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.

I really don't understand this view that X-Wing doesn't compete 'directly' with 40K. In the strictest definition, technically no, but only by a virtually irrelevant technicality. It is a popular table top Wargame enjoyed by the same demographic and competes for the same hobby dollars and the same time.

In most cases an xwing sale eats the sale of another Wargame.

Weeble, it's the normal human tendency to apply handwavium when something doesn't support opinion or argument. By stating that xwing is non-competitive with GW games, such individuals may focus on other aspects of their argument. It's blindingly obvious to most that one wargame competes for consumer money with other wargames. I certainly have a "hobby budget" not a "warhammer" and separate "xwing" budget.

 agnosto wrote:
Weeble, it's the normal human tendency to apply handwavium when something doesn't support opinion or argument. By stating that xwing is non-competitive with GW games, such individuals may focus on other aspects of their argument. It's blindingly obvious to most that one wargame competes for condumer money with other wargames. I certainly have a "hobby budget" not a "warhammer" and separate "xwing" budget.

+1

The amount of times I see "oh, thats historical models, they are non-competitive with GW games"

Used to buy all GW/. Now buy lots of things including many historicals and no GW at all. Its the same hobby money, not some special "other" hobby budget!

MtG competes with my GW money and money for any other miniatures company. I can't afford MtG and heaps of miniatures. Everyone has limited disposable income, everything competes with everything else for my attention.

weeble1000 wrote:
I really don't understand this view that X-Wing doesn't compete 'directly' with 40K. In the strictest definition, technically no, but only by a virtually irrelevant technicality. It is a popular table top Wargame enjoyed by the same demographic and competes for the same hobby dollars and the same time.

In most cases an xwing sale eats the sale of another Wargame.

If it is competing then it's not doing it very well. Look at the graph - xwing goes up in popularity, no immediate or obvious impact on 40k.

KommissarKarl wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
I really don't understand this view that X-Wing doesn't compete 'directly' with 40K. In the strictest definition, technically no, but only by a virtually irrelevant technicality. It is a popular table top Wargame enjoyed by the same demographic and competes for the same hobby dollars and the same time.

In most cases an xwing sale eats the sale of another Wargame.

If it is competing then it's not doing it very well. Look at the graph - xwing goes up in popularity, no immediate or obvious impact on 40k.

Yep, x wing is doing a terrible job of competing in Google trends. Fantasy Flight Games CEO was recently talking about how they where seeing huge growth and X wing blisters wont stay on the shelves if you glue them there.
GW is power shrinking and despite how fast it appears they are selling out of Stormclaw boxes a ton have been allocated to stores so that looks better than it is. We do know it took them forever to sell through only 2,000 copies of the limited edition 7th ed book.

 jonolikespie wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
I really don't understand this view that X-Wing doesn't compete 'directly' with 40K. In the strictest definition, technically no, but only by a virtually irrelevant technicality. It is a popular table top Wargame enjoyed by the same demographic and competes for the same hobby dollars and the same time.

In most cases an xwing sale eats the sale of another Wargame.

If it is competing then it's not doing it very well. Look at the graph - xwing goes up in popularity, no immediate or obvious impact on 40k.

Yep, x wing is doing a terrible job of competing in Google trends. Fantasy Flight Games CEO was recently talking about how they where seeing huge growth and X wing blisters wont stay on the shelves if you glue them there.
GW is power shrinking and despite how fast it appears they are selling out of Stormclaw boxes a ton have been allocated to stores so that looks better than it is. We do know it took them forever to sell through only 2,000 copies of the limited edition 7th ed book.

Since we're in a thread about google trends, mind using some of them to back up your point? Since it is actual, y'know, data, rather than baseless assertions?

KommissarKarl wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
I really don't understand this view that X-Wing doesn't compete 'directly' with 40K. In the strictest definition, technically no, but only by a virtually irrelevant technicality. It is a popular table top Wargame enjoyed by the same demographic and competes for the same hobby dollars and the same time.

In most cases an xwing sale eats the sale of another Wargame.

