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.

More like a 9,5 on your scale...

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

Ehh, in what universe does the SG kit make a half-decent Dante? No hand-mounted Infernus Pistol, no one-handed axe (the two handed one is too big, the blade just looks ridiculous in one hand) And no Jump pack with the three jets mounted in each booster. Plus, the armor isn't as finely sculpted as Dante's. (The plastic kit is only 5 years old, and the reprints are showing the signs of degredation)

Sorry, but I beg to differ -- hand mounted infernus is no problem, nor is 1h axe. Jump pack isn't the same as Dante's (it's from DC), but it's a reasonable proxy.



This is not even really a great kitbash; I did this a very long time ago and just rebased it to 32mm.

There is very little crossover between the Wargamers and the CCGers here. A few, but they're more outliers. Board games and video games are much more in competition for dollars with wargaming here than MtG or YuGi.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If you don't think GW is in competition with Magic then you don't really understand the hobby we're in.

I disagree. There are plenty of wargamers with no interest in CCGs and vice versa.

CCG and miniature wargames are hobbies, they're often sold in the same stores, and in some cases they compete for dollars -- but they not the same hobby, and they aren't *direct* competition. If someone isn't happy with AoS, their first thought probably isn't going to be, "gee, maybe I should play Magic instead".

Of course there's crossover. But there are with video games too -- I bet most 40k players have bought a video game in the last year. Someone might think, "Do I buy an Xbox or do I buy AdMech?" But that doesn't put them in competition with each other.

Obviously there is a lot of crossover, or you wouldn't have the vast majority of gaming stores selling the things in the same stores, on the shelves next to each other..

Jesus wept, I sometimes think you are being deliberately facetious Talys

Video games have long since entered entertainment mainstream, in much the same way as music or movies, saying that a young to middle-aged person might buy those as well as Warhammer really isn't saying a whole lot.

@Pacific - There are stores that sell CCGs and sports jerseys too (because they're both collectibles). There's two right in my town, and they sell 40k as well. And comic books are in a lot of the hobby shops, several locally -- does that make Iron Man comics a competitor of 40k and Magic the Gathering?

To take that a step further, a lot of AV stores sell televisions, xboxes, microwaves, and cameras. So does that make them all competitors in the same market too? And if you go into an Apple store, there are iPhones and Macbooks, so surely those are direct compete with each other as well.

Oh, speaking of music and movies. Most stores that sell music also sell movies, and a large number sell video games too. Surely, you don't think Elton Jon, Fast & the Furious, and Fallout are competitors in the same market

Stores are allowed to sell things that aren't in direct competition with each other, you know.

For two things to be direct competitors, they need to essentially be involved in then same sort of thing. You could argue that miniature wargames are pretty close to miniature boardgames; but it would be hard to convince me that miniature wargames compete with traditional Milton-Bradley type boardgames like Trivial Pursuit and Monopoly. Likewise, Vallejo and Games Workshop compete on paint supplies. But in no way does Vallejo compete with Magic the Gathering, even though they're sold at the same store. Neither with Coke or Frito Lay, who have products in the same store too. And guess what, food accounts for more profit than Privateer Press in some stores!

The sales revenue for Magic is apparently in the ballpark of $250 million. If I'm reading the numbers right, that's more than all of GW combined. 40k isn't a Magic competitor, that would imply that they weren't being crushed by Magic's sales.

Market is growing.

Sales went down.

Tells me GW still doesn't know what they are doing. With a competent job of managing the company and their fanbase they would be expanding. Lost sales are nothing in my eyes compared to lost potential, at any rate.

I think with Rountree as CEO, GW could stand a (small) chance of redemption. He seems to be a bit more switched on than Kirby.

 Talys wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

Ehh, in what universe does the SG kit make a half-decent Dante? No hand-mounted Infernus Pistol, no one-handed axe (the two handed one is too big, the blade just looks ridiculous in one hand) And no Jump pack with the three jets mounted in each booster. Plus, the armor isn't as finely sculpted as Dante's. (The plastic kit is only 5 years old, and the reprints are showing the signs of degredation)

Sorry, but I beg to differ -- hand mounted infernus is no problem, nor is 1h axe. Jump pack isn't the same as Dante's (it's from DC), but it's a reasonable proxy.
This is not even really a great kitbash; I did this a very long time ago and just rebased it to 32mm.

