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.

Where can I get Escape from Goblin Town for $75?

 kronk wrote:
Nope. Again, you're misreading and misunderstanding. I have no intention of getting involved with your trolling any further, though.

The subject is the GW hobby, whether it's 40k or fantasy, and that's what I commented on.

Enjoy your weekend. Try to not look for insult everywhere.

I am not trolling, but you are right on this one the title does indeed say GW hobby, I forgot that.

I am sorry for that, you really should have said the GW hobby though and not rely on people remembering that the threads title says GW hobby.

 cincydooley wrote:
Okay. I'm done arguing semantics and how we define best. Cheers.

There is no argument about the meaning of "best" it is your unwillingness to provide your criteria.

You do not want to give the impression that by saying "I'm done" you have given up since you have no logical argument?
You have conceded? Lost the argument? Will be more careful of not throwing sweeping generalities?
I was just getting warmed up and was most disappointed you had no data to provide.
I really would hate to think this is all a waste of time now...
Ta, ta then...

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I am not trolling, but you are right on this one the title does indeed say GW hobby, I forgot that.

I am sorry for that, you really should have said the GW hobby though and not rely on people remembering that the threads title says GW hobby.

I think we may have been talking past one another. I'm sorry if I was a dick.

*hugs*

 kronk wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I am not trolling, but you are right on this one the title does indeed say GW hobby, I forgot that.

I am sorry for that, you really should have said the GW hobby though and not rely on people remembering that the threads title says GW hobby.

I think we may have been talking past one another. I'm sorry if I was a dick.

*hugs*

brohugs?

 Talizvar wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Okay. I'm done arguing semantics and how we define best. Cheers.

There is no argument about the meaning of "best" it is your unwillingness to provide your criteria.

You do not want to give the impression that by saying "I'm done" you have given up since you have no logical argument?
You have conceded? Lost the argument? Will be more careful of not throwing sweeping generalities?
I was just getting warmed up and was most disappointed you had no data to provide.
I really would hate to think this is all a waste of time now...
Ta, ta then...

Here's your data, sir:

www.icv2.com/articles/news/26216.html

Now, they're a touch old and I don't completely prescribe to them because they leave out direct from the publisher sales (of which would only assuredly support GW more than Privateer or Fantasyn Flight) but there it is for you. In black and white.

So as you can see, I have plenty of support for a "logical argument". 40k is the largest and most popular wargame in terms of sales. I can't categorically say it has more players, but based on the sales and the length it's existed, I'd make an educated assumption that it does.

What I'm done arguing the semantics of is the word "best" or "better" or any other phrasing that is inherently subjective.

 cincydooley wrote:

And, quite frankly, you're foolish if you somehow think 40k isn't still at the top of the wargaming heap. Really foolish. Or blind. So which are you?

Given that GW has halved their production staff and in a period where prices doubled, revenues have stayed flat, I think it's fair to say that GW has half the market share they did a decade ago. Then add in that Jervis said that two-thirds of GW's customers don't actually play their game and you have those who actually play 40k representing about a sixth of the market*.

Wooo!! 17%! That's market domination! Top of the heap indeed.

* This also makes a huge amount of assumptions in GW and 40k's favor.

I think it is fair to say that Games Workshop has a massive, though stagnant or diminishing, share of the fantasy table-top wargaming market.

Games Workshop has been the largest, oldest, and most successful (in terms of unit sales) table-top fantasy wargaming company for a long while, and at the moment probably remains so.

I think it is debatable whether or for how long Games Workshop will remain on the "top of the heap" in terms of table-top fantasy wargaming. The size of the heap is growing daily, but market share of the kind Games Workshop has does not evaporate overnight.

The bulk of Games Workshop's revenue comes directly from fantasy table-top wargaming, as opposed to Fantasy Flight Games, for example. And a portion of FFG's revenue is tied to products made under license from Games Workshop that are not related to fantasy table-top wargaming.

So, for the nonce (meaning the last point of semi-reliable data), I would hope that we could all at least agree that strictly in terms of both revenue and unit sales related directly to the narrow category of table-top fantasy wargaming products, Games Workshop maintains the largest slice of the pie.

