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.

Errr, how are they not a model company? The premise of your statement is daft.

They out perform other miniature producers by at least a factor of ten!

There must be something in those models that so many people like...or you are wrong?

 notprop wrote:
Errr, how are they not a model company? The premise of your statement is daft.

They out perform other miniature producers by at least a factor of ten!

There must be something in those models that so many people like...or you are wrong?

Yeah. The game.

They don't out preform other miniature producers, they outperform other wargame producers.
Even then, I think by a factor of 10 is way too generous, not when other companies have been growing rapidly and GW are falling into a death slide. And especially not with x wing on the market.

 notprop wrote:
Errr, how are they not a model company? The premise of your statement is daft.

They out perform other miniature producers by at least a factor of ten!

There must be something in those models that so many people like...or you are wrong?

We're swiftly approaching a day when your hyperbolic statement will no longer be true (but it's not or Bandai doesn't exist). Compared to any one other company, sure, your statement is likely correct but compared to the growth that their numerous competitors see in aggregate and you see that all of the people who are leaving GW are diffusing to the myriad other alternatives out there. GW is a shrinking giant in a world populated with growing dwarves. If they don't pick a direction that works to draw in new blood, they're going to die the death of a thousand cuts eventually. We'll have to see what comes out of the decision to resurrect Specialist Games and whether it will be actually supported and properly marketed. They once were a big name in the industry and didn't have to actually advertise but that's no longer the case; now they're actually going to have to put in some effort if they want to grow.

 notprop wrote:
Errr, how are they not a model company? The premise of your statement is daft.

They out perform other miniature producers by at least a factor of ten!

There must be something in those models that so many people like...or you are wrong?

Miniatures or models?

Two different things in my book.

This is a model company...

http://www.tamiya.com/english/products/archive.htm

This is a miniatures company...

https://www.perry-miniatures.com/index.php?cPath=23&osCsid=2el7e0qmn5hogp5j673fmorn96

agnosto wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Errr, how are they not a model company? The premise of your statement is daft.

They out perform other miniature producers by at least a factor of ten!

There must be something in those models that so many people like...or you are wrong?

We're swiftly approaching a day when your hyperbolic statement will no longer be true (but it's not or Bandai doesn't exist). Compared to any one other company, sure, your statement is likely correct but compared to the growth that their numerous competitors see in aggregate and you see that all of the people who are leaving GW are diffusing to the myriad other alternatives out there. GW is a shrinking giant in a world populated with growing dwarves. If they don't pick a direction that works to draw in new blood, they're going to die the death of a thousand cuts eventually. We'll have to see what comes out of the decision to resurrect Specialist Games and whether it will be actually supported and properly marketed. They once were a big name in the industry and didn't have to actually advertise but that's no longer the case; now they're actually going to have to put in some effort if they want to grow.

Big P wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Errr, how are they not a model company? The premise of your statement is daft.

They out perform other miniature producers by at least a factor of ten!

There must be something in those models that so many people like...or you are wrong?

Miniatures or models?

Two different things in my book.

This is a model company...

http://www.tamiya.com/english/products/archive.htm

This is a miniatures company...

https://www.perry-miniatures.com/index.php?cPath=23&osCsid=2el7e0qmn5hogp5j673fmorn96

No if we are talking serious bidnez then perhaps we should use the more appropriate companies house delination of Toy Manufacturer. Covers all of the above but might upset those that don't think their Toy Soldiers are toys?

 notprop wrote:


No if we are talking serious bidnez then perhaps we should use the more appropriate companies house delination of Toy Manufacturer. Covers all of the above but might upset those that don't think their Toy Soldiers are toys?

lol. True enough. So then what can you compare them to? Warlord, PP, WYRD, BC, Mantic all make miniatures tied to games. Then you have all the various, smaller companies that just make miniatures that can be used with games, DreamForge, etc. Then you have some truly massive companies that make miniatures that can be used with games OR collected; Tamiya, AirFix, etc.

Where do you draw the line? GW identifies themselves as primarily a miniatures company that produces some rules for a couple of games. They're certainly not their own special snowflake that can exist in a vacuum all by themselves, so, if we're to discuss them in comparison to like companies, where do they fit?

