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.

Thanks! I've never thought of this before, but... what does Exalting actually do? You can't even see the number of Exalts a given post has, like on Facepunch or something. What's the point? The only information I can find is from 2013 or earlier, saying things like "they're planning things".

Whoever has the most exalts is the secret king of dakka.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let us compare the cost of GW plastic figures with another company's.

GW original Beaky 1989 = £10 / 30 = 33p each.

GW modern non-Beaky 2014 = £25 / 10 = £2.50 each.

Perry Bros modern ACW 2014 = £20 / 36 = 55p each.

Those Perry models do not count because they are not a part of "the hobby"

Using SF models; wargames factory shock troopers are $21.95 for 18 figures =$1.22 each about in English currency £13.1/18= 73p each.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Inflation rate of about 8% per year if it had been constant.

Well.. it doesn't take an abacus to figure out we have had substantial inflation over the past decade. Much more than 3%. As I've mentioned in other threads, all inflation numbers are give hedonic adjustments which cause the inflation rate to be understated. They pretty much do this in every country as a way to reduce the real value of their unfunded debt obligations since so many different benefits and contracts are tied to that economic measure.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpihqaitem.htm

Yes. Last decade has had more substantial inflation. Where as the 90s had fairly low inflation. Net effect, in the example given, was that it averages about 3% over the time period.

Most inflation calculators, even for Britian, will give this change (33 pence/model in 1988 equivalent to 77 pence/model today).

Fits a bit with a rule of thumb I learned in my college economics class (back in 1985 mind you) - all prices/salaries/costs double every 20 years. While not a tried and true formula by any measure, it was simply a general observation one could use for future trending.

On pricing, compare this with this

The first one is a warpig on a 50mm base, on a sprue approximately twice the size of a standard plastic GW character sprue and about 15 pieces. Great detail, blissful to assemble and almost no flash. Made by a small US company and imported.

The 2nd one is a minor character in a 25mm base with 9 pieces, made by the largest manufacturer in the industry and not imported.

So why does the first have an RRP £1.50 less than the 2nd?

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let us compare the cost of GW plastic figures with another company's.

GW original Beaky 1989 = £10 / 30 = 33p each.

GW modern non-Beaky 2014 = £25 / 10 = £2.50 each.

Perry Bros modern ACW 2014 = £20 / 36 = 55p each.

Those Perry models do not count because they are not a part of "the hobby"

Using SF models; wargames factory shock troopers are $21.95 for 18 figures =$1.22 each about in English currency £13.1/18= 73p each.

We can even go with the high end - a company making plastic minis with the all the "options". DreamForge Eisenkern Stormtroopers $35.00 for 20 figures=$1.75 figure each or £1.04 each.

So we have Perry at 55p a figure (355% less than GW), Eisenkern Stormtroopers at £1.75 a figure (43% less than GW) and good ol' GW at £2.50 figure (for Space Marines). Add something newer like Scions at £4 a figure (for better comparison to the Eisenkern Stormtroopers, even though the Eisenkorn kit is superior in quality to GW in every way) and you have GW at 128% more for Scions than Stormtroopers for a LESSER quality item.

Here is the difference in the above that is most strikingly in contrast with GWs miss-guided beliefs. In the 90s and very early 2000s you would not have had this comparison to make as the previous two did not exist. This is why GW could get away with charging what they did because there weren't many alternatives for gamers. Now we have options and it is getting even harder for GW to justify their insane pricing versus others on the market. So it is not that gamers "will pay whatever for the best quality" - it is that gamers did not have a choice in the past (or a rather very limited one) and now they do.

 Wayshuba wrote:
Yes. Last decade has had more substantial inflation. Where as the 90s had fairly low inflation. Net effect, in the example given, was that it averages about 3% over the time period.

Most inflation calculators, even for Britian, will give this change (33 pence/model in 1988 equivalent to 77 pence/model today).

Fits a bit with a rule of thumb I learned in my college economics class (back in 1985 mind you) - all prices/salaries/costs double every 20 years. While not a tried and true formula by any measure, it was simply a general observation one could use for future trending.

Sorry.. I just don't think that you are looking at the right numbers. Officially we only had an average of 2.37% inflation over that period and a 60% cumulative inflation rate. Yet wages doubled. So everyone should be richer right? Not when you take into account the loss of purchasing power. Since the year 2000, Food and energy prices have easily doubled (in most cases tripled). Insurance has more than doubled. Real estate has doubled.

