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.

 cincydooley wrote:
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.

I understand. See my earlier posts regarding numerous sources for market research. I understand ICv2 are US and to be used as only one source. But, they also represent those in the largest gaming market in the world, and frequently, when compared to other sources, give a fairly good representation of trends and markets.

Some of the following for thought:
- Numerous market studies showing double-digit growth over the last five consecutive years.
- The CEO that is subject of the OP and the interviewer commenting on the tremendous growth.
- Hasbro doubling sales of MtG over that same period.
- Several game manufacturers, FFG one of them, commenting on the tremendous growth in the market in the last five years (in other words, it is VERY noticeable)
- Convention vendor floors at gaming cons selling out in record time (see GenCon)
- Several distributors/game resellers reporting double digit growth (I even believe Wayland games commented on their growth on dakka)
- GW reporting a double-digit decline.

One other bit of info, that makes this growth less mysterious. In the US alone, the following generational population segments explain why the markets have almost doubled.
Gen X (those growing up in the 80s, early 90s) - US population of 36 million
Gen Y - US population of 74 million
Millenials - US population of 72 million

Plain and simple, the market has grow because the targeted population has doubled since the 80s and 90s. This is why new customer growth is so important to companies nowadays.

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

Please point to specific examples of conjecture in my previous post where I cited some example market data.

 cincydooley wrote:
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.

You already lost this one. GW reports that all of FW accounts for about $7 million in revenue. FFG is jsut over the $40 million mark. In 2 and a half months FFG sells what FW does the entire year.

And further, you can't simply make the assumption that because the very easy entry spaceship game is doing well that a mass battle or even skirmish game would do well. We've seen plenty from LoTR that a blockbuster franchise does not automatically guarantee a wildly successful game.

Cincy - Wayshuba has access to subscription information about sales that he isn't permitted to share, so while he may be posting as if it where his opinion or making leaps of logic, it is fair to assume that those leaps are well grounded and the opinion well informed.

Backfire has no such qualifications as far as I'm aware, and reading the two, as someone who is at least slightly qualified in this area, I know who's opinion I'd consider closest to the truth.

 Wayshuba wrote:


You already lost this one. GW reports that all of FW accounts for about $7 million in revenue. FFG is near the $40 million mark. In 2 and a half months FFG sells what FW does the entire year.

Where is the $40mm figure from?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
Cincy - Wayshuba has access to subscription information about sales that he isn't permitted to share, so while he may be posting as if it where his opinion or making leaps of logic, it is fair to assume that those leaps are well grounded and the opinion well informed. .

I must have missed that in his posts. My bad. I still take very little stock in the icv2 numbers because they're hardly representative of all of GWs sales outlets.

That was my point exactly, which is where he qualified where his info came from

I'll specify that I'm not disputing that GW is losing market share or that other games are growing. If you don't include FW I've bought considerably more non GW in the past quarter than I have from GW. With that being said, I simply don't believe that WHFB sells so little that it drops out of the top 5 overall, if only because of sheer market volume. In that regard, I just think the ICv2 numbers leave out way too much to be believed. Are they perhaps a reasonable trend gauge? Absolutely. In that regard could it mean WHFb is selling less? Sure, I'd buy that. But again, without the inclusion of GWs sales streams in their data, I just don't think the ICv2 stuff can possibly be that valid.

 cincydooley wrote:


You already lost this one. GW reports that all of FW accounts for about $7 million in revenue. FFG is near the $40 million mark. In 2 and a half months FFG sells what FW does the entire year.

Where is the $40mm figure from?

What's the reason for the 3-4x function of hoovers (purely a curiosity question, not a validity one )?

BTW, CHS had revenue over 100k per year and growing. The company started at something like 30k in 2008 and was up to over 100k in 2012. CHS is not exactly the biggest, baddest player in the market. In terms of revenue, 100k is not that big in this market.

We happen to know CHS's revenue from the public trial.

 cincydooley wrote:
What's the reason for the 3-4x function of hoovers (purely a curiosity question, not a validity one )?