If it is competing then it's not doing it very well. Look at the graph - xwing goes up in popularity, no immediate or obvious impact on 40k.

Yep, x wing is doing a terrible job of competing in Google trends. Fantasy Flight Games CEO was recently talking about how they where seeing huge growth and X wing blisters wont stay on the shelves if you glue them there.
GW is power shrinking and despite how fast it appears they are selling out of Stormclaw boxes a ton have been allocated to stores so that looks better than it is. We do know it took them forever to sell through only 2,000 copies of the limited edition 7th ed book.

Since we're in a thread about google trends, mind using some of them to back up your point? Since it is actual, y'know, data, rather than baseless assertions?

My entire point was Google trends proves nothing more than what people are searching Google for.

This thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/589125.page seems to suggest that FFG are doing very well for themselves since the launch of X wing.

The fact that it took GW a month or so to sell out of the only 2,000 LE copies of the 7th ed book, and that in oz Dyst Wars 2.0 seems to have outsold 7th ed by a wide margin through non GW retailers in Oz both suggest that GW is not.
(Not to mention all the other stuff going on with them, closing HQs for entire continents can't be a sign of anything but a company shrinking.)

 jonolikespie wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
I really don't understand this view that X-Wing doesn't compete 'directly' with 40K. In the strictest definition, technically no, but only by a virtually irrelevant technicality. It is a popular table top Wargame enjoyed by the same demographic and competes for the same hobby dollars and the same time.

In most cases an xwing sale eats the sale of another Wargame.

If it is competing then it's not doing it very well. Look at the graph - xwing goes up in popularity, no immediate or obvious impact on 40k.

Yep, x wing is doing a terrible job of competing in Google trends. Fantasy Flight Games CEO was recently talking about how they where seeing huge growth and X wing blisters wont stay on the shelves if you glue them there.
GW is power shrinking and despite how fast it appears they are selling out of Stormclaw boxes a ton have been allocated to stores so that looks better than it is. We do know it took them forever to sell through only 2,000 copies of the limited edition 7th ed book.

Since we're in a thread about google trends, mind using some of them to back up your point? Since it is actual, y'know, data, rather than baseless assertions?

My entire point was Google trends proves nothing more than what people are searching Google for.

Uh, how old are you? What people are googling = what people are interested in. If I want to look up x wing, I'll go to google and type in "x wing". If I'm interested in 40k, I'll go to google and put in "warhammer 40k". If people aren't googling FFG or Warmachine, it means they aren't interested in it.

Though I do admire your audacity in the face of evidence that utterly disproves your point

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Weeble, it's the normal human tendency to apply handwavium when something doesn't support opinion or argument. By stating that xwing is non-competitive with GW games, such individuals may focus on other aspects of their argument. It's blindingly obvious to most that one wargame competes for condumer money with other wargames. I certainly have a "hobby budget" not a "warhammer" and separate "xwing" budget.

+1

The amount of times I see "oh, thats historical models, they are non-competitive with GW games"

Used to buy all GW/. Now buy lots of things including many historicals and no GW at all. Its the same hobby money, not some special "other" hobby budget!

The thing is there are plenty of people who play only GW and don't play any other wargames. I mean GW is their first and only game. They may in time go on to other games or perhaps simply drop out of wargames, but at the moment they only want to play GW.

These are the people for whom historical figures and other wargames are not competition for GW.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
My entire point was Google trends proves nothing more than what people are searching Google for.

Uh, how old are you? What people are googling = what people are interested in. If I want to look up x wing, I'll go to google and type in "x wing". If I'm interested in 40k, I'll go to google and put in "warhammer 40k". If people aren't googling FFG or Warmachine, it means they aren't interested in it.

Though I do admire your audacity in the face of evidence that utterly disproves your point

You seem to be entirely missing my point. I don't give a crap what people are googling. You suggested that X wing was not competing very well with GW because more people where googling 40k than it.

I understand perfectly that more people have googled X wing than 40k.