The CPI is constructed based on..

All items
Food
Food at home
Food away from home
Energy
Energy commodities
Gasoline (all types)
Fuel oil
Energy services
Electricity
Utility (piped) gas service
All items less food and energy
Commodities less food and energy
commodities
New vehicles
Used cars and trucks
Apparel
Medical care commodities
Services less energy services
Shelter
Transportation services
Medical care services

I find it insane that anyone would argue that we only had 3% inflation over the past 20 years. The proof is in the pudding as they say..

Here in the states 1/3 of grocery store workers are on food stamps.. http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/08/6467176/study-grocery-workers-struggle.html

1/2 of all college graduates are supported by their parents.. http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/half-of-all-college-graduates-still-relying-on-parents

1/6 men in the USA don't have a job http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/1-8-american-men-between-ages-25-54-are-not-working_793938.html

1/5 children in the USA live in poverty http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/one-out-of-every-five-u-s-children-live-in-poverty

When your food, energy, insurance and shelter (cost of living) has more than doubled and your income hasn't kept pace, it sucks. People can argue the causes for this, but it's silly not to acknowledge it exists and impacts our decisions. So when GW does price increases, I see it as a way for them to maintain their margins. I don't see it as a way for them to get every last penny out of the consumer and they are being consistent with what i'm seeing happen in the rest of the global economy. Whether or not I can afford their product isn't as much a function of their prices, but just another way to measure the loss of my purchasing power.

There are plenty of areas where GW can improve their relations with the community but I don't think that is essentially for their survival at this time because I don't see real competition out there yet.

Derek has a definite point in that the "official" inflation rate is far, far below the actual rate of inflation experienced by the average person.

 Wayshuba wrote:

Here is the difference in the above that is most strikingly in contrast with GWs miss-guided beliefs. In the 90s and very early 2000s you would not have had this comparison to make as the previous two did not exist. This is why GW could get away with charging what they did because there weren't many alternatives for gamers. Now we have options and it is getting even harder for GW to justify their insane pricing versus others on the market. So it is not that gamers "will pay whatever for the best quality" - it is that gamers did not have a choice in the past (or a rather very limited one) and now they do.

Funnily enough, lots of people remember early '2000s as an era when GW minis were at most affordable. They were cranking out lots of plastic, then came starter sets which were very cheap and contained large bunch of minis (Skull Pass was what, $60 for 100+ minis and loads of other stuff).

IIRC it was around 2008-2009 when they began reboxing their infantry to smaller boxes (which resulted to big price hike per mini).

Quite often they were differant kits though.

Also good point made by DerekA as well.

Backfire wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

Here is the difference in the above that is most strikingly in contrast with GWs miss-guided beliefs. In the 90s and very early 2000s you would not have had this comparison to make as the previous two did not exist. This is why GW could get away with charging what they did because there weren't many alternatives for gamers. Now we have options and it is getting even harder for GW to justify their insane pricing versus others on the market. So it is not that gamers "will pay whatever for the best quality" - it is that gamers did not have a choice in the past (or a rather very limited one) and now they do.

Funnily enough, lots of people remember early '2000s as an era when GW minis were at most affordable. They were cranking out lots of plastic, then came starter sets which were very cheap and contained large bunch of minis (Skull Pass was what, $60 for 100+ minis and loads of other stuff).

IIRC it was around 2008-2009 when they began reboxing their infantry to smaller boxes (which resulted to big price hike per mini).

One thing GW did that never made sense to me was this: I get and fully support making your normal infantry guys in plastic, because they are mass produced and mass purchased. I never got why they changed *everything* to plastic, including single character models. Those were fine as metal, or hell I could have seen them in resin (but then again, Finecrap...). Going all plastic for everything just seemed, and still seems, silly. Like what was their actual intent with it? To better position themselves as a toy company, since to my knowledge no toy company has metal pieces? The decision to go all plastic just seems weird.

