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.

Um.. We are talking about the profits. All of those factors and more factor into profits. Of course, you can sit there and ask me to list and type up a 100 page document for each and every single factor that could possibly tie into the bottom line on a profit margin or you could admit that more than the popularity of some of the rules of one of their products. it is up to you. Of course a few classes in basic economics could show you this.

SAYING the graph is taken from GW's private financials is ne thing I would assume that their actual pages look a little more proffesional than that. I could also say that they are taken from the financials of the Easter Bunny too. What would be needed is ACTUAL verification from GW. Of course, as mply demonstrated before, those would only be the results from a very specific set of situations. I notice that the "stats" do not go into mmportant details such as timing and releases and so forth.

In other words, the financials of a worldwide company of this magnatude would cover more than this little graph. Instead of blindly looking at a single home made graph, I'll ask questions and try to see the big picture.
But we have gotten off topic. You are free to look at this lil graph and extrapolate what you wish from it. I am not going to deny you that right. I expect the same courtesy.
When it comes down to it, this is academic because it means as much as a popcorn fart in a hurricane. The question is "is 40k dying" as a game. The answer is it is indeed cyclic. Just as with any other wargame the popularity of it in specific locales fluctuates over time. This has been a constant trueism in the worlwide gaming community for decades. True, some game have died out and even some games in GW's "world" have died out. 40k is large enough and popular enough that we are safe from it "dying out" and discontinued anytime soon. Regardless of a few rules or area fluctuations, there are enough people worlwide who love the game, the mythos and te storyline. Even if GW were to go out of business tomorrow, the internet and the world would be flooded with home made rules and tweaks and whole communities of players "keeping it alive" in one form or another.

 EVIL INC wrote:
So your saying that no one has ever in the history of mankind used statistics in a dishonest manner to say what they wanted them to say? That IS what you are saying.
The point is someone posts a home made graph to say that GW is dead and the company is going bankrupt ect ect and that it is ALL the fault of a few rule changes in one of the many products released by the company.
Where is the verification that the "stats" are legit to begin with? IF they are legit, we would need more info to go on.
like what time of the year was the numbers taken?
was this timing consistent throughout?
What were the releases in each of the given time frames ?
Resources, what was the cost of raw materials?
Was there any differences in shipping costs?
It could go all the way to the housing market and the value of the dollar bill.
....

The figures are from GW's own financial statement, compiled and independently audited in compliance with international accounting standards. The CPI and RPI statistics are taken from the Bank of England figures which are verified by the UK Public Audit Office.

You can of course take issue with these standards of accounting, however they are open to scrutiny and are basically the same standards applied to every public company in the western world.

As for a "home made graph" it doesn't matter where a graph is made as long as the data presented are accurate and verifiable.

If you think the graph is wrong, draw your own using the same data and scales, and show that it produces a different result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For convenience of anyone wanting to do some analysis, here are GW's reported revenue figures for 2003 to 2014.

GW Performance "Turnover
(Millions GBP)"

2003 £129.10
2004 £151.78
2005 £136.65
2006 £115.20
2007 £111.50
2008 £110.30
2009 £125.70
2010 £126.50
2011 £123.10
2012 £131.00
2013 £134.60
2014 £123.50

No one is saying the graph is wrong. The point of it is that GW is a world spanning company. That little graph simply does not hold ALL the information and only a total idiot would blindly look at it and not ask questions such as the details of the information used to make it. What factors affected the details. We have people posting here acting as if that graph holds ALL the information along with all of the factors. That simply is not true regardless of the source of the graph.

of course, i am awaiting the answer as to how a graph (regardless of it's source) affects how we as individuals see 40k. This because the thread is not about financials or graphs, it is about how popular 40k is in the gaming community.
I know that when i started playing, it was because of the cool models and the background and mythos. I did not ring up GW and ask them to make me up a little graph of their financials todecide whether or not I liked the game or the models. Others here might have but I am sure that if very person who played 40k worldwide over the last 30 years or so were polled, less than 50% would tell you that they did that.

of course, all evidence shows we are safe from this but if GW were to go out of business tomorrow, 40k would not die with it. There would still be players playing the game (whatever edition they prefer), players would fill the internet with home made rules and tweaks and likely fan fiction plus a whole lot more. 40k would still not die anytime soon simply because of the huge fan base.
GW financials are not what we are talking about. We are talking about the popularity of 40k.

 th3maninblak wrote:
We actually have 2 warhammer days at my LGS. Wednesdays draw in maybe 5-8 regulars, and Saturdays usually boast twice that. Local tournaments in the area fluctuate between 8 to 20 people. Fantasy has a decent following, with everyone in my group having at least 1 fantasy army alongside 40k.

I guess we should just let the anti-gw party live in their little fantasy world where GW is going under and 40K is dying when in reality none of that is happening at all. It´s not like their bubble can be burst, it´s made of Land Raider doors.

 Blacksails wrote:
I don't acknowledge either of those things. What you may think is bashing, I think is criticism, most of which is likely valid.

