Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
@Jah-Joshua.
I would think the sculptors and minature painters are still allowed to use their skills to the extent they get some enjoyment from working at GW towers.
Even though the 'create works of art to inspire others to be creative,' vibe seems to have been squashed by corporate control .(Only promote products GW sell, and the way GW corporate dictate how they should be used.)
They are still not as restricted as the 'alleged GW game development.'
To put it into some sort of comparison so you '*arty' types might understand the way corporate sucked all the creativity out of game development.
(*Arty types means artistically inclined, no offence meant. )
If the minature painters were under the same restrictions as the game devs, they would be told...
'Here is a 1/2" paint brush.These ones want to be red, those ones want to be blue.'
'Yes, practically any one can paint to a better standard, but they are just game counters so why bother?'
I hope that helps you understand what has been lost over the years from GW games, from a gamers perspective.
This is not too different from the developers from Bungee complaining that all Microsoft wanted was Halo, Halo, and more Halo, when they had many other ideas and projects that they wanted to do instead. I totally appreciate the artistic types not wanting to "do the grind". I'm a little bit that way myself
On the other hand, there are realities of what pays the bills. When the Bungee guys finally finished their contract, they went off and made Destiny, and Microsoft went on to make Halo 5; guess which one was far and away the bigger seller? Of course, it's not all about the money, and doing what you want to do matters, but when you work for someone else, you surrender at least a part of that, because you get a pay check no matter what.
I highly doubt the sculptors and miniature painters and game writers don't get any enjoyment out of working at GW. I mean, look at attitude of the photographer with the contract who did the AMA at GW. How many people would be thrilled to paint miniatures all day, or sculpt them, instead of work retail or an office job?
At the end of the day, if you want to control your own destiny, you're better off striking it off on your own, or working for a smaller company, where you have more say. The larger the company, the more direction you'll receive, and the more of a cog you'll be in a giant machine, because that's just the reality of what's required to manage thousands of people; not everyone can have their way, and not everyone can be right, so it's up to the management to plot the course -- and it's their fault if it falls apart. It's not really any different than other companies of a similar size in other industries.
If you want to talk about squashing the life out of your employees, look at a company like Foxconn, where people work 80 hour weeks at 75 cents an hour, aren't allowed to leave the compound and jump off of walls because they go nuts. So we can have nice cell phones at the right price point.
Talys wrote: This is not too different from the developers from Bungee complaining that all Microsoft wanted was Halo, Halo, and more Halo, when they had many other ideas and projects that they wanted to do instead. I totally appreciate the artistic types not wanting to "do the grind". I'm a little bit that way myself
What is "do the grind" as you put it...
It is clear you understand the plight of creatives at all. Often they are given instructions to follow by people that don't have a cohesive vision and these instructions may be detrimental to the final product by by inserting many conflicting additions... it's like if you were told to bake a CHOCOLATE CAKE, the recipe is approved - and while it is in the oven... some guy came and said that it needs to contain nuts (but not peanuts, and not any nuts that are too expensive), and pineapple, maybe more whipped topping, since that makes it look more impressive, and it needs to be gluten free too with a crushed biscuit base too, since focus groups indicate that that's a popular feature.
Often you'll have a concept approved, only to have it undergo many iterative changes as it moves up the approvals process. Each of these alterations to the scope of work isn't GRIND, its literally complete and unnecessary rework resulting from poor definition of concept at best and needless interference at worst. The worst part is that the deadline doesn't change and these changes usually occur late in the process. There is that old artist meme that the customer thinks they know what's best, insist on the changes, and then asks why they are paying the artist when they are the one doing all the designing (in most cases making their own product crappier in the process). It's this systematic dismantling of the original concept that is a real morale killer.
Sure... people can take your suggestion, leave and do your own thing, but that doesn't make the life of a creative any less soul crushing. You need to have a pedigree and an unassailable portfolio before you can start insisting on retaining features, and even the world's most celebrated creatives (think movie directors) are hardly immune to studio interference. Its obvious that you have to heed those that pay your bills, but the complete lack of respect that many creatives endure is ridiculous. (Disclaimer: I'm not a creative).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Getting back on topic - I find it rich that GW would claim that they make the best gaming products when management actively bars the studio from making the necessary changes to improve the ruleset by enforced backwards compatibility.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/01/21 18:38:59
@keezus - I'm not sure if it's a typo, and you're trying to say that I do or don't understand the "plight of creatives" as you put it
Anyhow, "the grind" so to speak, is just a general term referring to doing stuff that isn't what you really want to do, doing something that feels repetitive, something that feels uncreative, or worst of all, being told to do something that you find creatively distasteful -- like building something that you think looks ugly, but you do it because it's your job. I write computer software for a living, and work with animators and illustrators all the time, so I'm pretty familiar with what "the grind" is, at least in our industry.
