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.

I like the Producers conspiracy put forth in the News & Rumors thread

 agnosto wrote:

Because he's a failed public sector beancounter and has no real business expertise other than a laudable ability to locate financial efficiencies. Compound this with an apparent overly large ego and image of self-worth and you have what you currently see at GW.

 Azreal13 wrote:

If you mean why GW is wobbling, well, never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence.

If this is true then why is no one in management trying to prevent this? If he is this incompetent then he wouldn't have risen to the position surely?

 agnosto wrote:

Tyron wrote:
Can you provide a logical reason why he is doing all this?

Because he's a failed public sector beancounter and has no real business expertise other than a laudable ability to locate financial efficiencies. Compound this with an apparent overly large ego and image of self-worth and you have what you currently see at GW.

i can get behind that theory, agnosto...

luckily, for me, GW continues to push the envelope with more beautiful minis every year, and the art continues to inspire me to paint...
those two things are enough to keep me as a customer...

cheers
jah

Tyron wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Because he's a failed public sector beancounter and has no real business expertise other than a laudable ability to locate financial efficiencies. Compound this with an apparent overly large ego and image of self-worth and you have what you currently see at GW.

 Azreal13 wrote:

If you mean why GW is wobbling, well, never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence.

If this is true then why is no one in management trying to prevent this? If he is this incompetent then he wouldn't have risen to the position surely?

He didn't "rise" to the position, he put himself there, and he's been in the role a long time, and has appointed people to positions of authority not for their skills, but for their attitude. That attitude being "yes Mr Kirby."

He's also the ultimate boss and a significant equity holder, it really wouldn't matter if members of management did try to prevent it, they'd probably just find themselves looking for jobs.

You know Kirby got pushed aside in favour of the former CFO, right?

Nomeny wrote:
You know Kirby got pushed aside in favour of the former CFO, right?

In the same way that Medvevdev was replaced by Putin, yes, we are aware.

He wasn't "pushed aside."

He was Chairman, appointed himself CEO when Mark Wells left, and, whilst not being illegal, the same person holding both Chairman and CEO positions isn't encouraged, so he announced he would be stepping down as CEO around a year later.

Then, after an extensive search, he appointed his mate CEO.

Nomeny wrote:
You know Kirby got pushed aside in favour of the former CFO, right?

No. It's generally frowned upon for the same person to hold both the Chairman and CEO positions, so Kirby stepped aside after he lingered in both long enough to solicit comment from stockholders (I used to be one). It also happened at a time when sales volume was in the toilet and several negative reports were making the institutional investors question leadership. Don't be mistaken, Kevin Roundtree speaks with the same voice as Kirby and was hand-picked for the role of CEO.

Tyron wrote:
Can you provide a logical reason why he is doing all this?

Here's a shot in the dark. Given his plans to retire (stated several years ago) in the not-too-specified future, and his personal investment shareswise, he's looking to maximize his income for retirement at the expense of the longterm health of the company. Fits all the info (like why they pay above value dividends) and is logical and plausible.

That doesn't fit the narrative of him deliberately damaging the company for some hitherto unidentified aim, which is what Tyron was advocating.

 Azreal13 wrote:
That doesn't fit the narrative of him deliberately damaging the company for some hitherto unidentified aim, which is what Tyron was advocating.

Well, he's getting on in years...."oh you want a beer and pretzels game do you? And what we gave you before wasn't 'light' enough? Here, this'll show you... ".

" And I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids and your dog"

How is that not damaging the company? When he finally golden-parachutes out, it could be a smoking crater for all he'll care.

Yes, we got a totally new CEO that will change everything.

 Torga_DW wrote:
How is that not damaging the company? When he finally golden-parachutes out, it could be a smoking crater for all he'll care.

What Tyron was trying to suggest is that the damage wasn't a consequence of his greed, but a deliberate act as part of some grand plan to ultimately save GW.

I don't think AoS will affect GW negatively.

You know why?

I just popped down into the Fantasy forum to see some reactions and read some subthreads. One of the posters defending the new game stated Warhammer Fantasy had been a 'collective hobby' first and a wargame second, because you had to put together plastic miniatures.

As long as GW gets customers with that level of ignorance to buy their products, the company will chug along just fine.

Tyron wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Because he's a failed public sector beancounter and has no real business expertise other than a laudable ability to locate financial efficiencies. Compound this with an apparent overly large ego and image of self-worth and you have what you currently see at GW.

 Azreal13 wrote:

If you mean why GW is wobbling, well, never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence.

If this is true then why is no one in management trying to prevent this? If he is this incompetent then he wouldn't have risen to the position surely?

Likely answer? The people with enough control to do something about it own quite some amount of shares themselves. They're not going to stop the gravy train while it's running. The idea of someone stopping him requires someone in a high enough position to want to.

 infinite_array wrote:
I don't think AoS will affect GW negatively.

