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.

 Enigwolf wrote:


I don't know if you're pulling these numbers from historicals, but GW stopped reporting what % of each game system contributed to their revenue.

Numbers? :p but yeah, I'll clarify - I think I came across them via the chat at the whole chapterhouse thing, but it might have been earlier.

Equally, after the first, unexpected, report showing a drop in profits and paid no dividend, several of the institutional investors sold their stake. Others purchased these shares.

Some people are bears, others are bulls. GW will almost certainly pay a dividend so Ruffer will now get a bigger share of that. The share price has been basically flatlining for months, so it isn't like they're risking losing a chunk of their capital by buying a fee % more shares.

It's also important to bear in mind that the mail order channel is both the smallest and the one they've most heavily invested in in the recent past, so a return of 5% growth (which should equate to about 1% of revenue) is pretty disappointing. Whereas the drops in retail and third party equate to around a 6.5% drop in revenue.

It will be interesting to see the report, that's for sure.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Equally, after the first, unexpected, report showing a drop in profits and paid no dividend, several of the institutional investors sold their stake. Others purchased these shares.

Some people are bears, others are bulls. GW will almost certainly pay a dividend so Ruffer will now get a bigger share of that. The share price has been basically flatlining for months, so it isn't like they're risking losing a chunk of their capital by buying a fee % more shares.

It's also important to bear in mind that the mail order channel is both the smallest and the one they've most heavily invested in in the recent past, so a return of 5% growth (which should equate to about 1% of revenue) is pretty disappointing. Whereas the drops in retail and third party equate to around a 6.5% drop in revenue.

It will be interesting to see the report, that's for sure.

If you're confident about your company, the smart money, if the share price drops and there is excess capital, is for the company to buy shares back and decrease dilution, rather than pay dividends. It enriches every remaining shareholder.

That ship has long since sailed, the price dropped in Jan 13, it recovered a little and, like I said, has flatlined ever since.

Besides, dividends is real money, stocks are just rich on paper, and I don't think you have to look too hard to see Kirby isn't a fan of things he can't control directly, such as the stock market.

 Azreal13 wrote:
That ship has long since sailed, the price dropped in Jan 13, it recovered a little and, like I said, has flatlined ever since.

Besides, dividends is real money, stocks are just rich on paper, and I don't think you have to look too hard to see Kirby isn't a fan of things he can't control directly, such as the stock market.

That's a terrible (and not very professional) view of investing, though. Dividends are just one of many reasons to buy equity. No matter how terrible the company, buying stocks that are undervalued is a good way to make money (note that if the company is truly "doomed", as in bankrupt, its value is zero, and therefore can't be undervalued). Also, there's the issue of control.

Plus, as a company buys back its shares, its market capitalization will stay fixed while its price per share will rise. If the company is worth $100m today with 100 million shares, and the company buys back 50% of the shares outstanding, the company will be worth $100m tomorrow, with just 50 million shares, so those shares are worth (will sell for to an arms length buyer) twice as much. No different than if you do a split, the value of each share is worth half as much, but the value of the company stays the same.

Not to mention that if a company buys back a bunch of stock today, tomorrow, if the market thinks the company is worth more, it can put those stocks back on the market, and make a profit itself.

As you say, the share price of GW is pretty stable. It probably isn't severely under- or over-valued. But its trading volume is also tiny, and the company, in the grand scheme of professional investors, isn't even a speck in the wind. The way shares of GW are bought or sold in any volume are probably by some stock promoter who says to his clients, "you should buy (or sell) this stock!" and they do so, as a part of tiny percentage of a much bigger portfolio.

I think you're slowly coming around to the view that perhaps Kirby isn't the most gifted CEO/Chairman in history.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I think you're slowly coming around to the view that perhaps Kirby isn't the most gifted CEO/Chairman in history.

one thing i will say for the guy, he certainly seems to have done well for himself...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I think you're slowly coming around to the view that perhaps Kirby isn't the most gifted CEO/Chairman in history.

one thing i will say for the guy, he certainly seems to have done well for himself...

cheers
jah

Yep, at the expense of the game and company's health, he sure has. All set for a nice golden parachute at the end, suffering no consequences of his actions. Thus the business world goes on as it does.

