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.

 jah-joshua wrote:
.

@Agnosto: thanks for taking the time to port those quotes over...
my point is that nowhere in there does it say, "we make models not games", or "we are a models company first" (and thus don't care about the game)...
that is an inference made by the community...

yes, i had read all of those things before, especially the last one...
nowhere does it say that the customers who collect those miniatures do not play war games with them...


cheers
jah

I agree to an extent but those are statements made by the people steering the company. If nothing else, it explains why the rules and models don't always align or are utter crap in some instances.

Irregardless, if they cared as much about the games as they do about the miniatures, one would think they would at least mention it in their strategic plan instead of focusing almost completely on the miniatures. Another telling point is that the margin for selling rulebooks should be much higher than models sales as paper and printing is dirt cheap compared to creating molds, 3d modelling etc; they need just pay for a writer and they have those on staff so....

does anyone honestly think that GW will stop producing rules???
i don't think that they are that stupid...
i get that it's just a thought exercise, but the discussion still gets heated, when this is all just a "what if"...
welcome to the internet???

@Selym: yet it becomes a divisive issue...
me simply stating that i am not a gamer was interpreted as me being dismissive of gamers...
that kind of thing is what i am trying to clear up...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

@Selym: yet it becomes a divisive issue...
me simply stating that i am not a gamer was interpreted as me being dismissive of gamers...
that kind of thing is what i am trying to clear up...

cheers
jah

You do know that we can see who posted by looking to the left of the post, right?

I don't see how making a distinction between who would stay with GW or not as a divisive issue. Its central to GW's survivability. We can't not make a distinction.

 jah-joshua wrote:

@Agnosto: thanks for taking the time to port those quotes over...
my point is that nowhere in there does it say, "we make models not games", or "we are a models company first" (and thus don't care about the game)...
that is an inference made by the community...

yes, i had read all of those things before, especially the last one...
nowhere does it say that the customers who collect those miniatures do not play war games with them...

This is my favourite source of the "we make toy soldiers not games":

Tom Kirby 2006 wrote:I have written in the past about the basics of the Games Workshop business model and mentioned in passing that it is predicated upon the desire to own (lots of) miniatures. I shouldn’t just mention it in passing because feeding this desire is the fundamental thing that we do. What causes these characteristics in people I don’t know, but I do know that out there in the world is the gene that makes certain people (usually male) want to own hundreds of miniatures. We simply fill that need – it’s not new (we didn’t create it). What we do is make wonderful miniatures in a timeless and culturally independent way and sell them at a profit. Everything else we make and do is geared around that end. The games and stories provide the context for the miniatures, our stores are recruitment centres that simply give an opportunity to innate miniatures lovers to know themselves. Alan Merrett* and I were sitting ruminating about this basic truth last week. I was reflecting on how it was sometimes hard for potential owners to understand the basics of the business and why it was so long-term and resilient. He reminded me how many of the people who work here forget it. There is so much stuff going on: so many army lists, so many designs, so many kits, so many campaigns, so many events, so many new stores, so many independent stockists, so many management issues that even the people who work here can forget from time to time that all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers, at a profit, to people who are truly grateful.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jah-joshua wrote:
does anyone honestly think that GW will stop producing rules???
i don't think that they are that stupid...
i get that it's just a thought exercise, but the discussion still gets heated, when this is all just a "what if"...
welcome to the internet???

Interesting question, and the short answer would be no i think. But does producing rules to the level of AoS still count as producing rules? Need to see what happens with 40k i guess.

@Agnosto: as i pointed out on the last page, a company can expect to sell WAY more minis than books, thus the lifeblood of a miniature wargaming company is going to be miniature sales...
you may only need two books to play, but you need a lot of minis...
would you not agree???

 Selym wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

@Selym: yet it becomes a divisive issue...
me simply stating that i am not a gamer was interpreted as me being dismissive of gamers...
that kind of thing is what i am trying to clear up...

cheers
jah

You do know that we can see who posted by looking to the left of the post, right?

