedicate as many hours into painting and modeling before you get to a good game.

...........Game design stuff........

Well that's all subjective stuff.

Can you play the rules? Does it sell? Yes on both counts I would suggest. From their PoV does GW have an issue here then? Of course not.

On your 2 questions I would argue that the answer is not exactly yes.

Can you play the rules? Sort of. Lets compare to MTG for a moment.

If you want to play Magic in a casual environment, the game works well. You can take whatever cards you have, make some silly decks and have fun, close games.
If you want to play the game in a some what competitive way the game works well. Drafting is what comes to mind where you can be competitive without a huge investment. (time money, ect.)
If you want to play the game in a serious competitive way (ie. pro - level) the game works. There are multiple powerful deck options, a diverse metagame, and close and interesting games.

There are cards designed for the people who like huge powerful effects, there are cards for those who like to be creative with their decks, and there are cards made for the most competitive levels of play.

40K does not work in this same way.
Playing 40k casually works. You can have fun close games, there are lots of units to choose from, and it leads to fun close games.
As a narrative game 40k kinda works. For some armies, what you get on the table looks like what you get in the stories. For some other books, this is not the case.

As a competitive game 40k really falls apart. There is usually little variation within a codex in terms of competitive units, and there are usually a few codexes that are way above the power level of the rest, leading to the Flavor of the Month syndrome that you often see in the competitive scene. Also there are a number of rules disputes at any given time that are left to TO to sort out to have a working tournament.

40k has a serious case of "This is how you SHOULD play our game". Rather than giving different types of players stuff that appeals to them, GW has a sense of how they want the game to be played, and try to force you into that mind set. (ie, the word CINEMATIC comes to mind.) The game as a whole would be better if there was more variation in how it could be played; Simple casual rules, tight tournament rules, deep narrative rules.


Does it sell?

Honestly I do not have the sales data to speak for the business as a whole, but I simply speak for myself. A year and a half ago, I was playing 40k almost every week. After the release of 6th edition I have played less and less, to the point now where I have not played in some time, and have not bought anything for a while as well. 6th edition is simply less of the game that I like to play. I could go into detail, but there is no real purpose for that in this thread.

I think this is quite reasonable and also very realistic - given gross margins of ~%75 they can certainly afford a loss leader to get new players into the game. Dark Vengeance is IMHO good value, but they could afford to do similar deals, maybe a bit cheaper, for more factions.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Coldhatred wrote:

 Sekai wrote:
20% is what an online retailer sells at, and those prices are more reasonable in my opinion. I would happily buy from GW at those prices.

While I agree with your thought process, if you give an inch, people want a yard. There will be a constant demand for lowering the prices further. But honestly, in the end, I DO think that a decrease by 20% would help a lot. Would they feel it right away? No, but it would surely see an increase in new entrants to the hobby.

Actually, I don't think 20% is enough of a drop to see a significant upturn in new entrants (at least those who are barred by price.) I think a better approach is to maintain current prices, but put out a 'loss leader' faction starter range. I use quotes, because I think a playable 750pt force, plus a codex, perhaps even a mini rulebook for around the cost of £60 could still actually make a small profit.

Jack_Death wrote:
I think this is quite reasonable and also very realistic - given gross margins of ~%75 they can certainly afford a loss leader to get new players into the game. Dark Vengeance is IMHO good value, but they could afford to do similar deals, maybe a bit cheaper, for more factions.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Coldhatred wrote:

 Sekai wrote:
20% is what an online retailer sells at, and those prices are more reasonable in my opinion. I would happily buy from GW at those prices.

While I agree with your thought process, if you give an inch, people want a yard. There will be a constant demand for lowering the prices further. But honestly, in the end, I DO think that a decrease by 20% would help a lot. Would they feel it right away? No, but it would surely see an increase in new entrants to the hobby.

Actually, I don't think 20% is enough of a drop to see a significant upturn in new entrants (at least those who are barred by price.) I think a better approach is to maintain current prices, but put out a 'loss leader' faction starter range. I use quotes, because I think a playable 750pt force, plus a codex, perhaps even a mini rulebook for around the cost of £60 could still actually make a small profit.

Ooh, look at us! Agreeing on stuff! Next thing we will be picking out curtain fabric!

I agree, in terms of what you get, DV is pretty good, but its flawed in so much as, if you're not interested in either faction, then eventually, its largely a wasted investment. I think GW expect mum and dad to buy the set for the kids to play each other over the kitchen table, but in reality I doubt that happens often. A £60 investment into one force would get a single player off to a much better start in the game.

 azreal13 wrote:

Jack_Death wrote:
I think this is quite reasonable and also very realistic - given gross margins of ~%75 they can certainly afford a loss leader to get new players into the game. Dark Vengeance is IMHO good value, but they could afford to do similar deals, maybe a bit cheaper, for more factions.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Coldhatred wrote:

 Sekai wrote:
20% is what an online retailer sells at, and those prices are more reasonable in my opinion. I would happily buy from GW at those prices.

While I agree with your thought process, if you give an inch, people want a yard. There will be a constant demand for lowering the prices further. But honestly, in the end, I DO think that a decrease by 20% would help a lot. Would they feel it right away? No, but it would surely see an increase in new entrants to the hobby.