Do people really think they aint toy soldiers?

How odd.

Does it matter? There are people who collect (that is to say, buy) toy soldiers.

https://www.wbritain.com

 notprop wrote:
It's right there in the article that the thread hasn't been about for some time; Warhammer was designed to sell Miniatures. Why are knickers being twisted 30+ years later?

Because of how the company presents itself.

GW then: "We are making a game to sell miniatures, but we love what we do, we're putting effort in to it and we hope you like it! Here's a bunch of hobby articles to enhance your experience! We hope you buy some models because it's a really cool game. We've also made a bunch of cool side games for you to try out!"

GW now: "We are making a game to sell miniatures, it's the same game we bought out 2 years ago but with just enough random changes they you have to buy it to keep up to date, there's still more holes than swiss cheese and we didn't even fix some of the rules that were broken before. Oh, and we shuffled the balance around to ensure you'll be buying more stuff to stay competitive. We know it's junk but it should be enough to let you forge the narrative of buying more stuff. To milk it a bit further we released some new stuff that is 5% more expensive for us to make but we'll charge 50% more money for it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Big P wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Errr, how are they not a model company? The premise of your statement is daft.

They out perform other miniature producers by at least a factor of ten!

There must be something in those models that so many people like...or you are wrong?

Miniatures or models?

Two different things in my book.

This is a model company...

http://www.tamiya.com/english/products/archive.htm

This is a miniatures company...

https://www.perry-miniatures.com/index.php?cPath=23&osCsid=2el7e0qmn5hogp5j673fmorn96

I'd say all miniatures are models but not all models are miniatures, though in this context most models are also going to be miniatures.

Miniature: A smaller representation of something larger.

Model: A representation of something else.... often a smaller representation of something larger.

Big P wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Errr, how are they not a model company? The premise of your statement is daft.

They out perform other miniature producers by at least a factor of ten!

There must be something in those models that so many people like...or you are wrong?

Miniatures or models?

Two different things in my book.

This is a model company...

http://www.tamiya.com/english/products/archive.htm

This is a miniatures company...

https://www.perry-miniatures.com/index.php?cPath=23&osCsid=2el7e0qmn5hogp5j673fmorn96

And the Perry miniatures are actually better models than the GW gimcrackery these days.

GW can, and has, and does make some fine miniatures - but then they go and make some godsawful miniatures to make up for it....

So, you have the last incarnation of the Warhammer High Elves - which had some really, really nice miniatures, even in the starter box... and then they add an eagle with a trailer hitch.

What GW doesn't have these days is common sense - and the ability to ask themselves 'Does this miniature look good? At all? Do these rules work? Are they balanced? At all?'

The Auld Grump

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Because of how the company presents itself.

GW then: "We are making a game to sell miniatures, but we love what we do, we're putting effort in to it and we hope you like it! Here's a bunch of hobby articles to enhance your experience! We hope you buy some models because it's a really cool game. We've also made a bunch of cool side games for you to try out!"

GW now: "We are making a game to sell miniatures, it's the same game we bought out 2 years ago but with just enough random changes they you have to buy it to keep up to date, there's still more holes than swiss cheese and we didn't even fix some of the rules that were broken before. Oh, and we shuffled the balance around to ensure you'll be buying more stuff to stay competitive. We know it's junk but it should be enough to let you forge the narrative of buying more stuff. To milk it a bit further we released some new stuff that is 5% more expensive for us to make but we'll charge 50% more money for it."

It's all in how you look at things. Decades a go, there was a fella down the road who made really good chicken, fried it up himself, and everyone thought he was great value. Friendly, awesome guy too. Now, there's one of those restaurants every other block in some cities, and they're in a hundred countries around the world. Most of the fellas working in it are minimum wage workers who are there because they can't get a job anywhere better, and the chicken is crazy expensive. The restaurant just pumps out food now, it's not particularly healthy, and they just care about making their next hundred million dollars. Some people still swear they have the best chicken in the world, and are happy that they can actually get it anywhere in the world, whether they're vacationing in Berlin or Taipei because they like what they like; other people say it's garbage, and they're looking for the next fella who is frying up good chicken down the road who's just a cool guy looking to earn an honest buck, and who wants go all the way to Berlin or Taipei and eat the same food anyways?

