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.

Well, I think GW hasn't been sure what to do with Fantasy for a long time. The difficulty with the ranked system was making models that are both dynamic and fit together in neat blocks. Once they come up with a design (i.e. like with the plague monks), there doesn't appear to be a lot of different ways they can vary the mold. Personally, I think the plague monks still look pretty decent, although I definitely agree that the likes of the High Elf bowmen and warriors look pretty poor (same thing applied to Dark Elves, who finally got a makeover in the general ranks).

 Accolade wrote:
(same thing applied to Dark Elves, who finally got a makeover in the general ranks).

Which is actually funny, because many of the metal models that were replaced by newer plastic kits over the course of 7th and 8th edition were actually way better models than their replacements. Corsairs, Executioners and Black Guard instantly come to mind. And with the exception of Corsairs, actually cheaper.

Corsairs are actually one of GW's cheaper options now at 10/$24. There was much gnashing of teeth when the Goldswords debuted... (10/$41). Now we have the high price for the Witch Elves 10/$60 reaching crazy levels.

 keezus wrote:
Can somebody more familiar with WH Fantasy comment: I believe the Plague Monks aren't even that old. Aren't they circa Island of Blood???

Nah they're a good bit older. 2006/2007 they were out, because it wasn't long after I started in 2005. They came out with the Lustria supplement for fantasy.

Oops didn't realise this was answered on the last page. 2005? Even older than I remembered.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Nah they're a good bit older. 2006/2007 they were out, because it wasn't long after I started in 2005. They came out with the Lustria supplement for fantasy.

I demand my Lustria Warscrolls... Now that AoS offers unbound type army selection, I can actually use all 9 of my Fenbeasts, but GW plays the cruel joke and doesn't warscroll them!

S'ok, in AoS 2nd Ed, you'll make your own!

 Korinov wrote:

 Talys wrote:
But I mean, really, when was the last time you saw anyone buy peasant bowmen, Bretonian men-at-arms or Knights Errant? There are a few boxes of those with sun-bleached spines that have been sitting at my favorite store for *years*. Or even High Elf Archers & Spearmen, for that matter. If you wanted to play those models with AoS, it would work, but you'd still have to buy the big expensive models to play against most people -- GW is counting on the Plagueclaws and such to make up for the cheap skaven sales.

The bretonnian boys were likely sold in the inmediate years following their last released armybook: eleven years and two editions ago (not counting AoS here of course). You can't expect a product to keep selling when you try your hardest to completely neglect it and give it no support. Also those models face competition from historical ranges which tend to offer alternatives of similar - if not higher - quality for a fraction of the price.

Regarding Elves, I don't even know where to begin with. Easy example: GW sells 10 plastic Phoenix Guards for 34€ (and that doesn't even make them the most expensive elves of GW's range, lol), while Mom Miniatures offers 10 Elves with Halberds, resin models of arguably even higher quality, for 15€.

So good luck trying to blame the potential customers for not buying an overpriced and mostly outdated product, while the market is blooming with better alternatives.

I don't disagree with you at all. I'm just giving some examples of models GW could price reduce and flog as genetic fantasy model (down to 50 cent levels), without having an impact on their core Sales. If you scrolled up from the post that I made, you'd see that I wad suggesting atavtoc of last resort would be to take all the models that were generic fantasy and price them so low that people would buy them, thus killing the market for generic fantasy models and forcing competitors to sell specialist models at a higher price to compensate.

GW can afford to do this because the molds gave long since been paid for, and they make most of their money from 40k anyhow. So, if AoS doesn't work out, they could try to fix it, and failing that, just dump their old rank and file models to flood (and kill) the market. The net effect will be more expensive models from everyone in the genre, because nobody else is capable of competing with GW on the low end if that's where they go (since it's not going to be profitable).

But they won't, because reducing prices of stuff that they've already paid for the productions costs on, and paid for the production of, that doesn't sell so that it does sell somehow financially damages their 'premium' reputation.

GW = unintelligent.

 Azreal13 wrote:
But they won't, because reducing prices of stuff that they've already paid for the productions costs on, and paid for the production of, that doesn't sell so that it does sell somehow financially damages their 'premium' reputation.

GW = unintelligent.

Yup, as I've said before. GW like to think they're the Louis Vuitton of wargaming. They'd rather destroy their product than reduce it.