Yeah, most people go into the civil service, sit there for years doing less and less constructive and more and more stuff to attempt to justify their existence, while their salary ticks ever upwards, until they retire on a nice fat government pension.

Kirby had the vision to get out and do it in the private sector!

 Azreal13 wrote:
I think you're slowly coming around to the view that perhaps Kirby isn't the most gifted CEO/Chairman in history.

I've never thought that he was. I don't think he's even close.

But Kirby has been there since 1986 (I think General Manager? I could be wrong), and he's earned his current position. I'm sure he's done some good things for the company; he's held a significant management position from the time he's been there til now, and in fairness, a lot of people who don't like GW now have liked GW at some point between 1986 and present.

A lot of small companies that turn into big companies have this issue; and a lot of good small-company leaders are not good big-company CEOs. But it isn't until all the old-timers have retired (or died) that the torch of Supreme Leader passes on to a non-insider and a professional CEO. Of course, there's a whole discussion about whether most professional CEOs are worth what they're paid, too; and a lot of professional CEOs drive awesome companies into the ground in record time.

Two words... Carly Fiorina.

I'll share a wee anecdote if I may as to why GW still has folk who think of them in a positive way rather than seeing all they do in a negative light. Their customer service. recently had a few problems with that purity spray stuff. It ballsed up the the metallics on a skyweaver a few months back and then totally frosted a squad of the chosen I'd just spent 50 odd hours on.
I emailed GW vs and explained. All I had in 'evidence' of the whole balls up was a single photo of one fig. Was so gutted I didn't photo the rest. No receipts. No proof of purchase. Plus I live in Korea so I haven't bought online or from a GW shop. They are replacing everything. 2 emails it took. For all the incessant whining I see about GW, I have to out that up against,imho, the best sculpts for the aesthetic and fantasy universe that I want and a seriously excellent customer service that is there when/if there is a problem. That's the frost time I've have to contact customer service since I started back into then 80's. Anyway that's my 2 shekels.

 Januine wrote:
I'll share a wee anecdote if I may as to why GW still has folk who think of them in a positive way rather than seeing all they do in a negative light. Their customer service. recently had a few problems with that purity spray stuff. It ballsed up the the metallics on a skyweaver a few months back and then totally frosted a squad of the chosen I'd just spent 50 odd hours on.
I emailed GW vs and explained. All I had in 'evidence' of the whole balls up was a single photo of one fig. Was so gutted I didn't photo the rest. No receipts. No proof of purchase. Plus I live in Korea so I haven't bought online or from a GW shop. They are replacing everything. 2 emails it took. For all the incessant whining I see about GW, I have to out that up against,imho, the best sculpts for the aesthetic and fantasy universe that I want and a seriously excellent customer service that is there when/if there is a problem. That's the frost time I've have to contact customer service since I started back into then 80's. Anyway that's my 2 shekels.

Oh, also Forge World has amazing customer service. A Tauros Venator arrived with a broken lascannon. They shipped me a whole new one, free-of-charge, after showing them a picture.

I agree to some degree with Talys's points about the three eras of GW, though I would argue with some of the details.

The pre-LoTR era was longer, more complex and contained a much wider variety of products that the big three we have now. It was also the era of best sustained growth for GW as they in 20 years grew from a small mail order operation to a substantial international publishing and retail company.

However all that is shrouded in the mists of time and since for most of the time they were not a public company, the financial records would be difficult to get hold of.

The LoTR era in my view ended much more abruptly than envisaged by Talys, or at least sales of the game declined very quickly soon after the last film came out. This is easily visible in the public financial reports, that show a massive drop in sales at that time. I cannot prove that it came from LoTR failing, but it is a logical assumption.

