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.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
And the pool of people that like 40K is shrinking....

I don't agree with that, Not the amount of people that like 40k is shrinking (well maybe a little)
The amount of people that buy GW stuff is shrinking, Even in Japan at the board game days meetings i run into people who
switched to board games or play more smaller scale wargames

I wanted to buy the new interrogator chaplain for my guardians of the covenant
"army" But it cost 30$ for one plastic miniature? i rather buy a kingdom of the death boutique miniature for that kind of money.

For 30$ i can buy a PS4 game , or big gundam kit, or a bluray movie.

Looking at the local market and the number of players...

Yes, shrinking number of players, not just customers.

I do not know if it was the major sticking point, but the loudest complaints were about the random charge distance and the psycher phase. (It seems that there have always been complaints about the magic in WH40K - so that was nothing new.)

Most of the losses for Warhammer 40K are to Warmahordes, and an entire large group switched to Kings of War in place of Warhammer Fantasy (and the last was purely a loss of players, not customers - for the most part the players continue to use their WHFB armies, just with the KoW rules).

There are maybe half as many WH40K players as there was two editions ago, and no Fantasy players left at all. (The last WH40K edition that I liked was 3rd - but I liked 3rd a lot more than either 1st or 2nd as well.)

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* For the record - Captain Karlaen typifies what I do not like about GW's current run of plastic character models, in particular the hair.... GW used to know how to do hair and fur....

The quality of plastics dramatically increased in 2009 when they bought an incredibly fine tungsten needle to tool the molds for space hulk. The quality since then has massively increased. If the models are just a necessity to play a game then you are right in that you are paying more for the same item, but on the same score you could cut the models out altogether and use bottle caps (which one rule book I have suggests). If it's the models themselves that get you excited, then better detailed kits are worth the price difference.

 JamesY wrote:
The quality of plastics dramatically increased in 2009 when they bought an incredibly fine tungsten needle to tool the molds for space hulk. The quality since then has massively increased. If the models are just a necessity to play a game then you are right in that you are paying more for the same item, but on the same score you could cut the models out altogether and use bottle caps (which one rule book I have suggests). If it's the models themselves that get you excited, then better detailed kits are worth the price difference.

The technical quality of the models has improved - the originality and the quality of the sculpts has plummeted.

But I am willing to admit that the lack of quality in some of the sculpts has more to do with the artists than with the mold making. Goodwin still does a fantastic job - but then I look at things like the wolves pulling Grimnar Claus's Sleigh.... And I am of the opinion that the failure is due to plain old laziness more than lack of skill. It is easier to paste a whole bunch of triangles over a model than it is to sculpt fur.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
The quality of plastics dramatically increased in 2009 when they bought an incredibly fine tungsten needle to tool the molds for space hulk. The quality since then has massively increased. If the models are just a necessity to play a game then you are right in that you are paying more for the same item, but on the same score you could cut the models out altogether and use bottle caps (which one rule book I have suggests). If it's the models themselves that get you excited, then better detailed kits are worth the price difference.

The technical quality of the models has improved - the originality and the quality of the sculpts has plummeted.

But I am willing to admit that the lack of quality in some of the sculpts has more to do with the artists than with the mold making. Goodwin still does a fantastic job - but then I look at things like the wolves pulling Grimnar Claus's Sleigh.... And I am of the opinion that the failure is due to plain old laziness more than lack of skill. It is easier to paste a whole bunch of triangles over a model than it is to sculpt fur.

The Auld Grump

I actually wanted to kit bash that grimnar sleigh with a gyrocopter to make a dwarf fishing boat...

Why is it that people trying to prove that GW current products are worth the money , ALWAYS show really old GW models that were limited by the tech at the time , and the style of the studio at that time.And compare them to the modern plastic where more current production methods allow better quality/more detail.

Yet NEVER show the models that have not been upgraded in the last 15 year or so, and look really poor next to more modern releases .

Eg the Catachan boxed set of 10 infantry with limited upgrade options.They charge £18 for!
But say you are happy to just buy 2 x 10 man box sets from GW for £36 , as that's not bad is it 20 models to build and paint..(£1.80 per minature.)
But this £36 buys only a small fraction of a 'full army'.


