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.

 Baragash wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
I apologize in advance for asking a question which has probably already been asked and answered but...

...when is the next official GW report due?

It is soon, isn't it?

And won't that help 'answer' a lot of these questions?

Next week some time based on previous years.

Whether it answers any questions or not depends what it says

If the Knight + 7th Ed blow the doors off* you'll have the pro-no-problem crowd saying everything was a blip and the anti-no-problem crowd saying launching two flagship products just disguises an underlying decline in the business and by-the-way-didn't-the-market-grow-again.

*This being in the range of H2 revenue flat (so down YoY) to YoY being better in total than H1 all the way through to up YoY total.

Anything less than that and you'll get the pro-no-problem crowd saying one year is not a trend and the anti-no-problem crowd saying it proves their point.

To be fair, I don't think there is anyone in this thread claiming GW doesn't have any problems. I'm certainly not disillusioned enough to make a claim that baseless and contradictory to facts. GW has quite a few problems, declining customer base, rising prices preventing new players from filling the spots of those who quit, dwindling market share, and management that seems to forget just how they got all of us hooked in the first place. However, companies have survived worse positions than GW is in right now. 40k is still the number 1 tabletop war game out there and will remain that way for awhile. There are still plenty of places where almost everyone plays 40k/WFB and getting a game of x wing or hordes is nearly impossible. I think if the situation got too dire at GW, they would start dropping prices to turn things around. This could potentially bring a resurgence of new players to the game. Their business model of hiking prices to compensate for a decline in players cannot work forever. When they see this, they will either do something to right the ship or the stockholders will sell off a majority of shares to someone that can.

The syntax of using 'next' in english is VERY confusing, even with native speakers for the exact reason you noted.

in general it is used to mean "after this", but in terms of time/distance it is often hard to tell exactly where the speaker is placing 'this' to begin with.

 Alpharius wrote:
I apologize in advance for asking a question which has probably already been asked and answered but...

...when is the next official GW report due?

It is soon, isn't it?

And won't that help 'answer' a lot of these questions?

Traditionally it has been released on the last Tuesday in July so 6 days assuming that GW don't break the pattern.

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Hit 2 of the marks on this list, and people won't be able to get enough. Tabletop models becomes the least profitable business unit in about 6 months and Forgeworld gets spun off into a Norweigan holding company allowing them to keep engaging in their 'core' line of business. Disney is suddenly trying to buy them for $2 billion.

But, from the point of view of their existing customers, is this really any different from going under? Turning the brand into another pile of mass-produced garbage is effectively killing it anyway. Sure, the results for GW's shareholders might be better, but it's not exactly something we should be hoping for.

Ask yourself a couple questions:

1) When did anyone stop making Star Wars figures? I've never noticed a scarcity of these things.

2) From the point of view of customers, is the current direction of GW any better?

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Hit 2 of the marks on this list, and people won't be able to get enough. Tabletop models becomes the least profitable business unit in about 6 months and Forgeworld gets spun off into a Norweigan holding company allowing them to keep engaging in their 'core' line of business. Disney is suddenly trying to buy them for $2 billion.

But, from the point of view of their existing customers, is this really any different from going under? Turning the brand into another pile of mass-produced garbage is effectively killing it anyway. Sure, the results for GW's shareholders might be better, but it's not exactly something we should be hoping for.

Ask yourself a couple questions:

1) When did anyone stop making Star Wars figures? I've never noticed a scarcity of these things.

2) From the point of view of customers, is the current direction of GW any better?

I don't know that star wars vs warhammer is a fair comparison. Lucas probably makes more personally than GW as a company does. Which is a fair indicator of market reach and general ubiquity.

@Toofast.
Unfortunately things do not follow a constant steady rate of decline in business.
Usually there is a tipping point where a business loses critical mass, and sales plummet, and there is nothing the company can do to slow this down in the short term.

Despite GW corporate managers pushing the idea that the majority of GW customers are collectors that do not play GW games.
I would suggest when the active player base drops below a certain size, the critical mass would have been reached and it would be too late for GW plc to turn it around.

Because GW do not have any marketing beyond word of mouth ,(increasingly negative.)And a chain of stores that are now hard sell retail , rather than hobby promotion centers.