Usually because this is gleaned from available public records (such as tax returns) and isn't as readily available as public company information. But this is just a guess. I've used this source for so long, that it has become second nature to utilize that rule of thumb formula.

 azreal13 wrote:
Cincy - Wayshuba has access to subscription information about sales that he isn't permitted to share, so while he may be posting as if it where his opinion or making leaps of logic, it is fair to assume that those leaps are well grounded and the opinion well informed.

Backfire has no such qualifications as far as I'm aware, and reading the two, as someone who is at least slightly qualified in this area, I know who's opinion I'd consider closest to the truth.

Wayshuba claims to have massive amount of information and expertise on the area, yet he seems to be unaware just how not representive ICv2 listings are about overall market situation. Missing such a basic factor does not exactly lend to credibility.

I have absolutely no qualifications in this matter whatsoever, yet I have easily outdebated him and when I pointed out how the numbers do not match what he claims, he quit the argument. Make of that what you want.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:


You already lost this one. GW reports that all of FW accounts for about $7 million in revenue. FFG is near the $40 million mark. In 2 and a half months FFG sells what FW does the entire year.

Where is the $40mm figure from?

This news article mentions that FFG had revenue of $12.9 million in 2008, growing to $30 million in 2013. $40 million might be a tad high, but probably close to ballpark.

However, they have dozens of titles, and only few are tabletop wargames. FW probably outsells FFG in that department quite comfortably.

From a neutral spectator, you haven't out debated him at all.

weeble1000 wrote:
BTW, CHS had revenue over 100k per year and growing. The company started at something like 30k in 2008 and was up to over 100k in 2012. CHS is not exactly the biggest, baddest player in the market. In terms of revenue, 100k is not that big in this market.

No it's not. But that sorta the point - for small companies to make up the kind of growth Wayshuba claims, you need not one, not dozens, not hundreds but literally thousands of companies like CHS.

I'm sure there are dozens of companies in $100k - $1 million annual revenue ballpark, probably over a hundred when you figure in Kickstarters etc...but thousands? Umm...no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wayshuba wrote:

Some of the following for thought:
- Numerous market studies showing double-digit growth over the last five consecutive years.
- The CEO that is subject of the OP and the interviewer commenting on the tremendous growth.
- Hasbro doubling sales of MtG over that same period.
- Several game manufacturers, FFG one of them, commenting on the tremendous growth in the market in the last five years (in other words, it is VERY noticeable)
- Convention vendor floors at gaming cons selling out in record time (see GenCon)
- Several distributors/game resellers reporting double digit growth (I even believe Wayland games commented on their growth on dakka)
- GW reporting a double-digit decline.

However, MtG is not a tabletop wargame, most of the stuff FFG makes are not tabletop wargames so the relevance of quoting them to support your case is extremely limited since GW business is almost exclusively on tabletop wargames. You might just as well quote say, car sales.

Talking about CCG sales, this article has more complete information. Overall it shows decent growth (minor drop because of recession), however sales of physical cards seem to be on decline.

Backfire wrote:
Wayshuba claims to have massive amount of information and expertise on the area, yet he seems to be unaware just how not representive ICv2 listings are about overall market situation. Missing such a basic factor does not exactly lend to credibility.

I have absolutely no qualifications in this matter whatsoever, yet I have easily outdebated him and when I pointed out how the numbers do not match what he claims, he quit the argument. Make of that what you want.

I quit the debate because it is pointless. You have a bias and will grab assumptions as needed to fit that bias. Throughout this thread, I have given reference to information that can be shared publicly and, where it can't, I have given reference to the other sources of information should anyone wish to do the homework themselves. Many of those sources correlate to one another and can be observed through many of the trends I covered. My discussion has been consistent and referenced to proof (or where the information can be found where I am unable to share that publicly).

Secondly, on the numbers don't match what I claim (which is not a claim but an assertion of the facts pulled from various sources), that is hogwash. You put ALL your assumption on the performance of GW alone, including a wild stab at what their market share was. You share no facts, just some self-done math and dismissals of things you don't believe to be true. Fair enough.

That is why I am done with the debate.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:
However, MtG is not a tabletop wargame, most of the stuff FFG makes are not tabletop wargames so the relevance of quoting them to support your case is extremely limited since GW business is almost exclusively on tabletop wargames. You might just as well quote say, car sales.