Talys wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
However if GW are pursuing a premium pricing policy, they will not want to confuse their own customers by offering figures that cost a fraction of the comparable new AoS kits. Sigmarines are basically £6 each for infantry figures. Even with the relative size and detail in mind, it will be difficult for people to swallow that price when compared to another fantasy infantry figure costing say £1.50.

This is already the case though:

Sigmarite Liberator £30 / 5 = £6 ea

Bloodreaver £35 / 20 = £1.75 ea
Sylvaneth Dryad £25 / 16 = £1.56 ea
Skaven Plague Monk £20.50 / 20 = £1.03 ea

We'll see as the other factions pan out, what the ppm of older models becomes.

But I mean, really, when was the last time you saw anyone buy peasant bowmen, Bretonian men-at-arms or Knights Errant? There are a few boxes of those with sun-bleached spines that have been sitting at my favorite store for *years*. Or even High Elf Archers & Spearmen, for that matter. If you wanted to play those models with AoS, it would work, but you'd still have to buy the big expensive models to play against most people -- GW is counting on the Plagueclaws and such to make up for the cheap skaven sales.

Kilkrazy wrote:Well then, I suppose that is why people might regard GW as unintelligent. They don't seem to understand the psychology of premium price brands.

I think it goes back to appealing to their core customer.

GW's thing has been for a long time to generally avoid across-the-board price increases (not that this has never happened) and increase prices on new releases. That makes new products disproportionately more expensive than stuff that came out 10+ years ago.

For someone who is part of their core customer base -- say me -- I am totally happy at Sigmarites costing 6x more than Plague Monks. Since I do NOT see them as just game pieces, the models are incomparable. Would I pay 6 times more for a Sigmarite than a Plague Monk? Well obviously, because I've bought every Sigmarite release, and I've never bought a Plague Monk, and wouldn't even if they dropped the price by another 50%, because they don't interest me.

I don't think that even GW would assert that *by today's standards* their entire collection consists of premium models. At the time they were cast, the models were arguably premium for the material they were cast in; that they're even salable today is a testament to that (I think Plague Monks actually look kind of decent as a model; just warrior rats hold no appeal to me).

The pricing strategy specifically benefits GW when they are selling to people like me. I won't buy more of the old stuff (which is cheap) because anything I would buy, I purchased when it launched anyways. So I bear the entire brunt of the price increases on the new stuff. And it's justified to someone like me, because I see the new stuff as being a better sculpt as the old stuff, and am willing to pay for it. Whether a model is premium or not is a relative term that changes with time because of a rising bar (and better technology).

Anyways, objectively, "Is GW intelligent" comes down to how you define success in a company. Subjectively, many of us define it as whether we like the way GW operates its company. A lot of companies do seemingly unfathomable (stupid) things, yet those companies make untold fortunes.

It's much easier to be a critic than an author.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
But they won't, because reducing prices of stuff that they've already paid for the productions costs on, and paid for the production of, that doesn't sell so that it does sell somehow financially damages their 'premium' reputation.

GW = unintelligent.

And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?

I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.

The fact that you are not as able as someone else to do sonmething doesn't necesarily qualify them to actually do that job. My medical knowledge is terrible, but that doesn't mean everyone better than me should be entrusted to carry out brain surgery.

 Talys wrote:


And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?

I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.

Yep, this is what drives me nuts. Doesn't mean we can't judge GW's business practices from the sidelines, but pretending that we have all the information and pieces to the puzzle to sort out GW is ludicrous. There is so much more going on with a company the size of GW that most people don't want to comprehend. The world looks very small and simple in a forum, but the real world does not operate or think the same.

 Talys wrote:


And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?

I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.

Equally, one could ask how many millions of pounds they fail to make through unintelligent business decisions?

If I am capable of running a marathon in less than 5 hours, and run one in 7, I have achieved the fairly significant goal of running a marathon, but I've still missed fulfillng my potential by a significant margin.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Equally, if I couldn't run a marathon, but I observe that someone running one wanders off the route and runs over a mile extra, resulting in a slower time, does my own inability to complete a marathon somehow exclude me from making that observation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, Kirby was a fething taxman why does anyone think that he is somehow better qualified to run GW than anyone else (other than a chronic lack of self esteem?)