My point was that X wing is selling more and more product as time goes on. GW is selling less year on year.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
I really don't understand this view that X-Wing doesn't compete 'directly' with 40K. In the strictest definition, technically no, but only by a virtually irrelevant technicality. It is a popular table top Wargame enjoyed by the same demographic and competes for the same hobby dollars and the same time.

In most cases an xwing sale eats the sale of another Wargame.

If it is competing then it's not doing it very well. Look at the graph - xwing goes up in popularity, no immediate or obvious impact on 40k.

Yep, x wing is doing a terrible job of competing in Google trends. Fantasy Flight Games CEO was recently talking about how they where seeing huge growth and X wing blisters wont stay on the shelves if you glue them there.
GW is power shrinking and despite how fast it appears they are selling out of Stormclaw boxes a ton have been allocated to stores so that looks better than it is. We do know it took them forever to sell through only 2,000 copies of the limited edition 7th ed book.

Since we're in a thread about google trends, mind using some of them to back up your point? Since it is actual, y'know, data, rather than baseless assertions?

My entire point was Google trends proves nothing more than what people are searching Google for.

Uh, how old are you? What people are googling = what people are interested in. If I want to look up x wing, I'll go to google and type in "x wing". If I'm interested in 40k, I'll go to google and put in "warhammer 40k". If people aren't googling FFG or Warmachine, it means they aren't interested in it.

Though I do admire your audacity in the face of evidence that utterly disproves your point

I'm interested in Scuba diving, going on holiday, buying a car, buying a house, buying a Thunderhawk Gunship.

Do you know how much money I've actually spent on any of those things in the last... 4 years? Despite spending time online looking at them all.

Zero.

This is not "evidence" it is an interesting talking point, but it does not give any clear indication in the relative performance of any of the things in question in real life.

Azrael nails it. Interest =/= participation or purchases and is far from indication of actual success.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Azrael nails it. Interest =/= participation or purchases and is far from indication of actual success.

Yes, exactly.

Also, "Infinity the Game" is what to search for on Google.

Interesting that we can't figure out how to zero in on X-Wing as a game, but we can safely exclude Infinity?!?

X Wing Miniatures is what yields best results on eBay for me....

weeble1000 wrote:
I really don't understand this view that X-Wing doesn't compete 'directly' with 40K. In the strictest definition, technically no, but only by a virtually irrelevant technicality. It is a popular table top Wargame enjoyed by the same demographic and competes for the same hobby dollars and the same time. .

For me, it's not direct competition because it's a completely different type of game. If I wanted an alternative to 40K, I wouldn't look at a starship battles game. I would look for another 28-ish mm ground-warfare game that allows for battles of a similar size to 40K. I would look at x-wing if I was looking for a starship battles game.

Which, yes, means that I don't really consider, say, Infinity or Warmahordes to be direct competition with 40K either... They're smaller skirmish games.

So far as I'm aware, there really isn't any directly comparable alternative to 40K on the market at the moment (which is a large part of the reason that I've kept playing it as long as I have). Just other, different types of games that you can play instead.

 insaniak wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
I really don't understand this view that X-Wing doesn't compete 'directly' with 40K. In the strictest definition, technically no, but only by a virtually irrelevant technicality. It is a popular table top Wargame enjoyed by the same demographic and competes for the same hobby dollars and the same time. .

For me, it's not direct competition because it's a completely different type of game. If I wanted an alternative to 40K, I wouldn't look at a starship battles game. I would look for another 28-ish mm ground-warfare game that allows for battles of a similar size to 40K. I would look at x-wing if I was looking for a starship battles game.

Which, yes, means that I don't really consider, say, Infinity or Warmahordes to be direct competition with 40K either... They're smaller skirmish games.

So far as I'm aware, there really isn't any directly comparable alternative to 40K on the market at the moment (which is a large part of the reason that I've kept playing it as long as I have). Just other, different types of games that you can play instead.