At the end of the day it is all guesswork, as aside from Games Workshop most companies producing table-top fantasy wargaming products are privately owned. But taking into consideration the icv2 data, anecdotal information, Games Workshop's revenue and unit sales (50% of which Games Workshop has said relates directly to Warhammer 40,000 table-top wargaming products), and reasonable inferences regarding the size of the nearest competitors (Privateer Press, Cool Mini or Not, Wyrd, etc.), I think it is more reasonable than not to assume Games Workshop has the largest single share of the table-top fantasy wargaming market in the United States.

 frozenwastes wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

And, quite frankly, you're foolish if you somehow think 40k isn't still at the top of the wargaming heap. Really foolish. Or blind. So which are you?

Given that GW has halved their production staff and in a period where prices doubled, revenues have stayed flat, I think it's fair to say that GW has half the market share they did a decade ago. Then add in that Jervis said that two-thirds of GW's customers don't actually play their game and you have those who actually play 40k representing about a sixth of the market*.

Wooo!! 17%! That's market domination! Top of the heap indeed.

* This also makes a huge amount of assumptions in GW and 40k's favor.

Games workshops market is the gw ip. How could they have lost market share?

 BryllCream wrote:
Games workshops market is the gw ip. How could they have lost market share?

That is what they bring to the market, not the market itself.
Or perhaps you mean that is what they market?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Competition from less complex games - Ultimately I only actively played 40k from 2009 until early 2012. When the 6th edition rulebook came out, I did not order it and I followed the threads discussing it. It seems the ruleset has become even more convoluted, even less intuitive, and it took me so long to get the intricacies of 5th edition down I simply had no appetite for learning it all over again. I'd rather play Space Hulk or Last Night on Earth or Arkham Horror or something that doesn't literally require 40 minutes of setup, 3 hours of playtime, and another 30 minutes of putting it all away again.

You must be playing a much better version of Arkham Horror than I am. Setup for that game is a bitch.

Rubber bands and sandwhich baggies are your friends! We play with the Kingsport, Dunwitch, Dark Pharoah, Black Goat and King in Yellow expansions (havent bought innsmouth yet) and we've got it down to probably 10-15 mins. The random junk you dont routinely need (blessings, sheriff of arkham, retainer, etc) are all clipped separately in one bag so we only pull those if they actually come up.

here we are for dakka's weekly "who else hates GW?" thread. They are mostly all the same, thinly-veiled with different titles.

I"m here to help break the echo-chamber.

Prices have gone up...so buy less. $50 for a kit is not a problem if you aren't the type of player who simply buys the newest power army (which you probably won't even paint anyway). And if you can't spare $50 a month you are definitely in the wrong hobby, because that is pretty affordable with even a part-time job. Spend more time on your kits and get your money's worth instead of just slapping them together like toys.

Also, I am tired of subjective statements being taken for granted and going unchallenged. "Gundam kits are superior quality to GW." In what way? Certainly not in terms of customization (gundam kit builds the exact gundam shown on the box, very little customization and mixing of parts). The quality of plastic is something that I doubt very many people here are even qualified to comment on without being a chemist, so we'll leave that open. Mold lines? Gundam kits have those too. Scale issues? Possibly, but that doesn't automatically equate to a "superior kit." In fact, it's really closer to a design decision than one of implementation.

And how much does your $100 investment in the gundam get you? You have a model you can put on your shelf to look nice. The wraithknight and riptides you deride in comparison can function as display pieces, but are ALSO usable in as many games as you can fit into your schedule. You can take them to any store that runs GW games and be able to use them. GW offers ubiquity for the gamer; Gundam is purely for the modeler. GW, satisfying both the modeler and the gamer, gets the advantage from me.

And why is this always framed against GW alone? Where is the comparison between Gundam kits and PP's single pose, flat resin bricks they call colossi? I'll tell you why, it's because the people who post these kinds of things are purely pushing an anti-GW agenda/rant, not interested in real discussion.

775B53 wrote:
here we are for dakka's weekly "who else hates GW?" thread. They are mostly all the same, thinly-veiled with different titles.

I"m here to help break the echo-chamber.

Prices have gone up...so buy less. $50 for a kit is not a problem if you aren't the type of player who simply buys the newest power army (which you probably won't even paint anyway). And if you can't spare $50 a month you are definitely in the wrong hobby, because that is pretty affordable with even a part-time job. Spend more time on your kits and get your money's worth instead of just slapping them together like toys.