However, compared to the excellent 28mm infantry box sets from other manufacturers, it looks a bit poor.

EG look at what you get for £1 less from The Plastic Soldier Company.

Here is a £35 'Army Deal ' for 28mm Soviet infantry.(Suitable for Bolt Action or other WWII rules set or converted to 'not IG ' if you like!)

FIFTY SEVEN infantry with multiple weapon and equipment options.(Rifles SMGs LMGS and officers /NCOs etc.)
4 heavy machine guns and crew.
4 mortars and Crew.
4 anti tank rifles.
1 45 mm Anti tank gun and crew
1 76 mm infantry gun and crew.

I know PSC are at the 'value' end of the range available , but they paint up well and are a good way to get a core for an army quickly.IMO.

Even Warlord and Perry Minatures 28mm infantry kits , that are more 'multi pose' and customisable, and better quality in terms of detail and options on sprue than the GW offering.
Are much better value at £26 for Thirty infantry , and £20 for thirty eight infantry respectively.

 JamesY wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
The quality of plastics dramatically increased in 2009 when they bought an incredibly fine tungsten needle to tool the molds for space hulk. The quality since then has massively increased. If the models are just a necessity to play a game then you are right in that you are paying more for the same item, but on the same score you could cut the models out altogether and use bottle caps (which one rule book I have suggests). If it's the models themselves that get you excited, then better detailed kits are worth the price difference.

The technical quality of the models has improved - the originality and the quality of the sculpts has plummeted.

But I am willing to admit that the lack of quality in some of the sculpts has more to do with the artists than with the mold making. Goodwin still does a fantastic job - but then I look at things like the wolves pulling Grimnar Claus's Sleigh.... And I am of the opinion that the failure is due to plain old laziness more than lack of skill. It is easier to paste a whole bunch of triangles over a model than it is to sculpt fur.

The Auld Grump

I actually wanted to kit bash that grimnar sleigh with a gyrocopter to make a dwarf fishing boat...

Or with a balloon holding it up?

*Blink Blink*

Post it when you do - that actually sounds cool. (And leaves out the wolves entirely - which is also a good thing.)

The Auld Grump - Anyone else remember Circus Imperium from FASA?

JamesY, you are a font of knowledge with these interesting little GW facts. I suppose this is why when Space Hulk 2009 first came out, we all thought that they had the greatest models ever (between it and the rereleasw, I've bought 6 copies ;D )

Now that you nail it with a date and a reason, it all makes sense. The post 2009 models ARE of a massively superior resolution. Even something as simple as a space marine leg is much crisper and smoother. It's like the difference between an inkjet and laser printer.

Do you know if they did anything to the plastic process? Aside from the detail, the new plastic kits just need far less remediation if you want to get rid of the imperfections in the plastic (like sanding down a cylindrical leg with 1000 grit so that it's perfectly smooth and cylindrical).

Yeah, those Cadian and Catachan molds have been paid for a loooong time ago but why keep prices for models in line with inflation when you can cut the volume in 1/2 and charge 2X as much?

For the older kits, it's like paying buying paying full price for a half-filled soda can.

I always like the "bottle cap" argument but as has been said before, GW need not alienate gamers to make collectors happy when they have the ability to make upgrade sprues. Armchair CEOing, I'd make a basic kit and sell upgrade sprues as options that way people like me don't have to throw half-filled sprues in the trash because I'll never use all the bits and bobs.

@TheAuldGrump - I agree that the Santa sleigh was dorky. Probably the dorkiest GW model ever made

 Talys wrote:
@TheAuldGrump - I agree that the Santa sleigh was dorky. Probably the dorkiest GW model ever made

No, the Razorgore wins that distinction.

