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.

bitethythumb wrote:

"Going bankrupt can literally happen overnight.

no it cannot

You can go home one day, and come back to work the next day to find a bill on the doormat you simply can't pay. Usually a tax bill.

talk about not making sense, if you cannot manage your finances to the point where you get magic bills that you are unprepared for than yes you will go bankrupt, but seriously? what bills are like that... you know exactly what you pay for and which services you use... if you get a phone bill that is very high chances are you called someone at a high fee... that is YOUR fault.

I have not heard are more benign statement that this so far... and who does not pay their "tax" bills properly? that they, always pay your taxes and always put money away in some savings as an insurance policy... pay for what you can, use what you pay for.

TSR would like to have a few words with you.

You're utterly clueless.

ok

It is possible to go bankrupt overnight. You know how I know? Because I've been involved in a company where it happened. At no point did I say you're unaware it may happen (nice strawman) but if you're in that position, one unexpected or larger than expected expense can be all it takes to push things over the edge.

unexpected expenses or cost overruns only happen by mismanagement and general ignorance... a company that is unaware of its expenses or not prepared for the unexpected is expected to fail... cost overruns are attributed to things like bad forecasting and inadequate information on the business (especially its expenses and costs etc)

your company experienced bankruptcy because chances are, it was a bad company and/or some of their staff did not do their job properly

I would like to think that any right thinking company would want to hang onto its regular customers as well as go forwards with strategy to bring in new business.

They are not in a low margin high volume low quality business where churn is part of a core business ideal. Nor are they in a luxury segment where customer demand is greater than product availability (no matter how much limited edition product they want to release).

GW have positioned themselves in some kind of contradiction based retail hell. where high volume is expected to meet their own luxury segment goals. I wonder if one man stores are not a result of this luxury positioning. Was 'boutique' repeatedly mentioned in previous board meetings?

That it saves money is great too. But in corporate GW eyes.......

And cost saving. It really isn't 'great news'. It means that there is something fundamentally wrong with the structure of the business. Cost saving is great if you can renegotiate rates, take advantage of raw material pricing (Virgin resin is currently lower in cost that recycled materials in some sectors) It isnt so good if you are having to strip out core activities to prop up your profitability.

Gw's disdain for existing customers only works in their favour as long as their new customers purchasing exceeds the level of those veterans no longer purchasing.

Those veterans have long been the nonsalaried promoters of GW product, From the get go, evangelical support of GW is what gained them traction in the early years and ultimately was the leverage needed to get investment into GW PLc.

Obviously GW can now do without a regular revenue stream from these customers and can do without the free marketing that goes with them.

GW can always loose another 30% and still remain viable..... Maybe they can reduce staffing at Lenton to one man?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

"Going bankrupt can literally happen overnight.

no it cannot

You can go home one day, and come back to work the next day to find a bill on the doormat you simply can't pay. Usually a tax bill.

talk about not making sense, if you cannot manage your finances to the point where you get magic bills that you are unprepared for than yes you will go bankrupt, but seriously? what bills are like that... you know exactly what you pay for and which services you use... if you get a phone bill that is very high chances are you called someone at a high fee... that is YOUR fault.

I have not heard are more benign statement that this so far... and who does not pay their "tax" bills properly? that they, always pay your taxes and always put money away in some savings as an insurance policy... pay for what you can, use what you pay for.

TSR would like to have a few words with you.

I miss my Dungeons and Dragons days :(

It is pretty much RPG tabletop so there is not too terribly much to miss of the TSR days.

I have been worn to a nub on all the GW rules and issues I respectfully request one thing and it is too complex in it's simplicity:

Could I have a rule set where I follow whatever the criteria and get a reasonably close game in with my opponent?(barring Creed strategy levels)

They can be as greedy as they want after that and I would be "content".

bitethythumb wrote:

You're utterly clueless.

ok

It is possible to go bankrupt overnight. You know how I know? Because I've been involved in a company where it happened. At no point did I say you're unaware it may happen (nice strawman) but if you're in that position, one unexpected or larger than expected expense can be all it takes to push things over the edge.

unexpected expenses or cost overruns only happen by mismanagement and general ignorance... a company that is unaware of its expenses or not prepared for the unexpected is expected to fail... cost overruns are attributed to things like bad forecasting and inadequate information on the business (especially its expenses and costs etc)

your company experienced bankruptcy because chances are, it was a bad company and/or some of their staff did not do their job properly

Actually, it went bankrupt because of an unexpected verdict on a contentious interpretation of a VAT law coupled with the bank simultaneously (and independently) deciding to reduce the company overdraft by 50% (which was £1.5m IIRC) meaning the company became liable for a substantial amount of back tax at the same time as it had its ability to pay it removed. It was a highly unlikely set of circumstances which happened all at once. It was so unlikely it would have been more irresponsible to run the company in a manner that expected it as that would have severly impeded its ability to function.