Dante doesn't actually use a mounted Inferno Pistol, his is handheld. He also has a Death Mask. BUT, between the Death Company kit (for a BA Jump Pack and Inferno Pistol arm) and the Sanguinary Guard kit (main body, Death Mask, axe), Dante is quite easy to proxy. Now imagine what it would be like if they actually built a kit with Dante in mind the way they did with the Space Wolves Upgrade kit and Ragnar Blackmane. Honestly, they could cover Mephiston and Asorath in the same kit, since their armors(flayed skin Artificer Armor) are basically the exact same, Mephiston just wears a robe. They should just phase out Captain Tycho, dude has been dead in the fluff for years. I could see a kit for making Dante and the Sanguinor and another kit for making Mephiston and Asorath, and lastly a kit for Corbulo and a Sanguinary Priest. They wouldn't need to phase out many of the characters.

They really should do what they did with the Space Wolves Upgrade kit for more chapters and more armies in general. It pains me to say this, but there isn't much reason for a model for Pedro Kantor to exist, he could easily be made using an Imperial/Crimson Fists upgrade kit. Here's a thought, make a Terminator kit and a Power Armor kit with multi-pose legs. Release all sorts of upgrades like the Chaplain(has a Skull Helmet and a Crozius Arcanum), Captain (Iron Halo and some more weapon choices), Librarian (Psychic Hood, Power Staff), and the special characters (Khan would come with a Bike since NO ONE puts Khan on foot!, Pedro would come with the right arm Power Fist and Dorn's Arrow, Shrike would come with a jump pack and his Lightning Claws, etc.).

Disclaimer, this applies to the UK only, we have different employment laws to the US that actually protect the worker, e.g., no fire at will.

The living wage is being implemented in the UK over a four year period, the full amount will not be payable until 2020 and then only to those over 25. Currently min. wage is £6.50 for over 21s, living wage will be £7.20 for over 24s, it has zero impact on under 25s.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Freezing salary rates while paying out dividends... not the kind of company I want to support honestly. Everything about their new direction (super rapid product release, abandonment of formation-based fantasy) isn't for me... I'm glad the new CEO can write coherently, and is somewhat open to adjusting for the market (very slightly)... but yeah, they're as merciless as ever.

In fairness they can't freeze salaries due to the introduction of a 'living wage' next April. I think that the majority of GW's front line staff are on minimum wage at the moment so they will all be getting a pay increase next year.

No most of the UK staff are not on min wage, min wage at present is £13,520 assuming over 21 and working 40 hours a week, GW pays between £16,000 and £18,000 without bonuses for a typical store manager. Living wage will be £7.20 for over 24 and then £9 for over 24 by 2010, that's £14,976 and £18,720 for a 40 hour week respectivley. So GW won't need to give a pay rise because of min wage to the vast majority of its UK staff until 2020. GW simply doesn't employ anybody other that possibly bar staff at bugmans, cleaners and catering at HQ that is on min wage, and its likely that the cleaners and catering staff that are employed via an outsourcing deal.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
A hike in minimum wage wouldn't get past a salary freeze. Salary workers by definition do not make an hourly wage.

In the US at least even the one man store guys wouldn't be affected. I'm pretty sure their job title is manager; that makes them except employees. All they can hope for is the Department of Labor is supposed to be reclassifying what count's as the minimum salary for exemption. Then GW would have to raise their salary to match the new exempt minimum, or they would be entitled to overtime and minimum wage.

In the UK this is NOT true at all, if you can prove that your salary divided by hours worked is less than min wage then the company is going to get fined. See here:

https://www.gov.uk/minimum-wage-different-types-work/paid-an-annual-salary

Zero hour contracts are very different beasts, you can quite legally earn nothing for a week if you have worked no hours, the key point here is that you have not actually worked and you never had the promise of any guarantee of any hours, thats the whole point of a zero hour contract. Even if you work only one hour that week they have to still pay you the min. wage for that hour, thats the whole reason we have a min wage set as an hourly wage. Personally I think zero hour contracts are one step up from indentured serfs as you still have to be available to work that day for ever how many hours the company wants for whatever shift pattern they want even if the company does not want you. If you refuse to work that day (say you had work elsewhere), you stand a high risk of having your contract terminated, this makes it an uneven agreement with all the power in the companies hand.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
The sales revenue for Magic is apparently in the ballpark of $250 million. If I'm reading the numbers right, that's more than all of GW combined. 40k isn't a Magic competitor, that would imply that they weren't being crushed by Magic's sales.

