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.

Tsilber wrote:
"Yeah I'll believe the next Governor of CT is going to lower taxs when I see it''.

Well I feel a bit dumb, that actually clarifies it for me.

Sorry 'bout that.

Tomorrow is going to be interesting regardless.

I am told Lord of the Rings was incredibly popular during the move time period, but after the movies, they crapped on the rules and made it a "pump and dump" product.

Whether you saw it played or not is irrelevant, they sold a ton of that stuff and it drove some of the greatest growth GW have ever seen before the bubble burst.

 TheKbob wrote:
they crapped on the rules and made it a "pump and dump" product.

Yep - they pumped it, we dumped it.

 TheKbob wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
"Yeah I'll believe the next Governor of CT is going to lower taxs when I see it''.

Well I feel a bit dumb, that actually clarifies it for me.

Sorry 'bout that.

Tomorrow is going to be interesting regardless.

Nah, again perhaps my execution of sarcasm was lost in the translation of non face-to-face conversation. Add that to the fact I have defended GW in the past, add that to your strong position on this matter... well chalk it up to a simple mistake/misunderstanding on both parties.

Cheers, have a good night.

4 million pounds for a website, i guess the web design team was hired for their attitude and not their skills, or 100.000 for the website and the rest is a secret severance pay for when he steps down?

The cost of the web store is a red herring.

The real problem is the falling sales.

Yeah 4 million pounds for the website seems... exorbitant.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Backfire wrote:
I don't understand what's a big deal here.

-it's stupid piece of writing. Of course it is, Kirby's a corporate guy. Corporate propaganda pieces are always stupid and trying to spin everything in best possible light and often end up sounding hilarious. No exceptions. Did you see the letter with which Elop fired thousands of people from Microsoft? Kirby has NOTHING on Elop when it comes to stupid corporate language.

-Kirby's stepping down as CEO. Totally expected, AIUI Kirby doing the double chairs thing was always going to be somewhat temporary. Of course there is a caveat that he hints that he will continue if no suitable candidate is found, AND he will still continue as Chairman of the Board. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

-Steve Jobs comparison was surprisingly (though maybe unintentionally) adept in that Apple was and is extremely militant in using legal challenges to hunt down any actors, no matter how small, which it saw as a threat, including Apple fan sites and blogs. Hmm, sound familiar?

-GW website costed £4 million is somehow "OMG". I fail to see why. Sure it's not particularly GREAT site but exorbitant amount of money spent to seemingly crappy result is common enough in the world of corporate websites. Finnish State Railroads spent three years and 15 million euros for this site. It crashed within 3 hours of its induction...

You're early....

It's really depressing sign of the level of discussion, that anyone who does not immediately join to the crowd of baboons throwing excrement and howling, is labelled a white knight.

Backfire wrote:

It's really depressing sign of the level of discussion, that anyone who does not immediately join to the crowd of baboons throwing excrement and howling, is labelled a white knight.

I feel like it's the insurmountable evidence against the "defend GW" stance that makes the position more filled with conjecture than the always lambasted nay-sayers. I mean, as Tsilber put it (and me being slow to pick it up) a stopped clock is right twice a day. It might have been said for awhile, but that time looks to be approaching. We shall see tomorrow.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The cost of the web store is a red herring.

The real problem is the falling sales.

There is a whole school of red herring in that document...

xraytango wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
... namely Alan Roy Merrett and Andrew Jones.

I know one direct effect losing Merrett would cause (from a 40K lore perspective), but I see this as a "be careful what you wish for" situation.

 Yonan wrote:
The hooves... the thunder of the hooves is deafening!

As the sun rises, we may need to put on our sunglasses to protect from the blinding reflection.

I doubt that anything would happen to the lore, it has already been well established for the last 20+ years that the 41st millennium and its grimdark nature would actually change very little other than perhaps some minutiae. It would be the same universe with the same factions, nothing significant would change.

Matteus Wardicus.

Phoney or not GWS is up 5p since yesterday.

It'll be interesting to see the actual report.

 -Loki- wrote:
Yeah 4 million pounds for the website seems... exorbitant.

What do you think it's free to delete all the interesting stuff off of a website?

Think of it this was that's not actually allot of money per infinite web monkey that made the new GW website by mashing excrement on a keyboard.

Wow. I love it -- from the possibly actionable "they're stealing from us" part, to the awkward little jokes, to the smoke and mirrors over 3D printing ("We are EXPERTS in 3D printers, been using 'em for years, cornerstone of our production capability innit? They're RUBBISH.").

