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 did a little research on the history of the profit margin. GW hasn't had profit margins this low since mid year 2008. That was over five years ago when the company (by it's own statements) had a lot of areas to cut and a bunch of streamlining that could be implemented. The next year is going to be very interesting indeed.

With, pretty much, the company cut down to the bare bones in terms of cost of sales and operating expenses, what exactly are they going to do?

We know that they used to believe that a 5 year run was the maximum for a core rule set, but that has changed and made the predictability of future publishing unpredictable. The same is true for their most popular codices and armies with longer runs for the lower selling armies. (Which makes sense, as they need to reach a certain level of sales in order to justify the expenditures for an update). But, once again that seems to be changed as well.

So, who knows what's in store.

Rather than shrinking down to 2-3 games, I'd like to see the old GW emerge with a variety of one-off or supplemental systems. Something kill-team like, where they could package existing models in new ways for a smaller ruleset. They could use the smaller aspect games to draw new individuals in, then as those folks model collection grows they could branch out into 40K and the like.

But also, I'd like to see them take a stab at some new IP. Like the days when Space Hulk and Dark Future came out, they were pratically working beyond their established worlds. They've had 40K and the Warhammer world forever, it would probably draw a lot of attention if they created a whole new mythos and threw some support its way. That sort of innovation would help to show they aren't stuck in a creative rut and may attract additional players who aren't interested in their 70's/80's-forged narrative worlds.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Skirmish isn't a bad thing to have in the product portfolio, and I think a 40k skirmish game done right could be a great product. But note how these other companies being mentioned start at a skirmish level but almost without fail soon begin pushing larger games, larger units/models/etc, more factions, additional settings, etc. Bloat is where the money is.

That's silly. Just because some other companies eventually expand to compete with GW's bloated rules, GW should completely cede a large and growing market for small/skirmish/casual games to their competitors? No, they should be trying to crowd them out at all levels, capturing more of the gaming market by bringing in players with a variety of games at a lower price point, all of which should tie into their main offerings.

What's silly about my statement?

Privateer DIDN'T introduce Hordes, new factions, Colossals, Unbound, etc?
FFG DIDN'T just introduce capital ships to X-Wing?
Etc.

Bloat IS where the money is. That may not fit into your narrative, but clearly other game companies see that and develop their products accordingly. The lack of a skirmish game in their product portfolio may be hurting them, but I really think that's well down the list of their issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
True this. GW gave up large sections of its market to companies that gladly stepped in and took their place. Blood Bowl, BFG, Necromunda. That's money that isn't going to GW and going to competitors.

Clearly many people play X-Wing, Warmachine, Infinity, etc. because they want to play X-Wing, Warmachine, Infinity, etc. and not because of the absence of an equivalent GW game. GW's competition is putting out more attractive and better products than in the days of Warzone, VOR, etc. That was going to happen eventually.

What probably didn't have to happen is GW's gradual abandonment of various customer communities, including the local FLGSs. By cutting support and promotion, creating unfriendly policies, etc., they lost the ground game to competitors. (Where are the Outriders? I know the Press Gangers are out there.)

Bloat isn't working for GW any more, though.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Bloat isn't working for GW any more, though.

Agreed. IMO this concept of 'bloat' only works if you have a foundation to build on. GW has sacrificed entry level (skirmish) sized games and focused on large end game tech. and anyone who has tried to tech to battlecruisers while you have half a dozen zerglings killing your harvesters knows how futile that can be.

This picture sums it up perfectly

 gorgon wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Skirmish isn't a bad thing to have in the product portfolio, and I think a 40k skirmish game done right could be a great product. But note how these other companies being mentioned start at a skirmish level but almost without fail soon begin pushing larger games, larger units/models/etc, more factions, additional settings, etc. Bloat is where the money is.

That's silly. Just because some other companies eventually expand to compete with GW's bloated rules, GW should completely cede a large and growing market for small/skirmish/casual games to their competitors? No, they should be trying to crowd them out at all levels, capturing more of the gaming market by bringing in players with a variety of games at a lower price point, all of which should tie into their main offerings.

What's silly about my statement?

Privateer DIDN'T introduce Hordes, new factions, Colossals, Unbound, etc?
FFG DIDN'T just introduce capital ships to X-Wing?
Etc.