There´s criticism, often times valid, but I've seen quite a bit of bashing too, don´t know how you haven´t. ( Bashing is a harsh, gratuitous, prejudicial attack on a person, group, or subject. The term is also used metaphorically, to describe verbal or critical assaults. ) In any case, it´s quite the valid term and I don´t even know why I´m discussing something like this again lol.

 Blacksails wrote:
When 40k stops being popular, there's no reason to keep playing, for many reasons.

I don´t understand how ( for example ) 200,000 people playing instead of 400,000 playing is any reason to quit a game, nor do I understand why 40K shouldn´t be played if it doesn´t stay as popular as it is now. Why play any game if their popularity gets reduced? Quite frankly I don´t see any logic in that whatsoever. I do understand if no one in your group plays, it´s not a singleplayer game afterall. If you play with say, 10 people max, then why quit if around the world popularity is reduced but your group is unaffected? Because one has a change of heart due to overall popularit while it doesn´t affect him at all? If that isn´t being a sheeple I don´t know what is. It´s the textbook definition of being one.

 Blacksails wrote:
The reason people leave are many, and while part of that could be due to falling numbers of players, I think its a little insulting to call people sheeple on that criteria alone.

Hence I spoke about someone who only leaves because reduced general popularity, be it based on belief or perception. If you quit due to an actual thing regarding the game/company that frustrates you personally, ofcourse it´s different. Quitting just because you got the ( false ) image of a game dying from the internet superheroes is dumb from every conceivable angle afaic.

 ChazSexington wrote:


Here's the RPI and CPI over the same period of time.



Here's recent profits. Their lower revenue is mostly due to royalties from the now defunct THQ.



GW had their third strongest numbers ever last year. Hardly the sign of a company in decline.

People have being talking about GW's death since the 90's. To paraphrase one of the greatest writers ever; talk of GW's death has been greatly exaggerated.

I wouldn´t be surprised if someone would -still- come in and say "but guys but but in their recent sales report....."

 EVIL INC wrote:
Um.. We are talking about the profits.

Profit != Revenue, and Revenue is the number we're looking at. Revenue tells us how much money GW is bringing in overall and is a direct reflection of how much product is being sold (in addition to some other things like licensing, but in this case only accounts for ~1% of revenue), profit is the margin between the Revenue and their costs/expenses, how efficient they are with the money they take in. There's a big difference if we're looking at the state of the hobby.

We're working off of two things here. One: GW's income has been largely flat (with some variation up and down from year to year) in Nominal terms, and on the Decline in Real (i.e. adjusted for inflation) terms. Two: GW's prices on their products have increased over this time period, often dramatically.

From this we can infer that GW is moving less product and is bringing in less revenue. Now, if we're looking at profit, that's another matter, that's a measure of much of that revenue they get to keep. They could be doing this and *increasing* profit (if that's their aim however, it's certainly not paying off this year), but would be doing so with a smaller number of players paying a higher price for fewer products.

For the purposes of determining if a hobby is growing or shrinking, profit is fairly irrelevant unless we're talking about the company disappearing or something. If we were talking about GW going bankrupt, Profit would be the prime factor we'd be looking at, but I'm not making that claim, rather the claim being made in the earlier post is that purchases of 40k products are likely shrinking, of which Revenue is a far better indicator than Profit.

TL;DR Profit does not directly reflect sales, revenue does.

All of those factors and more factor into profits. Of course, you can sit there and ask me to list and type up a 100 page document for each and every single factor that could possibly tie into the bottom line on a profit margin

You're the only one getting into large numbers of bizarre factors like housing markets here, but again, profit, especially in the measure you're talking about, is more directly related to the health of GW as an organization (which, their mid-year statement claimed was about half of last year's), not their place in the market or changes in size to the playerbase.

or you could admit that more than the popularity of some of the rules of one of their products. it is up to you. Of course a few classes in basic economics could show you this.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this non-sequitur here...

SAYING the graph is taken from GW's private financials is ne thing I would assume that their actual pages look a little more proffesional than that.

Ugh

They're from GW's public financials. If GW's keeping a separate private ledger with significantly different numbers, well, then the numbers are probably much, much worse, and they're going to have a problem with their auditors.

Instead of addressing the numbers, which you skip over entirely, instead of attempting to replicate or find a fault in the math, you revert to the absurd red herring of "well you SAY that..." or just that my Excel graph isn't particularly pretty. That's a little silly.

I could also say that they are taken from the financials of the Easter Bunny too. What would be needed is ACTUAL verification from GW.

If the numbers I started with are false in any significant manner, multiple people at GW are criminally liable. They're a publicly traded company they has to report their financials according to a certain set of standards and is audited to ensure their compliance. These are the numbers that their stock price is judged by in the market and what they report to *their* investors.The CPI numbers are on hand from the UK government and Bank of England.

Of course, as mply demonstrated before, those would only be the results from a very specific set of situations. I notice that the "stats" do not go into mmportant details such as timing and releases and so forth.

