GW half-year financials published - Reboot thread -

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.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Zweischneid wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:
weeble1000 wrote:

But in reality Mantic is selling a customer experience that GW has utterly failed to deliver. Mantic has a trim, fast playing, tournament friendly rule set and well supported 'specialist' games. Mantic is even putting out e rule books that work on any platform, can be run locally or streamed, include robust game tracking functionality, AND a lean price point. .

There is nothing lean about Mantic's prices.

They shadow GW to be just under them and relatively cheaper, but a company that charges you 15 GBP / 25 USD for a box of 8 no-options, restic, several-repeat sculpts DreadBall miniatures isn't doing any "lean". pricing.

I agree on the customer experience though.

All things are relative within their field. To use your Porsche analogy, for example, it is a cheap top end sports car, when compared with the aforementioned Ferrari, it is therefore cheaper. We can therefore say, when comparing it to the Ferrari, that it's 'cheap', in financial terms and not necessarily in terms of quality, as that would require more significant comparisons on a like for like basis and testing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zweischneid wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Zweischneid wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
GW not in the wargaming market? Wait...huh? But they make and sell a war game...I'm confused.

They are making and selling miniatures (most of all) and games (as a means to promote the former). They are in the miniatures market and in the games market.

Make your comparisons in one or the other, or give me a definition of "wargaming market".

The wargaming market is the buying and selling of miniatures and the rules to accompany them, in relation to the hobby of miniature wargaming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_wargaming

Games Workshop, via it's selling of both miniatures and accompanying rules for tabletop wargames, falls into the definition of a company within the wargaming market.

Fair enough. There's even a nice list of miniature wargames: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miniature_wargames

By a casual glance, I'd guess that Mantic Games is easily in the top 20% of those price-wise.

Likely, but from the perspective of a GW customer seeking a cheaper alternative, for say the rank and file of a warhammer army, or to jump ship entirely from GW products and try something similar, it retails cheaper.

I also take issue with your earlier comparisons on the 'dwarf unit' as a more informed comparison would be 'number of X figures made in white metals or resin or hard plastic' rather than 'dwarf' or 'goblin' or such, these terms are meaningless to the business manufacture costs to retail price markup.

**heartserenade**

HBMC is right. Reading too much red herring just gave me a cancer on all body parts.

Now back on topic.

**carlos13th**

Perry's are without a doubt my favourite miniatures company. Their metal models and plastics are great. I would love them to bring out a plastic Samurai set, if they did I would get rid of my WGF Samurai and just get all Perry's.

**Alpharius**

Lots of reports on this thread...

Please, try to stay on topic and polite.

Dakka Dakka also has a wonderful IGNORE feature - if more people used it, more people might find the site more enjoyable!

**Galorian**

Alpharius wrote:
Lots of reports on this thread...

Please, try to stay on topic and polite.

Dakka Dakka also has a wonderful IGNORE feature - if more people used it, more people might find the site more enjoyable!

I've grown up being taught that it's impolite to ignore people.

**heartserenade**

carlos13th wrote:
Perry's are without a doubt my favourite miniatures company. Their metal models and plastics are great. I would love them to bring out a plastic Samurai set, if they did I would get rid of my WGF Samurai and just get all Perry's.

I would love it if they make plastics out of every time period they produce, and maybe then some. Like Fantasy figures (realistically proportioned Empire!).

**Palindrome**

Galorian wrote:

I've grown up being taught that it's impolite to ignore people.

Thats in the real world, where it is also impolite to be needlessly contrary and antagonistic. Ignore is a wonderful function for forums.

**Galorian**

Palindrome wrote:
Galorian wrote:

I've grown up being taught that it's impolite to ignore people.

Thats in the real world, where it is also impolite to be needlessly contrary and antagonistic. Ignore is a wonderful function for forums.

I also do most of my forum activities in debating forums, where putting someone on "Ignore" could get you banned (and trolls are generally reported and handled by mods).

**Grimtuff**

Zweischneid wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
GW not in the wargaming market? Wait...huh? But they make and sell a war game...I'm confused.

They are making and selling miniatures (most of all) and games (as a means to promote the former). They are in the miniatures market and in the games market.

