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.

 cincydooley wrote:
I was under the impression that many of them wanted to "do their own thing" and used that as a major reason they left GW?

Priestly with Anteres, etc. They wanted to have ownership of their own IP and thus branched out on their own?

I saw an interview with him on Beasts Of War's Turn 8, last year I think it was. Warren touched on 40K and GW and their current state, and the look that crossed his face said volumes. Obviously of no evidential value, as it was a live show and its not something you can quote, but I guarantee you that even if he did leave entirely of his own volition, at the very least he is pained by the current state of the game. I strongly suspect there is far more to it than that though, as one can see in this oft repeated quote

Rick Priestly wrote:
Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! The modern studio isn’t a studio in the same way; it isn’t a collection of artists and creatives sharing ideas and driving each other on. It’s become the promotions department of a toy company – things move on!

I have always found that quote to be silly.

The studio has always been involved with the manufacturing/sales part of the business. Why is it suddenly a bad thing when he is not there?

Rick Priestly wrote:
Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! The modern studio isn’t a studio in the same way; it isn’t a collection of artists and creatives sharing ideas and driving each other on. It’s become the promotions department of a toy company – things move on!

I guess my response to this is, yeah, well, of course. That "modern" GW studio also affords them a measure of stablility that a private studio wouldnt necessarily.

I totally get the desire to go off and do your own thing and be creative. I also totally get the appeal to be your own boss, especially when what you're able to do is becoming more restrictive.

I was just saying that it makes sense that a lot of people would come from GW (as they were 'first' and 'largest') and then branch off to do their own thing.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have always found that quote to be silly.

The studio has always been involved with the manufacturing/sales part of the business. Why is it suddenly a bad thing when he is not there?

I think his assertion is that the studio created in a vacuum, then the company sold what it made. Whereas nowadays it is, as you say, very much a cog in the money machine.

He doesn't qualify what sort of timescale he's referring to though, so he could be harking back to when it was essentially just a bunch of hobbyists sitting around making gak up and shaking their heads incredulously when they were successful.

@cincey

My argument is there doesn't appear to be any signs from GW of trying to persuade them to stay, offer them more creative freedom and the security of a regular wage, it makes it a much harder decision to leave, and just maybe you get the new Space Marines as a nice pay back for the effort.

I freely acknowledge that this could be happening behind closed doors, and people are leaving anyway, but my gut tells me that's not the case.

If you read some early interviews you can see how creative the studio used to be, they seem quite low on ideas now that aren't about selling big monsters to kids. That might be easy money but it's not creative, and that's what is lost in the studio.

Because putting Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs in Spaaaaaaaaaaace was the height of creativity?

No, everything about 40k and the imagery in it has barely changed, everything stands on the work of those early years. The new fluff in codices is often painful, just stories about over powered kewl characters doing silly things. The Grey Knoghts codex stands out here. In the 80s and 90s they produced loads of games and ranges of figures.

Now what? Most of what they make now is either just dull or rubbish for the same three games which are periodically rehashed to start a new codex cycle. Creativity is limited to big units designed to carry a large price tag, big Eldar robot, the Khornemower. Give me strength. GW offer high quality castings on poorly thought out or tedious releases. What happens when sales get mixed in with the studio is that sales dictate the studio - 'more of the same please, space marines, a flier and a big robot/walker for a MC base'. I exaggerate, but there's truth in this.

In the context of a pretty firmly established IP, I wonder how much room there really is for a lot of 'real' creativity. I mean, if you want to make new stuff for the Spesh Muhreens, it has to be within the context and confines of what already exists, right? I mean, you look in that other thread and people are absolutely balking at the idea of the PA marines with the Heavy Weapon suits, or whatever they're gonna be.

We see FW making some REALLY nice models, but they're really all just variances of what already exists, right? There's only so many ways to peel a potato.