I think GW plc need to start addressing the problems the C.E.O highlighted 7 years ago.
(The corporate management had grown fat and lazy on the back of easy success.Yet they continued using the same short term solutions that were not working 7 years ago!)

 jonolikespie wrote:

 thetallestgiraffe wrote:
I think that people should stop trying to look into the future when they have no clue what's going to happen to GW. Companies don't have horizons more than five years and frankly none of us even know what GW has planned in that time. If GW is going under it shows NO real prospects of doing so at the moment, it is just showing a current lack of growth. This could change very easily due to any number of things.
People need to stop trying to predict more than 5 years into the future as you have no idea what will happen beyond then and it doesn't look like GW is going to collapse right now.

Sooooo, how do you explain the rapidly falling market share?

What is that if not a sign of GW going under?

What, by your definition would be anyway? It sounds like you're trying to say that no one can ever know if a company is going under.

Once more I'll link this and say people posting in this thread need to read it: http://masterminis.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/the-future-of-games-workshop-part-14.html
It is written by someone who IS a business expert.

Has Microsoft gone under? They were over $100 a share and now is what, $50 or under $30 a share? Is Apple going under? They were over $700 a share last year. What are they now? 1/2 that? So I guess Apple is going under and we will have no more iPads, iPhones and Macs next year or so.

The key thing is to hold a good load of cash in the bank, in order to invest in a change of direction if their current course has brought the good ship GW close to "th'impervious horrors of a lee shore".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am an example of the knock-on effect. I built up fairly substantial Tau and Tyranid armies in 2004-06 and 2010-2011.

When 6th edition came out I bought the softback rulebook but I didn't buy the new £30 codexes so I haven't bought any of the new models either.

Effectively in their effort to screw an extra £15 out of me for the Tau codex GW threw away the chance to sell me a £50 Riptide and a £40 Sunshark, etc.

And that is why the price is doubled. With the loss of sale they got from you, they got from someone else. 1/2 the sales, double the price, means everything is status quo, with "restructuring" going on, means more profit for the year.

That could be why we have problems with supply and demand now. GW expected less demand so didn't make as much. Maybe that is why 2000 seems to be the sweet spot for GW in Limited Edition books, because that is what the market that is out there right now for it. It seems GW is comfortable with 2000 customers world wide.

Davor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am an example of the knock-on effect. I built up fairly substantial Tau and Tyranid armies in 2004-06 and 2010-2011.

When 6th edition came out I bought the softback rulebook but I didn't buy the new £30 codexes so I haven't bought any of the new models either.

Effectively in their effort to screw an extra £15 out of me for the Tau codex GW threw away the chance to sell me a £50 Riptide and a £40 Sunshark, etc.

And that is why the price is doubled. With the loss of sale they got from you, they got from someone else. 1/2 the sales, double the price, means everything is status quo, with "restructuring" going on, means more profit for the year.

That could be why we have problems with supply and demand now. GW expected less demand so didn't make as much. Maybe that is why 2000 seems to be the sweet spot for GW in Limited Edition books, because that is what the market that is out there right now for it. It seems GW is comfortable with 2000 customers world wide.

Pssst. Pssst.

GW had a 30% loss in profits last semestre.

If that is their "strategy", then it doesn't seem to be working so well.

Davor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am an example of the knock-on effect. I built up fairly substantial Tau and Tyranid armies in 2004-06 and 2010-2011.

When 6th edition came out I bought the softback rulebook but I didn't buy the new £30 codexes so I haven't bought any of the new models either.

Effectively in their effort to screw an extra £15 out of me for the Tau codex GW threw away the chance to sell me a £50 Riptide and a £40 Sunshark, etc.

And that is why the price is doubled. With the loss of sale they got from you, they got from someone else. 1/2 the sales, double the price, means everything is status quo, with "restructuring" going on, means more profit for the year.

That could be why we have problems with supply and demand now. GW expected less demand so didn't make as much. Maybe that is why 2000 seems to be the sweet spot for GW in Limited Edition books, because that is what the market that is out there right now for it. It seems GW is comfortable with 2000 customers world wide.

I don't know about you, but I've never heard it considered GOOD business to raise the price to make up for lack of customers. I've only taken a Macroeconomics class many years ago and even then we learned about supply, demand and equilibrium. I don't ever recall it being a viable long-term strategy to make the customers staying with you pay extra to pick up the lost revenue for the ones you lost. That's short-term thinking, not long-term.

@Davor.
You can see the flaw in this plan though cant you?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its not unusual for restructuring companies to show little to no growth anyway, and GW has certainly been doing that. Restructuring takes effort away from business development activities, and the shock-effect amongst staff can give issues as well.