But what do I know, you're rolling out trite nonsense and plucking figures from the air, I can't compete with that.

Actually, it went bankrupt because of an unexpected verdict on a contentious interpretation of a VAT law

lol... unexpected verdict.. if I have to explain why that in itself is silly this has gone to far in discussion... but suffice to say, the verdict could have gone 2 ways... it went the way your company did not prepare for, funny how verdicts usually do not happen over night (they usually last weeks/months/years) but you seem to think it did maybe next time keep better track of the laws regulating your company and their court cases as not be be thrust with silly "bills"

its like me watching a court case that could increase my water bills or decrease it and I ignore it until the bills come through the post and "OH MY GOD" they increased it and then blame "unexpected verdict" for the increase, no the verdict was expected... I was not expecting that verdict and neither was your company and that was the flaw, your company not "expecting" the expectable*.

bitethythumb wrote:

Actually, it went bankrupt because of an unexpected verdict on a contentious interpretation of a VAT law

lol... unexpected verdict.. if I have to explain why that in itself is silly this has gone to far in discussion... but suffice to say, the verdict could have gone 2 ways... it went the way your company did not prepare for, funny how verdicts usually do not happen over night (they usually last weeks/months/years) but you seem to think it did maybe next time keep better track of the laws regulating your company and their court cases as not be be thrust with silly "bills"

its like me watching a court case that could increase my water bills or decrease it and I ignore it until the bills come through the post and "OH MY GOD" they increased it and then blame "unexpected verdict" for the increase, no the verdict was expected... I was not expecting that verdict and neither was your company and that was the flaw, your company not "expecting" the expectable*.

I dont think you have any idea how business works.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

Actually, it went bankrupt because of an unexpected verdict on a contentious interpretation of a VAT law

lol... unexpected verdict.. if I have to explain why that in itself is silly this has gone to far in discussion... but suffice to say, the verdict could have gone 2 ways... it went the way your company did not prepare for, funny how verdicts usually do not happen over night (they usually last weeks/months/years) but you seem to think it did maybe next time keep better track of the laws regulating your company and their court cases as not be be thrust with silly "bills"

its like me watching a court case that could increase my water bills or decrease it and I ignore it until the bills come through the post and "OH MY GOD" they increased it and then blame "unexpected verdict" for the increase, no the verdict was expected... I was not expecting that verdict and neither was your company and that was the flaw, your company not "expecting" the expectable*.

I dont think you have any idea.

FTFY




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seeing as I have to explain, "unexpected" in this context means "the verdict that was not expected" as in, all the solicitors, accountants lawyers etc were content that the law was being followed correctly, and that it would continue as it had been.

It was very much against the prevailing opinion when some judge or magistrate somewhere decided to go against that opinion in his or her ruling, IIRC they even went against the advice of their own consultants.

@Azreal Iwas going to do a pithy FTFY about the prevailing opinion re trademarking hammers and shoulderpads. I mean GW should have forseen an unexpected verdict too shouldn't they?

bitethythumb wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Except, of course, that they aren't the best miniatures.

Some of their lines are decent, some are good, and some are drek.

Mostly... they are middle of the road.

And their CEO is making decisions that are hurting the company - not helping it expand in a time when the industry as a whole is expanding by double digits.

The Auld Grump

ok... what if I say, they are the best?

Then you are wrong - simple!

you realise that other than our opinion the only way to prove either of us are wrong or right are sales... and they lead in that department.

And you do realize that their sales are shrinking - right?

And that a whole lot of other game companies are growing?

And, no - well how the minis sell really isn't the best indication of how they look.

It just means that they are the ones most people get - for any number of reasons - with availability and ubiquity being the main reason, not the looks of the mini.

Ford used to outsell every other car in the world - and nobody claimed that they made the best cars in the world.

McDonald's sells a lot of food - but nobody over the age of twelve claims that they make the best food in the world.

GW minis are... mediocre. Even for 40K there are companies that blow GW out of the water - Hell, Forgeworld one of GW's subsidiaries, makes much, much better looking models than GW.

The number one reason that GW are losing market share is that they are charging above the value of their models.

Their character models look nice - but they do not look $25 in plastic nice.

They are McDonald's, trying to charge $25 for a Big Mac, a small drink, and fries. (Not as facetious as you may think - when I was first playing WH40K, a character model did cost about the same as a meal at Mickey Dee's.)