 Talys wrote:
I don't disagree with you at all. I'm just giving some examples of models GW could price reduce and flog as genetic fantasy model (down to 50 cent levels), without having an impact on their core Sales. If you scrolled up from the post that I made, you'd see that I wad suggesting atavtoc of last resort would be to take all the models that were generic fantasy and price them so low that people would buy them, thus killing the market for generic fantasy models and forcing competitors to sell specialist models at a higher price to compensate.

GW can afford to do this because the molds gave long since been paid for, and they make most of their money from 40k anyhow. So, if AoS doesn't work out, they could try to fix it, and failing that, just dump their old rank and file models to flood (and kill) the market. The net effect will be more expensive models from everyone in the genre, because nobody else is capable of competing with GW on the low end if that's where they go (since it's not going to be profitable).

The worst part is the fact that they are not even able to price similar kits within a similar price range.

As keezus said, dark elf corsairs are right now some of the models with the best price/quality ratio in the whole GW range. Which doesn't make them cheap, but 2'1€ per plastic model makes it somewhat reasonable.

Without getting out of the Dark Elves range, next we have the warriors/spearmen/crossbowmen (I refuse to call them by their stupid new names) at 2'5€ per model. Then executioners and dark guard come at 4€ per model, and witch elves at 4'5€ per model.

Why such a disparity in prices? At the end of the day, it's elven infantry with the same scale and size and similar detail. I could understand very slight differences due to some models representing "elite" units, but still, the current differences make no sense. They're all plastic kits, and I could care less if some are dual kits, in the end you're getting 10 infantry models out of the box and that's it, the extra bits should be considered a bonus as much as the sprues (chunks of worthless plastic).

If you go take a look at other elven ranges (High and Wood) the inconsistencies remain, with non-dual infantry kits at 3'4€ per model (the already mentioned phoenix guard) or dual infantry kits at 3'1€ per model (weirwood rangers).

Do they throw some dice around to decide the pricing of the kits?

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:


And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?

I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.

Equally, one could ask how many millions of pounds they fail to make through unintelligent business decisions?

If I am capable of running a marathon in less than 5 hours, and run one in 7, I have achieved the fairly significant goal of running a marathon, but I've still missed fulfillng my potential by a significant margin.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Equally, if I couldn't run a marathon, but I observe that someone running one wanders off the route and runs over a mile extra, resulting in a slower time, does my own inability to complete a marathon somehow exclude me from making that observation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, Kirby was a fething taxman why does anyone think that he is somehow better qualified to run GW than anyone else (other than a chronic lack of self esteem?)

Makes a lot of sense, with his knowledge of financial methods he should be able to turn the company into a healthy, profiteering business with a massive and dedicated customer base

Oh, wait.....

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:


And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?

I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.

Equally, one could ask how many millions of pounds they fail to make through unintelligent business decisions?

If I am capable of running a marathon in less than 5 hours, and run one in 7, I have achieved the fairly significant goal of running a marathon, but I've still missed fulfillng my potential by a significant margin.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Equally, if I couldn't run a marathon, but I observe that someone running one wanders off the route and runs over a mile extra, resulting in a slower time, does my own inability to complete a marathon somehow exclude me from making that observation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, Kirby was a fething taxman why does anyone think that he is somehow better qualified to run GW than anyone else (other than a chronic lack of self esteem?)

U wot m8? You lost me amidst some of the analogy rambling there... Any business can and does miss out on making "potential" money. There's no such thing as a company running at absolute 100% efficiency. Because they're ran by people like you and me, and people make mistakes.

I think the point is, it's easy to sit on the outside looking in and judge every perceived misstep of Kirby as incompetence. It's more to take a step back and actually consider what goes on outside the walls of Dakka and the wargaming community at large.

So...what I'm getting out of this thread is that Talys likes Space Marines. And HBMC is snarky. Is that about accurate?

Comes with the territory with running a public company, yes?

 clamclaw wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:


And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?

I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.

Equally, one could ask how many millions of pounds they fail to make through unintelligent business decisions?

If I am capable of running a marathon in less than 5 hours, and run one in 7, I have achieved the fairly significant goal of running a marathon, but I've still missed fulfillng my potential by a significant margin.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Equally, if I couldn't run a marathon, but I observe that someone running one wanders off the route and runs over a mile extra, resulting in a slower time, does my own inability to complete a marathon somehow exclude me from making that observation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, Kirby was a fething taxman why does anyone think that he is somehow better qualified to run GW than anyone else (other than a chronic lack of self esteem?)