I don't see how making a distinction between who would stay with GW or not as a divisive issue. Its central to GW's survivability. We can't not make a distinction.

it is a divisive issue, because some people pass judgement on a person stating their perspective, seeing it as an attack on those who see things differently...
i guess that has more to do with the internet not providing the tone of a post very well...

as for the other bit, sorry, but i don't understand what you are trying to say about looking to the left...
are you saying i shouldn't sign off on my post???
i've noticed a few people call me on that, but i don't understand why it annoys people...
i just find it to be a polite way to end a post...
on that note...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

it is a divisive issue, because some people pass judgement on a person stating their perspective as an attack on those who see things differently...
i guess that has more to do with the internet not providing the tone of a post very well...

If we based everything we say around making sure nobody on the internet would pass judgement on it, we'd never post anything. The internet will judge you, and judge you harshly, no matter what.

 jah-joshua wrote:

as for the other bit, sorry, but i don't understand what you are trying to say about looking to the left...
are you saying i shouldn't sign off on my post???
i've noticed a few people call me on that, but i don't understand why it annoys people...
i just find it to be a polite way to end a post...
on that note...

cheers
jah

In old forums (and still on the 4chan forums) there used to be no marker for who posted what, so everyone would put their name on their post so that a conversation could be identified. Its a bit of a relic now, and sometimes looks odd or forced. On the left of your post is your name and avatar, identifying that it was you who posted. The sign off was made redundant when this sort of feature was introduced to forums.

Just to clear something up, Jah. You started out on the wrong foot when you said you'd rather spend time with girls than game. It came off as condescending and rude. I don't think you meant it that way but its kind of tinted others' perception of your arguments. That's the origins of the decisiveness of gamer vs collector in this discussion.

@Selym: i guess I'm a relic of a bygone age...


@Torga: again, nowhere in your quote does it say, "we make toy soldiers not games"...
that is the interpretation of the community, yet is always presented in quotes, as if those are the direct words from Kirby's mouth...

notice the use of words like army lists, campaigns, and events, all of which infer gaming taking place...

personally, i see AoS as Jervis Johnson, Jeremy Vetock, and Phil Kelly's prefered method of playing...
the rules do function, it just happens to go against the predominant view of how the community wants their games to be structured...
AoS fits with the articles that Jervis and Jeremy have written for years, and is close to Phil's design philosophy for Dreadfleet, with less customization and more random as a design philosophy...
where they miss a beat is in foisting their ideas on the community, rather than going with the community's expectations and desires...

is that bad business???
not necessarily, but with GW's overhead, i would say it is way too risky...
is it going to maximize profit???
hell no!!!

there are no end of problems with GW's management, but i really don't think that the focus on minis is the most egregious...
rules can always change...
as i said earlier, what do you think the focus of Corvus Belli is, minis or rules???
what do you think they sell more of???

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

@Torga: again, nowhere in your quote does it say, "we make toy soldiers not games"...
that is the interpretation of the community, yet is always presented in quotes, as if those are the direct words from Kirby's mouth...

Its a paraphrase. Its what they meant to say, but without having to write up a whole paragraph of quote.

Tom Kirby 2006 wrote:I have written in the past about the basics of the Games Workshop business model and mentioned in passing that it is predicated upon the desire to own (lots of) miniatures. I shouldn’t just mention it in passing because feeding this desire is the fundamental thing that we do. What causes these characteristics in people I don’t know, but I do know that out there in the world is the gene that makes certain people (usually male) want to own hundreds of miniatures. We simply fill that need – it’s not new (we didn’t create it). What we do is make wonderful miniatures in a timeless and culturally independent way and sell them at a profit. Everything else we make and do is geared around that end. The games and stories provide the context for the miniatures, our stores are recruitment centres that simply give an opportunity to innate miniatures lovers to know themselves. Alan Merrett* and I were sitting ruminating about this basic truth last week. I was reflecting on how it was sometimes hard for potential owners to understand the basics of the business and why it was so long-term and resilient. He reminded me how many of the people who work here forget it. There is so much stuff going on: so many army lists, so many designs, so many kits, so many campaigns, so many events, so many new stores, so many independent stockists, so many management issues that even the people who work here can forget from time to time that all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers, at a profit, to people who are truly grateful.

