PDA

View Full Version : Blood Bowl II Has... How Many Players?



SuperHappyTime
01-10-2015, 23:27
I'm looking at 2,505 In-Game right now.

So why hasn't GW released a new box set yet?

The_Real_Chris
01-10-2015, 23:29
How many of them are upset at the compulsory rules changes and missing stuff? :)

Gorsameth
02-10-2015, 01:06
I'm looking at 2,505 In-Game right now.

So why hasn't GW released a new box set yet?
Because doing so would admit they made a mistake when they canned all specialist games.

And everyone knows GW is infallible.

mightymconeshot
02-10-2015, 02:48
So I have a different question. Is it worth upgrading to BB2 if you already have the first one? Is there any difference beside new graphics?

Mawduce
02-10-2015, 03:18
I think GW dropped the ball not putting BB2 in the AoS universe with armies from that setting though if they wanted to truly move away from the old and into the new.

lordreaven448
02-10-2015, 05:40
I think GW dropped the ball not putting BB2 in the AoS universe with armies from that setting though if they wanted to truly move away from the old and into the new.
Apparently GW gave Cyanide to do what they want with the game. They said in an interview they can add another troll to the goblin team if they wanted to. It seems GW is handing off the old IPs and might be hoping one becomes Popular enough to get them enough royalties to hide their failing business model. In a sense, it's rather clever......to the point I doubt GW thought of it and is doing it.

ebbwar
02-10-2015, 18:28
Cause they haven't sculpted any Bowlmarines yet ;)

morvaeldd
02-10-2015, 19:44
Blood Bowl even fits into their recent theme of naming everything Blood-something.

Memnos
02-10-2015, 20:47
So I have a different question. Is it worth upgrading to BB2 if you already have the first one? Is there any difference beside new graphics?

I did, and I think it's worth it. I like the new announcers - The single player campaign is much better and the skills are more intuitive.

Buuuuuuuut... There are issues. My biggest problems are that the number of teams is quite small and the cheerleaders are all human. I don't want my Orcs and Gobbos being cheered on by humie gits!

On the other hand, my Bretonnian team has a Blitzer with Block, Dauntless, Catch, Ag 4 and Dodge and I'm hoping to give 'im nerves of steel and leap as his final bonuses. :D

Cap'n Facebeard
03-10-2015, 00:15
So why hasn't GW released a new box set yet?

Why not just buy a second hand set? I'm sure Man o' War fans were all delighted with Dreadfleet. :D

bound for glory
03-10-2015, 06:50
no real want nor need for gw to "revist: blood bowl. the game is doing well. about the only thing gw could bring back to the game would be new sculpts. but there are plenty at that game these days...

Mawduce
03-10-2015, 09:39
Dreadball took its place. Mantic filled the gap

BFalcon
03-10-2015, 10:37
I did, and I think it's worth it. I like the new announcers - The single player campaign is much better and the skills are more intuitive.

Buuuuuuuut... There are issues. My biggest problems are that the number of teams is quite small and the cheerleaders are all human. I don't want my Orcs and Gobbos being cheered on by humie gits!

On the other hand, my Bretonnian team has a Blitzer with Block, Dauntless, Catch, Ag 4 and Dodge and I'm hoping to give 'im nerves of steel and leap as his final bonuses. :D

And, as far as I know, you can't change skills to "?" so that it ASKS you if you want to use a skill - eg Pass (for those times when you're throwing into a pack of your own guys as the last action and you do NOT want a fumble, so a n inaccurate throw would be just fine thanks... or a high-AV player facing a low-AV player who rolls two "Both Down" results - you might not want to use the Wrestle skill you gave him, instead using the Block or allowing him to go down, so ending your opponent's turn (Wrestle doesn't do that). The End Turn button is hardly intuitive either, neither are the skill selection (a tiny word as opposed to actually having icons?).

As for GW re-releasing it, I have mixed feelings - on the one hand, I'd love to see it, but on the other, I dread to see what a foul-up they'd make of it when they completely misunderstand the needs of the community, or the pricing model they'd use. Mind you, at least with Blood Bowl you only NEED to buy 20 players at most, more usually around 16 - depending on whether or not you like to keep spare linemen around... so even if they priced them stupidly, it wouldn't have the same exponential effect as it does in 40k or AoS.

Finnigan2004
03-10-2015, 15:45
I'm looking at 2,505 In-Game right now.

So why hasn't GW released a new box set yet?

Lack of market research and bad management?

jtrowell
04-10-2015, 11:25
Blood Bowl even fits into their recent theme of naming everything Blood-something.


Well, we have to remember that blood bowl was supposed to be in a alternate universe than the official GW one ... an alternate universe that was a *parody* of the original one. :D

ebbwar
04-10-2015, 12:46
Well, we have to remember that blood bowl was supposed to be in a alternate universe than the official GW one ... an alternate universe that was a *parody* of the original one. :D

Let me get this straight. What you are saying is that we are living in a parody alternate reality where in the real one GW is a good company that engages with the community and has a realistic pricing structure? :eek:

Buddy Bear
04-10-2015, 15:32
I'm looking at 2,505 In-Game right now.

So why hasn't GW released a new box set yet?

If just half of that were to buy a $100 starter set from GW, that'd be over $100,000 of profit for GW.

Voss
04-10-2015, 16:07
If just half of that were to buy a $100 starter set from GW, that'd be over $100,000 of profit for GW.

Well, minus costs. Personally, I find this a better platform for BB.

Inquisitor Kallus
05-10-2015, 10:50
Cause they haven't sculpted any Bowlmarines yet ;)

*yawn*


Anyway, I see the point being made by the OP, however, how many people would actually buy a new set?
Most BB players have sets and teams already, but would they buy a new box? Maybe. How many people who are just comouter game players would shell out for a box of models and a game that they already play on their computer? How many people have given up because of GWs antics? Will it be as popular as Space Hulk? Thas a possibility, but a lot of vets have left. They may come back and purchase a new BB or it may just pass them by like what happened with the first 3rd ed SH.