If that's your metric than GW has no competition in the miniature wargaming space.

 Vain wrote:
In competition for our money, yes.
But if we use that metric then GW is in competition with Super Markets and Petrol Stations as well then.

Then I stand by my original statement: You don't understand the hobby we're in.

If you don't see the comparisons between GW and Magic, and think that super markets and buying petrol is somehow an equivalent, and should be considered equal competitors with GW as Magic, then you don't understand the hobby we're in.

Anything that competes for the same time and money is a competitor to GW. Magic is a competitor to GW. Video games as well. Anything that competes for free time.

 Talys wrote:
@Pacific - There are stores that sell CCGs and sports jerseys too (because they're both collectibles). There's two right in my town, and they sell 40k as well. And comic books are in a lot of the hobby shops, several locally -- does that make Iron Man comics a competitor of 40k and Magic the Gathering?

To take that a step further, a lot of AV stores sell televisions, xboxes, microwaves, and cameras. So does that make them all competitors in the same market too? And if you go into an Apple store, there are iPhones and Macbooks, so surely those are direct compete with each other as well.

Stores are allowed to sell things that aren't in direct competition with each other, you know.

Yes, on a macro-economic level, every commodity is in competition with every other for the limited ressource "money" of the consumers.

But more concrete, some commodities are more likely to be in direct competition -"direct" meaning a) on a regular basis, for example, at least every month, and b) in the same sector of interest and allocated budget, in this case: hobby time & pocket money.

The question of direct impact / competition boils down to target group and mode of demand/supply. I.e. are these things a) collectibles/comsumables for b) the hobby time of c) teenage boys and college students, d) both with limited cash and relatively diverse (unfocussed) interests in the fantastical/geeky.

Generally, the statement "If little Johnny has 60 bucks a month to spend on hobby stuff, he will make a choice between the new Magic starter and 3 boosters or 1 WH40K tank" or even taking your example "If little Johnny has only 20 bucks a month to spend on hobby, and he likes comics jjust as much as tabletop, he will chose Iron Man comics over WH40K" is truer (i.e. much more often true) than "If little Johnny is not happy with AoS he will buy a microwave oven instead"

Alright, also not what you said, but you hopefully get the jist: direct competition in the field of fantasy/sci-fi hobby is much more likely than not.

Now, I actually think that there is at least a second target group (grown-up teenage boys and former college students) which has enough money to spend on several interests parallely, as well as sub-groups in both target groups where there is no competition between hobby expressions, for lack of (conflict of) interest.

I would still assume that in the group of non-full-time working young people, most make regular choices and hence create a competition between products in the same niche (and more important: for the same budget!) on a regular basis.

If that is not the case with you, you are (too) rich. Or you have no other obligations. Which probably means you are (too) rich.

Happens, but is not the average position.

Indeed, seeing that the distribution of wealth in most industrialized countries is getting more and more top-sided, it becomes an ever more marginalized position!

The numbers are pretty uninteresting. Almost exact same as last year sans the website costs so profits went up. This may be seen as positive and company is making a good profit, however given that last year was fairly universally considered as "not very good", I am not sure that "same as not very good" is THAT encouraging. Though obviously, there is still no sign of the "death spiral" much predicted by certain folks.

They acknowledge lack of revenue growth. However they mostly seem to assign it to restructuring of their sales channels, and not price or quality of their product.

Rountree gives an impression that he's having lots of new ideas and who knows, maybe this is both real and a good thing. He talks about "resetting the ranges" which might seem slightly ominous. Remember Kirby's last year comments about "sweeping changes...in our product" and then AoS.

The fairly static position is interesting in itself.

I'm looking at this a ls a pause for a deep breath. You know the kind to take either before taking a step up or a a big plunge on the roller coaster.