We're looking at GW's overall revenue over 8 years, you're talking about stuff that takes place over weeks or months, or at the very best a couple of years, not the better part of a decade. Yes, if you look at the graph, there are in fact ups and downs, but once you look at the trend line (the red one) which accounts for all of those, it's declining.

In other words, the financials of a worldwide company of this magnatude would cover more than this little graph. Instead of blindly looking at a single home made graph, I'll ask questions and try to see the big picture.

Oh the "home made" thing again. Apparently GW's financials put into excel makes it "home brew" wizardry.

Give me a break, we're talking about GW's top line over a period of time longer than most of their employees or customers are with them, that covers both before and after a major recession. By your standards, unless we're running an econometric regression with an unfathomable number of variables, no reasonable economic estimation or valuation can be done. That's absurd.

But we have gotten off topic. You are free to look at this lil graph and extrapolate what you wish from it. I am not going to deny you that right. I expect the same courtesy.

Except...you're not doing that, you're making up every excuse possible (and many irrelevancies) as to why it can't possibly be right, without actually addressing the information it's portraying.

The issues you've brought up that have any relevance to the actual data have entirely been down to "Well I don't believe you/we don't *really* know those are GW's numbers".

The question is "is 40k dying" as a game. The answer is it is indeed cyclic.

Except again, we're looking at a long enough time scale that cyclic issues should be irrelevant. 8-10 years covers multiple editions of every major product, is far longer than most people at GW have worked there, far longer than most customers remain customers, and more than long enough to encompass and adjust for the overwhelmingly vast majority of business cycles unless you want to start getting into *REALLY* long term macro-economic issues, and then you're getting into economic wizardy. TL;DR release/business/etc cycles are small enough fish over this time period that they're irrelevant and the handy-dandy Trend Line accounts for those variations over the time period we are looking at.

When it comes down to it, this is academic because it means as much as a popcorn fart in a hurricane. The question is "is 40k dying" as a game. The answer is it is indeed cyclic. Just as with any other wargame the popularity of it in specific locales fluctuates over time. This has been a constant trueism in the worlwide gaming community for decades. True, some game have died out and even some games in GW's "world" have died out. 40k is large enough and popular enough that we are safe from it "dying out" and discontinued anytime soon. Regardless of a few rules or area fluctuations, there are enough people worlwide who love the game, the mythos and te storyline. Even if GW were to go out of business tomorrow, the internet and the world would be flooded with home made rules and tweaks and whole communities of players "keeping it alive" in one form or another.

I don't disagree on many of those points, I'm sure if GW went out of business tomorrow, 40k would get picked up in a heartbeat. However my point wasn't that 40k is in imminent danger of being dead, but rather that volume of products GW is selling is declining. In other words, fewer people buying fewer books and fewer kits, the obvious implication being that the 40k hobby is shrinking (unless you want to start getting into pirated products and knock-off's or substitutes with people still using GW's rules, which is another matter altogether).

By the way, let´s say GW were to downsize, so what? Does someone think it would be the end of Warhammer & 40K if GW were to be reduced to say, the size of Privateer Press, who are doing just fine for themselves?

Ofcourse, someone will come running in saying that GW is different and GW can´t do what other companies can or something similiarly unlogical but let´s hear it anyway...

 RunicFIN wrote:
By the way, let´s say GW were to downsize, so what? Does someone think it would be the end of Warhammer & 40K if GW were to be reduced to say, the size of Privateer Press, who are doing just fine for themselves?

It'd be questionable that they'd be able to continue to maintain the product range they do, or maintain the specialist organizations like Black Library and Forgeworld, and their retail outlets would obviously go out the window. The other sticker is that they likely wouldn't be able to continue to come out with plastic kits of the same size, complexity or ubiquity because those require huge up front costs (each mold is a 5-6 figure layout) that are recovered in large volume production, and if they lack the size to generate the sales to recoup the initial costs (or the investment capital to create the molds), then new kits the likes of somethinge like the new Glottkin will not be possible. There's a reason most other companies do resin or metal and aren't as big into plastic as GW is.

Ofcourse, someone will come running in saying that GW is different and GW can´t do what other companies can or something similiarly unlogical but let´s hear it anyway...

So...you ask a question and immediately dismiss any answers you might receive...

Hence I spoke about someone who only leaves because reduced general popularity, be it based on belief or perception. If you quit due to an actual thing regarding the game/company that frustrates you personally, ofcourse it´s different. Quitting just because you got the ( false ) image of a game dying from the internet superheroes is dumb from every conceivable angle afaic.

How is it dumb. If before I had 30+people to pick from to play against, in theory of course and now the only ones left are those with top tier ETC level armies, why would it be dumb for me to quit ? less people playing=game is dying. Maybe if someone plays in an area where there are 200+people playing and after cutting half your still end up with 100+opponents it isn't as bad, but a game dying means fewer players and it doesn't look as if w40k or WFB was getting more players.

 RunicFIN wrote:
By the way, let´s say GW were to downsize, so what? Does someone think it would be the end of Warhammer & 40K if GW were to be reduced to say, the size of Privateer Press, who are doing just fine for themselves?

