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.

dosiere wrote:
I'm beginning to wonder if GW was right all along - their games don't really matter. My impression is that their games have taken a huge hit the last two years or so. Gaming nights at the store used to be packed with people playing Warhammer and 40k, and shelf space in the store was nearly 50% GW stuff. It's completely fallen off a cliff. Their shelf space has been slowly shrinking and I rarely see people playing their games.

Yet they seem to be cranking along at basically the same pace these past two years.... I guess most of their customers really are just collectors buying minis to paint and model. Frankly I'm impressed they've kept the wheels,on the bus this whole time, despite their actual games becoming less and less popular and competitors snatching up those people.

When AoS came i(after at least trying it which more than I can say for many old WFB players I knew), thought this really was the beginning of the end. I tried using the opportunity afforded by the death of fantasy to get back into 40k but... Yeah what a mess that is right now, and the player base just isn't what it used to be. I dunno, somehow the show goes on. Actual "gamers" like myself apparently really aren't what drives their sales.

That may be the gamers in your area, but in my area 40k is stronger than ever and AoS has become hugely popular, especially with the release of the general's handbook. I agree that 40k is a mess rules-wise, but AoS is in a very good place with simple but solid core rules, fluffy AND mechanically sound unit abilities, rules complexity and special rules smartly relegated to individual unit warscrolls rather than spread through numerous books, and armies that play like they "should" (fluff-wise). It's much better than 40k currently IMO and I would bet most players who have been playing with the General's Handbook would agree that it solved most issues the game had.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Korinov wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
It would be nice to know, however, if it is simply 40k players looking at something different without getting out of GW games rather than new customers. If it is, and they're just cannibalising their own 40k sales, then it's not a win. It's not a loss either though.

The trick with having multiple games is you need each to have its own voice that appeals to different parts of the market. Crossover from people that like the universe (if shared) or the company are always going to happen, but you don't want that to be your overall goal since they're still likely spending the same amount of money on your product, just split between different properties.

Honestly I feel more inclined to the first possibility. Personally I can't bring myself to see AoS as a game with a high appeal to new customers, specially considering what it pretends to be: a skirmish game. The market already had several skirmish games and pretty much all of them (at least the ones I know: Frostgrave, Saga, etc.) have superior rules to AoS and are cheaper to play, both on the short and the long term. AoS may not require a huge number of models to be played but in the end it doesn't matter because the shiny units and characters are outrageously expensive.

As I see it, AoS may be enjoying some success among the usual crowd of GW "whales" and very GW-centric communities, mostly located in the UK and certain parts of the US. Among here, most people I know look at it with either contempt or indifference (or a mixture of both) and new players attracted to the hobby are mostly drawn to some old edition of WHFB and some of the newly appeared fanmade rulesets. But then again, AoS was dead on arrival here, so this was to be expected.

So in the end I think it's more whale-milking than anything else. And I doubt it's having much of an impact on sales anyway, seeing at how in the previous fiscal year GW was saved by Betrayal of Calth first and then by the royalties from Total War (overall sales continued to decline).

AoS has a much bigger appeal to new players than most other games thanks to 1) the simplicity of the rules (this is frequently cited as a reason people get into the game), 2) the ubiquity of GW as a company (new players would be unlikely to ever hear about the other games you mention, much less find other players) and 3) the fact that GW heavily supports the game with high-quality models and a rapid release schedule. On the other end of the scale you have something like 9th Age, which while by all acounts a great rules update for WHFB, has drawn zero new players over here, being played only by disgruntled WHFB players buying/painting no new models (even going so far as to simply swap the armies they already have with other players rather than buying or painting new stuff) and playing only each other. Higher up the scale, with probably the most appeal to new players of any game I could think of, would be something like X-Wing, which while having all the advantages of AoS also has 1) huge toy store retail prescense, 2) pre-painted models and 3) the Star Wars brand.

@Mymearan.
Anecdotal evidence of a particular area, is only relevant information for that particular area.

To get a true understanding of what is going on you have to look at the big picture.

If we look at war gaming in general.

About just over 10 years ago most forums would be..

40k.
WHB
Specialist games.
Non GW games.
(OR non GW fantasy games, Non GW Sci fi games , Historical.)

Most now have at least 4 non GW games with their own forums.And much more detailed categories for the large amount of great games out there.