During the post-LoTR era, 40K certainly has been the mainstay of the company. I expected The Hobbit to be a major boost for the LoTR line, but there is no strong evidence in the results that that happened.

If you look at the sales and profit figures, things have been up and down over the past 10 years, but to generalise, things are worse in sales now than they were after the LoTR fall-off. Profit margins have improved significantly, due to rationalisation and efficiency gains. These of course cannot be continued indefinitely.

If it is assumed that increased 40K sales have replaced declines in LoTR and Fantasy, the past two and half years are disappointing since sales have continued to fall.

Clearly to have only one successful product line is a dangerous position. Hence the complete (?) reboot for Fantasy, coming when The Hobbit must be in terminal decline. Not to forget that Fantasy is thought to have declined a lot because of the unpopularity of 8th edition.

To some extent 40K has also been rebooted with 6th and 7th editions. This is not in terms of the core rules but in the way they are marketed. The overall ethos and structure of the game has been changed, with an emphasis on more and pricier books and models with extensions to the rules (formations, flyers, etc).

This system offers an excellent amount of variety for people who are prepared to pay for the experience -- the super fans as we have called them. (I am not one of them.)

Given the continuing decline in sales, however, the key point for GW is whether a superfan community, together with the continual churn of cohorts of new joiners, is enough to stabilise the company at perhaps £110 million of annual sales, which I think would allow them to be reasonably profitable and successful.

There is also the possibility that the rebooted Fantasy will be a huge success and bring back many lost players into the fold.

These results will not be seen for another couple of years, of course.

That's a pretty excellent and well-thought out write-up, Kilkrazy. Exalted!

I agree that I probably oversimplified things a bit, and I think that your explanations and conclusions are right on the mark. I think Games Workshop would definitely like to be more than a 1-game company.

Since they're the underdog in the fantasy (and certainly fantasy skirmisher) market, it will be interesting to see how Games Workshop works to win over customers.

Exalted, Kilkrazy!

I'm eager to see how the WFB reboot goes, and my buddies who quit WFB years back that I've spoken to seem to be considering jumping back into the game, provided that "the price is right". Even if we won't see the full effects till a few years down the road, I can't wait for their half-annual report in December.

You're right to say, I think, that 40k has also seen a "reboot" in 6th/7th ed. Compared to 3rd/4th, which somehow felt more like small tactical battles, 6th/7th with the regularity of either super-large unit blobs or super-heavies and GCs (as well as formations like the triple Land Raider one) and LoWs being more accepted lends the game to have a more epic (not the game) and grand atmosphere. Thematically, there is quite a visible shift compared to the past.

And I use this example a lot, but I'd much rather pay a little more to buy a kit and have all the weapon options (and leftover bits) that I need (and ebay any more that I lack) rather than buy blister packs with random weapon combinations hoping for the one I want (a good comparison would be LCGs like FFG does versus CCGs like M:TG). My first pewter Chaos Terminator blister came with two left-hand lightning claws...

 Talys wrote:
Actually, this wasn't quite the scenario I put forward. I was positing that there are essentially three periods: pre-LoTR, LoTR, and post-LoTR. During the latter 2, I theorize that Fantasy Battle declined, but LoTR more than made up the difference. From that period until now, both LoTR and Fantasy Battle have declined. However, 40k most likely has increased in sales, or we'd see more severe revenue declines.

Therefore, my theory is that overall, GW's revenue has declined, but 40k's revenue is higher than it's ever been. Does that mean the 40k ecosystem is stronger than ever? Not necessarily. Taking an extreme example, if one superfan billionaire decided to buy $50 million in 40k models and fill up his 23 storey underground bunker so that he'll have models to paint during the zombie apocalypse, that wouldn't do anything for the ecosystem, right? On the other hand, a smaller number of more dedicated players might not be a bad thing, if they're actually playing the game, evangelizing the product, and bringing in new players who are also dedicated to the game.

Could the split be otherwise? Of course. Since GW doesn't show the outside world the profit split, we can't determine that.