It should have been like plastic regiments at a reasonable price (about $30ish seems right to me, comparable with other companies) with command options and the like, one box = one unit not this crap you have now where for WHFB it's 2-3 boxes per unit, and then metal or resin (real FW style resin) for things like character models, some vehicle kits (think like the variants. Plastic main body with resin additions) and the like.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

Here is the difference in the above that is most strikingly in contrast with GWs miss-guided beliefs. In the 90s and very early 2000s you would not have had this comparison to make as the previous two did not exist. This is why GW could get away with charging what they did because there weren't many alternatives for gamers. Now we have options and it is getting even harder for GW to justify their insane pricing versus others on the market. So it is not that gamers "will pay whatever for the best quality" - it is that gamers did not have a choice in the past (or a rather very limited one) and now they do.

Funnily enough, lots of people remember early '2000s as an era when GW minis were at most affordable. They were cranking out lots of plastic, then came starter sets which were very cheap and contained large bunch of minis (Skull Pass was what, $60 for 100+ minis and loads of other stuff).

IIRC it was around 2008-2009 when they began reboxing their infantry to smaller boxes (which resulted to big price hike per mini).

One thing GW did that never made sense to me was this: I get and fully support making your normal infantry guys in plastic, because they are mass produced and mass purchased. I never got why they changed *everything* to plastic, including single character models. Those were fine as metal, or hell I could have seen them in resin (but then again, Finecrap...). Going all plastic for everything just seemed, and still seems, silly. Like what was their actual intent with it? To better position themselves as a toy company, since to my knowledge no toy company has metal pieces? The decision to go all plastic just seems weird.

It should have been like plastic regiments at a reasonable price (about $30ish seems right to me, comparable with other companies) with command options and the like, one box = one unit not this crap you have now where for WHFB it's 2-3 boxes per unit, and then metal or resin (real FW style resin) for things like character models, some vehicle kits (think like the variants. Plastic main body with resin additions) and the like.

Material Costs in Metal represent a much more significant proportion of the costs than for plastic. Price volatility in metals mean that the costs were highly variable.

I guess they think that in long term, plastic characters make sense since they are so much more production-efficient than metal or resin. So in short term it is uneconomical, but when the model is in production for 15 years or more, it makes a saving compared to metal/resin.
Also, there are lot of people in the hobby who dislike metal and might skip a model entirely if it's metal. By contrast, only very few grognards would pass a model simply because it's plastic and not metal (although more people might do that because of the price). So a plastic mini has a wider appeal, if the sculpt is equal quality (admittably, they aren't always).

It's really curious what they are going to do with characters, though. I can't believe they ever plan to have every named character in plastic, that'd be insane, but they clearly aren't going back to metal, and Finecast seems to be slowly on its way out too...
Maybe at one point they just transfer all low-scale production sculpts to ForgeWorld and GW proper concentrates on mass producing plastic.

One thing I notice that seems to make me dislike models:

All plastic models fall over, bounce and blow around: I like them heavy.

If it is metal, all is well.

If it is plastic with the round base I glue / epoxy a fender washer into the bottom.

If it is plastic and uses a "slotta" base I HATE them.

There are few good ways to get a hunk of metal to fit in that 1/3 to 2/3 split unless you get bolt cutters or a disk cutter to cut up a fender washer to fit.

I have tried "lead shot" but do not like using the stuff.

On the difficulty of getting characters out, I think sending to Forgeworld to do their magic and re-release in resin would be the way to go as the "short term fix".

If I remember correctly, the reason for the switch from metal to plastic wasn't driven so much by the "high" price of metal base materials, but by the volatility of the metals market. Prices bounced all over the place over relatively short time periods, making it difficult to plan for production.

Saldiven wrote:
If I remember correctly, the reason for the switch from metal to plastic wasn't driven so much by the "high" price of metal base materials, but by the volatility of the metals market. Prices bounced all over the place over relatively short time periods, making it difficult to plan for production.

Given that plastic is made from oil, materials prices are not that stable anyway.

 Talizvar wrote:
One thing I notice that seems to make me dislike models:

All plastic models fall over, bounce and blow around: I like them heavy.

If it is metal, all is well.

If it is plastic with the round base I glue / epoxy a fender washer into the bottom.

If it is plastic and uses a "slotta" base I HATE them.

There are few good ways to get a hunk of metal to fit in that 1/3 to 2/3 split unless you get bolt cutters or a disk cutter to cut up a fender washer to fit.

I have tried "lead shot" but do not like using the stuff.

On the difficulty of getting characters out, I think sending to Forgeworld to do their magic and re-release in resin would be the way to go as the "short term fix".

