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.

Updating expensive books every other year is ridiculous. Id rather spend that on models.

Oh, my boyfriend lucked out with when the Space Marines codex came out. He scored the White Scars Special Edition for his b-day gift. It came by FedEx on a Friday, too, thank God, because he was going to go the GW store and pick up the regular one on Saturday, LOL!

It was a really beautiful set. I think that those Special Editions make the perfect presents, and the price point is just right for an "adult gift". I could have gotten him the regular book by itself and some models, but that's just not the same thing, because, I mean, he would have bought all that anyways. What makes it great is that he wouldn't have bought it otherwise, so it becomes a nice treat. Oh well, he better get me an Ork Limited Edition when it finally comes out, or he's in big trouble.

I haven't been playing that long, but I don't think I mind every couple of years. And the books aren't THAT expensive, if you're buying the normal ones. $40-$50 every couple of years seems okay to me. I mean, unless you're buying them all, but you deserve it if you own, like, 20 armies or whatever it is!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, I think you guys all overthink it. Warhammer stuff has nice boxes with nice artwork, good presentation, and good store presence. There's a pretty good variety of different looking armies, so something for everyone.

Everyone judges a book by its cover. The cute guy gets the girl, the cute girl gets the date, yadda yadda. People just look at boxes, whatever they make a connection with, that's what they buy. With Warhammer, no matter what you're in to, there's something there for you.

The higher price works both ways too. A lot of you guys who have been playing this game since before I was born remember things being really cheap and are all mad that things are expensive now. But believe it or not, a lot of fresh eyes looking at games have money to spend, and when they look at something that's pricier and has a slick box, and especially when they see rows and rows of stuff, they figure it's better to get into than the dinky game in the corner with half a shelf of cheap miniatures.

"Cheap" isn't always a good way to sell things. I mean, if someone can't afford it, sure it matters. But if there's not really any difference between spending $100 and $50, and the $100 "feels" like it's worth more, a lot of people will buy the $100 option. It's why people buy branded instead of white label at the grocery store, why the most expensive balsamic vinegar outsells the cheapest, and why Starbucks has an ordering lineup when the diner with the dollar coffee is empty.

So many of you guys are superfans and you break it down into, you get so many arms and so many heads and this piece of plastic is a better sculpting than that one. But I'm sure there are a lot of people like me who never went into all that, just what the models look like on boxes and in the magazine, and picked a game or army that way.

For me, I wanted to try out Warhammer because my boyfriend enjoys it and I thought miniatures were cool, so we went to the game shop, and I looked at boxes, and I went, "Orks! They look so cool!" and that was about it.

Herzlos wrote:
Then there's plenty of other folk who's roles I don't know but are doing quite well elsewhere like Ronnie Renton.

He was head of the Studio. His last big project before he left was the Cities of Death scenery because he loves modular scenery.

Obviously people have different opinions. The new premium priced rules and codexes in 6th edition drove me out of 40K. I could see the writing on the wall and decided the game was not worth the candle.

Naturally there are people who love the new stuff and they are what keeps GW afloat. I would only note that the current downward slope of revenue and profits began when GW doubled the price of codexes in 6th edition.

My opinion is that they dealt a very serious blow to the player base by that move. Everything since then has been attempts to find a new market.

 Baragash wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Then there's plenty of other folk who's roles I don't know but are doing quite well elsewhere like Ronnie Renton.

He was head of the Studio. His last big project before he left was the Cities of Death scenery because he loves modular scenery.

Ah, that explains why Mantic has been doing a lot of modular scenery now

 Talys wrote:
Thanks thud

Round it off against the cost of goods, it's gross profit of 1m GBP. IIRC, Gross Profit was around 85m total.

So only slightly less than 1.2% of (gross) profit. It'll pay some salaries, but it won't make or break GW. That's a lot of legal and other costs associated to that wee bit of licensing revenue. Maybe it includes the salary of a person or two who's full time jobs are to manage the licensing program. Like, a director/vp type and an assistant. Or maybe they have in-house counsel.

I can't remember the details now, but I'm sure there was some point a couple of years ago where the licensing department cost more than it made, but that could have been skewed by the Chapterhouse case.