Atm it could be seen as a risk, im surprised they didnt release it back when 8th ed WFB was around. SH had the added advantage that the models could be used in 40k, Dread Fleet didn't. I know a number of people didnt necessarily like the rules but BB would suffer from the same model syndrome though I believe it would sell far better than DF.

Rick Blaine
05-10-2015, 12:05
Maybe part of the reason it didn't get the Space Hulk treatment is that your only prospective customers are old nerds who played BB when they were little and so love it despite it being a steaming pile of garbage, but these same people already own a bunch of teams, so how much are they going to buy?

Herzlos
05-10-2015, 12:08
But then why are all the 3rd party manufacturers so popular? BB leagues seem to be bringing in far higher numbers than 40K tournaments despite the fact it's not been supported in about 15 years.

Inquisitor Kallus
05-10-2015, 12:26
Maybe part of the reason it didn't get the Space Hulk treatment is that your only prospective customers are old nerds who played BB when they were little and so love it despite it being a steaming pile of garbage, but these same people already own a bunch of teams, so how much are they going to buy?

I wouldnt say BB is rubbish, its quite an entertaining game

nedsta
05-10-2015, 12:36
Strangely enough I've just spoken to my local manager who has been working on a blood bowl team because of playing the new game. He and his mates have dug out the game and are building new teams for it and are set for a few games soon.

The_Real_Chris
05-10-2015, 12:49
Maybe part of the reason it didn't get the Space Hulk treatment is that your only prospective customers are old nerds who played BB when they were little and so love it despite it being a steaming pile of garbage, but these same people already own a bunch of teams, so how much are they going to buy?

Wel, they managed to get a thousand odd players travelling internationally for the World Cup. They are an odd sort of nerd that is still buying a lot of teams as evidenced by the Blood Bowl cottage industry that exists.

They also managed I think to sell a million copies of the old computer game (admittably in 3 editions so repeat sales were a factor).

The rules have held up under millions of games played online.

Seems to have been a safer punt than Dreadfull fleet...

But the rational for releasing it has gone. You can't use it as a hook to sell WFB models for conversion. The world it parodies has gone.

HelloKitty
05-10-2015, 14:18
Blood Bowl is probably my all time favorite GW game. I play in several online leagues.

Niall78
05-10-2015, 16:41
Blood Bowl is probably my all time favorite GW game. I play in several online leagues.

It's a beautiful little rule-set especially the living rules. Great balance with lots of variety in tactics. I played FUBAR myself on-line for a good while.

BFalcon
05-10-2015, 17:35
Wel, they managed to get a thousand odd players travelling internationally for the World Cup. They are an odd sort of nerd that is still buying a lot of teams as evidenced by the Blood Bowl cottage industry that exists.

They also managed I think to sell a million copies of the old computer game (admittably in 3 editions so repeat sales were a factor).

The rules have held up under millions of games played online.

Seems to have been a safer punt than Dreadfull fleet...

But the rational for releasing it has gone. You can't use it as a hook to sell WFB models for conversion. The world it parodies has gone.

Well, speaking for myself, my only hobby outlay right now is the occasional computer game or ebook and my BB team collection (currently up to around 12 or 13 teams I think (I need to do another count sometime). There's a few teams I'd happily buy if they re-released them.

As for BB1, I'd not bother to count around 3/4 of each version's sales, since most are league players like myself (either private or public) who wanted the latest teams, so took advantage of sales or the special discounts in order to get the latest version. Personally, I think I have every version except the Dark Elf one.

But I know a lot of guys who also play tabletop (sadly, I'm not connected to the local gaming scene, so none around here). One of them in my league I play in, recently made a Minions team just for laughs (counts as goblins).

The game's far from dead, but GW refuses to engage the fans and cash in... insane!

Inquisitor Kallus
05-10-2015, 17:50
The game's far from dead, but GW refuses to engage the fans and cash in... insane!

For them atm I would imagine they see 40k as more of a surefire bet. Think about it this way, how many people would buy more than one box set of the same Blood Bowl team? Now compare that to a 40k unit...

Im not saying its not worth producing and selling a new BB its just how economically viable is it for them? The latest game Executon forsce or whatever it was involving the assasins used a bunch of existing stuf (chaos) and four new clampack sized sprues along with some card boards. Its not about refusing to engage the fans and cashing in.

Niall78
05-10-2015, 18:10
For them atm I would imagine they see 40k as more of a surefire bet. Think about it this way, how many people would buy more than one box set of the same Blood Bowl team? Now compare that to a 40k unit...

Im not saying its not worth producing and selling a new BB its just how economically viable is it for them? The latest game Executon forsce or whatever it was involving the assasins used a bunch of existing stuf (chaos) and four new clampack sized sprues along with some card boards. Its not about refusing to engage the fans and cashing in.

How economically viable is it for a games company to only have one game? Compare GW to FFG or even Mantic - the lack of product by GW is stark. Having all your eggs in one basket in any industry is madness. That is effectively the position GW now finds itself in. Where they used to have the biggest fantasy and SF tabletop games with lots of extra spin-off boardgames and TT games now they have a failed new fantasy setting, a SF setting that's losing market share and zero other offerings.

Inquisitor Kallus
05-10-2015, 18:35
Its not really, but Blood Bowl wouldnt be the best choice long term

Mawduce
05-10-2015, 18:53
Its not really, but Blood Bowl wouldnt be the best choice long term

GW doesn't think long term

Niall78
05-10-2015, 18:57
Its not really, but Blood Bowl wouldnt be the best choice long term

It should be one of many offerings to support the main sellers. Not everything has to be about bilking the customer for every last Dollar like they try to do in both fantasy and 40K. Steady sellers at affordable prices that are easy to collect are golden for most companies. Why would any games company reject any part of a market they are trying to make money in?

AkalaSpeaksFact
05-10-2015, 21:15
2658 teams in the league and I've been sat in the queue for a game for 30 mins....


"I am the power of death incarnate. I am the swords edge; I hungrily cut the flesh and drink deep of the bloody well beneath. Give me your body, and I promise you glory, I promise you vengeance and I promise you immortality - if you will only let me..."