See, it's all perspective. Depending on how you look at it, GW's at the best point it's ever been, or the worst, depending on whether you think $30-$200 model kits are ridiculously expensive or not, how much you value ease of availability, and how much you like GW's current aesthetic, materials and product focus. It's also easier to love them outside of Australia/New Zealand, since the prices are doubled up there. Also, as I've mentioned before, GW has changed their focus to pleasing one crowd while not giving a hoot about the rest, so it's much easier to love them if you belong to that crowd.

At the end of the day, though, notprop is right: GW has always been a model company that's written some games around their miniatures. Sure, they've dabbled in other things, but at the end of the day, the one constant about Citadel and GW is the miniatures. And Space Marines. Never in the existence of that game has it been particularly balanced (nor, has the game ever been cheap, at least, it's never felt cheap to me, even in 1990). What bugs some people is that Privateer Press goes out of its way to try to make a balanced game, one that appeals to the skirmish size, pickups, and tournaments, and they want GW to do the same, because this is the type of game and environment that they seek, not an experience that looks like a diorama and that costs six months wages. But GW isn't that company and won't be that company, so why not just call it a day, and be happy with the alternatives that are a better fit? Love GW because you love their models and their vision of a game, which is quite silly, but for some people, eminently fun -- or don't.

At the end of the day, though, notprop is right: GW has always been a model company that's written some games around their miniatures. Sure, they've dabbled in other things, but at the end of the day, the one constant about Citadel and GW is the miniatures

Not true. As I understand it, this was a result of the Citadel-Gamesworkshop merger, when Citadel (Miniatures) took over Gamesworkshop (Games). And IIRC Rick Priestley remarked on that.

Before Citadel took over, Gamesworkshop really was all about the games.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

At the end of the day, though, notprop is right: GW has always been a model company that's written some games around their miniatures. Sure, they've dabbled in other things, but at the end of the day, the one constant about Citadel and GW is the miniatures

Not true. As I understand it, this was a result of the Citadel-Gamesworkshop merger, when Citadel (Miniatures) took over Gamesworkshop (Games). And IIRC Rick Priestley remarked on that.

Before Citadel took over, Gamesworkshop really was all about the games.

They actually made wooden boards for games, like backgammon when they started out. At that time, they actually did not write any... games. They also wrote and sold D&D stuff (a little later on), which is how I got introduced to the company. Also, GW founded (not merged with) Citadel miniatures only 4 years after they opened shop.

Founded in 1975 at 15 Bolingbroke Road, London by John Peake, Ian Livingstone, and Steve Jackson (not to be confused with U.S. game designer Steve Jackson), Games Workshop was originally a manufacturer of wooden boards for games such as backgammon, mancala, Nine Men's Morris, and Go.[5] It later became an importer of the U.S. role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons and then a publisher of wargames and role-playing games in its own right, expanding from a bedroom mail-order company in the process.
...
In early 1979, Games Workshop provided the funding to found Citadel Miniatures in Newark-on-Trent. Citadel would produce the metal miniatures used in its role-playing games and tabletop wargames. The "Citadel" name became synonymous with Games Workshop Miniatures, and continues to be a trademarked brand name used in association with them long after the Citadel company was absorbed into Games Workshop.[8][9] For a time, Gary Gygax promoted the idea of TSR, Inc. merging with Games Workshop, until Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone backed out.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_Workshop

No people are asking for gw to make balance rules that can be used for small skirmish competitive games or four large narrative story driven campaigns they are not mutually exclusive you can have both. The problem is that gw ignores one aspect of the game, and doesn't even do the other aspect right.

Nobody is asking for them to become Privateer Press, people are asking to have a well written game that can appeal to competitive players and narrative players instead of ignoring one and failing miserably to do the other

On mobile so grammar errors etc.

