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.

That sounds like a cheap army to build because you don't need any models.

I might get that army.

I just have!

Now I've got two of them!!

Anyone want a game of Apocalypse?

Well done, we've just had 1 0000000 games, and we've simultaneously secured the records for the best and worst w/l ratios of anyone in the history of 40K!

Regarding the stores, I agree that moving to the one-man-store-in-less-traffic-areas was a Bad Move™. At least in the US, they should close most of their stores, keeping only the ones in the high traffic malls where they can still bring in new players on a consistent basis.
It's also interesting to note that Wizards of the Coast used to have their own stores, and they sold more than just D&D (they even sold GW products in them). Not sure what factors led to their closing down, though.

I personally believe that the straw will be the price break point. At the rate that new model costs are rising, I'm fairly sure GW will hit a point where people will simply refuse the cost, and GW will take a significant loss on having created the molds and other costs that starts to lead into a downward spiral.

I know for myself that once I have the Imperial Guard codex (and my guard army is primarily composed of Wargame Factory figures and early edition models I got way back when), I'm dropping purchasing any more GW product, and moving towards homebrewing/modifying the ruleset I have.

I do wish that GW would expand out back into the different games - Space Hulk, Bloodbowl, Epic, Man O' War, Battlefleet Gothic, Warhammer Quest, Dark Future, Necromunda, Mordenheim and all the other side games they used to experiment with. Unfortunately, since games wouldn't be the safe bets that 40K/Fantasy are, I don't think while we see Kirby at the helm that this isn't likely to happen. At best, small scale reprints and never any development into totally new ventures - which is sad.

 Stormonu wrote:
I personally believe that the straw will be the price break point. At the rate that new model costs are rising, I'm fairly sure GW will hit a point where people will simply refuse the cost, and GW will take a significant loss on having created the molds and other costs that starts to lead into a downward spiral.

I know for myself that once I have the Imperial Guard codex (and my guard army is primarily composed of Wargame Factory figures and early edition models I got way back when), I'm dropping purchasing any more GW product, and moving towards homebrewing/modifying the ruleset I have.

I do wish that GW would expand out back into the different games - Space Hulk, Bloodbowl, Epic, Man O' War, Battlefleet Gothic, Warhammer Quest, Dark Future, Necromunda, Mordenheim and all the other side games they used to experiment with. Unfortunately, since games wouldn't be the safe bets that 40K/Fantasy are, I don't think while we see Kirby at the helm that this isn't likely to happen. At best, small scale reprints and never any development into totally new ventures - which is sad.

I double this sentiment. I am more tempted to sell my IG, buy everything from Victoria's Minis, and use that as my IG. The new kits from GW look like complete crap. I know some people like the old look, but I don't.

I know many of you love the 40k IP , setting and that is fine and well, however I view this mostly too be fairly positive for wargaming as a whole. With 40k dominating the wargaming market we see a hudge lack in diversity as any independent company ends up creating very close copies or just 40k stylized miniatures and products so that they will sell for that game and setting. I know that wargaming as a whole industry needs to move towards more diversity and continue too create different games , genres and settings that are unique. This helps create more smaller groups of gamers which helps new gamers who may be turned off from certain aesthetics too see a style of miniatures and game that they enjoy and instead of not entering wargaming , do enter the industry which benefits everyone.

Also with GW gone I am sure someone will pick up the IP and you guys will be much more happy with a new company running it, however I just hope the market will now truly continue too diversify as it really will create a much more healthy and stable industry for companies and gamers. I just hope that when GW's downturn comes and they are no more ( with someone else picking up the IP) that the market is set in with gamers playing more than one game or enough diversity that we can avoid the one company dominating the market as with GW and TSR have shown with a capitalist economy system is never , ever a good thing for the market and the consumer.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Regarding the stores, I agree that moving to the one-man-store-in-less-traffic-areas was a Bad Move™. At least in the US, they should close most of their stores, keeping only the ones in the high traffic malls where they can still bring in new players on a consistent basis.
It's also interesting to note that Wizards of the Coast used to have their own stores, and they sold more than just D&D (they even sold GW products in them). Not sure what factors led to their closing down, though.