Make your comparisons in one or the other, or give me a definition of "wargaming market".

Good lord!

Spoiler:

Just... stop... please.

**Kilkrazy**

To who it was asking about Military Modelling magazine, here it is...

http://www.magazine.co.uk/magazines/military-modelling?infinity=gaw~MYHOB%2BSPART%2BMy%20Hobby%20Store~MYHOB%2BHMOD%2BSPCFC%2BMilitary%20Modelling~14549341724~military%20modelling%20magazine~p&gclid=CLW-2YvXnLwCFWfLtAod1W0Akg

I went to WH Smiths today and there were at least six different military modelling magazines doing vehicles/figures or aircraft.

I couldn't find anything on GW though.

**wufai**

Zweischneid wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
GW not in the wargaming market? Wait...huh? But they make and sell a war game...I'm confused.

They are making and selling miniatures (most of all) and games (as a means to promote the former). They are in the miniatures market and in the games market.

Make your comparisons in one or the other, or give me a definition of "wargaming market".

A companies enters the 'wargaming market' when they make wargames.

A wargaming company; in the content acceptable on this forum (not to be confused with wargames where people wear armours and fake guns shooting at each other in the field) consists of 2 conponents; Minitures and game rules that is meant to be played on a table. It does not matter if it is your core business or a side project. You are part of the wargaming market when you produce a wargame.

Games Workshop IS a wargaming company. They produce models and have rules that accomply them; they make money from both minitures and rules; although if you argue minitures takes the major portion of the revenue; it does not exclude them from the wargaming market.

Mantic Games IS a wargaming company. They produce models and have rules that accomply them; Recently their focus has been more on BOARDGAMES (Dreadball, Deadzone, Mars Attack) it does not exclude the fact they make wargames.

Games Workshop and Mantic Games can be compared because both make a wargaming product.

If you compare GW to Bandai, maker of popular Gundam Model Kits, It will not be a fair compairson becuase although Bandai makes better plastic kits at cheaper prices then GW, Bandai doesn't make wargaming rules for their model Kits. Bandai make video games and card games that uses gundam characters, but nothing for tabletop gaming so Bandai is NOT a wargaming company, and would be unfair to compare GW to Bandai.

**Palindrome**

Kilkrazy wrote:

I couldn't find anything on GW though.

I think that WD isn't stocked by WH Smiths for some reason involving money. I can't remember the ins and outs of it.

WD is pretty common as magazines go although Wargames Illustrated isn't far behind.

**wufai**

Zweischneid wrote:

Fair enough. There's even a nice list of miniature wargames: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miniature_wargames

By a casual glance, I'd guess that Mantic Games is easily in the top 20% of those price-wise.

looking at that list closely, some of the games are listed way back in the 1970's. I wonder if they are still selling rules and models at my FLGS. I know some newer games such as AT-43 are already gone.

I guess I should add to be in the wargaming market, you also have to be IN the market, meaning you currently still running the business and selling models and rules at channels where I can buy them.

**Kilkrazy**

I am not sure of the basis of this argument.

You can buy two entire large armies, and rules, in 2mm scale from Irregular Miniatures for less than the price of 15 snap-fit Termagants.

Does that mean GW are not expensive?

Get back on topic.

**TheAuldGrump**

How necessary would a reboot of their two main games be for the continued survival of GW?

It seems to me, as a thoroughly biased outsider, that the current editions of those games has hurt GW, both through what I see as ridiculous pricing and through the rules themselves being rather poorly conceived.

Locally it led to an upsurge in Kings of War (which I consider a Good ThingTM) but the continued failure of GW might have serious repercussions in the fantasy wargaming industry as a whole.

If GW were to vanish today then I would shed nary a tear, but their doing so would also damage Victoria Lamb, Kromlech, Puppets War, and other companies that I do respect.

The Auld Grump

**Wayniac**

TheAuldGrump wrote:
How necessary would a reboot of their two main games be for the continued survival of GW?

I think they have no choice, but I also think the damage might have been done. They aren't going to drop prices, so you're still left with high startup costs for anyone wanting to get into the game, and veterans who want to play high points so they can use all their cool toys. They need to revamp the rules first and decide exactly what their game wants to be, and make solid rules that encourage balanced play without resorting to "Well you can decide with your opponent" type of lazy hand-waving.