If in another year there are still issues thats more concerning.

If by restructuring you mean cutting everything they can cut then, yeah, GW has been restructuring.

Seriously, it's more than just cutting. They've restructured their logistics side as well, but don't let facts get in the way of a snarky comment...

Wayne - for what I thought were obvious reasons their profit margin on books isn't the same as other companies. Their logistics being higher is just one of them. But hey, just compare in a vacuum, best way to do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its not unusual for restructuring companies to show little to no growth anyway, and GW has certainly been doing that. Restructuring takes effort away from business development activities, and the shock-effect amongst staff can give issues as well.

If in another year there are still issues thats more concerning.

If by restructuring you mean cutting everything they can cut then, yeah, GW has been restructuring.

Seriously, it's more than just cutting. They've restructured their logistics side as well, but don't let facts get in the way of a snarky comment...

Wayne - for what I thought were obvious reasons their profit margin on books isn't the same as other companies. Their logistics being higher is just one of them. But hey, just compare in a vacuum, best way to do so.

Why is their profit margin on books not the same as, say, Warlord Games or Privateer Press, who also make wargames? Something related to GW's size/volume? I'm not understanding your position.

I look at a GW codex and compare it to its nearest equivalents: Bolt Action's "Armies of..." and Privateer Press's "Forces of..." books, which are roughly the same type of thing (supplement for a specific army) although PP's books are the outlier since they aren't required to play. Bolt Action's books are $25 a piece for softcover + full color. PP's is $35 I think for softcover and had a LE hardcover that is OOP I believe. GW is $50 for hardcover, and before that was somewhere around $30-35 for softcover IIRC. Hardcover alone isn't worth that huge increase, neither is full color as the other books are full color too. The Bolt Action books, in particular, seem to be the same kind of high quality paper.

privateer press charges me 17-19 per model... (star wars atack wing)

GW charges me 10$ on average...

what was that about GW price gouging again?

 easysauce wrote:
privateer press charges me 17-19 per model... (star wars atack wing)

GW charges me 10$ on average...

what was that about GW price gouging again?

If you're going to make an argument, please get your facts straight.

Privateer Press don't make any Star Wars games, Attack Wing is a Star Trek variant and I'm not even sure you've got the prices right!

Besides, I can start any of the games in that hideous mashup of an "argument" for a quarter of the approximate starting price of 40K.

Price per model isn't relevant when one system requires many more models and more expensive ancillary items to be able to start playing.

so now the goal post move again is see, and yes it fantasy flight, wrong brand, pricinpls still holds, they charge more per model then GW, yet no one is whining endlessly about their price gouging...

that you need less models is 100% irrelevant, that they are newer games that have not yet expanded to include true "fleet" sized lists is also irrelevant, not to mention they add things like "super heavies" a la capitol "epic" ships just like GW....

when people complain about prices of GW, and somone bring up that other games are more expensive per model, or comparable in price,

perhaps people want games to play with ARMIES not just a squad or two? ever think of that?

GW isnt forcing us to use armies either, go ahead and play a game with 5 models or less, its totally do able, forge a good narrative and re create some space boarding scenario or something.

its just whiners being whiners


I play lots of games besides 40k, they all have the same issues, but get a free pass because they are underdogs and GW is the big bad wolf or somthing.

Even if you don't consider the price of the whole game and you want to go on a per model basis...

Perry charges me less than a dollar per model. And don't tell me there's a difference in quality because they're the same sculptors who worked for GW.

Also, were you comparing plastics with resin/metal? And since when did PP collaborated with Star Wars?

 easysauce wrote:
privateer press charges me 17-19 per model... (star wars atack wing)

GW charges me 10$ on average...

what was that about GW price gouging again?

The argument is and has never been price per model. Stop this ridiculous fallacy.

Compare the game. A normal sized Warmachine army (35 points) costs around $250 or so, barring things like running a colossal/gargantuan. How much can you get out of 40k for $250? What if you had to buy the rules too? Half of that would be gone just for the rules.

Nobody has ever denied that other games are expensive, the difference is that I can get a good sized force for Warmachine for an basic, entry-level 40k army.

Not only that but PP models go further in the context of the game. A squad of Winter Guard might be $50, but it's a big unit and in most cases the only one I need, and represents a big chunk of my force. A squad of Guardsmen is what, $40 now and represents a tiny part of your army?

