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.

boyd wrote:

First, just because they are larger doesn't mean they have more to invest. Most companies want to reinvest in their facilities. Better facilities usually means better models. GW is already on top when it comes to facilities. That is what separates them from PP and the rest. PP has some good models but they are in no way able to match the customization GW provides. When PP gets to that point where you can easily conver their models without hacking them to pieces and green stuffing the model they will be on par in terms of making models. That is GW's major strength compared to the other miniature companies. You as a customer can make your little toy soldier look different from everyone elses. Heck you can even buy other models and kit bash your own to make them even more unique. You can even go out and buy bits from FW to further that effort.

They used cash reserves to enhance their dividend. They literally had money lying around doing nothing. At the recent "meet the studio" event it was alluded to that the reasons SoB had been so long delayed is the GW doesn't have the gear to produce the plastics as designed. The studio wants that gear, but has as yet not got their way.

Also most small businesses tend to pay their owners heavily. Whether you're a sole proprietor or small public company, unless you've got something specific to invest in paying your owners typically is what they are looking for.

No they don't, as a small business owner, you're last on the food chain, after your suppliers, services, staff, taxes etc. at least if you want to survive that's how it's done. Yes, ultimately they can yield great personal reward, but that's a long way down the road, and many don't make it. There's no such thing as a "small" PLC, just some are less big than others.

Kirby is one of the largest investors but he couldn't make them pay dividends if the other investors didn't want them to.

Yeah, because we all know how responsible the investment sector is when it comes to earning money.

Besides the Company is not a growth stock. If thats what you're looking for you're a poor investor as this Company steadily pays dividends and pretty high dividends as well. Thats what you're buying, not that the potential share price will take off.

Actually, those defending GW often quote that their share price has been out performing the share market, so they probably are a good medium term bet for growth. They're obviously not penny shares, and they're not really blue chip either, but historically they are pretty sound bet, the issue of sustainability is the most important here for any potential investor.

As far as an "army of ex-customers" if you're that jaded with the hobby, why haven't you moved on to a new one? I used to play M:TG back in middle school some 17 years ago - I have no desire to bash that game. I had fun but grew up and moved on. It was fun while it lasted and that was it. I wouldn't say anything positive or negative about it because I don't care. Why would you carry such a grudge? I would move on to greener pastures and not give it another thought. Good reviews and bad reviews are always news - I would be more worried if there were no reviews. Nobody caring would speak louder than the nay sayers.

Well, you're clearly not a "jaded" Ex Magic customer then are you? You left for your own reasons. People have said they've left GW behind because they felt forced to, either because of price, or frustration with poor gameplay. It's this sort of feeling forced away that breeds the resentment. Many of these players have moved on, because GW isn't tabletop wargaming, and now play other systems. Hence so many other companies seem to be growing exponentially.

boyd wrote:

First, just because they are larger doesn't mean they have more to invest.

£18.4 million. That's $28.51 million USD. Can you name me another miniatures company with that much surplus cash in the last year?

Most companies want to reinvest in their facilities. Better facilities usually means better models. GW is already on top when it comes to facilities.

Tau shortages and a slashed production staff lead me to believe that they are operating with as low of production costs as possible. They can always invest in another tooling machine and another injection moulding machine, a few employees and a designer and start adding new kits to their offerings. There is always something to invest in if you think you can make money doing so. Apparently GW does not think they can, or they would.

Besides the Company is not a growth stock. If thats what you're looking for you're a poor investor as this Company steadily pays dividends and pretty high dividends as well. Thats what you're buying, not that the potential share price will take off.

You need to go back and read previous year's reports touting the future growth of GW. Maybe Kirby has wised up and realized that you are right, but maybe he still thinks GW is a growth story.

And what's with the "you are a poor investor" crap? Don't be rude.

As far as an "army of ex-customers" if you're that jaded with the hobby, why haven't you moved on to a new one?

And now I'm jaded as well. And the usual "if you don't like it you should quit!" nonsense.