As for the website.... ugh. It's a very generic webstore. Last year, when I was teaching web design to undergrads, I got them to make webstores for their second project, a few months after the "My first webpage!" project. The scale is bigger on the GW one (so, yeah, a few hundred hours' work rather than a few dozen), but my best one or two students could certainly have done a cleaner, more aesthetically attractive, more platform-adaptive web design. And all the ones who passed would, at a bare minimum, have turned in a design that didn't have any errors in the code...

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.games-workshop.com%2Fen-GB%2FWarhammer-40-000&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0

 -Loki- wrote:
Probably the most unprofessionally written release from a company I've ever read.

I dunno man. The Grey Knight Codex is pretty terrible.

 TheKbob wrote:

Backfire wrote:

It's really depressing sign of the level of discussion, that anyone who does not immediately join to the crowd of baboons throwing excrement and howling, is labelled a white knight.

I feel like it's the insurmountable evidence against the "defend GW" stance that makes the position more filled with conjecture than the always lambasted nay-sayers. I mean, as Tsilber put it (and me being slow to pick it up) a stopped clock is right twice a day. It might have been said for awhile, but that time looks to be approaching. We shall see tomorrow.

There is a difference between "defend GW" stance, and "don't try to spin absolutely everything as evidence of GW's immediate downfall". Unfortunately, many people here are so entrenched in their "GW sucks" positions that anyone who does not agree on every line of their mantra is automatically labelled a "white knight".

I'm sure that the next financial report is not particularly great (it would be difficult for it to be given that their last half-year was quite bad), however it's unlikely to show an immediate collapse some people are fearing/savouring for.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Didn't see this posted yet.

(original link posted on Warseer by frozenwastes)
http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Chairmans-Preamble-2014.pdf

Kirby is stepping down as CEO (and will remain chairman, "if the board will have [him]") in January.

Games Workshop has had a really good year.

If your measure of 'good' is the current financial year's numbers, you may not agree. But if your measure is the long-term survivability of a great cash generating business that still has a lot of potential growth, then you will agree.

Because nobody else has yet:

This is Great News!

The Auld Grump

It is a pity we do not have access to the GW reports before 2003.

Well I got the narrative forging joke, so I couldn't also take the Great News joke away from the rest of you.

I'm not upset that he is spouting bs, I'm more upset that his bs is gak and not THE gak.

I mean, if you want to spout bs it should be the most professional sounding bs ever.

Wolf Lord Balrog posted this on Warseer:

My friend at GW tells me they had a big meeting about the financials today, everybody all at once. Obviously specifics would be a major no-no, but suffice it to say the numbers, while bad, are not as bad as the January report. They seem to have found a way to slow the fall, at least temporarily. Also, I'm told almost everybody was surprised to hear that Kirby is stepping down. It is another one of those 'articles of faith' that Tom Kirby is responsible for everything good about GW.

The numbers might not be that bad compared to January, but if they are still bad after all the cost cutting, rushed releases and quick cash-grabs, some of which are obviously meant for dressing up the annual report, then it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

I wouldn't get excited about a new CEO. It'll likely be an internal appointment for someone who will continue the same ethos, a Kirby yes-man. Kirby isn't resigning as such, he can't hold both chairman and CEO at the same time so is dropping one to go back to a position as when Mark Wells was with the company.

Exactly.

Kirby and his board of kronies will choose the new CEO. Kirby will continue to wield huge influence as chairman.

Nothing is likely to change until the current strategy is proved to be a false one. That could take another year or two, by which time GW's financial position may be under water.

Backfire wrote:


There is a difference between "defend GW" stance, and "don't try to spin absolutely everything as evidence of GW's immediate downfall". Unfortunately, many people here are so entrenched in their "GW sucks" positions that anyone who does not agree on every line of their mantra is automatically labelled a "white knight".

I'm sure that the next financial report is not particularly great (it would be difficult for it to be given that their last half-year was quite bad), however it's unlikely to show an immediate collapse some people are fearing/savouring for.

A few of us have sold off, so we have nothing to lose now if they stay up or go under. I sold off knowing they could fix themselves, right the ship, and then I could reward them in the future with my purchasing of a new Blood Angels army. That's my calculation.