Like I said, I'm happy to entertain alternative narratives; I just think that it's most likely that Fantasy and LotR have shrunk a lot, and 40k has grown, but not enough to make up the difference.

Oh, I'm pretty sure 40k must have experienced a significant growth (in both sales and players) during the days of 3th, 4th and 5th edition. It probably grew so much it managed to compensate for LoTR's quick decline after 2005 and Fantasy's slow decline since 8th hit the shelves.

Then came 40k 6th edition in mid 2012, and we know what's happened since then.

I agree the staff at GW , tend to be very good at dealing with faulty product complaint, on models and hobby supplies.

Mainly because they have such a high mark up is more cost effective for them to send free replacements than any other legal requirement for trading.
This why GW has always adopted a full 'replacement policy'.

If it cost you £36 to manufacture the items and pack them ready for retail.And the retail price of the items the customer paid was £150.
And you have the choice of sending a replacement set if items for £50 inc postage.Or returning the £150 retail price , what would you do?

Now I am not trying to detract from the good staff who provided excellent customer service.But more to point out why GW policy is like this.

Also how much GW 'give away for free' to a particular customer ,as some customers see it , depends on how much you spend at GW.

However, have you ever tried to get you money back on a rule book or codex book due to poor editing or proof reading issues?

If you look at the sales figures for prior to the LoTR boom.And compare them to last years figures.
They are broadly in line with the rise due to inflation over the same period.

So despite increasing the amount of models you need in the games significantly , and increasing retail prices over the rate of inflation significantly.AND making massive savings on re structuring ,(cutting costs.)

GW plc have not grown in a growing market, but have effectively shrunk back in terms of sales volumes.

If it looks like a turd,and smells like a turd , do you really need to taste it to prove a point?

Yes it COULD be a expertly disguised chocolate bar full of sweet tasting nectar.But lots of people are not prepared to take that chance.

The two things keeping GW plc going ,
1)Game players hooked on sunk cost fallacy.

2)Collectors with more value on GWs particular art style , than others.

However, as sales volumes continue to fall, both of these customers pools will shrink in the face of ever rising prices.

Just a quick point of reference.ALL the businesses with a good grasp of their market, and target demographic will communicate directly with them on every appropriate channel.

The fact GW plc do not, is a clear indicator they have not got a clue who their customers actually are or what they actually want.
And are terrified if they make it clear they are ONLY interested in a particular customer demographic.
The other customers might just stop buying into GW and they would tank overnight.

Wonderful post KK, I feel that my views line up perfectly with what you said. I suppose on top of that, I tend to have a pessimistic view of the future success of the reboots of WHFB and 40k- probably from a mindset of thinking that the changes made in the reboot are doing little to address what has been causing the root issues in the first place.

It's not that I want GW to fail (although I do want Tom Kirby and his Kroney Krew shot out of a cannon), I just don't feel they'll be able to/actually care to fix their issues in a meaningful way.

Lanrak wrote:
I agree the staff at GW , tend to be very good at dealing with faulty product complaint, on models and hobby supplies.

Mainly because they have such a high mark up is more cost effective for them to send free replacements than any other legal requirement for trading.
This why GW has always adopted a full 'replacement policy'.

If it cost you £36 to manufacture the items and pack them ready for retail.And the retail price of the items the customer paid was £150.
And you have the choice of sending a replacement set if items for £50 inc postage.Or returning the £150 retail price , what would you do?

Now I am not trying to detract from the good staff who provided excellent customer service.But more to point out why GW policy is like this.

Also how much GW 'give away for free' to a particular customer ,as some customers see it , depends on how much you spend at GW.

However, have you ever tried to get you money back on a rule book or codex book due to poor editing or proof reading issues?

If you look at the sales figures for prior to the LoTR boom.And compare them to last years figures.
They are broadly in line with the rise due to inflation over the same period.

So despite increasing the amount of models you need in the games significantly , and increasing retail prices over the rate of inflation significantly.AND making massive savings on re structuring ,(cutting costs.)

