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.
2015/08/11 20:03:11
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
Stopping at 2,500 points isn't really reasonable in 40k, even if you're just playing 1 faction. It doesn't give you a lot of flexibility in terms of what you want to field.
You really need about 4,000 points of models for a faction under the current meta before an army is complete enough that you can play with most of the toys that army offers; and you need probably 20,000+ points before you can field *anything* the codex offers. My buddy has at least 20k points of Eldar, and he still can't field every formation in the current codex.
In terms of your point about "taking up a new army", keezus, in my opinion, it's much easier to get a person to spend money to improve their current army than to start another from scratch. The GW40k model is highly profitable because (a) completeness for a faction runs into thousands of dollars and (b) completeness for multiple factions runs into TENS of thousands of dollars and (c) there are people willing to spend this.
I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.
2015/08/11 20:03:20
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
Polonius wrote: Warmachine is eating lunch precisely because it does what GW refuses to do: create a tight, competitive rule set.
To be fair... WM/H's solid foundation is getting shaky with the amount of crap they've bolted on to MK2. I think that we'll need to move to a MK3 shortly... hopefully.
2015/08/11 20:04:23
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
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.
Well, sure, but that's like saying that a lot of Microsoft's competitors are run/founded by its former employees. At some point in a mature company you have a desire to do something fresh or you hit the corporate ceiling.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/08/11 20:06:16
2015/08/11 20:07:37
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
Talys wrote: The GW40k model is highly profitable because (a) completeness for a faction runs into thousands of dollars and (b) completeness for multiple factions runs into TENS of thousands of dollars and (c) there are people willing to spend this. I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.
I think you are missing the point.
1. I don't understand why you would need to be "faction complete". There is no requirement to own everything available in the army before moving to a new army. (Nevermind that even in WM/H, faction complete is thousands of dollars).
2. Why would 40k as a competitive system generate less money? Players were buying like fiends when there were Grand Tournaments. Ask players in competitive WM/H whether they are faction complete. I think the response will surprise you. Instead of going faction complete, most go with the builds that they like in multiple factions.
Any sales should be good sales right? Not sure why GW uses the "Turn and Burn" strategy basically shooing veterans out of the system-and-don't-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out.
2015/08/11 20:33:38
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
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.
Objectively, I would say that a "smart" publicly traded company is one that creates opportunities for growth, expansion and larger revenues, year-on-year, that can be returned to owners. The only "smart" thing that I see GW doing is returning "excess" earning back to their stockholders in the form of dividend payments though I will not comment on how smart the size of these payments are in the grand scheme of things. There a plenty of companies that make money but without growth, I would not label them as smart as I believe smart decisions and leadership lead to growth and not prolonged retraction or stagnation.
I was just playing by your metric and being silly with it since it was a bit silly to begin with (in context and in intent I believe). As to your new statement, realizing business goals, let's see what GW believes its business goals to be:
We have a simple strategy at Games Workshop. We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever.
Yay! We have a winner! - success. It's a broad goal and one that can easily be met; if they had stayed with this one, we could call them the smartest company in the universe. Unfortunately, they wrote a whole load of malarky after this which made their IQ drop into the toilet.
We make things. We are a manufacturer. Not a retailer. We do have outlets in retail locations. We call these Games Workshop Hobby centres because they show customers how to engage with our hobby of collecting, painting and playing with our miniatures and games. They are the front end of our manufacturing business. If our Hobby centres do a great job, we will recruit lots of customers into our Hobby and they will enjoy spending their money on the products we make.
Not a retailer yet we have retail locations that we call hobby centers and fire people who don't meet sales quotas, yeah, that's not retail at all. Looking at hard sales data, they are either successful at recruiting people who will only buy online or not successful at recruiting new people at all.
Every year we seek new and better ways of making our products and improving the quality. This is not simply a personal obsession; it also makes good business sense. We know that, for a niche like ours, people who are interested in collecting fantasy miniatures will choose the best quality and be prepared to pay what they are worth.
lol wut? Complete denial of such concrete business concepts as price elasticity. - I uh, don't know what to say to this. Willful ignorance of the real business world?
Because it takes time and care to find the right person to run a Games Workshop Hobby centre, it will take us many years to get the global penetration we want to achieve. So, in order to improve our coverage today, we seek out other businesses which can help us get to the places where our hobbyists may be found. The best businesses at helping us are independent shops, run by owners who know their customers and offer them a good personal service. We call these Stockists and we supply them with an easy to manage range of our fastest selling products, which we resupply every month.