The vast majority of creative types employed by big companies are either hired specifically for a project, moved to a project, or told pretty exactly what needs to be done. Within those parameters, they'll have some discretion, depending on the creative director and the size of the creative team. Most creative types understand this when they work for a big company.
Even so, it is definitely a grind being told not to work on Sequel #3, 3a, 3b, 4, 4+, 4a when you have great fresh ideas you'd like work on instead. In the context of miniatures, another Rhino chassis vehicle or another space marine with a different gun or leg or shoulder pad is probably a lot more grind-y than if you're handed a sketches of an Imperial Knight and told, "Make it so!"
For all of us, there are projects that we are really excited about, and projects that just seem like work. But hey, we all gotta eat, and even something that feels like a grind -- if you're sculpting or painting minis -- it's probably a lot more fun than fixing a PC at Best Buy or answering the customer service desk at Target. Which was kind of Jah's point, I think.
In any case, people who do great work and do exceptional concepts either as a part of their work or in their spare time do get noticed, and more often than not, will be lucky enough to move from cog in wheel to... a more important cog in the wheel, and eventually will be given increasing levels of freedom, even within a huge company. The problems start when creative types think they're doing really exceptional work, but their bosses don't think so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/21 21:55:20
On the other hand, there are realities of what pays the bills. When the Bungee guys finally finished their contract, they went off and made Destiny, and Microsoft went on to make Halo 5; guess which one was far and away the bigger seller?
Just chipping in to say: Most likely Destiny, but it's murky.
Destiny reportedly made back it's entire budget day one and something around 500 million dollars within one or two weeks. Activision avoided stating clear numbers, but all-in-all, it seemed like an incredible success. They also stated that at least 325 Million Dollars were day one sales or preorders.
Microsoft threw out a "400 Million Dollar" statement, which sounds great, but several retailers reported disappointing sales, so it's very much possible that Microsoft made those 400 Millions by selling most of the bunch to retailers, which couldn't move the product.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/21 22:43:39
On the other hand, there are realities of what pays the bills. When the Bungee guys finally finished their contract, they went off and made Destiny, and Microsoft went on to make Halo 5; guess which one was far and away the bigger seller?
Just chipping in to say: Most likely Destiny, but it's murky.
Destiny reportedly made back it's entire budget day one and something around 500 million dollars within one or two weeks. Activision avoided stating clear numbers, but all-in-all, it seemed like an incredible success. They also stated that at least 325 Million Dollars were day one sales or preorders.
Microsoft threw out a "400 Million Dollar" statement, which sounds great, but several retailers reported disappointing sales, so it's very much possible that Microsoft made those 400 Millions by selling most of the bunch to retailers, which couldn't move the product.
Soooooo...... Spreading misinformation again?
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
You guys are probably right that Halo 5 is probably not a great example. Especially, since the numbers from Microsoft are murky. Keep in mind the numbers from Activision were also murky (they used sell-through numbers, IIRC). The point still stands though, that lots of creative people do stuff to pay the bills, and it still beats doing something out of your chosen profession or industry.
But anyways, this was not only a bad example, but way totally off topic. Sorry
So back on topic.
Kilkrazy wrote: At the risk of getting back on the topic, who here thinks that GW lets their design studio have loads of great creative ideas, etc. ?
Dune, blah blah, Asgard, blah blah.
Just hazarding a guess, I would suspect that GW's design studios have various creative directors that have a lot of latitude, and they probably solicit ideas from their teams, with everyone having their favorites. The creative director probably then takes it to get signed off by some grand overlord.
Of course, that's just a shot in the dark!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/22 00:05:29
Talys wrote: You guys are probably right that Halo 5 is probably not a great example. Especially, since the numbers from Microsoft are murky. Keep in mind the numbers from Activision were also murky (they used sell-through numbers, IIRC). The point still stands though, that lots of creative people do stuff to pay the bills, and it still beats doing something out of your chosen profession or industry.