If GW had not screwed up so badly in terms of rules development and support, most of the 'replacement rule sets' made by Ex GW employees at new companies , (like Warlord Games and Mantic Games, etc) would not have seen the light of day.

Also If you look at the financial statements, despite constant cost cutting and price rises above the rate of inflation,the turn over of GW plc has remained quite static.
This means sales volumes are down year on year.
Basically GW plc are selling less product , at higher retail prices.

And this can not go on indefinately. Every one has a point where the price GW charge can no longer be seen as acceptable.

This is GW plcs biggest problem, if they can not increase sales volumes, they are doomed to be relegated to insignificance.

Or it could be the fact with the start collecting boxes and the like that they're selling more products with less return in profits while still being the same cost to manufacture them.

That's also going to hurt their turn over.

I'm not sure that is an issue.

I would imagine the mould costs for the units on the start collecting boxes have long been paid off so the literal manufacturing costs are probably pennies.

 Compel wrote:
I would imagine the mould costs for the units on the start collecting boxes have long been paid off so the literal manufacturing costs are probably pennies.

Which doesn't matter at all. All that matters is total costs and total revenue. Which particular pieces of metal are being used is irrelevant, a paid-off mold and a brand new mold each making 100 kits will have the same result for the company as two half-paid-off molds each making 100 kits at the same sale price. Once you have purchased the molds making 100 start collecting boxes with a set of old molds will cost exactly the same as making 100 start collecting boxes with a set of new molds, and the total revenue from each will be the same. The only time new molds vs. old molds matters is if you're making new molds specifically for a new product and you're calculating what price you have to sell it at for investing in the new molds to bring in more revenue than the cost. But this doesn't apply to any of the start collecting boxes because they're all using existing molds, whether those molds are from 2015 or 1995 is irrelevant.

In the case of the start collecting boxes all that matters is that GW is now selling X boxes at a lower price than if people purchased the same models* as multiple separate purchases. And the question is whether or not GW manages to sell enough additional boxes by lowering the price to make up for the smaller revenue per box.

*This is of course assuming that customers would buy the same kits individually if they didn't have to buy an all-or-nothing bundle, but it's probably a close enough assumption.

But I don't think most people would just buy the same thing separately for twice the price. People buy Start Collecting sets for armies they might like but never considered playing, with the discount they feel they're getting a steal so pick it up.

What I think matters most to GW is extracting maximum amount of money from peoples' pockets. Whether they sell 10 sprues or 15 sprues is less relevant compared to whether a customer spends $100 or $150.

Once the moulds are cut and the machines are set up, the cost to then cast another set of models is tiny. The costs are incurred from building the range and those aren't insignificant, but once you have that range casting more models isn't anywhere near as significant. There is also the cost of boxing and transporting them, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say those are probably a small percentage of total costs as well.

So what's important to GW is how much money they can get a person to spend in total, not what rate they sell each sprue for. If selling models cheaper entices people to spend more in total, they're a good scheme. I think for years GW took the approach that people desperately needed to buy X number of models and they'd pay huge amounts of money to get that X number of models. The Start Collecting boxes I think shows that GW is coming over to more conventional wisdom that a good way to part people from their money is to make people feel like they're getting good value for money and one of doing that is to raise the perceived value of their product and then come out with cheaper bundles to make people think they're getting an awesome deal.

 Peregrine wrote:
In the case of the start collecting boxes all that matters is that GW is now selling X boxes at a lower price than if people purchased the same models* as multiple separate purchases. And the question is whether or not GW manages to sell enough additional boxes by lowering the price to make up for the smaller revenue per box.

*This is of course assuming that customers would buy the same kits individually if they didn't have to buy an all-or-nothing bundle, but it's probably a close enough assumption.

Obviously bundling things together to sell more volume but at a lower cost per individual component means selling more product.
Otherwise no-one would do the "2 for 3" etc. offers that virtually every company in the world engage in. Or the fact that the bigger the bundle, the cheaper the individual component is.

A 1,5 liter bottle of soda doesn't cost 3 times as much as three 0,5 liter bottles.

So any discounted box sold to someone who would have bought the models separate otherwise means a lowering of profit. But everyone who gets one of those boxes who would have only bought a single box or nothing at all is an increase. Short term, I'd say we can quite confidently say the discounted boxes do increase GW's profit. Possibly they can take a hit long-term if it means a lot more product gets circulated on the second hand market though.