However many others on the "GW sucks" (they kinda do, at least the views of the higher ups, when you see what they think of you as the customer) are still heavily invested and/or actively play based upon what they said. So there's no blood in the water. I'd hate for some of the GW store managers that I've met to lose their jobs. I'd hate for the artists who aren't on the level of the Perry Brothers to get washed out the back door. And I think of all those support folks GW did employ in the states. None of that is fun or amusing. Heckling because of the occasional derpy model or Ward fluff is one thing. This is completely another and most folks have come to the table armed with either open reasoning or expertise in the area of business management or economics that been the strongest proponents of collapse to include a gentleman wagering his personal merit and being the front man of a minis based company himself.

You have the entire industry watching. Some of us chuckleheads are just vocal armchair investors. But the big guys, including the competition, are watching.

shinr wrote:
Wolf Lord Balrog posted this on Warseer:

My friend at GW tells me they had a big meeting about the financials today, everybody all at once. Obviously specifics would be a major no-no, but suffice it to say the numbers, while bad, are not as bad as the January report. They seem to have found a way to slow the fall, at least temporarily. Also, I'm told almost everybody was surprised to hear that Kirby is stepping down. It is another one of those 'articles of faith' that Tom Kirby is responsible for everything good about GW.

The numbers might not be that bad compared to January, but if they are still bad after all the cost cutting, rushed releases and quick cash-grabs, some of which are obviously meant for dressing up the annual report, then it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

For sure! If the release of an entirely new edition, on top of all those new codices, didn't bring the reporting period out of the negative trend, then these are serious times indeed for GW.

The have shown declining profits for the last two reporting periods, not actually in the red, I know.

It's almost as though the rule of diminishing returns was ignored for a long time and a panic situation set in.

shinr wrote:
Wolf Lord Balrog posted this on Warseer:

My friend at GW tells me they had a big meeting about the financials today, everybody all at once. Obviously specifics would be a major no-no, but suffice it to say the numbers, while bad, are not as bad as the January report. They seem to have found a way to slow the fall, at least temporarily. Also, I'm told almost everybody was surprised to hear that Kirby is stepping down. It is another one of those 'articles of faith' that Tom Kirby is responsible for everything good about GW.

The numbers might not be that bad compared to January, but if they are still bad after all the cost cutting, rushed releases and quick cash-grabs, some of which are obviously meant for dressing up the annual report, then it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

The numbers are still down after Space Marines, an edition change, and something "all out" like Imperial Knights. Will the market really handle more $140 minis or $85 rulebooks so quickly?

Prices are part of the problem, in my view, but it's not the whole story.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Prices are part of the problem, in my view, but it's not the whole story.

Pricing is quite a minor issue in my view, its the lack of quality and creative vision that I find perturbing. The serious deficiencies within Games Workshop that have been allowed to fester for years will take a lot of time to clear away, certainly without a complete management restructuring, and by the looks of things there simply isn't much time left. Perhaps a buyout ins't all that far away after all.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Prices are part of the problem, in my view, but it's not the whole story.

I actually dont think price per model is an issue at all in isolation, I've just happily paid £66 for a box of 15 metal miniatures from corvus belli.

It is the price to play the game that is an issue.

That £66 got me 15 models, but it also got me two 200 point forces for a game that is tournament ready at 300 points, £60 more, and I have two tournamnet forces with options and some half decent scenery, some dice and templates.Whereas with GW, moving on from the DV starter box costs me £60 just for the rules to play the two armies, I havent even started on the several hundred needed to make some 1800 point forces.

GW games cost too much to play. Rules costs are a huge part of that, minis are too. Its the overall cost that is the problem, price at skirmish level, require mass battle numbers. In todays market, they cannot have both, and the people making decisions need to accept that. Quickly.

For my it's quality control of the game and the cost to play it. I never played Epic, but I trust those calling it Epic 40k now that it has Titans a-plenty in it. Just not feeling that kind of game anymore. Takes up too much space and too much time to paint. If the game was better, I could be convinced because then I could have a good army and not have it go bad on the carousal of crappy rules.

NoggintheNog wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Prices are part of the problem, in my view, but it's not the whole story.

I actually dont think price per model is an issue at all in isolation, I've just happily paid £66 for a box of 15 metal miniatures from corvus belli.

It is the price to play the game that is an issue.
...

GW games cost too much to play. Rules costs are a huge part of that, minis are too. Its the overall cost that is the problem, price at skirmish level, require mass battle numbers. In todays market, they cannot have both, and the people making decisions need to accept that. Quickly.

Yes, that is what I mean.

For me to just continue playing current 40K would cost me £110 to buy the new rules and latest versions (already out of date) of the Tau and Tyranid codexes. No new models, but I could field a correctly pointed army using my current models.

A completely new player needs £80 for the rules and codex before buying a single model.