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.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Economists can, apparently, act just like Statisticians!

Now, I'm not sure what dereksatkinson is up too, or what his true motivation is

I am trying to raise the level of the discussion above what you'd find on the comments section of a youtube video. Ah yes.. my nefarious plan has been foiled.

That's certainly one way of looking it at.

Unfortunately, you came out of the gate, and continue to post, as if your home address might have 'Underbridge" in it somewhere.

[Edit: Quote tags!]

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
We were already aware how high you value your own opinion and how much you despise the opinion of us mere mortals here on Dakka
Doesn't make your arguments more logical though.

The fact that's i'm actually using something other than anecdotal evidence to support my claim makes it much more logical.

But your evidence is from companies from a completely different part of the global economy (and in several cases very tightly focused within that par to the world) operating in a completely different market sector, in a completely different scale, and subject to very different forces.

I've said before, I can't fault your logic, I just take issue with how a large portion of what you're talking about relates to what is, in the grand scheme, a tiny company catering to a small market.

This state of affairs has been predicted by many people for several years now, and it appears to be happening almost exactly as those people suggested it would.

To argue that something that has been expected to occur for some time has actually happened because of totally unconnected reasons is going to strain some people's credulity somewhat, to do so with a, deliberate or not, dismissive and patronising air is going to get even more people's back's up.

 gossipmeng wrote:
If GW were to drop all rules and simply just produce miniatures then I would be done (maybe the odd FW purchase). That just goes to show you that their main plastic lines really aren't all that impressive. It was mentioned a few posts earlier, but there are other companies out there that make fantastic figures.

I would definitely like to see GW release an official format that focuses on the 750-1250 pt ranges. I've had a blast playing at the 1000 pt level and it would be even better with a few FoC restrictions and some customized deployment options. It would also be fantastic for new players as their cost of entry is cut in half and they would actually have some opponents willing to play at that level. Not to mention it is less overwhelming for a new player to only focus on an HQ, 2-3 squads and maybe a vehicle or 2 as opposed to 2000 pts worth staring them in the face.

Releasing rule sets like this would be huge. I will never build a full army of skaven, not at today's prices, but I probably have around 750 points or more. If GW made a rule set that allowed me to play with the small collection that I have, I'd pony up for it. I might even expand into other small forces, or buy enough lizardmen to finish out a small army, instead of selling them secondhand. It's getting tougher and tougher to afford or justify buying a full army at the point value that GW wants us to play at.

 azreal13 wrote:
But your evidence is from companies from a completely different part of the global economy (and in several cases very tightly focused within that par to the world) operating in a completely different market sector, in a completely different scale, and subject to very different forces.

I've said before, I can't fault your logic, I just take issue with how a large portion of what you're talking about relates to what is, in the grand scheme, a tiny company catering to a small market.

This state of affairs has been predicted by many people for several years now, and it appears to be happening almost exactly as those people suggested it would.

To argue that something that has been expected to occur for some time has actually happened because of totally unconnected reasons is going to strain some people's credulity somewhat, to do so with a, deliberate or not, dismissive and patronising air is going to get even more people's back's up.

My analysis was intended to show that there are factors outside of the specific company that could majorly impact their revenue. Remember.. I specifically said I wouldn't buy the stock but for reasons that are much different than what everyone else is saying.

There is an old saying.. don't miss the forest for the tree. GW is a single tree and if there is a forest fire annihilating the whole forest, it's worth noting the cause. Some trees get hit 1st and others follow. Some trees will live on, and others will die off.

IMO.. You should expect retail to be hit 1st simply because that is the 1st place a weakening consumer shows up. That is my argument and we are seeing retailers report horrible numbers. Dell (recently went private) and news just came out a couple hours ago that they are laying off 15,000 workers. Those are 15,000 high paying jobs. These kinds of things don't happen when things are going well in the retail sector and it's not isolated.

I realize there are company specific issues that could impact their profitability going forward but i don't think it's as important as the overall economy.

Think of it this way... Someone has a gun pointed right at your head.. Are you really worried about that HIV positive test?

As for all these things people have been saying for years about "what's going to happen to GW", I've heard that for the past 23 years of gaming. The companies that are run like businesses will survive. The ones that don't probably wont.

To be fair to derekatkinson, a lot of people are highly focussed on the share price when it is actually the balance sheet, the cash statement and the P&L that matter.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair to derekatkinson, a lot of people are highly focussed on the share price when it is actually the balance sheet, the cash statement and the P&L that matter.

Now if only derekatkinson could be fair to everyone else...

15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.

Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.

Shotgun wrote:
15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.

Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.

No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.

dereksatkinson wrote:

Shotgun wrote:
15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.

Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.

No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.

And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.

 puma713 wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

Shotgun wrote:
15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.

Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.

No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.