GW plc have not grown in a growing market, but have effectively shrunk back in terms of sales volumes.

If it looks like a turd,and smells like a turd , do you really need to taste it to prove a point?

Yes it COULD be a expertly disguised chocolate bar full of sweet tasting nectar.But lots of people are not prepared to take that chance.

The two things keeping GW plc going ,
1)Game players hooked on sunk cost fallacy.

2)Collectors with more value on GWs particular art style , than others.

However, as sales volumes continue to fall, both of these customers pools will shrink in the face of ever rising prices.

Just a quick point of reference.ALL the businesses with a good grasp of their market, and target demographic will communicate directly with them on every appropriate channel.

The fact GW plc do not, is a clear indicator they have not got a clue who their customers actually are or what they actually want.
And are terrified if they make it clear they are ONLY interested in a particular customer demographic.
The other customers might just stop buying into GW and they would tank overnight.

Great points here.

I cannot see how GW can sustain its currents business model with their current business practices.

We have a niche hobby, and GW is a (large) niche within that. Even with the two groups of fans I see anecdotally, again, I can't see it as giving them sustained profits. The super-fans and competitive players make up a percentage of the market, along with the 'basement' gamers (such as myself). Competitive players, the minority IMHO, will buy new kits and codices to stay current, while the casual players buy only a few pieces a year (if that). I don't see how this is going to keep GW afloat for the next 5 to 10 years

I would argue that Wargames, more zpecifically, tabletop gaming isn't as niche as people seem to think or parrot from Mr. Kirby. Everybody and their beloved canines seem to own at least one magic deck and xwing models. If you are referring to GW as a hobby, there's a dead horse outside with that tired old mantra tatooed on it's carcass. GW produces tabletop games, they are not so different from the myriad other retail companies as to be classified as a hobby unto themselves.

That said, the "niche" thing gets thrown around quite a bit as a sort of handwaving exercise to explain why the company is so small. The company is small because they are so risk averse that they haven't tried something that could be mass marketed to the world at large like XWing. Xwing's not even that great a game but is selling like hotcakes because it's being aggressively marketed and supported by FFG. Seriously, they can't manufacture the game in sufficient quantities to satisfy demand.

GW should have done something like a hero clicks version of 40k and fantasy eons ago but the company is run by a people that spout tripe about noone being able to remember what Pokémon or D&D are; honestly, I'm surprised he didn't do something as ludicrous as lump MtG in with the other "forgotten" games.

No, GW games are "niche" due to the fact that company is run by bean counters and not people with vision. Heck, I'm a bean counter and I'd do quite a bit of what Kirby has done but luckily for me I have people working for and with me who are more creative AND I know to listen to them.

I remember during the high point of the LotR boom, you could buy starter boxes at Barnes and Noble, actual GW product being offered outside of a dedicated game store. What people fail to realize is that in most organizations there's a trickle down effect; when the company is making great money, there's more money for side projects or boutique items but they have to get there first (or get back there) which requires thinking outside the box and, yes, some risk in order to find that crossover hit that brings in the big bucks and gets the company name out into the wider world. GW tried card games, they tried board games widely marketed but they always do something silly like charge too !much for it or make it a limited release so it flops and they're justified in not trying again or learning from the experience.

What the company needs is less dividends and more long term reinvestment of revenues to engage the wider market (shock, advertise). They need to stop acting like a Lilliputian hermit kingdom, pull Kim Jong Kirby down and let the creative side of the company call some shots. There's no excuse for repeated financial reports showing falling sales volume from a company that is part of a sector that's showing expansive growth.

 agnosto wrote:
I would argue that Wargames, more zpecifically, tabletop gaming isn't as niche as people seem to think or parrot from Mr. Kirby. Everybody and their beloved canines seem to own at least one magic deck and xwing models. If you are referring to GW as a hobby, there's a dead horse outside with that tired old mantra tatooed on it's carcass. GW produces tabletop games, they are not so different from the myriad other retail companies as to be classified as a hobby unto themselves.

