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.

Edit

*awaits posting of Pumbagore picture*

Its always the same. Haters hate and GW rumbles on.

Is this 'argument' on the Dakka bingo card?

Because GW isn't "rumbling on." Up until Rountree took the helm at least, GW was grinding to a halt. That's what falling revenue and declining profits means.

Your argument is about 3 years out of date. The "haters" had reached sufficient mass that GW fell below the line between growth and contraction.

The correct statement would be "the critics and disillusioned reached sufficient numbers that GW had to fairly dramatically change their approach to multiple aspects of their business in order to continue in a sustainable fashion."

I'm just sorry I can't boil that down into a vacuous non statement for everyone.

Edit.

The dip in financial performance didn't correlate in any way, shape or form with the global downturn. In fact, Kirby at one point proudly declared GW "recession proof."

Let's not also fail to account for the widely reported growth by competing companies. Companies who, in the main, only had a reason to exist because of niches that GW abandoned.

You really shouldn't be insulted by my vacuous statement, it was aimed at the argument and not the arguer, it is a trite and unsubstantiated statement that's is nearly always wheeled out by someone in these sorts of discussion, and is a nearly impossible position to debate honestly. Don't take it personally.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Its always the same. Haters hate and GW rumbles on.

Is this 'argument' on the Dakka bingo card?

Because GW isn't "rumbling on." Up until Rountree took the helm at least, GW was grinding to a halt. That's what falling revenue and declining profits means.

Your argument is about 3 years out of date. The "haters" had reached sufficient mass that GW fell below the line between growth and contraction.

The correct statement would be "the critics and disillusioned reached sufficient numbers that GW had to fairly dramatically change their approach to multiple aspects of their business in order to continue in a sustainable fashion."

I'm just sorry I can't boil that down into a vacuous non statement for everyone.

I think 'rumbling on' is more accurate than 'grinding to a halt'.

If you describe pre-Rountree GW's turnover as grinding to a halt then how would you describe other miniature companies?

GW were on the rise, then rocketed up with Lord of the Rings, crashed then climbed again for a bit then was on the slow decline until recently.

I have heard people preaching that GW will be out of business in the next 5 years for the last 20 years, yet it still rumbles on....

"As it was, so it will always be" is not an argument.

Edit.

2++ rerollable, $50 for 2 pages of rules. No more needs to be said, IMHO. Overall, I actually love GW, I just wish they would make their otherwise wonderful IP more fun to play competitively. I expect a 9th age equivalent to emerge soon for 40K.

 Byte wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
The dip in financial performance didn't correlate in any way, shape or form with the global downturn. In fact, Kirby at one point proudly declared GW "recession proof."

Let's not also fail to account for the widely reported growth by competing companies. Companies who, in the main, only had a reason to exist because of niches that GW abandoned.

You really shouldn't be insulted by my vacuous statement, it was aimed at the argument and not the arguer, it is a trite and unsubstantiated statement that's is nearly always wheeled out by someone in these sorts of discussion, and is a nearly impossible position to debate honestly. Don't take it personally.

How could Kirby possibly know how households spend their money in tighter times? Is he some kind of financial profit? Its a ridiculous statement and an irrelevant data point. You believe this?

Because in general they are smaller games that can be supported with smaller buy ins. Coincidence?

Being that this is the internet were one can/will never concede any points. I leave you here and welcome you to my ignore list, it makes Dakka a more pleasant experience. I don't like being trolled and that's what you did. I'm sure you'll have some witty excuse for that too.

Well, there is actually a legitimate argument in favour of what Kirby said, but as I've been subjected to the greatest display of passive aggression open to a Dakka user (I'm putting you on ignore, and I'm making damn sure everyone knows it!!) there's little point in my explaining it.

Edit.

 kestral wrote:
2++ rerollable, $50 for 2 pages of rules. No more needs to be said, IMHO. Overall, I actually love GW, I just wish they would make their otherwise wonderful IP more fun to play competitively. I expect a 9th age equivalent to emerge soon for 40K.

Possibly, I've heard that discussed. I'm thinking 40K in its next incarnation will drop much of the bloat for a simpler ruleset like AoS (though obviously not the same mechanics) and won't be so alien an adjustment as fantasy was to AoS. Though I wonder when. Will FAQs on Facebook become official soon before the game changes.

@everybody From chatting with GW staff from different departments, especially community and social media side, they are very aware of the problems, more so when customers write them directly. Doesn't happen as often as we might think. I'm amazed when I write BL or FW and ask for something to be made or book a certain length or artwork or whatever how much (or little in this case) direct requests they actually receive to be passed on to the decision maker. So I encourage anyone who has a request or feedback to write GW directly and ask your note be delivered to the decision maker re: the topic or product.