That's making an assumption that you, as a hobbyist and gamer, are only interested in 28-30mm, large-scale battles. It's been my experience, YMMV, that most gamers have more varied taste and buy into several systems. As GW prices rise to absurdium(tm) levels, consumers evaluate what the worth of GW's product is to them. When faced with a value choice between a minimum $85 investment every time an edition changes for just the rules and a $55-$60 investment for army books when these are updated, there is less value in the game. To me, again YMMV, the whole point in having a miniature wargame is to have miniatures not blow my entire hobby budget on the rules. As has been stated, other companies seem to "get" this and manage the prices and/or options for acquiring the rules for their games accordingly; however, it appears that GW is either unwilling or unable to consider such options.

That said, I agree on your point as to "direct" competition between 40k and other games (except maybe Mantic's Warpath but this is still in its infancy) but these other systems ARE in direct competition with GW for consumer dollars. The more I spend on other games because I recognize the inherent value in spending less on rules, the less I spend on GW which translates into an overall lowering in how often I search for GW-related content. Take this on an industry-wide scale and you see what is actually happening, a general growth in wargaming that is spread out over a diverse number of small-medium sized firms.

As far as trends go. I would say that if you took the overall growth in search queries for these other games and added them together, you might arrive at the difference in GW's decline and the industry's growth. I'm just guessing here and have no hard evidence but it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.

I think a lot of people haven't considered the people who aren't googling GW franchises... Or get their information somewhere else...

I know neither my friends nor myself had had to google GW etc for a very long time because we know where to find it..

All this really tells me is there is a measurable decline in initial interest from new users...
Whether that translates to less interest in general and by how much is up for debate...

 insaniak wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
I really don't understand this view that X-Wing doesn't compete 'directly' with 40K. In the strictest definition, technically no, but only by a virtually irrelevant technicality. It is a popular table top Wargame enjoyed by the same demographic and competes for the same hobby dollars and the same time. .

For me, it's not direct competition because it's a completely different type of game. If I wanted an alternative to 40K, I wouldn't look at a starship battles game. I would look for another 28-ish mm ground-warfare game that allows for battles of a similar size to 40K. I would look at x-wing if I was looking for a starship battles game.

Which, yes, means that I don't really consider, say, Infinity or Warmahordes to be direct competition with 40K either... They're smaller skirmish games.

So far as I'm aware, there really isn't any directly comparable alternative to 40K on the market at the moment (which is a large part of the reason that I've kept playing it as long as I have). Just other, different types of games that you can play instead.

If - by a narrow definition you are talking about games which have rules and miniatures from the same manufacturer...I would agree. If you are talking about rules alone...not at all. There are dozens of systems which are available that feature reinforced platoon sized battles (infantry and vehicles).

Some of them are strictly designed for that scale (so they function at the task much better than 40K) while others are skirmish games that have had vehicles added to them (so they function in many ways the same as 40K). The threads have covered them enough to not go back over them again - but in most cases you can even continue to use your current 40K armies with the new ruleset and expand from there using other companies miniatures for different and new factions.

Once people get over the hang up of buying rules and miniatures from the same company - their options open up dramatically. The best rules I have ever played have been from companies that don't even produce miniatures to begin with (and as a result - their rules have to be better in order to actually sell on their own merits).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Bob wrote:
All this really tells me is there is a measurable decline in initial interest from new users...
Whether that translates to less interest in general and by how much is up for debate...

I fail to see how there can be any debate. Fewer new people means less interest - even if the only way old players stopped playing is when they die off. GW has been around long enough that a lot of their initial user base is leaving the hobby due to the attrition of the grim reaper (with no mention of those leaving for school, family, work and other obligations). If they can not get new blood, the interest in the game will dry up.

 insaniak wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
I really don't understand this view that X-Wing doesn't compete 'directly' with 40K. In the strictest definition, technically no, but only by a virtually irrelevant technicality. It is a popular table top Wargame enjoyed by the same demographic and competes for the same hobby dollars and the same time. .

