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.

Backfire wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

When did I ever say that this spells doom on GW? All I said was that FFG probably isn't as reliant on GW as it was in years past and that FFG probably prefers it this way because dealing with GW is a fething nightmare.

Is it? Has FFG made a statement to that effect?

Given how GW treat their trade partners I think it's fair to assume everyone feels that way. I can't imagine they treat people selling games based off their IP any better than they would treat people selling GW's own product.

Regarding whether Xwing competes with GW stuff; I spend between £100 and £300 a month on product. Before I started X wing, most of that money went to GW. Since I started X wing, not a single penny has gone to GW, its mostly gone to X wing, or X wing related product. Anecdotal? Yes, but I find it hard to believe I'm the only one.

Correction. I spent £6 on GW flight stands. For Asteroids. For X wing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But you can take that to the extreme. If I spent $30 on take-out, then that's $30 I didn't spend on GW, so technically GW has lost market share to Pizza Hut (wat?).

That's absurd, I know, but going back to my original point and the whole reason we got started down this tangent: The interviewer or the CEO not mentioning GW products isn't as meaningful as some people are claiming. The interview was about the successes of FFG as a company, so they talk about their own brands plus their biggest license deals (of which Star Wars is obviously the biggest).

"He didn't mention GW, therefore XYZ..." just seems like people are looking for a free kick at GW where there is none.

Unfortunately, in this case, there is indeed one. The market grew by 20% last year, meaning gamers spent 20% more cash on the hobby than the year prior. GW, on the other hand, declined by 10% - and that was just in a six month period. Net effect is GW is off from market trend by more than 30% (in other words, GW should have had 20% increase in revenue just to keep flat with the market). There are numerous examples of what this means to the long term viability of a company, and it's current short term health. Sorry to say it, but GW financials are showing a company in a very precarious position right now - potentially even on the verge of collapse. Most funds and investors watch these trends and this concern was recently validated by the number of institutional holders dumping a large holdings of their shares in GW.

GW is losing market share, and they are losing it very fast. FFG is very well run, and honestly, is they were smart they would quietly be building a massive line of Star Wars troops (like Dust Tactics) and when they release the game, it has a full line of miniatures. If that happens, and it is done right, it WILL, without a doubt, be the final nail in GWs coffin.

Just look at the difference between the two companies. FFG has grown by expanding their product lines, licenses and category of products. GW has contracted them down to two product lines. FFG has had solid growth over the few years. GW is declining. All of GWs eggs are pretty much in one basket now - 40k. WHFB only accounts for less than 10% of their revenue. If 40k was ever to have a serious challenge, GW would, without a doubt, almost collapse overnight.

There is only so much price increasing you can do to milk a dwindling customer base before that option runs dry. GW needs new game products and new customers. Unfortunately, their business practices are pretty much preventing that from happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:
Do you really believe there is a demand for a star wars tabletop war-game? I just don't see it, maybe other do. They tried before and it failed.

Are you joking?

It would sell like hot-cakes (at a time when hot-cakes were massively popular!)

I find this talk of GW signing FFG to not make a 28mm SW game pretty amusing. If FFG thought they could make a pile of money out of it (and they would be right in thinking so) then they would make efforts to release it. The quality of the X-Wing game and rules makes me hopeful that if they did try, it would stand a good chance of being successful.

I agree. One also has to bear in mind that with the previous SW Miniatures Game, only Episodes 4-6 had been released. The original Star Wars trilogy was pretty much all skirmish battles, with the notable exception of the Hoth battle. Since then, with the release of Episodes 1-3 and the Clone Wars series, the public has now been exposed to massive battles in the SW universe. And who knows what Episodes 7-9 will hold.

I, for one, believe FFG will make maximum use of the license and that, based on the amazing success of X-Wing, will have a serious effect on GW.

Episodes 4-6 just seem ship-based and skirmish because the main story follows the lead characters who were only involved in a couple of larger ground battles. Write some books about a rebel ground forces commander, tie him/her in with hoth and/or endor as well as earlier battles while adding battles that we all know happened but weren't in the trilogies and you have instant background for a large-scale miniature game. Unless you think a galactic-spannng Empire only had the troopers who fought the main characters.... Yeah.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Unfortunately, in this case, there is indeed one. The market grew by 20% last year, meaning gamers spent 20% more cash on the hobby than the year prior.
.

Oh please, not the "market is growing 20% annually" claim again. It has been discussed time & time again and it has always proven to be a red herring.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Just look at the difference between the two companies. FFG has grown by expanding their product lines, licenses and category of products. GW has contracted them down to two product lines. FFG has had solid growth over the few years. GW is declining. All of GWs eggs are pretty much in one basket now - 40k. WHFB only accounts for less than 10% of their revenue. If 40k was ever to have a serious challenge, GW would, without a doubt, almost collapse overnight.

Whilst I agree that the business strategy of "concentrating on our core businesses" is generally a sign of a declining company and I think GW is not being smart there, this kind of direct comparison between FFG and GW is silly. FFG is primarily a board game maker and produces few miniatures. Their businesses have only very limited overlap. Second, it is always easier to grow from zero: for all FFG's growth, GW is still five times bigger than FFG.

 Wayshuba wrote:

I agree. One also has to bear in mind that with the previous SW Miniatures Game, only Episodes 4-6 had been released. The original Star Wars trilogy was pretty much all skirmish battles, with the notable exception of the Hoth battle. Since then, with the release of Episodes 1-3 and the Clone Wars series, the public has now been exposed to massive battles in the SW universe. And who knows what Episodes 7-9 will hold.

Ummm...are you seriously suggesting that people would be lining up to buy miniatures necessary to refight the epic battle between robots and Gungans in Episode 1? Or even more epic battle between robots and Clones in Episode 2? Or the battle between robots and Wookies in Ep3? Oh, and don't forget Ewoks!