But anyways, this was not only a bad example, but way totally off topic. Sorry
So back on topic.
Kilkrazy wrote: At the risk of getting back on the topic, who here thinks that GW lets their design studio have loads of great creative ideas, etc. ?
Dune, blah blah, Asgard, blah blah.
Just hazarding a guess, I would suspect that GW's design studios have various creative directors that have a lot of latitude, and they probably solicit ideas from their teams, with everyone having their favorites. The creative director probably then takes it to get signed off by some grand overlord.
Of course, that's just a shot in the dark!
In the dark, blind folded, with your eyes closed, in a cave.
At night.
I rather suspect that in the case of GW, the design comes down from the top -so, somebody at the top yells 'Space clowns!'
The creative director goes to the design team leader and says 'Space clowns'.
The design team leader turns to his design team and says 'Space clowns?'
The design team sits down and begins sketching clowns in power armor.
The design team leader turns to the creative director and says 'Space clowns?'
The creative director goes to the loudest person at the top and says 'Space clowns.'
And the loudest person at the top yells 'Space clowns!' and sends it all off to the folks making the molds.
The Sigmarine is torn down, and a new Space clown becomes the mascot for the company.
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
Kilkrazy wrote: At the risk of getting back on the topic, who here thinks that GW lets their design studio have loads of great creative ideas, etc. ?
Dune, blah blah, Asgard, blah blah.
Human creativity is actually heavily dependent on iteration. The "eureka moment"/creative savant is largely a fiction peddled by egotists appropriating the work of their subordinates or dramatists who want an easy, simple story to tell. Works which are derivative are not inherently non-creative, and 40K has come a fair distance and birthed a fair amount of excellent storytelling since the days when it was essentially "Dune meets 2000AD plus Monty Python".
"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
Actually I prefer Dune meets 2000AD meets Monty Python. That's because being British I simply cannot bring myself to take 40K seriously now that it has been drained of every trace of humour.
To come back to the subject I introduced, I agree that originality is a an over-rated virtue. However, granting that GW are allowed to take inspiration from other fantasy/SF backgrounds, is the stuff they've done for AoS much good?
I personally don't get nearly as much of a good times vibe off it as I did from The Olde Worlde,. The Azyrverse seems like a wide open titanic setting that is intended to allow people to fight small scale skirmishes that don't really connect with much outside themselves.
Personally I love the mythical greco-roman feel to the AoS world, and I love the world concepts and descriptions. Unfortunately the Black Library novels are almost exclusively Stormcast focused, and they're wearing thin by now. If they fleshed out the more interesting parts of the setting I'd say it could be very successful, but at the moment there's not much to be found aside from snippets of names and descriptions of places that sound like they COULD be interesting.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/22 09:50:49
Regarding Halo and Destiny... it's probably fair to say that both games were great sellers, but also that they probably both owed it to the enormous marketing machines working for them.
As for creativity and GW... being derivative is embedded in 40k's DNA. It can and will never shake it, as long as it keeps using its foundations. And as long as they keep using names, places and concepts that were ripped wholesale from other works, I'll never be able to see it for anything else.
It's true that innovation is about iteration, but I'd argue that 40k has actually become a lot less innovative than it used to be.
Mymearan wrote: Personally I love the mythical greco-roman feel to the AoS world, and I love the world concepts and descriptions. Unfortunately the Black Library novels are almost exclusively Stormcast focused, and they're wearing thin by now. If they fleshed out the more interesting parts of the setting I'd say it could be very successful, but at the moment there's not much to be found aside from snippets of names and descriptions of places that sound like they COULD be interesting.
It is one of the three pillars that support a game: fluff, figures and rules. The combination of these needs to add up to more than the cost, to make the game worth playing. Meaning that you can ignore the fluff if the rules are great, and so on.
@keezus, Lanrak, &TheAuldGrump: it really is not as extreme as you guys are trying to make it out to be...
i am sharing my experience, in person, with the guys who work in the studio designing the rules, models, and paint schemes...
just because you guys are no longer on the same page as the studio, doesn't mean that they don't love what they do...
until you interact with the people who do the actual work, you really don't know how much fun they have at their job...
@Jah_joshua.