-Antwyr, the sword god

BFalcon
06-10-2015, 13:57
Its not really, but Blood Bowl wouldnt be the best choice long term

One of the key fundamental principles of business is diversification of your product line - if the tastes of the "unwashed masses" suddenly turned to, let's say, fantasy games which could be played in an hour or two, 40k sales would slump instantly. AoS would possibly fare better, but you don't want to see all your sales reliant on a new brand. Having other games produced regularly: Blood Bowl, Space Hulk, Mordheim, Necromunda, etc would allow any of your product lines to pick up the slack instantly, while quietly ticking over in the background while you're working on others.

They don't even need to really put much money into it - one multi-part sprue with positional arms and limbs and bodies for the various players in each team would suffice... using metal or (ugh) finecast for the star players. Sure, the resin and metal teams are much nicer, but the prices would slump in the second-hand market overnight and there'd be tons of those sprues selling, as people decided to build the basic teams out of those and then use the resins for additional players.

The same principle could be done with Necromunda: Basic ganger bodies and arms, allowing you to build a gang and customise it to your requirements. Space Hulk could be getting addon missions regularly... that would drive sales of the "flavour of the month" terminators in both GW terminators and forge world addons/upgrades... possibly with extra sales being generated through use of hybrids (we've never seen orc hybrids, have we? Didn't a Cain book have those?) and other tyranid types in those missions... they could be generating sales here easily.

Basic sets don't even need to be complicated - they don't need to be "everything included" sets, but even Direct Only items with basic boards, dice and templates - just add your favourite teams - with them adding bundled human and orc teams (the two basics) in a custom box for sale in shops. There could be SO much they could be doing, with relatively low costs.

Also, diversifying your model output also has the advantage that your sculptors (physical and digital) get to have a little fun once in a while... letting them loose on a once-per-year Specialist Games figure project would allow them to produce extra models for you, but ones that they WANT to produce, so allowing them a little creative freedom. That helps to keep morale up without costing any extra money (aside from the costs for the sprue, which would be paid for (hopefully) by the sales).

Lastly, we've got 2 NFL games in the UK and the Rugby World Cup here too, all at the same time. Blood Bowl is specifically aimed at both games with a fantasy twist. They should be aiming to market the living heck out of it and selling more than they can make. Instead they've allowed it to slip away and Dreadball by Mantic is slowing picking up the slack...

Inquisitor Kallus
06-10-2015, 14:36
GW doesn't think long term

You're wrong. Its quite apparent you get your 'facts' from t'internet. Don't pretend to be in the know when you quite clearly are not

Inquisitor Kallus
06-10-2015, 14:46
It should be one of many offerings to support the main sellers. Not everything has to be about bilking the customer for every last Dollar like they try to do in both fantasy and 40K. Steady sellers at affordable prices that are easy to collect are golden for most companies. Why would any games company reject any part of a market they are trying to make money in?

Its quite simple, greatest returns...

That doesnt mean to say that they did a good thing by shelving 'specialist games' but it was probably the right thing to do for them at the time. I can see them coming back again, especially as LOTR/Hobbit is going. Think about it logically, they can only do so much. You have people screaming bloody murder that 'their army' doesnt have this or that unit and x.y or z got this or that. With that line gone they can potentially work on other stuff. There is 30k thats going to be coming out, but we dont know whats happening with it in the long term, hopefully GW will see sense and bring back some older games but they need to be hapy that it will make as big or a bigger impact than other things they could be releasing, especially with how things are atm..

I have to say some of the vitriol I see here and elsewhere just beggars belief at times.

Inquisitor Kallus
06-10-2015, 14:52
It should be one of many offerings to support the main sellers. Not everything has to be about bilking the customer for every last Dollar like they try to do in both fantasy and 40K. Steady sellers at affordable prices that are easy to collect are golden for most companies. Why would any games company reject any part of a market they are trying to make money in?

Its quite simple, greatest returns...

If I have two different products and lets say they each cost 1000 to produce.
Product A I can sell over and over again, even to the same customers potentially
Product B will generally get sold in lesser numbers as fewer people will use it and they will generally only ever buy one unit, and it has less crossover appeal

Which of these two am I more likely going to want to put money into, especially if my financials arent in as good a positionas I would like?

That doesnt mean to say that they did a good thing by shelving 'specialist games' but it was probably the right thing to do for them at the time. I can see them coming back again, especially as LOTR/Hobbit is going. Think about it logically, they can only do so much. You have people screaming bloody murder that 'their army' doesnt have this or that unit and x.y or z got this or that. With that line gone they can potentially work on other stuff. There is 30k thats going to be coming out, but we dont know whats happening with it in the long term, hopefully GW will see sense and bring back some older games but they need to be hapy that it will make as big or a bigger impact than other things they could be releasing, especially with how things are atm. There is always the chance in the future these models and games will be released again. I have a feeling that the computer games were made for certain liscences to not only make a bit of money with little to no effort on GW's part but also to keep the liscences/tms/copywrights/whatevs to them so they can potentially do stuff at a later date

I have to say some of the vitriol I see here and elsewhere just beggars belief at times.

shelfunit.
06-10-2015, 15:24
Maybe part of the reason it didn't get the Space Hulk treatment is that your only prospective customers are old nerds who played BB when they were little

Seems odd that a number of smaller companies can make a living seliing teams to old nerds that already own all the teams, but hey, who can argue with your water tight logic :rolleyes:

Zywus
06-10-2015, 15:28
Think about it logically, they can only do so much. You have people screaming bloody murder that 'their army' doesnt have this or that unit and x.y or z got this or that. With that line gone they can potentially work on other stuff.People might have been "screaming bloody murder", but they still bought the specialist games stuff. It wouldn't have taken much resources to just keep the basics of the existing products available (possibly limited product runs) and add something new if there was some resources available.

Also, the years after binning specialist games haven't really been GW drastically plug holes in their lines anyway. Some stuff has gotten models but mostly they've just removed options or added completely new stuff (Space Marine centurions, Morkanauts, Ginormus Tau/Imperial/Eldar walkers etc.). For exemple; Orks have gotten proper models for Battlewagons, Trucks, FlashGitz, and plastic grots but their buggies are still metal/plastic hybrids for gorkamorka, Tankbustas and half the GigGunz options only available in finecast and so on.

