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.
I can say that precisely because I've operated in the "business world" for nearly my entire adult life, with, I think, pretty decent success (At least with enough success to buy as many GW models as I want ). At some point, it's not uncommon for folks who are successful and fully busy doing things they love to say, "Gee, doing only the things I love and that I think I'm good at, I'm making more money than I and all the people who started up with me can spend in their entire life. Do I want to try out other stuff and make even more, or just be content working on my core competencies and stay within my happy zone?"
The right answer is different for everyone, but as a personal matter I would rather take the certainty and $2 million dollars a year than try to compete on all sorts of other things and maybe make $20 or $200 million a year. Why? I can't even spend $2 million a year, so effectively, $200 million a year is just money I'm going to give away anyhow. In other words, having millions in the bank, to me, is effectively the same as having billions in the bank, because I'm not going to do anything with most of either. There are many people that share my view: do what you're great at, be exceptional at it, and charge top dollar -- so long as there's a surplus of demand, just take the customers you want, and let the others that you don't go somewhere else.
The other thing, too, is that you only have so much time and focus, and it's easy to lose yourself (and that profitable niche) if you expand beyond to other things, botch it, and also botch up your cash cow that you used to really enjoy, because your eye was on something else. It's not always easy to just hire people to take care of another business unit.
So long as GW is profitable and the board is happy, they can afford to just do the things they want to do, and ignore market segments that don't appeal to them, whether it's the tournament scene or finescale models. I'm not saying this is what they SHOULD do, it's just that they have the luxury of choice, and they can do whatever pleases the board. Who knows, maybe next year the board will decide they want to compete in the tournament segment and make a real push for it, and great on them if they choose to do so, too.
Yes, yes, all very interesting except all of that has little to do with running a publicly traded corporation that has been in decline for several years. Maybe you and I define "successful" differently but when the bank account shrinks, most people in the business world frown in my experience. But hey, maybe Canadian companies think losing money means they're actually in the black; the world is a truly strange place. We can compare CVs another time if you like but back to the topic at hand. In my experience dealing with retail concerns of varying sizes in several countries, all of which were publicly traded, sales are very important; I'll go out on a very strong, short limb and say that sales are important to GW as well or they wouldn't have their well-documented and very draconian system of hiring and retention of sales staff (i.e. produce or get out). Again, maybe things were different with the companies that you dealt with but I sort of doubt it; retail needs cash influx to survive, a large cash reserve like GW has is laudable but in reality is only representative of about 3 months of operation expenses if the ship really sinks. So they have to keep financing that beast of a loadstone that is their retail chain and keep it from pulling them down faster than they're already sinking; the result is that they've pulled out all of their big guns, they've released so much, so quickly that I wouldn't be surprised if we somehow learned that their manufacturing capabilities are stretched to the limit which would also explain why the models aren't more technically complex; simpler models are easier to produce and generally faster to produce and easier to package due to lower model counts. I suppose that I'm a bit nonplussed as to how someone who professes some expertise in business can look at a company that is hemorrhaging sales volume, cash reserves, and apparent market share and not say that something's rotten in the state of Denmark. That is why we're discussing the health of the company. For me it's a bit of spare time exercise but in full disclosure, I also own stock, a fair amount, so I have a selfish reason for concern as well. They're making money for me but it's a short-term bet rather than a long-term because at the rate they're going, I'll have to sell the stock, again.
What I am, and have been, addressing is the sort of identity crisis that GW seems to be going through. Are they a game company? Are they a model/collectibles company? As it appears right now, they're kind of a hybrid, almost chimera of the two resulting in their not doing either one particularly well. Generally, gamers what tight rules that can be applied evenly and are fairly balanced for all modes of identified play and models that are easily put together and paint; collectors, generally, want high detail, options, and great potential for customization. Sure, there's all sorts of middle ground for people, like me, who like both games and collecting but it's not impossible to satisfy both groups. You seem to be under the misapprehension that it's impossible for a company to provide models to both groups even though there are companies that do so (Tamiya being one). It wouldn't be all that hard for GW to appeal to a wide segment of hobbyists; gamers, modellers, and painters all at the same time. Heck, who knows, Rountree could very well look at a bit of differentiation in the catalog as he stated in the annual report that he was going to give the product line a good, hard look.
Keep painting those beautiful models.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/01 01:22:08
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
I think part of the problem may be that people are conflating style and quality.