Nomeny wrote:
You have to see them side by side, but the most recent Tactical box is far ahead of the 3rd edition one.

i totally agree with this...
the latest version of the Tac. Squad box is my favorite, and i have been on this ride since the very first Marines came out...
the stances have become more upright, and the assembled Marines seem to have been scaled up just enough to notice a difference from the previous kit...
the newest Marines feel just that little bit bigger, and it makes a huge difference to my eye...
there are more new weapon options then ever before, new helmet and backpack styles, nicer shoulder pads, cooler arm poses, deeper detail, and now we even have bigger, better bases to put them on...

for my money, there is a worthwhile improvement to each generation of plastic kit that GW has released...
i really enjoy watching the kits evolve and improve, and that is that keeps me buying...
to me, kits like the plastic Vanguard Vets blow away the previous metal kit, and i love metal models...
the Sternguard might be a tie, because the older Vets had a lot of style, and the new kit has more options...
unforunately, a lot my metal vets suffered from a slight distortion of the helmets, not badly, but enough that i notice it...
that doesn't happen with plastics...
the new Devastator kit not only looks cooler to me, but comes with more weapon options than ever before, and bigger bases...
the new Assault Squad has even more dynamic leg poses than the previous kit, more weapon options, and scenic bases...

it seems to me, there is everything to like about each new generation of plastic kit, as they clearly do improve over previous sculpts...
if price puts anybody off, that is fine, and i really can't argue with that, as it is a personal choice...
if your complaint is that the new kits are too expensive, that is totally reasonable, but if the complaint is that the newer kits are no better than the previous versions, i completely disagree...

as long as GW's kits keep evolving, they will continue to give me a reason to keep buying...

cheers
jah

@ Lanrak in the last 18 months I have bought miniatures from gw (both citadel and fw), pp, reaper, mantic, hi-tech, studio McVey, Tor, antimatter, avatars of war, Spartan, victrix, mirilton and a few more. I'm really not fussed about the miniature count per pound, I'm bothered about having the models that excite me and make me want to paint them the most. GW make the models that excite me the most, and when I compare them to the models of the other companies that I have bought from, I genuinely think that they are better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
JamesY, you are a font of knowledge with these interesting little GW facts. I suppose this is why when Space Hulk 2009 first came out, we all thought that they had the greatest models ever (between it and the rereleasw, I've bought 6 copies ;D )

Now that you nail it with a date and a reason, it all makes sense. The post 2009 models ARE of a massively superior resolution. Even something as simple as a space marine leg is much crisper and smoother. It's like the difference between an inkjet and laser printer.

Do you know if they did anything to the plastic process? Aside from the detail, the new plastic kits just need far less remediation if you want to get rid of the imperfections in the plastic (like sanding down a cylindrical leg with 1000 grit so that it's perfectly smooth and cylindrical).

I don't know if they made any changes to the plastics, but I'll pop my head around the door next time I'm at whw and try to find out for you.

 JamesY wrote:
@ Lanrak in the last 18 months I have bought miniatures from gw (both citadel and fw), pp, reaper, mantic, hi-tech, studio McVey, Tor, antimatter, avatars of war, Spartan, victrix, mirilton and a few more. I'm really not fussed about the miniature count per pound, I'm bothered about having the models that excite me and make me want to paint them the most. GW make the models that excite me the most, and when I compare them to the models of the other companies that I have bought from, I genuinely think that they are better.

this is the point that i emphasize in every thread like this...
i buy minis from at least a dozen different manufacturers, but none of them get me as excited to paint as a GW Space Marine...

cheers
jah

I can understand that people that just collect and paint minatures are free to buy what they like.
What you 'like the look of best' is subjective , and so there is not any objective reason to argue against why you like a particular model.

So collectors will buy what they like if they are happy with the price the retailer charges,The price is the only 'objective' value in their considerations.
Think of the last model you bought.
Would you have paid double that price?
What if it cost ten times that price ?
What about if it cost a hundred times the price?

At some point the price charged can make the minature not good enough value for money, for any collector to want to buy it.

However, my point is that people who buy minatures to game with , will look at the total cost of getting an army together.And look at the cost of the rules and army list they need too.

And when they can see other companies offering much better value for the GAME they sell.It is harder to justify buying into GW games.

I would say that the value for money from a game players perspective is MUCH lower for GW products, than for other companies products.
And probably why game players can not see why GW plc has not priced it self out of the market yet.

However , the constant drop in sales volumes, is starting to out pace the raising of retail prices.