Bloat IS where the money is. That may not fit into your narrative, but clearly other game companies see that and develop their products accordingly. The lack of a skirmish game in their product portfolio may be hurting them, but I really think that's well down the list of their issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
True this. GW gave up large sections of its market to companies that gladly stepped in and took their place. Blood Bowl, BFG, Necromunda. That's money that isn't going to GW and going to competitors.

Clearly many people play X-Wing, Warmachine, Infinity, etc. because they want to play X-Wing, Warmachine, Infinity, etc. and not because of the absence of an equivalent GW game. GW's competition is putting out more attractive and better products than in the days of Warzone, VOR, etc. That was going to happen eventually.

What probably didn't have to happen is GW's gradual abandonment of various customer communities, including the local FLGSs. By cutting support and promotion, creating unfriendly policies, etc., they lost the ground game to competitors. (Where are the Outriders? I know the Press Gangers are out there.)

If GW Skrimish game were still supported I wouldn't of gone looking around and found the games I play now. How is that good for GW.

Folks seem to belabor a point of Gargantuan and Colossal models in Warmahordes, but they forget to go the full distance on the argument. These models are not met with the same contention as Lords of War in Warhammer 40k, and many feel like the Gargantuans are underpowered for their points cost. They can also be routinely found on eBay and internet stores for under $100 each. They are also made of metal and resin, more costly materials than HIPS to manufacture, and are generally bulkier than the GW lines and still manage to be cheaper.

If anything, GW saw the success of big models in PP line-up with the Stormwall and Conquest and GW started tooling up the Riptide and Wraithknight. Then came the Imperial Knight. To me, knowing that one Kraken for my Cryx is a significant investment for my army versus knowing a Wraithknight was a much smaller chunk, that made me never buy one.

All the game companies "leverage the market" to steal share ideas. Games Workshop is built upon a conglomerate of shared ideas. The long and short of it is GW's large models feel like broken cash-grabs that are marked up way too high for their inclusion in an army versus something like the models in Warmachine in which one of those models is a significant chunk of your army (40% or greater determining on points level).

Carry on.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It's just like 40k but you only need one box of marines.

I can see a problem with that, but it's the first four words rather than the last eight.

Just imagine a consumer walking into a FLGS and checking out Warhammer or Warhammer 40k. He finds a box of models that he thinks looks cool and he checks the price tag. "Hm, $37 for a box of minis is a bit pricey, but surely I can do something with them." Consumer inquires with the clerk about Warhammer 40K and these new fabulous Space Wolves. The clerk informs the consumer that to play, he is probably going to have to invest in the rulebook and a codex to begin with. Then, he may need 2 more or so of those boxes plus a few other models here and there to fill out a small army. The consumer does some quick math in his head, looks again at the box and sets it back down on the shelf. He either browses for another game that looks just as good for a fraction of the price, or he leaves the store without anything.

The same customer could pick up that box and inquire about Warhammer 40K. If GW had some sort of entry skirmish game, the clerk could happily say, "Well, that is just a fraction of a much larger army. In Warhammer 40k, you can field dreadnoughts, wolf-riding marines, large battle tanks and flying gunships! Of course, if you're not ready for something of that scale quite yet, you can pick up that box of Wolf Guard and download the rules for [Enter Skirmish game title here]. Just find a friend to get a box of an opposing faction and you can run through the campaign to get a feel for the game!"

That situation is win-win. GW has just ensnared a customer with a single sale. The barrier to entry has not quite reared its head. Instead, a smaller game has gotten two or more new players involved. They may end up just wanting to play the skirmish game. They may end up wanting to get the expansion and each get a dreadnought or terminators to fill out their armies. Eventually, they may want to get their respective codices and fill out their armies.

The point is that the life and death of GW starts right there, when the customer decides whether or not to set that box back down on the shelf. Sure, there are other things that GW could be doing, but barrier of entry, I would say, is the number one reason why GW is failing. You can't hemorrhage veteran players without replacing them with new blood. You can't replace them with new blood if you don't market your products to your sales demographic. And, of course, you can't market your products if you do no market research.