I tend to fill the void with Greenstuff. It isn't terribly economical, but I usually have lots of greenstuff hanging around and I don't sculpt whole miniatures, so it doesn't get used up very quickly. The greenstuff gives a decent amount of heft to an otherwise featherweight model. I greenstuff the excess void in a slotta base anyway, so all I do is mix up a larger batch, fill the underside, push in the slotta tab with some glue on it, clean it all up and call it done.

 loki old fart wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
If I remember correctly, the reason for the switch from metal to plastic wasn't driven so much by the "high" price of metal base materials, but by the volatility of the metals market. Prices bounced all over the place over relatively short time periods, making it difficult to plan for production.

Given that plastic is made from oil, materials prices are not that stable anyway.

Well.. plastics in general aren't too volatile. The main area where they get hit is on transportation and hiring/retention costs. The costs of hiring a person on full time is pretty insane here in the states and usually costs almost double to amount of their salary. Given that the UK is even more liberal, I am sure it impacts their costs the same way. Now that obamacare is starting to get implemented, we are seeing costs to employers get even more ridiculous because now they are being required to pay for insurance where they weren't required to before.

The result is this..



Lots of low paying jobs and very few middle class jobs. Employers hiring multiple people to work part time and fewer people to work full time where ever they can. This is severely decreasing how many people can really afford the hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:
I guess they think that in long term, plastic characters make sense since they are so much more production-efficient than metal or resin. So in short term it is uneconomical, but when the model is in production for 15 years or more, it makes a saving compared to metal/resin.

cheaper to ship... cheaper to mass produce..

Hey, as a separate side note, I noticed that the Munitorum Edition of 7th is still available! We're getting closer to the two month mark since the release of the new rules too.

Though they no longer list how many are available.

Personnel will always be expensive, and I haven't had to hire or employ anyone in almost three years, but wages have remained flat(ish) and there have been a variety of government incentives to encourage job growth, such as the National Insurance relief scheme (for those unfamiliar, NI is a working persons contribution to things such as benefits and the NHS, which is removed at source alongside income tax for those employed) so I wouldn't be surprised of the cost of staff has remained relatively flat in the last few years.

Part time jobs and zero hour contracts are a potential issue, but pressure is growing to address that, and unemployment figures continue to fall slowly but surely.

The UK recovery has progressed far enough that people are beginning to feel it on the ground (wages now matching or outpacing inflation etc) but the fact remains that GW claim to not be affected by recession, and certainly would fall quite solidly in the "small luxury" category, where, while undoubtedly overpriced, still remains in a price range that is relatively affordable for many working people.

The fact also remains that Kirby had the opportunity to blame wider economic factors for the recent decline, and chose not to, instead citing the change to one man stores and the ensuing disruption as the root cause.

One could easily make a strong case for this to be the case (indeed, that's essentially the ONLY thing Derek has been arguing since about January) but the fact that it wasn't suggests either

- It isn't
- It is, but GW management remain convinced it isn't
- It is, but for some reason GW management are desperate not to admit to it.

Citing what seems to be a very tenuous underlying cause, when a much more solid and believable reason is available, regardless of the actual facts, seems to suggest an agenda. Not entirely sure what....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Accolade wrote:
Hey, as a separate side note, I noticed that the Munitorum Edition of 7th is still available! We're getting closer to the two month mark since the release of the new rules too.

Though they no longer list how many are available.

I uploaded a couple of painted mini pics last week for gaks and giggles to their Flickr pool, some 6 days on, they still seem very near the top, not sure what sort order they're applying, but it certainly doesn't seem to be a very active group, considering.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
If I remember correctly, the reason for the switch from metal to plastic wasn't driven so much by the "high" price of metal base materials, but by the volatility of the metals market. Prices bounced all over the place over relatively short time periods, making it difficult to plan for production.

Given that plastic is made from oil, materials prices are not that stable anyway.

Well.. plastics in general aren't too volatile. The main area where they get hit is on transportation and hiring/retention costs. The costs of hiring a person on full time is pretty insane here in the states and usually costs almost double to amount of their salary. Given that the UK is even more liberal, I am sure it impacts their costs the same way. Now that obamacare is starting to get implemented, we are seeing costs to employers get even more ridiculous because now they are being required to pay for insurance where they weren't required to before.

The result is this..



