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.
2015/07/21 17:06:14
Subject: ICv2 : HOBBY GAMES MARKET CLIMBS TO $880 MILLION
FFG landed on a gold mine picking up the Star Wars license.
-Star Wars: X-wing #3 and Star Wars Armada #3 for mini games.
- Imperial Assault #3 for Board Games.
-Star Wars #3 for RPGs.
All they need to do now is make a Non-Collectible card game and a Collectible card game version of Star Wars and they can be tops in all categories! IIRC they did try that already though.
I'm a bit disappointed that the Warhammer/40KRPGs weren't in the top 5 anymore.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2015/07/21 17:06:21
Subject: ICv2 : HOBBY GAMES MARKET CLIMBS TO $880 MILLION
This is why people familiar with the topic generally call it revenue, as it avoids confusion and poorly informed people getting overexcited on the interest.
Well, I believe we started the conversation talking about revenue. And by revenue, GW was not in decline for 5 years straight, but now for one year (and soon likely two years). Not sure why you thought that was contentious?
Sell 2 £50 things for £100 one year, increase price to £100, sell one thing for £100 the next year.
Sales have halved, revenue has remained flat.
Also, you're "three strike you're out" post seems to consider "sales" as synonymous with "unit sales", not with "revenues". Please explain!!!
If sales are (for practical internet-purposes) mostly synonymous with revenue (not with units sold), how is it possible that, quote, "sales have halved, revenue has remained flat" in that example?
Explain what? Sales can be used as a synonym for both revenue and volume, I was using it in the sense of volume, which is far more common thant using it as a synonym for revenue, The term was being used in a widely accepted manner, but rather than come in and say something along the lines of "I thought this term meant something else, please can someone explain?" you jumped in, quoted wiki and told people they were wrong.
As Polonious has said, companies often have more sources of revenue than simple sales, hence the confusion you're experiencing.
You misunderstood something you clearly don't have a lot of real world knowledge about, take it on the chin and learn for the future.
But I'm done getting hung up on a tiny detail until the whole thread becomes all about you, once a Zweischneid always a Zweischneid eh?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/21 17:08:34
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Explain what? Sales can be used as a synonym for both revenue and volume, I was using it in the sense of volume, which is far more common thant using it as a synonym for revenue, The term was being used in a widely accepted manner, but rather than come in and say something along the lines of "I thought this term meant something else, please can someone explain?" you jumped in, quoted wiki and told people they were wrong.
As Polonious has said, companies often have more sources of revenue than simple sales, hence the confusion you're experiencing.
You misunderstood something you clearly don't have a lot of real world knowledge about, take it on the chin and learn for the future.
But I'm done getting hung up on a tiny detail until the whole thread becomes all about you, once a Zweischneid always a Zweischneid eh?
Still not sure where you are going with this.
1. Kilkrazy said GW is in decline for 5 years straight.
2. I said that is wrong, quoting revenue.
3. agnosto put in a snide comment about "revenue aren't sales"
4. I said for the given argument, sales and revenue are close enough to be used synonymous, and revenue is what we have numbers for.
5. You jump in, trying to discredit my point that sales and revenue are not different enough to matter for the above argument, using a somewhat confusing argument about unit sales.
Since you later came around that sales and revenue are, after all, often used synonymous, we seem to agree on the original argument, no? The whole sales/unit sales red herring there seems unnecessary and can probably go, as it contributes nothing (except you're lackluster insults) and GW clearly saw intermittent growth during the last 5 years.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/21 17:24:10
2015/07/21 17:30:53
Subject: ICv2 : HOBBY GAMES MARKET CLIMBS TO $880 MILLION
Didn't Wonderwolf start this argument saying "people say GW is shrinking in a growing market, that is wrong since the market is actually stagnant"? I believe that's correct, no?
2015/07/21 17:37:17
Subject: ICv2 : HOBBY GAMES MARKET CLIMBS TO $880 MILLION
Can you guys take the definition of revenue to pm's? It is derailing the topic with the back and forth about who was/is/will be right about a loosey goosey throwaway comment a page back.
2015/07/21 17:46:40
Subject: ICv2 : HOBBY GAMES MARKET CLIMBS TO $880 MILLION
Explain what? Sales can be used as a synonym for both revenue and volume, I was using it in the sense of volume, which is far more common thant using it as a synonym for revenue, The term was being used in a widely accepted manner, but rather than come in and say something along the lines of "I thought this term meant something else, please can someone explain?" you jumped in, quoted wiki and told people they were wrong.
As Polonious has said, companies often have more sources of revenue than simple sales, hence the confusion you're experiencing.
You misunderstood something you clearly don't have a lot of real world knowledge about, take it on the chin and learn for the future.
But I'm done getting hung up on a tiny detail until the whole thread becomes all about you, once a Zweischneid always a Zweischneid eh?
Still not sure where you are going with this.
1. Kilkrazy said GW is in decline for 5 years straight.
2. I said that is wrong, quoting revenue.
Yes, which was the wrong thing to do - KK said GW had seen declining sales.