More restrictive trade terms, more shops dropping product, reduced trade sales. - fail
For emerging markets in Eastern Europe, Asia and South America we work through experienced local distributors to ensure our product is available through their local networks of retailers. And, of course, in all these locations, we also have the Games Workshop Webstore, which gives customers a huge amount of information on the Hobby and access to our entire range of products with a fast and efficient delivery service to wherever they live in the world.
Product availability - success, unless you want one of the endless "limited" items, then fail and nonsensical loss of income opportunity. You don't make money by creating an environment that prohibits people from buying your product.
We don’t spend money on things we don’t need, like expensive offices or prime rent shopping locations or advertising that speaks to the mass market and not our small band of loyal followers.
Translation: we don't spend money on things that have objectively proven to create growth in literally every market across every industry. - stupid
Our continual investment in product quality, using our defendable intellectual property, provides us with a considerable barrier to entry for potential competitors: it is our Fortress Wall.
We are also clear that we will only make fantasy miniatures, not historical ones. Fantasy miniatures from our own Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 worlds allow us unlimited scope for product innovation. In addition, we can, and do, defend our intellectual property rigorously against imitators, thus ensuring that our worlds are synonymous with quality.
Hugely costly, pyrrhic legal victory that cost them control of more IP "properties" than they actually retained. - fail
Compared to the UK, most of the rest of the world is for us still “green field” territory. This means we believe we can keep on growing steadily, using the same tried and tested approach of recruiting and retaining customers by opening Games Workshop Hobby centres, supported by the Games Workshop Webstore and independent Stockist accounts across the globe. With this growth we should be able to put more volume through our dedicated manufacturing and warehouse facilities ensuring that our gross margin continues to improve.
"keep on growing steadily" - fail.
-note: just having a bit of fun here making fun of GW is a pastime that I enjoy while I wait for my next dividend payment in September. Kirby's lucky that I haven't been able to take time off and travel to England to give him an earful at the annual shareholder meeting.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2015/08/11 21:15:27
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
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.
Very much this.
Back in the days of 2nd and 3rd ed. WH40K most of the players owned at least two armies - and the fantasy players often had more.
I can field Undead (going back to the days when Undead were a single army), Orcs, and Dwarfs.
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
2015/08/11 21:23:38
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
Polonius wrote: Warmachine is eating lunch precisely because it does what GW refuses to do: create a tight, competitive rule set.
To be fair... WM/H's solid foundation is getting shaky with the amount of crap they've bolted on to MK2. I think that we'll need to move to a MK3 shortly... hopefully.
Well, there's only so much you can add and keep everything balanced. I'd wager you could eliminate half the casters and jacks, and a third of the units from the big eight factions, and have only a slight effect on what shows up in tuned tournament lists. Sure, people point out interesting uses, but when you get down to it, there are simply tiers.
I mean, look at M:Tg: what percentage of the cards available in any given tournament format see play? It's shocking how well PP has done with the game.
2015/08/11 21:23:57
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
Games Workshop's sales have only stagnated, really, in recent years, though. The largest, oldest companies are the ones that are hardest to grow.
...
.
They have been stagnating since the end of the LoTR boom. In the last three years they have been declining.
Talys wrote: The GW40k model is highly profitable because (a) completeness for a faction runs into thousands of dollars and (b) completeness for multiple factions runs into TENS of thousands of dollars and (c) there are people willing to spend this. I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.
I think you are missing the point.
1. I don't understand why you would need to be "faction complete". There is no requirement to own everything available in the army before moving to a new army. (Nevermind that even in WM/H, faction complete is thousands of dollars). 2. Why would 40k as a competitive system generate less money? Players were buying like fiends when there were Grand Tournaments. Ask players in competitive WM/H whether they are faction complete. I think the response will surprise you. Instead of going faction complete, most go with the builds that they like in multiple factions.
Any sales should be good sales right? Not sure why GW uses the "Turn and Burn" strategy basically shooing veterans out of the system-and-don't-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out.
Evidence for this can be found in a much-disdained comparison with competitive trading card games. Tourney players are not strangers to laying down £50+ for a single deck-changing card with which to compete, even compared to a price of <£2 for a normal card (allowing for variation as I'm not an expert on card prices). Would they do this for a love of the card? Probably not. To win? Hellz yea.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/08/11 21:34:08
2015/08/11 21:50:12
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
Well, sure, but that's like saying that a lot of Microsoft's competitors are run/founded by its former employees. At some point in a mature company you have a desire to do something fresh or you hit the corporate ceiling.