**Galorian**

TheAuldGrump wrote:
TM

Press and hold Alt and then, with Alt pressed type 0153.

Magic!™

**TheAuldGrump**

Galorian wrote:
TheAuldGrump wrote:
TM

Press and hold Alt and then, with Alt pressed type 0153.

Magic!™

Alas, that does not work on all machines....

The Auld Grump

**loki old fart**

I like my toys, but I don't want to play Apocalypse all the time. What were GW thinking.

**Jehan-reznor**

Kilkrazy wrote:
To who it was asking about Military Modelling magazine, here it is...

http://www.magazine.co.uk/magazines/military-modelling?infinity=gaw~MYHOB%2BSPART%2BMy%20Hobby%20Store~MYHOB%2BHMOD%2BSPCFC%2BMilitary%20Modelling~14549341724~military%20modelling%20magazine~p&gclid=CLW-2YvXnLwCFWfLtAod1W0Akg

I went to WH Smiths today and there were at least six different military modelling magazines doing vehicles/figures or aircraft.

I couldn't find anything on GW though.

Oh i thought you meant this one;
http://www.wargamesillustrated.net/

Oh and i thought this thread was about GW's financials not yet another discussions on how "cheap" GW is

**timetowaste85**

Alpharius wrote:
Lots of reports on this thread...

Please, try to stay on topic and polite.

Dakka Dakka also has a wonderful IGNORE feature - if more people used it, more people might find the site more enjoyable!

Excellent advice Alph. I was going to be suggesting the same thing once I was finally able to get out of work/done driving. I suggest everyone else feeling the same way use the ignore function too. Maybe he'll get the hint and move on...

**heartserenade**

The question if they reboot their rules: how many players would they lose? Objectively and logically it's better for both the casual and tourney scene crowd, but from what I've seen so far GW games has a unique, let's call them "Fun Crowd", that especially cherish the lack of well-written rules as they believe it makes their game better somehow. I say "unique" because from my limited experience with games in both CCG, RPG and wargaming variants, it seems that this is only present in GW Games (which also highlights the possiblity that it's because GW is the only one that produces crappy rules).

Because GW can't afford to lose customers at this point, I think. And some moves (like changing the rules), while in my opinion will make the game and their product better, would make them lose customers whether we like it or not.

**silent25**

Surprised this hasn't been posted here yet, but via Scoodeta over at Warseer:

With all the news surrounding Games Workshop over the last couple of weeks I think that it lines up fairly well. I was able to grab lunch with an old friend about a month ago who works for GW (not a local store croney). We talked everything GW and of course my drug of choice Warhammer Fantasy. He said that over the next coupel of months there would be drastic changes to the way GW does business...this was just in general. He didn't give me too many specifics, but now that the White Dwarf changes have hit the street openly and the news of a revamped website with FW product offerings and all it lines up. Once again he didnt come out and say that GW was going to be taking a hit with the earnings, but he stated that many of the changes had to do with new strategies to increase revenue and such. He has been traveling non-stop for new training and meetings, so it was easy to see something was coming down the pipe.

So on to my main point. I have always been a fantasy fanatic...game of choice hands down. He stated that there would be a new release which would change the way fantasy is currently played. Currently, the idea is to have huge blocks of infantry and high priced special characters and beasts which makes for higher costs to players and conceptually more revenue for GW. However this did not work fo rone reason or another. So it was obvious some changes were needed. The new approach will aim at bringing more people back into the game by making it smaller and more affordable. The new rule set would focus on making warhammer more of a small block and skirmish based game with fewer miniatures needed. The new box set would have less miniatures, but would basically set people up to get in the game and playing at a much reduced cost.

So he didnt give me the finer deatails that I would have liked, but he did say this would happen this summer for sure...not next year. He basically said that GW is being forced to make some changes due to some cash flow issues...which has become evident since we had lunch several weeks ago. It seems like he was pretty spot on so far with his vague statements...haha...take it as you will. But I have faith in this for many reasons. It seems with everything going on that it would line up well and make sense. GW needs a way to bring more people back intothe game while also doing soemthing to help bring fanatsy back up to strength.

