madaxeman Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 GW is a public listed company that turns over more than £120m a year from selling their stuff, and has been running for 30-odd years. As long as online forums have existed, (and possibly in "pubs" before then) gamers have been bleating about GW not engaging with their community, imprive their rules balance... but the business keeps rolling on despite all the "experts" on forums shouting at them to engage with the 'proper' gamers more. I've therefore always assumed that GW do the stuff that they do because they are a business, and their focus is making money by selling stuff. I can't imagine they are run by a gang of insane yet consistently lucky enough to turn over £120m a year every year businessmen, and so my suspicion has always been that the older gamer is simply not core to their business model, and that their continued lack of engagement is actually a deliberate policy to keep the kids who buy in store well away from the world of sweaty old wargamers who complain about GW online, in order not to spook the dads who pay pocket money to fund their business and don't want their kid mixing with 30+ year old men in online forums (never mind in the flesh) If you do take the view that their core customers are schoolkids spending dads pocket money, the only important question is whether this new game gets this group excited and therefore gets the current cohort of 11-year-old spending more money. My guess is a simpler, sillier, lower model count "unbound" game will have a good chance of doing exactly that - and if so, its going to be a winner for GW. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CannibalBob Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 It's like going to Blockbuster, renting Lord of the Rings, and finding Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure Part 2 in the case when you get home. Where did you find a Blockbuster? What decade do you live in? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CannibalBob Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 GW is a public listed company that turns over more than £120m a year from selling their stuff, and has been running for 30-odd years. As long as online forums have existed, (and possibly in "pubs" before then) gamers have been bleating about GW not engaging with their community, imprive their rules balance... but the business keeps rolling on despite all the "experts" on forums shouting at them to engage with the 'proper' gamers more. I've therefore always assumed that GW do the stuff that they do because they are a business, and their focus is making money by selling stuff. I can't imagine they are run by a gang of insane yet consistently lucky enough to turn over £120m a year every year businessmen, and so my suspicion has always been that the older gamer is simply not core to their business model, and that their continued lack of engagement is actually a deliberate policy to keep the kids who buy in store well away from the world of sweaty old wargamers who complain about GW online, in order not to spook the dads who pay pocket money to fund their business and don't want their kid mixing with 30+ year old men in online forums (never mind in the flesh) Yes, they do turn a lot of profit, but their profits have been declining and shrinking for over half a decade now. This is well known as they have to put out their financials to the public. They have spent a couple of years slashing their operating budget to be razor thin as they close stores and cut the personnel to the point where their stores are all mainly one-man operations. There is not really any fat to trim there. They also managed to launch 2 new editions for 40k in an extremely short window and went on a ludicrously fast product release cycle. And yet, they are still showing big signs of contraction rather than growth. Being a big company for a long time does not mean that the company is doing that great. Big companies don't always close their doors quickly when things are going south. Some implode overnight and others slowly spiral the drain barely clinging to life. Now, I am not saying that GW is going under, but it has not been health for a number of years. I think it is pretty obvious at this point that they have a number of systemic problems across that company and they don't seem to be willing to step up into the modern age and compete with their competitors. It took Rome a long time to slowly crumble away and get chipped apart from countless smaller forces. I think it is fairly obvious at this point that they don't really have any idea what a good direction to take the company in for growth is. Torpedoing one of your biggest IPs, and the one that you initially built the company from and spent 30 years developing is not generally a sound strategy. Given that the previous CEO regularly claimed to share-holders in his letters that they DO NOT do any market research because they don't need to, I think it is safe to say that they are very out of touch with their customer base and they are a bit separated from reality. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edonil Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 GW is a public listed company that turns over more than £120m a year from selling their stuff, and has been running for 30-odd years. As long as online forums have existed, (and possibly in "pubs" before then) gamers have been bleating about GW not engaging with their community, imprive their rules balance... but the business keeps rolling on despite all the "experts" on forums shouting at them to engage with the 'proper' gamers more. I've therefore always assumed that GW do the stuff that they do because they are a business, and their focus is making money by selling stuff. I can't imagine they are run by a gang of insane yet consistently lucky enough to turn over £120m a year every year businessmen, and so my suspicion has always been that the older gamer is simply not core to their business model, and that their continued lack of engagement is actually a deliberate policy to keep the kids who buy in store well away from the world of sweaty old wargamers who complain about GW online, in order not to spook the dads who pay pocket money to fund their business and don't want their kid mixing with 30+ year old men in online forums (never mind in the flesh) If you do take the view that their core customers are schoolkids spending dads pocket money, the only important question is whether this new game gets this group excited and therefore gets