Ofcourse, someone will come running in saying that GW is different and GW can´t do what other companies can or something similiarly unlogical but let´s hear it anyway...

If GW were to downsize then they would need to compete with others in the marketplace. That's a battle that they can't win without some significant changes to their business model that Kirby has shown no interest in doing.

If GW and PP were on the same level and competing for the same retail shelf space then PP would have several advantages:
- Half the cost to get started, half the cost to get a "full size" force, minimal cost to maintain (PP charges £7 for a deck of updated unit cards and £20 for the new rulebook versus £50 for the rulebook and £35 for the codex from GW).
- Much better balance in their game, probably as close to perfect as it's possible in a wargame
- Much clearer, concise rules that don't require a debate before each game on how you're going to play it
- Better event support including Pressgangers who promote the game in the local area
- Fewer models to assemble/paint before you can get started

GW would have:
- Better plastics
- More capacity for modelling

GWs current business model with eye watering prices is maintained simply because they are the biggest fish in the sea. People pay GWs prices because it is (or was) the easiest game to find an opponent for - walk into any gaming club and you can (or could) get a game of 40k in. In the UK, the vast majority of gaming stores were GW and most people are/were unaware that other games exist.

In order to compete on the same level, GW would need to:
- Rewrite their game from scratch to use modern mechanics and rebalance it. They would have to stop using "Forge The Narrative" as a poor excuse for awful rules.
- Either drop prices across the board or drop the size of their games down so you need fewer figures (neither option is gonna happen - the release schedule points to the exact opposite)
- Restart the promoter program (forgot what they used to be called sorry) and build up a network of enthusiasts that will promote the game at a local level
- Introduce event support including *gasp* tournament support

GW have shown absolutely no interest in doing any of these things, so if they downsized to the same size as PP then they would collapse even faster.

 Daedleh wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
By the way, let´s say GW were to downsize, so what? Does someone think it would be the end of Warhammer & 40K if GW were to be reduced to say, the size of Privateer Press, who are doing just fine for themselves?

Ofcourse, someone will come running in saying that GW is different and GW can´t do what other companies can or something similiarly unlogical but let´s hear it anyway...

If GW were to downsize then they would need to compete with others in the marketplace. That's a battle that they can't win without some significant changes to their business model that Kirby has shown no interest in doing.

If GW and PP were on the same level and competing for the same retail shelf space then PP would have several advantages:
- Half the cost to get started, half the cost to get a "full size" force, minimal cost to maintain (PP charges £7 for a deck of updated unit cards and £20 for the new rulebook versus £50 for the rulebook and £35 for the codex from GW).
- Much better balance in their game, probably as close to perfect as it's possible in a wargame
- Much clearer, concise rules that don't require a debate before each game on how you're going to play it
- Better event support including Pressgangers who promote the game in the local area
- Fewer models to assemble/paint before you can get started

GW would have:
- Better plastics
- More capacity for modelling

GWs current business model with eye watering prices is maintained simply because they are the biggest fish in the sea. People pay GWs prices because it is (or was) the easiest game to find an opponent for - walk into any gaming club and you can (or could) get a game of 40k in. In the UK, the vast majority of gaming stores were GW and most people are/were unaware that other games exist.

In order to compete on the same level, GW would need to:
- Rewrite their game from scratch to use modern mechanics and rebalance it. They would have to stop using "Forge The Narrative" as a poor excuse for awful rules.
- Either drop prices across the board or drop the size of their games down so you need fewer figures (neither option is gonna happen - the release schedule points to the exact opposite)
- Restart the promoter program (forgot what they used to be called sorry) and build up a network of enthusiasts that will promote the game at a local level
- Introduce event support including *gasp* tournament support

GW have shown absolutely no interest in doing any of these things, so if they downsized to the same size as PP then they would collapse even faster.

I would wager if they were reduced ten times in size they would do some changes for the reasons mentioned. Still, GW being downsized wouldn´t be the end of 40K or WHFB, which was my point mainly. It´s a company just like the competitors that is run by people just like the competitors, therefore capable of anything everyone else is capable of ( and more currently, since they are the biggest. ) It´s ofcourse different if they would. I don´t see it any more impossible for GW to get a good bunch of higher ups in the future who will change their strategies for the better than I can see say, someone incompetent becoming the head of PP and causing trouble for them in the future. Both are equally possible things.

Makumba wrote:

Hence I spoke about someone who only leaves because reduced general popularity, be it based on belief or perception. If you quit due to an actual thing regarding the game/company that frustrates you personally, ofcourse it´s different. Quitting just because you got the ( false ) image of a game dying from the internet superheroes is dumb from every conceivable angle afaic.

How is it dumb. If before I had 30+people to pick from to play against, in theory of course and now the only ones left are those with top tier ETC level armies, why would it be dumb for me to quit ? less people playing=game is dying. Maybe if someone plays in an area where there are 200+people playing and after cutting half your still end up with 100+opponents it isn't as bad, but a game dying means fewer players and it doesn't look as if w40k or WFB was getting more players.