I don't think that you would necessarily report licensing revenue with litigation costs. That said I think the last licencing deal they had with the makers of of Dawn of War was landing circa £4-5M every few years they then changed accounting procedures to smooth this over the term. So spikes in admin/management cost would be expected with regular income.

Combine this with the loss of that licence and it replacement with numerous smaller (shovelware?) licences and this might be exaggerated.

Also the next report might add in fees from the Total War license so it's an interesting area of their report.

Herzlos wrote:

 JamesY wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
big name designers are almost all gone.

Have they? Jez, Ali, Steve, Seb, Mark, and Trish are all still there, plus plenty more fantastic sculptors. Apart from the Perrys (who had only worked on lotr for the few years before leaving) they haven't lost anyone whose absence is really noticed.

The only one from that list I recognise is Jez (Jes Bingham? Bickam?)

I mean the people who drove innovation at the company almost all work somewhere else now. Paul Sawyer (who made WD great), John Stallard (who came up with the 2-sides+rules starter box idea), Rick Priestly (who's WW2 rules are the basis for Warhammer), Allesio Cavatore (who co-wrote almost everything), Dan Abnett (the BL author), Mike McVey (painting studio head?). Then there's plenty of other folk who's roles I don't know but are doing quite well elsewhere like Ronnie Renton.

The Perrys are responsible for more than just the LOTR mini's, as I understand it they were instrumental in getting the LOTR contract in the first place, and they are responsible for most of the decent human sculpts throughout it's history.

Almost everyone that did something great and is remembered by the gaming public now works for the competition, and almost everyone of note driving the competition forward used to work for Games Workshop.

We can't seriously be assuming that the old-time GW staff leaving GW is a sign that the company is failing, right? A lot of them have been there for decades - I mean, how many of you would want to work at the same company for that long a period of time doing essentially the same thing day after day? If you tell me that they have a 10% employee retention rate at the end of year 1 of new-hire, then that's a completely different story. Old-timers moving on to different jobs at different companies is normal.

Indeed, desired career life expectancy in a senior divisional position is generally held to be about 7 years.

After that unless the individual is particularly gifted/connected or in someway pivotal to the business then companies can be expected stagnate and underperform.

We're not talking about senior divisional people (CxO) though, but the lead designers and editors. The CxO positions are all largely static, beyond the COO being the CEO?

 Enigwolf wrote:


We can't seriously be assuming that the old-time GW staff leaving GW is a sign that the company is failing, right? A lot of them have been there for decades - I mean, how many of you would want to work at the same company for that long a period of time doing essentially the same thing day after day? If you tell me that they have a 10% employee retention rate at the end of year 1 of new-hire, then that's a completely different story. Old-timers moving on to different jobs at different companies is [i]normal/i].

I'm not saying that staff leaving is a sign of the company failing, but it's a sign of GW cutting costs to the bone as some of these people were made redundant. It's also a clear sign of talent decay and increased competition - most of the people responsible for making GW great are now working for and driving growth at competitors (some of which were funded by GW via redundancy payments). It's an indication that they are stagnating because they just don't have the talent any more across the board (management, design) to turn things around.

The other alternative is that the staff are leaving voluntarily to set up competition, which implies they no longer like the direction or atmosphere of the company, which is just as bad.

As for staff turnover - it depends on the company, at mine (tech) our new guy has been here 8 years, and more staff tend to retire than move to other companies.

Losing all of your named characters over a couple of years after decades of work is hardly a good sign, no?

Just think where GW would be now if they'd kept Stallard, Priestly, Cavatore, Renton and let them do their things.

 Enigwolf wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 JamesY wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
big name designers are almost all gone.

Have they? Jez, Ali, Steve, Seb, Mark, and Trish are all still there, plus plenty more fantastic sculptors. Apart from the Perrys (who had only worked on lotr for the few years before leaving) they haven't lost anyone whose absence is really noticed.

The only one from that list I recognise is Jez (Jes Bingham? Bickam?)