Kirby outright dismisses the gaming aspect, thinking that it has nothing to do with miniatures sales. He doesn't understand why we buy the minis.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Just to clear something up, Jah. You started out on the wrong foot when you said you'd rather spend time with girls than game. It came off as condescending and rude. I don't think you meant it that way but its kind of tinted others' perception of your arguments. That's the origins of the decisiveness of gamer vs collector in this discussion.

here is what i actually said:

"i only collect the minis, because gaming doesn't attract me as a way to spend my time...
i would rather paint, chase girls, and surf..."

notice that painting and surfing take equal priority (and honestly more, to the dismay of my girlriends) to chasing girls...
how is that condescending and rude???
i never directed that at anyone, but simply stated my priorities...
i am genuinely curious as to why that would be read as an attack on gamers...

cheers
jah


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Selym: i disagree...
i feel that it is an inference made by the community...
nowhere does he "outright dismiss the gaming aspect"...
that is your interpretation...
as i said, army lists, campaigns, and events all implies gaming taking place...
you may not agree with me, but that doesn't change the fact that this whole beef is about different interpretations of Kirby's words...

cheers
jah

jah-joshua wrote:@Selym: i guess I'm a relic of a bygone age...


@Torga: again, nowhere in your quote does it say, "we make toy soldiers not games"...
that is the interpretation of the community, yet is always presented in quotes, as if those are the direct words from Kirby's mouth...

notice the use of words like army lists, campaigns, and events, all of which infer gaming taking place...

The use of words like army lists, campaigns, etc are all dismissed within the quote, as: even the people who work here can forget from time to time that all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers, at a profit, to people who are truly grateful. Emphasis on toy soldiers, not games.

Selym wrote:

Kirby outright dismisses the gaming aspect, thinking that it has nothing to do with miniatures sales. He doesn't understand why we buy the minis.

It certainly looks that way.

I think that Games Workshop as a company is treading on thin ice.

I was at a FLGS that I hadn't been to in a while and picked up a few paints. They have a new staffer who is very supportive of GW and is actively trying to build a community. The local gamers are enthusiastic about the hobby and have nicely painted models! This is good news for the hobby! On the flip side, he also said that product generally ISN'T MOVING. Especially the big expensive ones. Even flavor du-jour models like the one Imperial Knight they stocked is decorating the shelf unbought!

If the large centerpiece models don't sell despite having strong game presence, I think it will be even more difficult to sell these to the casual nerd passer-by.

@Jah/Talys: I get where you are coming from that sufficient obsession is able to overcome even the hugest sticker shock. After wanting one all my childhood, I finally bought one of those die-cast Macross Valk toys and the optional super parts. Still... there are limits to obsession... The thing was an exercise in wallet destruction, and I can't fathom how real collectors buy squadrons of them. Can't justify buying more as I don't actually play with it, as the one I got has noted durability issues, so it just sits there collecting dust in my case.