I quoted that as an example because the macro-segment is "tabletop leisure games". After that you dig into the micro-segments for specifics. I hate to tell you this, but automobile is not in the tabletop leisure game segment.

Secondly, macro-segments are important for where companies battle for consumer share of wallet (which is why every single research company in the world groups things into macro-segments). So, for example, even though 40k is sci-fi, it still competes against other spending someone may do on, say fantasy.

As an example, when you walk into your FLGS, do they not carry GW in addition to RPGs, CCGs, board games, et al? Well, if you have $200 in your pocket and you decide to spend $100 on a board game and buy $100 in MtG cards, is that not $200 GW did not capture at the point of sale? They do, in fact, compete for the same share of wallet.

Backfire wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
BTW, CHS had revenue over 100k per year and growing. The company started at something like 30k in 2008 and was up to over 100k in 2012. CHS is not exactly the biggest, baddest player in the market. In terms of revenue, 100k is not that big in this market.

But that sorta the point - for small companies to make up the kind of growth Wayshuba claims, you need not one, not dozens, not hundreds but literally thousands of companies like CHS.
...

However, MtG is not a tabletop wargame, most of the stuff FFG makes are not tabletop wargames so the relevance of quoting them to support your case is extremely limited since GW business is almost exclusively on tabletop wargames. You might just as well quote say, car sales.

CCGs and LCGs are table top games. It is not fair at all to say that you might as well quote car sales. There's plenty of overlap between table top wargame, board game, card game, and collectible miniatures game customers. As the market grows, the lines between these segments have continued to blur.

Just look at miniatures-heavy dungeon crawl board games, for example, or boxed set wargames like Deadzone or Dust: Tactics. One thing that FFG is doing in particular is spreading popular brands across these various platforms, encouraging greater overlap. One of the big players in the miniatures market, Reaper, makes the bulk of its revenue from selling miniatures to RPG players. In fact, of the people I know who bought into the Bones KS campaigns, almost all of them are primarily RPG players who, now that they suddenly have hundreds of miniatures, are starting to develop a deeper interest in miniatures games and the hobby of miniatures games.

X-Wing: The Miniatures Game straddles lots of categories and has a broad range of appeal. FFG is very good at marketing its products to a broad customer base.

In short, the distinctions you are stressing are becoming less and less significant as the market develops.

 Wayshuba wrote:

I quit the debate because it is pointless. You have a bias and will grab assumptions as needed to fit that bias. Throughout this thread, I have given reference to information that can be shared publicly and, where it can't, I have given reference to the other sources of information should anyone wish to do the homework themselves. Many of those sources correlate to one another and can be observed through many of the trends I covered. My discussion has been consistent and referenced to proof (or where the information can be found where I am unable to share that publicly).

Secondly, on the numbers don't match what I claim (which is not a claim but an assertion of the facts pulled from various sources), that is hogwash. You put ALL your assumption on the performance of GW alone, including a wild stab at what their market share was. You share no facts, just some self-done math and dismissals of things you don't believe to be true. Fair enough.

I was making a speculative EXAMPLE. Example which showed that no matter how you twist the numbers, your claims cannot be true. Not. a. chance.

I do not claim to know what GW's market share is. I assume it must be quite signifant since their closer competitors are like 10% of their size, and there are very few companies even that big. Probably something like 30 to 80%. Here's the catch: for tabletop miniatures market to DOUBLE, when the biggest player on the field is largely stagnant, all the other companies must MORE than double their sales over that period. How much more, depends on how big GW's market share was in the beginning of the observed period. If it was very dominant (like 80%) then non-GW companies must have had grown by factor of eight. If GW was not quite so dominant, then relative increase for other companies is smaller, but absolute increase become larger. Since the most prominent non-GW miniatures company (Privateer Press) has increased their sales by like $10 million over that period, it seems very doubtful this is the case.

And then we have in ICv2 listings from 2009 already GW not dominating the sales except with 40k. WHFB is either 3rd or 4th, no other GW games are in the list (LOTR, Blood Bowl, BFG etc which at that point were still moderately popular). The only way this was possible was that if 40k was already massively dominant in GW's revenue (like 95% or so). However, if that was the case (and I am pretty sure most people will agree it was not, and is not even today), WHFB would have dropped from the listings years ago...