Perhaps my terminology was distorted a bit in my OP. I do not believe my friend was indicating that this would be a "skirmish" game similar to Hordes or infinity. What he had stated was that it would head back in the direction of some older editions where smaller blocks were more viable. Seems people missed the smaller block protion and just focused on the skirmish portion of my OP. I am have no idea if he was saying this would be a new edition or a supplement. But my feeling was that this would be a replacement of the current ruleset. And it does line up with the smaller boxes (10 minis per). People could by a box or two and have a whole unit...instead of having to spend $200 on just one unit at 40 strong. This would allow GW to maintain the current price point while not scaring people away with the overall price of an army as they would now inherently be smaller.

There are some good things in this rumor that GW is apparently trying to address the entry level cost issue. How good this new rule set will be depend on how much the design team is willing to slaughter sacred cows. I believe that there are talent designers on the GW Design Team, but they are held back by existing philosophies that dominate design department. The whole "Pancake Edition" felt like the team could put out a good rule set, but there are those that want to hold them back or cling to outdated design ideas.

**MWHistorian**

I don't think a reboot is necessary at all, but I do think a 6.5 would be helpful and a slight nerfing of Tau and Eldar and some help for the Nids and Chaos.

**Compel**

GW would be able to spin it easily enough. - Plus, it genuinely did work for 3rd edition.

However, considering they are just getting all the codices out, I can't exactly see it happening. The whole 6.5 edition seems far more likely. In my view, that's just a stubborn continuation of their plod further downwards..

**weeble1000**

Compel wrote:
GW would be able to spin it easily enough. - Plus, it genuinely did work for 3rd edition.

However, considering they are just getting all the codices out, I can't exactly see it happening. The whole 6.5 edition seems far more likely. In my view, that's just a stubborn continuation of their plod further downwards..

I have zero confidence that GW will be able to pivot with any grace. GW is acting out of desparation, and we know that GW makes poor decisions when stressed. Plus, GW is clearly looking to find some way to boost revenue NOW, rather than address fundamental problems with an eye towards long-term success. Trying to address cost of entry is a good idea, but GW very well could try to do that and wind up crapping all over the game rules with really shortsighted tweaks and kill the system, for example.

GW's difficulties are caused by systemic problems that you can't put a band-aid on in a 6 month time frame and expect everything to be candy and rainbows. That GW even thinks it is a good idea to try to do that is, to me, an indication that management is on track to feth things up even more than they already are in an effort to make the next balance sheet look...not-so-terrible.

**Munga**

I have many friends that love working on my models with me, and even make excellent paint slaves. They want very badly to get into the game, but are entirely turned off by the price. Recently, I find myself agreeing, though. There's no reason a starter set should be so highly costed, and there's completely no reason that it shouldn't come with the mini rulebook and codex. It's $120 USD for a very bad CSM battleforce, and it doesn't even come with a rulebook or codex. What is the logic behind that? I started a few years ago, and was lucky enough to find a store that had a lot of old stock and got the old battleforce for 70$, which still feels like I paid too much, as I had to fork out another 75 for the codex and rulebook, and then buy HQ models and paints. Now the main rulebook alone cost more than the battleforce. GW makes good models, but there is a limit as to how much people are willing to spend. If you let people start out at a lower price point they will slowly expand and build up their armies.

**Sidstyler**

Making the game smaller might make it slightly cheaper, but it won't do jack gak about sticker shock. You'll still have people walking into a store and seeing $85+ monsters and $60+ boxes of 5-10 infantry, then walking back out again saying "lol, nope." And most people won't sit and listen to you explain "No, really, it's not that bad! Trust me, I'm a salesman."

**Harriticus**

I remember those Vampire Lords box that was $100. 4 Infantry on horses. All Finecast (i.e. low quality material). I still lol about that

this is another classic

**jonolikespie**

Harriticus wrote:
I remember those Vampire Lords box that was $100. 4 Infantry on horses. All Finecast (i.e. low quality material). I still lol about that

this is another classic

It's actually $100 USD ($165 AUD) for five cavalry models, so it's actually a steal