@Torga: like i said, i think that the focus of every miniature wargaming company is selling miniatures first, and the war game second...
of course, since the miniatures are the most important thing to me, it makes sense that i would not have a problem with that attitude...

i still fail to see why people choose to interpret a focus on minis as a dismissal of gaming, but that's just me...
if you don't like the direction that the rules have taken, then it is very easy to get upset about the company's priorities...
i choose to enjoy the products, and not worry about the marketing speak, but like i said, the existence of the rules is still important to my business, so i hope GW's management pulls their head out soon, and starts to rebuild some of those burnt bridges...

cheers
jah



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@keezus: i hear you, man...
i just don't think the "bad" rules are the sole issue driving people away from GW...
i think the price rises and the IP bullying have way more to do with it...
if the company was seen as more customer friendly, and had lower prices, they would move much more product...
simple as...

cheers
jah

Peregrine wrote:So, the question is whether or not a company with significantly higher prices than other brands, poor detail and kit quality, and limited mainstream appeal can survive purely on the quality of its models without any rules to support them? And we're asking this when the company in question is struggling to succeed even with rules to drive its sales? Of course the answer is "no". How did we manage to have three pages worth of discussion on this subject?

It's a hypothetical. I notice a lot of people were truly upset with GW about the paper-thin AoS rules, as if GW's only duty was to write rules and then sell models to accompany that process, not the other way around - which seems to be GW's stance. I was curious if GW kept the fictional world (so you knew what these crazy models represented), but dumped the rules completely, how would people react to that? It's not about "would GW go under", it's more "how would you react to that? Would you still buy their stuff (, possibly to use in another game or just collect, doesn't really matter).

Kilkrazy wrote:This thread actually ought to be related to the painted/not painted argument.

Presumably all the people who prefer to play with unpainted figures would be players first, modellers second.

Most likely, though in my case the gray hordes are because I haven't gotten to painting the orcs yet because I want to know what their stuff does before I finalize things, and I'm clearly more collector (not necessarily painter) than player .

jah-joshua wrote:@Torga: like i said, i think that the focus of every miniature wargaming company is selling miniatures first, and the war game second...

Well it seems to me that the miniatures are an offshoot of the game. They're both important, but without the game the miniatures would be far less important (and sellable). It also seems to me that gw aren't placing the 'game' second, it's coming much lower on the list of priorities. Which is problematic if you accept my contention that the game is what drives sales.

jah-joshua wrote:of course, since the miniatures are the most important thing to me, it makes sense that i would not have a problem with that attitude...

Its horses for courses i guess, everyone has their own interests. To try and give my perspective, i used to be interested in the game and have since moved into interest in the company. I get a small release every year (half year results) and a big release every year (eofy results). Both of which are free. It's cheaper (free), more reliable updates than what the game itself provides, and is just as if not more-so entertaining.

jah-joshua wrote:i still fail to see why people choose to interpret a focus on minis as a dismissal of gaming, but that's just me...
if you don't like the direction that the rules have taken, then it is very easy to get upset about the company's priorities...
i choose to enjoy the products, and not worry about the marketing speak, but like i said, the existence of the rules is still important to my business, so i hope GW's management pulls their head out soon, and starts to rebuild some of those burnt bridges...

That's the million pound question. Why does management go out of their way to divide and alienate the customer base? Claiming figures like 20% of their customers are gamers and the rest collectors when they also go on record as doing no market research? My personal opinion is that it's a combination of apathy and greed at the top (not incompetence), but it really is a good question imo. Why?

jah-joshua wrote:@keezus: i hear you, man...
i just don't think the "bad" rules are the sole issue driving people away from GW...
i think the price rises and the IP bullying have way more to do with it...
if the company was seen as more customer friendly, and had lower prices, they would move much more product...
simple as...

Speaking for myself, while i think the prices are bat-gak crazy, i would still be willing to pay high prices if the game was good. I *want* to go back to the game. But as someone who has an addictive personality, even i can't bring myself to do it. Something is truely wrong here.

Stormonu wrote:It's a hypothetical. I notice a lot of people were truly upset with GW about the paper-thin AoS rules, as if GW's only duty was to write rules and then sell models to accompany that process, not the other way around - which seems to be GW's stance. I was curious if GW kept the fictional world (so you knew what these crazy models represented), but dumped the rules completely, how would people react to that? It's not about "would GW go under", it's more "how would you react to that? Would you still buy their stuff (, possibly to use in another game or just collect, doesn't really matter).