If Star Wars license was a 100% surefire way to produce hugely popular tabletop wargame, it would have happened already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eggs wrote:
Regarding whether Xwing competes with GW stuff; I spend between £100 and £300 a month on product. Before I started X wing, most of that money went to GW. Since I started X wing, not a single penny has gone to GW, its mostly gone to X wing, or X wing related product. Anecdotal? Yes, but I find it hard to believe I'm the only one.

New games will always come out and people spend money on them. The key will be, how long is it sustained? Do you really spend hundreds of pounds to X-wing, month after month? X-wing doesn't even have that much material released, I believe that for like £200 you have already bought everything available?

Backfire wrote:
Oh please, not the "market is growing 20% annually" claim again. It has been discussed time & time again and it has always proven to be a red herring.

Really? Numerous market reports are indeed showing a 20% growth in this segment of the gaming market (in fact, these reports have shown double-digit market growth every year since 2008). There is no red herring at all. As an aside, since I have done market research for more than 25 years, I think I am well-versed in how to look up numbers to gauge whether a market is growing or not.

You also have many stores and distributors reporting double-digit growth, despite GW falling by more than 10%. So their GW sales are down yet their overall business has grow by double-digits.

Numerous companies (FFG, PP, Cipher Studios, Warlord Games, Wyrd Miniatures, Corvus Belli, Battlefront, et al.) are showing growth. Usually a good indicator of a market's growth is when you see so many companies growing simultaneously, which is happening right now. GW is one of the few exceptions.

Backfire wrote:
Whilst I agree that the business strategy of "concentrating on our core businesses" is generally a sign of a declining company and I think GW is not being smart there, this kind of direct comparison between FFG and GW is silly. FFG is primarily a board game maker and produces few miniatures. Their businesses have only very limited overlap. Second, it is always easier to grow from zero: for all FFG's growth, GW is still five times bigger than FFG.

Okay. What did GW start as? A board game and RPG publisher (from 1975 to 1983). Not as a miniature company. That came with Citadel and Warhammer (in 1979 and 1983 respectively). Do you really believe FFG can not show the same path to growth that GW took to get where they are? They are already dipping their toes in the space with Dust Tactics and heavy miniature-based games such as Descent. They are packaging miniatures only now with Descent. They are selling miniatures for X-Wing, and they have a "Miniatures" section of their website. To think they are not thinking about getting into miniatures, especially given the success of X-Wing, is silly.

On another note, Kodak used to be an $80 billion company - now they are $2 billion. The $80 billion market share is still there, just spread across many competitors right now - Fuji, Canon, et al. While I don't believe there will be another company the size of GW in this space - I do believe we will see GWs share of the market split among multiple competitors - like 20 $10 million companies, or even 10 $20 million companies. Size does not make one infallable. That is how WordPerfect at $500 million took down Wang Computer at $51 billion. How Kodak lost $78 billion of annual revenue (and thus became the smallest company of their competitors. History is littering with many, many examples of big companies going down to smaller ones - like NetFlix and Blockbuster as another example, where an $80 million company took down a $16 billion powerhouse.

Growth is still growth. Yes, GW with a bigger revenue number may show 3% growth while FFG may show 20% because it is based on a smaller number. However, when you competitors are growing and you are declining, the percentages don't matter.

Backfire wrote:
Ummm...are you seriously suggesting that people would be lining up to buy miniatures necessary to refight the epic battle between robots and Gungans in Episode 1? Or even more epic battle between robots and Clones in Episode 2? Or the battle between robots and Wookies in Ep3? Oh, and don't forget Ewoks!

If Star Wars license was a 100% surefire way to produce hugely popular tabletop wargame, it would have happened already

No, what I am saying is those films paved the way for huge battles in the SW universe. I didn't think people would be lining up to buy a starship game based on SW, but they are so much so they can't even keep it stocked. So to dismiss the possibility it could also happen with a tabletop game is not feasible. Even if it didn't have the longevity of 40k, it doesn't matter. All that has to happen is for a good two or three years the game dominates gamer spending and it will destroy GW.

Finally, longevity does not guarantee survival. Put another way, past success does not indicate future success. If it did Atari, which once had over 85% of the home console market, would still dominate today. We would still be going to Border's to get books, instead of Amazon. D&D would still be a bigger selling product than Pathfinder (which WotC clearly admits that Pathfinder outsells them). And we would all be going to Blockbuster to rent movies rather than streaming them. No company can ever rest on their past successes, and that is EXACTLY what GW is doing now in spades.

They are extremely vulnerable right now having put all their eggs in almost one basket (40k). Any major challenge to that basket and GW is done - period. Any smart competitor is going to look at that weakness and figure out how to exploit it. That is just plain-old good business. Quite honestly, any smart company right now should be trying to figure out how to penetrate that 40k spending base. If it is done, and done successfully, GW has NO (none, nada, zero, zilch) backup plan. Strictly looking at it from a business perspective, GW is ripe to take down right now.

That 20% is the ICv2 figure, which has been demonstrated on multiple occasions to be a less than scientific method of collecting data.

Which isn't to say it should be completely disregarded, I think it is fair to say that the wider tabletop market is growing, and it is incontrovertible that GW have hit a bit of a speedbump, financially speaking, but it would be a mistake to get too bogged down in exact figures, when those figures aren't exact.

 azreal13 wrote:
That 20% is the ICv2 figure, which has been demonstrated on multiple occasions to be a less than scientific method of collecting data.

Which isn't to say it should be completely disregarded, I think it is fair to say that the wider tabletop market is growing, and it is incontrovertible that GW have hit a bit of a speedbump, financially speaking, but it would be a mistake to get too bogged down in exact figures, when those figures aren't exact.

There are more reports than just the ICv2. Hasbro has available information on the markets. So do a few other independent research sources.

Also, there have been quite a few companies (Wayland Games on Dakka, for example), that have confirmed double-digit growth as well.

Seems an awful lot of companies are experiencing double-digit growth while GW is experiencing double-digit decline....

Well, without wanting to sound facetious, can you share some quotes or links, because this is a topic I tend to gravitate towards when it is discussed in threads, and I'm completely unaware of any of that in the public domain?