As you are in contact with the game developers at GW towers, who are loving what they do,apparently.
What game development are they most happy with over the last 5 years.
You know actual game development to address game play issues, rather than special snowflake rules to help sell the latest releases.
All the game developers I have talked to that left GW , all say they felt restricted by corporate directives.
'More of a sales department for a toy company , than a game development studio.'
jah-joshua wrote: @keezus, Lanrak, &TheAuldGrump: it really is not as extreme as you guys are trying to make it out to be... i am sharing my experience, in person, with the guys who work in the studio designing the rules, models, and paint schemes... just because you guys are no longer on the same page as the studio, doesn't mean that they don't love what they do...
until you interact with the people who do the actual work, you really don't know how much fun they have at their job...
cheers jah
I bet their tune will change once they leave GW and no longer have to toe the company line.
I'm sure the painters love their job, and the sculptors and artists (painting is painting, whether its a unique and original model or not). But the people who actually design the games like Rick Priestley and Matt Ward?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/22 17:33:57
Kilkrazy wrote: Actually I prefer Dune meets 2000AD meets Monty Python. That's because being British I simply cannot bring myself to take 40K seriously now that it has been drained of every trace of humour.
To come back to the subject I introduced, I agree that originality is a an over-rated virtue. However, granting that GW are allowed to take inspiration from other fantasy/SF backgrounds, is the stuff they've done for AoS much good?
I personally don't get nearly as much of a good times vibe off it as I did from The Olde Worlde,. The Azyrverse seems like a wide open titanic setting that is intended to allow people to fight small scale skirmishes that don't really connect with much outside themselves.
Mate, have you seen my posts in the AoS thread? Safe to say I agree, but where the inspiration comes from is less the issue than the motivation behind the process and what the building blocks gained are shaped into is more the point I was making. Fantasy worked as a setting because it was a world - AoS is, as you say, a way of getting around the limitations of being a world(it never seems to have occurred to the bigwigs to simply focus on a scale of conflict more suited to the setting, rather than grand, overwrought, world-ending catastrophising, but I suppose to do that the studio would have required writers capable of creating[or permitted to create] dramatic tension and compelling narrative rather than faking those things by generating ever more ludicrous threats to all of civilisation).
I agree less so about 40K; the balance has certaiinly been tilted too far towards po-faced mythologising, but there's a happy medium between the totally unaware modern post-grimdark pseudoepic and the days of "Obiwan Sherlock Clouseau".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/22 19:54:16
"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
@Killkrazy - I don't think I ever took 40k seriously
The entire concept of space marines fighting space orks and space elves forty thousand years in the future with the dying immortal emperor on the golden throne psychically staving off chaos is just so ridiculous that I don't know how anyone could possibly take it seriously I mean, does anyone actually think that titans with giant fists that throw tanks across the battlefield is anything other than a laugh?
Not in the way, for instance, that it's possible to say that Roddenberry's future (Star Trek) is a plausible, aspirational one, or that Lucas' Star Wars setting, or even BattleTech's vision of a future humanity. Even with a suspension of belief, 40k is just impossibly nonsensical. It's not that there are logic and plot holes; it's that just about everything defies common sense. Like the one million space marines (1000 chapters of 1000 brothers) are somehow more fearsome and effective than literally endless trillions of Imperial Guard (so many that nobody even knows how many there are!). I mean, who cares how big and strong they are; they're all the same inside a space ship or jet or tank with a big gun. It just defies logic.
But none of that matters to me. Because the 40k universe is just awesome, in such a cool way. Tanks! Armored Knights! Big guns! Kaboom! Jellybean? Mmmmmmm.... Yummy!
With regards to AoS and WHFB's setting -- the problem with WHFB for me is that I didn't like the Old World at all. It was like a crappy version of Greyhawk or Middle Earth, with fiction that didn't stack up to TSR novels (or Tolkein, if you want to go there).
Is AoS better? Well, not really, in the sense that I am equally uninvested in the game world. But I suppose I have a passing interest in what happens in the story line, at least from a Wikipedia/Coles Notes type macro level. In other words, I won't ever read a novel or listen to an audiobook, but I'll read the summary or follow the campaign loosely to see what happened to various heroes and villains.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/23 02:12:38
I don't know I cannot take 40k seriously as a sarcastic comedy, I could in the past and it was nice, but the direction they got the past decade or more made it just bad, not bad enough to be enjoyable, neither good enough to sidestep the odd stuff.