You know why?

I just popped down into the Fantasy forum to see some reactions and read some subthreads. One of the posters defending the new game stated Warhammer Fantasy had been a 'collective hobby' first and a wargame second, because you had to put together plastic miniatures.

As long as GW gets customers with that level of ignorance to buy their products, the company will chug along just fine.

i must be missing something here...
are you saying they are ignorant for using the word "collective", instead of "collecting", or are you saying they are ignorant for thinking that collecting Warhammer Fantasy miniatures is a hobby???

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

i must be missing something here...
are you saying they are ignorant for using the word "collective", instead of "collecting", or are you saying they are ignorant for thinking that collecting Warhammer Fantasy miniatures is a hobby???

Neither. Look, here's the actual quote:

warhammer has always been a collective hobby first and a wargame second... if they wanted this to be a wargame they would have released prebuilt models instead of ones we have to build and paint ourselves, the gaming is just a bonus

I mean, that's just utterly ignorant of the hobby as the whole. And if that's the kind of new player AoS is bringing under GW's influence, then the company's going to continue for a while yet.

i see...
honestly, though that person said it in a weird way, can anyone really argue against miniature wargaming being a collecting hobby first and foremost, and a wargaming hobby second???

first you buy a collection of models and books, then you take your collection (if you choose to) and play a wargame...

cheers
jah

 Azreal13 wrote:
He wasn't "pushed aside."

He was Chairman, appointed himself CEO when Mark Wells left, and, whilst not being illegal, the same person holding both Chairman and CEO positions isn't encouraged, so he announced he would be stepping down as CEO around a year later.

Then, after an extensive search, he appointed his mate CEO.

Cough, Bill Gates, Walt Disney, William Redington Hewlett, Steve Jobs. The first 3 for sure; Steve Jobs has served as both, but I'm not sure of he was both at the same time.

 jah-joshua wrote:
i see...
honestly, though that person said it in a weird way, can anyone really argue against miniature wargaming being a collecting hobby first and foremost, and a wargaming hobby second???

Seeing as how the hobby is called miniature wargaming and not miniature collecting, assembling and painting, with a slight dabbling in the playing thereof, I would argue that, yes, miniature wargaming is a wargaming hobby first and foremost. Especially since the GW crowd is usually so eager to get to the gaming bit that they'll happily skip the collecting, assembling and painting parts.

 jah-joshua wrote:
i see...
honestly, though that person said it in a weird way, can anyone really argue against miniature wargaming being a collecting hobby first and foremost, and a wargaming hobby second???

first you buy a collection of models and books, then you take your collection (if you choose to) and play a wargame...

cheers
jah

Yes, one can certainly argue against it.
Someone can play the game with borrowed minis.
Play with card board cut outs or whatever.
It could be about priorities in that the person cares about the game and not the minis.
I could go on.

 infinite_array wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
i see...
honestly, though that person said it in a weird way, can anyone really argue against miniature wargaming being a collecting hobby first and foremost, and a wargaming hobby second???

Seeing as how the hobby is called miniature wargaming and not miniature collecting, assembling and painting, with a slight dabbling in the playing thereof, I would argue that, yes, miniature wargaming is a wargaming hobby first and foremost. Especially since the GW crowd is usually so eager to get to the gaming bit that they'll happily skip the collecting, assembling and painting parts.

I don't agree. The hobby is whatever people make of it, and I would argue that principally, one hobby is modelling, and the other wargaming. Miniature wargaming just happens to combine two different hobbies.

There are lots of people who model stuff and never game with it (GW or otherwise). Some people build dioramas, too.

In the olden days, with lead minis, we didn't even paint them when we played wargames -- Chainmail, for example. But now, I can work 3 years on an army before I ever field a single model in the collection.

While collecting miniatures is definitely a hobby (like collecting stamps), I'm not sure collecting *unpainted* or unassembled miniatures is a hobby. Like, collecting boxes of Revell or Tamiya scale models is not really a hobby, at least not for most people.

 Accolade wrote:
I like the Producers conspiracy put forth in the News & Rumors thread

You're welcome for my conspiracy theory.
That said, it's possible they may have followed the play/movie too closely and actually squeaked out a hit with AoS.
Despite the public wailing here on dakka, anecdotal reviews from my gaming buddies, local and around the country, sound very positive.
They REALLY like the models and the rules are pretty fun esp. if you use the scenarios that say what each army will field (including # of models in each unit).

I think AOS will be interesting for people for a time. It's got Fantasy Space Marines, and people seem to have a lust for those things greater than I can comprehend. It's also a new game that offers a smaller experience, simplified rules, and unrestrained flexibility in army building.