Could it be possible that I see something enjoyable and valuable in the 40k universe? That I wish GW would offer a miniatures game set in that universe that I'd like to play? That I do play the 40k RPGs?

You don't know me, so you should probably raise the level of your discourse a bit and stop being rude.

To be fair, GW has been reinvesting in the company by hiring quite a few more folks to the design team lately.

Yes - that is good advice.

Note to all: Keep your arguments and the discussion on topic. Argue the point, not the poster.

 cincydooley wrote:
To be fair, GW has been reinvesting in the company by hiring quite a few more folks to the design team lately.

Yes. That is true. I'm not saying it's no reinvesment, but shockingly little compared to the dividend payout rate. Dividends are a priority for GW over reinvestment.

From the Annual Report...bolded comments are mine

"With capital investment we normally assume we will spend next year roughly what we spent last year. This year we spent £8.8 million and
next year we think it may be £9.3 million. Take this number with a pinch of salt and remember that, as von Moltke said, ‘No plan survives
contact with the enemy’. We do not see a big increase in that number in the next few years. If something crops up, we’ll tell you.
With overheads we try to have them not grow at all. Easy to say. Hard to do.
We do not set sales targets. We do want real sales growth (defined as an increase after our price rises, if any), the more the better, but we
do not predict it. We follow the plan: more stores run by the right people and great products in them should yield sales growth. Our staff
are rewarded if they achieve real growth.
In our own stores, after sales, we look at the average transaction value and the transaction count in each store. We use them to see where
the problem lies if sales are not growing. We do not publish them and we do not use them in our forward planning.

So...yes, I'm picking out pieces of the report, but again in the name of watching this mess...

1. When is capital investment not capital investment? When it's an inflation adjusted number. I'm not sure it's investment Tom, I think what you got there is the cost of doing business buddy. Many will disagree but...I find that number and the idea intriguing. In my world, capital investment isn't stable. It's the result of a plan that sees increases when we want to grow the business along a set of strategic objectives or introduce a new product line. Some years it's high as we invest in an initiative and then it fades until the next strategic push.

2. Overhead always grows Tom...you can't stop overhead if your employees like to be warm at work or enjoy using flush toilets. Candles might be a good way of keeping this in check Ebenezer.

3. And my mack daddy Annual Report pick of the day, "We do not set sales targets." WTF. They want real sales growth, but they don't predict it? MEaning...there is none. How can a retail business not or worse not want to try to predict sales growth? I'm way out of my professional expertise here, so someone help, but holy heck Batman!

We do not set sales targets. We do want real sales growth (defined as an increase after our price rises, if any), the more the better, but we
do not predict it.

Yeah, that's...pretty unbelievable.

I've never worked at a company that didn't predict sales, growth, have a forecast etc.

I do like the bit about maybe there wouldn't be a price rise... ha!

Ha! I'm so programmed to expect price rises, I first read that as him referring to sales growth if any!

GW can easily afford to invest in the design studio putting out new concepts. Obviously it costs a lot of money to turn an idea into a boxed product on hundreds of shelves, but they do that with Space Marines, etc, only saving the initial cost of thinking it up. I reckon they would do better to make some new games rather than just recycling old ideas, and it would be a lot more interesting for players.

If you guys have time, you have to read the "Corporate Governance Report" on page 13.

So GW is actively in violation of UK Corporate Governance Code 2010 of their own admission. Kirby can't be chair and CEO at the same time according to the code. In addition to the top level governance there are two independent directors that sort through these matters with kirby and the Board. They both have 9 year term limits that the Board is ignoring in violation of either the UK Code 2010 or their own internal governance. The report then only names one of them as a CJ Myatt.

Interesting read. There really does appear to be a completely isolated leadership team among Kirby and these other two guys...fascinating.

3. And my mack daddy Annual Report pick of the day, "We do not set sales targets." WTF. They want real sales growth, but they don't predict it? MEaning...there is none. How can a retail business not or worse not want to try to predict sales growth? I'm way out of my professional expertise here, so someone help, but holy heck Batman!

