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.
Like many of you, Im reaching the end of my teather with GW. I love the IP, and I used to love the game. Unlike many, I have a reasonably high disposable income, so i don't really experience the problems of GWs increasing prices directly, although I do appreciate its annoyance, and am feeling its effects second hand, with a diminishing player base.
I have gone from a 3-4 game per week player in 5th edition, to a 1 - 2 games per 6 months, mostly due to perceived decreases, in the quality of the game as a challenge, and an effective means of conveying what appeals to me about the hobby (I don't care about big monsters, and giant tanks, I care about hero's).
When I consider the future of this company, I predict a gradual decline, into obscurity, as it eventually drops its retail outlets and becomes an online only retailer, and then perhaps when its genuinely in trouble and no 'suit' can deny it any longer, a much smaller GW might emerge from the other side, looking more like the great company I remember. I do not want GW to fail. but Im beginning to accept it as inevitable. What also worries me about the prospect of GW failing, is that they are often a gateway product for new players, before they move into other smaller game systems from other smaller companies. Without this 'face' of the industry, I feel that mini gamers as a species will diminish noticeably.
One thing did however occur to me recently... in my vision of the future, where GW is circling the universal toilet of extinction... If there was one shining light of hope, it might be communities like this. Even though many of us are bitter, there is no denying that people are so vocal because they feel strongly about something they feel could be better than it is. I wondered to myself, what would make the community happy with GW, and what occurred to me, was what if the community were a more powerful influence in how GW operated... what if the community owned GW.
I have no idea on the exact financial details of GW, or how much sway a majority (or large) share in a plc would give, however, as GW declines, I can only see it becoming less valuable and I don't feel its beyond possible, for a mighty campaign to take back GW for the gamer and hobbyist to develop (with the recent popularity of things like kickstarter, you could really see the potential of crowd funding in something like this).
So if you were inspired... if you were motivated... how would you try and rally the community behind you, what would your manifesto for the future of the IP be? If we assume that its not economically viable to run stores, what would you do? how would you combat the threat of recasting, how would you handle licencing the IP? What would the principles of the new GW be?
This one shows a lost of investors to talk to, or buy from:
http://investor.games-workshop.com/shareholder-statistics/ Only 1 name there stands out... The rest appear to be investment firms.
As he 'only' owns <7%, that's the target.
To my extremely inexperienced eyes, GW appears to be 'worth' around:
Number of shares: 32,164,219
Price per share: GBX 505.00 (pence?)
Total: £162,429,304
If we handed the hat around, we'd have a hard time coming up with 162 million pounds (roughly $240 million US).
As for the forthcoming fall, it's been foreseen for years. Probably the past 15, maybe a couple more.
The recent Sisters fan-driven campaign might have had some impact, but I've not checked. try looking for that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/20 14:11:02
I'm not an economist, but aren't a portion of those shares "locked" by the company? As in, the CEO has a majority of the shares, or at least more than anyone else, and this gives him representation on the Members Board? But if he sells them all off, he gives up his "stake" in the company. The more shares that are sold also means the value goes down, right? The stock has also been giving returns over the last couple years. I think it got up to something like 50 pence a share last year? Or was it 5 pence?
Everything I've read shows GW is solidly in the black. How long this will last is anyone's guess, and a lot depends on the new CEO. If you ask me, the old CEO "stepping down" after pretty much stripping the company down to the bone and squeezing out as much money as he could, may have hurt the company in the long run. As the new CEO will have to deal with the consequences, the old one is "washing his hands" and it "wasn't on my watch that the company failed!".
I'm no economist.
Kara Sloan shoots through Time and Design Space for a Negative Play Experience
One way to look at the end of GW. How old is Kirby, and how much longer is it before he retires?
Looking at the dividends and shares given out in the annual reports, there's a lot of pointers suggesting GW only exists until that day.
Then again, that's just bitter old RT players whinging about the state of the company.
I don't think the players taking over the company or its design process is varaible becuase althrough we all love warhammer and we all thing the rules needs a design overhual. We gamers vary too much on our personal opinion of what the game should be like.
Right now I'm impartial to GW and 40K in general. I've lost the fire to argue or fight for GW and its games. In the past GW represents wargaming. but today there are many other companies that are doing what wargamers want without the drama and boycolts. So I just decide to spend my money what whatever game that makes me happy. So far I'm impressed with deadzone, warmachine, maulfaux, and kings of war.
If I follow your advice and demand change to GW. I would have GW making more standalone games like they used to and produce more minicampaign sets like deathstorm and stormclaw.
I used to love 40k. and have deathwing and BL assualt army to show for it. its the most expensive and time comsuming wargaming army I currently own. and feel kinda sad GW's approach to detate what army is fun and enjoyable. IE. imaging any of these armies playing against the current Eldar meta. I've lost all hope in investing time and money in GW's view of playing.