Obviously, some of the Xenos races have a lot more room for that creative growth. I like the aesthetic of both of the new aspects GW has recently introduced (Shadow Specters in Mymeara and Crimson Hunters in 8E dex) and they still fit within the confines of the Eldar Race.

I think perhaps more could have been done with Tau, especially since they employ Mercs, but would people have derided it for added more aliens just for aliens sake?

Working within all those confines set by the very successful IP has to be pretty stifling for everyone involved, and I wonder if it isn't sort of the nature of the beast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not a huge fan of Choas, so the Khornemower doesn't do it for me, but I don't understand all the vitriol toward the poor Wraithknight. It's a great model, is decently priced for it's size (based on pricing of the competitions similarly sized products) and has a really solid backstory that makes it fit rather well within the Eldar aesthetic.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
No, everything about 40k and the imagery in it has barely changed, everything stands on the work of those early years. The new fluff in codices is often painful, just stories about over powered kewl characters doing silly things. The Grey Knoghts codex stands out here. In the 80s and 90s they produced loads of games and ranges of figures.

And of course you would bring up the Grey Knights codex as a 'stand out', as though it proves some kind of point.
How about Space Wolves? Orks? Tyranids? Dark Eldar?

Every book has something over the top in it. It was not even limited to now that such was the case.

Now what? Most of what they make now is either just dull or rubbish for the same three games which are periodically rehashed to start a new codex cycle. Creativity is limited to big units designed to carry a large price tag, big Eldar robot, the Khornemower. Give me strength. GW offer high quality castings on poorly thought out or tedious releases. What happens when sales get mixed in with the studio is that sales dictate the studio - 'more of the same please, space marines, a flier and a big robot/walker for a MC base'. I exaggerate, but there's truth in this.

You most definitely are exaggerating the level of 'truth' in that statement.

Of course there is going to be creativity in a larger kit. There is more room for it.
How creative can you get with a new infantry unit? Or a tank?

 Kanluwen wrote:


Of course there is going to be creativity in a larger kit. There is more room for it.
How creative can you get with a new infantry unit? Or a tank?

That's one of the daftest questions I've seen apparently asked with a straight face on this board!

I think you're confusing "creativity" and "space"

 azreal13 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Of course there is going to be creativity in a larger kit. There is more room for it.
How creative can you get with a new infantry unit? Or a tank?

That's one of the daftest questions I've seen apparently asked with a straight face on this board!

I think you're confusing "creativity" and "space"

I am not. I will admit that my wording could have been a bit better, but I am not referring to the physical space of the model but rather the 'room' for how you go about designing the kit itself.

With a larger kit there is more room for creativity in how the kit is designed, what the kit's design aesthetic will be, etc.
Infantry or tanks have to fit in with an established design aesthetic for the most part.

To give a good example? Look at the "Sisters of Avelorn" models for the High Elves.

The Sisters of Avelorn are a good example of a lack of creativity, not an example of creativity being limited by scale, which is a ludicrous assertion.

 frozenwastes wrote:


Kirby valued a yes-man attitude over skills and now he's got competitors flooded with highly skilled individuals that are looking to do something beyond what GW is interested in offering.

Brevity is not my strong suit. You have summed up my point perfectly.

 azreal13 wrote:
The Sisters of Avelorn are a good example of a lack of creativity, not an example of creativity being limited by scale, which is a ludicrous assertion.

How is it a ludicrous assertion?

Please. Enlighten me.

If the company has come depend on 40K, and 40K cannot be creative, and creative new ideas are needed, they have painted themselves into a corner. Anything that puts a dent into 40K sales will be a problem.

I don't it's as bad as that, though, and I don't buy the idea that GW should stagnate because that's easier for big companies to do.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If the company has come depend on 40K, and 40K cannot be creative, and creative new ideas are needed, they have painted themselves into a corner. Anything that puts a dent into 40K sales will be a problem.

Do they need to be THAT creative with 40k models though? I mean, there's plenty of creativity with 40k in the Black Library world. In regards to 40k, all they need to do is release a new tactical squad with options and upgrades like the Sanguinary Guard and they'd be fine.