Talys wrote:See, it's all perspective. Depending on how you look at it, GW's at the best point it's ever been, or the worst, depending on whether you think $30-$200 model kits are ridiculously expensive or not, how much you value ease of availability, and how much you like GW's current aesthetic, materials and product focus. It's also easier to love them outside of Australia/New Zealand, since the prices are doubled up there. Also, as I've mentioned before, GW has changed their focus to pleasing one crowd while not giving a hoot about the rest, so it's much easier to love them if you belong to that crowd.

Not really, I'm not a competitive gamer, never really have been, outside of a few years in my 20s and CCGs. But I recognise that just because something doesn't directly affect me, I'm part of a community and what harms one harms us all.

But, like HBMC always says, if your attitude is little better than "got mine" then yes, it likely is much easier to love them.

Oh, and it isn't all a matter of perspective, there's a certain objective measure of how GW are doing, and in a few weeks it's going to make interesting reading.

 Azreal13 wrote:
But, like HBMC always says, if your attitude is little better than "got mine" then yes, it likely is much easier to love them.

Well, it actually doesn't matter to me very much if other people aren't having fun with the current iteration of the game, if that's what you're trying to say. If there are games that they have fun with more, and they should play those. If there aren't, they should do something else. I don't think that GW needs to be a perfect fit for every hobbyist.

It does matter to me that they're a good fit for me. If they're not, I'll go spend my time and money somewhere else; I won't try to change the company. So instead, I just enjoy the things I like, and ignore things I don't.

I am powerless to make the wargaming world a better place, either for me or for anyone else. I live in and participate in a microscopic way in this world and in this hobby; I shape neither.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Oh, and it isn't all a matter of perspective, there's a certain objective measure of how GW are doing, and in a few weeks it's going to make interesting reading.

I was saying that it's a matter of perspective whether you like GW's products (and price points). I wasn't talking about the health of the company.

Again, it actually doesn't matter to me very much if GW makes a ten million or loses ten million. It's interesting, and fun to read, for sure, and since I like the company and its products, I hope they do well. But it has no impact on me in any meaningful sense -- to put it in perspective, it means way more to me if my next door neighbor gets a promotion than if GW has a banner year, or if they lose their job, than if GW goes out of business.

What's the best thing that could happen if GW had explosive growth? There would be more kits, probably of the sort I like, yay! What's the worst thing that could happen if GW imploded? They'd go out of business, and I'd find something else to amuse me, either with miniatures or something else. It's not like the end of the world.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Talys wrote:See, it's all perspective. Depending on how you look at it, GW's at the best point it's ever been, or the worst, depending on whether you think $30-$200 model kits are ridiculously expensive or not, how much you value ease of availability, and how much you like GW's current aesthetic, materials and product focus. It's also easier to love them outside of Australia/New Zealand, since the prices are doubled up there. Also, as I've mentioned before, GW has changed their focus to pleasing one crowd while not giving a hoot about the rest, so it's much easier to love them if you belong to that crowd.

Not really, I'm not a competitive gamer, never really have been, outside of a few years in my 20s and CCGs. But I recognise that just because something doesn't directly affect me, I'm part of a community and what harms one harms us all.

But, like HBMC always says, if your attitude is little better than "got mine" then yes, it likely is much easier to love them.

Oh, and it isn't all a matter of perspective, there's a certain objective measure of how GW are doing, and in a few weeks it's going to make interesting reading.

QFT. And I'm not at all convinced that GW is attempting to just please one crowd; they appear to think that their customers are primarily comprised of collectors but that supposition is derived from their distaste for getting to know their customers (i.e. market research). Some time back there was a thread about an article that an investor who attended a meeting at GW HQ wrote in which he discussed off-hand comments made by upper management about their customers. I can't recall the exact percentage but they do seem to assume that only a minority of their customers care about the games.

As for the upcoming mid-year. I fully expect it to show a marked drop in sales due to AoS. This doesn't necessarily mean that AoS is failing just that they're witnessing an implementation dip due to the reboot. I'll admit that I'm pessimistic about AoS' future but a decline is expected on this report; if you don't see some improvement between this year and the next, a smart investor would reconsider their future with the company.