Don't they (GW) routinely let store managers go if they don't achieve a certain level of sales every month?

sounds like sales targets to me..

 notprop wrote:
Strange it seems to be working in the US though. They are increasing sales in the US and the number of stores year on year.

Sales are up but only by small amounts, after significant price increases. And increasing the number of stores doesn't mean things are improving, it just means there are more stores. Consider my area (Raleigh/Durham NC), where a store opened about a year ago. Before there weren't any GW stores at all in NC, but plenty of independent stores selling GW products. No matter where you live in the area there's at least one independent store within a 15-30 minute drive. Now GW opens a store, but in a random strip mall in the middle of nowhere instead of one of the major high-traffic malls within a 30 minute drive. Is this store getting any meaningful traffic from new customers? Of course not, unless you happen to live nearby and use the grocery store in that strip mall you're never going to know that GW exists. So what they're really doing is drawing some existing customers who used to go to the independent stores over to the GW store. Sure, this means slightly higher profits because they get full retail price for those sales, but it's not doing anything to increase their customer base.

Consider instead what would have happened if GW opened a store in one of the major malls. Now instead of only giving existing customers another place to play they've got huge amounts of traffic taking a look at the hobby and maybe getting interested. The only plausible reason I can see for not doing this is if the decision on store location is made by someone in the UK with no understanding of the local market who just picks the lowest rent in a 50-mile radius.

GW probably has to issue dividends now because they have a history of it. Doing otherwise would draw unwanted attention.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
2002 2001 Production 324 359 Selling and distribution: Full time 1,224 1,133 Key time 631 483 Administration 303 232

and the most recent figures:

2012 2011 Design and Development 114 90 Production 172 163 Selling and distribution: Full time 1010 1032 Part time 254 233 Administration 412 383

New report:
2013 2012 Design and Development 145 114 Production 168 172 Selling and distribution: Full time 916 1010 Part time 232 254 Administration 414 412 Total 1875 1962
So increase in Design, Development and Administration. Decrease in Production, Selling and Distribution plus totals

 porkuslime wrote:
Don't they (GW) routinely let store managers go if they don't achieve a certain level of sales every month?
sounds like sales targets to me..

AFAIK yes. In one of the last annual reports, Kirby was proud to announce that most GW store managers already have a named successor waiting for him to get sacked.

YakManDoo wrote:
If you guys have time, you have to read the "Corporate Governance Report" on page 13.

So GW is actively in violation of UK Corporate Governance Code 2010 of their own admission. Kirby can't be chair and CEO at the same time according to the code. In addition to the top level governance there are two independent directors that sort through these matters with kirby and the Board. They both have 9 year term limits that the Board is ignoring in violation of either the UK Code 2010 or their own internal governance. The report then only names one of them as a CJ Myatt.

Interesting read. There really does appear to be a completely isolated leadership team among Kirby and these other two guys...fascinating.

Posted earlier in the thread:

I am not an expert when it comes to UK statutory requirements but looking at the September 2012 Code (http://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/Corporate-Governance/UK-Corporate-Governance-Code-September-2012.aspx), it says the Company must comply or explain. The fact they explain means they are not breaking anything. Also, these don't appear to be statutory because they are more or less principles or the best practice and why.

I know the US has the SEC and SOX that dictates who can serve as a board member, defines independence, and notes the penalty of noncompliance. Also before you can publish anything to EDGARS you have to make sure you've filled out the 200+ page disclosure checklist of which most are statutory requirements (US GAAP) telling you how data should be presented so someone who doesn't have a financial background understands the report.

So increase in Design, Development and Administration. Decrease in Production, Selling and Distribution plus totals

Not counting the benefit package in savings from the decrease of employees, I would estimate that the employee savings is well over $1 million savings over last year.

Again you have to read the 50+ pages of the report and do the forensic accounting (and the double speak) to really get a feeling on what is happening with the company.