I don't it's as bad as that, though, and I don't buy the idea that GW should stagnate because that's easier for big companies to do.

I think I mispoke. I didn't mean stagnation, I meant that it's simply harder to show large growth the larger you get without significant increases in volume. Again, it's much easier to show a 3% increase on $1MM than on $140MM.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
The Sisters of Avelorn are a good example of a lack of creativity, not an example of creativity being limited by scale, which is a ludicrous assertion.

How is it a ludicrous assertion?

Please. Enlighten me.

Because creativity is an abstract, it is a catch all term for an individuals ability to think of new things and develop new ideas. To somehow try and suggest that it is somehow possible to be less creative because you're trying to think of something small is just silly.

If I may attempt to put words in your mouth, do you perhaps mean that it is harder to express ideas on smaller models, because of a lack of space, limitations of scale and technology?

That I would agree with, but to say you can't be as creative on smaller models just isn't right.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If the company has come depend on 40K, and 40K cannot be creative, and creative new ideas are needed, they have painted themselves into a corner. Anything that puts a dent into 40K sales will be a problem.

Do they need to be THAT creative with 40k models though? I mean, there's plenty of creativity with 40k in the Black Library world. In regards to 40k, all they need to do is release a new tactical squad with options and upgrades like the Sanguinary Guard and they'd be fine.

I don't it's as bad as that, though, and I don't buy the idea that GW should stagnate because that's easier for big companies to do.

I think I mispoke. I didn't mean stagnation, I meant that it's simply harder to show large growth the larger you get without significant increases in volume. Again, it's much easier to show a 3% increase on $1MM than on $140MM.

That's true in one sense, however bigger firms have more resources to invest in new products.

I don't think GW can be very creative with core 40K but they could certainly produce other new games like they used to. These could be based in the 40K universe, or standalone titles, or completely new IP.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
The Sisters of Avelorn are a good example of a lack of creativity, not an example of creativity being limited by scale, which is a ludicrous assertion.

How is it a ludicrous assertion?

Please. Enlighten me.

Because creativity is an abstract, it is a catch all term for an individuals ability to think of new things and develop new ideas. To somehow try and suggest that it is somehow possible to be less creative because you're trying to think of something small is just silly.

If I may attempt to put words in your mouth, do you perhaps mean that it is harder to express ideas on smaller models, because of a lack of space, limitations of scale and technology?

No. I do not mean that at all.

That I would agree with, but to say you can't be as creative on smaller models just isn't right.

And yet you made my case for me with the example of the Sisters of Avelorn.

How creative can you be when limited to creating a new type of infantry for an established army?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I don't think GW can be very creative with core 40K but they could certainly produce other new games like they used to. These could be based in the 40K universe, or standalone titles, or completely new IP.

I don't disagree at all. But they seem to be choosing to do that via the licensing to FFG and these one off games.

And sadly, I think the poor reception of Dreadfleet is going to make more "original games" even more unlikely.

I said as much when Dreadfleet was released.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
The Sisters of Avelorn are a good example of a lack of creativity, not an example of creativity being limited by scale, which is a ludicrous assertion.

How is it a ludicrous assertion?

Please. Enlighten me.

Because creativity is an abstract, it is a catch all term for an individuals ability to think of new things and develop new ideas. To somehow try and suggest that it is somehow possible to be less creative because you're trying to think of something small is just silly.

If I may attempt to put words in your mouth, do you perhaps mean that it is harder to express ideas on smaller models, because of a lack of space, limitations of scale and technology?

No. I do not mean that at all.

That I would agree with, but to say you can't be as creative on smaller models just isn't right.

And yet you made my case for me with the example of the Sisters of Avelorn.

How creative can you be when limited to creating a new type of infantry for an established army?

Infinitely, that's the point of imagination.

Why does that only apply to infantry when all armies have an established aesthetic?