It would be very interesting.

Even the primarily anecdotal evidence of the ICv2 is better than the GW financial report.

It would be silly in the extreme to completely disregard a goodly number of FLGSs telling the world that they're selling more product and more specifically less GW product than in the past.

That said, GW's move to edging FLGSs out of the GW miniature selling business by moving a greater number of SKUs over to direct only would result in less GW product being moved through FLGSs.

Ultimately, hosing the biggest sellers of GW product will result in decreased sales for GW in the U.S. market because there are massive swathes of the country which have never and will never see a GW store (like these tiny one-man operations can replace a FLGS) so as less product is available to buy, people will naturally shift to other games. Club play isn't as common here in the U.S. as it seems to be in the U.K. and Europe in general so that leaves the FLGS as the biggest gathering point for hobbyists. People naturally want to support the place where they play so I expect to see people branching out into other games (and I've already seen this in my area).

With the massive splash of GW product released since the last financial report; another decline here in May can certainly be construed as a real and true adjustment for GW. I hope that they start to rethink the direct-only decision at some point and do something to repair their relationship with FLGSs.

 azreal13 wrote:
Well, without wanting to sound facetious, can you share some quotes or links, because this is a topic I tend to gravitate towards when it is discussed in threads, and I'm completely unaware of any of that in the public domain?

It would be very interesting.

Hasbro makes various segment information available in shareholder reports, there are also several other sources who track this or similar information (TrendReports, ReportLinker, IBISWorld, EuroMonitor International, NPD Group, et al.) Since I use some of these companies for other market research, I am able to see the research on this market as well. Finally, another good source to gauge market growth is Kickstarter, where you can see the massive growth in traditional board and miniature game growth (information available on the KickStarter site).

The problem you have with the "wargaming" market in particular, is most research companies only publish the top-level findings in public domains (so in this case tabletop gaming) and unless you have an expensive subscription will not be able to get access to the sub-level data within that report. Common way the research companies sell subscriptions or reports, so not really a big surprise.

As I mentioned before, as a long time market researcher, I never base my market findings on one source but rather several coupled with common market observances of trends. This gives the best cross-section of actual market performance. What people don't understand, is this market is studied a lot more than people realize.

So...specific information please?

 agnosto wrote:
So...specific information please?

I can't publish. You have to look it up yourself, sorry. That information is available to subscribers of the research companies which all specifically prevent users from publishing certain information to public domain space (kind of a big deal to protecting their business models).

For example, NPD Group publically published that overall tabletop gaming market grew by 13%. That is in public domain. To see the segments of that data, however, requires membership to DecisionKey or SolutionFolders where you can see the individual growth rates of various segment within that top level market.

Backfire wrote:
New games will always come out and people spend money on them. The key will be, how long is it sustained? Do you really spend hundreds of pounds to X-wing, month after month? X-wing doesn't even have that much material released, I believe that for like £200 you have already bought everything available?

Eh, no. That's like saying I only need one orc, and one goblin, and I have my greenskin army. £200 will get you a small force for either side, sure, but if you want to run varied types of lists, then you need at least a couple of some ships, a lot more of others. £90 would get you a tie swarm. £60 might get you a core set, falcon, and another x wing so you can run a simple falcon list. Me, I want to be able to run most types of list for both factions, so I'm probably £5-600, with a fair chunk more to buy before I'm happy with current models. That's before I look at what I've spent on storage cases, mats, custom miniatures for scenarios like the senator's shuttle etc. If anything FFG releases for X wing are accelerating, with special paint jobs, capital ships etc all coming out along with wave 5. Could I play the game for £100? Absolutely. Do I currently feel I'm getting much better value for money giving big chunks of cash to FFG to build a pair of big fleets instead of GW to build one army? Abso-fething-lutely.

I will add - I'm not a GW hater. I am however getting tired of the incessant price increases, and the associated drop in perceived value for money. I've probably given GW £3-4k in the last couple of years, but unless prices plateau, they won't get much more from me in the future.

 Wayshuba wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
So...specific information please?

I can't publish. You have to look it up yourself, sorry. That information is available to subscribers of the research companies which all specifically prevent users from publishing certain information to public domain space (kind of a big deal to protecting their business models).

For example, NPD Group publically published that overall tabletop gaming market grew by 13%. That is in public domain. To see the segments of that data, however, requires membership to DecisionKey or SolutionFolders where you can see the individual growth rates of various segment within that top level market.

Thanks. Info of even that level of detail is interesting and it collaborates the ICv2 20% to some extent though it may not be as specific as would be completely germane to our topic of conversation. It's a little frustrating that everything business related needs to be so arcane that people can't easily research it and have an intelligent conversation about it.

 Wayshuba wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
So...specific information please?

I can't publish. You have to look it up yourself, sorry. That information is available to subscribers of the research companies which all specifically prevent users from publishing certain information to public domain space (kind of a big deal to protecting their business models).

For example, NPD Group publically published that overall tabletop gaming market grew by 13%. That is in public domain. To see the segments of that data, however, requires membership to DecisionKey or SolutionFolders where you can see the individual growth rates of various segment within that top level market.

13% is very different from the 20% you're tossing around. And from talking with ex-PP employees, PP has not seen any growth in the last several years. They were making about $15 million back in 2010 and it came out they made $15 - 16 million in 2013. That is at best growing with inflation.

 silent25 wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
So...specific information please?

I can't publish. You have to look it up yourself, sorry. That information is available to subscribers of the research companies which all specifically prevent users from publishing certain information to public domain space (kind of a big deal to protecting their business models).

For example, NPD Group publically published that overall tabletop gaming market grew by 13%. That is in public domain. To see the segments of that data, however, requires membership to DecisionKey or SolutionFolders where you can see the individual growth rates of various segment within that top level market.

13% is very different from the 20% you're tossing around. And from talking with ex-PP employees, PP has not seen any growth in the last several years. They were making about $15 million back in 2010 and it came out they made $15 - 16 million in 2013. That is at best growing with inflation.