Also, I am tired of subjective statements being taken for granted and going unchallenged. "Gundam kits are superior quality to GW." In what way? Certainly not in terms of customization (gundam kit builds the exact gundam shown on the box, very little customization and mixing of parts). The quality of plastic is something that I doubt very many people here are even qualified to comment on without being a chemist, so we'll leave that open. Mold lines? Gundam kits have those too. Scale issues? Possibly, but that doesn't automatically equate to a "superior kit." In fact, it's really closer to a design decision than one of implementation.

And how much does your $100 investment in the gundam get you? You have a model you can put on your shelf to look nice. The wraithknight and riptides you deride in comparison can function as display pieces, but are ALSO usable in as many games as you can fit into your schedule. You can take them to any store that runs GW games and be able to use them. GW offers ubiquity for the gamer; Gundam is purely for the modeler. GW, satisfying both the modeler and the gamer, gets the advantage from me.

And why is this always framed against GW alone? Where is the comparison between Gundam kits and PP's single pose, flat resin bricks they call colossi? I'll tell you why, it's because the people who post these kinds of things are purely pushing an anti-GW agenda/rant, not interested in real discussion.

Yeah, people either like it or hate it, not much you can do.

(Insert Matt Ward Hate)

775B53 wrote:
here we are for dakka's weekly "who else hates GW?" thread. They are mostly all the same, thinly-veiled with different titles.

I"m here to help break the echo-chamber.

Prices have gone up...so buy less. $50 for a kit is not a problem if you aren't the type of player who simply buys the newest power army (which you probably won't even paint anyway). And if you can't spare $50 a month you are definitely in the wrong hobby, because that is pretty affordable with even a part-time job. Spend more time on your kits and get your money's worth instead of just slapping them together like toys.

Or, alternatively, spend that same money on something that represents better value to me? I'd much rather spend that same money on some X Wing stuff, or a Mierce monster, or some Infinity. Not because any of those things cost significant amounts less, in some cases more, but they represent better value to me. The cost here is not the heart of the debate, its the value more and more people are finding lacking in comparison to other products.

Also, I am tired of subjective statements being taken for granted and going unchallenged. "Gundam kits are superior quality to GW." In what way? Certainly not in terms of customization (gundam kit builds the exact gundam shown on the box, very little customization and mixing of parts). The quality of plastic is something that I doubt very many people here are even qualified to comment on without being a chemist, so we'll leave that open. Mold lines? Gundam kits have those too. Scale issues? Possibly, but that doesn't automatically equate to a "superior kit." In fact, it's really closer to a design decision than one of implementation.

And how much does your $100 investment in the gundam get you? You have a model you can put on your shelf to look nice. The wraithknight and riptides you deride in comparison can function as display pieces, but are ALSO usable in as many games as you can fit into your schedule. You can take them to any store that runs GW games and be able to use them. GW offers ubiquity for the gamer; Gundam is purely for the modeler. GW, satisfying both the modeler and the gamer, gets the advantage from me.

Ok, lets boil it down to this. Gundam kits are produced in an identical way to GW kits. They have more pieces, in multiple colours and just way more plastic in the box. Therefore, if they are sold at comparatively lower prices, with a high likelihood of very similar development and production costs, what other reasonable conclusion is there other than GW stuff is overpriced? The use of the kit afterwards has no bearing on the cost to make it, and frankly is a very thin excuse for price gouging.

And why is this always framed against GW alone? Where is the comparison between Gundam kits and PP's single pose, flat resin bricks they call colossi? I'll tell you why, it's because the people who post these kinds of things are purely pushing an anti-GW agenda/rant, not interested in real discussion.

MarsNZ wrote:
So once you've posed your new Gundam a couple of different ways what are you going to do with it?

I budget, stick to one army, don't change factions like underwear and I manage with NZ pricing and a student income.

I'm the same. I've had SW since I started playing 6 years ago. I got around £200 worth of old unpainted marines (tact squads, some chars, dreads, rhinos, razors etc) for quarter price off a mate then.

I got a 13th company box set, a blood claw box set at the time, I've had people get my Logan/Njal/Thunderwolves for Bdays/Xmas, and I think I've bought a few other models (terminators, long fangs, powerfist dudes, landspeeder, landraider etc) off ebay and repainted them.