Posters like yourself, Weeble, Sean, and others who have taken the time to post logical comments and in many cases have data to back it up. Thanks.

 azreal13 wrote:

boyd wrote:

First, just because they are larger doesn't mean they have more to invest. Most companies want to reinvest in their facilities. Better facilities usually means better models. GW is already on top when it comes to facilities. That is what separates them from PP and the rest. PP has some good models but they are in no way able to match the customization GW provides. When PP gets to that point where you can easily conver their models without hacking them to pieces and green stuffing the model they will be on par in terms of making models. That is GW's major strength compared to the other miniature companies. You as a customer can make your little toy soldier look different from everyone elses. Heck you can even buy other models and kit bash your own to make them even more unique. You can even go out and buy bits from FW to further that effort.

They used cash reserves to enhance their dividend. They literally had money lying around doing nothing. At the recent "meet the studio" event it was alluded to that the reasons SoB had been so long delayed is the GW doesn't have the gear to produce the plastics as designed. The studio wants that gear, but has as yet not got their way.

Also most small businesses tend to pay their owners heavily. Whether you're a sole proprietor or small public company, unless you've got something specific to invest in paying your owners typically is what they are looking for.

No they don't, as a small business owner, you're last on the food chain, after your suppliers, services, staff, taxes etc. at least if you want to survive that's how it's done. Yes, ultimately they can yield great personal reward, but that's a long way down the road, and many don't make it. There's no such thing as a "small" PLC, just some are less big than others.

Kirby is one of the largest investors but he couldn't make them pay dividends if the other investors didn't want them to.

Yeah, because we all know how responsible the investment sector is when it comes to earning money.

Besides the Company is not a growth stock. If thats what you're looking for you're a poor investor as this Company steadily pays dividends and pretty high dividends as well. Thats what you're buying, not that the potential share price will take off.

Actually, those defending GW often quote that their share price has been out performing the share market, so they probably are a good medium term bet for growth. They're obviously not penny shares, and they're not really blue chip either, but historically they are pretty sound bet, the issue of sustainability is the most important here for any potential investor.

As far as an "army of ex-customers" if you're that jaded with the hobby, why haven't you moved on to a new one? I used to play M:TG back in middle school some 17 years ago - I have no desire to bash that game. I had fun but grew up and moved on. It was fun while it lasted and that was it. I wouldn't say anything positive or negative about it because I don't care. Why would you carry such a grudge? I would move on to greener pastures and not give it another thought. Good reviews and bad reviews are always news - I would be more worried if there were no reviews. Nobody caring would speak louder than the nay sayers.

Well, you're clearly not a "jaded" Ex Magic customer then are you? You left for your own reasons. People have said they've left GW behind because they felt forced to, either because of price, or frustration with poor gameplay. It's this sort of feeling forced away that breeds the resentment. Many of these players have moved on, because GW isn't tabletop wargaming, and now play other systems. Hence so many other companies seem to be growing exponentially.

I have no problem with GW paying out dividends to the owners. That's what GW stock is for, the stock price remains relatively flat and the earnings are in dividends. If GW were not to pay dividends I would view that as a potential issue. You're buying the income stream with this stock. Yes, GW did pay their owners after they paid their other bills so what seems to be the problem? Yes GW is considered small, they are a small cap public company. Sure go ahead and argue semantics though. They are giants in TTWG but they are by definition to the rest of the world a small public company.

Lastly, why would you concern yourself with something that causes you grief? I won't leave GW unless I decide to get a new hobby. It's a large investment. The price increases don't affect me because I don't buy as much. I buy a new codex and maybe 1 or two units a year. I don't switch armies often and haven't had the desire to play a new army. I will say this hobby is still cheaper than most intramural sports.

boyd wrote:

Lastly, why would you concern yourself with something that causes you grief? I won't leave GW unless I decide to get a new hobby. It's a large investment. The price increases don't affect me because I don't buy as much. I buy a new codex and maybe 1 or two units a year. I don't switch armies often and haven't had the desire to play a new army. I will say this hobby is still cheaper than most intramural sports.