I hear this statement all the time, with no names, dates, or links attached. Whichex- employees were you speaking with exactly?

 silent25 wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
So...specific information please?

I can't publish. You have to look it up yourself, sorry. That information is available to subscribers of the research companies which all specifically prevent users from publishing certain information to public domain space (kind of a big deal to protecting their business models).

For example, NPD Group publically published that overall tabletop gaming market grew by 13%. That is in public domain. To see the segments of that data, however, requires membership to DecisionKey or SolutionFolders where you can see the individual growth rates of various segment within that top level market.

13% is very different from the 20% you're tossing around. And from talking with ex-PP employees, PP has not seen any growth in the last several years. They were making about $15 million back in 2010 and it came out they made $15 - 16 million in 2013. That is at best growing with inflation.

13% on total tabletop leisure segment. Individual sub-segments have varying different growth rates. Tabletop wargaming is growth rate of close to 20%.

Also, there is another report from TempleCon that PP admitted to approximate revenue numbers. $10-$11 million in 2010 and $16-$17 million in 2013. So according to the admission at TempleCon, it appears they have seen quite a bit - about 59% over a three year period. Sure, the number are small compared to GW, but they are big enough to be doing more than WHFB now.

 Wayshuba wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Well, without wanting to sound facetious, can you share some quotes or links, because this is a topic I tend to gravitate towards when it is discussed in threads, and I'm completely unaware of any of that in the public domain?

It would be very interesting.

Hasbro makes various segment information available in shareholder reports, there are also several other sources who track this or similar information (TrendReports, ReportLinker, IBISWorld, EuroMonitor International, NPD Group, et al.) Since I use some of these companies for other market research, I am able to see the research on this market as well. Finally, another good source to gauge market growth is Kickstarter, where you can see the massive growth in traditional board and miniature game growth (information available on the KickStarter site).

The problem you have with the "wargaming" market in particular, is most research companies only publish the top-level findings in public domains (so in this case tabletop gaming) and unless you have an expensive subscription will not be able to get access to the sub-level data within that report. Common way the research companies sell subscriptions or reports, so not really a big surprise.

As I mentioned before, as a long time market researcher, I never base my market findings on one source but rather several coupled with common market observances of trends. This gives the best cross-section of actual market performance. What people don't understand, is this market is studied a lot more than people realize.

I knew that you know a little bit (actually a lot) of marketing research. I'm glad to see you on here on this site. The information provided by you thus far does indeed correlate with the information I gathered as well. Currently I'm somewhat moving away from the " GW style of miniatures" market Per Se as far as investment opportunities. Table top however I'm not. It still has a strong market trend going and I am liking what I see.

Personally I'm really pro games/hobbies that deal with socialization with other people.

Adam.

Hear hear!

For all the venom levelled at GW, justified or not, if their presence continues to help even a small number of kids, or even adults, come out of their shells, or grow their imaginations and creativity, then history should record their contribution to humanity as a positive.

Let's make no bones that they could do more, but what they do (more so than others who don't have the copious storefront presence) is very important to the people that benefit from it.

 Wayshuba wrote:


Also, there is another report from TempleCon that PP admitted to approximate revenue numbers. $10-$11 million in 2010 and $16-$17 million in 2013. So according to the admission at TempleCon, it appears they have seen quite a bit - about 59% over a three year period. Sure, the number are small compared to GW, but they are big enough to be doing more than WHFB now.

That is the first I heard of the $10-11 million number. Several different people were quoting the $15 million, in person and on this board a couple years ago during other GW financial discussions. Also all posts I have seen from Templecon this year report $15 million as well. Where did you find the $10 - 11 million number? Even at $17 million, it would still only equal to less than 10% of GW's revenue. By all accounts, WHFB has not dropped bellow 10% of GW's revenue yet. You have even stated it isn't under 10% in your own posts.

Back to the other topic of FFG doing a 28mm game and having it sell like hot cakes, a number of people including myself thought the same would happen with the last SW miniature game. It didn't sell like hot cakes and drive 40k under. 40k is still here and it's gone. It did good, but faded. Given FFG's abandoning of Dust and the previous performance of the other SW miniature game, I'm not sure is ready to jump back into that pool.

 silent25 wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:


Also, there is another report from TempleCon that PP admitted to approximate revenue numbers. $10-$11 million in 2010 and $16-$17 million in 2013. So according to the admission at TempleCon, it appears they have seen quite a bit - about 59% over a three year period. Sure, the number are small compared to GW, but they are big enough to be doing more than WHFB now.

That is the first I heard of the $10-11 million number. Several different people were quoting the $15 million, in person and on this board a couple years ago during other GW financial discussions. Also all posts I have seen from Templecon this year report $15 million as well. Where did you find the $10 - 11 million number? Even at $17 million, it would still only equal to less than 10% of GW's revenue. By all accounts, WHFB has not dropped bellow 10% of GW's revenue yet. You have even stated it isn't under 10% in your own posts.

Back to the other topic of FFG doing a 28mm game and having it sell like hot cakes, a number of people including myself thought the same would happen with the last SW miniature game. It didn't sell like hot cakes and drive 40k under. 40k is still here and it's gone. It did good, but faded. Given FFG's abandoning of Dust and the previous performance of the other SW miniature game, I'm not sure is ready to jump back into that pool.

Let's say then, for sake of the discussion, that PP is currently in the $15M-$18M range (I would say that it is probably a safe bet since Hoover's reports their revenue at $5.2 million and my experiences with Hoover's shows their private company reporting to be about a quarter to a third of actual revenues - they reported the last company I worked for as $45 million in sales when actual revenue were just shy of $220 million). ICv2 currently shows WHFB slipping out of the top 5 and both Warmachine and Hordes in the Top 5. Given that they represent $15M-$18M in sales, WHFB would have to be below them to have fallen off the top 5. Now, it is probably a bit more in reality, but I don't think it is that much more. Also, watching the emphasis GW has thrown behind 40k in the last six months especially, their behaviors seem to indicate this to be the case.