 Talys wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
On the "redesigning lines", I think we may be seeing some of that already. I've noticed that in the Adeptus Mechanicus books (and the Sigmarite army list) there are no named characters for the armies. I suspect in future books we will be seeing less and less "named" characters and existing named characters to be dropped as selectable models; they'll remain in the fluff, but since someone is likely to only buy *1* copy, they'll slowly be dropped out as playable options.

I think that's more to do with dropping 'Fine'cast than a part of the design philosophy.

I suspect that from here on out, named characters will only be included in a codex where there is an existing model that they still have remaining stock of, or where they can produce a plastic replacement. AM didn't get a named character because they're a brand new army (so no existing character models) and their budget went on producing as many plastic unit kits as possible. We'll likely see a special character or two sooner or later... either when the codex gets re-done, or when they release new models under whatever system eventually replaces the codexes.

I think the last infantry-sized named character that popped in plastic was Karlaen. There was Grimnar last year, but he had the sleigh and reindeers. Nork was last year, too (but slightly bigger); and Sanguinary Priest is as close to Corbulo as it's ever going to get. Oh yeah, and the chaos guy out of the DV box.

To the point of design philosophy: I really like the idea of upgrade kits that essentially give you the extra parts to model whomever you want, in combination with standard kits. I wish this would become the norm. I would gladly pay between $15 - $50 for a sprue that gave me various bits to model all the special characters in a single package. The variation depends on how many of the special characters I can squeeze out of the upgrade box -- basically $15 for a small sprue, $30 for a single standard frame, $50 for 2 standard frames would be what I'd have in mind.

Them everyone could just buy that, add it to whatever standard pieces, and be done with all their characters!

If they're serious about managing their bloated range, that "upgrades" path is the one they should take with Space Marines. Ideally in combination with truescaling the models, you could reduce the core SM range to four infantry boxes, two bike boxes, and four vehicle boxes(Tactical Squad, Assault Squad, Scout Squad, Terminator Squad, Bikes, Attack Bike, Dreadnought with all options, Rhino/Razor/AA combo, Pred/Vindi combo, Land Raider combo), then offer additional options in 2/3 sprue plastic clampacks; heavy weapons for Dev squads, Veteran options, Honour Guard bitz, chapter upgrade sprues etc.

 notprop wrote:
The fairly static position is interesting in itself.

I'm looking at this a ls a pause for a deep breath. You know the kind to take either before taking a step up or a a big plunge on the roller coaster.

I'm not sure it actually is static. They are selling less stuff. Now, for many businesses, mine included, selling less stuff for the same profit is actually desirable, less work for the same money in terms of input v output.

However, there are reasons why I think this outlook would not apply to GW.

Firstly, my business does not rely on a social component, which GW does. Less product sold inherently means less people consuming. This is not a good idea when you sell a product that, by design, requires more consumers to be useful.

Secondly, and this for me is the really important point, they have sold less stuff for the same profit, but this is during an accounting period where they have actually produced more product (in terms of SKU if not volume) than ever before.

There is an inherent instability in all product that relies on social interaction, and that is the ability to easily find those social interactions, and my concern, if I were running GW, was hitting the cliff of losing too many players to keep it viable for the rest of the consumers way before the financials themselves have an effect. Because at that point, sales will go into freefall, and with little warning. Are they there yet? Nowhere near, but they really need to address the loss of consumers, it should have been their number one priority for the last 5 years or more in reality.

@treslibras

I, like many others have played Magic at one point in my life -- for about 2.5 years. I've played 40k for about 10x that.

There are many people in my circle of friends who play magic, but would never consider playing a wargame or paint a mini. Of the people that I play 40k with, none would consider Magic an 'alternative' or 'competitor'. I would also say that Magic and RPGs are not direct competitors.

On the other hand, Magic and YuGiOh are direct competitors.

They may all compete for dollars from some gamer/youth/senior's wallet, but comparing them as in 'this game does this better' is as useful as saying a TV is better than a PC or vice versa. And besides, it's an important distinction, or the industry would not distinguish between them.