U wot m8? You lost me amidst some of the analogy rambling there... Any business can and does miss out on making "potential" money. There's no such thing as a company running at absolute 100% efficiency. Because they're ran by people like you and me, and people make mistakes.

I think the point is, it's easy to sit on the outside looking in and judge every perceived misstep of Kirby as incompetence. It's more to take a step back and actually consider what goes on outside the walls of Dakka and the wargaming community at large.

If you can't follow a 4 line analogy chap, then the fault isn't with me.

I'm also not just on the outside looking in, not entirely. I've run a business of my own and I've worked at a relatively high level in a business with a turnover in the tens of millions, so while I may not have every single detail of GW's financial minutiae to hand, I have qualifications, pertinent experience both as a hobbyist and from an business perspective and their financial reports informing my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So...what I'm getting out of this thread is that Talys likes everything GW. And HBMC is snarky. Is that about accurate?

FTFY

I think if most intelligent people went back and reviewed their choices, they'd probably score themselves as having about a 50% rate of making the best choice.

I heard a phrase from an absolutely terrible management trainer which happened to be true: "Nobody ever makes a bad decision. They make the best decision they can, and it might turn out poorly."

So much of what GW does is contrary to our assumptions. Some of that might be group think, or an ossified old guard, or being owned by what amounts to an absentee landlord. Or, it could be that some of our assumptions are not accurate. Or, most likely, a combination of the two.

I generally try not to be an armchair quarterback. I supervise a dozen lawyers, and I watch them second guess every management decision. Nearly every time, they come to a wrong conclusion about our choices because they are either missing vital information, or misjudge our goals.

GW is not a overly well run company. In a time when hobby gaming is exploding, they are treading water while sitting on one of the best non-licensed gaming worlds and an untouchable model range. My instinct is to assume they're idiots and yesmen that are running a company into the ground. My calmer, cooler question is: "what don't I know?"

@Az: well, no, he said he doesn't like Skaven. But getting between him and the new Sigmarines and all older marines is kind of like putting yourself between a lap dancer and a businessman. Just...don't do it. *shudder*

 Talys wrote:


And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?

I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.

By that metric I'm equivalent to Einstein and GW is Forrest Gump then.

"I may be dumb but I know what miniatures are."

"Life is like a box of space marines, you never know when the price is going to go up."

"Skull k-bobs, skull, skull creole, skull gumbo, pineapple skulls, lemon skulls, coconut skulls, pepper skulls, skull salad, skulls and potatoes, skull sandwiches, stir fried skulls..."

 Azreal13 wrote:

 clamclaw wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:


And yet, they succeed in making millions of dollars a year after employing thousands of people. Hmmm... I guess that makes the rest of us.... even less intelligent?

I, for one, think GW is better at running and operating a business than me, because I have not, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, build/create a company more successful than GW.

Equally, one could ask how many millions of pounds they fail to make through unintelligent business decisions?

If I am capable of running a marathon in less than 5 hours, and run one in 7, I have achieved the fairly significant goal of running a marathon, but I've still missed fulfillng my potential by a significant margin.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Equally, if I couldn't run a marathon, but I observe that someone running one wanders off the route and runs over a mile extra, resulting in a slower time, does my own inability to complete a marathon somehow exclude me from making that observation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, Kirby was a fething taxman why does anyone think that he is somehow better qualified to run GW than anyone else (other than a chronic lack of self esteem?)

U wot m8? You lost me amidst some of the analogy rambling there... Any business can and does miss out on making "potential" money. There's no such thing as a company running at absolute 100% efficiency. Because they're ran by people like you and me, and people make mistakes.

I think the point is, it's easy to sit on the outside looking in and judge every perceived misstep of Kirby as incompetence. It's more to take a step back and actually consider what goes on outside the walls of Dakka and the wargaming community at large.

If you can't follow a 4 line analogy chap, then the fault isn't with me.

I'm also not just on the outside looking in, not entirely. I've run a business of my own and I've worked at a relatively high level in a business with a turnover in the tens of millions, so while I may not have every single detail of GW's financial minutiae to hand, I have qualifications, pertinent experience both as a hobbyist and from an business perspective and their financial reports informing my opinion.

If you can't form your thoughts into coherent sentences, then the fault isn't with me . (see how fun that is) Not to get into a manhood measuring contest, but I currently run my own business and have previously worked in sales for a large company as well. But I'm certain loads of other people on Dakka and the Wargaming community at large have similar if not much better qualifications. Now if we could just gracefully dismount our highhorses.