I'd say I've spent 100 quid or less on models with them since I started up, and that's including most of the gifts. They've had money off me for codex/rulebooks (5th/6th) but that amounts to about 100-150, and actually their books are worth the price IMO. I buy painting gear third hand.

As you say, it's all about budgetting, looking for a bargain and not swapping armies constantly. If you stick to one army, you get to play many different and competitive builds with it apart from anything else, you get proficient with it, and it costs a hell of a lot less.

I think the difference can be whether people are painters or not. I don't paint for pleasure, it's the playing that I like, so I don't buy more models all the time to get my painting fix. If people are heavily into painting and the modelling side of the hobby I imagine it can get very expensive!

 avantgarde wrote:
Y'all are missing the main point of the article. Assigning car companies to TT games.

Actually what's funny is while I was working at GW I remember our regional manager say that "do you ever see Porsche have sales? We are a premium product", and years after I left the company I hear echoes of that from managers and their employees every once and a while.

Long story short, GW is more like Jaguar, a sometimes pretty overpriced pile of British junk that thinks its the king of the world and only douchers with too much money and too little sense defend.

 Ravenous D wrote:

 avantgarde wrote:
Y'all are missing the main point of the article. Assigning car companies to TT games.

Actually what's funny is while I was working at GW I remember our regional manager say that "do you ever see Porsche have sales? We are a premium product", and years after I left the company I hear echoes of that from managers and their employees every once and a while.

Long story short, GW is more like Jaguar, a sometimes pretty overpriced pile of British junk that thinks its the king of the world and only douchers with too much money and too little sense defend.

With the exception that since it was bought by the Indians, Jaguar, and Range Rover, has been going from strength to strength and has produced some awesome cars?

70s and 80s Jaguar, fair comparison, present day, not so much.

In truth, Mercedes is probably the closest to what you describe at the moment.

Not disagreeing with your point, just the content of your analogy!

I didn't really solve this problem because i just started buying Death Korps of Krieg, in other words Forge world!!!! hahaha, but i mainly buy stuff from other people, not as much fro forge world directly.. brand new of any of my models is 60 bucks for a squad of 10 guardsmen w/o shipping!! and its supposed to be a hoard army... :/ but its my choice so i cant complain, i just like the models and their fluff to much... DKOK rule!

 frozenwastes wrote:
Given that GW has halved their production staff and in a period where prices doubled, revenues have stayed flat, I think it's fair to say that GW has half the market share they did a decade ago. Then add in that Jervis said that two-thirds of GW's customers don't actually play their game and you have those who actually play 40k representing about a sixth of the market*.

This math's a bit rubbish, isn't it? It confuses market share with sales and with revenue, and doesn't even try to account for any confounders like loss leaders or structural changes. It's just full steam ahead, throw some numbers in a blender and damn the context!

By the logic of this post, any time GW sells a miniature, it's losing market share to itself. The process that settled on 17% market share is analogous to comparing a 10-year-old picture of a dog to a hamster and concluding that trains have gotten much faster. The comparisons make no sense and the conclusion simply doesn't follow.

 cincydooley wrote:

Here's your data, sir:
www.icv2.com/articles/news/26216.html
Now, they're a touch old and I don't completely prescribe to them because they leave out direct from the publisher sales (of which would only assuredly support GW more than Privateer or Fantasyn Flight) but there it is for you. In black and white.
So as you can see, I have plenty of support for a "logical argument". 40k is the largest and most popular wargame in terms of sales. I can't categorically say it has more players, but based on the sales and the length it's existed, I'd make an educated assumption that it does.
What I'm done arguing the semantics of is the word "best" or "better" or any other phrasing that is inherently subjective.

You looked for some subjective group as well to list, that is good to see.
Those guys used to be an investment group that was granted bankruptcy in 2004.
Alot can happen in 8 years and I cannot find their means of measure other than calling and interviewing retailers.
The board game geeks are probably not much better (I think their measurement was more on degree of fun).