It causes you grief because you are concerned with it. People like Games Workshop's fictional universes, and many long-term customers became heavily involved with Games Workshop through years of positive interaction and good support. It is perfectly natural for individuals to react negatively when they feel let down, betrayed, used, and so forth. You can argue whether or not those feelings are justified, but they are typically rooted in a history of far more positive interactions.

If you went to the same coffee shop every week to play board games with your friends, it becomes part of your routine; something you enjoy doing. It probably became so important because the owner of the shop was friendly and allowed you to come on Friday nights and hang around for a few hours. Maybe the owner even kept the same table clear for you, knew what you usually ordered, and chatted with you; i.e. you had a relationship with the coffee shop as much as with your friends and the act of playing board games.

Given that relationship, if the owner walked up to you one day and asked you to leave, it could cause surprise and confusion. If the owner stopped keeping your table clear, didn't say hello to you anymore, and raised prices considerably, it might make you feel hurt or betrayed. Sure, you can go somewhere else to play your games, but even if you did, there would probably still be some negative feelings because of the length and depth of the extant relationship.

It is rather flippant to just say, 'well stop playing 40K if it makes you so upset.' It was really easy for me to do because I had only been a GW customer for something like 5 years when I gave the company the finger and started playing other games. But even so, I am still connected to Games Workshop for a long list of reasons, not the least of which is that many of my friends still play the games, the products are on the shelves of the FLGS, and so forth. Games Workshop is also an industry leader in an industry that I am very interested in.

Games Workshop sells products that by and large require one to engage in social interaction. That component of the products causes problems when one wants to deny the company custom and still enjoy the products. There's another big reason for feelings of resentment. Maybe the 40K league at the FLGS requires that I have the up to date rules. Maybe it is hard to organize a game using older edition rules. Maybe one feels awkward not being up to date with the latest releases.

Games Workshop's products are about building a community, establishing relationships, and investing creativity and intellectual effort. Those aspects are hard to walk away from, which gives the company strong momentum and staying power, but it also means that abusing that relationship causes a great swell of negativity. It is baffling how Games Workshop doesn't understand that.

Remember what Alan Merrett said on the stand? Games Workshop's customers' favorite hobby is buying things from Games Workshop. That is a horribly derisive statement coming from a man whose company very much relies on the HHHoby. Games Workshop's management does not respect its customers, which is the heart of the problem. They see the customers as mewling fanbois goobering over the products and buying, buying, buying. There's a legacy of lingo about the HHHoby that these guys fall back on in the few public appearances they make, but when the cards are on the table, they don't give a about you.

For people who felt that they did care, and felt that way for a long time (and perhaps the company did care at one point), coming to the realization that they are seen as an idiot who will open his wallet like a zombie is harsh. So what is the answer? Just say 'screw you guys, I'm going home' and start playing intramural sports? That's one way to react, but not the only one, and certainly not the most mature. I'm not saying it is better to complain and keep buying the products, however, I think you should try to step into someone else's shoes and think about the things that make it hard to just walk away. A little empathy goes a long way.

boyd wrote:

I have no problem with GW paying out dividends to the owners. That's what GW stock is for, the stock price remains relatively flat and the earnings are in dividends.

Blatantly untrue

If GW were not to pay dividends I would view that as a potential issue. You're buying the income stream with this stock. Yes, GW did pay their owners after they paid their other bills so what seems to be the problem?

As I've demonstrated, you are not only buying the income stream. Regardless of our opinions of the company, GW does an extraordinarily good job of maintaining its image on the financial market, and that is key to share price success. My issue isn't that they paid dividends, its that they used money that they didn't make this year to pay them. GW has, apparently, earned more money than it knows what to do with

Yes GW is considered small, they are a small cap public company. Sure go ahead and argue semantics though. They are giants in TTWG but they are by definition to the rest of the world a small public company.

Don't ask me where the lines are, as it's a long time ago, but I seem to remember from my A level in Business Studies that there actually are definitions of what constitutes small, medium and large businesses, it isn't merely a question of semantics.