 TheKbob wrote:
GW's large models feel like broken cash-grabs that are marked up way too high for their inclusion in an army

This probably has a lot to do with why GW is bleeding customers. High prices on kits, the size of the investment for a 2000 point army - yes those are big obstacles to attracting new customers.

But GW is losing customers that can afford the hobby as well. Manipulating game balance to drive sales is a tough pill to swallow.
It implies GW thinks:
a. We are too stupid to recognize these sales tactics, or
b. We don't care about the integrity of the game

Either way, it suggests they have a very low opinion of us, and care little for how we feel.

They've alienated such a large portion of their customers, and put up do many barriers to new customers. I don't think they have much chance of escaping this hole they've dug themselves into

sand.zzz wrote:
Manipulating game balance to drive sales is a tough pill to swallow.
It implies GW thinks:
a. We are too stupid to recognize these sales tactics, or
b. We don't care about the integrity of the game

Agreed. It is underhanded in the first place, but if you're going to do it anyway, don't be so disgustingly obvious about it. I seriously thought that they might have included Allies in 6th Edition to get everyone to buy a half-baked ally force, then turn around and remove Allies from 7th edition in an effort to get customers to think, "Well, I already have this half army. Might as well fill it out!"

 Hulksmash wrote:
I saw people playing with GW made Titans (FW and Plastic Stompa's) in 2007. When did Collosals & Gargantuans come out again?

Unless the latter was a conversion I highly doubt that as the plastic Stompa was released in 2009.

The Gargossals were released in 2012 but had been in development for much longer. PP originally wanted to release them at the time of Apotheosis in 2005 but their tech had not caught up yet.

 Wolfstan wrote:
The box sets aren't about being a major revenue earner, they are about keeping gamers interested, introducing new gamers to the world of 40k or even getting money out of gamers who aren't really that fussed about 40k but like that box set. It's extra revenue and a good way to test the water.

I think they missed a trick with Aeronautica Imperialis. If they'd done models at sensible prices it could of picked up more players, but they didn't and it died a death.

Same with Zone Mortalis. A skirmish level, ship boarding Space Hulk style game where I can use my existing models? Yes please! Oh, wait, I have to spend £180 on resin board tiles, and there's no support from GW. Big missed opportunity imo. Zone Mortalis could feed into campaigns, as a side table for a game of 40k etc. etc,

I dunno. I doubt we will see GW turning it around with a skirmish game.

Even if they made a skirmish game, and it was good, and the rules or the starter box weren't priced like 24 carat diamonds, their models are still dramatically overpriced.

And I'm a huge 40K fan. I love the fiction, I love the universe, I play any computer game going set in the world. I owned all the RPG books and ran a campaign. I've got 3 armies for 40K. Current 40K is so terrible I just can't muster any enthusiasm for it at all. They have to fix that, but they missed their shot to fix the problems with the game and get me back on board. Instead, I get to pay through the nose for terrible rules and ridiculous models that have no place in a 28mm game played on a 6' by 4' gaming surface. I'd love to be playing and enjoying 40K in all it's juvenile glory, but they didn't fix it, they made it worse, and now it'll be at least 2 more years before they even have a chance to fix it again. I just don't believe they have the talent or the organisational capacity to repair the damage.

I'm not a cheerleader for GW's downfall, but I will be surprised if they can pull back from the brink. The last bullet in the gun is Fantasy 9th edition. I've got 4 armies ready to go for Fantasy, and it used to be my favourite GW game. But if they want me to play it and pay those prices for it, the rules have to be beyond reproach. Currently they're just on the bad side of mediocre.

The last thing keeping me even remotely interested was the awesome big store in my city, with it's great gaming space and friendly staff. It was easy to pop in there and pick something up, and I continued to make purchases for that reason, with an eye to getting some games in when my german was good enough. Now my german is good enough, and GW closed the store (which was the German HQ), so I have nowhere nearby to purchase GW models bar independent retailers who also sell other products which are cheaper and have better rules.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.
Let's do some maths with Do I

Let's do sell tons of minis easily with Litcheur.