Interesting article popped up on my newsfeed today...
Games Workshop: In Denial
There’s bad news about revenue and profitability in Games Workshop’s half-year report and no adequate explanation. Maybe the company’s in denial.
Games Workshop failed to report the one thing I was looking out for in the half-year to November 2015, an increase in revenue, although on a constant currency basis it did rise (by less than 1%). Operating profit was flat too, although it was rescued by royalty income from other firms, for example app and computer game producers who use Games Workshop’s fantasy worlds. Profit from the sale of miniatures and games, the company’s core business, fell 15%.
Irritatingly, Games Workshop didn’t provide an explanation, which is surprising since, in its previous full-year results, it had promised a sales drive.
Delving into the segmental results in note 2, which are admirably thorough, it’s easy to pick out a culprit from the line-up. Games Workshop’s trade channel made an operating profit of £5.8m and its mail order channel made a profit of £6.2m, but its retail channel made a loss of £2.5m, more than double the loss it made for the same period the previous year.
Sales, the company, says are roughly flat on a constant currency basis, but it opened 25 new stores and only closed 13.
The retail channel is Games Workshop’s Hobby Stores, which are being rebranded Warhammer and are present in many UK and European towns and cities. They’re of particular interest because of the strategic emphasis put on them, and because of how much they cost to run.
Games Workshop designs, manufactures and retails fantasy miniatures which must be assembled and painted, either for the fun of it, or to play its Warhammer games. The company eschews advertising and relies primarily on word of mouth and its stores to encourage new hobbyists who can model and play there as well as spend.
It’s just completed a multi-year store rationalisation program, relocating to smaller, cheaper premises, and converting stores into low-cost one-man operations. The strategy was a response to a period of expansion when higher costs almost completely stymied profit, and it successfully restored profitability at Games Workshop.
Store running costs are over half of all Games Workshop’s operating costs, reflecting, presumably, their importance not just as a sales channel, but as way of recruiting new hobbyists who might go on and buy products through mail-order (which includes the company’s Internet site) and other retailers. The trade and mail order channels are far less expensive to operate.
Kevin Rountree, the company’s chief executive, has previously said improvements in sales depend on recruiting the right store managers, and that failing to do so is the biggest risk facing Games Workshop. He has recruited a recruitment specialist to help him.
Maybe that’s all there is to it. But maybe the company can’t recruit managers of sufficient calibre because running a one-man store is too much work for one man. Maybe one man cannot show people how to model, run games, and serve paying customers at the same time. Trials of larger multi-man stores in Sydney, Munich, Paris and Copenhagen suggest, at least for locations where there are lots of customers, one man stores are not the answer.
I also worry that despite the unsubstantiated claim that Games Workshop has launched some “great new products”, the company’s new version of Warhammer, Warhammer Age of Sigmar, is not doing as well as hoped. This new simpler version is intended to revive the original Warhammer game, which for many years has trailed its more futuristic sibling Warhammer 40,000.
Perhaps by focusing too much on maximising profit through cost cutting, the company is neglecting the recruitment of new hobbyists. Or perhaps the much smaller armies of rival fantasy wargaming and modelling companies and the armies of illegal clones sold on the Internet are chipping away at Games Workshop’s franchise. In a more competitive world profitable stores in less popular locations may be oxymoronic.
The company routinely denies competitive threats and aggressively squashes business that steal its intellectual property, but the longer it fails to lift revenue profitably the more credible these alternate realities become.
My previous article on Games Workshop was also my most popular article, it accumulated a staggering number of comments. That gives us an inkling of how strong a hold the company has over modellers and gamers, which is what attracted me to it as an investment.
But when I read Games Workshop’s results, I wonder about what the company says, and what it doesn’t say, and whether I’m mad or it’s delusional.
To my mind, the business is stuck in a rut, but it needs to grow to justify the asking price. A share price of 549p values the enterprise at £226m, about 16 times adjusted profit.
You may be wondering why a so-called long-term investor is worrying about half-year sales. I’m not.
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
But maybe the company can’t recruit managers of sufficient calibre because running a one-man store is too much work for one man. Maybe one man cannot show people how to model, run games, and serve paying customers at the same time. Trials of larger multi-man stores in Sydney, Munich, Paris and Copenhagen suggest, at least for locations where there are lots of customers, one man stores are not the answer.