Inquisitor Kallus
06-10-2015, 16:25
People might have been "screaming bloody murder", but they still bought the specialist games stuff. It wouldn't have taken much resources to just keep the basics of the existing products available (possibly limited product runs) and add something new if there was some resources available.

Also, the years after binning specialist games haven't really been GW drastically plug holes in their lines anyway. Some stuff has gotten models but mostly they've just removed options or added completely new stuff (Space Marine centurions, Morkanauts, Ginormus Tau/Imperial/Eldar walkers etc.). For exemple; Orks have gotten proper models for Battlewagons, Trucks, FlashGitz, and plastic grots but their buggies are still metal/plastic hybrids for gorkamorka, Tankbustas and half the GigGunz options only available in finecast and so on.

and think about how much further back we'd be if they also had a number of SG lines. People 'atill' scream bloody murder because they havent had updated stuff, only yesterday a comment on FB about how gw should be ashamed of themselves for not remodelling swooping hawks in addition to the price of the current kit. I WANT specialist games stuff back, I really do, probably a lot more than most of you here. The situation theyve gotten themselves in doesnt help matters unfortunately. Id love to see a new Blood Bowl amongst other things

Zywus
06-10-2015, 16:26
Also, the reasoning of greatest returns can really bite them in the ass if interest in their single product start vaning and they have nothing to pick up the slack. It also remind me of this rant on the big videogame publishers leaving money on the table by only producing big blockbuster games that need to sell millions to be profitable, leaving the smaller developers to enjoy a smaller, more niche but ultimately profitable revenue.

Replace Horror games/movies with Bloodbowl and blockbuster movies/games with WH40k and It fit's GW's modus operandi the last years rather well.
https://youtu.be/baX9MumGuBc?t=3m16s
"This is an industry that would rather make no money than some money; that would have nothing if it couldn't have it all"

Zywus
06-10-2015, 16:37
and think about how much further back we'd be if they also had a number of SG lines. People 'atill' scream bloody murder because they havent had updated stuff, only yesterday a comment on FB about how gw should be ashamed of themselves for not remodelling swooping hawks in addition to the price of the current kit. I WANT specialist games stuff back, I really do, probably a lot more than most of you here. The situation theyve gotten themselves in doesnt help matters unfortunately. Id love to see a new Blood Bowl amongst other things
I understand your reasoning but I just don't think the resources needed for a minimal commitment to the specialist games would have been large enough to noticeably impact model production for the main games.

ebbwar
06-10-2015, 19:10
Seems odd that a number of smaller companies can make a living seliing teams to old nerds that already own all the teams, but hey, who can argue with your water tight logic :rolleyes:

They don't have the chain around their neck of a big ass B&M retail chain ;)

Rick Blaine
06-10-2015, 20:07
Seems odd that a number of smaller companies can make a living seliing teams to old nerds that already own all the teams, but hey, who can argue with your water tight logic :rolleyes:

Are they making a living? As in, sculpting and selling BB knockoffs is their day job?

shelfunit.
06-10-2015, 21:10
Are they making a living?

Well, yes, seeing as how they are being sold and the businesses selling them are active.


As in, sculpting and selling BB knockoffs is their day job?

GW don't have any claims to own generic fantasy football. Perhaps you should aquaint yourself with the Chapterhouse case.

DonkeyMan
06-10-2015, 22:25
The Specialist Games would have worked, they just didn't work the way GW did it, but the Specialist Games could have been a huge income source.
Take a look at FFG.

As for BB2, I'm glad it's quite successful. Also glad to see Cyanide continue to improve it.

Inquisitor Kallus
07-10-2015, 00:07
The Specialist Games would have worked, they just didn't work the way GW did it, but the Specialist Games could have been a huge income source.
Take a look at FFG.

As for BB2, I'm glad it's quite successful. Also glad to see Cyanide continue to improve it.

Well, specialist games wasnt working as well as the main lines, so they stopped. FFg are doing well, but they have fingers in a lot of pies. I do think they could learn some things from them though. Also FFG dont have stores

DonkeyMan
07-10-2015, 06:15
Well, specialist games wasnt working as well as the main lines, so they stopped. FFg are doing well, but they have fingers in a lot of pies. I do think they could learn some things from them though. Also FFG dont have stores
Warhammer Quest could have been a gold mine, but I think GW was afraid that WHQ might steel players from WFB.
In my area Blood Bowl, WHQ, Necromunda, Gorka Morka and Mordheim were hugely successful.
We saw a decline in players eventually over time when GW abandoned the games.
A lot of these playes had no interest in 40K or WFB and never have started either of them since. They just stopped buying GW products altogether.
I can see why GW stopped the Specialist range. Of course 40K and WFB made more money and GW was always struggling with creating rules and games, but very good at creating miniatures.
Trouble is, that they might have manouvered themselves into a situation now were 40K is their one trick pony.

As for FFG, they only have their hands in so many things, because their successfully build up a reputation, were popular IP holders were happy to give them rights to their own IP's.

Inquisitor Kallus
07-10-2015, 10:53
Warhammer Quest could have been a gold mine, but I think GW was afraid that WHQ might steel players from WFB.
In my area Blood Bowl, WHQ, Necromunda, Gorka Morka and Mordheim were hugely successful.
We saw a decline in players eventually over time when GW abandoned the games.
A lot of these playes had no interest in 40K or WFB and never have started either of them since. They just stopped buying GW products altogether.
I can see why GW stopped the Specialist range. Of course 40K and WFB made more money and GW was always struggling with creating rules and games, but very good at creating miniatures.
Trouble is, that they might have manouvered themselves into a situation now were 40K is their one trick pony.

As for FFG, they only have their hands in so many things, because their successfully build up a reputation, were popular IP holders were happy to give them rights to their own IP's.