As GW is having to increase prices at an even faster rate, they will reach the tipping point a lot quicker than some 'collectors' think, but a lot later than some game players think.

I agree that GW plc is just targeting 'collectors'.And giving game players very little value for money comparatively.

So a lot of the people who used to enjoy playing 40k and WHFB have had their favorite game system 'ruined ', in the name of chasing easy success /focus on short term profit.

Eg Focusing on selling stuff to people who never play, or who do not think the rules GW sell are all that important.

These arguments about how much better a modern SM is than a 1987 version are irrelevant if not enough people think the 2015 version is worth the extra money.

The financial signals are that GW are selling fewer and fewer of these in some people's eyes much better and definitely much more expensive models every year.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
These arguments about how much better a modern SM is than a 1987 version are irrelevant if not enough people think the 2015 version is worth the extra money.

The financial signals are that GW are selling fewer and fewer of these in some people's eyes much better and definitely much more expensive models every year.

While it doesn't matter to the people who aren't prepared to buy models that are $5-$30 per model, it's highly relevant to the people who GW are targeting.

For example, I would rather pay $25 for a new, better death jester than an old $$18 death jester; I'm happy to pay $50 for a box of new devastators, but would be unhappy if they had increased the old box from $35 to $50.

In other words, if we accept this theory that GW is targeting collectors and more modelling-centric buyers, the quality and incremental improvement of the models is highly relevant to the retention (or growth) of those customers.

I fully accept that this subgroup is less profitable than a bigger tent which includes gamers that want cheaper models over tungsten tooled plastic, but maybe GW just doesn't care, and would rather make less money doing what it likes to do, so long as that is viable. For the record, I would prefer a compromise that is more inclusive, though not at the cost of what I perceive as model quality.

I don't necessarily mind the prices, as in I'll buy the models I really like, but I don't like how the prices are decided, and I don't like the inconsistencies in pricing, eg witch elves against eternal guard.

 jah-joshua wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
@ Lanrak in the last 18 months I have bought miniatures from gw (both citadel and fw), pp, reaper, mantic, hi-tech, studio McVey, Tor, antimatter, avatars of war, Spartan, victrix, mirilton and a few more. I'm really not fussed about the miniature count per pound, I'm bothered about having the models that excite me and make me want to paint them the most. GW make the models that excite me the most, and when I compare them to the models of the other companies that I have bought from, I genuinely think that they are better.

this is the point that i emphasize in every thread like this...
i buy minis from at least a dozen different manufacturers, but none of them get me as excited to paint as a GW Space Marine...

cheers
jah

I think the important point to note is that 10-15 years ago that list of comparable producers would have been a lot shorter. The gap has narrowed, disappeared altogether, or even gone the opposite way depending on your thoughts of aesthetics. And, if you're wargaming on a budget, there is a big impetus towards a lot of those other miniature lines.

Personally I think if we're talking sculpt detail and intricacy some of the stuff coming out of Spain and France at the moment is industry leading, but I realise that it's subjective.

 Talys wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
These arguments about how much better a modern SM is than a 1987 version are irrelevant if not enough people think the 2015 version is worth the extra money.

The financial signals are that GW are selling fewer and fewer of these in some people's eyes much better and definitely much more expensive models every year.

While it doesn't matter to the people who aren't prepared to buy models that are $5-$30 per model, it's highly relevant to the people who GW are targeting.

For example, I would rather pay $25 for a new, better death jester than an old $$18 death jester; I'm happy to pay $50 for a box of new devastators, but would be unhappy if they had increased the old box from $35 to $50.

In other words, if we accept this theory that GW is targeting collectors and more modelling-centric buyers, the quality and incremental improvement of the models is highly relevant to the retention (or growth) of those customers.

I fully accept that this subgroup is less profitable than a bigger tent which includes gamers that want cheaper models over tungsten tooled plastic, but maybe GW just doesn't care, and would rather make less money doing what it likes to do, so long as that is viable. For the record, I would prefer a compromise that is more inclusive, though not at the cost of what I perceive as model quality.