Someone get this man a bloody prize
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.
But maybe the company can’t recruit managers of sufficient calibre because running a one-man store is too much work for one man. Maybe one man cannot show people how to model, run games, and serve paying customers at the same time. Trials of larger multi-man stores in Sydney, Munich, Paris and Copenhagen suggest, at least for locations where there are lots of customers, one man stores are not the answer.
Someone get this man a bloody prize
I think you'd need to give a prize to the other million or so people who have pointed that out since GW first started the one man to rule them all policy
It's a few years since GW announced problems with ne-man shops due to difficulty of recruiting the right people. If they have not managed to solve this problem, perhaps they have the wrong strategy.
Azreal13 wrote: Interesting article popped up on my newsfeed today...
Spoiler:
Games Workshop: In Denial
There’s bad news about revenue and profitability in Games Workshop’s half-year report and no adequate explanation. Maybe the company’s in denial.
Games Workshop failed to report the one thing I was looking out for in the half-year to November 2015, an increase in revenue, although on a constant currency basis it did rise (by less than 1%). Operating profit was flat too, although it was rescued by royalty income from other firms, for example app and computer game producers who use Games Workshop’s fantasy worlds. Profit from the sale of miniatures and games, the company’s core business, fell 15%.
Irritatingly, Games Workshop didn’t provide an explanation, which is surprising since, in its previous full-year results, it had promised a sales drive.
Delving into the segmental results in note 2, which are admirably thorough, it’s easy to pick out a culprit from the line-up. Games Workshop’s trade channel made an operating profit of £5.8m and its mail order channel made a profit of £6.2m, but its retail channel made a loss of £2.5m, more than double the loss it made for the same period the previous year.
Sales, the company, says are roughly flat on a constant currency basis, but it opened 25 new stores and only closed 13.
The retail channel is Games Workshop’s Hobby Stores, which are being rebranded Warhammer and are present in many UK and European towns and cities. They’re of particular interest because of the strategic emphasis put on them, and because of how much they cost to run.
Games Workshop designs, manufactures and retails fantasy miniatures which must be assembled and painted, either for the fun of it, or to play its Warhammer games. The company eschews advertising and relies primarily on word of mouth and its stores to encourage new hobbyists who can model and play there as well as spend.
It’s just completed a multi-year store rationalisation program, relocating to smaller, cheaper premises, and converting stores into low-cost one-man operations. The strategy was a response to a period of expansion when higher costs almost completely stymied profit, and it successfully restored profitability at Games Workshop.
Store running costs are over half of all Games Workshop’s operating costs, reflecting, presumably, their importance not just as a sales channel, but as way of recruiting new hobbyists who might go on and buy products through mail-order (which includes the company’s Internet site) and other retailers. The trade and mail order channels are far less expensive to operate.
Kevin Rountree, the company’s chief executive, has previously said improvements in sales depend on recruiting the right store managers, and that failing to do so is the biggest risk facing Games Workshop. He has recruited a recruitment specialist to help him.
Maybe that’s all there is to it. But maybe the company can’t recruit managers of sufficient calibre because running a one-man store is too much work for one man. Maybe one man cannot show people how to model, run games, and serve paying customers at the same time. Trials of larger multi-man stores in Sydney, Munich, Paris and Copenhagen suggest, at least for locations where there are lots of customers, one man stores are not the answer.
I also worry that despite the unsubstantiated claim that Games Workshop has launched some “great new products”, the company’s new version of Warhammer, Warhammer Age of Sigmar, is not doing as well as hoped. This new simpler version is intended to revive the original Warhammer game, which for many years has trailed its more futuristic sibling Warhammer 40,000.
Perhaps by focusing too much on maximising profit through cost cutting, the company is neglecting the recruitment of new hobbyists. Or perhaps the much smaller armies of rival fantasy wargaming and modelling companies and the armies of illegal clones sold on the Internet are chipping away at Games Workshop’s franchise. In a more competitive world profitable stores in less popular locations may be oxymoronic.
The company routinely denies competitive threats and aggressively squashes business that steal its intellectual property, but the longer it fails to lift revenue profitably the more credible these alternate realities become.