If you are relying on sales as the sole basis of how good a miniature is.... well, enjoy your Big Mac.

The Auld Grump

 Mr. Burning wrote:
@Azreal Iwas going to do a pithy FTFY about the prevailing opinion re trademarking hammers and shoulderpads. I mean GW should have forseen an unexpected verdict too shouldn't they?

Incompetence and general mismanagement, obvs.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

Actually, it went bankrupt because of an unexpected verdict on a contentious interpretation of a VAT law

lol... unexpected verdict.. if I have to explain why that in itself is silly this has gone to far in discussion... but suffice to say, the verdict could have gone 2 ways... it went the way your company did not prepare for, funny how verdicts usually do not happen over night (they usually last weeks/months/years) but you seem to think it did maybe next time keep better track of the laws regulating your company and their court cases as not be be thrust with silly "bills"

its like me watching a court case that could increase my water bills or decrease it and I ignore it until the bills come through the post and "OH MY GOD" they increased it and then blame "unexpected verdict" for the increase, no the verdict was expected... I was not expecting that verdict and neither was your company and that was the flaw, your company not "expecting" the expectable*.

I dont think you have any idea how business works.

I also don't think you have any idea how the law works.

Verdicts are not binary. Not even in criminal cases, but especially not so in civil cases.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Then you are wrong - simple!

You can't be wrong about what models you think are best, because you're entitled to pick whatever you want to pick and say, "This is the best model in the world!" There is no objective measure to a subjective test.

I think that GW has the most detailed plastic tooling in the industry, though. I don't think anyone produces plastic kits that are comparable to the Sigmar models in detail, though that might not be important to many people, or be the criteria which they judge "best".

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

And that a whole lot of other game companies are growing?

It's a lot easier for a company doing $50,000 a year, or $500,000 a year to grow than a company that's doing $50M a year to grow. Apple is losing iPhone market share every year, has been for years. Yet it's hardly a failure, and any other company would gladly trade places, because they are by far the most profitable, despite shrinking market shares.

Remember also that GW could make more profit if they invested less in new product (because all those new models don't come cheap), but this not the route they choose.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

And, no - well how the minis sell really isn't the best indication of how they look.

It just means that they are the ones most people get - for any number of reasons - with availability and ubiquity being the main reason, not the looks of the mini.

I agree! Availability is huge. I would buy every Dark Sword miniature if my FLGS carried them. But they don't, so I don't own any of them. I don't like buying minis from websites; I like physically looking at them. It's also one reason that I buy very little Forge World. Without it being there, I can't impulse buy it (but I also prefer plastic, more on that below).

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Ford used to outsell every other car in the world - and nobody claimed that they made the best cars in the world.

Ford and Chevy regularly claim they have the best trucks in the world, though They say so on TV like... every day. I mean, so what? PP SHOULD claim that they make the best minis, and so should GW. So should Reaper, and everyone else who makes minis too! I mean, why would anyone ever claim otherwise of their own brand? "No, we make crappy miniatures! But come buy them."

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

McDonald's sells a lot of food - but nobody over the age of twelve claims that they make the best food in the world.

I dated a woman while I attended university who would disagree. Her lifelong dream was to visit every McDonald's in the world. Very strange and rather twisted, I agree, but she was extremely cute and kissing lips to die for -- pinup calendar gorgeous -- so that hardly mattered to a 19-year-old. 95% of our dates actually involved McDonald's at some point, even if it was just to get an apple pie or icecream. At least the food was cheap

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

GW minis are... mediocre. Even for 40K there are companies that blow GW out of the water - Hell, Forgeworld one of GW's subsidiaries, makes much, much better looking models than GW.

This is a matter of preference. Personally, I think GW makes the best multipart configurable plastic kits in the world. Since I love multipart plastic kits more than resin kits, I buy much more GW than FW. I happen to like finished GW models, on average, better than any models from any other company, which would qualify them as "best collection" in my books.

It's not at all an issue of price for me. If someone else made better models that cost twice as much, I'd buy those too, perhaps instead.

For instance, I would rather build an Imperial Knight Warden that a Knight Castigator, or a Wraithknight rather than a Revenant Titan, not because of the price but because I like plastic better than resin as a material to work with.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

The number one reason that GW are losing market share is that they are charging above the value of their models.

No, the number one reason GW is losing market share is because there are more competitors. If you have 100% of the market, and there's one competitor, you'll lose market share.

I might believe that a contributing factor to GW's decline in sales revenue is due to the price of their models, but only if GW said so themselves. Otherwise, it's equally likely that GW has optimized their revenue with their pricing, and with cheaper prices, they'd make even less than they do now. After all, just because there's 100% more models being manufactured doesn't mean the pie is 100% bigger.