 Mymearan wrote:

AoS has a much bigger appeal to new players than most other games thanks to 1) the simplicity of the rules (this is frequently cited as a reason people get into the game), 2) the ubiquity of GW as a company (new players would be unlikely to ever hear about the other games you mention, much less find other players) and 3) the fact that GW heavily supports the game with high-quality models and a rapid release schedule. On the other end of the scale you have something like 9th Age, which while by all acounts a great rules update for WHFB, has drawn zero new players over here, being played only by disgruntled WHFB players buying/painting no new models (even going so far as to simply swap the armies they already have with other players rather than buying or painting new stuff) and playing only each other. Higher up the scale, with probably the most appeal to new players of any game I could think of, would be something like X-Wing, which while having all the advantages of AoS also has 1) huge toy store retail prescense, 2) pre-painted models and 3) the Star Wars brand.

One thing I am curious about is how many players that start with X-Wing make the jump to 'hobby' wargaming?

Without GW, where would the new players come from?

''One thing I am curious about is how many players that start with X-Wing make the jump to 'hobby' wargaming?

Without GW, where would the new players come from?''

Well there are lost of other great games out there , from lots of great companies.It is more common for people to get into this (non historical)war gaming hobby without even knowing about GW plc. This would have been unheard of 15 years ago!

Most of our xwing community only plays xwing. They don't play any other game, and have never played any other game and most don't have any interest in playing any other game.

Not a single one of our X Wing players doesn't play at least one other game too.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

I wasn't saying that anything I said was beyond anecdotal. That I was referring solely to my community would make it purely anecdotal and obvious.

Considering that there is no global data repository that can answer the question "One thing I am curious about is how many players that start with X-Wing make the jump to 'hobby' wargaming", every answer you get will be anecdotal.

Pedantic is pedantic

So that leads one to wonder what possible input you thought you were bringing to the discussion?

My own anecdotal evidence. What online forums are for, discussing our own experiences.

Cranky today?

Not in the least. You offered something, I pointed out it didn't really have any value, you agreed, so I questioned why you bothered.

Whether X Wing inducts people into a wider hobby or people stop with X Wing (which I doubt, even if they just stay in the FFG ecosystem) isn't something we can answer, and certainly isn't something that needs to be answered in a GW Financials thread.

Thank you. It makes me feel a lot better knowing that you are around policing up the threads to make sure that posters are providing data that you consider valuable.

Cheers!

 Azreal13 wrote:
Not a single one of our X Wing players doesn't play at least one other game too.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

Did they start with X-Wing though, and are they 'hobby' wargaming, as in building and painting their miniatures.

 auticus wrote:
Thank you. It makes me feel a lot better knowing that you are around policing up the threads to make sure that posters are providing data that you consider valuable.

Cheers!

I value your post Emperor, thanks for the reply.

This still hasn't got anything with GW finances, but, to answer the question, all of them are "hobby" gamers in some way shape or form.

-

Are you trying to be clever?

 StygianBeach wrote:
One thing I am curious about is how many players that start with X-Wing make the jump to 'hobby' wargaming?

Without GW, where would the new players come from?

GW might have helped grow wargaming in to mainstreaming 10-20 years ago, but the hobby hasn't needed GW for quite a while now.

One of the local FLGS's has a tiny GW display, it's basically a stack of unorganised boxes. GW games don't feature on any of the tables you see as you walk in. When the shop keepers come over to have a chat they'll describe all the games they have and conveniently leave out GW games or just mention them in passing unless you specifically ask them about it. They'll tell you about Infinity, Bolt Action, Warmahordes, Malifaux, X-Wing, Flames of War, Kings of War, Dreadball or whatever else they have hanging around. The range is huge these days and the shop keepers try and identify the game a newbie might like.

The other FLGS has a larger GW range, and I've often seen the shop keepers working on GW models so they must like GW more than the first FLGS I mentioned. But still, you look at their events calendar and GW games barely crack it for a mention.

The hobby never needed GW to survive, over a decade ago GW helped thrust it in to the mainstream, but for the past decade even in that area GW has become increasingly irrelevant.

-

If you think I'm not following rule 1, report me, don't clumsily try and make the point yourself. Especially when what you quoted was an answer to a directly asked question, somewhat undermining what you were attempting to do.

Now, anything to say on the subject of GW financials?