World of Warcraft does not (or at least, did not, not certain so much now) have high quality graphics, but it has highly stylised graphics. The style may make up for the lowered quality.
There's also an issue of expectation when it comes to quality.
If I sold a customer a phone for £20 to get them out of a hole because their main handset was out of commission, and it broke within 6 months? Not a problem, I doubt they'd return it for warranty repair even if they were covered.
I sell the same customer a phone which costs £250? Then it's a different matter.
The same issue occurs with GW, especially, but not exclusively, with the gaming side.
If I download a rule book for free, pick up a box of models and the game sucks? Meh, on to the next one.
If I spend a small fortune on the rules alone, alongside a further investment of £60? £80? to get enough models for a "traditional" legal force, in order to play a game, and it turns out to be the mess that is current 40K? That's a whole other issue too.
If I then realise the money I've spent on getting started with a GW game would have got me a large and well rounded force plus rules in a competing game which suffers few if any of the flaws of GW games? Well, no wonder there's people with an axe to grind.
Setting a premium price sets premium expectations, and while there's certainly areas you can point to where GW certainly does well, where's the premium, aesthetics aside?
If GW are indeed following Talys' ludicrous ideas about doing just "what they love" (which is so totally at odds to the money grubbing, small minded, short sighted GW their actions seem to portray them to be it's laughable, the only thing they're in love with is more money) then they're failing miserably at communicating this to their customers and adjusting their expectations accordingly.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the quality of anything GW produces, but their prices set expectations that aren't supported by that quality, especially when viewed at what is possible at a lower RRP or how much more can be achieved when trying to hit a comparable price point.
(And if someone tries to counter this with some variation of the argument 'but Spaaace Mariiines" I swear I'll travel to wherever you are in the world and beat you with the wet end of your painting arm!)
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
@agnosto - I'm not awesomely successful, but I am happily so, when I look in the mirror There are countless hordes of people far more successful than I by whatever metric you choose to measure, and that's just fine with me.
GW's bank account is irrelevant, as they empty it out every year to pay it to the shareholders. I've said routinely that I think that GW would be better off as a private company, because they don't leverage any of the most powerful tools of a public company, namely acquisitions, the ability to rapidly grow, and capital. In fact, they seem to shun it.
I think GW is a company that likes making nice models, and wrapping a game around those nice models. I think that *clearly* the models are more important to GW than the game -- based on evidence, such as there being an entire, expensive magazine sold each month devoted to photography, and high quality videos that show you how to build and paint models, and nearly none of that for gaming. I've said this before too -- I think to GW, models > fluff > game.
You say that I'm under the impression that a company can't satisfy both groups (gamers and collectors), but I routinely say that GW could do a much BETTER job of making gamers happier with just a little bit of work.
What I don't think is possible is for any game company to get people to spend a thousand bucks a year for 20-30 years (that's $25,000) on just 28mm infantry models and small vehicles. This was *specifically* what I was responding to -- someone who said they went from a $1000 a year spender to a $200 a year spender, because GW's rules aren't appealing to them anymore. It isn't a hypothetical that I made up; it was someone's life personal position that I was replying to.
Basically, to get SOME people to keep spending a thousand bucks a year (or ten...), GW has gone to bigger models, centerpieces, expensive characters, and all that. In the process they lost a bunch of the people who were spending a thousand bucks a year. But they would have lost some of those people anyhow, because they would have gotten bored of new models for the old infantry-based game, eventually.
I also observe a desire for some people to just let a game or franchise die with age so that new games can fill their shoes, even if it's set in the same universe, but also to give other companies a shot. After all, nobody really expects Halo 30. For whatever reasons, some of which we should attribute to GW's actions, 40k is not such a game, and has had amazing longevity, surprising even to me, a fan of 40k from its inception.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Azrael13 - Someone who does what they love can STILL charge the maximum price that the market will bear for their goods and services. Just because you're doing what you want to do doesn't mean that you can't ALSO want to make as much money as you can doing it; it just means you don't necessarily want to do other things, sometimes because you don't have to.
For the record, I fully believe that GW seeks to maximize their profits. The pricing isn't out of love of the gaming or hobby community. But producing the kinds of models they produce, the type of game they want to write, and the type of books they want to publish? Absolutely, I think this is their primary interest of the people who have a say.
If you look at things like the free videos on WarhammerTV, you get a sense that they're a company that loves their models. Personally, I think they're a company that just doesn't care about their game to the same degree as their models, and hobbyists should spend their money accordingly.