I would also add one other huge difference between Magic and 40k: it's possible to spend countless hours enjoying 40k by oneself painting and modeling, which is a very distinct hobby from gaming. I spend about 3-5 hours a day in this solo aspect of the hobby, but frankly, would be happy if it could be 10 hours a day. That's not something you can do in Magic; MtG really is, mostly, a hobby that requires an opponent for everything other than unwrapping boosters and making decks, neither of which is going to turn into a thousands-of-hours hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NoggintheNog wrote:

 notprop wrote:
The fairly static position is interesting in itself.

I'm looking at this a ls a pause for a deep breath. You know the kind to take either before taking a step up or a a big plunge on the roller coaster.

I'm not sure it actually is static. They are selling less stuff. Now, for many businesses, mine included, selling less stuff for the same profit is actually desirable, less work for the same money in terms of input v output.

However, there are reasons why I think this outlook would not apply to GW.

Firstly, my business does not rely on a social component, which GW does. Less product sold inherently means less people consuming. This is not a good idea when you sell a product that, by design, requires more consumers to be useful.

Secondly, and this for me is the really important point, they have sold less stuff for the same profit, but this is during an accounting period where they have actually produced more product (in terms of SKU if not volume) than ever before.

There is an inherent instability in all product that relies on social interaction, and that is the ability to easily find those social interactions, and my concern, if I were running GW, was hitting the cliff of losing too many players to keep it viable for the rest of the consumers way before the financials themselves have an effect. Because at that point, sales will go into freefall, and with little warning. Are they there yet? Nowhere near, but they really need to address the loss of consumers, it should have been their number one priority for the last 5 years or more in reality.

To me, it seems that GW is choosing to please its best customers at the expense of it's least spenders, and charging the best customers for it.

For example: 'superfans' are very happy with rapid book releases, and updated kits make them all excited. But more casual customers want their product to last, and would rather pay less than get a kit refresh.

So GW makes the superfan happy by pumping out the new books and the refreshed kits, but they know there will be some people who won't bite. So what to do? Make those that Really wanted the new stuff pay more - in fact, get them to make up the difference in lost sales, because after all, they are the ones that want it.

Will this implode at some point?

If there aren't enough superfans, or if it gets too expensive for them, sure it can.

There is not a great deal of royalties considering what they are sitting on.
It seems to me that the 44 license agreements has the potential to increase a lot, thats where I would be looking to improve, although quite a few of these 44 licensing contracts will come to fruition this year or at a later date.
Three of those titles Vermintide , Eternal Crusade and Warhammer total war have the potential to be big money spinners, previous titles on a similar scale (space Marine and Dawn of war) also bought many people into the hobby.
In addition to the horus heresy plastics range or game that is on the horizon, things are looking very good for the rest of this year, long term depends on the success of the polarizing AOS and whats yet to come I guess, still no reason to panic.

 Rayvon wrote:
There is not a great deal of royalties considering what they are sitting on.
It seems to me that the 44 license agreements has the potential to increase a lot, thats where I would be looking to improve, although quite a few of these 44 licensing contracts will come to fruition this year or at a later date.
Three of those titles Vermintide , Eternal Crusade and Warhammer total war have the potential to be big money spinners, previous titles on a similar scale (space Marine and Dawn of war) also bought many people into the hobby.
In addition to the horus heresy plastics range or game that is on the horizon, things are looking very good for the rest of this year, long term depends on the success of the polarizing AOS and whats yet to come I guess, still no reason to panic.

I know I am waiting impatiently for Eternal Crusade. I am really looking forward to playing a Space Marine (probably either a BA Assault Marine or Tactical Marine). I really wish they would release a stand alone console game that is a sequel to Space Marine. And then take that formula and apply it to the other races too. I don't always want to play an MMO.

NoggintheNog wrote:

 notprop wrote:
The fairly static position is interesting in itself.

I'm looking at this a ls a pause for a deep breath. You know the kind to take either before taking a step up or a a big plunge on the roller coaster.

I'm not sure it actually is static. They are selling less stuff. Now, for many businesses, mine included, selling less stuff for the same profit is actually desirable, less work for the same money in terms of input v output.

However, there are reasons why I think this outlook would not apply to GW.

Firstly, my business does not rely on a social component, which GW does. Less product sold inherently means less people consuming. This is not a good idea when you sell a product that, by design, requires more consumers to be useful.