To say that everyone and their dog owns at least one magic deck and Xwing model is untrue, and even in the spirit in which I think you intend, I think it's a gross exaggeration. My mom, 29 yr old sister, her husband, my wife, my grandparents... actually, all of my relatives have never owned either. Out of all of non-gaming friends, a tiny number have played MtG; none even know xwing exists. Probably less than half have played a PC or console game in the last 5 years, not including Solitaire or phone/tablet apps. If you go to a random restaurant, casino, bingo hall, racetrack, charity event, office building, or nightclub, I assure you a lot or people will have no idea what you're talking about.

Compare that with playing cards, soccer, television, movies, coffee makers, toasters, smartphones, tablets, etc -- these things have general appeal (as opposed to niche market).

Maybe the niche is larger than some people think, but it's still tiny compared to movies, for instance, where ONE film can make a billion dollars.

In terms of the 'GW hobbyist' -- how about the MtG hobbyist or WMH hobbyist? it's just a term to describe someone not really interested in other companies, and in the absence of their vendor would do something other than hobby.

5 of the 8 people in our group are like this. They have no interest in anything in hobby other than 40k, other tan maybe terrain and general hobby supplies for 40k. They have lots going on in their lives, and absent 40k, they'd do non-hobby shop hobbies, anything from kayaking to oil painting.

By definition, by the way, niche means to have specific appeal, or to be a segment of a market.

My point, since we're being literal, is that many more people outside of GWs usual audience will be more aware of those examples than anything GW makes. A large reason being because they do no advertising outside of licensed products or their own magazine. You can literally find more people aware of xwing than a GW game simply because it's more widely available. I may not purchase a model but I can certainly find them at Barnes and Noble and even Walmart. The odds of a grandmother or someone picking up a set, even accidentally for a kid or loved one's bday or Christmas gift is much higher than these people stumbling into the darkened alley that the local
GW has been moved to since the great restructuring. In rebuttal to your anecdotal evidence, I'll present my own and simply say that there are 4 non gamers in my family who know about xwing because they have young, male, children who wanted to try it. Two coworkers asked me about it because of the upcoming movie and the fact that they saw the miniatures at Target. Sure, GW games can be found similarly but you can't actually see their products without the extra effort involved in locating a GW (one in my entire state) or a specialty store (some of which carry minimal GW merch or none at all). The point being that it is impossible to stumble upon GW merchandise as readily as even xwing, not to mention magic or Pokémon or d&d.


Since we're being sticklers for words, let's also be more accurate as to what hobbies we're discussing; magic, Pokémon and the like are CCGs, board games are just that and games like WM, 40k, etc are miniature wargames. Those are hobbies, more accurately sub-categories of the tabletop game hobby/passtime/leisure pursuit.

When dealing with people you know well, please use whatever jargon you desire but in the interest of clarity on an internet board with strangers, let's try to use commonly accepted terms.

@agnosto - I'm just trying to say:

1. The majority of people in first world countries aren't interested in stuff sold in hobby shops. In the next decade their hobby purchases (however you define it) will total zero. Of course many will have heard about hobby related product, but that doesn't make them hobbyists.

2. The amount of revenue from hobby (meaning stuff traditionally sold at hobby shops, wherever it's actually sold) is really, really, really tiny. Like, Sanrio (Hello Kitty) is worth more than $5 billion per year, which is probably more than all hobby sales combined. Hello Kitty!

My parents bought me D&D stuff when I was a kid, too. But they could not have known the difference between The World of Greyhawk and a Choose Your Own Adventure.

I really do think our hobby is a niche. And if someone wants to self-identify as just one subcategory of that niche... well, whatever. You could call them, "hobbyist only into 40k" instead of "40k hobbyists" or whatever, sure.