Lastly, why would you concern yourself with something that causes you grief? I won't leave GW unless I decide to get a new hobby. It's a large investment. The price increases don't affect me because I don't buy as much. I buy a new codex and maybe 1 or two units a year. I don't switch armies often and haven't had the desire to play a new army. I will say this hobby is still cheaper than most intramural sports.

Weeble has already given a very full and clear explanation in this, I have nothing to add.

weeble1000 wrote:

If you went to the same coffee shop every week to play board games with your friends, it becomes part of your routine; something you enjoy doing. It probably became so important because the owner of the shop was friendly and allowed you to come on Friday nights and hang around for a few hours. Maybe the owner even kept the same table clear for you, knew what you usually ordered, and chatted with you; i.e. you had a relationship with the coffee shop as much as with your friends and the act of playing board games.

Given that relationship, if the owner walked up to you one day and asked you to leave, it could cause surprise and confusion. If the owner stopped keeping your table clear, didn't say hello to you anymore, and raised prices considerably, it might make you feel hurt or betrayed. Sure, you can go somewhere else to play your games, but even if you did, there would probably still be some negative feelings because of the length and depth of the extant relationship.
.

But the relationship you describe here isn't like the relationship most people, if anyone, have with GW.

It is if you played at a GW store that has stopped open gaming, which I believe is what he was alluding to.

Must have been too subtle for you.

 azreal13 wrote:
It is if you played at a GW store that has stopped open gaming, which I believe is what he was alluding to.

Must have been too subtle for you.

And this is where the culture difference between the US and the UK is really prevalent. In the US, you can still open game at GW. In the US, most people are probably gaming at home or at an LGS anyway.

But still, just because you game at the LGS doesn't mean you have a personal relationship with GW like the one weeble described.

I guess I just don't get the whole "feeling betrayed by a corporation" thing.

 cincydooley wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
It is if you played at a GW store that has stopped open gaming, which I believe is what he was alluding to.

Must have been too subtle for you.

And this is where the culture difference between the US and the UK is really prevalent. In the US, you can still open game at GW. In the US, most people are probably gaming at home or at an LGS anyway.

But still, just because you game at the LGS doesn't mean you have a personal relationship with GW like the one weeble described.

I guess I just don't get the whole "feeling betrayed by a corporation" thing.

I don't know your timeline, but I can certainly remember a time when GW weren't a corporation, in the vernacular sense, and I suspect many of the most outspoken critics do too.

If you do game at a local FGS and don't at least recognise some of the elements that Weeble described, I'm afraid either your FLGS sucks or they don't like you.

But they've always been a business.

Privateer is smaller and "friendlier" but they're still a business. I don't take offense to them doing things I don't like.

Again, I guess I'm not one to develop a personal relationship with a business, not really, and especially not one that is a multinational business.

I can certainly see someone becoming attached to a local business. There's a TON of that where I live with local restaurants and stores. But when it comes to developing any kind of personal relationship with the business itself, I've never felt inclined to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to the LGS: I go there to hang out with my dudes and put money back into the local economy. I put the money into the store because I don't want it to close because then I'd have to find another place to hang out with my friends. If they started charging a premium on product....I'd still go there to hang out with my friends, and I'd still purchase from them because I didn't want them to close. That, or if all my friends didn't want to pay more, we'd just find another place to hang out.

Again, I just don't 'get' the whole "relationship" with a business. But thats on me. I don't think any amount of "explaining" would change that.

Ok, we'll simply take the idea of one party being a business in the relationship out of the equation, as its frankly irrelevant.

It boils down to this, how would you feel about "an entity" that, through it's actions, whatever they may be, put you in a position where you couldn't, or felt you couldn't in good conscience, do something you still really enjoyed doing?

 azreal13 wrote:
Ok, we'll simply take the idea of one party being a business in the relationship out of the equation, as its frankly irrelevant.

It boils down to this, how would you feel about "an entity" that, through it's actions, whatever they may be, put you in a position where you couldn't, or felt you couldn't in good conscience, do something you still really enjoyed doing?