I mean the people who drove innovation at the company almost all work somewhere else now. Paul Sawyer (who made WD great), John Stallard (who came up with the 2-sides+rules starter box idea), Rick Priestly (who's WW2 rules are the basis for Warhammer), Allesio Cavatore (who co-wrote almost everything), Dan Abnett (the BL author), Mike McVey (painting studio head?). Then there's plenty of other folk who's roles I don't know but are doing quite well elsewhere like Ronnie Renton.

The Perrys are responsible for more than just the LOTR mini's, as I understand it they were instrumental in getting the LOTR contract in the first place, and they are responsible for most of the decent human sculpts throughout it's history.

Almost everyone that did something great and is remembered by the gaming public now works for the competition, and almost everyone of note driving the competition forward used to work for Games Workshop.

We can't seriously be assuming that the old-time GW staff leaving GW is a sign that the company is failing, right? A lot of them have been there for decades - I mean, how many of you would want to work at the same company for that long a period of time doing essentially the same thing day after day? If you tell me that they have a 10% employee retention rate at the end of year 1 of new-hire, then that's a completely different story. Old-timers moving on to different jobs at different companies is [i]normal/i].

The point being made is that many of these old-time staff actually were at GW for decades, presumably happily employed -- or they would already have left -- doing the same old thing (creating exciting new stuff) all that time, and having in recent years left GW under whatever impulse we don't know, have all gone on to other companies where they have continued to do the same old thing (creating exciting new stuff) for new corporate overloards.

This inevitably leads to the supposition that GW management essentially pushed these people out by a strategy of not doing any exciting new stuff.

That is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, though the continuing decline in revenues must be worrying. That said, the situation may stabilise before the company falls into loss-making territory.

I think you are intentionally putting a very negative spin on things. I would also suggest that most of the names you mention didn't get made redundant as you imply.

If you work for a company that is in the business of making Warhammer and you already have your own games company that is perusing your own interests in other genres then what will you do?

Most people will look to get their own thing going I would suggest.

Staff turnover is expected, indeed arguably desired in any large organisation

 notprop wrote:
I think you are intentionally putting a very negative spin on things. I would also suggest that most of the names you mention didn't get made redundant as you imply.

Maybe, maybe it's rose tinting about the good old days. I'm not intending to imply who/how many were made redundant (some have, as I've been told first have) but I don't know the bigger picture and I'm not going to disclose any of the details that I do know as I don't feel it's fair on the staff.

GW didn't seem to have a problem with their staff being involved in side projects as long as they didn't overlap, like the Perry brothers historicals. I suspect there was probably some non-compete clause with Priestly which is why he waited a while before starting Gates Of Antares.

Turnover is expected and can be desirable, yes, but why the sudden change in staffing? These guys have all been at GW for circa 30 years and have all left in the last 5. Maybe it's because the market growth is giving them the opportunity to do their own thing? Maybe they don't like the new caterers?

New talent is good though, but in a place with a strong yes-man culture and a policy of hiring for attitude, will these new staff drive the growth that GW desperately needs?

A yes man culture would be indicated by people not leaving, all keeping their heads down and grinding out the same stuff as the boss has always like, i.e. very dogmatic.

New blood is indicative of new ideas and change. Out with the old and in with the new and all that.

With the leaving of some old stalwarts there has been some changes perceptible at GW. New tech is being used in manufacture, FW/BL has developed the Horus Heresy, WFB is being revamped, WD is almost a readable magazine/pamphlet.

I'm not saying the garden is rosey but there seems to be some attempt at change, and more than just token attempts.

But there haven't been any new ideas. The only really new thing of the past few years was Dread Fleet. The rest of it is retrenchment within the existing WH/40K ecosystem, and The Hobbit which of course is over 10 years old basically.

The move into digital would be the biggest change they have made that I can see from the outside, that seemed quite brave for GW.

@kilkrazy: Pretty sure that's exactly the reason that Rick gave in an interview for leaving GW.

It's pretty easy to read between the lines for Ronnie's mantra for Mantic that he though the prices were too high and the rules quality too low.