We don't have the information necessary to draw a definitive conclusion. GW doesn't even have that, though they have much better information than us.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Their character models look nice - but they do not look $25 in plastic nice.

I think that many of the character models are worth $25. Well, I must, because I buy the ones that I like. The ones that aren't for me, I pass on, but I'm sure other people buy them. They're not stupid, and they shouldn't feel bad for spending money on things they like. Any more than someone who spends $50 on a PP character mini should feel bad or stupid. They should be happy that they converted their hard-earned money into some model that they like.

 Talys wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Then you are wrong - simple!

You can't be wrong about what models you think are best, because you're entitled to pick whatever you want to pick and say, "This is the best model in the world!" There is no objective measure to a subjective test.

I think that GW has the most detailed plastic tooling in the industry, though. I don't think anyone produces plastic kits that are comparable to the Sigmar models in detail, though that might not be important to many people, or be the criteria which they judge "best".

No, but to argue "GW make the best models in the world" you'd have to take what is plausibly their worst model and plausibly argue that it was better than the best model anyone else makes, otherwise it's, at best, a partial truth. Sure, there's an element of subjectivity, but there's a healthy dose of popular opinion one can draw in too.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

And that a whole lot of other game companies are growing?

It's a lot easier for a company doing $50,000 a year, or $500,000 a year to grow than a company that's doing $50M a year to grow. Apple is losing iPhone market share every year, has been for years. Yet it's hardly a failure, and any other company would gladly trade places, because they are by far the most profitable, despite shrinking market shares.

Remember also that GW could make more profit if they invested less in new product (because all those new models don't come cheap), but this not the route they choose.

Will you stop banging on about Apple! Yes, Apple, like GW, are losing market share to a multitude of smaller rivals, but, unlike Apple, GW aren't making more profit than many small (and some not so small) companies. GW are in danger of making a loss in the near future, if progress goes unchecked. GW spend only a small amount of their revenue on development, so it would only be a small amount more, and their business model would subsequently implode once the flow of new shines started to falter.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

And, no - well how the minis sell really isn't the best indication of how they look.

It just means that they are the ones most people get - for any number of reasons - with availability and ubiquity being the main reason, not the looks of the mini.

I agree! Availability is huge. I would buy every Dark Sword miniature if my FLGS carried them. But they don't, so I don't own any of them. I don't like buying minis from websites; I like physically looking at them. It's also one reason that I buy very little Forge World. Without it being there, I can't impulse buy it (but I also prefer plastic, more on that below).

So, despite all of your defence of and professed love of GW's product, when it boils down to it, you buy it because it's easy?!

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Ford used to outsell every other car in the world - and nobody claimed that they made the best cars in the world.

Ford and Chevy regularly claim they have the best trucks in the world, though They say so on TV like... every day. I mean, so what? PP SHOULD claim that they make the best minis, and so should GW. So should Reaper, and everyone else who makes minis too! I mean, why would anyone ever claim otherwise of their own brand? "No, we make crappy miniatures! But come buy them."

No they shouldn't, advertising law means you need to substantiate claims you make in advertising. GW doesn't advertise, so it isn't a problem that they make unsubstantiated claims (until they end up in a courtroom at least!)

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

McDonald's sells a lot of food - but nobody over the age of twelve claims that they make the best food in the world.

I dated a woman while I attended university who would disagree. Her lifelong dream was to visit every McDonald's in the world. Very strange and rather twisted, I agree, but she was extremely cute and kissing lips to die for -- pinup calendar gorgeous -- so that hardly mattered to a 19-year-old. 95% of our dates actually involved McDonald's at some point, even if it was just to get an apple pie or icecream. At least the food was cheap

Irrelevant anecdotes and specific examples don't refute a general argument.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

GW minis are... mediocre. Even for 40K there are companies that blow GW out of the water - Hell, Forgeworld one of GW's subsidiaries, makes much, much better looking models than GW.

This is a matter of preference. Personally, I think GW makes the best multipart configurable plastic kits in the world. Since I love multipart plastic kits more than resin kits, I buy much more GW than FW. I happen to like finished GW models, on average, better than any models from any other company, which would qualify them as "best collection" in my books.

It's not at all an issue of price for me. If someone else made better models that cost twice as much, I'd buy those too, perhaps instead.

For instance, I would rather build an Imperial Knight Warden that a Knight Castigator, or a Wraithknight rather than a Revenant Titan, not because of the price but because I like plastic better than resin as a material to work with.

We can't be held responsible for your low standards.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

The number one reason that GW are losing market share is that they are charging above the value of their models.