And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.

I think this is the most telling thing. From what I'm understanding, other miniatures/games companies have been seeing increased profit, whilst GW is the only one to have had a significant decline.

I dont really want to get into the minutae of this , but Dell isnt a great example of a general downturn in an economy , I would hazard a guess Dell are suffering from the general downturn in the specific Laptop / Desktop PC market due to the rise in the sales of Tablets , so using Dell isnt a good example to make whatever point is being made .


Edit : Kinda Ninja'd a few times !

 puma713 wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

Shotgun wrote:
15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.

Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.

No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.

And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.

We are still near the top. Give it some time. In 2007, we were in decline for about 11 months on the S&P before the real pain started and then it didn't bottom till march of 09. We are very early on in this process.

 puma713 wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

Shotgun wrote:
15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.

Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.

No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.

And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.

I can see where dereksatkinson is coming from. But when you can't afford the expensive models, you may buy cheaper alternatives.
Rather than giving up altogether. That being why GW is losing market share, and others are growing. So technically both sides of this discussion are correct.

Perhaps rather than their winning record, posters could keep a tally of how many times they've canceled their White Dwarf subscription in their signatures.

I'm pretty sure for some people it is once per White Dwarf bashing thread.

FWIW I think Warhammer Visions is gak and that while White Dwarf Weekly could have promise the executiion of the first issue doesn't raise my hopes.

As for Financials - the turnover figures should be a concern especially in a period with an accelerated book release and encompassing the codex release of two heavyweights - Space Marines and Eldar. No amount of White Knighting can disguise that GW must be disappointed with the sales.

One area that hasn't been covered in these discussions is GW's figure quality in comparison to itself. If I purchased an army in 1993 and it received an update in 2003 chances are the figure quality in comparison was light years better. Therefore I updated my army.

however if I purchased an army in 2003 and it was updated in 2013, figure quality was only incrementally better. I possibly only bought new unit choices.

plc

 loki old fart wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

Shotgun wrote:
15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.

Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.

No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.

And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.

I can see where dereksatkinson is coming from. But when you can't afford the expensive models, you may buy cheaper alternatives.
Rather than giving up altogether. That being why GW is losing market share, and others are growing. So technically both sides of this discussion are correct.

People are spending money on other more expensive models too, so I think to say it's just recession = cheaper models is a little too simplistic.

 puma713 wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

Shotgun wrote:
15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.

Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.

No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.

And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.

This here.

Their may be some macro pressure, but the fact gw is shrinking, profits and sales falling, and coast cutting measures in full swing. All this well other companies are growing is alot more telling.

I think it's not so much the individual figures cost as the whole cost. Sure, it's BS to pay $50 for 10 models, but it's a lot worse when you need 20 or even 30 of those models to field them in a meaningful way.

I balk at their prices and the cost nowadays has almost singlehandedly made me swear off Warhammer, but it wasn't so much as the individual price as that I'd have to multiply the individual price several times over. $40 for 10 Space Marines isn't that bad, but when I need to spend it three or four times for an army, that adds up very quickly, because somebody looking to get started isn't going to buy a squad here and a squad there and go weeks/months without playing a game until they have enough built up, they are going to want to get games in as early as possible and that's just not really feasible in most cases nowadays barring things like Kill Team which many places don't do or do very infrequently.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair to derekatkinson, a lot of people are highly focussed on the share price when it is actually the balance sheet, the cash statement and the P&L that matter.

Now if only derekatkinson could be fair to everyone else...

To be honest, the points he is making are arguably more "thematic" and look to identify reasons on a wider macroeconomic basis rather than just the specfic industry issues that GW is facing and may/ may not be responding to as well as their direct competitors. For example, pricing mis-steps in a downward trend economy, with higher unemployment in the under 25's, can magnify problems and cause a greater downward pressure on sales than one would normal expect especially if the rest of the gaming segment is growing - more so if people see cheaper alternatives or even better cheaper substitutes than never really existed before the appearance of Mantic.

It certainly isn't "disingenuous" as someone tried to point out and it is something that is all part of the equation.

There is a huge difference between looking at a one or two bal/sht,/ P&l and a couple of historic trends etc in isolation and actual analysis of a company. The first takes 15mins tops, the 2nd would take me at least a minimum of a week.

 Baragash wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

Shotgun wrote:
15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.

Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.

No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.

And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.

I can see where dereksatkinson is coming from. But when you can't afford the expensive models, you may buy cheaper alternatives.
Rather than giving up altogether. That being why GW is losing market share, and others are growing. So technically both sides of this discussion are correct.

People are spending money on other more expensive models too, so I think to say it's just recession = cheaper models is a little too simplistic.

For every person buying a more expensive model, there's probably 5-6 people looking to save money.