For me, it's not direct competition because it's a completely different type of game. If I wanted an alternative to 40K, I wouldn't look at a starship battles game. I would look for another 28-ish mm ground-warfare game that allows for battles of a similar size to 40K. I would look at x-wing if I was looking for a starship battles game.

Which, yes, means that I don't really consider, say, Infinity or Warmahordes to be direct competition with 40K either... They're smaller skirmish games.

So far as I'm aware, there really isn't any directly comparable alternative to 40K on the market at the moment (which is a large part of the reason that I've kept playing it as long as I have). Just other, different types of games that you can play instead.

I would suggest, in my opinion, it is indeed direct competition in the proffesional definition.
Whilst there is a micro-examination case in the strictest (but only definable by the seperate micro-entities) sense, you must remember that the product is sold at thee same venues, with the same legslation in all countries, and aiming its initial interest campaigns at the same consumers.
And to add my own experience to it, my local book-bowl gamers are always trying to get cross-gamers ore to Xwing.. So there is further premis for identical consumer marketin.
Considering them seperate industries is like saying macdonalds and Burger King are different because there are two groups that don't like the competitions sauce.

 insaniak wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
I really don't understand this view that X-Wing doesn't compete 'directly' with 40K. In the strictest definition, technically no, but only by a virtually irrelevant technicality. It is a popular table top Wargame enjoyed by the same demographic and competes for the same hobby dollars and the same time. .

For me, it's not direct competition because it's a completely different type of game. If I wanted an alternative to 40K, I wouldn't look at a starship battles game. I would look for another 28-ish mm ground-warfare game that allows for battles of a similar size to 40K. I would look at x-wing if I was looking for a starship battles game.

Which, yes, means that I don't really consider, say, Infinity or Warmahordes to be direct competition with 40K either... They're smaller skirmish games.

So far as I'm aware, there really isn't any directly comparable alternative to 40K on the market at the moment (which is a large part of the reason that I've kept playing it as long as I have). Just other, different types of games that you can play instead.

This is why the two are note technically, by the strictest definition, direct competitors. But A) when people say the two aren't direct competitors, they usually mean that they don't compete (directly or not), and B) splitting the tiny TTG fantasy wargame market that fine is impractical. Once you've parsed TTG down into the fantasy and wargame categories you've narrowed it down to a rather tight niche.

Nobody is buying an X-Wing miniature to play 40K and vice versa. However, plenty of consumers freely substitute the X-Wing game for the 40K game, regardless of the differences in the scale/genre. Rarely does a gamer come into the market looking specifically for a 28mm squad level table top miniatures sci-fi/fantasy wargame and choosing from amongst the available options. In my experience it typically doesn't work like that, especially not with the bigger players in the market. You might find Pike and Shotte because you are looking specifically for a new game that covers that particular period of time, and one game is just about as good as another as the models easily cross over to new systems.

Mainstream TTG fantasy wargames don't recruit players like that. GW recruits by pushing the fluff and word of mouth. By an overwhelming percentage (including FLGS worldwide and the internet) that word of mouth involves dual exposure to the products of GW and its biggest competitors. The fluff is out there competing with other sci-fi/fantasy universes, such as Star Wars, in the form of novelizations right next to each other on book shelves, video games right alongside one another, etc.

In competing for new customers GW is fighting tooth and nail with X-Wing. In competing to maintain existing customers, and the hobby dollars of existing customers, GW is fighting tooth and nail with X-Wing. The way GW operates, every single dollar spent by a GW customer on X-Wing is very dangerous as it whittles down interest in and commitment to GW's products. This has implications for not merely sales today, but to GW's marketing.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Azrael nails it. Interest =/= participation or purchases and is far from indication of actual success.

Yes, exactly.

Also, "Infinity the Game" is what to search for on Google.

Interesting that we can't figure out how to zero in on X-Wing as a game, but we can safely exclude Infinity?!?