No, they were never worried it would 'steal players', they were worried it would steal sales. They assume people who were already buying fantasy wouldnt buy fantasy/40k for however many months, spending their money on specialist games/whatever instead. They needed to spend far less generally to have a game and the ranges were smaller in scope than 40k/WFB Yep, different people have different feelings about it all. I believe they feel it was right for them at the time, and in a way I think they were right. Hoefully theyll bring vack the models at some point later on

BFalcon
07-10-2015, 12:16
No, they were never worried it would 'steal players', they were worried it would steal sales. They assume people who were already buying fantasy wouldnt buy fantasy/40k for however many months, spending their money on specialist games/whatever instead. They needed to spend far less generally to have a game and the ranges were smaller in scope than 40k/WFB Yep, different people have different feelings about it all. I believe they feel it was right for them at the time, and in a way I think they were right. Hoefully theyll bring vack the models at some point later on

Hardly the case though - I don't buy either fantasy or 40k right now and haven't for ages - I've put a self-imposed ban on doing so until I've painted my current backlog... but I AM still collecting all the teams for Blood Bowl still... and I'm hardly alone. Indeed, the last fantasy minis I bought were some skaven clanrats and some night goblins to make up an underworld team... all of those were second-hand, mind - no point in buying excessive numbers just for a few players, after all. Someday, I'll get around to getting the Stormvermin I need... since I've not even STARTED that project. :P

But GW could have been getting money out of me on the Blood Bowl front, fairly regularly... as it is, they've lost out and selling-up collectors have cashed in instead.

Gorsameth
07-10-2015, 12:40
No, they were never worried it would 'steal players', they were worried it would steal sales. They assume people who were already buying fantasy wouldnt buy fantasy/40k for however many months, spending their money on specialist games/whatever instead. They needed to spend far less generally to have a game and the ranges were smaller in scope than 40k/WFB Yep, different people have different feelings about it all. I believe they feel it was right for them at the time, and in a way I think they were right. Hoefully theyll bring vack the models at some point later on
And we already saw the results of that thinking with the decline of WHFB and now all GW has left is 40k. If the new Star Wars movie comes out and 40k sales take a nosedive they have nothing left to cushion the fall.
Creating a single point of failure in your business model is not a good strategy, its how you go out of business.

Agrimax
07-10-2015, 12:45
No, they were never worried it would 'steal players', they were worried it would steal sales. They assume people who were already buying fantasy wouldnt buy fantasy/40k for however many months, spending their money on specialist games/whatever instead. They needed to spend far less generally to have a game and the ranges were smaller in scope than 40k/WFB Yep, different people have different feelings about it all. I believe they feel it was right for them at the time, and in a way I think they were right. Hoefully theyll bring vack the models at some point later on

And therein lies the problem. They assume, rather than analyse. Some people were sufficiently affluent to buy specialist games in addition to everything they wanted for WHFB/40k, others as mentioned simply never had an interest in those systems. Only an unquantified portion of SG players were 'convertible' to the main game systems.

For canning SG to be the right decision for them even on a basic financial level, they would need to have done an analysis to consider if the cost savings would outweigh the lost revenue from those that wouldn't convert those purchases over to their main game systems. And to do a more complete appraisal of the value of SG, they should also have considered the networking and recruitment effect into the hobby of those game lines (granted, much harder to quantify).

jtrowell
07-10-2015, 14:07
Yes, it's always a good idea to cancel any product line that might cannibalize sales for your other products, remember when Apple cancelled their Iphone project because it was only cannibalizing sales from their successfull IPod(tm) range ? :angel:

And of course, it's not as if a few years after the cancellation of specialist games there were not new independant games filling the same niche made by competitors and transferring those sales to other companies rathers that having GW still getting them ... :rolleyes:

Inquisitor Kallus
07-10-2015, 19:08
Youll find that I never said it was a sound idea to do it, why are you still trying to convince me?

m sure youre VERY important BFalcon, but what I think you dont realise is that a number of their other projects have made more money than what they would have gained from you for the same amount of output. None of you ever saw or heard about the slaes figures of specialist game have you?

I will tell you now, at its height, Epic, as a main line game at the time wasnt anywhere near the sales of WFB. LOTR was brought in to take specialists place, which it did well for years. Many of you say about other companies doing this and that which GW could have done. Thats great, but I can tell you now that they dont make anywhere near as much money or sales. Also note that I didnt say that GW are doing well, merely making more money as a whole compared to smaller companies, though people have gone to other systems. You dont need to tell me this, I already know, im simply telling you the reasons for GWs actions

DonkeyMan
07-10-2015, 20:57
Being the market leader can make you arrogant/overconfident. Someone should always be careful when abandoning market shares to potential future competitors.

I don't want to judge GW, as I don't have insight knowledge on why, but I always thought abandoning the specialist games was a shortsighted idea. It might have been some savings short term, but long term I think it did hurt them.

As for them making more money than the competition. They need to. Such a huge operation like GW isn't cheap to run. An Elephant needs more food than a mouse! ;)

ebbwar
07-10-2015, 23:21
Being the market leader can make you arrogant/overconfident. Someone should always be careful when abandoning market shares to potential future competitors.

I don't want to judge GW, as I don't have insight knowledge on why, but I always thought abandoning the specialist games was a shortsighted idea. It might have been some savings short term, but long term I think it did hurt them.

As for them making more money than the competition. They need to. Such a huge operation like GW isn't cheap to run. An Elephant needs more food than a mouse! ;)

What if its a really big Mouse? Or a tiny Elephant? Or a tiny Elephant eating a really big Mouse?

BFalcon
08-10-2015, 10:41
Youll find that I never said it was a sound idea to do it, why are you still trying to convince me?

m sure youre VERY important BFalcon, but what I think you dont realise is that a number of their other projects have made more money than what they would have gained from you for the same amount of output. None of you ever saw or heard about the slaes figures of specialist game have you?

I will tell you now, at its height, Epic, as a main line game at the time wasnt anywhere near the sales of WFB. LOTR was brought in to take specialists place, which it did well for years. Many of you say about other companies doing this and that which GW could have done. Thats great, but I can tell you now that they dont make anywhere near as much money or sales. Also note that I didnt say that GW are doing well, merely making more money as a whole compared to smaller companies, though people have gone to other systems. You dont need to tell me this, I already know, im simply telling you the reasons for GWs actions

Excuse me??