 Talys wrote:
At the end of the day, though, notprop is right: GW has always been a model company that's written some games around their miniatures.

But there approach and attitude has changed. That's what this whole damned article we are discussing is talking about

Of course the game was always designed to sell models, that doesn't mean the game has to suck or that the writers don't put effort in.... except it sure feels like that now.

I would say its more interesting as to what GW says about themselves, in recent years they insist they make models for collectors and try to pass them as works of art, I would say that's delusional, but I am sure it has more to do with the realizations and revelations they had from the Chapterhouse trial and how little protection they have if they accept they sell toy soldiers (as it was in fact written in their mail order boxes back then).

The problem with their statement is they are a company that makes games that sell toy soldiers and not a company that sells (scale) models of a fictional universe.

I firmly believe that GW models do not stand on their own especially against competition from proper scale model companies, their models are designed for gaming and it shows from their heroic proportions (who are never illustrated, all artwork is in proper scale and anatomy) to the decisions on how the kits are constructed (multiposed) and what they will include.

They need the games to make people collect them especially in the quantities GW needs to survive.

So yes they, are not a models company that happens to make rules to play with their models, they are a games company that makes rules to play with their toy soldiers.

 agnosto wrote:

As for the upcoming mid-year. I fully expect it to show a marked drop in sales due to AoS. This doesn't necessarily mean that AoS is failing just that they're witnessing an implementation dip due to the reboot. I'll admit that I'm pessimistic about AoS' future but a decline is expected on this report; if you don't see some improvement between this year and the next, a smart investor would reconsider their future with the company.

It would be stunning beyond stunning if sales didn't drop after 3 months (half of the period) was exclusively Age of Sigmar. Even if sales only dropped a little bit, GW should be thrilled to bits. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet like a GBP 5-10m loss.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Talys wrote:
At the end of the day, though, notprop is right: GW has always been a model company that's written some games around their miniatures.

But there approach and attitude has changed. That's what this whole damned article we are discussing is talking about

Of course the game was always designed to sell models, that doesn't mean the game has to suck or that the writers don't put effort in.... except it sure feels like that now.

This is what I mean, though: yes, the company has changed (as all companies do in decades...), and the focus, from a modelling perspective, has certainly changed. That said, to a lot of people who play 40k, the game is a lot of fun and models are great. Not everyone thinks that it sucks, which is what I meant when I said that it's a matter of perspective. Otherwise, it wouldn't sell many times more product just in Australia at its inflated prices than Mantic does in the entire world. Like, some of the people spending millions of dollars there must surely like the game as it is.

Who cares if it's a games company that makes models to go into its games, or a model company that published games into which to put its models. Maybe it's both.

The point is whether the business needs both tracks to be successful, and how well it is doing at that.

Im far from a competitive player and I still think GW'S rules are lazy and dont do a good job of what they're supposed to do.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Who cares if it's a games company that makes models to go into its games, or a model company that published games into which to put its models. Maybe it's both.

The point is whether the business needs both tracks to be successful, and how well it is doing at that.

I agree. The core questions should be:

1) Could GW make more money if the business wrote games that appealed more to the competitive and pickup crowd? Or would they actually make less money?

2) Would the entire hobby community (not just the vocal online pro-gaming component) grow and make the hobby be a more profitable one with more participants if they did?

3) If GW 2015 were more like GW 1990, what would the hobby and competitive landscapes look like?

 Talys wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

As for the upcoming mid-year. I fully expect it to show a marked drop in sales due to AoS. This doesn't necessarily mean that AoS is failing just that they're witnessing an implementation dip due to the reboot. I'll admit that I'm pessimistic about AoS' future but a decline is expected on this report; if you don't see some improvement between this year and the next, a smart investor would reconsider their future with the company.

It would be stunning beyond stunning if sales didn't drop after 3 months (half of the period) was exclusively Age of Sigmar. Even if sales only dropped a little bit, GW should be thrilled to bits. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet like a GBP 5-10m loss.