Two points I'd like to raise:

1. Regarding players returning to Fantasy. IMHO, GW's current pricing strategy is a strike against them. Unless they are "superfans" who are price inelastic, there is a good chance that anyone who's left the hobby for a long time will find the price for re-entry beyond the pale. This is just anecdotal: but at my FLGS, the ex-GW gamers have this game where we guess the price of new releases. Being steeped in the GW hobby, they KNOW what kind of prices are usually set, and the rate at which they have gone up in the time that they've not been playing... and they still manage to guess too low most of the time. In particular, minds were blown when the witch elves were released and there was much humming and hawing at the price of the ironstriders. We'd all agreed that at $45 they would have been a definite will-buy.

Even if they have all the necessary models to play. Using myself as an example, I own a reinforced marine company with pretty much all the basic pre-6th Ed kit. My basic price to get back in the game, buying no models is: $170 for the core rules and codex book.

2. About a page back, it was posited that GW's network of staffers is sufficient to give management the low-down on the pulse of the market. I'd like to point out two problems with this idea:

(a) GW's staffers may not be the most accurate barometer of the state of the hobby due to their role as GW staffers. While many of them play the other "games that must not be mentioned", their very role as GW staffers (fans AND employees) biases their views towards GW.

(b) More worryingly... when has GW actually listened to their staffers. They are more likely to be censured for showing initiative rather than being used as a valuable source of information.

 Talys wrote:
@agnosto - I'm just trying to say:

1. The majority of people in first world countries aren't interested in stuff sold in hobby shops. In the next decade their hobby purchases (however you define it) will total zero. Of course many will have heard about hobby related product, but that doesn't make them hobbyists.

2. The amount of revenue from hobby (meaning stuff traditionally sold at hobby shops, wherever it's actually sold) is really, really, really tiny. Like, Sanrio (Hello Kitty) is worth more than $5 billion per year, which is probably more than all hobby sales combined. Hello Kitty!

My parents bought me D&D stuff when I was a kid, too. But they could not have known the difference between The World of Greyhawk and a Choose Your Own Adventure.

I really do think our hobby is a niche. And if someone wants to self-identify as just one subcategory of that niche... well, whatever. You could call them, "hobbyist only into 40k" instead of "40k hobbyists" or whatever, sure.

OK, to forestall any more divergent conversation on the topic, please call it whatever you like. My main point, and I'll admit here that I went off-track a bit with the whole spiel about defining hobby, is that if GW were a hobby unto themselves AND if they are only a niche, the size of that niche is completely determined by their lack of attempting to expand their customer base by creating/maintaining a product with broad(er) appeal. I think it'd be cool to be able to walk into a book store or large retail outlet and see GW products.

@agnosto - It was cool walking into Toys 'R Us or local bookstores and buying AD&D RPG books when I was young.

I think that the main motivating factor for Games Workshop is wanting to control the distribution chain and to lock in the discounting, particularly online. I know a lot of people have a negative view of this. On the other hand, a lot of RPGers I know buy their stuff online, because they can get a big discount over the best discounts at brick & mortars. While this is great for them, it's terrible for hobby/gaming shops. It doesn't take much to see both sides of that argument pretty easily.

I think that Sigmar is an attempt to capture a larger audience, though in my totally unsubstantiated opinion, it went something like this in a board room... "Fantasy isn't selling anyways, wanna try something new?" Reply: "Sure, what have we got to lose? Let's see what happens."

While I'm all for inclusiveness, I actually like 40k as it is right now (particularly post 2015). I don't mind things that would bring in more players, but I wouldn't want them to change things in a way that would detract from my fun. I like that there will soon be a full set of 7e rulebooks. I HATED that some factions took 5+ years to get a refresh, going through a whole edition or more without a codex. I love the rapid release cycle, and the formations/superformations are just fun to play, or at least try out.

The new 40k-esque styling and skirmish style game-play =may= end up cannibalizing hobby dollars from the GW die hards. Hard to say without seeing the rules. Depending on how existing models from the range are going to slot into this, my gut feeling is that you're still looking at not insignificant coin to buy in:

The "Forces of Azeroth" seem to contain, one big thing, three infantry units, a flying unit and a character model.

