PDA

View Full Version : ofcourse GW was selling more 40k than WHFB



Mars
06-07-2015, 17:00
I hear this argument that WHFB only accounts for 15% of GW sales, and that's the reason it got canned
then I have to ask, what percentage were 40k sales?
how many more 40k models and books are there? how often did GW release new versions of the tactical squad, the assault squad... all models that can be used over a gazillion different variety of Space Marine legions

compared to WHFB, where you only have a limited amount of armies, most models of which cannot be used in other armies
with at least one army that hasn't received new rules in over a decade
and where you need to buy a huge number of rank and file models to get a decent unit. excuse me if I don't feel like forking over 4.5 Euro's per Witch Elf when I need 30

so I get that GW doesn't like it, but to simply stop supporting WHFB at all with a "play AoS or sod off" attitude is just offensive
and I'm left with hundreds of models for a game which is now going to bleed to death, because GW can't even be bothered to put the rules online for free and provide minimal support. with all the time and effort they put into End Times, they could have just done edition 8.5 with the last new army books and be done with it

monkey10120
06-07-2015, 17:20
If they would have marketed Fantasy like they did 40k it might of been a different story.

Look at the the number of video games alone of 40k, be it it mostly Orks and Space marines but compare that to the 4 games that fantasy has. I mean its to the point where I could tell someone that I met "I play warhammer" and I cant count how many times they responded, "warhammer is great, I played all the Dawn of war games"

So yeah, I def agree with you that WG has no excuse when it comes to 40k being more successful, they just dont market it the way they do 40k. Wait until fantasy is released in the Total War series and see their sales spike only to realize how sh't AoS is and just give warhammer fantasy a worse name.

The bearded one
06-07-2015, 17:21
Well let's be real; Fantasy's revenue has been poor for a long time. It's on the verge of costing GW money. From what I heard, space marines alone outsold all of fantasy by a laughably large margin. That's just not sustainable if Fantasy is supposed to account for half of your company's attention. The game that makes itself worthwhile for the company, gets the attention. Even then that attention isn't hugely far off from a 50/50 split, except the past year or 2 when GW began cranking out codices.

And in contrast to 40K, Fantasy's range is actually really extensive. 40k has something like 10 types of marines, and 5 Xenos. Fantasy has 15 wildly different armies. And the one with the greater variation in available armies has greater potential to appeal to different customers.

It would seem GW considered drastically reinventing the game to be their only option. I might not be terribly happy with a lot of the change, but that thing you're mentioning about not wanting to spend a fortune on 30 witch elves - now you can easily get away with 10, or less.


If they would have marketed Fantasy like they did 40k it might of been a different story.

Look at the the number of video games alone of 40k, be it it mostly Orks and Space marines but compare that to the 4 games that fantasy has. I mean its to the point where I could tell someone that I met "I play warhammer" and I cant count how many times they responded, "warhammer is great, I played all the Dawn of war games"

So yeah, I def agree with you that WG has no excuse when it comes to 40k being more successful, they just dont market it the way they do 40k. Wait until fantasy is released in the Total War series and see their sales spike only to realize how sh't AoS is and just give warhammer fantasy a worse name.

It's probably a cycle. 40k started doing better, so GW gave it some more attention, then it did better, andsoforth. Currently 40k is what is keeping GW afloat, while they put some of that money into fantasy's sinking ship.

But there are other reasons why I can understand why 40k does better. Heck, it's even in the OP's post: 40k has a lower entry barrier, and you don't need units of 20+ models to make them viable.

As for video games, I don't think any real impetus comes from GWs side as to what videogames are made, if any at all. But 40k's games were by and large succesful, so receive more attention from studios (Relic, THQ) to continue making. Fantasy did have some ambitious affairs (Warhammer Online. I've played it for a few years), but in the end they all didn't pan out. If its promise holds (reviewers are very excited for it) Warhammer total war might be fantasy's first real video game succes.

Spiney Norman
06-07-2015, 17:27
I hear this argument that WHFB only accounts for 15% of GW sales, and that's the reason it got canned
then I have to ask, what percentage were 40k sales?
This is, as far as I know, guesswork, assumption or extrapolation of incomplete data, to my knowledge GW never breaks down its complete sales figures by game so we have no way of knowing the actual value, LGS owners might have their own figures of how sales of the two games compare, but this will probably not accurately represent GWs overall sales figures.


how many more 40k models and books are there? how often did GW release new versions of the tactical squad, the assault squad... all models that can be used over a gazillion different variety of Space Marine legions
compared to WHFB, where you only have a limited amount of armies, most models of which cannot be used in other armies
with at least one army that hasn't received new rules in over a decade
and where you need to buy a huge number of rank and file models to get a decent unit. excuse me if I don't feel like forking over 4.5 Euro's per Witch Elf when I need 30


Up until the current edition of 40K where GW started pulling hundreds of mini-factions out of their backside both warhammer and 40K had a comparable number of armies and supplementary material, 40K's amount of exposure has certainly not been orders of magnitude greater than wfb other than the past six months (when wfb releases just dried up after the release of the last End Times book.