You've brought up Microsoft a lot, which makes sense because they are both mature companies with huge market share. I decided to check and see how Microsoft has been doing.
Thing is about Microsoft is they're operating in an industry which is (I assume) growing as tech becomes more and more important to more and more people.
Whereas GW is operating in an industry which is, oh, wait, also growing!
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
Talys wrote: The GW40k model is highly profitable because (a) completeness for a faction runs into thousands of dollars and (b) completeness for multiple factions runs into TENS of thousands of dollars and (c) there are people willing to spend this. I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.
I think you are missing the point.
1. I don't understand why you would need to be "faction complete". There is no requirement to own everything available in the army before moving to a new army. (Nevermind that even in WM/H, faction complete is thousands of dollars).
2. Why would 40k as a competitive system generate less money? Players were buying like fiends when there were Grand Tournaments. Ask players in competitive WM/H whether they are faction complete. I think the response will surprise you. Instead of going faction complete, most go with the builds that they like in multiple factions.
Any sales should be good sales right? Not sure why GW uses the "Turn and Burn" strategy basically shooing veterans out of the system-and-don't-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out.
Evidence for this can be found in a much-disdained comparison with competitive trading card games. Tourney players are not strangers to laying down £50+ for a single deck-changing card with which to compete, even compared to a price of <£2 for a normal card (allowing for variation as I'm not an expert on card prices). Would they do this for a love of the card? Probably not. To win? Hellz yea.
But $100 is a drop in the bucket. There are people that spend 100 times that in a year on CCGs, that never play with their collector cards. Likewise, completionists (like myself) own, and usually have painted, at least a one of every model of the factions they collect, and as many of the models for units as are useful. You don't want to know how many drop pods I've painted since they've come out... and a blue drop pod is different from a red drop pod which is different from a grey one.. and a dark red one with black markings is different from a bright red one with silver markings... et cetera. Drop pod for a command squad? It's gotta look different. Calgar is going to be in it? OMG. Better make it epic.
The huge sales come not in wanting a functioning battle force, which is a few hundred dollars, but in complete collections, which start at thousands and go into $10,000+ over years -- and then multiples of those for each faction, and multiples of those for each reboot.
Incidentally, I never said that a competitive 40k would make less money; I said a competitive game in the scale of WMH (model count) would probably make less money, because if you take the game reason to build massive armies away, then some people (like me) won't.
Well, sure, but that's like saying that a lot of Microsoft's competitors are run/founded by its former employees. At some point in a mature company you have a desire to do something fresh or you hit the corporate ceiling.
You've brought up Microsoft a lot, which makes sense because they are both mature companies with huge market share. I decided to check and see how Microsoft has been doing.
I picked those dates more or less at random, but most articles I saw showed a pretty nice upward trend for Microsoft.
No, you are correct that Microsoft revenues YoY have increased -- though not at a rate that makes shareholders happy in recent years. Microsoft is usually bashed for its stock price, which has stayed relatively flat (for many Steve Ballmer years, flat or declining), especially compared to AAPL.
I picked MSFT, because they started business around the same time as Games Workshop (well, 1975; not sure exactly about GW), and became the dominant company in their field, in part by being a near-monopoly at some point. They've also both stumbled at times (Windows Phone!), but managed remained highly profitable despite errors. Also, they both have stable revenues, so even if their popularity wanes, they have a core customer base that provides an income floor that is predictable. Also, because their last CEO was highly unpopular and derided by the anti-Microsoft crowd and many Microsoft fans alike -- despite that he brought Microsoft great profits (I actually never disliked Ballmer, but I mean, Gates is an impossible act to follow). Also, significantly, MSFT is often criticized for having blinders on, and not doing what it thinks the market wants rather than what the market actually wants.
If you wanted to pick a company with declining revenues and profits, you could choose Hewlett Packard. In many ways, it's a better parallel: in particular, you could point to management wonders like Carly Fiorina, or its course change from engineering wizardry to mass market appeal. But I didn't, because HP is a much older company (1939), its decline is only in recent years, and although it has loyal corporate customers, its core customer base that choose HP for reasons beyond technical ones and price is a relatively small percentage of its total revenue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Thing is about Microsoft is they're operating in an industry which is (I assume) growing as tech becomes more and more important to more and more people.
Whereas GW is operating in an industry which is, oh, wait, also growing!