As for FFG, I wouldn't be so sure. I think they are playing with different formats and experimenting. Sometimes the success of a product is a matter of market timing. The first Star Wars miniatures game came as GW was too strong and dominating the growth of the market. Right now, GW does not have that stranglehold anymore as their brand integrity is completely in the toilet. This might not come from FFG, or it may. They definitely have the brand (with Star Wars) and the timing couldn't be better - a run away hit spaceship game based on Star Wars - meaning customer's attention is at a high right now. Best time to try it.

While slightly off topic, but still related, Warlord is also one to keep the eye on. I have been surprised at how fast Bolt Action grabbed hold as well and they have shown a capability to produce 28mm troop units as well as vehicles (and now getting into plastic vehicles with the M4 Sherman). Another possibility is Corvus Belli, if they release a set of rules for larger battles in their current universe. Lastly there is Mantic with Warpath, but that is the one I would discount the most.

Strictly looking at this from a business perspective, GW is in a very volatile position as a company right now (as any company would be with only two or three product lines). They couldn't survive on WHFB alone. They have done a terrible job with the biggest fantasy IP in the world (Hobbit/LOTR). So that pretty much leaves their eggs in one big basket - 40k. Consider GW is passing in 50%-70% price increases on new models (which is an absurd increase for any company in the world to do at once and only desperate companies tend to do that all at once), I think that basket is close to cracking. If that basket cracks, at all, even for a brief period of time like 18-36 months, GW is gone (history, kaput, kerplunk).

Edit: I'm going to be honest here. Business is business. When the big, dominant player in the market is showing chinks in the armor, smaller players should be brainstorming strategies to go in for the kill - hard! GW brings in a big chunk of money, they currently have the undying belief they are infallible, they are retreating out of the channels to their UK, one man, back alley stores and their own webstore, and they are going to keep going on their prices until only the sons of rich oil shieks can afford their products. Smaller companies should be figuring out how to take a good portion of that chunk of money. GW has set themselves up perfectly to be toppled right now. My bets are that the two companies right now with the possibility to do it are either FFG, with the Star Wars IP or Warlord Games, if they come up with a cohesive strategy for a true Sci-Fi battle game with the popularity of Bolt Action. A third, remote possibility, would be PP if they developed a Sci-Fi game as well as they did Warmahordes. As Michael Corleone famously said, "It's nothing personal, it's just business."

 Wayshuba wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Well, without wanting to sound facetious, can you share some quotes or links, because this is a topic I tend to gravitate towards when it is discussed in threads, and I'm completely unaware of any of that in the public domain?

It would be very interesting.

Hasbro makes various segment information available in shareholder reports...

Does Hasbro even produce tabletop wargames?

I could well believe that BOARDGAME industry is growing, especially when you figure in the drop which 2008 depression must have brought in (though I doubt it is growing 20% per year - that is a truly enormous growth even for an emerging market, and board games are a mature market). However, it does not mean that wargame industry is growing, since wargames are but a tiny part of the boardgame industry. For all it's decline, GW probably still holds something akin to 50% of global tabletop wargames markets (given that the biggest competitors like PP and Battlefront are probably like 10% of GW). For wargames markets to grow 20% per year, it would mean that all other companies should grow like 40% per year.

I think it is obvious to anyone that this is not the case.

Backfire wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Well, without wanting to sound facetious, can you share some quotes or links, because this is a topic I tend to gravitate towards when it is discussed in threads, and I'm completely unaware of any of that in the public domain?

It would be very interesting.

Hasbro makes various segment information available in shareholder reports...

Does Hasbro even produce tabletop wargames?

They have in the past. Hasbro owns Wizards of the Coast.

However, that's not relevant in the slightest to what Wayshuba is talking about in that post..

 Wayshuba wrote:

Let's say then, for sake of the discussion, that PP is currently in the $15M-$18M range (I would say that it is probably a safe bet since Hoover's reports their revenue at $5.2 million and my experiences with Hoover's shows their private company reporting to be about a quarter to a third of actual revenues - they reported the last company I worked for as $45 million in sales when actual revenue were just shy of $220 million). ICv2 currently shows WHFB slipping out of the top 5 and both Warmachine and Hordes in the Top 5. Given that they represent $15M-$18M in sales, WHFB would have to be below them to have fallen off the top 5. Now, it is probably a bit more in reality, but I don't think it is that much more. Also, watching the emphasis GW has thrown behind 40k in the last six months especially, their behaviors seem to indicate this to be the case.

ICv2 listings are based on their estimate on US sales - not global sales. ICv2 reported WHFB as being #4 behind Warmahordes in 2009 already. That is almost five years ago. Now, how big was that annual growth again...?

 Wayshuba wrote:

As for FFG, I wouldn't be so sure. I think they are playing with different formats and experimenting. Sometimes the success of a product is a matter of market timing. The first Star Wars miniatures game came as GW was too strong and dominating the growth of the market.

First Star Wars miniature game came out in early '90s when GW was less than one-fifth of the size it currently is, even figuring in inflation. And there were many other miniatures companies back then, like Ral Partha etc. And this was BEFORE terrible prequels had nearly killed the SW franchise.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Okay. What did GW start as? A board game and RPG publisher (from 1975 to 1983). Not as a miniature company. That came with Citadel and Warhammer (in 1979 and 1983 respectively). Do you really believe FFG can not show the same path to growth that GW took to get where they are?

I actually do believe they can't. Not because there is anything wrong with FFG as a company, but because it's not 1983 anymore.

 Wayshuba wrote:

No, what I am saying is those films paved the way for huge battles in the SW universe. I didn't think people would be lining up to buy a starship game based on SW, but they are so much so they can't even keep it stocked. So to dismiss the possibility it could also happen with a tabletop game is not feasible. Even if it didn't have the longevity of 40k, it doesn't matter. All that has to happen is for a good two or three years the game dominates gamer spending and it will destroy GW.