You don't compare the individual prices, you compare the value that you get. Very few of GW's kits are standalone in that you buy one box and field one unit; it's typically always 2+ and in some cases you need to buy two boxes just to get a single normal-sized unit.

 easysauce wrote:
so now the goal post move again is see, and yes it fantasy flight, wrong brand, pricinpls still holds, they charge more per model then GW, yet no one is whining endlessly about their price gouging...

Kindly direct me to where I placed the original goal posts? I've always contended the issue with GW isn't one of pure price, it is one of value. Because people can start X Wing for £25, and have a fully functioning collection to tournament level lists with options for approximately the same price as DV and a codex costs means people are willing to overlook the individual model price, because they don't feel like they're being bent over for the privilege of playing the game.

that you need less models is 100% irrelevant, that they are newer games that have not yet expanded to include true "fleet" sized lists is also irrelevant, not to mention they add things like "super heavies" a la capitol "epic" ships just like GW....

Yes, and they do a whole lot better job of doing it. Look at the Capital Ships for X Wing, or the Colossals for Warmachine, I defy you to find a thread on Dakka or anywhere where people are so vehemently pro or anti their inclusion as the current LoW thread here in 40K discussion.

when people complain about prices of GW, and somone bring up that other games are more expensive per model, or comparable in price,

They do, but I'm not one of them, the issue is value, as I've already stated.

perhaps people want games to play with ARMIES not just a squad or two? ever think of that?

Patronising much? Yeah, of course I've thought of that, maybe people want to be able to start a game without a massive buy in cost, ever think of that?

GW isnt forcing us to use armies either, go ahead and play a game with 5 models or less, its totally do able, forge a good narrative and re create some space boarding scenario or something.

Yeah, it is totally doable, you still need nearly £100 in books just to do that, and how much is the d/l of the Kill Team rules?

its just whiners being whiners

Bravo, really original.

I play lots of games besides 40k, they all have the same issues, but get a free pass because they are underdogs and GW is the big bad wolf or somthing.

Me too. No other game has as fractured a player base, degree of dissatisfaction, as flawed a set of rules or issues with balance as 40K. Which is not to say I'm writing it off, I don't think its irredeemable, but if you're playing other games with "the same issues" you're really poor at choosing what games to play.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
privateer press charges me 17-19 per model... (star wars atack wing)

GW charges me 10$ on average...

what was that about GW price gouging again?

The argument is and has never been price per model. Stop this ridiculous fallacy.

Compare the game. A normal sized Warmachine army (35 points) costs around $250 or so, barring things like running a colossal/gargantuan. How much can you get out of 40k for $250? What if you had to buy the rules too? Half of that would be gone just for the rules.

Nobody has ever denied that other games are expensive, the difference is that I can get a good sized force for Warmachine for an basic, entry-level 40k army.

Not only that but PP models go further in the context of the game. A squad of Winter Guard might be $50, but it's a big unit and in most cases the only one I need, and represents a big chunk of my force. A squad of Guardsmen is what, $40 now and represents a tiny part of your army?

except it has been brought up multiple times that price is the issue,

a "normal" game of 40k can consist of one model... warmachine can consist of more then 35 points.

you can get a perfectly playable army from GW for 250.. in fact I just bought TWO for 150..

you are the one commiting fallacies wiht your "my models are expensive too, but I just buy less of them so its a cheaper hobby!"

because you dont HAVE TO BUY that many models with GW if you do not want to.

there is also the aspect of scale, do you WANT to play with a squad sized list in warmahords? great good for you have fun, thats what WMH's does.

if you want to play with army sized games in WMH, its just as expensive as GW.

GW you can do small, or big, you have a choice.

may as well just complain that guardsmen cost more $ per point then termanators and its GW forcing money out of your wallet... oh wait, you just did.

siiiighhhhh.

Cites FFG for "cost per model" as it has the highest, then uses Warmahordes for "cost per army"

You accused me of moving goal posts?

 easysauce wrote:
perhaps people want games to play with ARMIES not just a squad or two? ever think of that?

Yeah, because you totally can't buy armies for other games cheaply...

https://www.perry-miniatures.com/product_info.php?products_id=2848

http://www.wargamesfactory.com/webstore/world-war-2/ww2-russian-infantry-28

Most other games if you are required to have a lot of models, the models can be gotten cheaper.

