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.

 azreal13 wrote:
Are you even reading the same thread?

Nobody regularly contributing is blaming a single cause hypothesis, the only person doing that appears to be Mr T Kirby.

Possibly.

But if you'd be serious about getting behind what is going on, you wouldn't just discard Kirby's reasons out of hand "just because they come from Kirby" either.

Kirby's view of events might not even be very likely, but it is possible, and I've seen no evidence that would with disprove his take on things or evidence that would prove the "GW fails because prices" or "GW fails because the game sucks"-theories that are popular here (which, again, might be possible, even likely, but certainly not proven).

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Are you even reading the same thread?

Nobody regularly contributing is blaming a single cause hypothesis, the only person doing that appears to be Mr T Kirby.

Possibly.

But if you'd be serious about getting behind what is going on, you wouldn't just discard Kirby's reasons out of hand "just because they come from Kirby" either.

Kirby's view of events might not even be very likely, but it is possible, and I've seen no evidence that would with disprove his take on things or evidence that would prove the "GW fails because prices" or "GW fails because the game sucks"-theories that are popular here (which, again, might be possible, even likely, but certainly not proven).

What's your point? That nobody can talk about this subject? There seems to be a lot of evidence around and I think we'd be foolish to dismiss it.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Are you even reading the same thread?

Nobody regularly contributing is blaming a single cause hypothesis, the only person doing that appears to be Mr T Kirby.

Possibly.

But if you'd be serious about getting behind what is going on, you wouldn't just discard Kirby's reasons out of hand "just because they come from Kirby" either.

Kirby's view of events might not even be very likely, but it is possible, and I've seen no evidence that would with disprove his take on things or evidence that would prove the "GW fails because prices" or "GW fails because the game sucks"-theories that are popular here (which, again, might be possible, even likely, but certainly not proven).

I'm not, I never have.

I've always, consistently, cast doubt on the idea that "disruption to opening due to the changeover to the one man model" has been the sole cause of the massive drop. I've also cast doubt on the thinking process that led to this being cited as the sole reason, when there are many other perfectly relevant reasons that were a lot more plausible.

I've never dismissed it, I've just doubted it being the sole cause.

Which kinda undermines your theory a bit.....

I'm just gonna leave this here. I feel like a few people might need to learn it.

from Wikipedia

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.[b]
Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam's Razor:[2][3][4][5][6][7] shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.

In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are better testable and falsifiable.[1][10][11]

 Zweischneid wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

Wouldn't be trying that with codex's would they. Cus that'll work better than novels. Won't it???

Of course. Could be a factor. Could GW's sped up 2013 release schedule be to blame? Did "GW-collectors" stop buying "ever Codex"? Should GW go back to the old "2 Codex a year" speed?

Maybe GW slowing it down again with Orks is a sign of them putting the breaks on?

I'd say codex pricing is a big part of being reluctant to buy more products for myself, combined with rate of the new releases lacking codexes for weeks. The drawn out releases at a model a week aren't creating any excitement for me either, and I see it as giving them something to write about in WD weekly to generate sales of that alongside the printed version of the website. Probably hoping that gullible people exist to pick up a copy of an old Codex in the run up to the new one leaving them slightly less to burn at the end. Can't say I blame them for trying but you've got to be resonably smart to play the Game.

7e can be thought of as a "Cash Grab" though I'd personally say it was more along the lines of Bullying towards there physical customers - "Buy or Goodbye"

They really should put Expiry Dates on things, I have a can of soup in the cupboard with a longer shelf life than 6e had =S

 MWHistorian wrote:
There seems to be a lot of evidence around and I think we'd be foolish to dismiss it.

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 darefsky wrote:
I'm just gonna leave this here. I feel like a few people might need to learn it.

from Wikipedia

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

And?

Again, to use the unpopular Kirby example/hypothesis: Less sales because less store opening hours.

As succinct as it gets.

Again, not saying that I think Kirby is 100% spot-on, or that other factors don't play a role (possibly a more important one), but it'd be hard to beat Kirby on parsimony.