I never said they were as popular - but anyone with sense knows that profit is good, no matter how much it is. You're also assuming they had a finite amount of income to spend. They didn't. If your products are making profit, you can afford to hire another designer and run production on them AS WELL as pay for the moulds. Net result, you have a broader income base, you have more content you can add to your magazines and, as long as they make enough /sqm, more products to add to your stores and to put in your displays. I know full well the stated reasons they cancelled. What we're saying, generally, is that it was short sighted in the extreme and I think we're agreed. What I'm saying is that it was madness to turn away income when those people aren't interested (necessarily) in your products that you're sticking with.

And yes, in a way, I am important - just like everyone else here - in that I used to be a GW customer, used to spend over the odds on miniatures and games I enjoyed. I used to look forward to getting my next White Dwarf and seeing what new things were being offered. Like a lot of people here, I feel sadness that GW has turned into such an inward-looking company and, long ago, stopped being an innovator and started to stagnate and then shrink.

As for Blood Bowl, as I said before: American Football in the past few years has made a huge resurgence, Blood Bowl has had 2 computer games (not including the multiple versions of BB1) and yet GW has failed to cash at all. Normally, this would be considered insane in business - making an action movie, for example, yet not making any merchandising or spinoff games to coincide with the release? No DVD release?

I know we agree on this (at least in broad terms) and, no, I wasn't privy to the figures for Epic or any other specialist games, but I do know they made enough to cover their own costs, or they'd have gone the way of Dark Future a lot sooner, but GW chose to expand in the wrong ways - more static overheads (management, design studio), higher prices per figure and higher churn rate of their books. If you want to produce books so quickly, if you want such large static costs, you need a more stable, broader income base, not to shrink it to one product range and a newly-redesigned reboot of your only other range. All we're doing here, is discussing it, so please kill the personal attacks, huh? :)

Inquisitor Kallus
08-10-2015, 11:09
Excuse me??

I never said they were as popular - but anyone with sense knows that profit is good, no matter how much it is. You're also assuming they had a finite amount of income to spend. They didn't. If your products are making profit, you can afford to hire another designer and run production on them AS WELL as pay for the moulds. Net result, you have a broader income base, you have more content you can add to your magazines and, as long as they make enough /sqm, more products to add to your stores and to put in your displays. I know full well the stated reasons they cancelled. What we're saying, generally, is that it was short sighted in the extreme and I think we're agreed. What I'm saying is that it was madness to turn away income when those people aren't interested (necessarily) in your products that you're sticking with.

And yes, in a way, I am important - just like everyone else here - in that I used to be a GW customer, used to spend over the odds on miniatures and games I enjoyed. I used to look forward to getting my next White Dwarf and seeing what new things were being offered. Like a lot of people here, I feel sadness that GW has turned into such an inward-looking company and, long ago, stopped being an innovator and started to stagnate and then shrink.

As for Blood Bowl, as I said before: American Football in the past few years has made a huge resurgence, Blood Bowl has had 2 computer games (not including the multiple versions of BB1) and yet GW has failed to cash at all. Normally, this would be considered insane in business - making an action movie, for example, yet not making any merchandising or spinoff games to coincide with the release? No DVD release?

I know we agree on this (at least in broad terms) and, no, I wasn't privy to the figures for Epic or any other specialist games, but I do know they made enough to cover their own costs, or they'd have gone the way of Dark Future a lot sooner, but GW chose to expand in the wrong ways - more static overheads (management, design studio), higher prices per figure and higher churn rate of their books. If you want to produce books so quickly, if you want such large static costs, you need a more stable, broader income base, not to shrink it to one product range and a newly-redesigned reboot of your only other range. All we're doing here, is discussing it, so please kill the personal attacks, huh? :)

No personal attacks, youre merely perceiving it to be. I was posting it in regard to your, 'well GW could have gotten more money from me..'thing. They need to be sure its economically viable, one person is negligible, though I know more than just you would buy them. Like I said, you dont need to convince me, I imagine 99% of the people on warseer were, or are, GW customers. Youll also find that GW arent just a 'one trick pony' , though they have less 'tricks' nowadays. Tehir money also goes into BL, FW as well as the large number of kits for the main systems.Im pretty sure atm the AOS stuff has a good amount of models, probably a similar ish number to that of companies who make 3rd party bloodbowl/fantasy football models. So yes, they do have a finite amount of money to spend on making new things, theyre not just making models and selling them online, they have stores, lots of staff, rent/accomodation, training, a big warehouse full of expensive plastic model moulds, blah de blah de blah........

Herzlos
08-10-2015, 14:56
As for them making more money than the competition. They need to. Such a huge operation like GW isn't cheap to run. An Elephant needs more food than a mouse! ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

DonkeyMan
08-10-2015, 19:26
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
That has nothing to do with what I meant. It's only logical that the more you produce of a certain product the cheaper you can sell it (to a certain level at least).

And let's just not mention the fact that economics of scale would allow GW to be cheaper than many of their competitors. ;-)

What I meant was the company size and total earnings. A company the size of GW simply has to earn more than a company the size of PP.
GW's monthly running cost must be huge compared to PP's.
If GW for example would sell the same amount as PP, they'd be in way more trouble than they are now.
And if they would sell as little as Wyrd Games, they'd possibly be almost bankrupt.

But PP and Wyrd Games are perfectly fine as they are smaller operations and run at lower cost.
Now the advantage that GW has with that is that they have way more fat and they can cover reduced sales by downscaling their compnany.
Therefore we'll see GW still for quite a few years to come.

TonyFlow
10-10-2015, 04:01
Now the advantage that GW has with that is that they have way more fat and they can cover reduced sales by downscaling their compnany.
Therefore we'll see GW still for quite a few years to come.

I think GW has already trimmed as much fat as they possibly can without completely abandoning their brick and mortar model (which probably wouldn't be a bad thing).