Imagination only takes you so far.

See again Sisters of Avelorn, Demigryphon Cavalry, Deathmarks, or any number of infantry types introduced within the past few years.
Hell you can look at the reaction that the supposed "Centurions" for the new Space Marines codex are getting right now for a good example of this. Something which was considered "cool" when the concept sketches first showed up in 2004 is now being decried as "stupid" or "silly" without anyone actually having seen the execution.

It certainly does not apply to infantry alone, but infantry are the most affected by it. Creating new types of infantry or new types of weapons for infantry have a very obvious reaction from the fanbase that new vehicles and things larger than vehicles/monsters do not receive.

Admittedly new vehicles/monsters get a similar reaction but the division between reactions is seemingly more polarized.

If they've run out of innovative things to do with existing armies, then there's nothing stopping them adding in new races, either entirely or via mercenaries. Since I've started they've introduced Grey Knights, Necrons and Tau. I'm sure there are entirely new races they can manage to fit in.

Not that they should be running out of design steam entirely, there should be almost infinite scope of new Orc clans (going back to the old days with Bad Moonz and Red Sunz and the like) or Imperial Guard regiments (there must be plenty in the fluff that aren't currently covered. They could certainly rehash the Vostroyans, Tallarns, Valhallans), which would boost their range without having to contradict the existing fluff.

It seems that they're taking the cynical approach by giving everyone a giant walker kit. But there's no reason they should be at all limited in terms of creativity, since they are working in such an expansive universe, with dozens of books of existing inspiration and plenty of opportunity to introduce almost anything they want.

Not to mention the fact there's nothing stopping them expanding into new genres entirely. Creating new games, new universes, etc.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Imagination only takes you so far.

See again Sisters of Avelorn, Demigryphon Cavalry, Deathmarks, or any number of infantry types introduced within the past few years.
Hell you can look at the reaction that the supposed "Centurions" for the new Space Marines codex are getting right now for a good example of this. Something which was considered "cool" when the concept sketches first showed up in 2004 is now being decried as "stupid" or "silly" without anyone actually having seen the execution.

It certainly does not apply to infantry alone, but infantry are the most affected by it. Creating new types of infantry or new types of weapons for infantry have a very obvious reaction from the fanbase that new vehicles and things larger than vehicles/monsters do not receive.

Admittedly new vehicles/monsters get a similar reaction but the division between reactions is seemingly more polarized.

Its squeeky wheel syndrome. People who don't like something are more likely to say something than people who do like something. Same goes for GW's financials - the haters are going to hate. Don't believe me, check back at last year's thread about the same topic, better yet check back on the last 5 or 6 years. You'll see that GW was predicted to die in the early 2000's by 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and again in 2013. For some reason its just not dying and appears to be doing fine. Personally, I try and practice what I was taught in preschool and K - "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". I'm not going to say I abide by it 100% but I sure as heck try to.

I implore the Dakka users that if they want to actually make an impact on how GW is run, buy some stock. If 25,000 people bought a hundred shares you could have the Dakka representative sitting on their board. With that number of shares, you would be pretty close to equal with Kirby in terms of support by the number of shares. I will kick my votes into this group if you can get it going. If not, I will continue to vote to let Kirby pay me some dividends which I in turn use to buy more stock.

boyd wrote:
If 25,000 people bought a hundred shares you could have the Dakka representative sitting on their board. With that number of shares, you would be pretty close to equal with Kirby in terms of support by the number of shares. I will kick my votes into this group if you can get it going. If not, I will continue to vote to let Kirby pay me some dividends which I in turn use to buy more stock.

So if we can get 1/3rd of all registered users (not current users, everyone that's ever registered) to invest 789 Pounds (so a bit over 1000USD) into GW, well, yeah... we could certainly do a lot of things. That's some pretty serious wish-listing though.

Kilkrazy wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

I think I mispoke. I didn't mean stagnation, I meant that it's simply harder to show large growth the larger you get without significant increases in volume. Again, it's much easier to show a 3% increase on $1MM than on $140MM.