Zweischneid.. Jesus wept man, you are a force of nature! Have you got someone behind you giving you a shoulder massage while you type, a few empty cans of Monster Energy rolling around on the table to keep you going through this.. ?

Anyway, the truth will out very soon, one way or another the world (and the industry) will keep spinning. GW decided they didn't want me as a customer when they stopped rest of world sales and I was living in a country with no stockists. That then prompted me to get into other games.

I haven't bought any of their stuff recently because it doesn't appeal. Perhaps a poor financial performance will start the process of turning them into a more conscientious company, releasing a greater variety of games that are more financially viable? One can certainly hope.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I've seen lots of evidence suggesting that GW is doing "not good" but no evidence to suggest that they're doing good. Maintaining seems to be the best scenario that I've understood from this thread.

Once again, I'm no expert and I'm trying to understand this.

No doubt there.

The question isn't if GW is doing "good" or "bad".

The question is why GW is doing "bad" and what they need to change to get back on track.

- Are they part of a decline in the market, or bucking the trend in a growing market?

- How much of the blame is in the prices? If at all?
- How much of the blame are in the game-rules? If at all?
- How much of the blame is in their restructuring of their retail chain? If at all?
- How much of the blame is in their odd social-media/marketing strategy? If at all?
All these are lowering customer satisfaction

 Zweischneid wrote:

- How much of the blame is in stronger/more numerous competition? If at all?

These are more a result of GW actions. Their inability to provide a quality product, that the customer wants to buy.
I,E, Badly written rules. poor choice of materials. (fine cast)

 Zweischneid wrote:

- How much of the blame is in the demographic shifts among their customers? If at all?
- How much of the blame is in changing aesthetic tastes and pop-culture trends? If at all?
- How much of the blame is in the "natural" product cycle of their "big" product? If at all?

These are out of GW,s control and can only be responded too, by bringing out new product.

 Zweischneid wrote:


- How much of the blame is in the faster release-schedule? If at all?

Neutral effect, the customer can only purchase product, at a rate commensurate with his/her income

A smart business man/analyst would never discard any possible reason out of hand (and always assume that there are even more possible, yet unknown reasons), rather than jumping to a simplistic conclusion that only serves to pamper his ego as "empowered consumer" "who knew all along what went wrong".

What is the real questions of GW's future hanging in the balance as nicely pointed out at "Masterminis" are:

1) Has GW's pricing reached it's market "saturation point"; what the market will bear? = No further source of revenue increase?

2) How shall increased sales (further purchases of present customer base and new customers) be generated? = What is the plan? (i.e. an actual deal on the big Tyranid box was out there). BRB button was pushed just before year end financials, do it again next year? Made terms of sale for independent stores difficult so GW product is not sold/displayed/played as much in local shops: how to get the brand out there?

3) #2 asks the question "Who are GW customers?" Masterminis make the statement that the old/character/collector models went to "finecast" and stopped being an item for "collectors", go to "game day events" and average age is mid-20's so what about the "targeted" 14 year olds? (said they are target for the GW stores only)?, We were trained from the "good old days" before Kirby where on-line retail was king and we got %40-50 discounts and had been "trained" to be cheap and that was also the main cause of poor GW revenue back in the day when profits were in the red. The old GW fans had been trained bad habits by bad market decisions in GW so we keep asking for something that cannot be part of a sustainable market: GW REALLY needs to sell their product direct as much as possible, failing that, hammer out good terms with local brick and mortar shops where people play.

4) The small introductory "Specialist" games (Space Hulk, anything that is complete game in a box) were the great introductory "samples" that generated revenue and got people into the larger hobby, some thought on expanding the IP licensing for more revenue (akin to a drug dealer "free" samples).

As had been pointed out, in the bubble of GW management the "snow is black" until the financials get grim enough.
A side comment on those wall of text rants by Beeble has me worried "GW management thinks tabletop wargaming is dead." I think they very well might.
I just hope a few of them get a good look at successful kickstarters to prove different.