Closer to the 10 than the 5 in my estimation but still expected either way and could have been mitigated somewhat if they had thrown a bone to the traditional WHFB players in the form of a familiar ruleset released alongside AoS. There was no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater or the mercantile equivalent of packing your toys and going home because they didn't spend enough. They could have built on AoS while slowly phasing out WHFB instead of the abrupt change that resulted in many just walking away to other companies.

 Talys wrote:
I agree. The core questions should be:

1) Could GW make more money if the business wrote games that appealed more to the competitive and pickup crowd? Or would they actually make less money?

There's no reason why they would make less money, unless they spent millions of GBP on the writing process. Since the game itself is a driver of sales, making the game more playable should, in theory widen the customer base beyond the "models first, rules... meh".

 Talys wrote:
2) Would the entire hobby community (not just the vocal online pro-gaming component) grow and make the hobby be a more profitable one with more participants if they did?

I think this is not the right question. IMHO, the question should be: Given current Games Workshop pricing structure, and monetary barrier to entering the hobby: Will improvement of the core ruleset improve customer uptake (and profitability)? IMHO, this depends on two things: 1. If the customer base still has that critical mass to regenerate itself. The Games Workshop hobby is quite healthy in some markets, gone underground in others, and at practically dead in some areas. In areas where there is strong community, word of mouth should improve customer uptake. In areas where the GW hobby is at death's door, it might be enough to make jaded customers take another look. In areas where it is dead - all bets are off, as the hobby's fate rests directly with those who have left it and/or other hobbyists entering the sales region. 2. If the independents and fan supported initiatives haven't been totally killed off and GW resumes support for them (outside of only product).

 Talys wrote:
3) If GW 2015 were more like GW 1990, what would the hobby and competitive landscapes look like?

1990's is a bit too far back... You're talking Rogue Trader. I honestly feel early 2000's was the golden age. Back then, there were Chapter Approved datasheets in White Dwarf... Customer bat-reps in White Dwarf, 'EAVY METAL Masterclasses that go beyond edge highlighting... Sculpting workshops with guys like Chris Fitzpatrick... There was bitz service. There was Canadian Grand Tournament and Games Day. Games Workshop support for Rogue Trader events... IMHO, GW support of the hobby has only improved slightly from the low ebb of the early 2010's... now that they have the "paint-by-numbers" painting system and hobby videos. Support of advanced techniques is all but non-existent though.

1) Definitely they would make more money, making a better product is always more appealing to customers and the effort needed to do so is relatively small.

2) What hobby community? the wargames hobby community who already have a plethora of game systems that are at least try to be balanced and competitive? on that front the two bigger companies (under GW of course) are PP and CB are focused on providing a balanced streamlined game system and their growth is directly tied in with this.
If we talk about the so fondly called here HHHoby community, meaning the people whose only interaction with the wargames hobby is through GW, I think it will at least stop people from leaving because of the mes the rules are, in an ideal state it would also regulate the model count of the game making it affordable for more people.

3) That is impossible to predict, 2nd edition started as a mess but at its end it was a streamlined and quite balanced system, the games they produced are the most remembered (even though their state is dead for more than a decade).

I firmly believe a well written and balanced system will bring in more people, a game system that does the above and delivers the fictional background people read on the table will be even better.

And all benefit from a well build foundation.

@Keezus & PsychoticStorm - I disagree with you on #1, though I could absolutely be wrong.

I'm quite convinced that GW has mastered the formula for maximizing its short and mid-term profits by shifting the meta and appealing to the crowd that like larger models in an game with an infantry-scaled context. I think those big, expensive kits like Knights and Bloodthirsters and Nagash are super profitable in terms of cost to design, manufacture, and distribute versus selling price.

They are also the bane of the crowd who a game balanced around Imperial Guard, Dwarves, Brettonians, and Orks, or at least where these models are relevant and relatively balanced versus the really big models, instead of being terrain for Warlords to step on. They like the game that was GW's wargaming roots, rather than either Herohammer or, worse, Titanhammer.