Actually, many sectors in which Microsoft is operating is contracting, most significantly, PCs. It seems like tablets and smartphones are sectors that will be stagnating, too. Of course, there are other sectors like server software and cloud computing that are going gangbusters, but this is hardly the same business as video games or smartphones.
Just like with Games Workshop and Hobby, you can't lump everything Microsoft does under "Computing". However, GW only participates in one sector of its industry (95%+ of its revenue is derived from one defined category). ICv2 would disagree with you that miniature wargaming is growing in North America, in 2014-2015.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/08/11 23:02:55
2015/08/11 22:47:42
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
Right, so despite the fact that areas Microsoft operates in have contracted, they've posted significant growth?
Yet GW operate in a market where many sectors are expanding and they are barely treading water?
Doesn't really make GW look better does it?
The key difference here is MS have clearly gone after different sectors with good degrees of success, whereas GW, that could easily segue into table top games, card games, full board games etc have resolutely sat there, arms metaphorically crossed, and refused to adapt.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/11 22:49:53
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
Azreal13 wrote: Right, so despite the fact that areas Microsoft operates in have contracted, they've posted significant growth?
You should do your research before posting stuff like that.
Microsoft's sales in contracting markets have also contracted (for instance, Windows). The reason its revenues have grown are because it's also involved in sectors which are growing. I gave some examples, like server software and cloud computing. Office 365 is another real gem for them.
Azreal13 wrote: Yet GW operate in a market where many sectors are expanding and they are barely treading water?
No, not really.
Microsoft's PC-related businesses are contracting as per that sector. GW's miniature wargaming business is treading water as per that sector.
MSFT is a far superior stock and a far superior company to GAW.L, , if that's what you're trying to say. If you had the choice, you'd own all of MSFT over every single company in the entire hobby industry, quadrupled, too.
Azreal13 wrote: The key difference here is MS have clearly gone after different sectors with good degrees of success, whereas GW, that could easily segue into table top games, card games, full board games etc have resolutely sat there, arms metaphorically crossed, and refused to adapt.
GW has gone into all sorts of stuff, and gotten out of it, for whatever reason, we don't know.
Anyways, getting back to the thread topic:
My contention is that GW is not "unintelligent", because they continue to make more money than anyone else, and by extension, they sell more stuff than anyone else. I think Kirby is a plenty intelligent fellow because the company has done pretty well under him. At least, no company in their sector has done better, lots of people are employed, and shareholders and founders are well-compensated.
You say that they're "unintelligent" because they're not realizing their potential; in fact you think they're blind to the low-hanging fruit. You think Kirby isn't very intelligent, because the company could be doing a whole lot better under someone else's leadership.
I don't know if you're right, frankly. If GW had cheaper products that appealed to more people, it's entirely possible that they'd actually make less money -- if in doing so, they were less appealing or less profitable from their core customers. For all we know, they have perfected the formula for their own profit.
But I don't think a company should be measured solely on profit and performance if it's something that I care about (as opposed to an unemotional investment) and as a hobbyist, I would far prefer for GW to be welcoming to more types of players and gamers. On this basis, I do not believe that Games Workshop is successful, although I'll (happily) eat my words if AoS proves to attract new gamers to the wargaming hobby. However, it has nothing to do with their intelligence.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/08/11 23:15:15
2015/08/11 23:31:03
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
Azreal13 wrote: Right, so despite the fact that areas Microsoft operates in have contracted, they've posted significant growth?
You should do your research before posting stuff like that.
Microsoft's sales in contracting markets have also contracted (for instance, Windows). The reason its revenues have grown are because it's also involved in sectors which are growing. I gave some examples, like server software and cloud computing. Office 365 is another real gem for them.
Azreal13 wrote: Yet GW operate in a market where many sectors are expanding and they are barely treading water?
No, not really.
Microsoft's PC-related businesses are contracting as per that sector. GW's miniature wargaming business is treading water as per that sector.
MSFT is a far superior stock and a far superior company to GAW.L, , if that's what you're trying to say. If you had the choice, you'd own all of MSFT over every single company in the entire hobby industry, quadrupled, too.
Azreal13 wrote: The key difference here is MS have clearly gone after different sectors with good degrees of success, whereas GW, that could easily segue into table top games, card games, full board games etc have resolutely sat there, arms metaphorically crossed, and refused to adapt.
GW has gone into all sorts of stuff, and gotten out of it, for whatever reason, we don't know.