I already covered the part about your own group being affected which is different, guess you didn´t read that part.

As i said before, believe what you like. Someone who has actually done their homework knows better. If you want to totally ignore economics go right ahead. Perhaps someday, you will take a few classes in order to understand them.

Your lack of knowledge on that subject aside (because it is meaningless to the actual topic here), when YOU FIRST decided that you liked 40k. Did you ring up GW and find out their financials before you were willing to say "Thats cool. I think I'll try it out"? Exactly how do you think that that graph will cause every single person who likes 40k to immediately stop playing worldwide? Even more than that, how do you think it will cause every one of us who likes the game or the mythos or models to immediately change our minds? Because THIS is what the thread is about. How popular the game is or do we still like it. Even those small minority who are unhappy with the current rules are outnumbered by newcomers who like them. Also, even those few minority still like the game, the mythos and models.

 EVIL INC wrote:
As i said before, believe what you like. Someone who has actually done their homework knows better. If you want to totally ignore economics go right ahead. Perhaps someday, you will take a few classes in order to understand them.

Your lack of knowledge on that subject aside (because it is meaningless to the actual topic here), when YOU FIRST decided that you liked 40k. Did you ring up GW and find out their financials before you were willing to say "Thats cool. I think I'll try it out"? Exactly how do you think that that graph will cause every single person who likes 40k to immediately stop playing worldwide? Even more than that, how do you think it will cause every one of us who likes the game or the mythos or models to immediately change our minds? Because THIS is what the thread is about. How popular the game is or do we still like it. Even those small minority who are unhappy with the current rules are outnumbered by newcomers who like them. Also, even those few minority still like the game, the mythos and models.

Who are you talking to?

Not you RunicFIN. My apologies if you thought it was you. It was directed at Vaktathi. He has been going on about how the graph affects how much we personally like 40k. I'm pretty sure that back in the 80s when I started playing the graph was not done up yet and I KNOW I didnt ring up GW and ask them to mail me a copy of it before I decided that 40k was cool.

The thread is not about the state of the companies financials. It is about how popular 40k is in the gaming community. In the gaming community among us gamers, it is as strong as ever and if GW were to go under, we would still like it and play using the edition's rules we have or tweak them or make up our own. We would still see fan fiction and models would still be popular. All of which shows that the graph is totally irrelevant to the topic.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Not you RunicFIN. My apologies if you thought it was you. It was directed at Vaktathi. He has been going on about how the graph affects how much we personally like 40k. I'm pretty sure that back in the 80s when I started playing the graph was not done up yet and I KNOW I didnt ring up GW and ask them to mail me a copy of it before I decided that 40k was cool.

The thread is not about the state of the companies financials. It is about how popular 40k is in the gaming community. In the gaming community among us gamers, it is as strong as ever and if GW were to go under, we would still like it and play using the edition's rules we have or tweak them or make up our own. We would still see fan fiction and models would still be popular. All of which shows that the graph is totally irrelevant to the topic.

Ummm no he hasn't been going on about how the graph affects how you personally like 40k. He's showing evidence that yes, 40k is dying or at the very least receeding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I would wager if they were reduced ten times in size they would do some changes for the reasons mentioned. Still, GW being downsized wouldn´t be the end of 40K or WHFB, which was my point mainly. It´s a company just like the competitors that is run by people just like the competitors, therefore capable of anything everyone else is capable of ( and more currently, since they are the biggest. ) It´s ofcourse different if they would. I don´t see it any more impossible for GW to get a good bunch of higher ups in the future who will change their strategies for the better than I can see say, someone incompetent becoming the head of PP and causing trouble for them in the future. Both are equally possible things..

From the Annual Report:

On the first of January next year I will be stepping down as CEO of Games Workshop. I intend staying on as non-executive Chairman
(if the board will have me), so those of you who want to see an end to these preambles (rhymes with rambles), don't get your
hopes up just yet.
The board has prepared a job specification for CEO, and the consequential advertisement. The ad. will be published the day after
our AGM (September 18th). If you apply, we require that you write a letter saying why you want the job. No letter, no interview.
The interviews will take place on November 7th and will be at Nottingham. An announcement will be made the following week. We
have not decided what will happen if no suitable candidate is found but I suspect my wife will be livid.
Let me dilate about this letter. Last year I wrote here about our recruitment process, and shortly afterwards we recruited a new
non-executive director (NXD) using the method described. We got a great (not good, great) new board member. She is still
surprised that I did not read her CV (exasperated would be a more accurate word) but there was no need. Her letter told us what
kind of person she was: sincere, open-minded, a learner, excited at the opportunity. The interview told us she had all the qualities
needed. It mattered not one jot what her CV said. Appointing NXDs because of their careers rather than who they are is at the
heart of the rot in the corporate world.

There is absolutely no chance of anyone being allowed in to "shake things up".

 Daedleh wrote:
He's showing evidence that yes, 40k is dying or at the very least receeding.