No, the number one reason GW is losing market share is because there are more competitors. If you have 100% of the market, and there's one competitor, you'll lose market share.

I might believe that a contributing factor to GW's decline in sales revenue is due to the price of their models, but only if GW said so themselves. Otherwise, it's equally likely that GW has optimized their revenue with their pricing, and with cheaper prices, they'd make even less than they do now. After all, just because there's 100% more models being manufactured doesn't mean the pie is 100% bigger.

We don't have the information necessary to draw a definitive conclusion. GW doesn't even have that, though they have much better information than us.

No, what we do have is a massive amount of anecdotal evidence of people saying "I'm out, it's too expensive" alongside the historical evidence of many competitors falling by the wayside because GW were so utterly dominant, who now have headspace to gain traction because GW have, through their own ineptitude, created that headspace.

It boils down to two things - either nobody wants models, or GW are trying to charge a price that isn't commensurate with the quality of the product for a growing number of people. There really isn't any other plausible situation to explain the drop in revenue, despite all the smoke and mirrors Kirby has employed.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Their character models look nice - but they do not look $25 in plastic nice.

I think that many of the character models are worth $25. Well, I must, because I buy the ones that I like. The ones that aren't for me, I pass on, but I'm sure other people buy them. They're not stupid, and they shouldn't feel bad for spending money on things they like. Any more than someone who spends $50 on a PP character mini should feel bad or stupid. They should be happy that they converted their hard-earned money into some model that they like.

Again, we can't be held accountable for your low standards, I expect a little more for my wargaming buck than a monopose character with excessive, occasionally risible, details and no options.

In all fairness, from what I've seen of his painting, Talys knows his way around miniatures. I will admit, though, there is a price break for me when I start casting about for substitutes.
That being said, if someone can afford a miniature they like, it's no real skin off their nose if it runs $10 more than you'd pay.

 Talys wrote:


I think that GW has the most detailed plastic tooling in the industry, though. I don't think anyone produces plastic kits that are comparable to the Sigmar models in detail, though that might not be important to many people, or be the criteria which they judge "best".

Wyrd. Their plastics are flat out the best I've seen.

Relapse wrote:
In all fairness, from what I've seen of his painting, Talys knows his way around miniatures. I will admit, though, there is a price break for me when I start casting about for substitutes.
That being said, if someone can afford a miniature they like, it's no real skin off their nose if it runs $10 more than you'd pay.

No, the danger is when GW start charging $10 more than the number of people they need to buy it to make it profitable will pay, regardless of whether a handful of people have their wallets open like baby birds at any price, and this is a line they seem to be drifting perilously close to.

The fact that my tongue was firmly in my cheek aside, you can paint the most gak miniature ever sculpted to a high standard, and declare it the greatest thing ever cast, it doesn't really have any bearing on the discussion.

Anyone who truly thinks GW makes the best miniatures in the world needs to do one of two things:
1. Actually look at other miniatures manufacturers.
2. Realize that it's simply GW's style they prefer that skews their perception of who makes the "best miniatures."

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Anyone who truly thinks GW makes the best miniatures in the world needs to do one of two things:
1. Actually look at other miniatures manufacturers.
2. Realize that it's simply GW's style they prefer that skews their perception of who makes the "best miniatures."

I think FW might possibly be able to hold the title (there humans are proportioned properly, there HH models have all been spectacular.)

But from GW main we get gorilla like cadians and power squatting space marines.

Forge World definitely does a good job, but I'd put boutique studios like Kingdom Death and McVey above them still.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Anyone who truly thinks GW makes the best miniatures in the world needs to do one of two things:
1. Actually look at other miniatures manufacturers.
2. Realize that it's simply GW's style they prefer that skews their perception of who makes the "best miniatures."

GW do make the 'best' miniatures in the world... for a given set of criteria
GW makes:
1. A vast, complete, comprehensive line of
2. Fantasy and Science fiction miniatures in
3. 28mm scale made of
4. Multi-part pose-able Hard Plastic, with
5. An array of vehicles, monsters and warmachines in
6. Several distinct but related factions with common aesthetic which match
7. A set of game rules to play them with.

There are a number of wargames companies that equal or surpass GW in some of those areas, but they don't tick all the boxes.
- Perry miniatures are on part with GW for multi-part hard plastic minis, but they're decidedly historical
- Privateer Press is Scifi/Fantasy with several complete factions, but only 1 model is hard plastic yet
- Infinity does some fantastic sculpts, but all in metal afaik,
- Wyrd does some great single-pose hard plastic characters... but no 'rank and file'. (Plus, GW is getting lambasted here for single-pose characters yet Wyrd is getting praise? double standards much?)
- Mantic is moving up with hard plastic, but their factions are a bit hit-or-miss, and they don't have any vehicles (yet)
- If you scour the internet you can probably build up a Orc, Empire or Brettonian army from third-party miniatures - yet you're likely to get 3 or 4 very distinct and different sculpting styles, scales and aesthetics that make the army look non-uniform.
- Hawk wargames does great, complete factions... in a scale that doesn't appeal to some people.