As for BL, some interesting hearsay from here: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?405760-Horus-Heresy-Limited-to-Death&p=7468965&viewfull=1#post7468965
And that's on top of them managing to remove themselves from the bestseller lists with their limited-everything and only self-distributing on e-books.

Vyxen wrote:

Oh, my boyfriend lucked out with when the Space Marines codex came out. He scored the White Scars Special Edition for his b-day gift. It came by FedEx on a Friday, too, thank God, because he was going to go the GW store and pick up the regular one on Saturday, LOL!

Heh, good timing!

Vyxen wrote:

It was a really beautiful set. I think that those Special Editions make the perfect presents, and the price point is just right for an "adult gift". I could have gotten him the regular book by itself and some models, but that's just not the same thing, because, I mean, he would have bought all that anyways. What makes it great is that he wouldn't have bought it otherwise, so it becomes a nice treat. Oh well, he better get me an Ork Limited Edition when it finally comes out, or he's in big trouble.

Generally speaking, the physical quality of the GW books is usually top notch; though I personally prefer the old black and white artwork myself – I find black and white to be far more in tune with 40k’s grim and brooding atmosphere. I can’t argue that a special edition makes a nice present – IMO one of the forgeworld Imperial Armours or Horus Heresy books makes for a truly epic present as well. Although my missus has OKed a trip down to Nottingham and Warhammer world for my birthday, so I think she’s quite ace for that! I’d prefer that, and a pint in bugman’s to a stuffy old book.

Vyxen wrote:

I haven't been playing that long, but I don't think I mind every couple of years. And the books aren't THAT expensive, if you're buying the normal ones. $40-$50 every couple of years seems okay to me. I mean, unless you're buying them all, but you deserve it if you own, like, 20 armies or whatever it is!

And what if you just want the lore though? $40-$50 is OK, until you realise it was half of that up until fairly recently and they lasted for three to four years, not one or two, and that most of it is recycled. Or until you compare them to the books released by other companies. Or the magazines. Compare white dwarf to no quarter or wargames illustrated...

Vyxen wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, I think you guys all overthink it. Warhammer stuff has nice boxes with nice artwork, good presentation, and good store presence. There's a pretty good variety of different looking armies, so something for everyone.

And with respect, you under think it too readily. You seem to be stopping at the point of 'slick presentation' and not looking any further, appearances aren't everything. most of those armies aren't as varied as you think - at the end if the day it's mostly just power armour with different bling. Gw have the artwork down, and the presentation, but store presence – not so much, and not as much as they used to have. Not everyone has a GW remember. With regard to store presence, the FLGS is making a comeback, and with it are coming a lot of other games. Its called the golden age of gaming for a reason – there’s lots of cool stuff out there. Plenty other companies are pushing a very slick presentation for their products - pp are pretty good, for example.

Vyxen wrote:

Everyone judges a book by its cover. The cute guy gets the girl, the cute girl gets the date, yadda yadda. People just look at boxes, whatever they make a connection with, that's what they buy. With Warhammer, no matter what you're in to, there's something there for you.

Unless you want a balanced game with an airtight and functional rules set, then you’re sorry, right out of luck. 40k takes the right attitude, the right group of friends and a lot of player input, often backed with social pressure, self restraint, self policing, implied guilt, and compromise to get right. In other words, a huge amount of effort and an equal amount of sacrifice. Often for a mechanically clunky and somewhat frustrating experience. Everyone wants something different. What happens when you’ve spent a few hundred bucks on an army only to find that it’s essentially unplayable, and either steamrolls all the opposition, or is steamrolled in turn because of GWs appalling balance. Is this a good thing? Being a participant is a huge deal in a two-player game, and 40k often fails miserably at this, without the aforementioned effort. As opposed to being able to play right out of the box with no issues? It's not a lot to ask for, especially considering the investment of time, money etc.

Vyxen wrote:

The higher price works both ways too. A lot of you guys who have been playing this game since before I was born remember things being really cheap and are all mad that things are expensive now. But believe it or not, a lot of fresh eyes looking at games have money to spend, and when they look at something that's pricier and has a slick box, and especially when they see rows and rows of stuff, they figure it's better to get into than the dinky game in the corner with half a shelf of cheap miniatures.