It is an interesting question, and my answer is no: i would not still buy their stuff. I don't buy it as it is now, i certainly wouldn't buy it if it got 'worse' (in my view).

Stormonu wrote:Most likely, though in my case the gray hordes are because I haven't gotten to painting the orcs yet because I want to know what their stuff does before I finalize things, and I'm clearly more collector (not necessarily painter) than player .

And therein lies the problem (in my opinion). I want to know what their stuff does before i finalize things. And their 'stuff' will change in a couple years or so, invalidating what i have now. Assuming their 'stuff' as it stands now is even remotely competitive in the context of the game, which it very well might not be.

edit: typos

Example: New Tau codex is coming soon, only about two years after the previous one. In the interim there have also been various formations.

If you want to play the game, you have to resign yourself to running up the down escalator.

That wasn't so bad when a codex cost £12 and you bought one every four or five years. It's a very different matter when they cost £30 and have to renew them every two years or so.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Example: New Tau codex is coming soon, only about two years after the previous one. In the interim there have also been various formations.

If you want to play the game, you have to resign yourself to running up the down escalator.

That wasn't so bad when a codex cost £12 and you bought one every four or five years. It's a very different matter when they cost £30 and have to renew them every two years or so.

Well, if you discount the rules contained in it, the CSM codex is better value, having been released in October 2012...

Thanks, GW. You couldn't just do a cyclical update? You just *had* to have another Tau codex?

 jah-joshua wrote:

take Infinity for example, for 2nd ed. you had 3 books, but you needed an average of 10 minis...
of course CB is going to be more than happy to see you buy multiple factions...
in the end, you have 3 books, and 30 minis...
which brought the company more profit???
the only difference is, CB has pissed off, and driven away, less customers than GW...
selling minis is still CB's top priority...

Since you dragged CB in it.

CB is a wargames company, they make wargames that is a complex hobby that includes modeling, historical research (fictional or historical) and the game part all in unison, they put as much effort in designing their models as they do in the background and in the rules, no part is left behind because they make money from selling the models and no part is been sacrificed to just sell more models.

Now that this is out, the thread is about GW making what they say to their investors models first or models only and if they could survive on the premise of models alone, in the opinion of most of us, however biased we may be, they are not in par with model companies and surviving as a models only company is impossible to them, how this should be taken into account by them and how much they should have changed their bad rules side of the hobby into been more in par with the models side is debatable, but puts some food for thought.

GW is almost like the "skip legs day" joke unfortunately.

To add to that, they also take a very different approach to GW with using rules to sell models.

GW will throw buffs on new units to sell new kits, in order to pay for the development costs of the unit. This is very transparent when new units are the hotness, often surpassing even similar units in raw power and/or survivability.

CB passes all units through a formula based on their stats, equipment, skills, weapons and faction (factions have their own strengths and weaknesses that can affect costs), ensuring all units are fairly priced based on what they can do in the faction they are in.

The other difference between the two is that one plays its own game and balances extensively, and one seem to like the 'throw enough mud at the wall until something sticks' approach.

The results are very different. Corvus Belli has seen very steady growth and expansion of their company, while GW's financial reports have shown a multi-year plateau.

Actually, Corvus Belli is a miniatures company. They developed the game in order to sell miniatures. They used to make very nice 15mm historicals, until demand for infinity minis forced a 'suspension' in production. Turns out their game is very, very good at driving sales of minis. It helps that the minis are by and large excellent. And the game is fun and balanced. These things happen when a company listens to its customers.

I believe Wyrd started out as a miniatures company too. Games Workshop started out making cribbage boards or some such. Companies do change.

The answer to the OP is no. I haven't bought anything from Games Workshop in over 10 years. I don't foresee ever buying any of their offerings again.

No and it is obvious, they don't just make models, they make a wargame.

A models company makes only models and survives in model sales alone, CB before Infinity may have only made models, but CB of today is a company that sells games (well a game) and supports it fully in all aspects of it (barring providing actual paints and glue).