For a lot of people, many of those criteria are crucial to wargaming. Where a company does offer rules to play and miniatures to buy, it is very rare (outside of GW games) to be playing with third party minis. I've never witnessed people subbing in cheaper miniatures into Infinity or Malifaux games. Plus when you're playing a game and it calls for a 'Lothern Sky Cutter' and you're thinking, 'great, lets just scour the internet and see how many companies make a sky chariot pulled by an eagle and crewed by elf archers'; or maybe you're trying to field a Leman Russ squadron with 3 different types of turret on the same vehicle and don't want to go to three different manufacturers to get that. GW has a very large, distinct advantage in the sheer size and compatibility of their range.

Even if you narrow it down to just the plastic minis - the AOS minis are great. Even if you don't like the aesthetic (though I do) the detail and posing GW have managed to capture in a very small amount of pieces is easily the equal of any other plastic or pvc miniatures on the market.
I don't like a lot of GW's decisions, and I think AOS may ruin them... but credit where it's due.

Trasvi wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Anyone who truly thinks GW makes the best miniatures in the world needs to do one of two things:
1. Actually look at other miniatures manufacturers.
2. Realize that it's simply GW's style they prefer that skews their perception of who makes the "best miniatures."

GW do make the 'best' miniatures in the world... for a given set of criteria
GW makes:
1. A vast, complete, comprehensive line of
2. Fantasy and Science fiction miniatures in
3. 28mm scale made of
4. Multi-part pose-able Hard Plastic, with
5. An array of vehicles, monsters and warmachines in
6. Several distinct but related factions with common aesthetic which match
7. A set of game rules to play them with.

There are a number of wargames companies that equal or surpass GW in some of those areas, but they don't tick all the boxes.
- Perry miniatures are on part with GW for multi-part hard plastic minis, but they're decidedly historical
- Privateer Press is Scifi/Fantasy with several complete factions, but only 1 model is hard plastic yet
- Infinity does some fantastic sculpts, but all in metal afaik,
- Wyrd does some great single-pose hard plastic characters... but no 'rank and file'. (Plus, GW is getting lambasted here for single-pose characters yet Wyrd is getting praise? double standards much?)
- Mantic is moving up with hard plastic, but their factions are a bit hit-or-miss, and they don't have any vehicles (yet)
- If you scour the internet you can probably build up a Orc, Empire or Brettonian army from third-party miniatures - yet you're likely to get 3 or 4 very distinct and different sculpting styles, scales and aesthetics that make the army look non-uniform.
- Hawk wargames does great, complete factions... in a scale that doesn't appeal to some people.

For a lot of people, many of those criteria are crucial to wargaming. Where a company does offer rules to play and miniatures to buy, it is very rare (outside of GW games) to be playing with third party minis. I've never witnessed people subbing in cheaper miniatures into Infinity or Malifaux games. Plus when you're playing a game and it calls for a 'Lothern Sky Cutter' and you're thinking, 'great, lets just scour the internet and see how many companies make a sky chariot pulled by an eagle and crewed by elf archers'; or maybe you're trying to field a Leman Russ squadron with 3 different types of turret on the same vehicle and don't want to go to three different manufacturers to get that. GW has a very large, distinct advantage in the sheer size and compatibility of their range.

Even if you narrow it down to just the plastic minis - the AOS minis are great. Even if you don't like the aesthetic (though I do) the detail and posing GW have managed to capture in a very small amount of pieces is easily the equal of any other plastic or pvc miniatures on the market.
I don't like a lot of GW's decisions, and I think AOS may ruin them... but credit where it's due.

Infinity's models are superior to GW's in terms of artistry and detail. (I don't see how them being metal makes a difference.)
Wyrd does much better plastics.
Gundam (while not a gaming system) does MUCH higher quality vehicle and robot models than GW. (and cheaper)
Many boutiques doe higher quality.

So, what your saying is GW makes a bit of everything but doesn't excel at anything. Kind of like Walmart.

bitethythumb wrote:

"Going bankrupt can literally happen overnight.

no it cannot

Bear Stearns
Enron
Pets.com
MCI Worldcom

Etc. etc.