No evidence whatsoever has been displayed about the popularity of 40K as a game in the scale of the whole wargaming community. Only about revenue and sales, which don´t translate into popularity of a game. They translate into revenue and sales. And evidence has also been provided that GW is still going strong, even if not making continous growth ( which is a fantasy to all but very few companies on this scale. ) Anyway, as stated before, in the end it´s cyclical like someone said before. The fact there are now more options than ever alone dictates players will play more alternatives and stick to the most popular option less. Many people play multiple games.

40K is nowhere near to "dying," and GW is nowehere near of going under. God.

And EVIL INC, no problems mate and no apology required lol. I just made sure I wasn´t radically misunderstood. And I agree, a graph about financial history doesn´t have much to do with how much a game is liked. I´m still quite certain it´s the amount of options people have these days that is causing divided playerbases, and I find it´s a good thing.

 Daedleh wrote:
There is absolutely no chance of anyone being allowed in to "shake things up".

I was talking about the future, which could be 7 years from now. Are you saying it´s impossible that one day GW will have a CEO that will steer the company so that they start making the business moves people want? If so, I guess you find most things impossible.

 RunicFIN wrote:
No evidence whatsoever has been displayed about the popularity of 40K as a game in the scale of the whole wargaming community.

The strange thing to me is that anecdotally 40k is actually dying even faster in popularity than it is in sales.

Obviously I'm talking entirely anecdotally because I have no widespread data to support it, only my own local observations... but I do feel like 40k is increasingly dominated by fewer people spending larger sums of money. Maybe it's just because I've gotten older and the community of wargamers has gotten older around me, but when I started our group was full of people who were slowly building up armies over a long time, often proxying before they purchased models and often quitting before they finished a single army. On several occasions in the past year I've seen people in the local GW (and I don't often go to GW by any stretch) buying entire armies in one hit, or huge slabs of them. As a kid I used to spend a lot of time in GW playing games and I never remember seeing people buying such large quantities of models in one hit. The only time I remember seeing people spending such large amounts of money is a couple of times when GW had 3 for the price of 2 sales and I saw a few people buy whole armies, but it was very rare.

Now obviously it's all anecdotal and I don't expect it to be taken as representative of the hobby as a whole, but it's just my observation in my local area that GW is selling significantly more dollars of product to significantly less people. There are definitely less people playing, it's harder to find a game than it ever has been and there's a lot more people playing alternatives than there has been in the past.

In my gaming group we used to play at least once a month in 5th and into 6th. I've played one game of 7th in 6 months and some of my group haven't even bought the rules. At my local gaming club X-Wing seems to be by far the most popular game, although there does seem to be some 40k going on too, but very little WHFB. So, for me, 40k is dying [which is a shame, because I really like 7th].

So if a shrinking player base isn't the problem behind the numbers drop, what is the assumption we can draw from GW's financial reports? That they're burning money in a field somewhere? (over exaggerated example).

e: what's the point of discussing with a brick wall?

People smarter than us HAVE analyzed the financials and determined GW is in dire straits; go and read the "Future of Games Workshop" series written by a former executive of a company that makes GW look like a goldfish. The fact you willfully ignore it to say "But it's popular here!" is meaningless. Facts don't lie. If you're just going to dismiss anything said that contradicts what you want, then there's no point in having a discussion with you since you don't want to acknowledge anything the opposing side says.

For me, I want two things out of a game at the end of the day:

1) Solid, clear, well-balanced rules
2) Miniatures that I don't feel like I'm being ripped off when I buy them

For me, GW fails on both ends. The rules are a mess with little or no thought given to balance, and the prices are terrible when you look at the value you get for them in the overall scheme of things.

I'll point again to GW"s new "Adeptus Astartes Strike Force" box on the site. It's $230 USD for 20 models: A Captain, a Sternguard squad, a Tactical squad, a Dreadnought, a Razorback, a Drop Pod and a Stormtalon Gunship.

I checked the points cost of it, and it's approximately 785 points with default options on the Studio models shown. In a typical 40k game 750 points is generally the absolute minimum that you can play, so this is roughly speaking an entry-level army. If you go overboard on wargear you might be able to push it up to 1,000 points.

If you ask me, $230 is way too much for a starting army that's the absolute minimum for a new player, and that's not even factoring in the rules and codex which are grossly overpriced by at least 50% themselves. If this boxed set was half the price, or even in the $150 range, I would consider it slightly on the expensive side but not bad overall value. At $230 though it's a joke because that's the STARTER army, not even enough for regular sized games.

Compare that to a starter army for Bolt Action, which is $128 and gives about 70 models in plastic AND metal and also not only gives you a "starter" army but a normal-sized army to play regular games, not just beginner-level games. The Bolt Action rulebook is $35 and the faction book is $25, so you can buy virtually everything you need to play normal sized games and still spend less than for 20 models from GW with no rules at all. Even before you get into the rules being better (IMHO), an army from Warlord Games doesn't feel like I'm being ripped off and paying more than the value that it's worth in the game.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Not you RunicFIN. My apologies if you thought it was you. It was directed at Vaktathi. He has been going on about how the graph affects how much we personally like 40k. I'm pretty sure that back in the 80s when I started playing the graph was not done up yet and I KNOW I didnt ring up GW and ask them to mail me a copy of it before I decided that 40k was cool.

