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.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
I think the placement of the Sigmarite Warrior was less a show of them thinking it would be a success and more a sign to everybody that they would see this Age of Sigmar thing through and that they are committed to it.

Didn't the Space Marine get put back up in place of the Sigmarine recently? Or was that just a rumour?

The space marine was never taken down, the Sigmarine is in a totally different spot.

False. It's in the same spot.

Additionally, I can't find it right now, but there is also a pic doing the rounds of the Space Marine unceremoniously shoved under the stairs somewhere in Warhammer World.

So is the Sigmarine still there? I heard someone say a few weeks ago that it had been taken down and replaced with the Space Marine.

Joyboozer wrote:
Speaking of AoS and GW, are there videos or online articles on how to convert you current ( or what were current) fantasy armies to AoS forces? In detail, I mean, for each race?

That is fairly simple. If you have Dwarves, you use the Dwarf (Dwarfadin) War Scrolls. If you have Elves you use the Aelf War scrolls. Etc.

Ogres = Ogers.
Orcs = Oruks.
Undead = Tomb Kings or Vampire Counts As.
And so on.

But now let's get back to the topic.

Joyboozer wrote:

 BrookM wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Additionally, I can't find it right now, but there is also a pic doing the rounds of the Space Marine unceremoniously shoved under the stairs somewhere in Warhammer World.

He's clearly peeing.

Ein Wildpinkler*? Well of course a Space Marine would lack the courtesy to face the wall

*Ask Mr. Google. Beware the images

At least he has full cover. And he can still lob a krak grenade over top!

Is that the actual statue that used to be outside? It really doesn't look very big. We have a space marine statue at our local GW that's about that size, I think.

Sensing the trend in gold HQ statuary... Mantic is not to be outdone:

I can't tell if that is a joke by Mantic or not. The sculpt quality reminds me of some of their early plastics.

 warboss wrote:
I can't tell if that is a joke by Mantic or not. The sculpt quality reminds me of some of their early plastics.

It was an officially sanctioned pic on their twitter account and I'm pretty sure it was just a photoshop job AND I totally agree that it looks like ass, as do most of their models.

It's a fitting representation of the quality of their models, yes.

Yeah, those silly models and their bad quality. Their business must surely be suffering horribly.....

 jonolikespie wrote:
Yeah, those silly models and their bad quality. Their business must surely be suffering horribly.....

Regarding your signature, since it's appropriate to this thread:

 Fafnir wrote:
Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.

This is why companies should do god damn market research.

But Games Workshop do market research, just not the nice kind, you don't spend that much on web design, they're getting a lot of information from their end.

Joyboozer wrote:
But Games Workshop do market research, just not the nice kind, you don't spend that much on web design, they're getting a lot of information from their end.

100,000 pounds or so of it was to pay the Chairman's no experience wife to manage the project as a contractor.

Joyboozer wrote:
But Games Workshop do market research, just not the nice kind, you don't spend that much on web design, they're getting a lot of information from their end.

1) What you're suggesting runs contrary to what GW have explicitly stated so you'd need more than the price of the website as proof.
2) That would still be terrible market research as it only accounts for people already visiting GWs website, and nowhere on that website is a 'tell us what you think' section.

 Talys wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
So sales have been fantastic. So fantastic, that they're reporting *another* decline? Even if i were to believe their constant currency line, and they tayed relatively flat - is that really good news for them? I can't speak for AoS, but BaC is what i'd call 'firing the big guns' and the end result is flat/declining revenue?

Let's not also forget the panic buying that will have taken place when AoS was released. This might be a sign that they're stabilizing income, or it might simply be a prelude to a another migration of customers away from them.

Well, if you believe their constant currency line, sales are up a little. Otherwise, sales are down a little. But one product and 3 weeks to sell it can't carry the entire half-year, man.

What I'm saying is that, if true, AoS (starter) probably didn't do as horribly as a lot of people on the interwebs think it did, which is certainly better for GW than AoS Starter doing as badly as the people on the interwebs think, or even if AoS Starter sold comparably to Isle of Blood in the few half-years before that. It would mean that AoS Starter and the three months of Stormcast Eternal releases actually did not perform absolutely horribly in sales (which we guess that WHFB did for at least a few years). Remember, conventional wisdom is that AoS is so horrible and dead that nobody bought the stuff, it's just piling up, and nobody plays it. But they must have sold some AoS stuff after Starter, if the sales are only a slight decline (or slight increase).