-

Perception's a funny thing...

 auticus wrote:
Thank you. It makes me feel a lot better knowing that you are around policing up the threads to make sure that posters are providing data that you consider valuable.

Cheers!

I haven't posted in a few days, he needs someone else to pick on.

 StygianBeach wrote:


One thing I am curious about is how many players that start with X-Wing make the jump to 'hobby' wargaming?

Without GW, where would the new players come from?

I think, overall, the question doesn't matters too much (as in: GW is not the entry point, GW was just the dominant end state for fantasy/SF war-gaming for a long time). Many people got into GW games through boardgames and even GW licensed board games that were actually advertised on TV. Similar for good (GW licensed) video games. The LotR bump even was caused by that game's popularity (and not because GW was making it, all these new customers didn't know what GW was), and an actual magazine that promoted the game on TV (again). Other found fantasy wargaming because it's a relative of historical wargaming, or tabletop RPGs, or other neighbouring hobbies. GW thinks (or thought?) advertising doesn't work in this niche and removed themselves from accessible games to focus on their three pillars strategy (40k, WHFB, LotR) while everybody else who worked with them showed that you can use advertisement and easy accessible boardgames to grow this niche and lure new people into the hobby.

It seems (to me at least) that many war-gamers were funnelled into this hobby by everything besides GW. GW has stores (although they seem to hide them in not as accessible areas these days) but their motivation seems to have been aimed at getting you (male/teenager) interested so you buy a big army and then not caring if you actually drop out again (that's a huge spike of sales in a short time by a yearly regenerating customer base of 13 year olds) and later transitioned into this thing that's aimed at collectors/whales when the old business model got too expensive for teenagers. Creating actual war-gamers is just a side effect for them and only interesting if they stay within the GW ecosystem (the rules are an indicator of that).

The question "Without GW, where would the new players come from?" only makes sense for people who only play GW games and even then it's only part of the solution as GW always relied on others to push people into the "GW hobby". Having their own stores without advertisement was never enough although it created some customers who for a while didn't know that there were other games/paints/tools/companies and thought the "GW hobby" was in some way an unique hobby.

I've seen people transition to GW/wargaming from MtG (they wanted something more solid for all the money they were spending) and who knows how many people will move to the wider wargaming market from X-Wing but GW is not the only connection from the "real world" to the wargaming world and their importance was been declining as alternatives have grown. There might be a big chunk of people for whom GW was the entry point before they found other games but that was more of a result of GW having been really dominant and not about their magical ability to reel in new customers.

RULE #1 IS, again, BE POLITE.

RULE #2 IS, again, STAY ON TOPIC.

@Mario .
I totally agree.

The way I look at it is every game from Armies Of Arcana to X-Wing can be the only game a person plays or it my be one of many games a person plays.

A lot of these non GW games do no need the massive turn over to pay for a chain of expensive B&M stores like GW plc seem to prioritize .

So they can be seen as much better value for money by more people, than GW games appear to be.

The main difference seems to be games companies only have to sell the 'starter box' to enough people to get traction in the games market.A stable and or slightly growing customer base means they can grow steadily with their customer base, adding expansions and extra products over time.

GW plc on the other hand has to maintain high levels of turn over from a diminishing market share.

Not sure about the financials, but it seems there are a lot more games available within the past few years. As a company, you have to ask yourself how do you compete in a market so flooded with new products?

GW has a strategy of pricing themselves for the high end customer, and seem to be focusing on fewer players that spend more. It seems to be working well. They are fine.

Right now I am more interested in how all the other companies are doing. How will the smaller companies attract attention and keep a cash flow? I predict a bit of a crash at some point. While currently there seems to be endless demand for products, my own personal experience is one of "OK, my wants have been satisfied. I now have 100 hours worth of hobby products for each actual hour of free time."

Granted, I take some long detours in to other hobbies. The occasional video game catches my eye, etc. But there are way too many really nice products for me to give them the attention they deserve. And I have to say the stuff coming out is really nice.

As for GW- I stopped even window shopping with them. They have always made really nice stuff. I guess I fell down the economic scale too far to be a part of the hobby.



Full disclosure- I run a small company making bits for the industry. I started before kick starter with big ideas. After seeing what appears to be an infinite number of new companies launch I sort of changed gears a bit. I still make odds and ends that appeal to me, but it is not my principle source of income. More like just another aspect of the hobby.