I get your point about rules expectations, by the way. The more you pay, the more you expect to get out of it. If you compare a codex from 2015 to one from 2005, what do you get more? You get a hardcover book, printed on nicer paper, with nicer and more artwork, cool fluff, better photography. If someone doesn't care about the game a lot, but doesn't mind spending $50+ on a book rulebook because they like shiny rulebooks with nice pictures and fluff, they'll be thrilled; that same guy back in 2005 would think the old rulebook was not very colorful and pretty. Which just goes to my point that GW is a company that cares more about its models and fluff than it's game mechanics.
Talys wrote: I think that *clearly* the models are more important to GW than the game -- based on evidence, such as there being an entire, expensive catalogue sold each month devoted to photography, and high quality videos that show you how to build and paint models, and nearly none of that for gaming.
To be honest, the White Dwarf of today, while production values are much higher, is a far cry from the content of yesteryear. I think the thing most missing from GW these days is engagement from the higher ups. There used to be editorials and designer articles in White Dwarf. Sculptors and Painter profile articles. These days, there might be a showcase, but its more of a: "this guy paints awesome, here are some pictures you can get from the internet reproduced in glossy. Here's two sentences about the guy himself." I feel that GW management actively shuns this sort of engagement, sending out their peons to be the messengers of increasingly indifferent news.
The advent calendar painting videos from Warhammer TV are essentially a paint by numbers, the GW way. Informative for beginners, but extremely narrow in scope and rigid in application, boiling down to 1 shade, 1 highlight, edge highlight, call it a day. There is no information from the painter as to what their thought process is, the kind of end result they want to get, or on color selection. They don't always show the model completely finished. The videos as produced come across more as infomercials for the product line than actual tutorials.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/01/01 02:45:17
Someone who does what they love can STILL charge the maximum price that the market will bear for their goods and services. Just because you're doing what you want to do doesn't mean that you can't ALSO want to make as much money as you can doing it; it just means you don't necessarily want to do other things, sometimes because you don't have to.
Where on earth are you getting the concept that any decision maker at GWloves what they do? Every single shred of evidence we have, be it anecdote, rumour, first hand account or Facebook post suggests that these people are not gamers and have a healthy contempt for gamers. You even have Rick fething Priestley, the father of 40K, saying that the studio is nothing more than extension of the accounts department of a toy company.
For the record, I fully believe that GW seeks to maximize their profits. The pricing isn't out of love of the gaming or hobby community. But producing the kinds of models they produce, the type of game they want to write, and the type of books they want to publish? Absolutely, I think this is their primary interest of the people who have a say.
Really? They want to write a game people aren't excited to play?
The people who have a say have no desire for anything other than the highest return for the least outlay. This, inherently, isn't a problem. The problem lies that they've now reached a point where the reduction in outlay is hurting that return, but have continued on the same path.
If you look at things like the free videos on WarhammerTV, you get a sense that they're a company that loves their models.
Do you think the actresses in porn films are enjoying it all the time too?
Personally, I think they're a company that just doesn't care about their game to the same degree as their models, and hobbyists should spend their money accordingly.
Yeah, why would they care about the thing that the person who created it admitted was developed primarily as a vehicle to drive model sales.
More likely they've driven away most of the rules writing talent (even Ward's stopped!) and failed to find anything like a competent replacement for most of them, while simultaneously increasing the pressure to churn out material and are desperate to find someone who is capable of turning things around.
I get your point about rules expectations, by the way. The more you pay, the more you expect to get out of it. If you compare a codex from 2015 to one from 2005, what do you get more? You get a hardcover book, printed on nicer paper, with nicer and more artwork, cool fluff, better photography. If someone doesn't care about the game a lot, but doesn't mind spending $50+ on a book rulebook because they like shiny rulebooks with nice pictures and fluff, they'll be thrilled; that same guy back in 2005 would think the old rulebook was not very colorful and pretty. Which just goes to my point that GW is a company that cares more about its models and fluff than it's game mechanics.