Do they? OR do they see the price point, the front loaded costs, the barely functional nature of the rules, and the haphazard approach to game design and balance and say ‘nah, not for me’. ‘it costs more’ is not the same as ‘but its better’. Sometimes price gouging is a thing. Do they do their research and see what they can get out of the other games?

Similarly, don’t dismiss that ‘dinky game with half a shelf of miniatures’ so quickly. You underestimate them. Companies like Corvus Belli (Infinity) and Wyrd (Malifaux) make exceptional metal and plastic models, backed up by brilliant games. Privateer Press (warmachine/hordes) offer a brilliant game with solid models (there are some stinkers though) excellent balance, and back it up with some excellent grassroots support (organised play).

The network effect is a thing. Word of mouth advertising. That pricier game, with its slick box and lots of stuff also comes with a lot of baggage and negativity.

Vyxen wrote:

"Cheap" isn't always a good way to sell things. I mean, if someone can't afford it, sure it matters. But if there's not really any difference between spending $100 and $50, and the $100 "feels" like it's worth more, a lot of people will buy the $100 option. It's why people buy branded instead of white label at the grocery store, why the most expensive balsamic vinegar outsells the cheapest, and why Starbucks has an ordering lineup when the diner with the dollar coffee is empty.

Will they though? Being more expensive does not mean better, it often just means more expensive. You’re buying a ‘name’, essentially. $100 isnt a big deal. This is a pricey hobby. I have no issues with paying the cost. And you are correct. ‘Cheap’ isn’t a good way to sell things. However, ‘value for your money’ is.

What I have issues with is the value I get for that $100 I spend. And when GW do things like half the contents of the boxes but maintain the same price point (dire avengers, guardsmen, orks, nids etc) it irks me, and I see it for what it is-a cheap shot. When they change the rules, and invalidate whole armies that I’ve bought (a mate of mine had 3 whole armies invalidated by arbitrary rules updates), and it requires me to essentially re-buy my army, I see It for what it is (4th ed nidzilla lists, for example). A cheap shot. Factor in the ‘buy in’ costs and the ‘cost to play’ and you can get going with a lot less in a lot of other games and you can take it a lot further.

I've spent far more on warmachine than I've ever done on 40k. And I've enjoyed it all. Like I said, it's not necessarily about price - it's value.

Vyxen wrote:

So many of you guys are superfans and you break it down into, you get so many arms and so many heads and this piece of plastic is a better sculpting than that one. But I'm sure there are a lot of people like me who never went into all that, just what the models look like on boxes and in the magazine, and picked a game or army that way.

Its not about being super fans as much as having been burned. You’re new. We’ve seen it all before, and we’ve seen through the smoke and mirrors. I’m all for going for what the models look like – but that is the case for every army in every other game as well. I embraced Khador in warmachine because of the character Orsus Zoktavir, their doom reavers and assault kommandos, and I’m still on the khador train of conquest five years later. With respect, there is more to ‘the game’ than pretty pictures on a box. A game needs to have the substance and the backbone to back up its style.

Vyxen wrote:

For me, I wanted to try out Warhammer because my boyfriend enjoys it and I thought miniatures were cool, so we went to the game shop, and I looked at boxes, and I went, "Orks! They look so cool!" and that was about it.

I honestly think that you’ve come into this game with the right attitude. This genuinely makes me smile. And orks are always boss. For what its worth, I hope you enjoy the hobby. But bear in mind, GW isn’t ‘the hobby’, and they do a lot of things wrong. Keep an eye out for other stuff. Style needs to be backed up by substance, and I hope the reality doesn't burn you either.

 Baragash wrote:
@kilkrazy: Pretty sure that's exactly the reason that Rick gave in an interview for leaving GW.

It's pretty easy to read between the lines for Ronnie's mantra for Mantic that he though the prices were too high and the rules quality too low.

As for BL, some interesting hearsay from here: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?405760-Horus-Heresy-Limited-to-Death&p=7468965&viewfull=1#post7468965
And that's on top of them managing to remove themselves from the bestseller lists with their limited-everything and only self-distributing on e-books.