Well, I think the biggest question will be whether this group of collector purchasers will be big enough to sustain GW, or whether there is a significant level of replenishment of collector-type customers to sustain attrition of collectors (for any reason-age, income, etc.). It'll be curious as to where GW's profits will bottom-out if they are able to achieve this collector-type environment.

I'm guessing the company would have to go even more dramatic cuts, which will probably have to come from the B&M side of things (which are a huge expense for the company) and transition to where I honestly think they want to be exclusively- online via direct ordering. In that regard, I really don't see GW disappearing (at least not any time soon), but I do see them effectively working themselves into a boutique company, largely out of game stores and the community overall. Which for the collectors is fine- I just think it's a poor future for the game that used to dominate tabletop gaming.

 Accolade wrote:
Well, I think the biggest question will be whether this group of collector purchasers will be big enough to sustain GW, or whether there is a significant level of replenishment of collector-type customers to sustain attrition of collectors (for any reason-age, income, etc.). It'll be curious as to where GW's profits will bottom-out if they are able to achieve this collector-type environment.

I'm guessing the company would have to go even more dramatic cuts, which will probably have to come from the B&M side of things (which are a huge expense for the company) and transition to where I honestly think they want to be exclusively- online via direct ordering. In that regard, I really don't see GW disappearing (at least not any time soon), but I do see them effectively working themselves into a boutique company, largely out of game stores and the community overall. Which for the collectors is fine- I just think it's a poor future for the game that used to dominate tabletop gaming.

Indeed, that is the essential question.

I don't think that GW will go direct-only, though perhaps shedding many of their retail stores in markets already served makes a lot of sense to me. GW might account for a ratio of revenue from hobby shops, but at the moment, in our area, it's still huge. Our local stores have many customers who are $10,000+ annual spend "GW Customers" that are bread-and-butter for them. I know for a fact that it's important, reliable income -- they can essentially forecast a segment of their revenue based on GW's projected new release schedule. It's the reason why almost every store that carries GW has the GW stuff front and center, prominently displayed... they are hoping to grab another crazy spender.

There are also a good chunk of gamers to whom price is not really an issue, at least not at the current levels, nor even if 40k doubled or quadrupled in price. But what would impact them is if they had fewer play partners. I must say, again, just in our local scene, the 2015+ rule philosophy ("Decurion" style) has really excited this group, and they've been buying models like crazy and playing much more than I've observed in the past.

To someone else's point earlier, I also wish GW would embrace a basic set + many upgrade sprues philosophy. That would be a wonderful thing -- though I will say that the releases in the last half year have been a lot better with regards to kits coming with more of what you're likely to need (but it leaves room for improvement still).

To the point of a game that once dominated tabletop gaming... well, other than historicals, at one point, there wasn't much choice Nobody ever thought that would continue forever. It's actually kind of remarkable that no other scifi/fantasy company has really grown anywhere near GW's size; really, PP is the only ecosystem that's even close. I guess Mantic wants to be? We'll see there, too. Choice is good, and competition keeps everyone honest, right?

I genuinely hope that GW doesn't become a high-end boutique product. It doesn't make sense for things like HIPS kits anyhow, as those require volume to be economical. I guess, we'll see!

 Talys wrote:

For example, I would rather pay $25 for a new, better death jester than an old $$18 death jester; I'm happy to pay $50 for a box of new devastators, but would be unhappy if they had increased the old box from $35 to $50.

Malibu Stacey! She has a new hat!!

In other words, if we accept this theory that GW is targeting collectors and more modelling-centric buyers, the quality and incremental improvement of the models is highly relevant to the retention (or growth) of those customers.

What about the increasingly toy like aesthetic and lack of refinement?

It is to target these people that FW exists, tungsten this or diamond edged that still doesn't make plastic better than resin for quality individual models. It is best suited for mass production, which is completely at odds with what GW is trying to do.

I fully accept that this subgroup is less profitable than a bigger tent which includes gamers that want cheaper models over tungsten tooled plastic, but maybe GW just doesn't care, and would rather make less money doing what it likes to do, so long as that is viable. For the record, I would prefer a compromise that is more inclusive, though not at the cost of what I perceive as model quality.