1) Design new bataillon boxes that are just like the old ones, but with a twist: make them have exactly the same point cost from one army to another.
2) Include a (free) leaflet including the core rules of BattleAxe or BattleAxe40k and a (free) tiny leaflet with very basic fluff and the profiles of all of the units in that box.
2b) [optionnal] Put a small (free) sheet with the unit profile in some of the units you'll sell separately. Brand them BattleAxe Compatible
3) Sell Warhammer and Warhammer 40k as BattleAxe, but bigger, badder, with more magic, more flyers, more tanks and more awesomeness.
4) Profit!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
4 or 5 years ago, I could throw down £100 and roughly get a decent 1000 point chaos force or space marine force to start me off. Obviously those 4 players doing that would be spending £100 each = £400

Yeah, sure, if you buy that starter box that has 2 of the 14 available factions, split/share with a friend, start a Draigowing or other shenigans.

I'm tired of hearing these blatant lies I once told. Why? Because, last year, I happend to see what really happens when a mommy spends almost 500€ (£400) and genuinely believes it will make her kids happy with their new hobby. Only to have their dreams crushed when they encounter other players. And I never, EVER want to see that again.



Mommy has just spent 450€ for what? Two next to useless 600 pts "armies". That's just sad. Sad for her. Sad for the kids.
She could have bought them a PS3 and a 26" TV for less than that.

I repeat: a television AND a DVD/BR player that doubles as a gaming console would cost her less than two über-tiny forces of plastic toy soldiers.

If you want your two kids to play WHFB at a standard size (2500 pts), on average, you have to be willing to spend at least 1200€ (£950). Period.
And that's in the euro zone. I'm not sure I really want to know how much an australian dad would have to spend.

 Da Boss wrote:

Even if they made a skirmish game, and it was good, and the rules or the starter box weren't priced like 24 carat diamonds, their models are still dramatically overpriced.

No they're not; they're about same price as PP ones, more customisable and (IMHO) way better looking. The problem is that you need gakloads* of them and bunch of expensive books to actually play the game.

(And for for Fantasy megacraploads.)

PP models are also drastically over priced. They just have a better game to go along with it and an lower model count over all so it doesn't seem as painful.

 TheKbob wrote:
Folks seem to belabor a point of Gargantuan and Colossal models in Warmahordes, but they forget to go the full distance on the argument. These models are not met with the same contention as Lords of War in Warhammer 40k, and many feel like the Gargantuans are underpowered for their points cost. They can also be routinely found on eBay and internet stores for under $100 each. They are also made of metal and resin, more costly materials than HIPS to manufacture, and are generally bulkier than the GW lines and still manage to be cheaper.

If anything, GW saw the success of big models in PP line-up with the Stormwall and Conquest and GW started tooling up the Riptide and Wraithknight. Then came the Imperial Knight. To me, knowing that one Kraken for my Cryx is a significant investment for my army versus knowing a Wraithknight was a much smaller chunk, that made me never buy one.

Riptide and Wraithknight are simply different takes on large monsters GW had been producing much before PP Colossals. They aren't Lord of Wars either (which I gather aren't that powerful anymore when D weapons were nerfed in 7th).
Really, that PP or GW or any other manufacturer could not come up with the idea with a large, impressive looking model is pretty silly. In GW's case, it goes back all the way to Necron Monolith, followed by Baneblade, Stompa and bunch of FW Titans etc.

 Da Boss wrote:
PP models are also drastically over priced. They just have a better game to go along with it and an lower model count over all so it doesn't seem as painful.

Right. But GW wants to sell expensive models, so better design a good low model count game then!

 Da Boss wrote:
PP models are also drastically over priced. They just have a better game to go along with it and an lower model count over all so it doesn't seem as painful.

The bolded is why so many people are hopping over to WarmaHordes. GW has yet to realize that people would be fine with their prices if the game itself was fast and balanced with no confusing rules.

But no, they're a "model company first and foremost"

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
PP models are also drastically over priced. They just have a better game to go along with it and an lower model count over all so it doesn't seem as painful.

The bolded is why so many people are hopping over to WarmaHordes. GW has yet to realize that people would be fine with their prices if the game itself was fast and balanced with no confusing rules.

But no, they're a "model company first and foremost"

And even the models are not drawing people to the game anymore. There are far more choices out there with far better options.

Perhaps. I'm sceptical that it would draw enough players in. It's definitely a good idea, but I don't think it would be enough for me, personally, without other changes.