And regarding GW minis... I like them for the most part. Some are little... Less than good, but they can't all be home runs. From the models I have bought, they seem to be my favorite with regards to quality, sculpt, ease of assembly etc. Admitedly my experience is limited to: Privateer, XWing, DZC, FW, old Citadel and RalPartha. Obviously there are exceptions... Fine cast anything comes to mind.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Infinity's models are superior to GW's in terms of artistry and detail. (I don't see how them being metal makes a difference.)
Wyrd does much better plastics.
Gundam (while not a gaming system) does MUCH higher quality vehicle and robot models than GW. (and cheaper)
Many boutiques doe higher quality.

So, what your saying is GW makes a bit of everything but doesn't excel at anything. Kind of like Walmart.

GW does many things very well - it just happens to include things that you don't value: complete ranges of rank&file, characters, monsters and vehicles.

I don't know enough about Gundams or whichever pricier-than-GW 5-total-sculpts boutique you're talking about, but...
Personally I don't care for Infinity's aesthetic. I can tell they are technically great sculpts, the just don't appeal to me. GW's metal/finecast character models have as much detail/artistry, its just placed in different directions. Metal vs plastic is a huge difference for a large number of people - I personally prefer not to play with metal models. It also plays in to the size of the company: GW NEEDS hard plastic minis because they outproduce CB fifty times over.
Wyrd plastics in my experience (I only built one small crew but then sold them) are equivalent to GW's clampack characters.

Trasvi wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Infinity's models are superior to GW's in terms of artistry and detail. (I don't see how them being metal makes a difference.)
Wyrd does much better plastics.
Gundam (while not a gaming system) does MUCH higher quality vehicle and robot models than GW. (and cheaper)
Many boutiques doe higher quality.

So, what your saying is GW makes a bit of everything but doesn't excel at anything. Kind of like Walmart.

GW does many things very well - it just happens to include things that you don't value: complete ranges of rank&file, characters, monsters and vehicles.

I don't know enough about Gundams or whichever pricier-than-GW 5-total-sculpts boutique you're talking about, but...
Personally I don't care for Infinity's aesthetic. I can tell they are technically great sculpts, the just don't appeal to me. GW's metal/finecast character models have as much detail/artistry, its just placed in different directions. Metal vs plastic is a huge difference for a large number of people - I personally prefer not to play with metal models. It also plays in to the size of the company: GW NEEDS hard plastic minis because they outproduce CB fifty times over.
Wyrd plastics in my experience (I only built one small crew but then sold them) are equivalent to GW's clampack characters.

And none of that has anything to do with the quality of sculpts I was talking about. Good job.

@Azrael - I'm not going to quote something that's humongous that requires other people to scroll forever. So:

1. You'll never convince me that it's possible to lock down the badge of "best models" to one company, because it's all in what you want in a model, and people want different things. It's not an objective test, anymore than "this in the L'Ouvre is the best in the renaissance collection" makes any sense.

2. I bang on about Apple, as you put it, because it illustrates a point. You can't admire one company for making expensive things that are unaffordable to many, being secretive, being arrogant, and not listening to its customers just because it makes a lot of money; while at the same time disliking another company for the same reasons. How much money they make is irrelevant.

3. If you wrote what I typed, I like looking at models before I buy them. A lot of companies (like Dark Sword, which I mentioned) show painted models on their website, making it hard to judge the model on its merits. Plus, there's a magic to feeling a product. And I like my FLGS, and supporting my local business, which employs all sorts of people and sets up shop so that I can come in and look at cool things. It doesn't mean I'll NEVER buy things only online; SWM is a good example -- I spend plenty there.

4. No other miniature or miniature wargaming company does any significant amount of advertising either. It's because the market is pitifully small per geographic area relative to the awesomely huge cost of effective advertising.

5. The claim was that NOBODY thinks McDonald's is the best food ever past the age of childhood. I simply assert that SOME people (though few) think it is. I did mention that the girl I dated was some kind of freakish anomaly. However, my wife, who is a health food nut and eats like a rabbit, loves their coffees -- thinks it is the best in the world -- and really likes their new salads, too (though certainly not rising to the quality of "best"). NOBODY is a very strong absolute.

6. I won't respond to your personal attack about my standards. I enjoy the minis I buy, from all sorts of companies, and I'll leave it at that.

7. Weren't you just the one who said that anecdotal evidence wasn't helpful? Sure there's a lot of people saying, "I'm out, it's too expensive." There are also people who don't. Only GW knows the numbers to that profit curve, and I don't know why people think that GW purposely wants to make less money. If they thought that reducing the price of a model would generate more overall profit, in my opinion, they would. If they thought that increasing the price of a model would optimize its overall profit, I think they would do that instead. I'm pretty sure GW's pricing manager actually does try to make the company the most money by pricing the products based on the information they have.