The thing is even if you compare GW's prices fairly (i.e. plastics to plastics, resin/metal to resin/metal), usually they're still on the more expensive side of things. Hell, even in some cases for the new plastics (SM Librarian is 25 Euros) are MORE expensive than metals of other companies (usual Infinity metal infantry-sized character is 10.25 Euros).

That's more than half. Of course, this does not apply all of GW's offerings, but you can see the insanity of it with that kind of price point. It's not "whiners just whining", it's customers dissatisfied with the prices that are frankly quite ridiculous compared to other companies' prices.

Sternguard Veterans (take note: these are plastics) = 5 for 40 euros (8 Euros each)
A 4 man metal Infinity box = 4 for 27.95 (6.98 Euros each)

Sooo why are the plastics more expensive than metal ones on a model per model basis? If you compare that with plastics from other companies, it becomes more insaaane. Let's take a cheaper box so that people won't say I'm cheating: let's compare GW's Peasant Men-at-Arms on a model per model basis with the plastics of other companies, shall we?

GW Men-at-Arms: 31 Euros for 16 models (5.17 Euros each)

Perry Bows and Bills box: 25.1 Euros for 40 models !!!! (0.63 Euros each)

Fireforge Games Foot Sergeants: 35 Euros for 48 models (0.73 Euros each)

Mantic's Undead Skeleton Horde: 35 Euros for 40 models (0.87 Euros each)

Wargames Factory Viking Bondi: 16.35 Euros for 38 models (0.43 Euros each)

Gripping Beast Viking Hirdmen: 27.95 Euros for 44 models (0.63 Euros each)


With just a glance, GW models cost more than 5 fething times their competitors. But no, pointing out that paying 5 times the usual amount is just "whiners whining".

And we haven't even touched army size and the money you need to burn in order to buy the books to play the game.

Wayne - pp don't run shops. That isn't free

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wayne - pp don't run shops. That isn't free

So... your argument is what, GW has to charge more than everybody else to pay for their brick and mortar one-man stores?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wayne - pp don't run shops. That isn't free

Your point?

other companies do not have:

shops,

3rd parties making counter feits, and a player base that encourages it.

and have not grown SO huge that the playerbase is just impossible to please...

a 1000000 person player base will never, ever agree, and will always be fragmented to some degree, this is what 40k is, its like getting that many people to agree on the best topping for pizza.

a 1000 person player base a la WMH or other games, is much easier to keep coherant for many reason.

once these other games scale up in player base, and have been around for 20 odd years with the level of content GW provides, if they are still as cheap and streamlined, fine ok you win, its the better "game".

but they are not, lets see if they are even sucessfull enough to reach that point before we go claiming as such.


you are welcome to like any game you want, but constently bashing others for enjoying things they think are fun and worth it is just sad.

Id swear, the first rule of warmahordes is "you must bash 40k"

I dont see 40k players doing that to WMH's or infinity or malifaux, that alone is the main reason why I havnt got into those two systems in particular, if the players of WMH's cant go a whole tournament without repeating ad nausium to me that 40k is a unpolishable turd of a game, despite the # of people there enjoying that "turd game" outnumber themselves, it just speaks to what kind of person the games appeal to i guess.

 easysauce wrote:
other companies do not have:

shops,

3rd parties making counter feits, and a player base that encourages it.

and have not grown SO huge that the playerbase is just impossible to please...

a 1000000 person player base will never, ever agree, and will always be fragmented to some degree, this is what 40k is, its like getting that many people to agree on the best topping for pizza.

a 1000 person player base a la WMH or other games, is much easier to keep coherant for many reason.

once these other games scale up in player base, and have been around for 20 odd years with the level of content GW provides, if they are still as cheap and streamlined, fine ok you win, its the better "game".

but they are not, lets see if they are even sucessfull enough to reach that point before we go claiming as such.


you are welcome to like any game you want, but constently bashing others for enjoying things they think are fun and worth it is just sad.

Id swear, the first rule of warmahordes is "you must bash 40k"

Ok, out of those points you make which are based in facts, rather than hyperbole and conjecture, please explain how any of them are my problem as a consumer? If GW are compelled to charge their prices because of a situation of their own making, the they've just made a lot of poor decisions.

And looking at my price comparisons, GW is literally more than 10 times more expensive per model compared to Wargames Factory.

What the actual feth.

And you say GW's prices are not ridiculous in a model per model basis?