Except that isn't the point I was making, not even close, so stop straw manning and either tackle the point that was actually made or admit defeat. I was speaking, I thought fairly clearly, about someone looking to play the game, not someone looking to fill their bookshelf with random guff.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
at the end of the day, i would never say that GW could not produce a range of products that appeal to a broader spectrum...
they've done it before, and can do it again if they choose to...
i bought all the larger scale Inquisitor minis, and Forge World collectors series models and busts, so it is hard to see GW as a company that no longer caters to the "collector crowd", since those models are sitting right in front of me...
when it comes to 28mm models, there are plenty of companies that produce quality miniatures...
i am not taking anything away from those companies when i defend the quality of GW's plastic kits...
all i'm saying is that they are not lower quality than any other HIPS minis on the market...
the Leviathan being better engineered doesn't detract from the quality of the Knight as far as i'm concerned, it just gives another option for miniature buyers, which is a good thing...
i just don't feel like i am getting ripped off by GW when i buy a miniature that i like the look of, and get a sculpt that looks exactly like they advertise on the cover...
the whole reason that i don't collect Finecast is that i don't get the product that is advertised on the cover...
i get a warped, bubbled, miscast mess, that is not worth the effort that i would have to put into making it presentable...
when i get paid to work in Finecast, i really earn my money...
for the price, i wouldn't consider it a purchase where quality+price=value, but then i feel the same about any restic product, no matter who makes it...
with the new plastics, i do feel like i get what i want, and that makes me a happy customer...
i collect models from nearly every wargaming company on the market, and there are no plastic minis out there that are any better in quality, nor worse...
That's just it, though... GW is trying to market themselves as a producer of collectibles, not gaming miniatures. The fact that their collectibles are usable in their games is a secondary consideration.
GW minis compare well to other gaming miniatures... But not to collectibles. And the plastic is a large part of that... the soft plastic that GW uses is designed to be cheap and robust, not to capture fine detail.
i bought all the larger scale Inquisitor minis, and Forge World collectors series models and busts, so it is hard to see GW as a company that no longer caters to the "collector crowd", since those models are sitting right in front of me...
So, exactly how far back in time do I have to travel to buy any of those from a GW store? Or even online?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
insaniak wrote: And the plastic is a large part of that... the soft plastic that GW uses is designed to be cheap and robust, not to capture fine detail.
Credit where credit is due. I think the new plastic process captures detail adequately for most applications... - the horsehair crests on the new Marine helmets are very good.
Spoiler:
Its not at the level of what resin is capable of however. I was looking at the Menite Warcaster Anson Durst. He has a resin body. The filigree on his armor and the patterning on his tabard is very fine indeed. His shield is metal, and you can see the difference in how thin the patterning is on the body vs the same kind on the weapon and shield.
i bought all the larger scale Inquisitor minis, and Forge World collectors series models and busts, so it is hard to see GW as a company that no longer caters to the "collector crowd", since those models are sitting right in front of me...
So, exactly how far back in time do I have to travel to buy any of those from a GW store? Or even online?
Ergh... I'd buy them now if they were available... there's a reason why Inquisitor, Necromunda and Mordheim figures re-sell for small fortunes.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/01 03:52:24
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
i bought all the larger scale Inquisitor minis, and Forge World collectors series models and busts, so it is hard to see GW as a company that no longer caters to the "collector crowd", since those models are sitting right in front of me...
So, exactly how far back in time do I have to travel to buy any of those from a GW store? Or even online?
that was my point...
GW have done it before, and i hope they do it again...
i have no problem admitting that GW is not the same company it was 15 years ago...
all i say is that they have not pushed me away, as they have others, because i still enjoy painting the models...
i am positive about the potential changes coming, but haven't been priced out as others have...
if i were priced out, i would probably be one of the critics, too...
Look, what I'm saying is that GW is producing a book targeted at the person who cares less about the rules and more about it being a nice book for their enjoyment and collection. Therefore, to the first person who is a straight-up gamer, the rulebook is poorly written, badly balanced junk that weighs a ton, has worthless pictures, and is egregiously overpriced. To the second person, the book is a perfect balance of art, fluff, and function, looks great on their shelf, and has rules that are perfectly enjoyable for their sort of game. Not only is the price not crazy, hut they went and bought the digital version too, to put on their iPad to game.
Two people, two perspectives, one book.
Likewise, you're twisting what I'm saying about gw and profits. They're maximizing profits writing the game they want to write, which SOME people (eg me) think is a really fun game and among the best ways to spend their free time. They don't particularly care if you don't find it fun, and they don't want to chase you as a potential customer, because they're still making enough money from people who do find them fun.
One day, maybe that will change. Maybe they'll chase after your business because they pissed off too many of their customers, and it will be too late, and they go out of business. Or maybe there are enough people who love cool GW models and don't much about rules and they'll keep being the biggest wargame company around. Who knows.