Games workshop of the ancient past may indeed made boards and they did change to be an importer of D&D and then changed again to make their own stuff, but, they are not a models only company however they try to diminish the game part in their investor statements.

Games workshop doesn't even have a clue on how to balance their own games, so they might as well just make models in my opinion. Turn the rules over to a group of people that actually understand what the word balance means.

 Vikoon wrote:
Games workshop doesn't even have a clue on how to balance their own games, so they might as well just make models in my opinion. Turn the rules over to a group of people that actually understand what the word balance means.

But GW understands balance perfectly:

 Selym wrote:

Balance

Noun

-A state in wargaming whereby all players receive at least one month of having the best codex per year, regardless of what the other 11 months look like.

Not that they consistently follow up on it.

The thing is that different aspects of wargaming appeal to different people. It would certainly seem sensible to appeal to as many types of customer as possible, be it wargamers, modellers, sculptors etc.

If you're alienating one group by producing a game that's gak, I think it does have a knock-on effect. Less people playing at clubs, less people see the minis, it's a vicious circle.

 -Loki- wrote:
To add to that, they also take a very different approach to GW with using rules to sell models.
GW will throw buffs on new units to sell new kits, in order to pay for the development costs of the unit. This is very transparent when new units are the hotness, often surpassing even similar units in raw power and/or survivability.

CB passes all units through a formula based on their stats, equipment, skills, weapons and faction (factions have their own strengths and weaknesses that can affect costs), ensuring all units are fairly priced based on what they can do in the faction they are in.

The other difference between the two is that one plays its own game and balances extensively, and one seem to like the 'throw enough mud at the wall until something sticks' approach.

The results are very different. Corvus Belli has seen very steady growth and expansion of their company, while GW's financial reports have shown a multi-year plateau.

Think this hits the nail on the head.

What I will say though is in some ways the development staff of CB produce that quality of game, where so much focus is put on game balance and mechanics, because they are allowed to. GW is a massive, publically owned company. It has to produce kits that sell well, just to cover its enormous overheads, and this directive is passed on to the rule developers.

You got the impression from some of the AoS missives released from one of the rules writers that they had their arm tied behind their back in terms of what they could and couldn't do, which is why so many games developers who start with GW eventually move on to other companies.

 Selym wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

it is a divisive issue, because some people pass judgement on a person stating their perspective as an attack on those who see things differently...
i guess that has more to do with the internet not providing the tone of a post very well...

If we based everything we say around making sure nobody on the internet would pass judgement on it, we'd never post anything. The internet will judge you, and judge you harshly, no matter what.

 jah-joshua wrote:

as for the other bit, sorry, but i don't understand what you are trying to say about looking to the left...
are you saying i shouldn't sign off on my post???
i've noticed a few people call me on that, but i don't understand why it annoys people...
i just find it to be a polite way to end a post...
on that note...

cheers
jah

In old forums (and still on the 4chan forums) there used to be no marker for who posted what, so everyone would put their name on their post so that a conversation could be identified. Its a bit of a relic now, and sometimes looks odd or forced. On the left of your post is your name and avatar, identifying that it was you who posted. The sign off was made redundant when this sort of feature was introduced to forums.

Speaking as another that signs off on his posts - it is an old habit, and to me seems more polite.

But, then, I have been posting since the days of FIDO and Usenet.

In my case, it also makes it easier to Google for an old post - 'Auld + [Topic]' is generally enough for Google to rummage around with and find.

The Auld Grump

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Agnosto: as i pointed out on the last page, a company can expect to sell WAY more minis than books, thus the lifeblood of a miniature wargaming company is going to be miniature sales...
you may only need two books to play, but you need a lot of minis...
would you not agree???


cheers
jah

Oh no, I agree but their book prices are so high that they're producing amazing margin for them. I estimate that they're pulling in about 80-90% margin on the books and about 60-70% on the models. Yes, they want to sell the minis but the books are free money, and I think that they know that.