The Wizard Stores and Game Keeper chain were shut down after the Hasbro acquisition. Hasbro is not in the retail store business.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
At least in the US, they should close most of their stores, keeping only the ones in the high traffic malls where they can still bring in new players on a consistent basis.

GW still has stores in high-traffic malls?

 Stormonu wrote:
I personally believe that the straw will be the price break point. At the rate that new model costs are rising, I'm fairly sure GW will hit a point where people will simply refuse the cost, and GW will take a significant loss on having created the molds and other costs that starts to lead into a downward spiral.

If you watch the numbers, you will see that this point has just been passed. Revenue was basically flat for years (meaning that price hikes barely compensated for loss in sales), now even crazy price hikes couldn't compensate and we got a 10% revenue decrease.

Nevermind...

 Kroothawk wrote:

1.) Tom Kirby is not the victim of Plc culture: He is the one who introduced it to GW and who profited the most of it (last financial year about 1.3 Mio GBP IIRC).

CEOs tend to be booted out by institutional investors if the share price tanks and doesn't recover. There's no reason that shouldn't happen to him.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

1.) Tom Kirby is not the victim of Plc culture: He is the one who introduced it to GW and who profited the most of it (last financial year about 1.3 Mio GBP IIRC).

CEOs tend to be booted out by institutional investors if the share price tanks and doesn't recover. There's no reason that shouldn't happen to him.

Nah, rarely happens. Look at Kodak. The CEO who ran it into bankruptcy, Antonio Perez, is still there. The problem you have today is if shareholders feel a company is going the wrong way, they just sell their stock and buy stock in a better run company. Unfortunate effect of the public stock markets.

How would people feel if GW just removed all the hardback versions of their rules and shifted them all to an online subscription based service?

Let's say you pay a yearly subscription for the main ruleset and you have the option to add other rules; codexes, escalation, etc for an additional fee.

The advantages would be: Rulesets can be updated dynamically - errors can be easily corrected and errata can be incorporated into a simple update of the online rulesets. All anyone needs to do is print off a new copy of the rules or update on their e-reader. Broken units and power creep are easily fixed too.

Fluff can still be produced by the Black Library: They can release hard copy 'history of the Space Wolves' books for all those who want to keep up with the lore.

It would streamline the game for people who end up having hardack rulests, an e-reader with their codex, and printed copies of errata'faq's floating around their deployment zones.

GW could even put out a hardback of the main ruleset once a year for convenience, or even offer print-to-order only copies of codexes for those who want them.

I'm sure i'm not the first person to suggest this; and I suspect i'm not the first person the think that, while this makes sense in terms of business and game balance, it does ultimately rely on GW taking it's fingers out of its ears and actually listening to feedback from its customer base :(

 J.Black wrote:
How would people feel if GW just removed all the hardback versions of their rules and shifted them all to an online subscription based service?

Let's say you pay a yearly subscription for the main ruleset and you have the option to add other rules; codexes, escalation, etc for an additional fee.

The advantages would be: Rulesets can be updated dynamically - errors can be easily corrected and errata can be incorporated into a simple update of the online rulesets. All anyone needs to do is print off a new copy of the rules or update on their e-reader. Broken units and power creep are easily fixed too.

Fluff can still be produced by the Black Library: They can release hard copy 'history of the Space Wolves' books for all those who want to keep up with the lore.

It would streamline the game for people who end up having hardack rulests, an e-reader with their codex, and printed copies of errata'faq's floating around their deployment zones.

GW could even put out a hardback of the main ruleset once a year for convenience, or even offer print-to-order only copies of codexes for those who want them.

I'm sure i'm not the first person to suggest this; and I suspect i'm not the first person the think that, while this makes sense in terms of business and game balance, it does ultimately rely on GW taking it's fingers out of its ears and actually listening to feedback from its customer base :(

No. Doing so would raise the bar of entry by requiring a reader of some sort, and some of us still prefer to read dead-tree books instead of squinting at a tiny screen.