the current cohort of 11-year-old spending more money. My guess is a simpler, sillier, lower model count "unbound" game will have a good chance of doing exactly that - and if so, its going to be a winner for GW. The one thing to keep in mind about that revenue is that GW's only maintaining their revenue stream by cutting their costs massively. The actual sales of GW products are going down, but it doesn't look it because they've closed most of their stores, the ones that are left have a single employee, and they keep increasing their prices well outside the cost of inflation. They are the biggest boy on the block in this industry, and that's because for the longest time there was no one else. Their shareholder reports are so full of spin it's silly, lol. Regardless, unless AoS manages to generate a massive amount of interest (which seems...unlikely), their next shareholder report is going to be interesting... They are rapidly running out of costs to cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CannibalBob Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 I just read this blog post and this guy summed up what I have been thinking for years and specifically about the new Age of Sigmar in a very well thought out, eloquent, and less hostile manner than I think I am capable of at this point (I really enjoyed your blog post as well SpiralingCadaver!). http://minimayhem-theblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/one-bloggers-opinion-on-age-of-sigmar.html His likening of Age of Sigmar to Calvin-ball is very apt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Math Mathonwy Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 The fun rules get even more odd. The Skaven screaming bell has a rule where you can roll 2 dice and apply a specific result based on what you roll. The result you get if you roll 13 is that you win the game. There is a rule that says you cannot add modifiers to the roll, but there is a chaos model, a named Demon that allows you to change any die result to any result you want. There is no language to limit you to possible results, and the way it is worded does allow you to modify the screaming bell result. There was some argument about that, but a GW representative at a convention in Australia confirmed this interaction was known about and intended, because no one would use the rule because any one who used it would soon have no one to play with.That interpretation makes it very weird. I mean, if you can adjust rolls to numbers that you couldn't roll - "this D3 mortal wounds results in 120 mortal wounds". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madaxeman Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 The one thing to keep in mind about that revenue is that GW's only maintaining their revenue stream by cutting their costs massively. The actual sales of GW products are going down, but it doesn't look it because they've closed most of their stores, the ones that are left have a single employee, and they keep increasing their prices well outside the cost of inflation. I'm pretty sure you can't maintain revenue by cutting costs... Revenue has been : (Year to June) 2010 - 125 MILLION (I say again, MILLION...) 2011 - 123 MILLION 2012 - 131 MILLION 2013 - 134 MILLION 2014 - 123 MILLION Profit after tax 2010 - 15 MILLION 2011 - 11 MILLION 2012 - 15 MILLION 2013 - 16 MILLION 2014 - 8 MILLION (overall borrowings reduced by 7m in this last year as well) I still think that that's not too shabby if we are all assuming that WHFB was a dead duck for the past couple of years and they are a discretionary spend business targeting pocket money kids in a developed-world wide recession, with residual license fees (100% revenue and profit) from online games and other deals flowing through in prior years. If there are now "better-written" games out there for "mature" Fantasy miniatures players, and if GW figures can still be used to play them, I'd also tentatively suggest that this is a net win-win for GW, as the "high-maintainance" older players can still buy and use their models without needing GW to support them online, whilst they sell simple rules and new shiny toys to the kids via their own stores... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 If there are now "better-written" games out there for "mature" Fantasy miniatures players, and if GW figures can still be used to play them, I'd also tentatively suggest that this is a net win-win for GW, as the "high-maintainance" older players can still buy and use their models without needing GW to support them online, whilst they sell simple rules and new shiny toys to the kids via their own stores... Bloop ^^^^^ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 *please not that "Bloop" is no way way either an endorsement or condemnation of said reasoning, merely an acknowledgement that I believe that was, at least in part, the reasoning. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiralngCadavr Posted July 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 Cannibalbob, thanks for the props and the article link- I think this bit in particular hit the nail on the head: It is grossly transparent that the final form of AoS serves these business goals. The design, the aesthetic, the rules -- everything stinks of a corporate template handed to the design team. The wellspring of creativity is sourced, or at least bounded, by committee in a conference room. On FFG, I'd agree except for their atmosphere/illustration, which I feel falls short of most of the great atmospheric stuff in 40k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalkris Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 *please not that "Bloop" is no way way either an endorsement or condemnation of said reasoning, merely an acknowledgement that I believe that was, at least in part, the reasoning. i took Bloop to just be Justin making a bloop noise. ~Lil Kalki 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CannibalBob Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 I'm pretty sure you can't maintain revenue by cutting costs... Unfortunately revenue is not really the thing that always matters for publicly traded company - profit and growth is what they are interested in. When revenue is flat you can increase profit through cost cutting, but it only goes so far. We have been watching them do this for a number of years and there is only so far it will take them. Private companies are a lot better at existing with flat revenue and little growth. GWreport their profits and they have been steadily