Lots of low paying jobs and very few middle class jobs. Employers hiring multiple people to work part time and fewer people to work full time where ever they can. This is severely decreasing how many people can really afford the hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:
I guess they think that in long term, plastic characters make sense since they are so much more production-efficient than metal or resin. So in short term it is uneconomical, but when the model is in production for 15 years or more, it makes a saving compared to metal/resin.

cheaper to ship... cheaper to mass produce..

Well plastic prices are relatively low ATM, due to reduced demand.

dereksatkinson wrote:


Sorry.. I just don't think that you are looking at the right numbers. Officially we only had an average of 2.37% inflation over that period and a 60% cumulative inflation rate. Yet wages doubled. So everyone should be richer right? Not when you take into account the loss of purchasing power. Since the year 2000, Food and energy prices have easily doubled (in most cases tripled). Insurance has more than doubled. Real estate has doubled.

Um... you just repeated what I said. 3% inflation average per year - you gave exact at 2.37%. I never said 3% over the period. Secondly, the quote of mine you took said about wages doubling and you said the same thing.

And since I own a bit of real estate, I will say this. It hasn't in any way, shape or form doubled over the last ten years. Most of my real estate holdings are sitting at about a 30%-50% gain, but not double. 2008-2010 erased A LOT of the gains from the last decade.

dereksatkinson wrote:


Here in the states 1/3 of grocery store workers are on food stamps.. http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/08/6467176/study-grocery-workers-struggle.html

1/2 of all college graduates are supported by their parents.. http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/half-of-all-college-graduates-still-relying-on-parents

1/6 men in the USA don't have a job http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/1-8-american-men-between-ages-25-54-are-not-working_793938.html

1/5 children in the USA live in poverty http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/one-out-of-every-five-u-s-children-live-in-poverty

All important info, but not relevant to the point. This is a result of a severe recession, an incompetent and uncaring government, and not enough decent paying jobs. Not just inflation. GWs target is still people with disposable income. Considering their niche, there is still enough. But the point is a good one.

dereksatkinson wrote:
So when GW does price increases, I see it as a way for them to maintain their margins. I don't see it as a way for them to get every last penny out of the consumer and they are being consistent with what i'm seeing happen in the rest of the global economy. Whether or not I can afford their product isn't as much a function of their prices, but just another way to measure the loss of my purchasing power.

There are plenty of areas where GW can improve their relations with the community but I don't think that is essentially for their survival at this time because I don't see real competition out there yet.

This is the point I 100% disagree with you on. The gaming market has grown by double-digits for five straight years averaging 15% growth a year and 20% growth last year. Everyone EXCEPT GW, seems to be growing by leaps and bounds. As you say, "the proof is in the pudding". You can debate stock prices, economics, inflation, and best burger in America votes all day long but they have NOTHING to do with the proof in the gaming market which is going completely opposite of everything you say it should be doing. Simply put, the market is growing by double digits, much of GWs competitors are growing by double digits, and GW is declining by double digits. Sounds an awful lot like idiotic business planning to me.

GWs ridiculous price rises have NOTHING to do with surviving a recession - they are much too incompetent for something so basic. It has everything to do with producing sub-par product in a market increasing being nabbed by competition, producing better products at better prices, eating away at the dinosaur. It has happened time and time again in many markets when the big boy becomes to complacent or arrogant. Which is exactly what GW has become. Their competitors (PP, Corvus Belli, FFG, Wyrd, Warlord, Hawk, et al.) are going to keep eating away at GW until the current revenue GW has is eventually split over dozens of companies and GW exists no more.

You keep giving GW management much more credit than they deserve. They have consistently shown to make p***poor business decisions and have become their own worst enemy.

Let's just save this debate for later in July when the financials are published shall we. I think we are all going to be in for a surprise as I predict they are going to be pretty bad.

 Wayshuba wrote:

This is the point I 100% disagree with you on. The gaming market has grown by double-digits for five straight years averaging 15% growth a year and 20% growth last year. Everyone EXCEPT GW, seems to be growing by leaps and bounds.

Oh man, this debate again

So, what about Hasbro, whose gaming division has done worse than GW over last 5 years?

Backfire wrote:
Oh man, this debate again

So, what about Hasbro, whose gaming division has done worse than GW over last 5 years?

I start a gaming business in my garage... 1st year it nets $1,000.. 2nd year it next $5,000... 3rd year it nets $10,000.. GW better be on notice because i'm growing so fast.. Even if you add 3 zeros, i'd be insignificant.