If I'm paying a subscription, I expect to be getting something of value that requires a continuing service. I will not pay "subscriptions" to use a book instead of simply buying the book any more than I'll pay a company a subscription to use a standalone computer program. Besides, what will you do when GW decides that they no longer want to run their servers (or pay for hosting) and you can no longer access the rules? Do you think if they use such a model they'll allow you to actually download the rules instead of requiring a continuing connection to their server? Do you think that GW would actually give people a choice of paper or electronic if they went this route?

It will not increase the quality of the rules, and may make keeping up with changes even harder. Anyone care to comment on how (or if) GW alerts owners of the current electronic versions to changes to their books?

 Wayshuba wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

1.) Tom Kirby is not the victim of Plc culture: He is the one who introduced it to GW and who profited the most of it (last financial year about 1.3 Mio GBP IIRC).

CEOs tend to be booted out by institutional investors if the share price tanks and doesn't recover. There's no reason that shouldn't happen to him.

Nah, rarely happens. Look at Kodak. The CEO who ran it into bankruptcy, Antonio Perez, is still there. The problem you have today is if shareholders feel a company is going the wrong way, they just sell their stock and buy stock in a better run company. Unfortunate effect of the public stock markets.

Hey, whether it will happen with GW is an open question. Of course it depends on the board, and the shareholders. But it does happen, and pretty regularly, and there have been analyses which indicate a link between poor share performance and management changes.

BairdEC wrote:

No. Doing so would raise the bar of entry by requiring a reader of some sort, and some of us still prefer to read dead-tree books instead of squinting at a tiny screen.

I admit that is a problem, but as I pointed out, they could still release hardcopies of the rules every year and make codexes/supplements print-to-order.... you can still have your sheets of dead tree! Besides, even if online updates made some of your rules outdated; printing off the updates is not really so different to having to print out faq's/erratas and you don't need an e-reader for that, just access to a desktop and a printer.

If I'm paying a subscription, I expect to be getting something of value that requires a continuing service. I will not pay "subscriptions" to use a book instead of simply buying the book any more than I'll pay a company a subscription to use a standalone computer program. Besides, what will you do when GW decides that they no longer want to run their servers (or pay for hosting) and you can no longer access the rules? Do you think if they use such a model they'll allow you to actually download the rules instead of requiring a continuing connection to their server? Do you think that GW would actually give people a choice of paper or electronic if they went this route?

Well, yes and no... The idea is that it would work much like the current online codexes (which get updated for errors) except that it would be much easier for GW to correct imbalances and clarify rules. Simply have a mass update once a month for all the rules so people know when to check. This would lead to a much more balanced game which, as others in the thread have pointed out, would help them sell more stuff. Sadly, it is reliant on GW actually being rational and accepting that if they take this route there would be a few folks who would see online rules as a free lunch rather than say theft.

The questions you ask all come down to: Can GW be trusted to do something responsibly, for the good of their customers, rather than treat it as yet another cash cow. At the moment the answer is no. Remember i'm just throwing some suggestions out here, rather than trying to defend GW's business model

It will not increase the quality of the rules, and may make keeping up with changes even harder. Anyone care to comment on how (or if) GW alerts owners of the current electronic versions to changes to their books?

Again, if they actually listened to feedback (easy to gather in their stores/website) it would help make the game better..... Relies on them being more open and willing to engage with customers which 'sigh' doesn't look like it'll happen anytime soon!

 J.Black wrote:
How would people feel if GW just removed all the hardback versions of their rules and shifted them all to an online subscription based service?

Let's say you pay a yearly subscription for the main ruleset and you have the option to add other rules; codexes, escalation, etc for an additional fee.

The advantages would be: Rulesets can be updated dynamically - errors can be easily corrected and errata can be incorporated into a simple update of the online rulesets. All anyone needs to do is print off a new copy of the rules or update on their e-reader. Broken units and power creep are easily fixed too.

Fluff can still be produced by the Black Library: They can release hard copy 'history of the Space Wolves' books for all those who want to keep up with the lore.

It would streamline the game for people who end up having hardack rulests, an e-reader with their codex, and printed copies of errata'faq's floating around their deployment zones.

GW could even put out a hardback of the main ruleset once a year for convenience, or even offer print-to-order only copies of codexes for those who want them.