That's true in one sense, however bigger firms have more resources to invest in new products.

And here's the crux of the issue. I've bolded the important part.

GW has their in house tooling and in house production and studio and they're working at something near capacity. GW had loads of cash to invest into new products. But they didn't. Instead, they paid it all out to shareholders as dividends and then also went into the previous years cash reserves and paid that out as well.

You can grow a big company just fine (and GW is not a big company) but you have to reinvest. What Cincy is saying about it being easier for the little guys to grow is true only so far as the larger company does not reinvest. An established company has distribution channels, an existing customer base and a variety of other factors that would make an effort to grow easier, not harder. Being the little guy trying to break into the industry is way harder than leveraging your existing position to grow your business.

GW won't spend a dime to do it. Not a single part of their operation is apparently worth the reinvestment. Instead, it's slash costs more and more and pay out an overly large dividend.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

boyd wrote:

Its squeeky wheel syndrome. People who don't like something are more likely to say something than people who do like something.

This is also why GW's reliance on word of mouth and their disregard for customer retention is a really bad idea. GW now has an army of ex-customers poo-poo-ing what they do. And they created this anti-marketing force they now have to struggle against.

Customer retention and good will is so important.

I think the "painted themselves into a corner" metaphor is really apropos for the state of the company. They have actively limited themselves to three core game lines, a hobby line, a publishing line and a boutique line. Two of these core game lines and arguably the third are in sales decline. While they are innovating at FW and BL, the company is not innovating as an aggregate. They have 30K, but there is no real innovation that will grow the company in the foreseeable future. (Anecdotally, my friends aren't buying 40k they are buying 30k only and FW goodies.) My guess is that 30k is a 40k cannibal.

This is where I would be concerned as a shareholder and a GW fan. There is nothing in the pipe that says, "We want to grow." Be as creative as you want in a given product line, but you need truly new products. Why Games Workshop didn't reboot Specialist Games with some new IP board games or whatnot is beyond me. The number of independent designers and artists who are doing cool new things is legion. Buy Plaidhat Games or CoolMIniorNot or something, anything! They have the cash to buy a smaller designer and the physical presence in brick and mortar to actually get games into people's hands, and the infrastructure to publish games. How about some new board games that aren't core IP related? How about getting people excited about something that isn't 40k? The tragedy is that a company that has historically had so much creativity currently has so little imagination. A game company with no apparent desire to make exciting new games is silly. White Dwarf hyperbole can't convince me otherwise. What a waste...

Actually buying up the competition might actually be a better investment of their money than using it in house. Clearly there is nothing upper management feels is worth the reinvestment in house, so maybe they should look outside.

Except I have a feeling most of the competition is not for sale. Remember, even a publicly traded company isn't automatically available to buy entirely and most of these companies are neither publicly traded nor in financial trouble (at all, even).
So no, that's not on the table even if GW management would feel like it.
Besides, even if they did, buying these companies wouldn't just remove the problem: the market is there, there's demand for certain lines at certain price points and if one provider in that niche is taken out, the next one will simply get some slots with decent sculptors, set up a KS and go.
Remember, most production facilities are either garage-level (metal and resin casting, by and large) or outsourced to companies probably several times bigger than GW (the plastics, both styrene and pvc) so that would be such a temporary respite it wouldn't come close to being worth the cost to just to buy those.

Buy those companies and continue their business practices unchanged? GW would be better off setting up similar lines themselves but since that would involve way cheaper models and skirmish games using not nearly as many models as their business model would call for, none of this would ever, ever happen.

You'd be surprised what's for sale when you make an offer. Big companies have a long, long history of buying out smaller ones, whether there's a stock market involved or not. You go meet with the owner and talk.

My only point was that GW seems to have nothing to do with the money they are making. It's great to distribute some money as dividends so the owners get paid, but never at the expense of capital reinvestment.