 Da Boss wrote:
PP models are also drastically over priced. They just have a better game to go along with it and an lower model count over all so it doesn't seem as painful.

Most 28mm minis are overpriced.

The manufacturers can get away with it because the biggest player in the field sells obscenely overpriced minis.

 Crimson wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

Even if they made a skirmish game, and it was good, and the rules or the starter box weren't priced like 24 carat diamonds, their models are still dramatically overpriced.

No they're not; they're about same price as PP ones, more customisable and (IMHO) way better looking. The problem is that you need gakloads* of them and bunch of expensive books to actually play the game.

(And for for Fantasy megacraploads.)

Ever heard of price leadership?

Powerful firm whose prices are likely to be imitated by other firms in the same market. Price leaders usually are also the market leaders.

If wargaming were a mature market, and GW a conventional company, they'd be keeping prices down by exploiting their dominance to try and outcompete their rivals, which would make price leadership a good thing. As it stands, they charge such high prices that there is sufficient headroom for other companies to exploit and still undercut (see also: recasters.) Now, this does have the pleasant side effect of allowing companies that wouldn't necessarily be viable in a more competitive, keenly-priced, marketplace to operate, but the ultimate result is that if the dominant company in a sector is exploitative in it's pricing strategy, it gives all the others licence to act the same way, and still look like the good guys!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.

Corvus Belli produce exactly one game, a skirmish game. The company has been growing ever since its release 9 years ago. In the last few years, they've had explosive growth, the last 2 the company grew about 75% each year.

Skirmish games are fine for long term viability if done right.

Those last 3 words there? That's the tough part.

 Da Boss wrote:
The last bullet in the gun is Fantasy 9th edition. I've got 4 armies ready to go for Fantasy, and it used to be my favourite GW game. But if they want me to play it and pay those prices for it, the rules have to be beyond reproach. Currently they're just on the bad side of mediocre.

GW will release WHFB 9th edition not because it's an improvement, but because they want the revenue. And that will probably be the death blow for WHFB.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.

Corvus Belli produce exactly one game, a skirmish game. The company has been growing ever since its release 9 years ago. In the last few years, they've had explosive growth, the last 2 the company grew about 75% each year.

Do you have any evidence of this? In the thread in dakka discussions about google trends, I compared several of gw's competitors to gw in terms of web searches. I.e. a graphic comparison of the number of google searches including the terms "games workshop", "warhammer 40k", "warmachine", etc etc. Well here's Corvus Belli's graph* -



That's...not great.

*The graph is worldwide because there were not enough searches for data to be available.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.

Corvus Belli produce exactly one game, a skirmish game. The company has been growing ever since its release 9 years ago. In the last few years, they've had explosive growth, the last 2 the company grew about 75% each year.

Do you have any evidence of this? In the thread in dakka discussions about google trends, I compared several of gw's competitors to gw in terms of web searches. I.e. a graphic comparison of the number of google searches including the terms "games workshop", "warhammer 40k", "warmachine", etc etc. Well here's Corvus Belli's graph* -

Spoiler:

That's...not great.

*The graph is worldwide because there were not enough searches for data to be available.

CB was nice enough to show us their growth rate.

KommissarKarl wrote:
Do you have any evidence of this? In the thread in dakka discussions about google trends, I compared several of gw's competitors to gw in terms of web searches. I.e. a graphic comparison of the number of google searches including the terms "games workshop", "warhammer 40k", "warmachine", etc etc. Well here's Corvus Belli's graph* -

Didn't we agree in that thread that whilst interesting, it wasn't really evidence of anything?

 Yonan wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Do you have any evidence of this? In the thread in dakka discussions about google trends, I compared several of gw's competitors to gw in terms of web searches. I.e. a graphic comparison of the number of google searches including the terms "games workshop", "warhammer 40k", "warmachine", etc etc. Well here's Corvus Belli's graph* -

Didn't we agree in that thread that whilst interesting, it wasn't really evidence of anything?

No, Azreal said that and other people agreed with him. I happen to think that what people are googling is helpful in gauging the level of interest, especially in niche hobby products. You can't claim that profits are soaring 75% when there's empirical data showing that people are searching for them less and less.