I find the argument of "profit" or "above the line" is irrelevant without some thought on growth, many similar miniature hobby companies are seeing unprecedented growth: It is a shame GW is missing the boat.

As the incumbent, growth is harder for GW, so one could understand if they weren't keeping pace with some of the younger, smaller, companies.

Going backwards in an expanding market is a different kettle of fish though, and much more concerning.

Then, when you factor all the things many people cite (such as SG) that GW could capitalise on, but simply don't, and look at the barrier to entry issue which SG could hypotethically solve, and the inaction surrounding this area, and you have to wonder if GW could, potentially, still outpace the competition, incumbent or no, if direction were altered.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Good lord! You never stop do you?

He's live footage of this argument-

Spoiler:

I predict 10 more pages of this cyclical argument.

My bet is on pink

 azreal13 wrote:


Going backwards in an expanding market is a different kettle of fish though, and much more concerning.

Needs citation that the miniature games market is expanding.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


Going backwards in an expanding market is a different kettle of fish though, and much more concerning.

Needs citation that the miniature games market is expanding.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Are you even reading the same thread?

Nobody regularly contributing is blaming a single cause hypothesis, the only person doing that appears to be Mr T Kirby.

Possibly.

But if you'd be serious about getting behind what is going on, you wouldn't just discard Kirby's reasons out of hand "just because they come from Kirby" either.

Kirby's view of events might not even be very likely, but it is possible, and I've seen no evidence that would with disprove his take on things or evidence that would prove the "GW fails because prices" or "GW fails because the game sucks"-theories that are popular here (which, again, might be possible, even likely, but certainly not proven).

Here is some proof:

I make a very high salary and no price in the GW portfolio bothers me from a financial standpoint. I have stopped buying anything GW because the price to value ratio has become complete garbage versus everything else on the market. So I no longer buy from them because they have failed with their pricing.

I didn't buy 7th edition because the rules suck, in my opinion. In fact, I have sold more than $7,000 worth of my 20+ year GW collection on ebay the last two months and have two 40k armies left that I am seriously debating to sell as well. So I didn't get the rules (though I did just pick up three Infinity rulebooks ) because their game, compared to others on the market, sucks.

So, there is your proof. And by their financial peformance, I have a feeling there are a lot of other people like me.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


Going backwards in an expanding market is a different kettle of fish though, and much more concerning.

Needs citation that the miniature games market is expanding.

Either the market is expanding, or the other games are filling the void left by games workshop shrinking.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


Going backwards in an expanding market is a different kettle of fish though, and much more concerning.

Needs citation that the miniature games market is expanding.

I'm still waiting for you to cite how it is shrinking. *crickets*

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


Going backwards in an expanding market is a different kettle of fish though, and much more concerning.

Needs citation that the miniature games market is expanding.

See this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/589125.page

More importantly, watch all parts of the interview cited in the thread.

 Musashi363 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


Going backwards in an expanding market is a different kettle of fish though, and much more concerning.

Needs citation that the miniature games market is expanding.

I'm still waiting for you to cite how it is shrinking. *crickets*

For those who believe no proof is necessary; for those who do not believe no proof is possible.

Or, more accurately

For those who believe, your proof is irrelevant, and they don't need to support their arguments with evidence so yah-boo-sucks!

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


Going backwards in an expanding market is a different kettle of fish though, and much more concerning.

Needs citation that the miniature games market is expanding.

Hehehe... wait a min, you are serious?

Ahem, hard to give a nice definitive citation when leaders like Fantasy Flight and Privateer Press are privately owned: they do not need to publish their sales figures.
This is what has made these discussions so difficult with "upstarts" compared with GW.

I suppose we can look at graphs of membership on discussion boards such as this over time...

I will humbly state that I at least in my area all the miniature gaming convention attendance have increased every year (i.e. Hotlead).

I would base my "opinion" on the multitude of tabletop successful kickstarters as well, but it is a relatively new thing.