Also, a bunch of that so-called panic-buying helps independents a lot more than GW. GW makes nothing on independents selling Isle of Blood or old codex releases, or even many of the old models, off their shelves, because it's not restocked.

The long term impact is why was the AoS starter bought? Sure, I saw a lot of the starter bought locally (two by me alone), but most..including myself...bought them for conversion and counts as within 40k. I would not be too quick to see a decent release of the AoS starter as indicative of the health and viability of maintaining and investing in the line.

Flashman wrote:Oh my word, I had not seen this and have just googled it

Spoiler:

They could have at least given it a wash and some edge highlights...

 agnosto wrote:
100,000 pounds or so of it was to pay the Chairman's no experience wife to manage the project as a contractor.

Jesus. Bet that paid for a nice holiday or house extension.

 quickfuze wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
So sales have been fantastic. So fantastic, that they're reporting *another* decline? Even if i were to believe their constant currency line, and they tayed relatively flat - is that really good news for them? I can't speak for AoS, but BaC is what i'd call 'firing the big guns' and the end result is flat/declining revenue?

Let's not also forget the panic buying that will have taken place when AoS was released. This might be a sign that they're stabilizing income, or it might simply be a prelude to a another migration of customers away from them.

Well, if you believe their constant currency line, sales are up a little. Otherwise, sales are down a little. But one product and 3 weeks to sell it can't carry the entire half-year, man.

What I'm saying is that, if true, AoS (starter) probably didn't do as horribly as a lot of people on the interwebs think it did, which is certainly better for GW than AoS Starter doing as badly as the people on the interwebs think, or even if AoS Starter sold comparably to Isle of Blood in the few half-years before that. It would mean that AoS Starter and the three months of Stormcast Eternal releases actually did not perform absolutely horribly in sales (which we guess that WHFB did for at least a few years). Remember, conventional wisdom is that AoS is so horrible and dead that nobody bought the stuff, it's just piling up, and nobody plays it. But they must have sold some AoS stuff after Starter, if the sales are only a slight decline (or slight increase).

Also, a bunch of that so-called panic-buying helps independents a lot more than GW. GW makes nothing on independents selling Isle of Blood or old codex releases, or even many of the old models, off their shelves, because it's not restocked.

The long term impact is why was the AoS starter bought? Sure, I saw a lot of the starter bought locally (two by me alone), but most..including myself...bought them for conversion and counts as within 40k. I would not be too quick to see a decent release of the AoS starter as indicative of the health and viability of maintaining and investing in the line.

The only way that I can see myself ever buying AoS is if somebody commissions me to paint it for them.

Both of the two sets sold to my group have been turned into 40K figures as well - Blood Angels and Chaos. (Amusingly, the backpacks for the Blood Angels are from a third party company.)

The Auld Grump - piece of irony - I think that Kings of War has led more people in my group to buy GW figures than either of the two most recent editions of Warhammer - three if you want to count AoS. (Ogres seems to be the Mantic army that people are buying - they want to support the company, and Ogres make good allies for pretty much any army.)

 nullBolt wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
100,000 pounds or so of it was to pay the Chairman's no experience wife to manage the project as a contractor.

Jesus. Bet that paid for a nice holiday or house extension.

To be completely fair she was well suited for the position since her previous employment was as the board secretary (a ghost position) for Kirby's tax shelter company and before that she was a recreation specialist for the local sports facility.

 agnosto wrote:

 nullBolt wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
100,000 pounds or so of it was to pay the Chairman's no experience wife to manage the project as a contractor.

Jesus. Bet that paid for a nice holiday or house extension.

To be completely fair she was well suited for the position since her previous employment was as the board secretary (a ghost position) for Kirby's tax shelter company and before that she was a recreation specialist for the local sports facility.

She fits GW's policy of hiring for attitude not competence.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Joyboozer wrote:
But Games Workshop do market research, just not the nice kind, you don't spend that much on web design, they're getting a lot of information from their end.