Possibly, I've heard that discussed. I'm thinking 40K in its next incarnation will drop much of the bloat for a simpler ruleset like AoS (though obviously not the same mechanics)

You're in good company, the little that the best rumourmongers have said on the subject have indicated a fairly radical redesign and streamlining but "not AOS level streamlining" if I'm remembering the phrasing correctly.

I'm excited to see that, might make me interested to play regularly again.

 Byte wrote:
How could Kirby possibly know how households spend their money in tighter times? Is he some kind of financial profit? Its a ridiculous statement and an irrelevant data point. You believe this?

You do understand that there's this thing called "market research", right? Oh wait, GW proudly declares that they don't do market research. Perhaps we have seen some of the problem.

Because in general they are smaller games that can be supported with smaller buy ins. Coincidence?

Let's assume that this is true. Why didn't GW put out their own small-buy-in game variants to adapt to the changing market? Even if you assume that GW's decline is entirely due to their customers having less money and preferring small-buy-in games it's still a sign of incompetence that GW didn't recognize this fact and adapt to keep their customers. In fact, GW killed off all of their small-buy-in games, leaving only the big expensive ones that (supposedly) fewer people could afford. This is insane!

Actually that's one of the less bat gak crazy things Kirby has said - there is a school of economic thought that people compensate for not being able to indulge in larger purchases like cars or holidays in a recession by buying smaller items as a 'treat.'

A box of models would certainly fall into this sort of category.

However, a more level headed would have used words like 'resilient' or 'resistant' only someone with Kirby's very.. unusual thinking would declare themselves recession proof.

Edit.

Its mainly prices and perception of the state of the game I think, I find that every mini seller is around then 5-10$ per mini 15-20+ per large/fancy mini, if you know of a cheaper one with awesome sculpts Id love to know!

But that's kinda the catch 22 with so many players, you get so many complaints mainly because people are quicker to complain then to praise.

Yeesh, talk about sensitive. I disagree with Byte, get called a troll and put on ignore, Peregrine disagrees and gets accused of flaming?

In case you're reading this, as you wouldn't be the first person to publicly declare they were ignoring a poster only to somehow "forget" between making the declaration and clicking on the necessary button...

Disagreeing with what you say =\= a personal attack.

 easysauce wrote:
Its mainly prices and perception of the state of the game I think, I find that every mini seller is around then 5-10$ per mini 15-20+ per large/fancy mini, if you know of a cheaper one with awesome sculpts Id love to know!

But that's kinda the catch 22 with so many players, you get so many complaints mainly because people are quicker to complain then to praise.

This is why I think the new release of Kill Team will be pretty cool. It's actually a very good move on GWs part.

meh it's just more marines that's GW's go to move every time.

Edit.

I dont hate GW, I hope they improve the games they have. The problem is most competition (not all) is doing better with their products. Intro prices, availability (to buy using shopping cart) and good rules with players feedbacks.

 Byte wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yeesh, talk about sensitive. I disagree with Byte, get called a troll and put on ignore, Peregrine disagrees and gets accused of flaming?

In case you're reading this, as you wouldn't be the first person to publicly declare they were ignoring a poster only to somehow "forget" between making the declaration and clicking on the necessary button...

Disagreeing with what you say =\= a personal attack.

You are ignored, but a little icon appears if you post and I can open it.

Its all in the delivery A13. There's a boorish approach, a gentlemanly approach, and something in between. Disagreeing differs from fabricating/manipulating what I actually said. If you actually read the through of both your responses they are contemptuous and dismissive. So ya, I didn't like it. Who would? It's just not necessary.

I'm aware of how ignoring people works, but I reserve it for people who attack me not my arguments. Ignoring people for disagreeing with one's opinions feels a little like simply not being able to handle the debate. Publicly announcing that you're ignoring someone is a supremely passive aggressive move too - someone's pissing you off? Ignore them and move on, don't do the digital equivalent of standing up and storming out, opening the door and slamming it a second time just to make sure everyone knows you're cross.

As for the delivery, how patronising do you think it comes across when someone drops in and declares "all these people with concerns and issues are just baseless haters, it's all fine, I know best." Which is, intended or not, what you came across as doing. Especially as you did so in a tired and cliched manner with absolutely nothing to back up your assertions beyond "it's as it was, so it will always be." I didn't fabricate nor manipulate a thing you said, I simply pointed out that what you said was oft repeated, never proved, and I stand by it.