Granted much of GW's current position is due to their early prevalence in the Wargaming market, but it's not like it's all by accident. They know how to market their IP and keep people invested in a game that they easily could have stopped collecting models for years ago. Once you have say 2,500 pts there's no reason to buy more without the right incentives. GW knows how to put the squeeze on our wallets and does it well, credit where credit is due there. Either it's through new models, new rules or power creep.

Thinking of how many other companies could do it better, many have tried. Hell even Dakka had the Maelstroms edge deal recently. There's a myriad of companies doing things to rival GW, but at the end of the day 40K is still the most common game. Whether you like the game systems or models, there is some credit to what they've achieved. Some of the hyperbole on Dakka about GW gets pretty bananas.

@agnosto -- +1!

My point is simply that there are different ways of measuring "smart" or "intelligent". To take a step back and look specifically at wargaming, is the smart company the one that prides itself on excellence in rules and fosters competitive gaming... or is it the company that makes a massive amount of money based on miniatures that cater to a specific niche that buys a lot of stuff and over-the-top heroic games?

One view is that GW is "smart" because it's making a lot of money doing the type of things that its founders wanted to do. Another view is that GW is not "smart" because it's not doing what a big segment of the wargaming community wants it to do.

Personally, I think it's a balance. A company that can pursue its vision AND make money is a "smart" company. A company that can pursue its vision and survive OR make money in the absence of pursuing its vision is a slightly less smart. A company that can achieve neither is probably not very smart, at least at operating a business.

Also, Agnosto, we're not talking about "intelligence" as in the ability to make scientific discoveries (or at least I'm not), because it's just not applicable to a toy maker. Rather, I'm talking about intelligence as in business acumen -- the ability to set and realize business goals.

For sure, GW is a polarizing company, but almost every company that makes it to the top is. Just look at the tech industry -- most people love or hate the companies at the top.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I mean, Kirby was a fething taxman why does anyone think that he is somehow better qualified to run GW than anyone else (other than a chronic lack of self esteem?)

Replace the name Kirby, and change Games Workshop to a business you don't care much about: say, chocolates, chickens, or coffee.

If you happened to have gone to school with a guy who became "a taxman" and joined a chocolatier, made his way to the top of that company that was also the largest chocolatier in the world, raked in that kind a whole bunch of money for himself and his shareholders -- all legally -- wouldn't you think your schoolmate was pretty intelligent?

 Talys wrote:
@agnosto -- +1!

My point is simply that there are different ways of measuring "smart" or "intelligent". To take a step back and look specifically at wargaming, is the smart company the one that prides itself on excellence in rules and fosters competitive gaming... or is it the company that makes a massive amount of money based on miniatures that cater to a specific niche that buys a lot of stuff and over-the-top heroic games?

there are, but even if you tease out different competencies, you can still rate them. If GW's goal is to simply sell minis, that's fine. Their goal cannot be to create a coherent game at this point, so lets assume they are what they always claim to be: a company that makes minis.

Performance is not an absolute. You can't point to them, and say "they made millions in profit." Performance is only rated according to expectations. As a company with enormous market penetration, a large and enthusiastic fanbase, great IP, and a great catalog, not to mention capitalization beyond any other minis companies dreams, I think a cogent case can be made that GW has underperformed.

I don't have all the facts, I don't have all the data, so I'm guessing just as much as anybody else. But... from five years ago, I would have expected GW to grow as a brand, when it's sales have stayed reasonably stagnant. The market is there, the money is there, the product is there... yet sales are flat. Is that managements fault?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
If you happened to have gone to school with a guy who became "a taxman" and joined a chocolatier, made his way to the top of that company that was also the largest chocolatier in the world, raked in that kind a whole bunch of money for himself and his shareholders -- all legally -- wouldn't you think your schoolmate was pretty intelligent?

You're making a pretty trivial point. Nearly all people in positions of power and influence have at least some form of intelligence, although plenty have more social intelligence and get by on consensus and team building than actual analysis or decision making.

On the one hand, "Intelligence" is such a broad and ill defined concept that to argue about it is simply a waste of time. On the other, even if you narrow it down, talking about intellectual endowment is about as seemly as any other sort of endowment: what matters is what you accomplish with it.