8.Again, I'll ignore your personal attack on my standards, and only point out that there are other games that charge $25+ for character models. Buy what you want and what you like.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talys wrote:


I think that GW has the most detailed plastic tooling in the industry, though. I don't think anyone produces plastic kits that are comparable to the Sigmar models in detail, though that might not be important to many people, or be the criteria which they judge "best".

Wyrd. Their plastics are flat out the best I've seen.

I would actually disagree with this on a technical level, in that I don't see how Malifaux plastic models are technical superior in resolution or detail than GW models. That being said, technically, they are good models.

However, specific to my tastes: I'm not very fond of Malifaux models at all. I own a few, but the aesthetic is just way too strange for me. I'm not into the horror stuff at all. That's not a negative to the model; it just doesn't fit what I like. My preference is for knights with swords and guns rather than creepy stuff, very bizarre robots, and spider-looking critters.

Also as an objective comparison, Wyrd does not make any large models or complex models. GW has many 200+ part plastic scifi models with configurable options, something that neither Wyrd nor almost any other company has any of.

Dreamforge Leviathan would be a rare example -- I'm not sure what the part count is compared to an IK, but it's a plenty complex model; however, an objective observer would have to admit that GW has more such kits than most modelers will build in their lifetime, while, across the spectrum of all other scifi/fantasy miniature wargames, there are very few others. Almost no other game systems even support such models (for good or ill). It looks like Mantic will have some neat vehicles coming up.

In addition, GW has a very nice line of themed terrain (again, you have to like the aesthetic), which Wyrd can't compete with.

Now, quality isn't the same thing as quantity, or size. But size of models, width and depth of collection do matter from a practical perspective, especially if you like building a lot of models (because otherwise you'll just run out of stuff to do and move on, which is the story of me and Infinity).

By the way, being metal makes a HUGE difference between the complexity Infinity and GW's models. Single-part metal models will have undercuts, and cannot have the part-behind-part and the wrapped-around-parts of multipart models. Once you've painted a lot of metal models, you notice that they're all in the same type of horizontal-plane poses, because basically, that's what a 2-part mold supports. Infinity solves this by having multipart metal minis, but mostly, the torsos (upper and lower bodies) are still cast as a single piece across a horizontal plane, rather than splitting the torso into several pieces, which is the limiting factor. But they do a great job of it, and I love their models.

In addition, metal models cannot be large for gaming. I mean, it's impossible. I don't know how many metal ogres and dreadnoughts with fifty bazillion pins and jars of superglue I have that fell apart because someone walked by the table. Unless you're willing to epoxy everything and spend a hundred hours to prep a model, if it's the size of a dreadnought or bigger, it has to be plastic or resin.

To give you concrete examples in infantry sizes, models like this standard bearer would tip over easily, even when weighted down with lead:


And Karlaen would be impossible in metal without severe undercuts or being many pieces, which you almost never see in 28mm metal infantry. Like, can't be done as single or dual piece miniature without severe undercuts. Instead, what you get is a lot of models like the Hordes warcaster, which are cast across a horizontal plane, often with one arm that attaches in order to give it that greater depth. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but they get boring after you've painted the same variations of poses for 20 years.

 Talys wrote:
...If they thought that increasing the price of a model would optimize its overall profit, I think they would do that instead...

They thought that. They did that. It didn't work.

Clearly, GW made a mistake in judgement. Whether it was a mistake regarding scope, scale, or the viability of the entire strategy, no one can say with certainty. Nevertheless, GW did not achieve the desired result over the last two years. Some customers predicted this turn of events before the results became a matter of record. As such, some believe that this mistake was avoidable.

So Perry gets written off for being only historical, But GW is fine because they do only sci/fantasy? Right.

 Xca|iber wrote:

 Talys wrote:
...If they thought that increasing the price of a model would optimize its overall profit, I think they would do that instead...

They thought that. They did that. It didn't work.

Clearly, GW made a mistake in judgement. Whether it was a mistake regarding scope, scale, or the viability of the entire strategy, no one can say with certainty. Nevertheless, GW did not achieve the desired result over the last two years. Some customers predicted this turn of events before the results became a matter of record. As such, some believe that this mistake was avoidable.

It could, however, be a question of loss minimization rather than profit maximization.

The equation could be: Now $130m. Keep prices the same, make $100m. Lower prices, make $90m. Raise prices, make $110m.

I don't know the answer to the question, and I'll freely concede GW may have made the WRONG decision or miscalculated. I just think that they have more information than us to make those decisions, and whatever they decide on, it's in their best interest, and it's not to purposely torpedo their company.