You would not be off the hook on the "black and white" since GW's reports to investors give clearer performance and Privateer is privately owned so they are not required to give a shred of data.
I had shown earlier that by delivery chain alone GW can be easily outperformed (3.75 times more stores than them in one region!) since they still want to control their "experience" but it has been reduced to little more come-in-buy and go so distribution to Target could be the next plan!
Through weight of history of product still out there you would have a good argument. Could take all the pieces and create an island in the middle of the Pacific.

This at least is a much more mature argument than name calling so I say "thanks for the respect, and looking more into it".
My primary game IS GW's 40k but I find myself moving away from it and always asking why that is happening.
Many of the newer companies do not quite have the weight of sales of GW but they are catching up in a huge way and if GW primarily uses Privateer as their "spin-off" products while they also have a ton of primary product, I can easily see them outgrowing GW in two years.

Want to shake on that prediction? (easy bet unless they incorporate soon and we get some real numbers)

Mewens wrote:

This math's a bit rubbish, isn't it?

Actually, it's in GW's favor as it assumes 100% of their sales is 40k.

It confuses market share with sales and with revenue, and doesn't even try to account for any confounders like loss leaders or structural changes. It's just full steam ahead, throw some numbers in a blender and damn the context!

The market share can only be guessed at, but we do know for sure that GW has less of it, likely a lot less of it, than a decade ago. The revenue being flat with prices doubling and the halving of production staff is just further evidence that GW's volume of units sold has also declined by around half.

By the logic of this post, any time GW sells a miniature, it's losing market share to itself.

Where are you getting this from? That doesn't make any sense. The only thing I presented was a few different factors that might lead one to believe that GW is half the size they used to be in terms of units sold.

The process that settled on 17% market share is analogous to comparing a 10-year-old picture of a dog to a hamster and concluding that trains have gotten much faster. The comparisons make no sense and the conclusion simply doesn't follow.

Considering how badly you misunderstood what I was saying, I'm not surprised you see it that way.

Do you think it's unreasonable to assume that probably around 1 out of 6 hobby gamers play 40k? I mean *actually play* not buy and build and paint and never play. Actually play. Not one of the majority that Jervis called "craft hobbyists" who don't play. Just those who play. I think it's very, very reasonable.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Okay. I'm done arguing semantics and how we define best. Cheers.

There is no argument about the meaning of "best" it is your unwillingness to provide your criteria.

You do not want to give the impression that by saying "I'm done" you have given up since you have no logical argument?
You have conceded? Lost the argument? Will be more careful of not throwing sweeping generalities?
I was just getting warmed up and was most disappointed you had no data to provide.
I really would hate to think this is all a waste of time now...
Ta, ta then...

Here's your data, sir:

www.icv2.com/articles/news/26216.html

Now, they're a touch old and I don't completely prescribe to them because they leave out direct from the publisher sales (of which would only assuredly support GW more than Privateer or Fantasyn Flight) but there it is for you. In black and white.

So as you can see, I have plenty of support for a "logical argument". 40k is the largest and most popular wargame in terms of sales. I can't categorically say it has more players, but based on the sales and the length it's existed, I'd make an educated assumption that it does.

What I'm done arguing the semantics of is the word "best" or "better" or any other phrasing that is inherently subjective.

Well, 40k is #1 for sales, but that doesn't really reflect much data. There's no info on how close Warmachine is to that number or how far away. Given X-Wing's explosive popularity and hard driving sales in the last year and it's #3, they may be very close or there may still be significant distance. Further more, it doesn't show that 40k is in growth or is shrinking which is the better indicator of GW's quality. A large player base isn't going to suddenly disappear, but it is likely to slowly erode away to better offerings as it becomes more informed of the market. Many people on this forum cite that they stick with 40k because of the ease to get a game. That doesn't foster a healthy happy player base, though it is likely a small portion. Being large is a small overall determinant in terms of how good something is, especially if the size is waning. I mean, would you say Walmart is the best because it is a large company? It's just insufficient criteria.

Length it's existed isn't really a good indicator either. D&D has been around longer than Warhammer, does that make it better? Would you say that D&D is the best RPG because of it's age? If age determines how good something is, then BattleTech is better than 40k, but WHF is better than BTech. GW survived the 90s which was a big hit to the industry as a whole with the pokemon bubble. Many companies got culled then and many are just starting now. Are new companies ruled out from being as good or better than 40k because they're new? Age isn't a good criteria in how good something is unless it's scotch.

 frozenwastes wrote:

Do you think it's unreasonable to assume that probably around 1 out of 6 hobby gamers play 40k? I mean *actually play* not buy and build and paint and never play. Actually play. Not one of the majority that Jervis called "craft hobbyists" who don't play. Just those who play. I think it's very, very reasonable.