I'm sure i'm not the first person to suggest this; and I suspect i'm not the first person the think that, while this makes sense in terms of business and game balance, it does ultimately rely on GW taking it's fingers out of its ears and actually listening to feedback from its customer base :(

I think that might be an even worse solution that $50 codexes, unless the subscription cost was super cheap.

As much as I hate buying hardback books at a dollar a page, I do like having books I can hold in my hand and read on a nice rainy day.

I just think they should go back to the paperback codexes and make the starter box rulebooks easier to get a hold of. That would do a lot to make the community happy.

That, and playtesting their rules again so we don't need errata within a week of a book dropping, that would be nice too.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

I just think they should go back to the paperback codexes and make the starter box rulebooks easier to get a hold of. That would do a lot to make the community happy.

That, and playtesting their rules again so we don't need errata within a week of a book dropping, that would be nice too.

Those are the things that I would hope changing to an online subscription would solve

Agreed about the price though... If the main ruleset was like £20 per year and codexes at about £5-£7.50 I could see it working. More likely their current management would give you an 'all or nothing' option at about £150 a year for everything!

Playtesting would be helped by community involvement... if they sponsored tournies again i'm sure they'd get some good feedback regarding the balance of their game.

Hollismason wrote:

The next thing would be to have a player registery on their website similar to facebook where players could create profile and track their games W/L.

I like the idea of a Wargaming finder thingy, but I have to say, what's with the online Wargaming community's weird obsession with wins and losses and keeping track of them? I've never kept track of my wins/losses in Chess, where a record like that would actually be a somewhat more proper signifier of skill, as there is no luck involved and no glaringly bad armies to play against.

Anyway, I actively hope GW goes under and a company with more transparancy and better fan interaction picks it up. Like, WOTC with the liscence would be phenominal.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:Hey, whether it will happen with GW is an open question. Of course it depends on the board, and the shareholders.

It depends on chair Tom Kirby and major shareholder Tom Kirby losing confidence in CEO Tom Kirby, a totally open question for sure

J.Black wrote:How would people feel if GW just removed all the hardback versions of their rules and shifted them all to an online subscription based service?

I am a Tyranid player. I don't want to wake up with another HQ deleted, another passable unit nerfed and another Apocalypse unit shoved down my throat each morning.

Their print media can't be doing that well either. The gaming store I went into just had racks and racks of White Dwarf. Print media is failing as well yet GW puts out a 4 dollar a week "magazine".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SRSFACE wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

The next thing would be to have a player registery on their website similar to facebook where players could create profile and track their games W/L.

I like the idea of a Wargaming finder thingy, but I have to say, what's with the online Wargaming community's weird obsession with wins and losses and keeping track of them? I've never kept track of my wins/losses in Chess, where a record like that would actually be a somewhat more proper signifier of skill, as there is no luck involved and no glaringly bad armies to play against.

Anyway, I actively hope GW goes under and a company with more transparancy and better fan interaction picks it up. Like, WOTC with the liscence would be phenominal.

Hasbro with the license you mean, also the WOTC stores as someone stated did well as they supported multiple games and it was at the height I think of Magic.


The thing with a "facebook" style site for Wargaming is targeted audience, players being able to connect with other players. A fun way to track if there is a submission of army lists with games played what people are playing not just buying. It's instantaneous demographic that can be sold to other marketers such as WOTC etc.. in the form of advertising. It's just smart.

It just seems like GW is set up for failure, they don't really expand their IP at all. It's been 30 years how much media has been made on the GW IP. You would think by now we'd have at least gotten some sort of Mini series, Movie, Tele Novella, something.

Yeah, Hollismason, same thing at my FLGS.

No one in my area plays Dwarves, so there's all of those still just sitting up on the racks. A handful of the Imperial Knights ones sold, but that's it.

The issue with the way they do white dwarves now is they justified even more totally ignoring them if it's not a product you're interested in.

If you think print media is failing you need to come to the UK and look at a large branch of WH Smiths.

I counted seven different Tattoo magazines last time, four on wargaming including WD Monthly, four on astronomy, about seven on flight, six on boats, four on railway modelling, four on military modelling, etc, etc.

With all my respect.
I cannot believe how any wargamer can bo so fanatical in his relation with a product that is seriously worried about the company's health & profit margin.