Anyways, getting back to the thread topic:
My contention is that GW is not "unintelligent", because they continue to make more money than anyone else, and by extension, they sell more stuff than anyone else. I think Kirby is a plenty intelligent fellow because the company has done pretty well under him. At least, no company in their sector has done better, lots of people are employed, and shareholders and founders are well-compensated.
You say that they're "unintelligent" because they're not realizing their potential; in fact you think they're blind to the low-hanging fruit. You think Kirby isn't very intelligent, because the company could be doing a whole lot better under someone else's leadership.
I don't know if you're right, frankly. If GW had cheaper products that appealed to more people, it's entirely possible that they'd actually make less money -- if in doing so, they were less appealing or less profitable from their core customers. For all we know, they have perfected the formula for their own profit.
But I don't think a company should be measured solely on profit and performance if it's something that I care about (as opposed to an unemotional investment) and as a hobbyist, I would far prefer for GW to be welcoming to more types of players and gamers. On this basis, I do not believe that Games Workshop is successful, although I'll (happily) eat my words if AoS proves to attract new gamers to the wargaming hobby. However, it has nothing to do with their intelligence.
No, you're not going "back to topic" you're trying to move away from an area very much on topic because you're on decidedly shaky ground, and have misunderstood, either wilfully or otherwise, the point I was making.
I wasn't making any comparisons to stock value (where on earth did you get that from?) just to the differing approaches, Microsoft have continued to grow, despite the alleged contraction of their core business (if I need to "do my research" does that mean I can't take anything you say at face value, because I'm just using what you're saying here?) because they've clearly successfully identified and successfully exploited other opportunities for growth.
GW are set in the middle of a massive industrial growth spell, yet the very products that people seem to be identifying as the best performers are the ones GW has licensed out to FFG. They resolutely stick to their core business, apparently not interested in exploring other avenues (otherwise why license them?) despite being better positioned than anyone else to diversify, and despite their core business performing relatively poorly to other, similar, products.
They have, in essence, done the complete opposite to what MS must have done, if, as you say, MS's core businesses have shrunk.
Sure, they've explored other products, and if they've not succeeded, they've withdrawn. But then, given they'd have no idea why they failed, that's the safe option. GW does not like taking risks.
GW are doing well enough, certainly well enough for an old man with a lot of stock, why spend cash on expansion into new products to grow the company when you can pay it to yourself in a nice fat dividend?
GW are not run intelligently, exploitative would be a better word.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/11 23:35:36
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
At this point in this thread, combined with knowledge of performance in other threads, does anyone think they'll be able to convince Talys of...anything at all contrary to his 'position'?
2015/08/11 23:35:53
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
I suspect that if 40k had rules and scale as popular in the competitive community as WMH, 40k would make much less money than it does for GW.
Why?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote: At this point in this thread, combined with knowledge of performance in other threads, does anyone think they'll be able to convince Talys of...anything at all contrary to his 'position'?
At this point, it's more about minimising the number of other people who, left unchallenged, may think he's on to something!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/11 23:37:25
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
Well, scaling back sizes of armies obviously would make less, duh. After Apocalypse started out as a "just once for fun" thing, now GW wants us to be turning 4x6 tables into what looks like the line at 10AM at Gencon.
Sprinkle in tanks and titans for flavor, and roll dice to remove models by the handful. That does nothing for quality of rules nor does it really give the hobby portion a fair shake.
40K would be awesome if it had a tightly running ruleset. Remember when they introduced USR's, and it was about three pages of them- most of which had already bee in individual codexes already?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/08/11 23:40:34
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
2015/08/11 23:39:53
Subject: Re:Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
Bit of a pre-emptive strike, but the scale part of that claim I think is misleading. At the end of the day, what people want in the most basic form are rules that work clearly, simply, and offer meaningful and deep player involvement that affect the outcome of the game directly.
This benefits the most hardcore tournament players and the most basement campaign, beerhammer players equally. I cannot for a minute fathom that producing rules of a tournament level quality would in any harm their revenues or profit margins, bar maybe the salary of a full time editor and community manager for testing.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
2015/08/11 23:43:45
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
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
Bit of a pre-emptive strike, but the scale part of that claim I think is misleading. At the end of the day, what people want in the most basic form are rules that work clearly, simply, and offer meaningful and deep player involvement that affect the outcome of the game directly.