Mawduce
10-10-2015, 07:30
bloodbowl and its ilk do so poorly there is a market for this now http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/fantasy-football-mats/26500-fantasy-football-field-grass-theme-pvc-games-mat?

Ben
10-10-2015, 21:54
A lot of former GW designers disagree with the direction the company has gone.

But what they have done is established markets for things like Blood Bowl, and then abandoned that market.

They went from total dominance of most areas of tabletop gaming (skirmish, pitched battles, spaceship games, fantasy football, dungeon crawlers, etc) and voluntarily gave up that market share to competitors, who used it as a spring board to grow.

There is not going to be one masterstroke that kills 40k, unless they do go through with Age of Sigmaring it next year. But the 'Age of Sigmar Effect' is the start of that. The competitors that GW gave market share to, Mantic, Warlord, Osprey, Privateer Press, Malifaux, Corpus Belli, etc, have competing, developed and playtested products out there, and once people start looking elsewhere for their fantasy gaming needs there is no guarantee they aren't going to start looking elsewhere for their sci-fi/skirmish needs as well.

Many of these competing products are written by the very staff that wrote 40k and fantasy and specialist games at GW and have since been driven out by the current management. GW literally created their competitors and gave them markets to exploit.

Allen
20-10-2015, 11:46
A lot of former GW designers disagree with the direction the company has gone

Game Designers do exactly what their job title tell us: they design games. They don't run companies and certaintly they don't work on corporate commercial/financial strategies. Don't get me wrong, some people manage to do both, like the original founders of GW or the various ex-employees that resigned and created their own companies...but they have one thing in common: they work in small companies. Very small ones.

GW is too huge and complex to let their corporate strategies be dictated by specialist that work on their products. Small companies can do that (acutally, they're encouraged to follow that kind of business model), but corporations? No, that's not how it works if you want to stay competitive AND profitable, regardless of the market you're working in.



But what they have done is established markets for things like Blood Bowl, and then abandoned that market

As others have already pointed out, at the time it was a necessary choice. They were right in focusing their internal resources (game designers, artists, production, storage and so on) on their core games in order to crank up profits and have more money to invest lately. If we consider their business model (selling miniatures) it's pretty clear it was also a good idea discountinuing game systems that required very few miniatures to be played, and that had a very low (or non-existant) miniature replacement rate: in WHFB or WH40K new units are regularly introduced, point cost revised to push previously unused models, minaitures are re-sculpted and so on. Specialist Games couldn't generate the same volume of "new" sales or "replacement" sales of the two core game systems and had to go.

Be advised: discontinuing SG was a logic choice from THE COMPANY point of view. From A WARGAMER point of view it was (and still is) an annoying and infuriating choice. It's all a matter of perspective.



They went from total dominance of most areas of tabletop gaming (skirmish, pitched battles, spaceship games, fantasy football, dungeon crawlers, etc) and voluntarily gave up that market share to competitors, who used it as a spring board to grow

It was inevitable. Small companies can work on such niche areas and be profitable...a corporation like GW need sales volumes, money and again more money. Such small areas of an already niche market simply aren't profitable enough to divert resources into.


There is not going to be one masterstroke that kills 40k, unless they do go through with Age of Sigmaring it next year. But the 'Age of Sigmar Effect' is the start of that. The competitors that GW gave market share to, Mantic, Warlord, Osprey, Privateer Press, Malifaux, Corpus Belli, etc, have competing, developed and playtested products out there, and once people start looking elsewhere for their fantasy gaming needs there is no guarantee they aren't going to start looking elsewhere for their sci-fi/skirmish needs as well

I keep reading that "GW is losing market shares" to this or that company, but I hope everyone knows that here was a fierce competition even at the brightest point of GW corporate life. They never had the majority of market shares of anything - they simply used the brick&mortar shops as social aggregators for wargamers. Their supposed primacy in the wargaming industry was and still is simply a marketing stunt: they have places were people meet to play and to talk only of their products, and this gives the illusion they're leading the market. But they're not, and they never had.

Back on topic, discontinuing some segment of their products isn't "losing" anything if those same segments aren't productive. You're simply repositioning your assets to make more money...and again, I understand that as a wargamer this is not a good thing, but from an economical point of view it's the correct choice. It's like discontinuing a TV model or refrigerator one because they aren't economically viable anymore - customers that love those products will get angry, but a company have to work on a long term economical strategy, and sometimes catering to the whims of this or that portion of your customer base isn't an option.


Many of these competing products are written by the very staff that wrote 40k and fantasy and specialist games at GW and have since been driven out by the current management. GW literally created their competitors and gave them markets to exploit.

In any business there's people that don't feel satisfied and resign; sometimes they even became competitors. It's not such a big thing really.
The only problem I see with GW is their over reliance on the outdated game mechanics that form the basis of every single of their product. It was cool and interesting in the 80s, nowadays it's simply cumbersome and poorly optimized. Many other corporations (think Warlord, even Osprey) managed to produce compelling and well-designed game systems...while GW is still locked in the same old mechanics and ides.

But again, GW business model is not about selling rulesets and game systems: it's about pushing miniatures, so...


EDIT: about Blood Bowl II - it's a very good game. I strongly suggest to take a look also at Mordheim: City of the Damned (it's in early access at the moment, developed by Focus Home Interactive) and Battlefleet Gothic: Armada (at the moment it's in closed alpha, developed by Tindalos Interactive and published by Focus Home Interactive). Very, very, very interesting indeed.

Voss
21-10-2015, 03:41
It was inevitable. Small companies can work on such niche areas and be profitable...a corporation like GW need sales volumes, money and again more money. Such small areas of an already niche market simply aren't profitable enough to divert resources into.
... I don't understand the assumption that these are small areas. Nothing in the market mandates 28mm heroic scale at 50-100 models and a handful of vehicles. Especially when skirmish is arguably a larger section of the current market. Space battles could easily be a major thing (and probably would be if it Mongoose hadn't screwed up and made a mess of at least one major license), and well done dungeon crawlers could easily feed on the corpses of two failed editions of D&D.