By the way, it's not about winning or 'admitting defeat', it's about understanding other viewpoints. There are people who genuinely like GW and their products and are okay with the prices -- I mean, clearly there are some, based on GW's sales -- so I'm just here to express ONE viewpoint. Take it or leave it; doesn't bother me either way.
But thanks for chatting with me because otherwise I would die of boredom watching Anderson Cooper and Kathy Griffith do new years. 53 minutes of torture left.
@insaniak - why not collectible gaming miniatures? The two categories aren't mutually exclusive.
Look, what I'm saying is that GW is producing a book targeted at the person who cares less about the rules and more about it being a nice book for their enjoyment and collection. Therefore, to the first person who is a straight-up gamer, the rulebook is poorly written, badly balanced junk that weighs a ton, has worthless pictures, and is egregiously overpriced. To the second person, the book is a perfect balance of art, fluff, and function, looks great on their shelf, and has rules that are perfectly enjoyable for their sort of game. Not only is the price not crazy, hut they went and bought the digital version too, to put on their iPad to game.
Two people, two perspectives, one book.
Except my point doesn't require two people. You've introduced a second person for no reason.
Likewise, you're twisting what I'm saying about gw and profits. They're maximizing profits writing the game they want to write, which SOME people (eg me) think is a really fun game and among the best ways to spend their free time. They don't particularly care if you don't find it fun, and they don't want to chase you as a potential customer, because they're still making enough money from people who do find them fun.
One day, maybe that will change. Maybe they'll chase after your business because they pissed off too many of their customers, and it will be too late, and they go out of business. Or maybe there are enough people who love cool GW models and don't much about rules and they'll keep being the biggest wargame company around. Who knows.
This was, and remains, absolute rubbish. Who is writing the game they want to write? They're perilously close to posting a loss in the next couple of years on current trends, what they're doing isn't working.
By the way, it's not about winning or 'admitting defeat', it's about understanding other viewpoints. There are people who genuinely like GW and their products and are okay with the prices -- I mean, clearly there are some, based on GW's sales -- so I'm just here to express ONE viewpoint. Take it or leave it; doesn't bother me either way.
See, it's this sort of bs that makes you look patronising. Why, on gods green earth, did you feel I needed this explaining to me? This is a debate with opposing views, of course there's an impetus to try and prove your own points or undermine the opposing ones. I understand yours, and most others, viewpoints just fine. I just don't happen to agree with them necessarily. Just for future reference, by most objective measurements, I'm apparently relatively clever, I'd appreciate if you'd accommodate that in your posts addressing me.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
@Azreal13 - I'm replying to you, because you quoted me (in a response to someone else). If you don't want to hear my viewpoint, don't quote my post
The reason I type @Azreal instead of quoting you is that quoting is harder on a tablet. I'm watching this stupid new years countdown ATM -- really, almost all the time I'm on dakka, excluding uploading photos, it's from a tablet on phone, while I'm doing something else.
You mention things like 'internet win' and 'admitting defeat', which I find hilarious. Anyways, FOR ME, it's not about winning or losing, it's about expressing the perspective of someone who likes GW's games and models the way they are.
That post has almost nothing to do with what I wrote.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But, for the record, I post almost exclusively from a tablet, quoting is just fine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/01 04:53:36
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Oh, also, Az, the game they want to write is the game for the folks who fit onto their ideal parameters:
1. Enjoys frequent meta change
2. Plays amongst friends who are like minded, rather than pickup
3. Not ultra competitive
4. Really likes their models
5. Not really price sensitive
6. Likes large scale (many models, big table)
7. Highly values cool and spectacle
8. Likes adding new models
The more of those you say yes to, the more likely you're going to like 40k or 30k, in my opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: That post has almost nothing to do with what I wrote.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But, for the record, I post almost exclusively from a tablet, quoting is just fine.
It's easy to quote a small piece like this. Harder to break up a long post, especially from my phone.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/01 04:55:30
Again, not what I asked. I asked who, you answered with what.
Some sort of plucked from thin air version of what, but a what nonetheless.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Well OBVIOUSLY, the people writing the game are the game writers that HR and management hire....
Who cares what their names are?? Unless its some iconic name like Steve Jackson or Gary Gygax, the specific authors names matter not at all to me. I'm not even sure they are credited in the rulebooks. Incidentally, I was answering the game they want to write part, that you italicized, as I assumed the literal question of 'who' was for emphasis rather than a real question, lol.