As measured by a percentage of revenue, entrepreneurial endeavors should always perform "better" than more well established companies.

 Wayshuba wrote:
Um... you just repeated what I said. 3% inflation average per year - you gave exact at 2.37%. I never said 3% over the period. Secondly, the quote of mine you took said about wages doubling and you said the same thing.

The official numbers are 2.37%. That is unrealistic. 3% is also unrealistic.

The point I was making was that while wages may have doubled, people are getting poorer. Somehow, I doubt that the loss of middle class jobs is the fault of GW. So something else has to be going on to cause that. I think it's important to acknowledge that demographics of their customers has changed substantially over the past 14 years simply because there are fewer jobs where people can actually afford the hobby.

I also understand that your home might not have doubled in price but you are definitely in the minority. Even if it's in the 50% range (which is not the case in the USA for sure) that doesn't counter the price changes in every other sector that makes up the CPI. I mean dude... Crude oil was at $14 a barrel back in 1994. It's at $104 today.. Over 600% in 20 years and it's one of the primary components to CPI.. What is counterbalancing that?

 Wayshuba wrote:
This is the point I 100% disagree with you on. The gaming market has grown by double-digits for five straight years averaging 15% growth a year and 20% growth last year. Everyone EXCEPT GW, seems to be growing by leaps and bounds. As you say, "the proof is in the pudding". You can debate stock prices, economics, inflation, and best burger in America votes all day long but they have NOTHING to do with the proof in the gaming market which is going completely opposite of everything you say it should be doing. Simply put, the market is growing by double digits, much of GWs competitors are growing by double digits, and GW is declining by double digits. Sounds an awful lot like idiotic business planning to me.

GW's competition is so small and are basically coming up from zero. It's not a good comparison to make. Growth rates for companies that are just starting out are naturally going to be higher than established businesses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:
As measured by a percentage of revenue, entrepreneurial endeavors should always perform "better" than more well established companies.

Correct

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:
Um... you just repeated what I said. 3% inflation average per year - you gave exact at 2.37%. I never said 3% over the period. Secondly, the quote of mine you took said about wages doubling and you said the same thing.

The official numbers are 2.37%. That is unrealistic. 3% is also unrealistic.

The point I was making was that while wages may have doubled, people are getting poorer. Somehow, I doubt that the loss of middle class jobs is the fault of GW. So something else has to be going on to cause that. I think it's important to acknowledge that demographics of their customers has changed substantially over the past 14 years simply because there are fewer jobs where people can actually afford the hobby.

Actually, the evidence seems to be people are affording "the hobby" just fine, but struggling with the price of "the HHHobby"

 Wayshuba wrote:
This is the point I 100% disagree with you on. The gaming market has grown by double-digits for five straight years averaging 15% growth a year and 20% growth last year. Everyone EXCEPT GW, seems to be growing by leaps and bounds. As you say, "the proof is in the pudding". You can debate stock prices, economics, inflation, and best burger in America votes all day long but they have NOTHING to do with the proof in the gaming market which is going completely opposite of everything you say it should be doing. Simply put, the market is growing by double digits, much of GWs competitors are growing by double digits, and GW is declining by double digits. Sounds an awful lot like idiotic business planning to me.

GW's competition is so small and are basically coming up from zero. It's not a good comparison to make. Growth rates for companies that are just starting out are naturally going to be higher than established businesses.

There's plenty of businesses that have been around long enough to be considered established, and all those "small" businesses appear to collectively attracting a fairly decent amount of money. Just because the individual components that constitute the competition are diverse, it doesn't mean that the power they have in the market place can be ignored, that's the sort of thinking that gets incumbents in trouble.

Backfire wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

This is the point I 100% disagree with you on. The gaming market has grown by double-digits for five straight years averaging 15% growth a year and 20% growth last year. Everyone EXCEPT GW, seems to be growing by leaps and bounds.

Oh man, this debate again

So, what about Hasbro, whose gaming division has done worse than GW over last 5 years?

Hasbro isn't having to prop up its own retail chain and produces a lot more than just games. It can easily absorb less than stellar performance in games with its toy sales.

 azreal13 wrote:
Actually, the evidence seems to be people are affording "the hobby" just fine, but struggling with the price of "the HHHobby"

Not really.. It seems to me they are going for the cheaper alternative.

How is that different?