Well, with the previous analogy, I'd find another coffee shop.

I honestly dont know how to respond. I've been sitting here for 5 minutes thinking about it, and I just don't know. I guess I don't adhere to any real sense of brand loyalty enough to allow myself to "develop a personal relationship" with a company. I'll try to elaborate through some examples, I guess.

Most of my handheld electronics are iProducts. This is mostly because I like the OS and because all my gak is already on iTunes. Plus, their format is one I'm familiar with and I know it has legs. I actually like the Windows Phone OS more than than iOS, but ended up getting an iPhone 5 instead of a Windows Phone because I didn't want the hassle of having to reorganize all my crap. If I could run iTunes on a Windows Phone, I'd have a Windows phone.

All of my jeans are from Lucky. This has nothing to do with Lucky beyond the fact that they were the first place that made a pair of jeans that fit me well. I can walk into the store (or online) order the size and style I know fit me, and not worry about the rest. It doesn't actually have anything to do with Lucky as a company; they simply make jeans that fit me well. It's possible that another company makes ones I'd like more, and if I found them, they'd get my denim dollars. I quite frankly havent looked, though.

I mean, the biggest complaints we see leveled at GW is that they're too expensive and they don't care about their customers. I guess, for me, I don't give a gak if they "care" about me. They don't need to. They need to make a product I want to buy. Thats where the pricing issue, for me, enters the equation. If a product I want is in a price range I'm willing to pay, I'll buy it. But of course, that all goes to that mythical, highly subjective, valuation of 'worth.'

This has turned into a bit of a rant, but I think it boils down to this: I don't care if companies care about me. It's not their responsibility to.

EDIT:

Actually, the whole serial novel thing is a good example here. I buy pretty much all the HH stuff. I don't mind the serialization of Scars. I do think the price is way too high based on their other product. When the serial is complete, it'll be $36 as opposed to the $16 I paid for Vulkan Lives. I agree that it's a pretty blantant price grab, but it doesn't "hurt my feelings" or personally affect me, not really.

 cincydooley wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

If you went to the same coffee shop every week to play board games with your friends, it becomes part of your routine; something you enjoy doing. It probably became so important because the owner of the shop was friendly and allowed you to come on Friday nights and hang around for a few hours. Maybe the owner even kept the same table clear for you, knew what you usually ordered, and chatted with you; i.e. you had a relationship with the coffee shop as much as with your friends and the act of playing board games.

Given that relationship, if the owner walked up to you one day and asked you to leave, it could cause surprise and confusion. If the owner stopped keeping your table clear, didn't say hello to you anymore, and raised prices considerably, it might make you feel hurt or betrayed. Sure, you can go somewhere else to play your games, but even if you did, there would probably still be some negative feelings because of the length and depth of the extant relationship.
.

But the relationship you describe here isn't like the relationship most people, if anyone, have with GW.

That was an absolutely cracking post by Weeble and I think sums up my feelings quite well, although to continue the metaphor I have long since given up with being snubbed by said Coffee Shop and have moved on to more welcoming locales.

So, there we go at least 1 other person..

What cincydooley is missing the boat on a bit is that I was not talking about him and his personal experience or boyd and his personal experience, or even myself and my personal experience. I was talking about taking the time to consider where the types of feelings and opinions that have clearly been exhibited may come from. The point is to encourage one to temper condemnation with empathy.

I n' hate GW HQ. I started boycotting GW three years ago when they sued Curse. I told them why I was boycotting and I haven't broken my boycott but once, and that was for a GW tape measure at the FLGS because the one I had on me at the time did not have centimeters, and I was playing Freebooter's Fate that night.

It didn't cause me any grief to stop playing GW games or buying GW products. I still play on occasion because my friends do, but I play with other companies products and I get a little help with keeping up to date on the current rules. I don't dislike GW because I think they screwed me or betrayed any sort of relationship. I think Kirby and Co. are predatory IP bullies with no respect for the rights or feelings of others, including their customers, competitors, and employees.