So maybe, if someone seems to be taking issue with you, perhaps consider its in reaction to your own behaviour, and they're not a flamer/troll/hater at all?

 Byte wrote:




You don't have to like it. It just, is.

Since you cherry picked one small line from my post, I am focusing on this one.

Like you, I have played through RT to 5th edition, OI have the 6th ed book, but no one to play against due to travel restrictions per my health. Have not touched 7th as it is a pricey rulebook.
I have also copies from Apocalypse, and FW books, I have thousands of points in Tau/SM/Orks/and IG, I have enjoyed the games I have played. Have I enjoyed the price increases that the line you picked out was related to in my post? No, and I stated what I did regarding "Counts as" proxies from other companies due to their lower costs.

Deathwatch is another example where they are looking ot rook new players into buying a more expensive Landraider rather than keep the thing about 74+USD, the few little add ons do not really warrant the 5USD increase in the price of the kit, and if they sell enough, they will change the landraiders to 80USD. This is still a recession, and it is hard to justify 80USD for a kit that has not seen a total overhaul since 1999.

I also stated for the record that with such huge prices, that GW has cut themselves off from a larger market share, thus cutting their noses to spite their faces. My Necrons is where and when I ceased buying GW due to the increasing costs. Finecast is not worth the price as it is too flawed and brittle. (You know they are doing something wrong when their minis are to nerver wracking to even play with for fear of irreparable damage to it).

Codexii like the IG one where they charge 50USD for a more limp, watered down and bland book.(removal of characters and rules that were full of flavor and not OP)

Look, I get that you may still be so into GW-40K to defend it, but do not defend their silly price gouging. Knight is plastic and 140USD when it came out, for 150USD I got similar sized Leynos combat suits and add on CCWs so for the price of 1,25Knights, I have 3. I have the basic codex to run knights with.

I also stated that rather than be nickel and dimed buying their paints, I get good quality, cheaper per bottle, paints with higher volume in the paints than the GW "pots" tools I get off of Amazon or the local hardware store, and brushes cheap at 3-5 a dozen from outlets.

Calling themselves "The Porsche of Miniatures " with the smug air they did and that they have problems making decent rules for their miniature collectibles, (yes, collectibles as if these were Hummels and such), plus the yearly gouging when they need to drop prices to fit recessions, and such, and open a volume market rather than be pretentious may go a better way for them than they think.

And no, it is not so much hate as dislike for the practice and indeed we don't have to like it and our wallets speak loudly to them, they are just deaf as posts.

You know, as a bit of a petrol head, that "Porsche of miniatures" thing has always bothered me a bit.

Porsche are, broadly speaking, a mid range supercar manufacturer. Why not go with Aston Martin (similar market position but also a British marque and the whole Bond caché) or Lamborghini or Ferrari or something?

To call oneself the Porsche of anything seems like a curious lack of ambition if the intent is to portray yourself as the best of something.

Here I thought they were the Apple of the wargaming world, in their own heads at least.

I think the distinction is GW are Porsche, Kirby thought he was Jobs.

 Byte wrote:


Hmmm, might I remind folks of a little thing called a recession? Disposable income dried up in general across the board. That couldn't of possibly contribute decline and subsequent rebound.

So there is a recession people's disposable income dries up so GW increases the prices? Yes that makes a lot of sense. Charge more when people have less money. No wonder a lot of people left GW. As for the rebound, where is it? GW got what 4 million pounds/dollars what not from video games other wise they would be what 4 million less in profits or revenue. So please enlighten me where this rebound is. It hasn't happened yet even with all the good things GW has done so far surprisingly.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You know, as a bit of a petrol head, that "Porsche of miniatures" thing has always bothered me a bit.

Porsche are, broadly speaking, a mid range supercar manufacturer. Why not go with Aston Martin (similar market position but also a British marque and the whole Bond caché) or Lamborghini or Ferrari or something?

To call oneself the Porsche of anything seems like a curious lack of ambition if the intent is to portray yourself as the best of something.

My guess would be that Kirby doesn't know much about cars and just picked a 'luxury' name at random.

Although I believe that Porsche is held in slightly higher regard in the UK than in the US.

I'm in the Uk, my flags just gone temporarily wonky.

Not sure I'd agree with the sentiment exactly, seems more people who really like Porsche, and those that really don't. But I guess if Kirby were the former, then it would make sense.

I mean, it isn't like I don't know what the point he was making was, it has always just struck me as odd that given a free choice, Ferrari, or even Rolls Royce (that's a much better one!) would have been better.