declining. The growth trend has been steady in the wrong direction. When you answer to a board and share-holders then things can get ugly. Revenue is important, but you have to be liquid enough to last long enough to turn your assets into revenue. If your operating and supply costs are too much you can get caught on the wrong foot and things can go very bad from there. That is exactly what happened to TSR and Atari. Those companies looked solid on the outside for a long time but things were rotten on the inside and they imploded rapidly. I am not saying this is what is happening with GW, but there have been signs for a while now in the financials that point to things not being as great as they may seem and possibly some accounting smoke & mirrors going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CannibalBob Posted July 9, 2015 Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 On FFG, I'd agree except for their atmosphere/illustration, which I feel falls short of most of the great atmospheric stuff in 40k. I don't disagree that the art department for GW is still excellent. They really know their material and how to present it. I am not a giant fan of Jon Blanche's personal style, but he is superb at running the department and creating an overall vision. But when it comes to making games that are fun to play Fantasy Flight has GW beat by a mile anymore. Sure, not everything they make is the best game ever, but they knock things out of the park much more often than they miss. They are also extremely good at doing justice to other people's IP and cater to those fan bases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalkris Posted July 10, 2015 Report Share Posted July 10, 2015 Ditto So, I'm pretty sure the anon at the end is Justin. He knows what's coming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgX7MBgX7Rw Justin? Do you know what's coming (besides a clear influx of Wyrd initiates reeling from the pain of losing WHFB to AoS, of course)? ~Lil Kalki 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loveless Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 I think Mantic is going to get the biggest influx from this - but it'll be pretty much unnoticed since their rulesets are free and WHFB models all have decent analogues in the KoW rules already. Mass Fantasy battles will go on unimpeded. PDF downloads of KoW rules will increase. Hordes of greenskins will still smash against walls of dwarven shields. Elves will shoot bows, Undead will shamble forward, and demons will crawl out of the abyss to assault pious humans. AoS is...uh...well...the starter set is pretty. I sort of wish I had a reason to use the Sigmarite models, but I can't think of anything to do with them. The AoS "rules" are...uh...yeah. Anyone know any good Fantasy skirmish games with an actual ruleset? I think I'll stick with 8th edition and End Times add-ons for a while yet...that and keep building my Outcasts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadeton Posted July 16, 2015 Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 Anyone know any good Fantasy skirmish games with an actual ruleset? Mordheim still holds up remarkably well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carcosa Posted July 16, 2015 Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 Mordheim, Necromunda and Blood Bowl all still hold up quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CannibalBob Posted July 16, 2015 Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 Anyone know any good Fantasy skirmish games with an actual ruleset? Malifaux. We even get campaign rules with the next book. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loveless Posted July 16, 2015 Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 Malifaux. We even get campaign rules with the next book. Eh, Malifaux isn't really "Fantasy" though - it's more of a Weird West/Victorian setting. Elves and dwarfs and knights in plate mail are going to look damn out of place Mordheim still holds up remarkably well. Not really anything that's well-represented by the heavily-armored and occasionally winged Sigmarites, sadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordZombie Posted July 16, 2015 Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 What do you mean? Malifaux has got fantasy. Nephilim are mean elves. We got Mouse, so dwarf is covered. And knights in shining armor? Just look at the Through the Breach RP armor section. Plus magic is all over the place, so it makes it High Fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadeton Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Not really anything that's well-represented by the heavily-armored and occasionally winged Sigmarites, sadly. That's true. I think most Fantasy settings struggle to incorporate Space Marines. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetid Strumpet Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Has anyone played? I'm pretty much down on te game for several reasons, though with the right players I could see it being fun,... Sort of. Curious if someone had played it, did have fun, but would give thoughts on whether it would stay fun. From the way rules are written and the total negotiation that would have to go on I wonder if it actually has staying power for someone who liked it. Can't really see it staying fun across multiple game sessions, but was curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiralngCadavr Posted July 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Yeah, someone made a comparison to Inquisitor, which I expect is right on the money-- very fun for a few games until you realize just how imbalanced it is, at which point unless you have an old, oldskool GM, you're looking at interest disintegrating within several games as it just kinda' becomes a sandbox non-competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengt Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Not surprisingly there are people who cobble together point systems. I've not checked it out but have a look around the GW centric boards (Warseer etc) if you care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiralngCadavr Posted July 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Yeah... my philosophy on the matter is that you should only ever be house ruling/home brewing systems to make them more varied/fun, not to make them basically playable: if you get far enough, you could just make your own rules instead of paying someone else to half-ass theirs. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.