The "Forces of Chaos" seem to contain, one big thing, three infantry units, some gribbly solo dudes and a character model.

Going by the contents of the starter??? box: To play something other than the forces provided look to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $200-250 beyond the core ruleset. Thats a bit of coin for a "gateway" mode game - though its super cheap compared to Fantasy on the whole.

Final judgement with-held until rules are reviewed of course.

 Talys wrote:
@agnosto - It was cool walking into Toys 'R Us or local bookstores and buying AD&D RPG books when I was young.

I think that the main motivating factor for Games Workshop is wanting to control the distribution chain and to lock in the discounting, particularly online. I know a lot of people have a negative view of this. On the other hand, a lot of RPGers I know buy their stuff online, because they can get a big discount over the best discounts at brick & mortars. While this is great for them, it's terrible for hobby/gaming shops. It doesn't take much to see both sides of that argument pretty easily.

I think that Sigmar is an attempt to capture a larger audience, though in my totally unsubstantiated opinion, it went something like this in a board room... "Fantasy isn't selling anyways, wanna try something new?" Reply: "Sure, what have we got to lose? Let's see what happens."

While I'm all for inclusiveness, I actually like 40k as it is right now (particularly post 2015). I don't mind things that would bring in more players, but I wouldn't want them to change things in a way that would detract from my fun. I like that there will soon be a full set of 7e rulebooks. I HATED that some factions took 5+ years to get a refresh, going through a whole edition or more without a codex. I love the rapid release cycle, and the formations/superformations are just fun to play, or at least try out.

I understand what you're saying but you usually don't see massive sales on things at Barns and Noble, Toys R Us and other places. I agree that it appears that GW would like to have as tight a control as possible on distribution so as to protect their own B&M stores BUT that's a very out-dated way to run a business, especially an international one. I've said many times that the best thing for GW to do would be to get the loadstone of B&M GW stores off of their books, engage their distributors and FLGSs and aggressively market themselves.

As to your other point. There's something to be said for simple, pre-paints with easy rules that can be picked-up as an impulse buy by a kid with his/her allowance. A company like GW CAN do this AND still maintain their "advanced" products.

The fantasy reboot seems to be closer to this BUT they've priced it at $120 USD which kills impulse buying by kids, most parents and anyone looking for a cool gift for a loved-one. A 4-page set of rules with the complexity being tied to the units is a great way to go about things but I think they need now to sell it as a skirmish game like their competitors are doing successfully. A 3-man unit of Ogres for $20-30 would hit a sweet spot for example if you only need 1 unit of them combined with maybe 2 other units and a hero of some sort. Keep the prices reasonable, the rules simple and fun and they may be on their way to something more widely marketable. A $120 starter is just too much but maybe they're initially offering this and then will come along later with a one-player version for much less; say $50 for just the chaos or $50 for just the sigmar forces. Requiring someone to buy two armies forces people to partner up or then think about reselling on ebay; that inconveniences consumers and reduces sales.

How many figures are in the box of Age of Sigmar? Maybe GW are offering "free" rules but have just upped the price of the models in it.

 keezus wrote:
The new 40k-esque styling and skirmish style game-play =may= end up cannibalizing hobby dollars from the GW die hards. Hard to say without seeing the rules. Depending on how existing models from the range are going to slot into this, my gut feeling is that you're still looking at not insignificant coin to buy in:

The "Forces of Azeroth" seem to contain, one big thing, three infantry units, a flying unit and a character model.

The "Forces of Chaos" seem to contain, one big thing, three infantry units, some gribbly solo dudes and a character model.

Going by the contents of the starter??? box: To play something other than the forces provided look to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $200-250 beyond the core ruleset. Thats a bit of coin for a "gateway" mode game - though its super cheap compared to Fantasy on the whole.

Final judgement with-held until rules are reviewed of course.

$250? That's balls, a £65 battalion box will be a fully gameable army in AoS. If you can download the rules, and they continue to include the rules in boxes, fantasy is about to get a lot cheaper. Which is the point the relaunch.