1) What you're suggesting runs contrary to what GW have explicitly stated so you'd need more than the price of the website as proof.
2) That would still be terrible market research as it only accounts for people already visiting GWs website, and nowhere on that website is a 'tell us what you think' section.

GW's old web site told them where I lived, where I worked, my birthday, and the games and armies I was interested in buying. By extension and the use of cookies, they could infer the stuff I wasn't interested in. But all that information was thrown away when they dumped the customer registration database rather than move it to the new "web store".

I think a lot of people overthink it. GW decides what it's going to make based on what sells: they make more of the stuff that people buy, less of what people don't, and occasionally try something new. So if people want to buy big fancy kits, they'll make more big fancy kits, and if people want to buy more space marines, they'll make more space marines. If tungsten carbide tooled model kits will sell for an overall higher gross profit, they'll do it, if finecast doesn't generate sales, they'll walk away. Of course they care about the long term health of the game, but that is secondary to short and mid-term profits, because the way they figure it is that a bird in the hand is worth five thousand in the bush. That's because in the long term, so many things can change that they figure, make money while you can; you can always do something else later.

But this is not unique to GW. The whole human race operates on this. You can call it corporate greed, myopic short-sightedness, practicality, being responsible to your shareholders or good business sense, depending on your perspective.

Look at fullsize SUVs and luxury crossovers: man, these vehicles are hot. But collectively, they're TERRIBLE for the environment. They use twice as much gas as a car, have a big, fat carbon footprint, use up lots of materials, and for what? Most people who have them use the "utility" part very seldomly, and just like them because they're big, fancy, impressive cars. They don't care about the gas consumption because they can afford gas whether it's $1 / L, $2 / L, or even $5 / L. Arguably, they're contributing to the long-term destruction of the environment (at least in relevant human years), which is, you know, pretty important. Tornados and blizzards in Texas and all.

The right thing to do would be to make a lot less SUVs, make cars out of lighter and more fuel efficient materials, and stop pumping out 5L (and larger) V8s in favor of fuel efficient 4-cyls. Instead of pouring R&D into heads-up displays, panoramic roofs, radar-based safety features, and nav computers with ever-more humongous screens that you can see in direct sunlight, increase fuel efficiency and reduce production costs for cars targeted at the masses. But car manufacturers aren't going to do that. All their R&D goes into awesome new SUVs with super high tech gadgets and big price tags.

Why?

Because at least in the short and mid term, that's what "people" are paying for. Not "people" in the sense of every person buying a car, but "people" in the sense of the most profitable segment and the people that it's easiest to sell a new car to. No different than GW popping centerpiece models, whether they're good for the ecosystem and community or not.

What about the low end cars and all that? They leave it to the Korean manufacturers like Kia to cover that much-less-profitable segment, knowing that even though a chevy or a Honda or a Volkswagen won't give you as good value, it doesn't matter, because they're still going to get some of that low-end business no matter what, and it's more important for them to keep the marketshare of the easy money. No different than GW just surrendering the inexpensive model market / low model count game to other companies, and deciding they don't even want to compete there.

Ok, so if I read that right, GW make lots of Space Marines because people like owning 4x4s?

In all seriousness, and to stretch your terrible, poorly informed, analogy, still further, GW may well be choosing to not make 4x4s in a market where people are desperate to buy them. There's no mechanism in place for them to tell.

Not a criticism you can level at big car makers.

Also, there's no such thing as over analysis or over thinking when it comes to trying to optimise your products for your customer and therefore optimise sales and profits.

Unless you're GW, in which case the answer is any thinking or analysis is clearly considered too much.

 Talys wrote:
I think a lot of people overthink it. GW decides what it's going to make based on what sells: they make more of the stuff that people buy, less of what people don't, and occasionally try something new. So if people want to buy big fancy kits, they'll make more big fancy kits, and if people want to buy more space marines, they'll make more space marines. If tungsten carbide tooled model kits will sell for an overall higher gross profit, they'll do it, if finecast doesn't generate sales, they'll walk away. Of course they care about the long term health of the game, but that is secondary to short and mid-term profits, because the way they figure it is that a bird in the hand is worth five thousand in the bush. That's because in the long term, so many things can change that they figure, make money while you can; you can always do something else later.