As you can see, it doesn't add up. I could well believe that non-GW segment of the market has doubled since 2008, at least in the US. Depending on how big it was in the beginning of the observed period. If it was very small, it is very easy to believe. However, the whole market doubling - especially when you figure in how unpopular hobbies which require signifant amount of handwork are with today's kids - seems extremely dubious.

Backfire wrote:
Talking about CCG sales has more complete information. Overall it shows decent growth (minor drop because of recession), however sales of physical cards seem to be on decline.

And yet, overall, the micro-segment of all CCGs shows a 43% growth over that period. Thanks for supporting my point in the debate.

And it does add up. You are looking at two examples out of many in comparing against GW. Wyrd Miniatures, Corvus Belli, Warlord (who has had significant growth with Bolt Action), Battlefront, PP, FFG, Mantic Games and many others have shown this growth. Not to mention, the MASSIVE growth in ONE YEAR ALONE, of expenditures on KickStarter in this segment. I mean Sedition Wars - one single tabletop game, did almost $1 million alone, Dreadball did almost three-quarters of a million, DeadZone $1.2 million - this list goes on and on).

Edit: Here, this gives an idea of the massive growth of spending in the tabletop segment on Kickstarter alone over one year (which, just for quick reference is 540% growth YoY on board and card games!!!)



Lastly, and then I am done, on the subject of miniature games, there has been numerous sources of reported double-digit growth (see my myriad of posts above) in the segment. While not as spectacular as CCGs or board games, it is still double-digit growth at a time when GW is showing a double-digit decline.

 Wayshuba wrote:

As an example, when you walk into your FLGS, do they not carry GW in addition to RPGs, CCGs, board games, et al? Well, if you have $200 in your pocket and you decide to spend $100 on a board game and buy $100 in MtG cards, is that not $200 GW did not capture at the point of sale? They do, in fact, compete for the same share of wallet.

Only marginally. Most people, when they walk into FLGS, have pretty good picture already what they want. Comics, RPG's, boardgames, miniatures etc. Board games are very wide category: something like Carcassone has extremely broad appeal. By contrast, RPG's and tabletop miniature wargames - and some extent, CCG's, have much narrower appeal. Very few people who walk into a store wanting to buy Carcassone or Settlers of Catan or whatnot, are interested in buying an RPG or a wargame or an MtG starter deck. Most MtG players don't give a toss about wargames or roleplaying games etc. so no matter how well made a game, they don't care.

Now, some boardgames indeed do have overlap - something like Descent, for example. But those games are a minority.

Hence, it is pointless to make statements like "tabletop market is growing but GW is not, hence GW is doing something wrong" when GW occupies a highly specialized niche largely separate from the segments where the growth is actually happening.

Now, I do think that GW is doing quite a many things wrong, but the idea that we're in middle of some kind of miniature wargames boom which GW is missing, is not supported by any evidence I've seen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wayshuba wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Talking about CCG sales has more complete information. Overall it shows decent growth (minor drop because of recession), however sales of physical cards seem to be on decline.

And yet, overall, the micro-segment of all CCGs shows a 43% growth over that period. Thanks for supporting my point in the debate.

Yes, it is obvious that GW is missing the digital miniatures boom...

 Wayshuba wrote:

Lastly, and then I am done, on the subject of miniature games, there has been numerous sources of reported double-digit growth (see my myriad of posts above) in the segment. While not as spectacular as CCGs or board games, it is still double-digit growth at a time when GW is showing a double-digit decline.

I am sure there is. When you start from near zero it's pretty obvious that proportional growth can be pretty good. I think this point has been made multiple times in this thread already so I fail to see what advantage it brings to mention it again.

As it is, in absolute terms, GW grew more between 2008 and 2013 than Privateer Press or FFG.

Wow.

Not a single supported fact or statement close to being anything other than sheer conjecture or opinion and you really asserted that you had "out debated" someone?

Kindly support your statement that "most people" know what they want when they walk into ANY shop, FLGS, supermarket, anything.

 azreal13 wrote:
Wow.

Not a single supported fact or statement close to being anything other than sheer conjecture or opinion and you really asserted that you had "out debated" someone?