The thing that kills GW's business model is their dependence on their retail chain. I know I sound like a broken record as I always bring this up in these discussion but it's still true. At least in the US, they're not needed and do little good. If you're not able to cover the entire territory, you focus in dense areas and then create opportunities through differentiated trade terms with outlying communities to support growth, you don't apply a UK model and assume it'll work, because it won't; the US and Canada are just too darn big for a one-size-fits-all approach. Obviously the stores are making some money or they wouldn't be around but they're competing against themselves with the focus on webstore exclusive products and cannibalizing their own sales. It's a silly way to do business to me especially when they fire people for not meeting sales goals. They've created great efficiency in their system but there's more out there that they can do AND create goodwill with retailers.

A bit off-topic, sorry.

I agree though that in the scenario where GW would expect to survive solely on miniatures and no game, they'd die a horrible death and I think they know that at a visceral level. They appear to have a vision for how they want their games to be played as evidenced by numerous comments by designers and management which produces a greater focus on the miniatures rather than the games. AoS is this nirvana of their "hobby" and you can see 40K slowly going this way with more and more focus on detachments, I think it's just a matter of time before pts just go away altogether. Not good or bad, just the way I see things moving and I could be wrong.

I've only ever been in this for the hobbying aspect. Rules have never been a huge attraction for me for several reasons. They change too often, I don't have many friends into the gaming (all hobbyists), and tbh I don't have tons of time to sink into games that actually use a lot of my stuff. I build/paint for a couple of hours and then that's it. A whole afternoon to use great lists/armies has never been viable. Small battles here and there work, though.

At this point, it's beginning to reach my limit cost-wise. I'll pump good money into a hobby if it's worth it, but $170.00 for the new Raven Guard box set? 12 Miniatures?

JUST LOL. PASS.

I need Rules, Minis and fluff to all be good. Lack one of those three and it's a no-go.
The Robotech game for example. I friggin' love Robotech and the minis look awesome. But I've heard nothing but bad things about the rules. So, unfortunately, I'll pass.
GW, used to have good fluff, but has become stale and unimaginative. Their rules are the worst that I've personally seen. The models are excellent. One out of three isn't enough for me.
I quit 40k because of the poor rules. That was the one big reason. The rules sucked.

Oh i will buy a lot of GW models when/if GW would throw away the gaming aspect of the HHHobby.
From disgruntled players who will go elsewhere and want to get rid of their stuff

Collectors are not a sustainable market group, i am a collector, who sometimes plays, i buy what i like, not what i need to have an effective army.
I don't need 3 or 4 land raiders, i only need one of each, a gamer buys as many as he needs for his army design.
Yes i have 3 different space marine armies but 80% of it is second hand, when GW was still a gaming company i would buy every new spacemarine stuff that came out (20 years ago )

I dropped out of 40k when 7th hit because the rules were becoming more and more bloated, slow to play and clearly unbalanced. When 7th didn`t fix any of the things that needed to be fixed, and even made things even worse, I cut my losses and dropped out.

I have probably 30k+ pts of WH40k, bought new armies and grew the old ones continously. Since GW dropped the ball with the rules, I have not bought a thing from them. Their miniatures are too specific in style to fit into anything else, so I see no need to buy anything of what they make.

All my friends also dropped out around that time, all of them have many huge armies now stuffed away in attics. None of them buy anything anymore.

The tourney scene in Norway is dying. WFB used to be the largest miniature game here by miles, 8th and AOS has killed that scene.

40k tourneys are also declining rapidly in attendance and numbers.

Other rule sets, especially WM/H, has had a huge upswing because of GW`s terrible rules. The gamers are still there, but they are now buying from other manufacturers.

GW has completely thrown away the huge marked lead they had, I can`t believe they can sustain themselves for many years with their current business model.

TLDR: terrible or no rules = less model sales