 Polonius wrote:

On the one hand, "Intelligence" is such a broad and ill defined concept that to argue about it is simply a waste of time. On the other, even if you narrow it down, talking about intellectual endowment is about as seemly as any other sort of endowment: what matters is what you accomplish with it.

So I don't have to be well endowed, just have to do lots of stuff with it... Taking notes...

On the point of judging intelligence though, I completely agree. There's no point in trying to match and show who has more intelligence since it comes in so many forms, I'm not going to tell a welder how to do their job or a trucker how to drive their rig. I think you can also apply this to looking at a company like GW and Kirby.

@Polonius -

Games Workshop's sales have only stagnated, really, in recent years, though. The largest, oldest companies are the ones that are hardest to grow. In the same way, companies like IBM and Microsoft went gangbusters during their growth period, and then tapered off (even dropped some) and stabilized at an equilibrium. No company can grow forever, and GW has done pretty well. It's actually amazing that after 30 years, nobody has unseated them as the largest game company. In many markets this would be quite unusual.

In addition, a lot of the growth in "the hobby" isn't just in wargames, GW's niche. ICv2 claims that wargames are pretty much flat, and I don't have any other data to dispute that. One must also attribute some growth to new entrants (let's try this cool new game!); and also some attrition to simply desiring change (let's try something different!).

With respect to Kirby, the accusation being leveled at him is that he's essentially an incompetent fool. Could there be a better CEO or Chairman for Games Workshop? Quite possibly. But that doesn't make Kirby unintelligent or stupid; like I said, swap out the personal and industry details, toss it in as a different person doing something you don't care about, and make it someone that you tangentially know. I can't speak for you, but I'd be impressed.

Also, it's not like he was handed the company as a part of a dynasty. We can argue that it was bad for the game and for the community for GW to go public, as that changed to focus of the company from just making cool products to share prices, dividends, and profits; but we can hardly argue that it was bad, financially, for GW's founders and corporate stakeholders -- and Kirby was the one to push for and guide the company through that.

If you've ever worked for a company that had the chance to go public, there is a strong desire at some point, even if it's something that is a personal passion, to have an exit strategy and monetize your work (I've been in that position), so I cannot fault GW's founders for wanting that.

 clamclaw wrote:
Once you have say 2,500 pts there's no reason to buy more without the right incentives... ...Either it's through new models, new rules or power creep.

There are quite a number of problems with the above statement.

1. On players stopping their buying at an arbitrary points level (i.e. army completeness) - Even without new releases, if the system is well balanced, the player stands a high chance of branching into a second, third (or more) army. They are the prime customers as they are heavily steeped in the hobby since they already COMPLETED an army without leaving as a customer. This was the case in the glory days of 40k/Fantasy, and is the case in WM/H, Infinity, Malifaux. The assumption that customers are one-and-done is very short sighted.

2a. New models and power creep aren't the only drivers of sales. Running events is a driver of sales as everyone needs to get their army tuned up. Spit-shined if there is an appearance award (and a painted requirement).
2b. Power creep as a sales driver is a strange one as GW professes that they design for fun on the one hand - but power creep is directly catered to TFG. Not to say that play for fun types won't buy the new releases for fun, but TFG buys specifically for game effect.
2c. AoS seems entirely unsuitable for structured, competitive play without extensive house ruling. This may or may not affect the quantities of TFG who will buy the power creep content.

@ Talys: I think the best you can say about the current regime is that they are effective caretakers, but do not recognize a shifting market.

Warmachine is eating lunch precisely because it does what GW refuses to do: create a tight, competitive rule set. And I use the word "refuse" here carefully. GW came awfully close to good rules on a few occasions, most recently in late 5th edition, when codex balance aside, the game was highly playable. Since then, they have actively shifted away from creating a balanced game. And this isn't in a zero sum environment: better rules would cost only marginally more, and would have broader appeal.

At some point the inability to evolve with the market becomes a failure of management. I don't know if GW is there, and probably never will, but I've seen them lose customers due to their product, which is more or less the opposite of what you want in a mature enterprise.

 Talys wrote:
It's actually amazing that after 30 years, nobody has unseated them as the largest game company. In many markets this would be quite unusual.

I think it is telling that many of GW's competitors have ties to / were founded by ex-GW employees. I think that once PP managed to get off the ground and GW didn't smother them in their defenseless infancy... this really opened the door to competition.