Ah, forget it... I agree with azreal13:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
There seems to be a lot of evidence around and I think we'd be foolish to dismiss it.

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 darefsky wrote:
I'm just gonna leave this here. I feel like a few people might need to learn it.

from Wikipedia

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

And?

Again, to use the unpopular Kirby example/hypothesis: Less sales because less store opening hours.

As succinct as it gets.

Again, not saying that I think Kirby is 100% spot-on, or that other factors don't play a role (possibly a more important one), but it'd be hard to beat Kirby on parsimony.

I was going more towards the "Anger your customers and you won't have any customers" theory, but that's just me.

 darefsky wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
There seems to be a lot of evidence around and I think we'd be foolish to dismiss it.

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 darefsky wrote:
I'm just gonna leave this here. I feel like a few people might need to learn it.

from Wikipedia

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

And?

Again, to use the unpopular Kirby example/hypothesis: Less sales because less store opening hours.

As succinct as it gets.

Again, not saying that I think Kirby is 100% spot-on, or that other factors don't play a role (possibly a more important one), but it'd be hard to beat Kirby on parsimony.

I was going more towards the "Anger your customers and you won't have any customers" theory, but that's just me.

For me it was the "we don't care about rules but charge a higher price" and "Pay to win mindset" edition of 40k that sent me away. And once I started trying other games I found that I enjoyed their rules better. So, I'd summerize it as "Disconnect with the customers, price hikes, bad business practices and competition."

It has to be recognised, though, that a lot of people are happy with the prices and state of the rules.

The question is whether GW can recruit enough of them to offset the people who are so pissed off they drop the game.

 darefsky wrote:



I was going more towards the "Anger your customers and you won't have any customers" theory, but that's just me.

Than Walmart wouldn't exist. But it's the biggest company in the world (and one with the lowest customer satisfaction of any company).

It's a plausible theory, but I've seen no hard evidence as to why GW should be the exception to the fact that customer satisfaction and financial success in most cases do not correlate.

http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-high-price-of-customer-satisfaction/

Also, ironically, GW's customer satisfaction seems to be higher for the one sub-brand - Forge World - that charges even more for books, charges even more for miniatures, and places an even greater focus on Space Marines. Should make sense for GW as a whole to chase that trend, no?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:


Ahem, hard to give a nice definitive citation when leaders like Fantasy Flight and Privateer Press are privately owned: they do not need to publish their sales figures.
This is what has made these discussions so difficult with "upstarts" compared with GW.

Well, than I wouldn't just assume that it's growing.

Even Kickstarters aren't what they were in their heyday 2 years ago.

And GW is still a bigger company than Kickstarter. Not just tabletop gaming Kickstarter. Not just games Kickstarter. All of Kickstarter.

Edit because the post I was responding to went from a single line to a huge wall of text and I can't be arsed.

Zwei.

How's about presenting your own theory, rather than just telling everyone else what's wrong with theirs?

 Zweischneid wrote:

Even Kickstarters aren't what they were in their heyday 2 years ago.

And GW is still a bigger company than Kickstarter. Not just tabletop gaming Kickstarter. Not just games Kickstarter. All of Kickstarter.

According to KS' own statistics, their fund raising for the category of table top games has risen significantly, year over year, ever since the company came into existence. Overall, the funds raised by KS since their inception in 2009 is greater than GW's gross revenue for the last 10-15 years. KS passed the $1 Billion mark a while ago, and GW makes less than $100 Million per year in gross revenue. The funding for table top gaming in 2013 was greater than GW's entire gross revenue for 2013.

Though, there's no way to know how much of an impact that has on GW's sales. I'm just pointing out that KS is apparently handling more money than you realize.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 darefsky wrote:



I was going more towards the "Anger your customers and you won't have any customers" theory, but that's just me.

Than Walmart wouldn't exist. But it's the biggest company in the world (and one with the lowest customer satisfaction of any company).