Like many of you, Im reaching the end of my teather with GW. I love the IP, and I used to love the game. Unlike many, I have a reasonably high disposable income, so i don't really experience the problems of GWs increasing prices directly, although I do appreciate its annoyance, and am feeling its effects second hand, with a diminishing player base.
I have gone from a 3-4 game per week player in 5th edition, to a 1 - 2 games per 6 months, mostly due to perceived decreases, in the quality of the game as a challenge, and an effective means of conveying what appeals to me about the hobby (I don't care about big monsters, and giant tanks, I care about hero's).
When I consider the future of this company, I predict a gradual decline, into obscurity, as it eventually drops its retail outlets and becomes an online only retailer, and then perhaps when its genuinely in trouble and no 'suit' can deny it any longer, a much smaller GW might emerge from the other side, looking more like the great company I remember. I do not want GW to fail. but Im beginning to accept it as inevitable. What also worries me about the prospect of GW failing, is that they are often a gateway product for new players, before they move into other smaller game systems from other smaller companies. Without this 'face' of the industry, I feel that mini gamers as a species will diminish noticeably.
One thing did however occur to me recently... in my vision of the future, where GW is circling the universal toilet of extinction... If there was one shining light of hope, it might be communities like this. Even though many of us are bitter, there is no denying that people are so vocal because they feel strongly about something they feel could be better than it is. I wondered to myself, what would make the community happy with GW, and what occurred to me, was what if the community were a more powerful influence in how GW operated... what if the community owned GW.
I have no idea on the exact financial details of GW, or how much sway a majority (or large) share in a plc would give, however, as GW declines, I can only see it becoming less valuable and I don't feel its beyond possible, for a mighty campaign to take back GW for the gamer and hobbyist to develop (with the recent popularity of things like kickstarter, you could really see the potential of crowd funding in something like this).
So if you were inspired... if you were motivated... how would you try and rally the community behind you, what would your manifesto for the future of the IP be? If we assume that its not economically viable to run stores, what would you do? how would you combat the threat of recasting, how would you handle licencing the IP? What would the principles of the new GW be?
This is all hypothetical of course.
Very concise and well written first post. For what it's worth, welcome to Dakka! I think many of us feel as you do, though at least in my own case, haven't articulated their questions/concerns quite so well.
Unfortunately, I'm going to be honest, I don't have a good answer. I firmly believe that the "right" CEO could probably turn things around for GW, and I agree with you that the long term decline they've been in does point to shrinking their attention and online sales have been a newer avenue as they've reduced the overall footprint of specific models/bundles in stores over time. I feel very much like whether they continue to utilize their storefronts well will come down specifically to how they handle third party distribution going forward. I only really feel that way because their number of official stores limits the number of potential places people play their games and that narrow focus doesn't actually help sales much. After all they only have so many stores in relation to the number of FLGS out there, but they've been shooting themselves in the foot on that front for over a decade.
In terms of change, I like to think if they eventually began to become smaller, they'd be forced to emphasize their core strengths more. They might be forced to become a gaming centric company instead of a self proclaimed collectibles company (an idea that's utter rubbish in my eyes, as I wouldn't collect their mini's in the first place if I wasn't thinking about how to field them in games).
As some have suggested, I do like the idea of many smaller focused games, but I also feel like that answer only solves part of their problem. The current majority of their concentration is spent on one particular gaming system, 40k. Since they use a unifying core rule set for not only 40k, but also their smaller systems, they really need to focus on restructuring that rules system to get it right moving forward. At that point, smaller scale individual games (which I think would do well regardless) would be in line with the larger core system that most of the player base is intent on already and everything could begin a gradual shift in a more balanced direction.
This is just my opinion obviously, but it's where I'd like to see them start. I'd personally like to see them streamline their armies down a bit. While I feel a lot of variety is a good thing, they've got so very much to handle that it's probably an extremely daunting task to restructure anything in terms of balance. I do think it could help if they focused on an individual mode of play first and moved on from there though, say a smaller squad format of play initially with troops, tanks, walkers and a minimal number of elites and HQ choices to impact player choice. They could focus on a small core and build up off that to derive eventual changes and also use a smaller format of gaming for fast smaller battles and give themselves a chance to playtest their own rules structures better. For me, I'd rather see them do that than continue to release gargantuan mega battles with giant creatures, apocalyptic size weaponry, rules that only really make sense on that scale, and games that take 4 hours to play through when I could be playing something I might get to play multiple times in that same timeframe. It feels very much like they decided the best thing they could do was "go big, or go home" but in terms of gaming that may have left many of their own fanbase opting more and more for the "go home" avenue.
ALL HAIL THE ORKISSIAH, TRINARY SPEAKING GOD OF ORK TECHNOLOGY. (Unlike wimpy old Binary, Orks have commands for Yes, No AND "Maybe")
Agent_Tremolo wrote: In my personal scale for rating unlikely prophecies it scored two Millenium Bugs and one Mayan Apocalypse.
6000 pts - Harlies: 1000 pts - 
4000 pts - 
1000 pts - 
1000 pts 