Actually, I don't think 20% is enough of a drop to see a significant upturn in new entrants (at least those who are barred by price.) I think a better approach is to maintain current prices, but put out a 'loss leader' faction starter range. I use quotes, because I think a playable 750pt force, plus a codex, perhaps even a mini rulebook for around the cost of £60 could still actually make a small profit.

Ooh, look at us! Agreeing on stuff! Next thing we will be picking out curtain fabric!

I agree, in terms of what you get, DV is pretty good, but its flawed in so much as, if you're not interested in either faction, then eventually, its largely a wasted investment. I think GW expect mum and dad to buy the set for the kids to play each other over the kitchen table, but in reality I doubt that happens often. A £60 investment into one force would get a single player off to a much better start in the game.

I keep saying, revamp the Battleforce sets and put the mini rulebooks in there.

 azreal13 wrote:


I agree, in terms of what you get, DV is pretty good, but its flawed in so much as, if you're not interested in either faction, then eventually, its largely a wasted investment. I think GW expect mum and dad to buy the set for the kids to play each other over the kitchen table, but in reality I doubt that happens often. A £60 investment into one force would get a single player off to a much better start in the game.

I disagree. I'm perfectly happy with a not-single army starter kit. I prefer the mixed starer kit as really, it's difficult to start the game if you're a newbie playing against a veteran, and it really does take 2 to play. More to the point, having that second army there is also nice, since it opens up my willingness to try out another army. I mean, I've already got it, so what's the problem if I don't give them a whirl on the tabletop since I already own them? I only have 2 wishes when it comes to GW starter kits:
1.) give me complete legally playable armies. 2x troops 1x hq, and 1x seasoning.
2.) don't create a themed starter set. Make the starter set variable, so, say, every year, or every six months, you swap out one of the armies with a different set. then, after the cycle is up, you swap out the other army. Keep things fresh, and entice older gamers with established armies to pick up new armies.

bah, I had other stuff I wanted to say, but, forgot, and really, i should get off my but and go home...

 poda_t wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


I agree, in terms of what you get, DV is pretty good, but its flawed in so much as, if you're not interested in either faction, then eventually, its largely a wasted investment. I think GW expect mum and dad to buy the set for the kids to play each other over the kitchen table, but in reality I doubt that happens often. A £60 investment into one force would get a single player off to a much better start in the game.

I disagree. I'm perfectly happy with a not-single army starter kit. I prefer the mixed starer kit as really, it's difficult to start the game if you're a newbie playing against a veteran, and it really does take 2 to play. More to the point, having that second army there is also nice, since it opens up my willingness to try out another army. I mean, I've already got it, so what's the problem if I don't give them a whirl on the tabletop since I already own them? I only have 2 wishes when it comes to GW starter kits:
1.) give me complete legally playable armies. 2x troops 1x hq, and 1x seasoning.
2.) don't create a themed starter set. Make the starter set variable, so, say, every year, or every six months, you swap out one of the armies with a different set. then, after the cycle is up, you swap out the other army. Keep things fresh, and entice older gamers with established armies to pick up new armies.

bah, I had other stuff I wanted to say, but, forgot, and really, i should get off my but and go home...

I have a couple of issues with what you're saying.

Firstly, why is it difficult to start if you're playing against a veteran? I would have thought a guy who knows the rules and has an extensive model collection is exactly who you'd be wanting to start with! Unless you mean a douche who likes stomping newbs, in which case, ok.

Secondly, the only reason you own that second 'army' is because you've been forced to buy it in the starter! Wouldn't you rather have all that cash go on the faction you actually want to collect first off? Of course, if you fancy another faction later, you can just buy the starter for that as well.

GW could get rid of the boxed starter altogether of course, just produce a starter kit, with dice, templates and mini rulebook, and just have a standing offer of 1 HQ, 2 x Troops plus one other box up to x value from the same faction for a set amount. Not only would that give new starters a real choice, but I bet there would be plenty of vets who would partake as well.

What would be cool if they had a "Pick Your Starter Set" function on the website.

You would click on a "Getting Started with ___ Army".
It would show every kit available for each selection
Start with the HQ, maybe even have a bit written about each individual.
Then you pick two troops choices you like, also with some info about them (play styles for instance).
Then an elite unit.
Next would be the codex.
Maybe you even get a small discount since you're buying a "Starter Package".
Before you check out, the usual impulse buys would appear: glue, clippers, army paint sets, etc.
Wait 2-3 weeks and bam! Your army arrives on your doorstep, ready for assembly!

Maybe they even include a flyer with the addy of the nearest GW, so you can take your supplies there for a free paint lesson or demo game.


Could do the same thing for a Vets. Have a "Expand Your Forces" section. Plug in what you already have they you get suggestions as what to add.

 daedalus wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Feel free to explain why gw should do what Apple and Microsoft are not doing.

Because emulating mainstream company business models who produce everyday appliances for both businesses and home when you're a fringe market company producing luxury goods makes about as much sense as a jeweler emulating the same business model as Burger King.

So what should GW set their price at?

Also it looks like GW may have been charging above market prices. If prices for new Aussie releases stimulate increased sales, expect to see prices drop to roughly what they are the rest of the world (maybe an extra dollar to cover shipping).