By the way, HAPPY NEW YEAR 2016!!! (in the ears coast USA/Canada)
May all your models and games come true!!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/01/01 05:04:35
That's not what I meant. But I've had more than my RDA of this.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Kilkrazy wrote: In business terms, price and quality are different variables. Otherwise the same item would gain quality by being sold at a lower price.
In business terms, both are part of a derived variable - perceived value - so they actually mesh pretty tightly.
The Auld Grump
What I mean is this: There are different ideas of quality. One is objective measurements. Another one is customer acceptability. Perceived value is not quality in itself, though obviously if you can buy the same product at two different prices, people see more value in the cheaper one.
If you buy steel hawser, the breaking strain of a particular quality doesn't change because the price goes up or down.
If you want to buy a GW kit, in other words the acceptable quality of the kit is that it must be GW, no Tamiya kit will ever achieve this customer defined "quality" no matter how cheap it is. This doesn't mean the Tamiya kit has less parts, or is less poseable, it just isn't what the customer wants.
If GW kits are too expensive and should come down in price, that's perceived value.
I think that *clearly* the models are more important to GW than the game
Citadel has always been a model company, the GW games were created expressly to sell more models as D&D players only really need 1 of anything. There's no doubt they view the models as more important than the game but they seem to fail to grasp *why* people buy their models. The disconnect seems to be that they view the rules as something to do with your models when you have enough prepared, but the reality is that the rules provide a framework for the collection and people buy the models to play the game rather than the converse. This is easily evidenced by the grey hordes at most events.
What I don't think is possible is for any game company to get people to spend a thousand bucks a year for 20-30 years (that's $25,000) on just 28mm infantry models and small vehicles.
As one gamer who spends at least $1000 a year on gaming (admittedly only over about 8 years so far) I've never bought anything bigger than a tank, except for a Valkyrie (which I sold NIB) and a Baneblade (which I also sold NIB). Pretty much every other wargaming company in history has managed without resorting to massive kits too, but a lot of them scale better so there's no reason not to have 500 pikemen mini's in massive phalanxes, for instance.
GW also managed to survive for 2 decades without anything bigger than a standard tank, but at the time they had much more variety - at least 3 core games plus a handful of specialist games. It's only now it's 40K only that they are driving the model size up which is in part what's putting people off.
But you're claim that people aren't spending that sort of money is nonsense, ask any 10+ GW vet what their spend is and if they are still engaged in the hobby it'll likely be in that sort of level. It's just these days the money probably isn't all going to GW.
Look, what I'm saying is that GW is producing a book targeted at the person who cares less about the rules and more about it being a nice book for their enjoyment and collection. Therefore, to the first person who is a straight-up gamer, the rulebook is poorly written, badly balanced junk that weighs a ton, has worthless pictures, and is egregiously overpriced. To the second person, the book is a perfect balance of art, fluff, and function, looks great on their shelf, and has rules that are perfectly enjoyable for their sort of game. Not only is the price not crazy, hut they went and bought the digital version too, to put on their iPad to game.
That's fine if it's a fluff/art/history book, but it it's a fething rulebook then you really ought to tailor it to the gamer and not the collector.
If, as a gamer, you compare a 2005 codex with a 2015 codex you'll notice an awful lot more filler, less units in the book, possible less text (but mostly copy & pasted anyway). You'll also notice a hardcover (which is a nuisance for a gaming book), full colour (again, pointless for a gaming book) and a higher quality paper (which might make it a bit more durable, it's not that big a a deal since it'll be obsolete in 4 years anyway). Are these changes worth an extra 50% on the item price? All we've really added is some more durable paper and some more pictures.
If they are trying to cater to both markets they really need to split the products and do a gamers edition (no hardback, fluff, colour or pages just of illustrations) and a collectors edition (hardback, full colour, fluff, illustrations) at a price point that suits everyone. Just like everyone else does; as usual, it's not uncharted territory they need to deal with here, they just need to go to a gaming convention with their eyes open and see what the people that used to drive their business are doing for their competition now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/01 10:23:37
jah-joshua wrote: @PsychoticStorm: so, what qualifies something as a collectors model???
this is what i am trying to get to the root of...