The thread is not about the state of the companies financials. It is about how popular 40k is in the gaming community. In the gaming community among us gamers, it is as strong as ever and if GW were to go under, we would still like it and play using the edition's rules we have or tweak them or make up our own. We would still see fan fiction and models would still be popular. All of which shows that the graph is totally irrelevant to the topic.

The graph is not irrelevant to the topic.

The graph shows GW's sales year by year. These "sales" consist of people's purchases of GW models and books. The fact that sales are flat or falling is an indication that the popularity of their games is flat or falling.

Now it is true that there are different kinds of people who might or might not play GW games, depending on a number of factors. It is also true that a lot of veteran players who used to play have given up in the past couple of years, due to some of these factors. That won't matter to GW if enough people stick around, or they can recruit new players.

As to whether "40K" is dying, one of the things people often say is good about the game is that GW keep changing it, introducing new units and rules and so on.. If GW was not around to keep making changes, the game would die to those people.

Therefore the financial health of the company is important for the future of the game.

WayneTheGame wrote:
People smarter than us HAVE analyzed the financials and determined GW is in dire straits; go and read the "Future of Games Workshop" series written by a former executive of a company that makes GW look like a goldfish. The fact you willfully ignore it to say "But it's popular here!" is meaningless. Facts don't lie. If you're just going to dismiss anything said that contradicts what you want, then there's no point in having a discussion with you since you don't want to acknowledge anything the opposing side says.

We already understood that all evidence that points to the outcome that you wish to be true is valid, and any evidence that points to the contrary is moot, and that you in essence aren´t satisfied with anything regarding GW or 40k. Facts indeed don´t lie, neither does evidence, and GW is still going strong allround despite having some reduced sales lately. They are nowhere near of going under, and 40K is nowhere near dying. But why discuss this indeed when you don´t acknowledge neither of these facts.

I´ll just leave the believers to their fantasy world inwhich GW is going under when they are going strong, and the most popular miniatures wargame is dying.

Keep believing.

 RunicFIN wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
People smarter than us HAVE analyzed the financials and determined GW is in dire straits; go and read the "Future of Games Workshop" series written by a former executive of a company that makes GW look like a goldfish. The fact you willfully ignore it to say "But it's popular here!" is meaningless. Facts don't lie. If you're just going to dismiss anything said that contradicts what you want, then there's no point in having a discussion with you since you don't want to acknowledge anything the opposing side says.

We already understood that all evidence that points to the outcome that you wish to be true is valid, and any evidence that points to the contrary is moot, and that you in essence aren´t satisfied with anything regarding GW or 40k. Facts indeed don´t lie, neither does evidence, and GW is still going strong allround despite having some reduced sales lately. They are nowhere near of going under, and 40K is nowhere near dying. But why discuss this indeed when you don´t acknowledge neither of these facts.

What evidence makes those facts? Show some actual numbers. We have shown numbers that their sales are DECLINING. What evidence have you put forth other than saying that you find enjoyment and it's still popular in your area? Their own sales figures show that sales are reduced, that does not mean they are "going strong" it means they are losing sales. I don't know what kind of businesses you've been in, but most would see that as something that should be fixed instead of continuing on the same course of action.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Their own sales figures show that sales are reduced, that does not mean they are "going strong" it means they are losing sales. I don't know what kind of businesses you've been in, but most would see that as something that should be fixed instead of continuing on the same course of action.

And evidence has been shown that GW has continually increased revenue and that their sales have dropped by a mere fraction in the total scale of things. But keep believing they are in big trouble, doesn´t change the fact they aren´t. It´s moot trying to get you to realize this.

Ofcourse it should be fixed, but a company can be going strong even if they have reduced sales. Do you think like this about all companies, or is GW some sort of exception to you out of all the companies in existence? We can take an imaginary example of Microsoft and Apple. They can have reduced sales, and their company can still be doing fine for they are on such a strong foundation that their company can cope with years and years of reduced sales if necessary. Reduced sales isn´t the end of the world to a company unless it continues in scale OR longetivity that compromises the companys ability to continue functioning. Being in business isn´t about constant growth, it´s just a goal. The reality is continous growth happens to very few companies for the duration of their whole existence. It happens all the time.

Give me evidence that GW is having difficulty of staying in business, in risk of going bankrupt, instead of just suffering some lost sales. 2 Years from now it´s possible they have made a sales record, just asmuch as it´s possible they will be flat, or in decline. They have had reduced sales and increased sales before, and they still exist. Yet every time this same doom facade takes place on the internet when they have the former.

WayneTheGame wrote:
What evidence have you put forth other than saying that you find enjoyment and it's still popular in your area?

Where have I said it´s popular in my area? Do copypaste that bit. And please do it, instead of just replying and leaving this part out.