The problem is that unrestrained nature tends to come back and bite the game. What's the point of playing multiple battles if every game has extremely questionable balance? You might enjoy that with your friends for a bit, but I would wager people would like the opportunity to play a game that has a more quantifiable victory than "I *think* it was a fair game and I *think* I won because of more than just random."

With FLGS play, there's not as much to go on. You'll be banking that the person you play against is reasonable and well-understanding of the game so you both can come up with something. Might be fun while the game is fresh, but I think most will just retreat to 40k.

AOS seems to be marketing on the "Space Marines outsell Fantasy" thought process by saying screw-off to all traditional WHFB players and catering almost exclusively to those Space Marine players. In this regard, it will sell for a time, but I don't see it lasting by any means. And I think the cost will have been too high when it comes time to trying to re-build the audience.

But by then, GW will have figured out how the 40k universe meshes into the new Fantasy realms, and there will just be one game- Sigmarines vs. Ultramarines.

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
He wasn't "pushed aside."

He was Chairman, appointed himself CEO when Mark Wells left, and, whilst not being illegal, the same person holding both Chairman and CEO positions isn't encouraged, so he announced he would be stepping down as CEO around a year later.

Then, after an extensive search, he appointed his mate CEO.

Cough, Bill Gates, Walt Disney, William Redington Hewlett, Steve Jobs. The first 3 for sure; Steve Jobs has served as both, but I'm not sure of he was both at the same time.

Again, there is nothing illegal about it; it's just frowned upon. I didn't bother to look up your examples to see if their was significant crossover between tenure as Chairman and CEO. The salient point here is that Mr. Kirby stepped down as CEO and was replaced by the CFO at a time when the company was (is) experiencing repeated reporting periods of declining finances. It is not uncommon for such an event to occur in the business world, a surface level "falling on your sword" and a supposed clearing the decks for new blood and a new strategy.

By all accounts from previous insiders; however, what we're getting with Mr. Roundtree is someone who will speak with the voice of Mr. Kirby but be a different face.....and ultimately a scapegoat if things are not substantially improved; all accomplished while protecting Mr. Kirby's position as Chairman.

If I were to hazard a guess, I would make the assumption that this was all planned out at least a year in advance, about the time the revenues turned negative and the decision was made to restructure the retail chain; this would explain the 26-ish% raise that Mr. Kirby saw fit to give himself when he was CEO and profits were in decline. Generally you don't give yourself so substantial a raise when your company is doing poorly.

Wait, are we comparing Tom Kirby to the world's biggest CEO's?!

I think the sort of people that like buying gw will like buying the latest product. And the haters will be declared a vocal minority. And the revenue of the company will continue to slide. In other words, business as usual.

 Talys wrote:
I don't agree. The hobby is whatever people make of it, and I would argue that principally, one hobby is modelling, and the other wargaming. Miniature wargaming just happens to combine two different hobbies.

There are lots of people who model stuff and never game with it (GW or otherwise). Some people build dioramas, too.

But the people who exclusively paint miniatures, model miniatures, and build dioramas aren't miniature wargamers. They're painters and modelers. We're talking about the miniature wargaming hobby, where the express end goal of the hobby is to play games with those models. We're not talking about model trains here, either.

And you can't point at a box of, say, Clanrats, and say that they aren't manufactured with the end goal of their existence being to be put down on a table and used as game pieces. That would be the same as picking up the Descent starter set and saying, this isn't meant as a role-playing board game, but as a modelling and painting tool.

In the olden days, with lead minis, we didn't even paint them when we played wargames -- Chainmail, for example. But now, I can work 3 years on an army before I ever field a single model in the collection.

But the only thing that's really changed here is you. We're on a forum where the people who express the opinion that miniatures should be modeled and painted before being played with are decried as 'elitist'. The goal of miniature wargaming is, at the end of the day, to play wargames with those miniatures.

But this is getting away from the point of the thread. The question is whether or not AoS will do crippling damage to Games Workshop. When new hobbyists are coming in and expressing sentiments like this:

warhammer has always been a collective hobby first and a wargame second... if they wanted this to be a wargame they would have released prebuilt models instead of ones we have to build and paint ourselves, the gaming is just a bonus

Then GW has a base with which they can continue to mould these newcomers into ardent supporters of the HHHobby.

@infinite_array - I don't want to get into an argument of semantics with you, so I'll just ask -- what do you call a hobbyist interested in 40k for modelling, not gaming purposes?

To your other, valid point, I think there are indeed people who model collections first, and game as a secondary hobby, and these people are no less or more hobbyists than the reverse. I guess you could say collecting the miniatures and imagining them painted and battle ready is also a hobby, as is lining up shrinkwrapped boxes on the shelf, so I retract what I said about accumulating boxes of stuff as not being a hobby.

I don't think it's healthy for GW to ONLY have these customers, or even mostly derive its revenue from these customers. Among other things that's a way to lose mindshare and, eventually, relevance.