I would argue that the reduction in forward notification as to what books are going to be available, and principally the limited - hard back - trade paper back release schedule (with the increases in RRP and impact to the release date of the affordable version) have resulted in the sales drop. Making something more available by releasing an ebook version at a reasonable price (for GW) can only have a positive impact on sales, even if only one person buys one book, ever.

My comment was more around the rules and codexes being made officially available as ebooks.

Herzlos wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Then there's plenty of other folk who's roles I don't know but are doing quite well elsewhere like Ronnie Renton.

He was head of the Studio. His last big project before he left was the Cities of Death scenery because he loves modular scenery.

Ah, that explains why Mantic has been doing a lot of modular scenery now

yeah, I thought that I might die of not-surprise when I read that.

Not complaining, mind.... I may buy Mars Attacks just for the brick walls....

The Auld Grump, plus, you know, Martians....

I was tempted by the burning cows, myself. And the trucks.

Vyxen wrote:
By the way, I think you guys all overthink it. Warhammer stuff has nice boxes with nice artwork, good presentation, and good store presence. There's a pretty good variety of different looking armies

I think you're not thinking about it enough. It's not about 'number of arms and guns and fings', and the magpie effect doesn't cut it when there are so many other factors working against Warhammer, that've been gone over at length in this topic and others. At least some of them are adding up (well...) to less and less revenue and profits for GW. 'Nice boxes' aren't going to save them from that.

so something for everyone.

No. My goodness, there's so much I could say about those four wee words, but just, no, not really.

The higher price works both ways too. A lot of you guys who have been playing this game since before I was born remember things being really cheap and are all mad that things are expensive now.

I discovered GW about, oh... 2001? So a fair bit ago, I suppose, but not as far back as others. I was pretty enamoured with GW too, and enjoyed it while it lasted, but it didn't last long. It might surprise you, but price wasn't the only or even the biggest reason why I left; although, even though I was gone before the prices went really crazy (goldsword, witch elf, freebooter crazy), the cost of building up huge 40K and FB armies still helped put me off.

But believe it or not, a lot of fresh eyes looking at games have money to spend, and when they look at something that's pricier and has a slick box, and especially when they see rows and rows of stuff, they figure it's better to get into than the dinky game in the corner with half a shelf of cheap miniatures.

"Cheap" isn't always a good way to sell things. I mean, if someone can't afford it, sure it matters. But if there's not really any difference between spending $100 and $50, and the $100 "feels" like it's worth more, a lot of people will buy the $100 option. It's why people buy branded instead of white label at the grocery store, why the most expensive balsamic vinegar outsells the cheapest, and why Starbucks has an ordering lineup when the diner with the dollar coffee is empty.

One of the biggest reasons I see for people dropping GW's two core games is because it's getting too expensive for all that it is. I've even heard anecdotes that new kids in some gaming stores look at GW prices, sneer, then go for that 'dinky game in the corner'. Same as a lot of the old ex-GW grognards. (Have you heard the term 'grognard' yet?) Again, the worsening financial reports from GW and the apparent boom in the rest of the wargaming market help support that.
When you're trying to convince people on huge model armies of cheap, mass produced plastic (and with decidedly inferior rules) 'cheap' is a brilliant way to sell things. You might think differently if your purchasing decisions are entirely based on what looks 'cool' or 'badass' or whatnot, and fair enough, but in that case I don't think it's likely you're going to do very much of the mass army building that GW demands and, until now, relies upon. If you try to do and buy something that relates to the rulebooks - to the games produced by Games Workshop - then all the hikes, imbalance, churn, invalidation, and sheer ruthless greed may eventually wear you down. Or not.

And if you think there's no difference between spending $50 and $100, then well done you, I suppose.

Edit: ha, ninja'd by Deadnight. What he said.

 Vermis wrote:
(Have you heard the term 'grognard' yet?)

You know that you really are a grognard when you pronounce it Gron-Yard not Grog-Nard....

The Auld Guard dies, but it never surrenders.