Secondly, and this for me is the really important point, they have sold less stuff for the same profit, but this is during an accounting period where they have actually produced more product (in terms of SKU if not volume) than ever before.

There is an inherent instability in all product that relies on social interaction, and that is the ability to easily find those social interactions, and my concern, if I were running GW, was hitting the cliff of losing too many players to keep it viable for the rest of the consumers way before the financials themselves have an effect. Because at that point, sales will go into freefall, and with little warning. Are they there yet? Nowhere near, but they really need to address the loss of consumers, it should have been their number one priority for the last 5 years or more in reality.

Yes, I agree. Sales volume down with a small uptick in profits is desirable in several metrics; however, it takes a very astute company with a market advantage to prevent that slide from going too far. There is a quantifiable point beyond which sales volume drops to the point where the product is no longer relevant and it no longer matters how high the company ratchets prices to compensate, so few people are interested in the product that the customer pool has dropped below sustainable levels. I'll just say that I don't believe this is intentional; no sane company commits a lingering suicidal death by a thousand cuts, not when there's hungry, younger sharks circling.

Let's play devils' advocate and assume that GW is somehow engineering this "orderly retreat" from the market; they've damaged their sales relationship with stockists to the point where they are losing market presence to new custom. To counter this, I think they may have realized that moving to one-man operations and placing stores in out-of-the-way places has been detrimental to their retail arm being self-sufficient; Rountree's statements seem to indicate this with the "new concept" of what they used to do. So, what do they do? Try to repair their relationship with independents or double down on the same losing strategy? CEO and Chairman statements expressed a pride in their strongly controlled sales terms. It doesn't bode well; you can't say that you're going to expand while bragging about the damaging sales terms that resulted in people dropping your product line. Do they actually think that they'll convince toy stores and comic shops to carry their product, places that don't necessarily need their product to survive or have traditionally carried them, while being so restrictive? Laughable.

Time will tell but with my prognostication hat on, I see this trend continuing; slow slide downwards in sales volume and profitability. The problem here is that they need new blood. The create AoS to draw in the new blood but then create a pricing structure that has prevented people from interfacing with their brand in the past, barrier for entry is too high. The thing with mini-wargaming is that a starter box is just that, it's to start with; you're either adding to it to keep the game interesting and refresh replayability or you lose interest. If the price for new product is too high, you inhibit growth in sales.

Rountree seems to have an inkling of what needs to be done, let's see if the Board of Directors lets him do it because at the end of the day, words are just words without appropriate action. If we see the same thing next year as we've seen this year, that tells me that they are going to continue their slide into mediocrity.

Wait, did somebody really say that food and fuel are as much a competitor to Warhammer as Magic is?

Dude, quit smoking the pot. It's turned your brain to mush. If you can't figure out the difference between entertainment costs and cost of living, then you should probably move back into your parents' basement. Otherwise you'll likely be dead within a month from not knowing which "entertainment" costs will be the most important for you. Good grief.

Comparing Warhammer and Magic is like comparing apples and oranges. They taste different. They have different costs (usually depending on season). Different colors. But they're also both fruit and land in the same spot on the food pyramid (this used to be a thing, for you kids who are too young to know anything other than "carbs are the devil"). They have their differences, but they're still in the same bloody category. So quit being obtuse.

 Talys wrote:


To me, it seems that GW is choosing to please its best customers at the expense of it's least spenders, and charging the best customers for it.

For example: 'superfans' are very happy with rapid book releases, and updated kits make them all excited. But more casual customers want their product to last, and would rather pay less than get a kit refresh.

So GW makes the superfan happy by pumping out the new books and the refreshed kits, but they know there will be some people who won't bite. So what to do? Make those that Really wanted the new stuff pay more - in fact, get them to make up the difference in lost sales, because after all, they are the ones that want it.

Will this implode at some point?

If there aren't enough superfans, or if it gets too expensive for them, sure it can.

Actually, my main point there, which is why I said it was the most important, was that they decreased volume whilst increasing, quite significantly, the amount of product they produce (again, in terms of SKU, I do not think overall volume is up). For any production management this should be a huge red flag, because in terms of sales funnel, they are as a business becoming more inefficient. I assume this is why they are talking about rebalancing the product line, which is a sensible suggestion. However, it would have been more sensible had they not just embarked on a drastic increase in the product line, and the associated costs involved, in the very accounting period they are just commenting on.