This benefits the most hardcore tournament players and the most basement campaign, beerhammer players equally. I cannot for a minute fathom that producing rules of a tournament level quality would in any harm their revenues or profit margins, bar maybe the salary of a full time editor and community manager for testing.
Exactly.
I think the main thing that 40K rules have always been encumbered with is that a ruleset is great when it knows what it is trying to do, and throughout the rulebook keeps that theme. 40K has increasingly been pulled into more and more ways since about 5th edition. Maybe even earlier.
Take Kings of War 2.0 for example. It's not huge or lengthy, but you can clearly see what it has as a goal, and nearly all of it works well towards achieving that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/11 23:45:29
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
2015/08/11 23:45:08
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
Azreal13 wrote: No, you're not going "back to topic" you're trying to move away from an area very much on topic because you're on decidedly shaky ground, and have misunderstood, either wilfully or otherwise, the point I was making.
I disagree. We can leave it at that or keep going
Azreal13 wrote: GW are set in the middle of a massive industrial growth spell, yet the very products that people seem to be identifying as the best performers are the ones GW has licensed out to FFG. They resolutely stick to their core business, apparently not interested in exploring other avenues (otherwise why license them?) despite being better positioned than anyone else to diversify, and despite their core business performing relatively poorly to other, similar, products.
They have, in essence, done the complete opposite to what MS must have done, if, as you say, MS's core businesses have shrunk.
Sure, they've explored other products, and if they've not succeeded, they've withdrawn. But then, given they'd have no idea why they failed, that's the safe option. GW does not like taking risks.
Have you considered that GW simply doesn't want to be in the business of board games and card games?
Also, if you don't think that Age of Sigmar is a risk....
Azreal13 wrote: GW are doing well enough, certainly well enough for an old man with a lot of stock, why spend cash on expansion into new products to grow the company when you can pay it to yourself in a nice fat dividend?
GW are not run intelligently, exploitative would be a better word.
Perhaps, because they're doing what they like doing, and have make enough profits to fulfill their goals.
You call it exploitative; I call it pleasing the choir.
2015/08/11 23:47:34
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
Granted, at this point, it'd take some time and effort to un-taint their image, and the poor bastard working as a the community manager would be a punching bag for some time. Not an envious job, or for the faint of heart.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
2015/08/11 23:48:27
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
Azreal13 wrote: No, you're not going "back to topic" you're trying to move away from an area very much on topic because you're on decidedly shaky ground, and have misunderstood, either wilfully or otherwise, the point I was making.
I disagree. We can leave it at that or keep going
Azreal13 wrote: GW are set in the middle of a massive industrial growth spell, yet the very products that people seem to be identifying as the best performers are the ones GW has licensed out to FFG. They resolutely stick to their core business, apparently not interested in exploring other avenues (otherwise why license them?) despite being better positioned than anyone else to diversify, and despite their core business performing relatively poorly to other, similar, products.
They have, in essence, done the complete opposite to what MS must have done, if, as you say, MS's core businesses have shrunk.
Sure, they've explored other products, and if they've not succeeded, they've withdrawn. But then, given they'd have no idea why they failed, that's the safe option. GW does not like taking risks.
Have you considered that GW simply doesn't want to be in the business of board games and card games?
Also, if you don't think that Age of Sigmar is a risk....
Azreal13 wrote: GW are doing well enough, certainly well enough for an old man with a lot of stock, why spend cash on expansion into new products to grow the company when you can pay it to yourself in a nice fat dividend?
GW are not run intelligently, exploitative would be a better word.
Perhaps, because they're doing what they like doing, and have make enough profits to fulfill their goals.
You call it exploitative; I call it pleasing the choir.
I haven't considered any company may wilfully ignore money making opportunities they are demonstrably capable of taking advantage of. I have considered that the returns may not come back on the investment in a timeline short enough for some with a vested interest in cake today.
AoS is not a risk because it's Fantasy Space Marines and a product that was essentially flatlining.
What the hell is "pleasing the choir?" Is that a Canadian thing, because our priests get into trouble for that over here.
Now answer Blacksails question.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/11 23:50:52
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
They know perfectly well how many figures they can sell at the expense they put them at. I think we all have to admit that those of us surprised at their prices are not the ones making them all their money.
We are the minority, the majority are the ones buying droves of 25-30 dollar (US) clampack plastic figures and 50 dollar 5-man sets that are essentially monopose figures that honestly are without a whole heckuva lot of detail for this day and age.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/11 23:50:45
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
2015/08/11 23:51:52
Subject: Why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent?
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