It's a plausible theory, but I've seen no hard evidence as to why GW should be the exception to the fact that customer satisfaction and financial success in most cases do not correlate.

http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-high-price-of-customer-satisfaction/

Also, ironically, GW's customer satisfaction seems to be higher for the one sub-brand - Forge World - that charges even more for books, charges even more for miniatures, and places an even greater focus on Space Marines. Should make sense for GW as a whole to chase that trend, no?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:


Ahem, hard to give a nice definitive citation when leaders like Fantasy Flight and Privateer Press are privately owned: they do not need to publish their sales figures.
This is what has made these discussions so difficult with "upstarts" compared with GW.

Well, than I wouldn't just assume that it's growing.

Even Kickstarters aren't what they were in their heyday 2 years ago.

And GW is still a bigger company than Kickstarter. Not just tabletop gaming Kickstarter. Not just games Kickstarter. All of Kickstarter.

You don't get to point at one thing as proof and disregard or hide the rest of the data behind the curtain. People claim to be dissatisfied with Walmart and yet the shop there. I would call that BS. People vote with their wallets. People may not like long lines, rude employee's and dirty stores, but the pricing makes it worth it for them. So are they really dissatisfied?

Personally I won't walk into a Walmart. I get all PTSD like and have actually shoved someone out of my way in an isle (admittedly one of the reasons I have banished myself from the place).

Now I do not have any sort of beef with GW. I stopped playing 40k right after 6th Ed hit. I sold all my stuff and now I play other games. I still like to look over the fence and see if they have made any changes that might entice me back, but so far..... not even a bit.

Heck my best friend. The one that got me into table top gaming. Has played GW games for 20+ years and even he has finally moved on because he can't stand it anymore and he was as white knight as they come.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 darefsky wrote:



I was going more towards the "Anger your customers and you won't have any customers" theory, but that's just me.

Than Walmart wouldn't exist. But it's the biggest company in the world (and one with the lowest customer satisfaction of any company).

It's a plausible theory, but I've seen no hard evidence as to why GW should be the exception to the fact that customer satisfaction and financial success in most cases do not correlate.

http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-high-price-of-customer-satisfaction/

Also, ironically, GW's customer satisfaction seems to be higher for the one sub-brand - Forge World - that charges even more for books, charges even more for miniatures, and places an even greater focus on Space Marines. Should make sense for GW as a whole to chase that trend, no?

Just to focus on this one point particularly, Walmart exists because it provides goods typically at much lower costs. They have a bad reputation because of their treatment of employees, the damage a Walmart store does to a local community, and the sometimes underhanded dealings they have with other countries, but people shop their because they are searching for the absolute cheapest way to get things, for whatever their personal reasons may be.

Hasn't Walmart revenue also been declining in recent times too?

 Zweischneid wrote:

Well, than I wouldn't just assume that it's growing.

Even Kickstarters aren't what they were in their heyday 2 years ago.

And GW is still a bigger company than Kickstarter. Not just tabletop gaming Kickstarter. Not just games Kickstarter. All of Kickstarter.

As pointed out by me (which you ignored) and another who bothered to look into it: More money is changing hands there than you give credit and FAR more credit to the HUGENESS that is GW.

I will call a citation back atchya.

To just proclaim the various sources as invalid or insufficient and "Kickstarters aren't what they were in their heyday 2 years ago." facts?, citation? opinion?

This all makes a great point on the future of GW how?

Feeling kind, will save you the trouble since you are too busy to check facts here ya go:

Kickstarter: $480 million was pledged last year while GW Revenue was 134 million pounds (~$227 Am). Care to change your stance?

 Talizvar wrote:


Kickstarter: $480 million was pledged last year while GW Revenue was 134 million pounds (~$227 Am). Care to change your stance?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1656109054/poop-guard-guarantee-that-your-dog-wont-eat-cat-po?ref=nav_search

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1629151530/beazells-cajun-foods-cookbook-version-i-july14?ref=card

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/481369267/5-years-of-future-band?ref=discover_pop

In other words.. You are comparing apples to oranges.