My previous article on Games Workshop was also my most popular article, it accumulated a staggering number of comments. That gives us an inkling of how strong a hold the company has over modellers and gamers, which is what attracted me to it as an investment.
But when I read Games Workshop’s results, I wonder about what the company says, and what it doesn’t say, and whether I’m mad or it’s delusional.
To my mind, the business is stuck in a rut, but it needs to grow to justify the asking price. A share price of 549p values the enterprise at £226m, about 16 times adjusted profit.
You may be wondering why a so-called long-term investor is worrying about half-year sales. I’m not.
Games Workshop’s AGM is next Wednesday, and I’m going to use it to test my theory that the company may be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
It’s not a theory I necessarily subscribe to, in fact, it may be fantasy.
The theory goes like this: Since no-one else can legally produce Warhammer miniatures, model soldiers and other creatures set in the company’s fantasy worlds because it invented them, and since Games Workshop controls every aspect of the business from design through manufacturing to marketing and retail, it’s destiny is in its own hands. Other wargames exist, but they’re less rich and less popular. Presumably, the most important consideration when choosing a war game is that other people play it. Rivals seeking to break into this monopoly have their work cut out, so if Games Workshop is to fail it will be the result of some internal blunder.
When I first articulated the possibility the company could be the architect of its own demise, it resonated with a large number of people. They weren’t investors though, they were customers. Dozens of them commented on the article, many of them saying that Games Workshop had neglected gamers, or that it was gouging them for money by raising prices and relentlessly releasing new models.
The theory puts gaming at the centre of the business model, but you won’t find much mention of gaming in the annual reports. The money comes from the models and Games Workshop’s ambition, verbatim, is to make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them profitably, forever. Despite the company’s failure to increase sales meaningfully over the last decade, which you might expect if the game were growing in popularity, its remained resolutely profitable, which you might expect if the company were, as it has in recent years, focused on reducing manufacturing costs (it switched from metal to resin models), distribution costs (it cut out middle management and repatriated overseas distribution) and retail costs (it’s near the end of a programme of store conversions to a one-man format), while simultaneously raising prices.
The company’s strategy in recent years suggests it’s focused on a fairly fixed, or even diminishing, pool of older, wealthier, collectors, drawn into the hobby years ago by the game, but it may also be shutting out younger, newer, recruits. An online petition has over 16,000 signatures all asking the company to refocus its business model on the sale of the game and the support of the gaming community.
I would have thought the company would be alive to the risk of killing the goose that lays the golden egg, but Games Workshop has an unusually strong internal culture. That’s usually a good thing, if the culture is open to criticism and capable of adapting. Reading Games Workshops annual reports over the years has left me with me a different impression though. In 2014 Tom Kirby, longstanding chairman, the former chief executive who ran the company during its rapid growth in the 1990’s, said it doesn’t do market research:
Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning teenagers and adults. 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.
The company’s approach may be changing though, Kirby has relinquished the chief executive’s role, although he still has an operational role as he’s also been retained as a consultant. The new chief executive is Kevin Rountree the former finance director. He’s promising to lift sales, indeed salaries have been frozen until it happens, and in the 2015 annual report he included this paragraph on pricing (the emphasis is mine):
I will review our product range. We believe this is long overdue: it is time for a resetting of the ranges. Not tweaking here and there but a top down reassessment. I expect to update you further at the half year. We will aim to continue to deliver outstanding product and customer service, maintain our Group gross margin and continue to improve our Group stock turn. To be absolutely clear I will not be reducing the RRP of our products: they are premium priced for their premium quality. I will, however, be looking to offer a broader range of price points.
New products at lower prices, might be more attractive to gamers who need models in quantity,than collectors who prize models that are unusual, challenging to paint, and expensive.
I’m keen to know whether the company believes it has neglected the game, and whether it will listen to customers more in the future.
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.
I do not see why it is impossible to make a range of games that appeals to a range of players, and a range of figures that includes cheaper units for wargamers and expensive kits for collectors.
My previous article on Games Workshop was also my most popular article, it accumulated a staggering number of comments. That gives us an inkling of how strong a hold the company has over modellers and gamers, which is what attracted me to it as an investment.
But when I read Games Workshop’s results, I wonder about what the company says, and what it doesn’t say, and whether I’m mad or it’s delusional.