A model designed for a collector is a model designed for a display, Gundam master grade are collectors models, their sole purpose is to be displayed that is why they have such insane detail internally and externally some of it never to be seen except for the exceptional modeler who wants to do something special with it, in the same category come the expert historical model kits or kits from boutique companies like Kallamity.
A model designed for display is true to scale, has accurate portrayal of detail fictional or historical and does not sacrifice intrigue detail for robustness needed for gaming, the helicopter you mentioned is designed for display, it would not survive in a gaming environment a model for wargame will.
You can collect wargame models, there is no shame in that nor it is a bad thing, but their purpose is to be gaming pieces, toy soldiers, they can be astonishing beautiful well crafted gaming pieces, but they are not scale models designed solely for been displayed in a collection.
Herzlos wrote: As one gamer who spends at least $1000 a year on gaming (admittedly only over about 8 years so far) I've never bought anything bigger than a tank, except for a Valkyrie (which I sold NIB) and a Baneblade (which I also sold NIB). Pretty much every other wargaming company in history has managed without resorting to massive kits too, but a lot of them scale better so there's no reason not to have 500 pikemen mini's in massive phalanxes, for instance. GW also managed to survive for 2 decades without anything bigger than a standard tank, but at the time they had much more variety - at least 3 core games plus a handful of specialist games. It's only now it's 40K only that they are driving the model size up which is in part what's putting people off.
But you're claim that people aren't spending that sort of money is nonsense, ask any 10+ GW vet what their spend is and if they are still engaged in the hobby it'll likely be in that sort of level. It's just these days the money probably isn't all going to GW.
I think you misunderstand me. Obviously, people DO spend tens of thousands of dollars on GW. As a game matures, it becomes harder and harder to get more money out of players for the same type of thing. For a while, GW could count on adding new factions. Then, they could iterate models into newer versions with clear benefits. But now, as we approach 2010+, the quality of plastic troop-level models have gotten really excellent, the number of factions is very high, and that avenue has been shut down.
Starting in the early 2000's, GW added vehicles like Land Raiders that are technically tanks, but large size tanks, and noticed that they sold pretty well. They added flyers, and they sold well. They added big centerpiece models (like Wraithknights and Hive Tyrants) and those sold really well, too. So GW understood that it's 40k playerbase -- at least the spendy playerbase -- wants big, fancy kits. Hell, look at the top 28, and see how many are huge models.
So what I'm saying is, changing the meta, mixing up the game is a way to keep 40k fresh, and adding larger models is one aspect of the meta change. It's not like you HAVE to play large models. Decurion, scatterbikes, gladius, deathstar, greentide, invincible land raiders -- there are many other types of armies, and MSU that you can play to compete against big stompy robots. But that's where the money is, right now, like it or not, and if you're not using them, you need to gear your army to win against them, which means buying more models too.
Also the reason GW stopped producing specialist games, according to GW, is that they weren't profitable. Clearly, as the years went by, 40k became increasingly popular, and in my opinion part of this is attributed to the fluid meta, and upsizing of models. I know this is one of the big reasons that I enjoy 40k, even if I still like playing and modelling the small models, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: If, as a gamer, you compare a 2005 codex with a 2015 codex you'll notice an awful lot more filler, less units in the book, possible less text (but mostly copy & pasted anyway). You'll also notice a hardcover (which is a nuisance for a gaming book), full colour (again, pointless for a gaming book) and a higher quality paper (which might make it a bit more durable, it's not that big a a deal since it'll be obsolete in 4 years anyway). Are these changes worth an extra 50% on the item price? All we've really added is some more durable paper and some more pictures.
Not only do I agree, but I think I said exactly the same thing. To a gamer, the new sparkly hardcover is worth LESS but costs more. The whole thing is a nuisance, if anything, to the gamer. That includes me, by the way, even when it's just carrying rulebooks from down 2 floors from my painting room to my basement to play games. They're a freaking pain as far as game rulebooks are concerned, but they're a luxurious read and nice for the shelf.
It brings me a little bit back to my point that GW's target audience is the mostly-hobbyist, little-bit-gamer type, who's going to let that rulebook sit on his shelf below his AD&D hardcover Dungeon Master's Guide an awful lot.
In other words, while 40k is a game played by a lot of hardcore gamers, and enjoyed by many prolific gamers, but it's not a game designed FOR that crowd.