No, it does not. This is not a smartphone market we're talking about here. Tabletop armies don't get "obsolete" in few years.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Finally, longevity does not guarantee survival. Put another way, past success does not indicate future success. If it did Atari, which once had over 85% of the home console market, would still dominate today. We would still be going to Border's to get books, instead of Amazon. D&D would still be a bigger selling product than Pathfinder (which WotC clearly admits that Pathfinder outsells them).

No, longevity does not guarantee survival. Hovewer, you make the mistake assuming that people would flock into SW universum just because SW is just a such an awesome franchise. This is like saying that if there was a Star Wars RPG released, it would kill Warhammer, D&D etc. roleplaying franchises by the strength of its brand power: because lets face it, Star Wars is much bigger brand than D&D, much less any scifi RPG. The obvious fact that SW RPG or CCG or boardgames have not killed off competive brands (quite the contrary!) tells us that it is quite unlikely to happen in tabletop wargames either.

Now, GW could of course screw things up (even more) royally and kill its franchises, but it would be their OWN doing, not because of something their competitors did.

Backfire wrote:
ICv2 listings are based on their estimate on US sales - not global sales. ICv2 reported WHFB as being #4 behind Warmahordes in 2009 already. That is almost five years ago. Now, how big was that annual growth again...?

Yes, and now WHFB has fallen completely off the list while the entire market has grown, just 20% last year (http://www.icv2.com/articles/markets/28125.html). In fact, the market has grown for five consecutive years (http://www.icv2.com/articles/markets/28119.html) to the point of the market now being double the size it was in 2008. So while Warmahordes may still hold similar positions (or close to) as 2009 - it is of a much bigger market than it was in 2009, while WHFB has fallen off the list entirely. That is the growth I was speaking of.

Backfire wrote:
First Star Wars miniature game came out in early '90s when GW was less than one-fifth of the size it currently is, even figuring in inflation. And there were many other miniatures companies back then, like Ral Partha etc. And this was BEFORE terrible prequels had nearly killed the SW franchise.

Yes, GW was smaller than today, but they were still bigger than those attempting SW franchise then. Warhammer had already been introduced in the space ten years by then.

Backfire wrote:
I actually do believe they can't. Not because there is anything wrong with FFG as a company, but because it's not 1983 anymore.

Huh? A company can still grow and expand their product base regardless of year. This is a general path of business, year has nothing at all to do with it. Warlord Games, PP, FFG are all EXPANDING their product ranges. Pretty much like GW did in the past and isn't doing now. Like it or not, half these companies owe their existence to GW retracting from certain spaces, like tabletop skirmish games.

By your point, Google should not exist today because they were two guys in a garage taking on powerhouses like DEC (AltaVista), Lycos (fastest IPO in history at that point) and others who had search engines. But Google produced a better product than those powerhouses who were too busy sitting on their laurels of size to worry about two kids in a garage. GW is acting the exact same way now and is ripe for "two kids in a garage" (i.e., the smaller companies) to take their market share (which by GW last period financials they are already doing).

Lastly, let's see what FFG is doing here. No. 2 in the miniature gaming market (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/28125.html). No. 2 in the RPG market (http://www.icv2.com/articles/markets/28124.html). On the top ten list of boardgames (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/28123.html) with Eldritch Horror and the top ten list of Card/Dice games (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/28122.html) with, guess what, the SW IP! Whereas GW is ONLY on the miniature list.

It appears FFG is already growing exactly like I said, thus proving that you can still do it in 2014 like it was done in 1983. The numbers don't lie and it is not opinion or conjecture at this point.

Edit: On a side note, this is why to the OP, that Chris Petersen probably didn't mention GW. While they are selling some games with the GW IP, it's the SW IP that is placing them in all the Top lists. In other words, SW is making them the serious cash. FFG is bringing SW to this segment with a success like no one has had in the past. GW should be worried at this point, but they won't be because they believe they are unassailable.

Backfire wrote:
No, it does not. This is not a smartphone market we're talking about here. Tabletop armies don't get "obsolete" in few years.

Unless they are GW armies, who make a point of obsoleting/making useless certain units/weapon combinations every edition to keep the sales coming in. Once again, they create the opportunity for a customer switch with this. Hmmm, should I buy two of the shiny new WraithKnights for $230 or start an entire new army in another game for the same money?

Backfire wrote:
No, longevity does not guarantee survival. Hovewer, you make the mistake assuming that people would flock into SW universum just because SW is just a such an awesome franchise. This is like saying that if there was a Star Wars RPG released, it would kill Warhammer, D&D etc. roleplaying franchises by the strength of its brand power: because lets face it, Star Wars is much bigger brand than D&D, much less any scifi RPG. The obvious fact that SW RPG or CCG or boardgames have not killed off competive brands (quite the contrary!) tells us that it is quite unlikely to happen in tabletop wargames either.

No mistake. Your making the assumption because someone failed in the past that FFG will not succeed now. Similar assumptions were made in the late 90s when people heard this guy named Peter Jackson was making the LOTR movies. They had all been failures in the past leading many to say the books could not be made into movies. But we all know how that ended, don't we?

I didn't think the market would flock to a SW spaceship game in such numbers, but it happened and happened fast. Right to No. 2 behind 40k with a spaceship game (http://www.icv2.com/articles/markets/28125.html). A spaceship game has climbed to No. 2 out of nowhere. Imagine what a tabletop battle game would do at the moment. As I indicated earlier, sometimes it is a matter of market timing. FFG definitely has the momentum on the SW franchise at the moment, if they capitalize on it there is no reason to believe this time it could not happen. The proof is already in black & white in the market. And, since you brought it up, just like a SW RPG has surpassed D&D (http://www.icv2.com/articles/markets/28124.html) because of the strength of it's brand power. Oh, and they happen to be doing well with the Star Wars LCG as well (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/28122.html).