My point is that you can't determine market share from comparing company A's figures vs. ... company A's figures.

What you're saying is, "Only 1 in 3 models bought from GW are played with, and GW's sales have been halved; therefore, only 1 in 6 of all wargamers plays GW games." Can't you see how that's a non sequitur conclusion?

 frozenwastes wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

And, quite frankly, you're foolish if you somehow think 40k isn't still at the top of the wargaming heap. Really foolish. Or blind. So which are you?

Given that GW has halved their production staff and in a period where prices doubled, revenues have stayed flat, I think it's fair to say that GW has half the market share they did a decade ago. T.

OK - give us some figures. This is just another myth that lazily gets propagated here.

1: You're saying GW has halved production staff. The actual evidence is they have recruited more design staff; that's why there are more new models coming out

2: GW's revenues have undoubtedly flattened. But they're still easily outperforming the leisure sector.

3: We keep hearing GW prices have doubled. A very small proportion of units might have. But plenty have stayed flat. The "truisms" bandied around here of units that have doubled in price rarely have, for instance the much-touted LOTR "doubling" which was actually a 33% increase (which I suspect is down to new licensing costs). Maybe we need to have a pricing thread with real information.

Overall, there's no real evidence that GW's market share has halved. You're showing classic selection bias.

Not denying GW can be a pain in the butt, but casual meaningless generalisations are like the pessimist's version of the "this is great news" meme.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
3: We keep hearing GW prices have doubled. A very small proportion of units might have. But plenty have stayed flat. The "truisms" bandied around here of units that have doubled in price rarely have, for instance the much-touted LOTR "doubling" which was actually a 33% increase (which I suspect is down to new licensing costs). Maybe we need to have a pricing thread with real information.

That link means nothing, it is a rumour from a redshirt before the actual event occurred. LotR boxes are $37aud for 12, they used to be $35aud for 24. It is a an unarguable fact that (at the very least in Australia) prices have more than doubled.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Overall, there's no real evidence that GW's market share has halved.

There might not be solid evidence that is has halved but GW as a company grew 6% last year. The industry itself grew 15%, a whole 9% ahead of GW. That is a clear and undeniable indication that GW are losing their market share at a decent rate.

Mewens wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

Do you think it's unreasonable to assume that probably around 1 out of 6 hobby gamers play 40k? I mean *actually play* not buy and build and paint and never play. Actually play. Not one of the majority that Jervis called "craft hobbyists" who don't play. Just those who play. I think it's very, very reasonable.

My point is that you can't determine market share from comparing company A's figures vs. ... company A's figures.

What you're saying is, "Only 1 in 3 models bought from GW are played with, and GW's sales have been halved; therefore, only 1 in 6 of all wargamers plays GW games." Can't you see how that's a non sequitur conclusion?

I am making one assumption that is again in favour of GW. I'm assuming that the market didn't grow or change outside of GW's original height of market share. I'm giving GW the benefit of the doubt that the rest of the industry isn't growing and is only instead holding on to GW's old customers. So yes. I'm honestly making one more needed assumption to get to my estimation. Again, I think I'm making this estimation in 40k's favor.

There's been reports of the hobby gaming industry growing since 2008, which would probably lower the percentage for players of 40k even further.

So yes, I have insufficient information to say "therefore only 1 in 6" but I do have sufficient information to say "probably in the area of around 1 in 6, assuming all sorts of stuff that would make that number better for 40k, not worse." I'm assuming the competition only takes GW's market share and doesn't grow their own customer base. I'm assuming 100% of GW's sales go to 40k players and I'm assuming that GW's sales are as evenly distributed as possible to as many people as possible that would allow any who would play 40k to have the models to do so.