If GW made super-heavy and gargantuan monstrous creatures less appealing in the game (ie balanced to the smaller or older models), they'd sell a lot less of them. Would it be "better for the hobby" in the long run? Maybe. Would it be more profitable for GW in the short and mid-term? I think that's pretty doubtful. But in order to make the game more pickup and more competitive friendly, it's pretty much a requisite. I mean, you just can't make the $150 models stupidly easy to play, and the little guys, while not impossible to win with, a task that requires much thought, skill, and a little luck.

To play devil's advocate, too, the market for infantry sized models is mature. The most you can get out of grunts are $5-$10, the most you can get out of the most elite model is maybe $30, there is lots of competition, and most importantly, the people who want these already have truckloads of them. On the other hand, centerpiece models are produced by relatively few companies, and the ones that make them have very few models; and not only do they command prices of $150+, but they're ALSO GW's best-selling models.

In addition, I'm very convinced that GW makes more of what sells. In other words, their creative team is given direction based on things that made profit. And that means, GW is simply giving its customer base that spends money more of what they want. They'll experiment and try other things, and if those things sell well, they'll make more of them; if they sell poorly, those types of things will get fewer releases -- and I presume, less favorable rules, or at least, fewer buffs while the rest of the game escalates in power.

So even though a large percentage of players may bemoan that their Guard army now suck, those people are not buying Guard models, and GW is unmotivated to fix it, because they figure that even if they make Guard models great in the game, the Guard players aren't going to run out and spend money in the same way as if they add a new shoulder-mounted weapon to the Imperial Knight, even though the number of players playin those Knights is smaller. In other words, the 10 Knight players buying $1,000 of knights exceed the spending that the 50 Guard players would spend -- close to nothing -- because their Guard army that they love is already complete.

What does this mean in terms of the company? it's profit-driven, and therefore new-and-shiny driven. If you want to buy stuff and keep it relevant for decades with only occasional buys, forget it; look elsewhere, because this is a company that increases the power level of new stuff without generally increasing the power level of the old stuff *as much*. If you enjoy constantly adding stuff because you like new and shiny, these are your guys. Which coincides with my original position, that GW is catering to its most profitable customers (the people who are constantly adding the new and shiny).

If your strategy is to burn the crops for fast profit instead of cultivating it for larger profit but also in more depth of time then yes, creating unbalanced overpowered new releases that are superior incentives for people to buy, but at the cost of older models and players who either cannot compete to the arms race, or are frustrated to see their collection becoming unplayable.

A balanced system has the advantage of keeping all the models an attractive purchase, allows players with different preferences coexist and has the bonus of people coming back having their old collection ready to play. It is a bad solution if the companies strategy is essentially a pay to win model.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
If your strategy is to burn the crops for fast profit instead of cultivating it for larger profit but also in more depth of time then yes, creating unbalanced overpowered new releases that are superior incentives for people to buy, but at the cost of older models and players who either cannot compete to the arms race, or are frustrated to see their collection becoming unplayable.

A balanced system has the advantage of keeping all the models an attractive purchase, allows players with different preferences coexist and has the bonus of people coming back having their old collection ready to play. It is a bad solution if the companies strategy is essentially a pay to win model.

The point of reference upon which I think GW is basing that strategy is Magic the Gathering, where the business model isn't so much "pay to win", but "pay continuously if you want to play with everyone else".

It works a LOT better for people who want to (and can afford to) add to their collection. It doesn't work at all for people who don't enjoy adding to their collection, or can't afford to do so. All I'm saying is, I'm pretty sure that GW thinks that it's using the most profitable strategy, because it's not purposely self-destructive.

It's very hard to keep everything old equally relevant to everything new and still encourage people to buy the new things. It's obviously not just GW with this issue as collections mature, as you can plainly see PP er.... encouraging new model sales

That works for Magic because the effort involved beyond buying the cards is zero, in wargaming were assembling and painting is involved especially in the numbers GW games demand the effort is massive.

People can and do feel that their effort is worthless when their top tier armies become obsolete with the next update, I am not current with PP, but from my local PP players I get that although models get out of rotation they stay current with new characters that make them current again.