The problem with this approach is that you're just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.

The release and subsequent good or poor sales of any given model this week is no actual indication of how well a similar thing will do next week, particularly in a setting where purchases are affected by gameplay. That's the sort of thinking that results in you releasing, say, a deluxe version of one of your most popular boardgames and then when that sells well following it up with a shiny new naval boardgame that nobody actually wants.

We also heard a story a few years back about how GW 'proved' to themselves that lowering prices wouldn't increase sales, by putting out two different cavalry kits for WHFB at different prices - they (apparently) noticed that the cheaper kit didn't sell any more than the more expensive one, without paying any attention to the fact that the cheaper kit was a unit that nobody wanted because they sucked in-game.

But car manufacturers aren't going to do that. All their R&D goes into awesome new SUVs with super high tech gadgets and big price tags.

Uh... what?

Car manufacturers over the last decade or so have been pumping a ridiculous amount of money into developing petrol-electric hybrids or fully-electric cars, and lowering emissions and fuel efficiency on regular engines.



Edit for the bit where I went all old-man and missed half a sentence...

 insaniak wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I think a lot of people overthink it. GW decides what it's going to make based on what sells: they make more of the stuff that people buy, less of what people don't, and occasionally try something new. So if people want to buy big fancy kits, they'll make more big fancy kits, and if people want to buy more space marines, they'll make more space marines. If tungsten carbide tooled model kits will sell for an overall higher gross profit, they'll do it, if finecast doesn't generate sales, they'll walk away. Of course they care about the long term health of the game, but that is secondary to short and mid-term profits, because the way they figure it is that a bird in the hand is worth five thousand in the bush. That's because in the long term, so many things can change that they figure, make money while you can; you can always do something else later.

The problem with this approach is that you're just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.

The release and subsequent good or poor sales of any given model this week is no actual indication of how well a similar thing will do next week, particularly in a setting where purchases. That's the sort of thinking that results in you releasing, say, a deluxe version of one of your most popular boardgames and then when that sells well following it up with a shiny new naval boardgame that nobody actually wants.

We also heard a story a few years back about how GW 'proved' to themselves that lowering prices wouldn't increase sales, by putting out two different cavalry kits for WHFB at different prices - they (apparently) noticed that the cheaper kit didn't sell any more than the more expensive one, without paying any attention to the fact that the cheaper kit was a unit that nobody wanted because they sucked in-game.

But car manufacturers aren't going to do that. All their R&D goes into awesome new SUVs with super high tech gadgets and big price tags.

Uh... what?

Car manufacturers over the last decade or so have been pumping a ridiculous amount of money into developing petrol-electric hybrids or fully-electric cars, and lowering emissions and fuel efficiency on regular engines.

Give this man a cigar because he gets it. Give a space marine librarian a D weapon and watch them fly off of the shelves. Give a humble kroot shaper a D weapon and they'll be sold out tomorrow. Big, fancy kits sell because of the rules attached to them. The reason that these models don't have game breaking rules is because they're relatively cheap compared to a Knight or Axe wielding bloodthirster.

@insaniak - 'all' was too strong an adjective. There is a disproportionate investment in redesign an improvement into a segment that is not good for all of us in the long term. Things like sports cars and big-engine SUVs were just an example, but I'm sure you can think of many things in the world that follow, 'make what they want now, not what will be good for them later'.

Also, the GW way is not terribly different from Microsoft forcing the bungee team (before the contract ended) making nothing hut Halo. It drove the devs nuts, but MS knew it would sell, so screw the potential of two or three franchises, give the players what they want. No different than pumping out more space marine and imperium. Though in hindsight, comparing Destiny to Halo 5, they probably did the right thing.