Well, if you disagree with a specific point, feel free to chime in.

I'm sure you wouldn't make this kind of statement if you didn't have hard evidence that I was wrong. So, lets hear it where you can improve over Wayshuba who didn't want to disclose his numbers.

Backfire wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Wow.

Not a single supported fact or statement close to being anything other than sheer conjecture or opinion and you really asserted that you had "out debated" someone?

Well, if you disagree with a specific point, feel free to chime in.

I'm sure you wouldn't make this kind of statement if you didn't have hard evidence that I was wrong. So, lets hear it where you can improve over Wayshuba who didn't want to disclose his numbers.

I gave the numbers where available publicly, and reference to where the numbers can be found when they cannot be posted publicly. You gave one set of numbers which, just so happened, to correlate my point.

And to show how quick a small company can chew into this market, look at these two - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1700755582/myth-0 and https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1700755582/mercs-recon. Almost $1.5M on two titles from a small publisher alone. And that is just what they did on KickStarter.

You chose to dismiss the numbers. That is fine. I work in facts.

You've missed the bit where I asked you to support your unsupported (and, in the absence of a telepathy machine or the mother of all surveys, unsupportable) assertion.

I neither said I agreed or disagreed with what you said, I just asked you to provide some evidentiary support.

 Wayshuba wrote:

And it does add up. You are looking at two examples out of many in comparing against GW. Wyrd Miniatures, Corvus Belli, Warlord (who has had significant growth with Bolt Action), Battlefront, PP, FFG, Mantic Games and many others have shown this growth. Not to mention, the MASSIVE growth in ONE YEAR ALONE, of expenditures on KickStarter in this segment. I mean Sedition Wars - one single tabletop game, did almost $1 million alone, Dreadball did almost three-quarters of a million, DeadZone $1.2 million - this list goes on and on).

Edit: Here, this gives an idea of the massive growth of spending in the tabletop segment on Kickstarter alone over one year.

Am I supposed to be impressed? ENTIRE tabletop segment there was about $16 million in 2012 - and that includes board games and CCGs and RPG's...If generously we assume that one-third of that went to miniatures that's little over $5 million...and lets not forget that some of those pledges were by estabilished companies who just used KS as an alternative marketing channel, thus it is uncertain just how much net growth it produced. Probably some, since it is a good marketing channel.

It is also lovely how you list nearly all big players on the field (whose combined revenue is probably not even half of GW) and then close "...and many more". Sure, there are more, but few of them are noteworthy names (like Spartan Games). Again, not a shred of evidence for this mythical doubling of the segment since 2008.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wayshuba wrote:

I gave the numbers where available publicly.

Yes you did. And none of them supported your position. None. In fact, they overwhelmingly showed that the absolute size of the companies you mentioned is too small to produce growth of the kind of magnitude you claim. As I made clear in my examples, which you did not attempt to show wrong.

Backfire wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

And it does add up. You are looking at two examples out of many in comparing against GW. Wyrd Miniatures, Corvus Belli, Warlord (who has had significant growth with Bolt Action), Battlefront, PP, FFG, Mantic Games and many others have shown this growth. Not to mention, the MASSIVE growth in ONE YEAR ALONE, of expenditures on KickStarter in this segment. I mean Sedition Wars - one single tabletop game, did almost $1 million alone, Dreadball did almost three-quarters of a million, DeadZone $1.2 million - this list goes on and on).

Edit: Here, this gives an idea of the massive growth of spending in the tabletop segment on Kickstarter alone over one year.

Am I supposed to be impressed? ENTIRE tabletop segment there was about $16 million in 2012 - and that includes board games and CCGs and RPG's...If generously we assume that one-third of that went to miniatures that's little over $5 million...and lets not forget that some of those pledges were by estabilished companies who just used KS as an alternative marketing channel, thus it is uncertain just how much net growth it produced. Probably some, since it is a good marketing channel.

It is also lovely how you list nearly all big players on the field (whose combined revenue is probably not even half of GW) and then close "...and many more". Sure, there are more, but few of them are noteworthy names (like Spartan Games). Again, not a shred of evidence for this mythical doubling of the segment since 2008.