They're a publicly listed company, they don't have the luxury of doing what they like (side note: anthropomorphise much?) It clearly isn't viable, their revenue and profit is falling, and if they have to compromise on quality to start bringing the cash back in, then I'm afraid you'll have to learn to love it.

I definitely agree that I don't want to see GW become a high-end boutique model company. Getting back to the hey-days of 5th would be my best hope for the game.

I'm watching the re-make of WHFB to see whether GW can get things right when their butts are to the fire. If WHFB Bubbles turns out to be a flop or is priced at even *higher* levels to take advantage of the lower model count that it predicted to have (or if GW learns nothing and just bloats things even further), then I think I will have lost faith in company's ability to turn things around. If WHFB ends up a success, then there may be hope that things can improve.

 Azreal13 wrote:
They're a publicly listed company, they don't have the luxury of doing what they like (side note: anthropomorphise much?) It clearly isn't viable, their revenue and profit is falling, and if they have to compromise on quality to start bringing the cash back in, then I'm afraid you'll have to learn to love it.

They are a *small cap* publically listed company. They're just barely a public They don't even report every quarter.

I have served as a Chief Operating Officer and been a board member of a small cap public company. Being public means nothing other than that you have a vehicle to buy and sell equity of the company (and therefore raise money or get out). The company is still entirely controlled by its Board of Directors, so much so that even significant shareholders can be powerless. To take control of the Board can be insanely hard -- often, without spending way, way, way more money than it's worth and enriching the people that you're trying to get rid of in order to buy control, it's impossible.

They have a fiduciary duty to do what is best for the shareholders, but this is so vague as to be useless. Other than not robbing the company blind or defrauding its investors, this is carte blanche for the board can steer it in whatever direction it sees fit. As long as they accurately report what has occurred (spin permitted) and clearly describe all forward-looking statements as such (forecasts, not promises), they're golden. Even with a large cap company, this is almost always so; there's just more press around it, and more lawsuits. Just look at Nokia: they first went to Windows Phone over the alternatives (like Android) and then sold their core business (cell phones) to Microsoft, and there was nothing even institutional investors who were not on board could do about it. I'm not saying that it wasn't a good idea, just that it was entirely decided by the board, shareholders be damned.

The only real exception is if a company gets into financial trouble, needs to borrow or raise money, and makes promises in order to get that money. In that case, they had better do what they promised they would with the money, or directors and officers can be in some pretty hot water. But then, they signed a contract to that effect.

Again, you didn't address my whole point, if focussing down on to a smaller market isn't working, and the evidence suggests it isn't, they don't have the luxury of carrying on like some garage company doing what they love, they have to find a solution that works, not out of any duty but because they won't be able to pay dividends (heck, they might not ultimately be able to keep the lights on) and once their stock price is in the toilet, anything could happen, little of it good.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Again, you didn't address my whole point, if focussing down on to a smaller market isn't working, and the evidence suggests it isn't, they don't have the luxury of carrying on like some garage company doing what they love, they have to find a solution that works, not out of any duty but because they won't be able to pay dividends (heck, they might not ultimately be able to keep the lights on) and once their stock price is in the toilet, anything could happen, little of it good.

Maybe I wasn't really clear --

The board can absolutely do what it feels like, so long as they're not defrauding investors or unfairly enriching themselves. They don't need to increase revenue or profits as a public company, any more than they would need to as a private company -- this is a fallacy, a misconception about public companies. They don't need to pay dividends, and if you want to take a particularly twisted view, there are companies that put themselves in a hole so that the insiders or related parties can buy back stock cheaply.

The shareholders -- unless they can somehow muster 51% of shares that vote and then at the next AGM vote in a new board -- have no control over any of this. Their sole remedy is to sue for oppression -- that is, that the board or majority shareholders are acting for their own benefit and to the detriment of the minority shareholder. However, this, will almost universally be unsuccessful if the company is just doing what it loves, and that happens to be a bad idea.