 Looky Likey wrote:

Spoiler:

 Baragash wrote:
@kilkrazy: Pretty sure that's exactly the reason that Rick gave in an interview for leaving GW.

It's pretty easy to read between the lines for Ronnie's mantra for Mantic that he though the prices were too high and the rules quality too low.

As for BL, some interesting hearsay from here: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?405760-Horus-Heresy-Limited-to-Death&p=7468965&viewfull=1#post7468965
And that's on top of them managing to remove themselves from the bestseller lists with their limited-everything and only self-distributing on e-books.

I would argue that the reduction in forward notification as to what books are going to be available, and principally the limited - hard back - trade paper back release schedule (with the increases in RRP and impact to the release date of the affordable version) have resulted in the sales drop. Making something more available by releasing an ebook version at a reasonable price (for GW) can only have a positive impact on sales, even if only one person buys one book, ever.

My comment was more around the rules and codexes being made officially available as ebooks.

I was actually addressing Kilkrazy's reply and disagreeing with notprop, I didn't realise you'd posted in between

 Talys wrote:

There's a whole discussion to be had about the buying power of the average worker not keeping up with inflation and an increasing (and unhealthy) wealth gap -- but there's not a lot that a company like GW can do about that! The solution that some people would like to hear is, "they should share and feel our pain and keep their prices low" -- but that's just unlikely in an company that makes luxury entertainment goods.

They've chosen to market their products as luxury goods (I use the term market term loosely, with since apparently advertising is otiose in a niche as well) . There is some debate as to whether their products are perceived as luxury goods. There is no debate that GW has no interest in what its customers think (market research being otiose and all that), which is a problem.

-edit- I'm a bit dismayed with some of the responses to Vyxen: Honesetly, if people believe that the product that GW is putting out is providing good value... there's no need to rain all over their enthusiasm. To a new entrant to the hobby, the pricing structure of the past really isn't here nor there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vermis wrote:

When you're trying to convince people on huge model armies of cheap, mass produced plastic (and with decidedly inferior rules) 'cheap' is a brilliant way to sell things. You might think differently if your purchasing decisions are entirely based on what looks 'cool' or 'badass' or whatnot, and fair enough, but in that case I don't think it's likely you're going to do very much of the mass army building that GW demands and, until now, relies upon.

Here is where I think that GW is incredibly incoherent in their approach in that they are simultaneously pushing huger/bigger/horde armies via their game, but also zeroing in on the collector market with ever more expensive boutique style models and ever increasing variety of upgrade components. To me this is entirely crazy for the following reasons:

1. GW products are somehow considered more premium due to the customizable aspect of the models. However, most ignore the fact that the upgrade components are generally meaningless if you are not steeped in the lore of the game and if you are a pure modeller the relevance of the components won't be known: i.e. terminator honors, difference between plasma and melta etc. To me, the ultimate "modeller's game" would be something akin to =][=munda where you customize the gak out of your squads.
2. The high cost of the "boutique" models is a barrier to play the game as "marketed" due to size and scope of game. IMHO, this could be fixed by drastically lowering the price on the rank and file and moving all the upgrades onto separate sprues.
3. The "high quality" printing (and attached high price) gaming supplements are nonsensical buys for anyone not playing the game.

GW wants to have their cake and eat it too. Their solution is to take tiny bites of the cake while the body is suffering from starvation. It appears the head of the beast thinks it can abscond with the leftovers when the body is naught but a carcass to be sold off for fertilizer.

 keezus wrote:

-edit- I'm a bit dismayed with some of the responses to Vyxen: Honesetly, if people believe that the product that GW is putting out is providing good value... there's no need to rain all over their enthusiasm. To a new entrant to the hobby, the pricing structure of the past really isn't here nor there.

I think Vyxen had the bad fortune to wander into a howlers situation.

Don't take it too personally, Vyxen! We don't want to chase you off under a shower of, um... invective. Like we said, we do know what it's like to be excited and enthusiastic about a new hobby or a game. It's just that for some of us, the head-scratching changes constantly implemented by GW (not just price rises) mean that we don't get that from them so much, anymore, compared to other games in the hobby; and it looks like it's slowly killing the company, which we wouldn't argue about if we didn't still care about the game or the miniatures or the setting in some way, or the gamers who might be left high and dry to some extent.