 Baragash wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

Shotgun wrote:
15,000 high paying jobs in a company already hurting by consumer purchasing shifts.

Using Dell as an ancedotal support for a retail and thus a GW drop is disenginuous at best. I probably have fewer degrees of seperation from Kevin Bacon than GW stock drops to Dell employee turnover.

No.. I'm using it as an example of another major company firing people. Unemployed buy far less miniatures than people with a job.

And so, sticking with that logic, then all of the other miniatures companies in the market should also be feeling that pain. But, they aren't.

I can see where dereksatkinson is coming from. But when you can't afford the expensive models, you may buy cheaper alternatives.
Rather than giving up altogether. That being why GW is losing market share, and others are growing. So technically both sides of this discussion are correct.

People are spending money on other more expensive models too, so I think to say it's just recession = cheaper models is a little too simplistic.

That would take us back to the topic of if these other games are inferior goods in the minature market.... ALL the other games.

And would lead to another argument as to the definition of an 'inferior' game.

In this case I think that the changeover is being fueled by GW exceeding an unseen price barrier.

They are now more expensive than many 'superior' and boutique models, let alone 'inferior' games.

I have a harder time excusing a purchase of a plastic miniature from GW for $25 than purchasing a $50 resin miniature from Ultraforge.

*EDIT* As for WH40K and WHFB, at $75 for the book alone... Kings of War is a better game than WHFB, and the rules are a bit more than half the cost - less than half the cost if you add in the price of any army book for WHFB. The army lists are included in that single $45 purchase.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
And would lead to another argument as to the definition of an 'inferior' game.

In this case I think that the changeover is being fueled by GW exceeding an unseen price barrier.

They are now more expensive than many 'superior' and boutique models, let alone ine 'inferior'.

I have a harder time excusing a purchase of a plastic miniature from GW for $25 than purchasing a $50 resin miniature from Ultraforge.

The Auld Grump

Inferior goods do not means quality of product per say, but a product that increases in demand as consumer income decreases. The opposite of normal goods.

Implying that all other games are inferior goods means that gw's games are the only "normal goods".

When people want value for their money and see another product as a better choice in that area, that does not necessarily mean that the reason they are switching is a decline in income. There's simply no way that all other miniature companies are "inferior goods" and GW's are the "normal goods."

My opinion is that GW's price increases are simply causing people to take a really hard look at the actual product and what they get for their money. There's not necessarily a shift away from normal economic goods to inferior economic goods, but a shift away from one provider who's pricing their product high enough to create demand destruction.

WayneTheGame wrote:
You know... I really wonder how many people would buy GW miniatures just to collect if there was no game. I can't imagine that people would buy more than one squad of most things just for collecting purposes; maybe the big monsters but is somebody buying just for collections going to buy 3 Tactical Squads or multiple vehicles?

I have played no more than a handful of games, also my last game was over 5 years ago, at the time i had a 3,000 point Ork army, that was about it, now i am a pure collector, i have my 30,000 point Chaos Legion (less than 1/3rd complete), my Ork army has grown to 10,000 points, i have been able to get examples of many of the Fantasy and 40K armies (i refuse to get LoTR and Hobbit), hopefully i will collect all the aries available and finish off (if that is possible) my Chaos Legion.

There are us out there that are pure collectors, and we are just as legitimate as players of the game.

 Lockark wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
And would lead to another argument as to the definition of an 'inferior' game.

In this case I think that the changeover is being fueled by GW exceeding an unseen price barrier.

They are now more expensive than many 'superior' and boutique models, let alone 'inferior'.

I have a harder time excusing a purchase of a plastic miniature from GW for $25 than purchasing a $50 resin miniature from Ultraforge.

The Auld Grump

Inferior goods do not means quality of product per say, but a product that increases in demand as consumer income decreases. The opposite of normal goods.

Implying that all other games are inferior goods means that gw's games are the only "normal goods".

Yes - I know. Which is why I brought up the boutique models.

It would not surprise me if Forgeworld models are increasing in sales vs.standard GW.

Same parent company, higher prices - but also better perceived value for money.
The models are more expensive - but also look better.

That the models produced by Mantic are doing better solely because of the ration of price to utility has bearing on them being 'inferior'. Aside from the Undead I think that most of the Mantic miniatures are better value than GW, but not better models. (The undead, on the other hand, are also better models in my opinion. I also quite like the Ogres.)

But GW is also losing ground against models that are more expensive - simply because of the perceived value for money.

The price of the Warhammer rules has actually decreased the perceived value - $75 for an incomplete game, one that cannot be used without further purchases, aside from the needed models.

I suspect that $50 was about as much as they could have charged for the rules, and that pushing to $75 was a bit like shooting themselves in the foot before entering a marathon - it hurts at the start of the race and will continue to hurt as the race continues.