I give up. That is 2012 numbers (2013 not available yet) and yet, chart after chart after chart is showing things going up and to the right, while GW goes down and to the right.

I'm completely done now with this debate. More than enough evidence has been presented or made available to prove this. But perhaps you could also take the time to read near the end of the interview referenced in the OP where both the interviewer and the CEO themselves discuss the unbelievable market growth overall.

 azreal13 wrote:
You've missed the bit where I asked you to support your unsupported (and, in the absence of a telepathy machine or the mother of all surveys, unsupportable) assertion.

Well, if you insist, it is an observation of my own shopping habits and what I have seen on my fellow citizens. I'm sure there are people who just walk into FLGS with a wad of cash and just pick what looks like interesting, but I've seen only couple of examples of this kind of shopping behaviour and never done anything like that myself. Maybe it's different elsewhere?

Backfire wrote:


Yes you did. And none of them supported your position. None. In fact, they overwhelmingly showed that the absolute size of the companies you mentioned is too small to produce growth of the kind of magnitude you claim. As I made clear in my examples, which you did not attempt to show wrong.

I provided you plenty of references on the ICv2 regarding overall market growth and segment performance. I have provided references to other market research sources that correlate with the ICv2. You provided a chart of CCGs which shows an overall 43% growth. Kickstarter has had significant growth as well. Even the topic of this thread notes the market growth in the interview.

You, however, have chosen to dismiss all that and then accuse me of providing no supporting position?

I am definitely done 100% with this pointless debate now.

Backfire wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
You've missed the bit where I asked you to support your unsupported (and, in the absence of a telepathy machine or the mother of all surveys, unsupportable) assertion.

Well, if you insist, it is an observation of my own shopping habits and what I have seen on my fellow citizens. I'm sure there are people who just walk into FLGS with a wad of cash and just pick what looks like interesting, but I've seen only couple of examples of this kind of shopping behaviour and never done anything like that myself. Maybe it's different elsewhere?

Exactly.

So in no way does your experience qualify you to cite that "most people" in a multi million dollar, worldwide market behave in a certain way. Your experiences are valid, but only in a very limited, anecdotal way, it is the very definition of YMMV.

 Wayshuba wrote:


I give up. That is 2012 numbers (2013 not available yet) and yet, chart after chart after chart is showing things going up and to the right, while GW goes down and to the right.

None of which is relevant to the specific claim that GW's market segment has doubled since 2008. All you have demonstrated is something which was never disputed in the first place - that lots of smaller companies have grown somewhat.

In absolute terms, GW's revenue grew about 40 million dollars between 2008 and 2013. That is more than FFG grew in same period (though of course part of the 'growth' is inflation). Of course, their last half-year was pretty bad and probably next one is no improvement, based on their recent release (..."broadly in line with board's expectations blah blah").





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wayshuba wrote:

You provided a chart of CCGs which shows an overall 43% growth.

Yes, I freely admit that GW's CCG sales are very stagnant. No disagreement there.

Why do you felt that it is relevant to draw in CCG sales is beyond me. I see plenty of kids picking up card games. I see few kids picking up wargames - GW or otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:

Exactly.

So in no way does your experience qualify you to cite that "most people" in a multi million dollar, worldwide market behave in a certain way.

Perhaps, but until better behavioral models surface, it seems like a reasonable working hypothesis, no?

No, the sample is too small, and confirmation bias will ruin your objectivity.

Backfire wrote:

Now, I do think that GW is doing quite a many things wrong, but the idea that we're in middle of some kind of miniature wargames boom which GW is missing, is not supported by any evidence I've seen.

Privateer Press, Mantic, Corvus Belli (Infinity), Wargames Factory (and Dreamforge Games), Raging Heroes, Perry Brothers, Chapterhouse Studios, Kromlech, Puppets War, MaxMini, Spartan Games, Wyrd, Hawk Wargames, Warmill, Antenociti's Workshop, CNC Miniature Scenery, Sarissa, Warsenal, Micro Arts Studios, Secret Weapon Miniatures, and countless other miniatures/wargaming manufacturers that have all seen their businesses grow significantly in the past few years while GW has remained stagnant (even with rising prices and cutting costs), would like to have a word with you.