Unless there's a disconnect in my reading comprehension, but thanks to Disney, Infinity the Game is drastically skewed right now.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andyrobertson/2014/07/24/disney-infinity-guardians-of-the-galaxy/

 insaniak wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
I really don't understand this view that X-Wing doesn't compete 'directly' with 40K. In the strictest definition, technically no, but only by a virtually irrelevant technicality. It is a popular table top Wargame enjoyed by the same demographic and competes for the same hobby dollars and the same time. .

For me, it's not direct competition because it's a completely different type of game. If I wanted an alternative to 40K, I wouldn't look at a starship battles game. I would look for another 28-ish mm ground-warfare game that allows for battles of a similar size to 40K. I would look at x-wing if I was looking for a starship battles game.

Which, yes, means that I don't really consider, say, Infinity or Warmahordes to be direct competition with 40K either... They're smaller skirmish games.

So far as I'm aware, there really isn't any directly comparable alternative to 40K on the market at the moment (which is a large part of the reason that I've kept playing it as long as I have). Just other, different types of games that you can play instead.

I think your definition of things is a little narrow. I like gardening and am setting up aqua culture , now by your definition these two things aren't in direct competition for my money, whereas in reality they are. Spend more on gardening = spend less on aqua culture. I view them as part of the same thing , creating food.

Miniature gaming is in competition with miniature gaming not large scale 28mm gaming competes against large scale 28 mm gaming . I don't know any gamers that play one game.
I'll leave it at that before I say what I really think.

 Bullockist wrote:
I think your definition of things is a little narrow. I like gardening and am setting up aqua culture , now by your definition these two things aren't in direct competition for my money, whereas in reality they are. Spend more on gardening = spend less on aqua culture. I view them as part of the same thing , creating food.

That's because you're interested in both of those things.

If someone is interested specifically in 28mm ground-based wargame, and not particularly interested in space battles, then a ground based game and a space battle game are not in competition... because the latter is simply not a consideration for that person.

Not everyone is interested in the entire pantheon of miniature wargaming. And so those games that lie outside their field of interest are not competing for those players' hobby dollars.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

weeble1000 wrote:
Rarely does a gamer come into the market looking specifically for a 28mm squad level table top miniatures sci-fi/fantasy wargame and choosing from amongst the available options. .

Which is why I prefaced my comment with 'For me...'. I'm perfectly willing to accept that I might be the outlier here.

But the scope and the setting of the game is a very large part of the attraction for me. Flames of War, for example, might be a fantastic game, but aside from the awesomeness inherent in teeny tiny tanks, it holds no interest for me because I'm just not particularly interested in historical games (War at Sea being the exception there, because warships are cool).

So despite often being touted as an alternative to 40K, for me it simply isn't. Regardless of how disillusioned I may be with 7th edition 40K, I'm not going to look at Flames of War as a viable alternative.


Similarly, I enjoy Warmahordes... but as a different game, not as a replacement. I don't play it instead of playing 40K. I play it when I feel like playing a skirmish game.

I think a lot of people are interested in the pantheon of gaming Insaniak, or at least to the point where you must acknowledge that some people will have spent money on X-Wing that they might otherwise have spent on 40k.

Although, in some cases there is the argument that as 40k/WFB become more and more expensive, require more miniatures to play and a greater commitment of time to learn all of the rules and keep the convoluted supplements together, this makes players less likely to look at or pick up another game. If you're already spending 2 hours a night painting up the new unit that the new DLC has just made competitive, looking at YMDC to find out how an ambiguously written rule is meant to be played, then you're not going to have that much time to look at anything else.

 Pacific wrote:
I think a lot of people are interested in the pantheon of gaming Insaniak, or at least to the point where you must acknowledge that some people will have spent money on X-Wing that they might otherwise have spent on 40k.

I never said otherwise. I was just pointing out why some people (in this case myself, specifically) don't view it as direct competition. Again, that wasn't intended to represent a universal viewpoint, just my own.

Don't worry GW assured me this is just a temporary fad used by nerds and weirdos. None of this is important.

 jonolikespie wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
My entire point was Google trends proves nothing more than what people are searching Google for.