This kind of brainwash is what makes GW survive after every money sucking decission they've made.
And I'm not trying to be offensive with anyone.
Please, forgive me. It's just my point of view.

Aye, folks should see the lists we have access to for the newsagents part of our family store, so many mags/categories its obscene.

 BobbaFett wrote:
With all my respect.
I cannot believe how any wargamer can bo so fanatical in his relation with a product that is seriously worried about the company's health & profit margin.

This kind of brainwash is what makes GW survive after every money sucking decission they've made.
And I'm not trying to be offensive with anyone.
Please, forgive me. It's just my point of view.

The tragic thing is that GW can't manage to find a way to use that perverse interest to its advantage.

 BobbaFett wrote:
With all my respect.
I cannot believe how any wargamer can bo so fanatical in his relation with a product that is seriously worried about the company's health & profit margin.

This kind of brainwash is what makes GW survive after every money sucking decission they've made.
And I'm not trying to be offensive with anyone.
Please, forgive me. It's just my point of view.

Well, firstly, believe it or not, some people find this sort of thing interesting, if that dovetails with a company that is heavily involved with an allied interest, then I don't see how it is difficult to understand how those people would take an interest?

Secondly, where is the fanaticism or serious worry? I suspect there may be projection on your part here, as all I'm reading is people drawing parallels between two companies that, superficially at least, have a lot in common, and speculating on how the eventual fate of one may be an indicator of the ultimate fate of the other, or not, as the case may be.

Additionally, if your company, or perhaps your company's main customer, was potentially under threat, and the resulting fallout may mean you losing your job, wouldn't you be interested in talking about it? Like them or loathe them, a wargaming industry without GW would be a very different place, and it may well put some people's ability to indulge their interest/passion/whatever in jeopardy. Now, this is a step removed from losing your livelihood, but it is still a situation that may interest or concern those involved.

Finally, I'm not seeing how this is in any way "brainwashing" or how it helps GW? For all the different opinions and interpretations on display in this thread or the ones like it, I've never once seen anyone arguing "oh nose, let's all start buying more from GW at full price to save them" which is frankly the only way I can see that these discussions would be of benefit to them? Assuming of course, that anyone but the occasional nut bar thought this, and it had a meaningful impact on sales.

If you're not interested in finances, or the wider implications of GW's conduct and what may result, fine, but I assure you, it is a very relevant topic for a board about wargaming.

And some of us are interested because it impacts upon the larger hobby (as opposed to the H-H-Hobby).

If GW were to fold tents tonight I would not shed a tear.

But if their leaving caused Victoria Lamb to close up shop? Kromlech? Maybe even Mantic? (Though Mantic is diversifying these days - the counts-as miniatures are becoming a minority, aside from KoW.)

Losing a market leader can have a bad effect on the industry as a whole.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
And some of us are interested because it impacts upon the larger hobby (as opposed to the H-H-Hobby).

If GW were to fold tents tonight I would not shed a tear.

But if their leaving caused Victoria Lamb to close up shop? Kromlech? Maybe even Mantic? (Though Mantic is diversifying these days - the counts-as miniatures are becoming a minority, aside from KoW.)

Losing a market leader can have a bad effect on the industry as a whole.

The Auld Grump

While a legitimate fear of what will happen, I don't think it would be the end of those companies.

Victoria Lamb focuses on not IG, which are generic enough to fit in any sci fi range. I think she could survive just fine.

 insaniak wrote:

 Tailgunner wrote:
There's a lot of rather selective reasoning going on here. For a start, the core of GW's business is its models. not the codexes.

The core of GW's business is a game called Warhammer 40000. Aside from to the minority who buy the models just to collect and/or paint them, the models sell because people play the game. So a decline in the quality of the game discourages model sales.

... - the Knight codex exists to sell the Knight model, ...

Yes, that's the point.

A better codex will do a better job of selling the models. Conversely, a worse codex...

This is why the future is worrisome to me, if the nid codex was crap in order to sell the formation patches then it means GW is going full on EA and will attempt to milk every penny they can. Not to mention they haven't done a proper FAQ in almost a year.