I'm not sure why he's wondering. Did he actually read what those comments said? At least some of them? IIRC a lot of them were singing from the same song sheet, telling him just why GW's 'premium' main product minis weren't selling.
A large audience of mere customers, and no attention paid to what they say. That rings a bell, somehow...
I do not see why it is impossible to make a range of games that appeals to a range of players, and a range of figures that includes cheaper units for wargamers and expensive kits for collectors.
I think the former is certainly possible; GW just doesn't seem to have an interest in it. I can't even hazard a guess as to why, because it wouldn't take a lot to make certain groups much happier.
As for the latter, I believe that GW thinks it's more profitable to make all the units more expensive, and force people to either buy the more expensive units or go elsewhere. In the niche of scifi wargames, in my opinion, over time this has raised everyone's ASP (average selling price), because other companies consider GW's prices when setting their own. The net effect becomes a choice of (a) play a scifi wargame with a lot of expensive models, (b) play a scifi wargame with a few expensive models or (c) play a non-scifi wargame. Or, I suppose, play whatever you want, but with proxies for models.
Before anyone jumps all over it, yes, I realize this is a generalization and exceptions exist -- but generally speaking, pricy scifi wargaming models is where we're at, especially for companies with bigger catalogs, and we've gotten here by GW pushing the envelope, and everyone else happily tagging along for the ride.
In my opinion, if Privateer Press wrote a large-scale wargame optimized for 6x4 and larger tables AND reduced the price of their models to the levels that you see in historicals, you'd see a lot of people jump over from 40k. But I don't know if that would actually be a lot more profitable for PP (if at all). The reason I say PP is because they're one of the few companies that have a large and varied enough catalog to produce make a large-scale scifi wargame that would entice the sort of people who are into that, and currently play 40k.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/24 00:58:59
Talys wrote: In my opinion, if Privateer Press wrote a large-scale wargame optimized for 6x4 and larger tables AND reduced the price of their models to the levels that you see in historicals, you'd see a lot of people jump over from 40k. But I don't know if that would actually be a lot more profitable for PP (if at all). The reason I say PP is because they're one of the few companies that have a large and varied enough catalog to produce make a large-scale scifi wargame that would entice the sort of people who are into that, and currently play 40k.
Why pick PP? They have manufacturing capability sure. Rules writing cred in spades, but they don't manufacture ANY sci-fi models.
IMHO, Mantic seems to be a better fit. Regardless, the one reason why GW is supreme in the mass-model wargame market is that competitors need to build up their model range and have to start at the skirmish size. PP's catalog is only the size it is now as both its core games are over 10 years old.
Talys wrote: In my opinion, if Privateer Press wrote a large-scale wargame optimized for 6x4 and larger tables AND reduced the price of their models to the levels that you see in historicals, you'd see a lot of people jump over from 40k. But I don't know if that would actually be a lot more profitable for PP (if at all). The reason I say PP is because they're one of the few companies that have a large and varied enough catalog to produce make a large-scale scifi wargame that would entice the sort of people who are into that, and currently play 40k.
Why pick PP? They have manufacturing capability sure. Rules writing cred in spades, but they don't manufacture ANY sci-fi models.
IMHO, Mantic seems to be a better fit. Regardless, the one reason why GW is supreme in the mass-model wargame market is that competitors need to build up their model range and have to start at the skirmish size. PP's catalog is only the size it is now as both its core games are over 10 years old.
I consider Warmachine models pretty close to scifi. I think there's a lot of appeal in the Warmachine models to 40k fans, broadly speaking. The reason I mentioned PP is that their catalog is big enough that they could actually put out in a pretty short period of time a big game with lots of models of the type of variety in sizes as GW (therefore, again, appealing to the same players/hobbyists).
When you look at Mantic games, their models are much more spread out between properties, and couldn't be brought together into cohesive armies that could reasonably compete with 40k. It's not just about having a lot of models on the table; it's also about having a lot of models to choose from. Plus, they don't have a lot of bigger models (like Gargantuan / Titan sized), or even that many mid-sized models in each collection, which, like them or not, if you want to steal 40k fans in a 40k-size game, you're going to need.
)
Safe to say I agree, but where the inspiration comes from is less the issue than the motivation behind the process and what the building blocks gained are shaped into is more the point I was making. Fantasy worked as a setting because it was a world - 