Now the folks at the helm of GW are trying to cut costs and making noise to justify the prices - but not actually doing anything to address the base issues.

Even if GW are the 'normal' products... they are not a good value for money.

And I will eat my hat if Finecast was considered a 'normal' product by any but the whitest of knights. Shoddy material, shoddy casting techniques, shoddy quality assurance, backed up by market speech of how fixing the problems is all a part of the GW HHHobby!

The Auld Grump, bah, humbug.

Statesman wrote:

In the short term, GW will want to address profit...and the only way to do that is to sell more units or to raise prices again. Unfortunately, they appear to be in high production mode; they're kicking out codices at a pace that's astonishing. And there's no Lord of the Rings type IP that can attract new players into the hobby (btw, it's rather astonishing that those players brought in by LOTR didn't convert into long term hobbyists...or perhaps it was just the same customers buying up the LOTR stuff?). That pretty much only leaves raising prices even more.

And in my perspective, it's not the cost that turns me off to 40K these days. It's the time. I simply can't take 3 hours out of my week to play a game, let alone paint & assemble. I've turned to other games, that don't have as much preparation and don't take as long to play. I've got plenty of other possible sources of entertainment. 40K just doesn't offer an experience that's so unique that I'll make the time.

It can be argued just as well that raising prices will have a negative impact on profits; sure profit per unit will be up, but total units sold will likely be down; if they have not yet found the link between loosing sales and raising prices... then they deserve to fail tbh. The price level theyre at right now already is costing them sales, from my perspective they need to address making more sales without further pricing themsleves out of the market. Its upto GW's staff to tell figure out where the line is that raising prices again will actually cause a loss rather than an increase in profits. The assumption that I'l buy their models no matter what the price per box (and quantity in the box) simply because GW self proclaim them to be the best in the world is outright false, and I hope that GW know that deep down. Thus eventually they will raise prices passed the point of saleability and potentially collapse.

Alternatively, they could lower the cost; perhaps not the price per box, but maybe increase the contents per box Far too many armies all but need you to buy two of anything to make a decent unit.

What your saying about time could be their biggest problem of all;

GW are charging you through the ass for their models, so basically you need a full time job to buy them.

The GW games take hours and hours, and involve hundred of these obscenely priced models which take even more hours to prepare for a game.

The paints needed to get going cost you another arm and a leg, and GW just doubled the range to try and sell you even more of them. (really funny actually; they doubled the range of paints but lost several colours and now have a more limited pallete and forgot to include any light colours, having to release them seperately as edge paints! The new line of paints was incredibly flawed without the edge ones.)

Soo we need to be working full time to pay for the stuff, but then need to have no job to actually have time to play a game.
Kids have time and cant afford, adults can afford but dont have time. Epic fail on the marketing/design/pricing fronts right there.

Who is actually supposed to have the time AND money to do the GW 'Hobby' - My first thought was 'GW employees' are the ones who have time (at work) and money (from work) to enjoy the hobby... but I know their retail staff arent exactly rolling in the money

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
And would lead to another argument as to the definition of an 'inferior' game.

In this case I think that the changeover is being fueled by GW exceeding an unseen price barrier.

They are now more expensive than many 'superior' and boutique models, let alone 'inferior' games.

I have a harder time excusing a purchase of a plastic miniature from GW for $25 than purchasing a $50 resin miniature from Ultraforge.


The Auld Grump

I can agree with that. I'll quite happily pay US$49(£30 thereabouts) for a Victoria Lamb 10 man squad but won't pay the UK price for a Cadian box.

Finecast is a failed product. It cant be supiror or normal if their is insuficent demand! You are still missuseing the terms because you have a axe to grind.

My point in thecend is the issue of implying gw's games are the only normal goods in the minature market just dosen't work.

HairySticks wrote:


It can be argued just as well that raising prices will have a negative impact on profits; sure profit per unit will be up, but total units sold will likely be down; if they have not yet found the link between loosing sales and raising prices... then they deserve to fail tbh. The price level theyre at right now already is costing them sales, from my perspective they need to address making more sales without further pricing themsleves out of the market. Its upto GW's staff to tell figure out where the line is that raising prices again will actually cause a loss rather than an increase in profits. The assumption that I'l buy their models no matter what the price per box (and quantity in the box) simply because GW self proclaim them to be the best in the world is outright false, and I hope that GW know that deep down. Thus eventually they will raise prices passed the point of saleability and potentially collapse.

It can be argued that they have already surpassed this point and have no choice but to increase box contents, lower price or rewrite the rules to focus on smaller games with larger games being the outliers.

 puma713 wrote:


It can be argued that they have already surpassed this point and have no choice but to increase box contents, lower price or rewrite the rules to focus on smaller games with larger games being the outliers.

All of the above please Id throw money at them if they did that!