@agnosto - yet Centurions, Windriders, Wraithknights, and Wraithguard are NOT bestsellers -- not even top 28 --, while Blood Angels Tactical Squad, Tyranid Swarm, Cadian defense force, and Harlequin Troupe are. If anyone thinks these are a path to a super-winning army, have I got a bridge to sell you. In fact, a ton of the top 28 kits so far are weak -- they made more money off of land raiders and toxicrenes than wraithknights and riptide, ffs. Hardly anything you see on power lists show up, with the notable exception of drop pods and the entire skitarii faction. Maybe GW is right and there is a high proportion of non- and hardly-gamers.

I do not believe that the overwhelming plurality of wargamers and collectors are totally price insensitive, but I think for a good chunk of people, if they love a product enough, they'll spend a lot more, if they can afford it. Like the $4 coffee which makes no sense, especially when the coffee is free at work, except the person wants it.

In terms of models, I'd much rather spend more for the model I really want than less for the one is okay, but doesn't scream for me to take it home.

 Talys wrote:
@insaniak - 'all' was too strong an adjective. There is a disproportionate investment in redesign an improvement into a segment that is not good for all of us in the long term. Things like sports cars and big-engine SUVs were just an example, but I'm sure you can think of many things in the world that follow, 'make what they want now, not what will be good for them later'.

Citation needed. I for one couldn't find any sort of detailed information on this without stumping up $750 for a licence to access it. There's a world of difference between investing in 4x4s is totally different than building them. Car manufacturers will develop a system and then use it across the range, even across multiple ranges, where appropriate. This was, and remains, a tenuous analogy based largely on your supposition.

Also, the GW way is not terribly different from Microsoft forcing the bungee team (before the contract ended) making nothing hut Halo. It drove the devs nuts, but MS knew it would sell, so screw the potential of two or three franchises, give the players what they want. No different than pumping out more space marine and imperium. Though in hindsight, comparing Destiny to Halo 5, they probably did the right thing.

Again, it is if there was a large market looking for something else Bungee was well placed to produce but Microsoft simply churned out the same thing because they CBA finding out.

@agnosto - yet Centurions, Windriders, Wraithknights, and Wraithguard are NOT bestsellers -- not even top 28 --, while Blood Angels Tactical Squad, Tyranid Swarm, Cadian defense force, and Harlequin Troupe are. If anyone thinks these are a path to a super-winning army, have I got a bridge to sell you. In fact, a ton of the top 28 kits so far are weak -- they made more money off of land raiders and toxicrenes than wraithknights and riptide, ffs. Hardly anything you see on power lists show up, with the notable exception of drop pods and the entire skitarii faction. Maybe GW is right and there is a high proportion of non- and hardly-gamers.

You mean, older kits that have likely fulfilled the demand already didn't sell as much as kits released this year and staples? Shock! Horror! We also have absolutely no idea what criteria where applied to arrive at the result. Asking the mums that brought their kids to WHW one day in November what they liked the look of for all we know.

I do not believe that the overwhelming plurality of wargamers and collectors are totally price insensitive, but I think for a good chunk of people, if they love a product enough, they'll spend a lot more, if they can afford it. Like the $4 coffee which makes no sense, especially when the coffee is free at work, except the person wants it.

It is also likely superior quality to a jug of filter coffee that's been sat stewing for hours Brewer on a machine that hasn't been cleaned in a decade. There's a difference between paying a premium for a tangibly better product and just "because."

In terms of models, I'd much rather spend more for the model I really want than less for the one is okay, but doesn't scream for me to take it home.

So would we all, but that's not the same as paying good coffee rather than have gak coffee for free.

I'll buy models for games that are actually good.

The idea that GW, Microsoft or really any decently sized company "CBA" or is "too lazy" to think of how best to manage its business and sell more products I think is a lazy analysis itself.

Yet..

Tom Kirby wrote: We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.

In addition to spending a fortune on a new website and not even porting over existing customer data.

What else does one infer?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yet..

Tom Kirby wrote: We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche.

In addition to spending a fortune on a new website and not even porting over existing customer data.

What else does one infer?

To be fair, that doesn't show that they don't consider how best to manage their business and sell more products... just that they don't bother to include feedback from their customers in that consideration.


Or, in other words, they consider how best to sell more products, but they're either just guessing what their customers want and hoping for the best, or are totally convinced that their customers will buy whatever they choose to release.


Kirby's general attitude points more towards the latter.