Uh, how old are you? What people are googling = what people are interested in. If I want to look up x wing, I'll go to google and type in "x wing". If I'm interested in 40k, I'll go to google and put in "warhammer 40k". If people aren't googling FFG or Warmachine, it means they aren't interested in it.

Though I do admire your audacity in the face of evidence that utterly disproves your point

You seem to be entirely missing my point. I don't give a crap what people are googling.

Then why are you in this thread? You clearly have the same mentality as GW if you don't think the internet is relevent


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

I'm interested in Scuba diving, going on holiday, buying a car, buying a house, buying a Thunderhawk Gunship.

Do you know how much money I've actually spent on any of those things in the last... 4 years? Despite spending time online looking at them all.

Zero.

This is not "evidence" it is an interesting talking point, but it does not give any clear indication in the relative performance of any of the things in question in real life.

You've managed to disagree with my post, while at the same time agreeing with everything I say. This seems to be a pattern of yours...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Azrael nails it. Interest =/= participation or purchases and is far from indication of actual success.

Yes, exactly.

Also, "Infinity the Game" is what to search for on Google.

Interesting that we can't figure out how to zero in on X-Wing as a game, but we can safely exclude Infinity?!?

Very well since you've applied the appropriate term. Warhammer 40k vs Warmachine vs Infinity the game:

edit - since the "alternative games" seem a lot bigger in the usa, here's the same graph as above for the states:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

I'm interested in Scuba diving, going on holiday, buying a car, buying a house, buying a Thunderhawk Gunship.

Do you know how much money I've actually spent on any of those things in the last... 4 years? Despite spending time online looking at them all.

Zero.

This is not "evidence" it is an interesting talking point, but it does not give any clear indication in the relative performance of any of the things in question in real life.

You've managed to disagree with my post, while at the same time agreeing with everything I say. This seems to be a pattern of yours...

You've managed to embark on an argument while appearing to have a tenuous grasp of the concepts and facts at hand, which seems to be a pattern of yours..

I work in internet marketing/ social media and do a lot with SEO, so I'd offer my thoughts.

Google trends is a problematic, imprecise way to evaluate companies -- especially when comparing two like GW and PP.

Search traffic typically accounts for one type of user: The uninformed, new searcher looking to garner information. To this end it does show that less new people are search for Games Workshop. This could be due to a lack of interest, it could also be a poor social media strategy that leads to a lack of connection between GW and its product.

With time and following it's natural that search will fall. Ostensibly you've reached your audience and new searches will trail off.

How many 40K players are searching for "Games Workshop" vs. going to Dakka, Faeit, BoLS etc. When you advance your strategy you will see a drop off in search traffic.

Painting a whole picture of a company's internet presence takes a lot more. Essentially it would mean taking the company's site, and cross referencing that data with other search terms. From there it's also about evaluating third party sites.

Here's one small example from Alexa that shows the GW vs. PP in trends is not, in fact, very useful data.

gamesworkshop.com: Global rank 25,846
privateerpress.com: Global rank 151,820

Obviously a lower number is better. In terms of internet interest GW is towering over PP in the most important place: People visiting their site.

It's also interesting to see that PP's international presence is not as healthy and diversified as GW's. Over 30% of PP's traffic comes from Sweden, that's not good. You want to see your traffic spread over multiple countries, ideally equally.

GW is getting 20% from US, 20% from UK and 16.8% from France.

Also, according to Alexa (which is more accurate than trends) GW's search traffic has grown by +9% in the last six months, while PP's has fallen -21%.

What is interesting, however, is that 18% of PP's upstream visits are from Facebook to 4.9% of GW's. That means Games Workshop is handily losing the social media battle right now and an area they need to correct.

The tl;dr version is: Financial reports are obviously more important, but if I'm stepping back and looking at the two companies it's GW who's in a far better position from a web traffic standpoint. That said, they need to fix their lack of social media -- because that helps drive new customers.

I'm hardly a GW apologist, but it seems a lot of people are deriving big conclusions from one piece of search data -- one that's historically quite inaccurate.