In addition 40K has its own crop of 'neglected armies', Sisters of Battle have not had a full print codex released for over 12 years, and chaos marines are sitting in the uncompetitive gutter. Its true to an extent that the break in the wfb schedule running up to AoS has allowed them to catch up a bit further with the more neglected 40k factions, but at the start of the year both systems were about equal.


so I get that GW doesn't like it, but to simply stop supporting WHFB at all with a "play AoS or sod off" attitude is just offensive
and I'm left with hundreds of models for a game which is now going to bleed to death, because GW can't even be bothered to put the rules online for free and provide minimal support. with all the time and effort they put into End Times, they could have just done edition 8.5 with the last new army books and be done with it

Why do you find it offensive? The company withdrawing support for the game doesn't mean you can't play it any more, and there is a new game for you to try (full rules for play freely downloadable).

Also, the very last thing we need is another AoS hate thread, there are plenty of other places to do that if thats what you're after

Gorbad Ironclaw
06-07-2015, 17:39
I remember being told a decade ago that Space Marines alone were selling more than Fantasy so its certainly not a new thing that Fantasy is the (massive) underperformed for the company bottom line. Maybe it just got to a completely unsustainable point or maybe they decided to try and do something about it. The alternative to AoS (or a similarly radically different remake of WFB) probably want to continue as they have been. But to get out of fantasy gaming altogether.

But I'm not sure why people are surprised by the direction they took AoS. It seems to me that it is the ultimate expression of where GW have been going with their games for a long time.

The bearded one
06-07-2015, 17:59
But I'm not sure why people are surprised by the direction they took AoS. It seems to me that it is the ultimate expression of where GW have been going with their games for a long time.

I'm not surprised. Not only does it sell and is more attractive to new customers, whenever someone complains about something GW, they seem to mention in the same breath something about not wanting to buy units of 30-40 models.

Kyriakin
06-07-2015, 18:01
I'm not surprised. Not only does it sell and is more attractive to new customers, whenever someone complains about something GW, they seem to mention in the same breath something about not wanting to buy units of 30-40 models.
Cheap monopose plastics. Cheap monopose plastics. Cheap monopose plastics

fantasypisces
06-07-2015, 18:12
I have no credible source for this, so take it with a grain of salt...

A person on BoLs said that he was talking with an individual who attended a North American GW Conference. I guess it's a place where the company gets with it's employees to talk about "the future", how things are going, etc.

He stated that fantasy accounted for 13% of sales, and that paints sold more than fantasy did. For comparison sake, let's say that is also 13%. He then went on to say that Space Marines alone accounted for five times the amount of sales as fantasy, so that would be 65%.

13% = Fantasy
13% = Paints
65% = Space Marines
---------------------------
9% remaining.

That means, 9% of sales accounted for all the other 40k armies (Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, Tau, etc), Supplies (glue, clippers, cases), side games (Dreadfleet, Space Hulk, Assassin thingy), Lord of the Rings/Hobbit, and anything else they produced.

Personally, I don't think the problem is fantasy, as besides for Space Marines, that means the other 40k armies sold less than Fantasy. I think the problem is that they just didn't have something "huge" to market fantasy with, let alone market fantasy at all. I guess they changed that by giving us sig marines, unfortunately (also my opinion) the sig marines did not come with a good tactically challenging/stimulating game.

tmod
06-07-2015, 18:18
We might not have total sales figures, but we do have numbers from distributors and statements from former insiders. Next statistic is due in late August I guess...

Sent fra min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

The bearded one
06-07-2015, 18:25
He stated that fantasy accounted for 13% of sales, and that paints sold more than fantasy did. For comparison sake, let's say that is also 13%. He then went on to say that Space Marines alone accounted for five times the amount of sales as fantasy, so that would be 65%.

However what I have also heard is that End Times caused the fantasy % to go up a little bit (possibly to the 13% you stated) - which isn't surprising, given the release of big books and huge models, and the Nagash book's good reception - but that it was quite a bit lower than that before (I heard a number, but I won't go into specifics. Suffice to say it's quite a bit lower than 13).

Nightfall Shimmer
06-07-2015, 19:17
They have tried and tried with Warhammer Fantasy and it just wasn't working, simply bleeding more and more players. They had to do something to try and fix it. Space Marines are successful. So why not try a Fantasy version? There are 40K Elves and Orcs and Tomb Kings...

ScruffMan
06-07-2015, 19:22
Ian Pickstock and his love of tanks was what got us into this mess, before that I am sure fantasy was the main system! ;)

Shandor
06-07-2015, 19:39
Last info i got a half year ago it was around 30% of GW Profit for fantasy. From someone Semi important person from GW.
From the boss of Battlefield Berlin i hear that WHF sold kinda equal to Warmachine/Hordes.

I dont know if this true. But i think the common context is a bit to low.

BTW Space Marines dont run so good like everyone thinks also. If GW makes less money its mainly because 40k has lower numbers. 40k is the main part of GWs profit. That is sure. But if GWs overall Profit is lowering every year it cant be the small things alone like Paints, WHF, Hobbit.