To take a big company example, Steve Jobs was famously quoted as saying that he'd spend Apple's every last penny to put Android out of business if that's what it took. Apple literally made terrible business decisions for many years to exercise essentially a personal grudge with Google. What can shareholders do? Absolutely nothing. 100% of the power of the company rests in the board, with the sole exception that the shareholders can elect a new board. Once a year. In a company run by a cult of personality, the guy on top essentially makes all the big decisions. Microsoft is Bill Gates' company. Whatever he wants, goes. It doesn't matter if it's a terrible idea, or what will happen to the stock.

Since GW isn't raising capital, and has positive cash flow, the board might not really care about stock prices going up at all. Or they might care a lot, because one of them wants an exit strategy and wants to sell out in 5 years. But then, they might be better off personally or having the company buy back stock (reducing dilution) and then cashing out in 5 years when some new strategy bounces the price of the shares.

And besides, pricing, releases and all that matters not a bit. If you want to be really cynical, it's not even about whether you've ever made money or whether you ever will make money. It's all about the brokerage and your stock promoters, your bundlers and how you're able to convince someone who's never touched a miniature in their life that your business will become 20 times bigger 5 years from now. Maybe get a movie producer to say a few words, and then all the sudden, people are thinking major motion picture, and the stock price quadruples overnight. Then the movie doesn't happen, stock price plummets, but in the meantime, the people who want to sell some stock have done so. It's a very dirty business

I think Azreal means that they dont have the luxury to do what they want IF what they're doing isn't working AND they want to stay in business and be functionally able to continue to do what they want.

Yes, I had though that pretty self evident.

Forgot who I was talking to!

 agnosto wrote:
I think Azreal means that they dont have the luxury to do what they want IF what they're doing isn't working AND they want to stay in business and be functionally able to continue to do what they want.

I guess we're not connecting.

1. GW is in the black and has cash on hand
2. GW doesn't need money and doesn't want to raise money, so it doesn't need to impress investors, except as an exit for insiders
3. Despite whatever contraction, they appear to still be staying profitable.

Given these 3 things, my point is that GW being a public company doesn't matter at all. The board of directors can elect for GW to do what it wants, rather than what makes boatloads of money. They can even do it in the guise that somewhere in the long term there will be boatloads of money because the market will change. My point was that being publicly traded doesn't change anything other than the need to fill out paperwork -- unless there's some chance that you'll have enough shareholders to edge out board control.

At the moment, GW DOES have the luxury of doing what they want (and it can be what they love, not what's more profitable). Will that change one day? Maybe, but probably not any time soon. Certainly not July 28 They sure must have suitcases of cash from somewhere, because all those molds to make the **boatloads** of AdMech and Harlequin releases didn't come cheap.

A better question is, "What does GW want?"

I think: Making cool products for in a midrange hobby catering to people who enjoy painting, modeling and collecting, and playing with those collections.

A decent second question is, "What doesn't GW want?"

I think: to compete with companies that make small scale, games for the eyeballs of customers who primarily want to play small model count games that might or not involve painting, modelling, and collecting.

I don't even believe that, at this point, GW wants to be in that space. They'll cede it to other, smaller competitors (perhaps unwisely) because they don't see it as their core competency or core business. Of course, these are just my thoughts. I have nothing to back it up; only my interpretation of GW's actions. Also, I define "midrange" as something which costs hundreds of dollars a year; something that a person with a stable, average job with extra money can participate in with relatively low barriers to entry. As opposed to a high-priced hobby, such as sailing (where it's expensive and, well, you need a boat) or a low-cost hobby such as hiking (where all you need is a decent pair of shoes).

Apparently what they want is to go out of business.

 Talys wrote:

3. Despite whatever contraction, they appear to still be staying profitable.

When this is no longer true, it will be too late to save the company. You seem to have the attitude that should GW go into the red, they will have the luxury of plenty of time to turn things around. I very highly doubt this assumption.

Also, comparing 40k to sailing to justify it as a "middle" cost hobby? That's some laughable upper-class blindness there. To the rest of us peons, sailing is a hobby for the rich to the ultra-rich; calling it "high-cost" is a huge understatement. For people who want to play with their toys and play fairly with others (not just fill shelves with nice, uniform "product lines"), GW's products are high-cost, meh-value games, and the market seems to be insufficient to support them at the moment.