 Mymearan wrote:
Anything that competes for the same time and money is a competitor to GW. Magic is a competitor to GW. Video games as well. Anything that competes for free time.

Gaming money comes from discretionary income - that money that you can afford to spend on things that you enjoy, but do not need.

Food, housing, petrol... these are the things that get paid for before any discretionary income.

Eating at a restaurant could be argued to compete with GW - but that box of macaroni and cheese that you ate last night would not.

Video games, certainly, and it competes for time as well - I know that I intend to spend a lot less time playing Kings of War when Fallout 4 comes out.

But moving the competition to just what you see in a game store is a more precise gauge - these are things competing for your money on the spot.

Magic is weird - the individual parts can be bought in addition to anything else - folks buy a $50 Pathfinder book and a couple of booster packs for Magic.

Magic fits very nicely in the impulse buy category.

Miniatures used to be the same way - I could buy a Ral Partha mini for a dollar when I first started fantasy gaming.

GW used to pack their minis two to a blister, to attract the impulse buy crowd.

So, money gets split all kinds of ways, even inside of the discretionary amount.

The Auld Grump

Competitive magic with any sort of constructed deck cannot be done on a budget unless you have very understanding friends who will loan you their best cards when you need them. Even playing draft on a regular basis can get expensive. Those people who buy one or two booster packs and play with a mixed deck are equiv. to those who play 40k with 'nids, SM, Necrons all in the same army because thats all they have and they need 1250 points to play.

For most adults in full time emploment time is the bigger limiting factor rather than money, after that its what your local group is into.

 Looky Likey wrote:
Competitive magic with any sort of constructed deck cannot be done on a budget unless you have very understanding friends who will loan you their best cards when you need them. Even playing draft on a regular basis can get expensive. Those people who buy one or two booster packs and play with a mixed deck are equiv. to those who play 40k with 'nids, SM, Necrons all in the same army because thats all they have and they need 1250 points to play.

For most adults in full time emploment time is the bigger limiting factor rather than money, after that its what your local group is into.

You're assuming that everyone, or even a majority, of people who play Magic do so at a competitive level on the same token, we can assume that all people who play 40K are competitive players. Since we patently know this to be untrue, the same will hold true for Magic and every other game in the industry.

Draft tournaments run about $25 and even weekly this is still within an impulse buy range for most people (assuming that they want to do this every week). Now go out and find a complete GW game for the same price; something that someone can plunk down $25 and have an evening's entertainment with a group of people. Sure, I can buy a box of miniatures for around $25 but that, in and of itself, isn't going to allow me to play a game for several hours with friends.

PLEASE restrict commentary to the discussion at hand, and not the particular users in this thread and/or their ability or qualifications to discuss things on...a discussion forum.

Thanks!

 Looky Likey wrote:
Competitive magic with any sort of constructed deck cannot be done on a budget unless you have very understanding friends who will loan you their best cards when you need them. Even playing draft on a regular basis can get expensive. Those people who buy one or two booster packs and play with a mixed deck are equiv. to those who play 40k with 'nids, SM, Necrons all in the same army because thats all they have and they need 1250 points to play.

For most adults in full time emploment time is the bigger limiting factor rather than money, after that its what your local group is into.

The non-competitive Magic players are also the overwhelming majority.

So, not a good argument - Magic sells more to those non-competitive players than GW does to all of their players put together.

And, gee, when did they start selling GW miniatures randomly? I kind of missed that.... Because I do not see a whole lot of nid-necron-marine armies....

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* On topic....

Reading the report, it seems that GW is still treading water, but is moving faster to do so.

Growth seems to be limited, with the webstore becoming a moneymaker instead of a money sink. (Still not worth 4 Million.)

Starting off the fiscal year with dividends that exceed earnings... what? Why?

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Growth seems to be limited, with the webstore becoming a moneymaker instead of a money sink. (Still not worth 4 Million.)

Starting off the fiscal year with dividends that exceed earnings... what? Why?

The Auld Grump

I am not a lawyer ( ), I thought the webstore was only 1.0 million, and the restructuring was 3.5?