If they are trying to cater to both markets they really need to split the products and do a gamers edition (no hardback, fluff, colour or pages just of illustrations) and a collectors edition (hardback, full colour, fluff, illustrations) at a price point that suits everyone. Just like everyone else does; as usual, it's not uncharted territory they need to deal with here, they just need to go to a gaming convention with their eyes open and see what the people that used to drive their business are doing for their competition now.
I agree. I believe they acknowledge this too: At least they've made a Gamer's edition available digitally at half the price of the regular digital version (which is already cheaper than the print version). Actually, owning two digital books, I really like them for gaming. The one downside is that the interactive version is FAR superior, but only available for iPad, and I don't use an iPad for gaming (I use a Surface, because I want Excel). Were it available for PC, I'd buy the whole set of them.
Oh, and I would buy the gamer edition, because on the version for my tablet for gaming, I could care less about the fluff.
You can collect wargame models, there is no shame in that nor it is a bad thing, but their purpose is to be gaming pieces, toy soldiers, they can be astonishing beautiful well crafted gaming pieces, but they are not scale models designed solely for been displayed in a collection.
I don't see why models for display or collection must be true to scale, any more than a painting or sculpture for a museum must be to scale.
I believe the purpose of a model is whatever the purchaser desires for it to be, whether as components to another model, toy soldiers/gaming pieces, or to collect shrink wrapped on a shelf. If someone buys a Wraithknight to build a diorama, it becomes a piece of art; if someone spray paints it blue to play in a game, it becomes a badly painted game piece, and if someone spends 100 hours on it, it becomes a beautifully painted game piece (hopefully), or perhaps a model for display.
I think that more and more, GW's target audience is the crowd that likes to build wargame armies or models that are not played a lot (sometimes, not at all) -- so called "collectors". If you asked me, a month ago, I'd have thought the ratio of "game more, collect less" was either close or tilted to the gaming crowd; but looking at the top 28 sellers of 2015, I revise that position and now believe that GW's customers "game less, collect more". Why? With the exception of the Imperial Knight and Adeptus Mechanicus, both of which are special cases, the most powerful units in the game don't even make it onto the list, and the list is littered with units that have horrible game value.
Consider kits like Baneblade, Toxicrene, Land Raider Crusader, Blood Angels Tactical, Tyranid Swarm, Cadian Defence Force, and heck, the top-selling model, Smaug. These are not models for "true gamers", at least not the ones that enjoy winning pickups or tournaments. Imperial Knight has good rules, but is also a modelling favorite, so it's tough to say. AdMech has *great* rules, but lots of people bought these because, well, people have wanted them for a really, really long time.
Another factor is transportability. Some of these models, like Toxicrene or even Imperial Knight, are just horrible to transport. If you own a dozen of them, YES, you can move it around, but it's just not a lot of fun. Imagine packing Archaon and Celestant Prime to your next game at the local store. Or even Treeman Ancient. Three of them in the Sylvaneth army box! Good luck with that. I mean, sure, you can do it; but I don't think a lot of people consider that a whole lot of fun.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/01/01 11:42:37
I would argue that the big centerpiece models you say sold well because the rules for them made them indispensable from the competitive market.
The formula seems to be want a new model to sell make the rules game breaking, want it to be more expensive make it bigger.
Edit
The above was a general response written before you quoted me.
I have yet to see in my local meta and in my discussions internationally people who collect GW or any wargame armies for the sole purpose of collecting them and not having the intention of using them to play a game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/01 11:53:49
I don't see why GW couldn't make money by selling a well written set of core rules for large skirmish (i.e. a cleaned up 5th edition 40K) plus optional extra rules that support large models that would also be bought by collectors (Apocalypse, Planetary Assault, etc.)
It's clear to me that GW drove away a lot of gamers by the changes over 6th and 7th edition. Given the continuing fall in revenue, they obviously didn't recruit enough model collectors to compensate.
I don't understand why GW would want to turn away potential customers.
Now I have both. And the Ukrainian guy wins hands down.
Now neither kit supplies legs or bases. And both are in resin, so it's a like for like comparison.
games workshop produces gaming pieces. The quality isn't good enough for collecting.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
). At some point, it's not uncommon for folks who are successful and fully busy doing things they love to say, "Gee, doing only the things I love and that I think I'm good at, I'm making more money than I and all the people who started up with me can spend in their entire life. Do I want to try out other stuff and make even more, or just be content working on my core competencies and stay within my happy zone?"
There are countless hordes of people far more successful than I by whatever metric you choose to measure, and that's just fine with me. 
...