I have a special issue with the "this is an expensive hobby after all" argument, and how often it's employed to justify insane pricing policies.

What hobby? Wargaming/miniature painting/modelling hobby? Or The GW Hobby(TM)? If the answer is the second one, then all fine, The GW Hobby(TM) is certainly very expensive.

The wargaming hobby (understood as a whole) may be or may not be expensive depending on the rulesets you're playing and what and how many models you're buying.

I mean, if you are playing a skirmish or small battle game - whose rules are available for free in pdf - and your models of choice are among the less expensive in the market (either historicals or fantasy/sci-fi ranges with the more sensitive prices) then I wouldn't really define it as an expensive hobby. Because you will neither need a ton of models to play neither pay a lot of money for the ones you adquire.

If you, however, are playing 2000 points 40k games and sticking to official models, paints and tools... oh dear, then it's going to be an expensive hobby.

Finally, I think it makes little sense to compare the costs of wargaming with different hobbies. Just compare the prices of certain model ranges (and paints, and tools) with others. You may notice an extreme disparity. As a customer, it's a matter of choice.

 Vermis wrote:

 keezus wrote:

-edit- I'm a bit dismayed with some of the responses to Vyxen: Honesetly, if people believe that the product that GW is putting out is providing good value... there's no need to rain all over their enthusiasm. To a new entrant to the hobby, the pricing structure of the past really isn't here nor there.

I think Vyxen had the bad fortune to wander into a howlers situation.

Don't take it too personally, Vyxen! We don't want to chase you off under a shower of, um... invective. Like we said, we do know what it's like to be excited and enthusiastic about a new hobby or a game. It's just that for some of us, the head-scratching changes constantly implemented by GW (not just price rises) mean that we don't get that from them so much, anymore, compared to other games in the hobby; and it looks like it's slowly killing the company, which we wouldn't argue about if we didn't still care about the game or the miniatures or the setting in some way, or the gamers who might be left high and dry to some extent.

Exalting and agreeing with this. You will always find multiple sides of the fence on Dakka, but don't let the doomsayers of GW's end curb your newfound enthusiasm for the hobby. If you're enjoying it, and you're seeing the value in it, then don't let someone else dictate their negativity onto you. GW isn't going to go anywhere anytime soon - so paint your plastic soldiers, push them around the tabletop battlefields, and let GW leadership do what they do.

Unless, of course, joining forum slugfests is to your enjoyment, in which case, relish the chaos.

 Enigwolf wrote:

Exalting and agreeing with this. You will always find multiple sides of the fence on Dakka, but don't let the doomsayers of GW's end curb your newfound enthusiasm for the hobby. If you're enjoying it, and you're seeing the value in it, then don't let someone else dictate their negativity onto you. GW isn't going to go anywhere anytime soon - so paint your plastic soldiers, push them around the tabletop battlefields, and let GW leadership do what they do.

Unless, of course, joining forum slugfests is to your enjoyment, in which case, relish the chaos.

Agreed.

Just being fair here, but being a 'doomsayers of gw' and 'curbing enthusiasm for the hobby' are not necessarily the same thing. With respect, gw isn't 'the hobby' either,many those 'doomsayers' (apparently I am one now because I disagreed with vyxen?) are also fully capable of enjoying, and being enthusiastic about other aspects than just competitive gaming.

I applaud enthusiasm. I also applaud honest discourse and objective attitudes. You can have both.,..

Maybe some of old-timers chose to leave because they got tired of the same old thing and wanted something new?

They could have also left because there were other things they wanted to pursue, like the Perry Twins, and felt they didn't need to work for GW anymore.

The gaming industry has expanded significantly over the last 10 years, there are more opportunities (only for some) in the industry and maybe they had their own ideas for games and miniatures and wanted to explore them, like Warlord Games and Mantic did.

I don't dispute that people had been "railroaded" out of GW, but people do leave of the own accord for their own reasons as well.

One can want to experience new things, leaving old things behind normally is an entirely different state of affairs.