 RunicFIN wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Their own sales figures show that sales are reduced, that does not mean they are "going strong" it means they are losing sales. I don't know what kind of businesses you've been in, but most would see that as something that should be fixed instead of continuing on the same course of action.

Ofcourse it should be fixed, but a company can be going strong even if they have reduced sales. Do you think like this about all companies, or is GW some sort of exception to you out of all the companies in existence? We can take an imaginary example of Microsoft and Apple. They can have reduced sales, and their company can still be doing fine for they are on such a strong foundation that their company can cope with years and years of reduced sales if necessary. Reduced sales isn´t the end of the world to a company unless it continues in scale OR longetivity that compromises the companys ability to continue functioning. Being in business isn´t about constant growth, it´s just a goal. The reality is continous growth happens to very few companies for the duration of their whole existence. It happens all the time.

Give me evidence that GW is having difficulty of staying in business, in risk of going bankrupt, instead of just suffering some lost sales. 2 Years from now it´s possible they have made a sales record, just asmuch as it´s possible they will be flat, or in decline. They have had reduced sales and increased sales before, and they still exist. Yet every time this same doom facade takes place on the internet when they have the former.

WayneTheGame wrote:
What evidence have you put forth other than saying that you find enjoyment and it's still popular in your area?

Where have I said it´s popular in my area? Do copypaste that bit. And please do it, instead of just replying and leaving this part out.

Okay, you got me there - Maybe I'm confusing you then with one of the other "GW is just fine" people, there are so many of you that come out of the woodwork it's hard to remember who's who.

The point remains that declining sales is bad, and they also cut costs to the bone this recent financials and released a new edition of 40k and the SM codex, and sales still fell. That doesn't paint a good picture in any way, shape or form, and no amount of ignoring it will fix that. Nobody has said they are going to go bankrupt any time soon, people have said 40k is declining, and that's true. They cannot continue raising prices and making shoddy rules.

WayneTheGame wrote:
people have said 40k is declining, and that's true.

Now that I can´t decline, and it´s most likely true asfar as I´m concerned. But saying it´s "dying" is ridicilous as it´s still the most popular wargame on earth. ( And no, you did not say that, some did. ) But I´m pretty confident it´s just because there are so many options to choose from now, and as stated before, these things run in a cyclical manner. Just because a lot of people are trying other games doesn´t translate into reduced permanent popularity. This is easy to observe on a local level aswell: People are trying out new games and play many at a time, or take breaks from either the alternatives or 40K to return to said alternative/40k. Cyclical.

 ChazSexington wrote:




GW had their third strongest numbers ever last year. Hardly the sign of a company in decline.

People have being talking about GW's death since the 90's. To paraphrase one of the greatest writers ever; talk of GW's death has been greatly exaggerated.

What do you have to say about this, WayneTheGame? Just out of interest, no traps here.

In any case, I can only imagine these same discussions have taken place in 2007 and 2010. I would especially like to have been there in 2007 where they hit bottom, and rose up just to see what the doomsayers would offer as an excuse now. My guess is something along the lines of "Well, they could´ve gone under, there was evidence n´ shiz. Some crazyass White Knights be like GW gun´ be fine despite that. But but, they will go under this time, fo sho."

Just like Chaz said, this GW death discussion is everliving ( unfortunately... )

If you have evidence that GW is going strong, show us the evidence.
There's plenty of evidence that GW is hurting, it's the degree of hurting that's in question.

If you have evidence (other than wishful thinking) to the contrary, please show us. You can't dismiss evidence without something to contradict it. All the experts, all the numbers and even GW's own reports say that GW is sliding down.

Show us evidence to the contrary.

 MWHistorian wrote:
If you have evidence that GW is going strong, show us the evidence.

A company that has continued to grow for 6 years running, had it´s best results very recently, and is now suffering a minor sales setback for one report ( so far ) isn´t still going strong asfar as you´re concerned? Does it seem like they are struggling to survive, hanging onto a thread, then?

 MWHistorian wrote:
There's plenty of evidence that GW is hurting, it's the degree of hurting that's in question.

Yeah. I´d say it´s just a fleshwound, and some say they are going under. Evidence points to them not being even near of going under or being in big trouble. That´s some hardcore wishful thinking right there.

I'm aware of how superficially ridiculous this may sound, but we'll use at as an exercise to separate those who have some insight from those who are simply employing "big numbers good, small numbers bad" analysis.

Profit isn't a great gauge of how GW are doing.

I have indeed noticed some individuals who truly lack any true understanding whatsoever ( or experience, for that matter ) on how companies of this size function and what is required for certain scenarios to be even likely let alone in effect.

It has now been stated in this thread alone that revenue doesn´t prove anything, that you should neither look at sales, and now profit won´t do either.

I guess we need a chart of how many keystrokes Tom Kirby has typed on his chairman´s preambles over the years, as this, when surveyed with some unfathomable logic, will provide us with an accurate and satisfying factual statistic of how GW is doing that satisfies all parties. It requires however that we add to this the amount of codices ruined by Matt Ward and divide the result with great pictures created by John Blanche, end result will tell us in a 0-100 scale how GW is faring.