Sorry but all the proof is there that FFG is in fact capitalizing on the SW IP, and it is in fact selling like hotcakes, and the market is indeed flocking to the SW IP right now, whether in miniatures games, RPGs or card games. This has nothing to do with what I think of the SW IP personally and everything to do with the market showing that the SW IP is indeed hot right now as almost any SW game FFG is releasing is skyrocketing to the Top 5/10 lists in the markets.

Lastly, as for killing off brands, I never said the 40k brand would die, just GW. Who created D&D and actually pioneered the entire hobby game market - TSR. Who currently owns the D&D game - WotC/Hasbro. No, I don't think 40k will die, just GW. The brand will most likely survive - it is GW who probably won't.

Backfire wrote:
Now, GW could of course screw things up (even more) royally and kill its franchises, but it would be their OWN doing, not because of something their competitors did.

This is GWs exact problem, they think competition has no effect on them. Competition ALWAYS has an effect on business, no matter the market or segment. If there was no competition for the gamer's dollar than GW could do just about anything they like because gamer's would have no better choice. But they can't because there is a lot of competition for that dollar at the moment. GW is just making it easier for the gamer to spend their dollars somewhere else except on GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 silent25 wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:


Also, there is another report from TempleCon that PP admitted to approximate revenue numbers. $10-$11 million in 2010 and $16-$17 million in 2013. So according to the admission at TempleCon, it appears they have seen quite a bit - about 59% over a three year period. Sure, the number are small compared to GW, but they are big enough to be doing more than WHFB now.

That is the first I heard of the $10-11 million number. Several different people were quoting the $15 million, in person and on this board a couple years ago during other GW financial discussions. Also all posts I have seen from Templecon this year report $15 million as well. Where did you find the $10 - 11 million number? Even at $17 million, it would still only equal to less than 10% of GW's revenue. By all accounts, WHFB has not dropped bellow 10% of GW's revenue yet. You have even stated it isn't under 10% in your own posts.

Back to the other topic of FFG doing a 28mm game and having it sell like hot cakes, a number of people including myself thought the same would happen with the last SW miniature game. It didn't sell like hot cakes and drive 40k under. 40k is still here and it's gone. It did good, but faded. Given FFG's abandoning of Dust and the previous performance of the other SW miniature game, I'm not sure is ready to jump back into that pool.

As I mentioned above, FFG is in the Top 5/10 lists with all their SW games (miniature, RPG and LCG). In other words, the SW IP is doing wonders for them as a company. Dust, while a good game with well done sculpts, is a custom IP from the ground up - a bit tougher to sell. However, Dust does prove that FFG can do a tabletop miniatures game and the success of their other SW games is showing it would probably be a good bet for FFG to take a shot at it with the SW IP. Now is the time, when they have this massive momentum and customer attention on the SW IP.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Backfire wrote:
ICv2 listings are based on their estimate on US sales - not global sales. ICv2 reported WHFB as being #4 behind Warmahordes in 2009 already. That is almost five years ago. Now, how big was that annual growth again...?

Yes, and now WHFB has fallen completely off the list while the entire market has grown, just 20% last year (http://www.icv2.com/articles/markets/28125.html). In fact, the market has grown for five consecutive years (http://www.icv2.com/articles/markets/28119.html) to the point of the market now being double the size it was in 2008. So while Warmahordes may still hold similar positions (or close to) as 2009 - it is of a much bigger market than it was in 2009, while WHFB has fallen off the list entirely. That is the growth I was speaking of.

If WM/H was bigger than WHFB back in 2009, it would have meant that its sales would have been at least 10% of GW total sales, based on your estimate that WHFB makes up 10% of GW sales. But back in 2009, GW sales were over 200 million USD, so PP should have been doing $20 million sales already back then. However, this is at best same which people have claimed as PP's total revenue now. So it looks like PP has not grown at all over last four years!

Since GW only grew like 20% between 2008 and 2013, most of this supposed 100% growth over that period must have came from other companies. As GW's sales were about 185 million USD in 2008, we're talking about at least $150 million dollar increase in sales by companies which aren't GW. And this assumes other companies were at zero in 2008, which obviously was not true at all. If we assume that GW had say, 75% market share in 2008, tabletop wargames market should have grown to at least $500 million by 2013: under this scenario, non-GW companies had combined sales of maybe $65 million in 2008, which grew to $275 million in 2013 (GW's revenue was £134.6 million in 2013, about $225 million).

The numbers don't add up.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Backfire wrote:
First Star Wars miniature game came out in early '90s when GW was less than one-fifth of the size it currently is, even figuring in inflation. And there were many other miniatures companies back then, like Ral Partha etc. And this was BEFORE terrible prequels had nearly killed the SW franchise.

Yes, GW was smaller than today, but they were still bigger than those attempting SW franchise then. Warhammer had already been introduced in the space ten years by then.

So what? What does it matter if GW was bigger? They did not have any kind of stranglehold over the market. Certainly much smaller than say, 10 years later, or even now.

Now, maybe it was a poorly executed or marketed game, I don't know, never played it. But its demise had likely nothing to do with GW.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Huh? A company can still grow and expand their product base regardless of year. This is a general path of business, year has nothing at all to do with it. Warlord Games, PP, FFG are all EXPANDING their product ranges. Pretty much like GW did in the past and isn't doing now. Like it or not, half these companies owe their existence to GW retracting from certain spaces, like tabletop skirmish games.

By your point, Google should not exist today because they were two guys in a garage taking on powerhouses like DEC (AltaVista), Lycos (fastest IPO in history at that point) and others who had search engines. But Google produced a better product than those powerhouses who were too busy sitting on their laurels of size to worry about two kids in a garage. GW is acting the exact same way now and is ripe for "two kids in a garage" (i.e., the smaller companies) to take their market share (which by GW last period financials they are already doing).

Actually sorta you proved my point there. Google grew big from scratch because they were on emerging market. Tabletop wargames might have been an emerging market in the '80s, maybe even in the '90s, but they aren't that anymore. Back in 1983 the hobby had much less competition from computer games etc. There isn't similar growth potential available anymore.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Backfire wrote:
No, it does not. This is not a smartphone market we're talking about here. Tabletop armies don't get "obsolete" in few years.