You tried to counter this by showing how revenue had fluctuated and not fallen. It was then explained how sales can fall but through other factors maintain a flat, or even growing, revenue.
3. agnosto put in a snide comment about "revenue aren't sales"
Nothing snide about it, he was right. Sales can be used to describe a part of what constitutes revenue, but sales are not revenue. To avoid the confusion, what you seem to be doing is conflating sales revenue with sales. If I work in a shop, after a transaction I can say "I made a sale," but the amount of revenue that sale generated could be any amount of money.
4. I said for the given argument, sales and revenue are close enough to be used synonymous, and revenue is what we have numbers for.
Not when KK had already used it in a different context to the one you had.
5. You jump in, trying to discredit my point that sales and revenue are not different enough to matter for the above argument, using a somewhat confusing argument about unit sales.
Since you later came around that sales and revenue are, after all, often used synonymous, we seem to agree on the original argument, no? The whole sales/unit sales red herring there seems unnecessary and can probably go, as it contributes nothing (except you're lackluster insults) and GW clearly saw intermittent growth during the last 5 years.
No, you said often used, I said can be used. It isn't often used because it gets confusing if one person is talking about number of products sold and the other thinks they mean how much money those sales generated, as is the case here.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Wonderwolf wrote: 3. agnosto put in a snide comment about "revenue aren't sales"
4. I said for the given argument, sales and revenue are close enough to be used synonymous, and revenue is what we have numbers for.
Of course revenue and sales are different things, because revenue includes all sales, but not vice versa. However, for most manufacturing companies sales revenue is the most significant income.
In GW's case, for YE 2014, their sales businesses accounted for all revenue but royalty income, at GBP 1.44m -- so sales revenue constituted 99% of total revenue.
To an earlier point, the decline between 2013 and 2014 was 8.2% at GW. If the industry stayed flat, as Killcrazy mentioned, it would stand to reason that the other manufacturers collectively grew in revenue to make up that difference.
However, we know nothing of the breakdown of each individual manufacturer, so, for example, any of these scenarios are possible:
1. Other large manufacturers may mirror Games Workshop's trend, with small manufacturers and startups accounting for the difference
2. One large manufacturer may have been very successful (like X-Wing), while others may have suffered
3. Almost every company other than GW might have grown
We just have no information to know which way it went.
Incidentally, keep in mind how small a number we're talking about. GW's North American numbers declined from 36.7m GBP to 32.7m GBP from 2013 to 2014. That's only $6 million dollars we're trying to account for. Which is, like, one C-level executive salary at a moderately profitable big company.
2015/07/21 18:00:49
Subject: ICv2 : HOBBY GAMES MARKET CLIMBS TO $880 MILLION
I'll leave that for KK to clarify, rather than make assumptions.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally I like the idea of a game being finished. I have nearly all the X Wing models I want. It will be nice to be able to put them away in the attic and bring them out in 10 years and have a game just as good as you can do right now.
I like that too. I have all my old MIddle Earth: The Wizards CCG cards still, because it's such a fun and complete game.
It's not fun for a company trying to sell product though.
FFG are already launching new games, e.g. Armada, and will have more new games ready for when the Armada licence runs out of steam.
I'm curious about Armada, but I haven't gotten a demo yet. It looks like a lot of fun.
That is GW's strategy, don't make new games, just ring changes on the current IP, and 'force' players to keep to buying 'new' stuff to update their game to the slightly modified but not really improved version which never gets completed, only gets more changes.
That is what in the end sank WHFB. There is no reason to suppose it won't sink 40K and AOS.
GW sales have been declining for five straight half years. Even if total market sales were level, this means the non-GW part of the market was growing to replace lost GW sales.
How did GW decline for five years?
FY 2008-2009 - GW Revenues grew in real terms from 110.3 GBPm to 113.9 GBPm at constant 2008 currency (125.7 GBPm in 2009 GBP)
FY 2009-2010 - GW Revenues decreased in real terms from 125.7 GBPm to 121.8 GBPm at constant 2009 currency (126.5 GBPm in 2010 GBP)
FY 2010-2011 - GW Revenues decreased in real terms from 126.5 GBPm to 122.8 GBPm at constant 2010 currency (123.1 GBPm in 2011 GBP)
FY 2011-2012 - GW Revenues grew in real terms from 123.1 GBPm to 130.8 GBPm at constant 2011 currency (131.0 GBPm in 2012 GBP)
FY 2012-2013 - GW Revenues grew in real terms from 131.0 GBPm to 135.6 GBPm at constant 2012 currency (134.6 GBPm in 2013 GBP)
FY 2013-2014 - GW Revenues decreased in real terms from 134.6 GBPm to 125.9 GBPm at constant 2013 currency (125.5 GBPm in 2014 GBP)
FY 2014-2015 - Early profit warning and poor first half-year seems to indicate a possible decrease in revenue
The last six FYs we have numbers for, GW grew three and decreased three (with improving profits through all of them except last year).