But, I think I understand where some of the negativity expressed by others comes from. I think it is understandable and rather natural. Now, what one chooses to do about it is something else, but I think ya'll are condemning an understandable emotional reaction rather than merely discussing a difference of opinion about how one should act on those feelings.

I do not think it is very fair to tell someone that they shouldn't feel a certain way because it is somehow wrong to feel that way. That can be very belittling. I think that people who are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs over at GW HQ should stop buying GW products, but I temper such opinions with a bit of empathy. Therefore I don't go around saying things like, "If you don't like it stop doing it, problem solved." Not only do such statements demonstrate a lack of respect for another's feelings, they also signify the target as an Other. One might as well say, "You are not a real fan of GW. You do not belong in the GW hobby." It is a hurtful and unproductive way to stifle discussion by imposing a binary relationship that does not respect reality.

As an aside, Alan Merrett said as much about Mr. Villacci at the Chapterhouse trial. He said that Mr. Villacci was not a real fan of the game and attacked him personally. Bull like that is why I harbor an extreme dislike for GW management. They are mean, hateful, unscrupulous, dishonest, and self-centered people.

 cincydooley wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Ok, we'll simply take the idea of one party being a business in the relationship out of the equation, as its frankly irrelevant.

It boils down to this, how would you feel about "an entity" that, through it's actions, whatever they may be, put you in a position where you couldn't, or felt you couldn't in good conscience, do something you still really enjoyed doing?

Well, with the previous analogy, I'd find another coffee shop.

I honestly dont know how to respond. I've been sitting here for 5 minutes thinking about it, and I just don't know. I guess I don't adhere to any real sense of brand loyalty enough to allow myself to "develop a personal relationship" with a company. I'll try to elaborate through some examples, I guess.

Most of my handheld electronics are iProducts. This is mostly because I like the OS and because all my gak is already on iTunes. Plus, their format is one I'm familiar with and I know it has legs. I actually like the Windows Phone OS more than than iOS, but ended up getting an iPhone 5 instead of a Windows Phone because I didn't want the hassle of having to reorganize all my crap. If I could run iTunes on a Windows Phone, I'd have a Windows phone.

All of my jeans are from Lucky. This has nothing to do with Lucky beyond the fact that they were the first place that made a pair of jeans that fit me well. I can walk into the store (or online) order the size and style I know fit me, and not worry about the rest. It doesn't actually have anything to do with Lucky as a company; they simply make jeans that fit me well. It's possible that another company makes ones I'd like more, and if I found them, they'd get my denim dollars. I quite frankly havent looked, though.

I mean, the biggest complaints we see leveled at GW is that they're too expensive and they don't care about their customers. I guess, for me, I don't give a gak if they "care" about me. They don't need to. They need to make a product I want to buy. Thats where the pricing issue, for me, enters the equation. If a product I want is in a price range I'm willing to pay, I'll buy it. But of course, that all goes to that mythical, highly subjective, valuation of 'worth.'

This has turned into a bit of a rant, but I think it boils down to this: I don't care if companies care about me. It's not their responsibility to.

EDIT:

Actually, the whole serial novel thing is a good example here. I buy pretty much all the HH stuff. I don't mind the serialization of Scars. I do think the price is way too high based on their other product. When the serial is complete, it'll be $36 as opposed to the $16 I paid for Vulkan Lives. I agree that it's a pretty blantant price grab, but it doesn't "hurt my feelings" or personally affect me, not really.

Frankly, I don't believe you. I don't believe that a person can like a thing, invest heavily in a thing both financially and emotionally(and don't try and claim you've not invested emotionally in your hobbies), and then have that thing change in front of your eyes into something that not only doesn't appeal to you, but is being pushed by a company that now views you as something between an annoying parasite and a completely gullible ambulatory wallet with zero impulse control, and you would simply shrug your shoulders, mumble "welp, dems da breaks", and walk away with no ill feeling, no regret at what the hobby you enjoyed has become, no animosity of any kind.

 cincydooley wrote:
I don't think any amount of "explaining" would change that.

Well, when you put it that way...