Unless they are GW armies, who make a point of obsoleting/making useless certain units/weapon combinations every edition to keep the sales coming in.

If you don't like the new rules, you keep playing with the old ones. I don't like the new Tau codex because it obsoleted my Hammerheads, so I keep playing with the old Codex.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Backfire wrote:
No, longevity does not guarantee survival. Hovewer, you make the mistake assuming that people would flock into SW universum just because SW is just a such an awesome franchise. This is like saying that if there was a Star Wars RPG released, it would kill Warhammer, D&D etc. roleplaying franchises by the strength of its brand power: because lets face it, Star Wars is much bigger brand than D&D, much less any scifi RPG. The obvious fact that SW RPG or CCG or boardgames have not killed off competive brands (quite the contrary!) tells us that it is quite unlikely to happen in tabletop wargames either.

No mistake. Your making the assumption because someone failed in the past that FFG will not succeed now.

No, I am saying that the idea that Star Wars license is some sort of nuke which will wipe out competitors is preposterous. You assume that because 40k is a scifi game, people would flock out to play Star Wars game because Star Wars is much more popular and bigger scifi franchise.

But this has not happened with RPG's, strategy games or CCG's. Quite the contrary, existing titles actually outcompeted Star Wars in those niches. Why? Because people who played D&D or MtG or something played them because they wanted to play D&D or MtG etc. That the Star Wars was 'bigger' didn't matter. Because most people weren't interested in playing it. Same would happen if Star Wars wargame came out. Most of the people who play Warhammer would keep doing so, because they like Warhammer. Now, GW of course could (and maybe eventually does) turn people off from Warhammer, but presence of any specific competive game would play little to no role there.

 Wayshuba wrote:

This is GWs exact problem, they think competition has no effect on them. Competition ALWAYS has an effect on business, no matter the market or segment. If there was no competition for the gamer's dollar than GW could do just about anything they like because gamer's would have no better choice.

No they couldn't. This is a silly assumption that people play GW because there is no choice. There is always a choice: you quit. When I grew dissatisfied where MtG was going, did I move to other CCG's which were plenty in the market? No, I wasn't interested in any of them. I simply gave up and quit. I had many other hobbies, I wasn't dependant of CCG's. IF GW screws the pooch enough for me to give up 40k, then I will simply again probably just quit since there aren't any other miniatures games around which would interest me enough to start all over again. Again, we're not talking about PC market here. Warhammer is not Windows which people had to buy even if they hated it.

Backfire wrote:
..snip...

I'm done the discussion. I present facts, you counter with opinion, conjecture and assumptions. The only discussion with numbers, you base the entire market around what GWs numbers are and a gross assumption of what you believe their market share to be or to have been. Just FYI, there are hundreds of companies in the gaming space. Most very small, but still hundreds.

I will leave one example though - in CCGs MtG was just over $100 million in sales in 2008 and in 2013 it is just over $200 million. Seems Hasbro/WotC have been able to capture the trend of this market growth.

Let's just leave this at, let's see where FFG is in a year or two versus where GW is in a year or two. My bet, based on the actual facts is that FFG is going to be in a much better place while GW is struggling for relevance. One thing history teaches, is that when the collapse comes it happens fast. TSR was a strong brand for 30 years, then just two years of mis-steps and they were completely gone.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Backfire wrote:
..snip...

I'm done the discussion. I present facts, you counter with opinion, conjecture and assumptions. The only discussion with numbers, you base the entire market around what GWs numbers are and a gross assumption of what you believe their market share to be or to have been. Just FYI, there are hundreds of companies in the gaming space. Most very small, but still hundreds.

So what, if there is 200 companies with revenue of $100k per year (I doubt, btw), that's still only $20 million in total sales. Lets quote your own numbers:
"... there is another report from TempleCon that PP admitted to approximate revenue numbers. $10-$11 million in 2010 and $16-$17 million in 2013."

So if this is true, PP had less than $10 million in total revenue in 2009, when ICv2 reported it outsold WHFB. If this is correct, WHFB would have made less than 5% of GW's sales in 2009 - blatantly absurd!

And whereas 60 to 70% growth over 3 years is very nice (if true), it is still a far cry from HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS needed to make up the supposed 100% growth. And PP is supposed to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest non-GW players on the business. Where is this mystical growth coming from?

The only, absolutely only possible explanation is that there have been no growth so big. And that ICv2 lists are based on incomplete information (they are limited to US and IIRC do not include GW stores at all, for example). Which we of course already knew, but just making it clear.

So, if you got hard facts - as you claimed - this might be the moment to bring them out.

Hey Wayshuba - I'd like to kindly remind you that the ICV2 numbers don't include any of GWs direct sales from their we store or their B&M stores.

Those two impact overall sales numbers for GW more than any other game, as none of the others are doing a bulk of their sales directly to the consumer.

That's a big reason the ICV2 numbers are to be taken with copious spoonfuls of salt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wayshuba wrote:

Backfire wrote:
..snip...

I'm done the discussion. I present facts, you counter with opinion, conjecture and assumptions. The only discussion with numbers, you base the entire market around what GWs numbers are and a gross assumption of what you believe their market share to be or to have been. Just FYI, there are hundreds of companies in the gaming space. Most very small, but still hundreds.

You're throwing out nearly as much conjecture and assumption as he is, my friend.

Let's just leave this at, let's see where FFG is in a year or two versus where GW is in a year or two. My bet, based on the actual facts is that FFG is going to be in a much better place while GW is struggling for relevance. One thing history teaches, is that when the collapse comes it happens fast. TSR was a strong brand for 30 years, then just two years of mis-steps and they were completely gone.

Haha. Okay. I'd be willing to bet GW sells more stuff in the Horus heresy series than FFG sells in total over the next two years. That property alone is enough to keep them alive and relevant.