In a flat market, their share hasn't decreased significantly over 2008/09 to 2013/14 years, while their profitability improved. More recently, 2013/2014 (and likely 2014/15) looks a bit more troubling, as we all know, but hardly a long-term trend (yet), and a far cry from the loss-making years such as 2006/2007.
I said five half years, not five years.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/21 19:38:44
I'm curious about Armada, but I haven't gotten a demo yet. It looks like a lot of fun.
With all appropriate IMOs and YMMVs, having played Armada I'm a lot more interested in Dropfleet Commander and the Halo fleet game..
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Honestly, I think it is probably a fun game, but it didn't really strike a chord with my opponent (who bough the starter.)
The big issue for us was it lacks the immediacy of X Wing both in terms of playability and finances.
I'm very firmly in the market for a fleet based game, perhaps if Halo and DFC don't pan out I'll pick up some "replica" ships from China and give BFG a go!
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally I like the idea of a game being finished. I have nearly all the X Wing models I want. It will be nice to be able to put them away in the attic and bring them out in 10 years and have a game just as good as you can do right now.
FFG are already launching new games, e.g. Armada, and will have more new games ready for when the Armada licence runs out of steam.
Those are my thoughts on it. I'll never stop liking the X-wing and TIE interceptor designs and now I have some very nice to scale with each other minis that I can use forever. I missed out on the micromachines era (wasn't interested back then) of star wars figures on clearance.
Thanks, now I'm watching all sorts of Star Wars micromachines on eBay :(
2015/07/21 21:24:06
Subject: ICv2 : HOBBY GAMES MARKET CLIMBS TO $880 MILLION
The micromachines were great for their time and the best around for two decades (much better than the bendy wotc ones) but xwing minis are much better when available by far IMO. Are there certain ones you weren't aware of until I mentioned them in the thread?
2015/07/21 23:58:20
Subject: ICv2 : HOBBY GAMES MARKET CLIMBS TO $880 MILLION
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally I like the idea of a game being finished. I have nearly all the X Wing models I want. It will be nice to be able to put them away in the attic and bring them out in 10 years and have a game just as good as you can do right now.
I like that too. I have all my old MIddle Earth: The Wizards CCG cards still, because it's such a fun and complete game.
It's not fun for a company trying to sell product though.
FFG are already launching new games, e.g. Armada, and will have more new games ready for when the Armada licence runs out of steam.
I'm curious about Armada, but I haven't gotten a demo yet. It looks like a lot of fun.
That is GW's strategy, don't make new games, just ring changes on the current IP, and 'force' players to keep to buying 'new' stuff to update their game to the slightly modified but not really improved version which never gets completed, only gets more changes.
That is what in the end sank WHFB. There is no reason to suppose it won't sink 40K and AOS.
I think new games are good, but I'm very happy with the way 40k evolved since 1988 (when I started) to present. I would much prefer to invest in a game that is never intended to be finished.
With Fantasy Battle, I bought loose models that I thought were neat, and that was about it. In never felt attached to any faction (I never had the slightest inclination to play it, either).
In 40k, GW gave me a two reasons to add to an army -- a gaming purpose, and cool new models that were 'must haves'. I ended up getting attached to Space Marines, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, Eldar, and Dark Eldar; recently, Necron (but nothing painted yet), and for some years, Imperial Guard, and briefly, Orks. That's a lot of factions to get attached to, even if it's over a 27 year period. Plus, my youth, I would have played 40k every day if I could. Now, I play 40k as often as my schedule and my friends' allow
In contrast, I got a little attached to Menoth and Trollboods, and a tiny bit attached to Cyngar (mostly because of the Victoria Haley models). The problem with the PP factions is that they neither had the number of models nor the reason to have a lot of models to keep me reigned into their game system. I really liked PanOceana too, but same deal -- not enough to keep me in it.
2015/07/22 03:14:11
Subject: ICv2 : HOBBY GAMES MARKET CLIMBS TO $880 MILLION
warboss wrote: The micromachines were great for their time and the best around for two decades (much better than the bendy wotc ones) but xwing minis are much better when available by far IMO. Are there certain ones you weren't aware of until I mentioned them in the thread?
I was completely unaware that micro machines did star wars. And I like tiny models (I've run out of space) and star wars.
2015/07/22 08:19:34
Subject: ICv2 : HOBBY GAMES MARKET CLIMBS TO $880 MILLION
Azreal13 wrote: Honestly, I think it is probably a fun game, but it didn't really strike a chord with my opponent (who bough the starter.)
The big issue for us was it lacks the immediacy of X Wing both in terms of playability and finances.
I'm very firmly in the market for a fleet based game, perhaps if Halo and DFC don't pan out I'll pick up some "replica" ships from China and give BFG a go!
If you like BFG than chances are that you will Like armada, The Rebel fleet are quick and nimble while the Empire have slow ships full with guns and shields, the Fighters have a big role, The rebel fighters can bomb ships while the TIE fighters are purely there to kill fighters. Getting used to, is the First shoot then move mechanic and the setting the orders of the next turn, so you have to anticipate in advance.