I also believe that the GW player base is not evenly distributed geographically. I think there are pockets of activity in major cities as well as a concentration in the EU and the UK specifically. Even in the much vaunted GW stronghold of Chicago, there is insufficient sales at the Battle Bunker to keep it open. And Chicago was special enough to GW for them to justify to the courts tha CHS lawsuit should be in that jurisdiction.

 jonolikespie wrote:

That link means nothing, it is a rumour from a redshirt before the actual event occurred. LotR boxes are $37aud for 12, they used to be $35aud for 24. It is a an unarguable fact that (at the very least in Australia) prices have more than doubled.

I feel for you, but it a fact that UK LOTR box prices went up by exactly 33%. So please don't go quoting the 'fact" that prices have doubled when they have done so only in one territory, which sadly suffers from excessive costs. Not denying that 33% is painful if you play LOTR of course. (On the bright side, we sold our old figs for lots of £££).

 jonolikespie wrote:

Overall, there's no real evidence that GW's market share has halved
There might not be solid evidence that is has halved but GW as a company grew 6% last year. The industry itself grew 15%, a whole 9% ahead of GW. That is a clear and undeniable indication that GW are losing their market share at a decent rate.

Glad to see people acknowledge that the claim GW's market share has halved is ridiculous .

Wold be very interested to see worldwide figures for the gaming industry. Where are yours from?

I'm not picking a fight here, but if people are going to diss GW, it's more effective doing so with realistic figures rather than fantasy ones, which are the ones that seem to get repeated.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

OK - give us some figures. This is just another myth that lazily gets propagated here.

No, it's from their own financial reports. Or do you think the fact that the Memphis production centre is closed is a myth?

3: We keep hearing GW prices have doubled. A very small proportion of units might have. But plenty have stayed flat.

Please bear in mind that I am talking over a long period of time. And it's actually a very large amount of items that have doubled in price. But I'm willing to split the difference and accept a lower percentage as things like metal-to-plastic and repackaging with different model counts makes things fuzzy. What would be fair for you? 75%? And since what date? I'm thinking of since GW's height for 40k of around 2000, but would be willing to go with 2004-5 as well as I believe LOTR sales masked a slow decline in 40k and WFB.

Overall, there's no real evidence that GW's market share has halved. You're showing classic selection bias.

I believe you are the one doing that in your constant dismissal of facts like the Memphis production centre closing and the numbers in GW's own financials. You want GW to be awesome, so you're ignoring all the bad things. Classic selection bias.

 frozenwastes wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

OK - give us some figures. This is just another myth that lazily gets propagated here.

No, it's from their own financial reports. Or do you think the fact that the Memphis production centre is closed is a myth?

I believe you are the one doing that in your constant dismissal of facts like the Memphis production centre closing and the numbers in GW's own financials. You want GW to be awesome, so you're ignoring all the bad things. Classic selection bias.

Who said GW is awesome? Funny how simply pointing out inconsistencies in people's arguments, not necessarily yours, attracts this kind of illogical response.

Overall, there's no evidence presented here by you, or anyone, of the claim that "GW's market share has halved." The numbers in GW's own financials are good enough that they're easily outperforming the leisure market, as shown in the link above. Memphis closed because they were centralising production - there's no evidence production of kits is actually down, because in Nottingham, they have bought more machinery, as mentioned by the designers in the link above.

I'm quite prepared to accept GW are losing market share. But there's no evidence that they're in a terrible shape, their own financials show they're in a pretty good shape, and the reaction of some people to suggestions that it's not as bad as they say, that any arguments to the contrart come from people "who want GW to be awesome" maybe indicates how thin their case actually is.

And now you're doing the same thing you accuse me of again. No where did I say GW was in terrible shape. GW is profitable and has managed the shrinking of production quite well, cutting costs and protecting their margins to support their revenue despite selling less individual kits.

My point is this: The 40k player base is a shadow of its former glory. The distribution of 40k players being UK centric might make it look like everything is fine from your perspective, but it's not. In many, many places if you wanted to get into a miniature wargame and actually have people to play against, 40k was the obvious no-brainer choice. Now that's not the case anymore. It's still widely played in many areas, but it's no longer fair to say "play 40k, you'll find lots of opponents" in any degree like it was in the early 2000s.

Basically getting into 40k now, in many areas where it used to be the dominate game, is investing in a declining player base. Everyone's local situation is going to be different, but unless you are in the UK, some places in the EU and certain cities elsewhere in the world, it's simply no longer true.