Someone doing a successful game and spurring other developers to move into the same territory dictates the size of market segments, there isn't any inherent limits to certain types of games. They just need to be widespread.


I keep reading that "GW is losing market shares" to this or that company, but I hope everyone knows that here was a fierce competition even at the brightest point of GW corporate life. They never had the majority of market shares of anything - they simply used the brick&mortar shops as social aggregators for wargamers. Their supposed primacy in the wargaming industry was and still is simply a marketing stunt: they have places were people meet to play and to talk only of their products, and this gives the illusion they're leading the market. But they're not, and they never had.
This is simply wrong. They did have market dominance for a long time, even where they didn't have stores. The competition that did exist did rather poorly, and repeatedly self-destructed. But all through most of the 90s and early 2000s I could walk into any indie gaming shop on this continent and expect to find warhammer players. That was occasionally true of Battletech (when they hadn't imploded and sold the license to someone else to ruin), rarely true of TSR/WotC attempts at wargames, and never true of flashes in the pan like L5R and other failed miniature games I don't even remember anymore. Like Confrontation... even when that was a thing, it was nigh-impossible to find players. Reaper's Warlord? Nope.

Allen
21-10-2015, 09:40
... I don't understand the assumption that these are small areas. Nothing in the market mandates 28mm heroic scale at 50-100 models and a handful of vehicles. Especially when skirmish is arguably a larger section of the current market. Space battles could easily be a major thing (and probably would be if it Mongoose hadn't screwed up and made a mess of at least one major license), and well done dungeon crawlers could easily feed on the corpses of two failed editions of D&D

Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but everything in the wargaming market mandates pitched battles of masses of miniatures. The vast majority of wargaming systems were and are developed to recreate historical battles and wars. Some of the systems are developed to create fictional battles and wars - be it in a fantasy, sci-fi or alternate history environment. A few of the game systems are created with a low model count in mind: infantry skirmish games like Frostgrave or Force on Force, or naval or vehicle-heavy games.

I agree with you that the heroic 28mm scale is not the standard for wargaming, but that's all. Game systems with a low model count are not commonplace in the wargaming market - and with "wargaming market" I'm not referring only to GW and the few companies that circle their IP or were founded by its ex-employees. There's a HUGE world out there, and GW IP and miniatures are only a very, very small part of it.



Someone doing a successful game and spurring other developers to move into the same territory dictates the size of market segments, there isn't any inherent limits to certain types of games. They just need to be widespread

Yes and no. Skirmish games are becoming slowly popular even in historical circles thanks to the reduced budget/storage space/overall effort needed to play them, but still are not the vast majority of the game system played...and for big companies like GW, that's exactly the way it should be: a big company can't survive on the sales of a Mordheim-like game system. If we add to the low model count also the low or inexistant model replacement rate...well, you can do the math. Can a small company survive on those volume sales, maybe differentiating a bit their products? Yes. Can a big corporation do the same? No way.



This is simply wrong. They did have market dominance for a long time, even where they didn't have stores. The competition that did exist did rather poorly, and repeatedly self-destructed. But all through most of the 90s and early 2000s I could walk into any indie gaming shop on this continent and expect to find warhammer players. That was occasionally true of Battletech (when they hadn't imploded and sold the license to someone else to ruin), rarely true of TSR/WotC attempts at wargames, and never true of flashes in the pan like L5R and other failed miniature games I don't even remember anymore. Like Confrontation... even when that was a thing, it was nigh-impossible to find players. Reaper's Warlord? Nope.

I'm sorry again, but fantasy and sci-fi are not the cornerstone of wargaming. Wargaming is, mainly, about historical and modern models/game systems. Then there's part of the wargaming market dedicated to fantasy and science fiction, but let's be honest here: we're a very vocal part of the hobby, but shouting louder don't make us the majority. GW always boasted to be on the top of the food chain: they're not and they never were. They were, for a very small part of their life, king of our little pond...but nothing more.

Allen
21-10-2015, 09:41
edit: double post

The_Real_Chris
21-10-2015, 10:47
The Historical side though does not have a market leader like GW. It probably employs more people overall, but scattered amoung many companies. Many have tried to pull ahead with a 'definiative' set of rules and models, but no-one has yet achieved it and probably never will given the changes to manufacturing.

Also while historicals have declined from their heyday (in % if not $ terms) - most people on this board are too young to remember but it was massive at one point - GW came in during the coat tails of that period and launched a new market segment into prominence. They had at one point massive exposure (I remember the stat floating around from the early 90's that a quarter of men under 30 had played a GW with GW input).

Now GW have a shrinking market share and they are losing it to the areas they left behind. They want big battles in small spaces with bigger and bigger models. All competitors are doing are picking up the arguably more suitable fields they are abandoning. More suitable in terms of effort required to play, time required, investment required, etc.

GW were correct in the short term on SG. I am a massive fan of Epic, Blood Bowl and BFG. They had/have revenues sufficent to support a business, but did not have the return per $ of 40k. For a shareholder a return of below x means their money is better off elsewhere. What GW did not factor in - and to be fair after seeing competitor after competitor fail why should they have thought differently - was those fields were profitable enough to allow competitors to establish themselves. Mantic are interesting - founded to provide cheap alternatives to GW for big battles they eventually sensed what way the wind blew and spun off into side games to establish revenue streams to support the big pushes of the two main games. With Dwarf Kings Quest they may have a Heroquest cross-over game on their hands, if that gets stocked everywhere like GW was at one point they will have a fantastic opportunity.

GW beleived after the US experiment with a soft re-launch of BFG that $ spent on SG was ultimately profit lost overall as the increase of sales didn't compensate for the increase in costs. That seems to have ruled out a spin off or arms length company like FW. Companies that have enquired after licences for SG games have been quoted annual royalty payments that are simply untenable as GW wants to mitigate potential revenue drops from core sales 9they are probably correct that SG recruitment is amoung GW players rather than new players).

Who knows what would have happened witha spin off. Maybe it would ahve been to shrink GW main. Maybe it would have stopped the competition being able to establish themselves. We will never know.

Agrimax
21-10-2015, 10:59
A big company can make additional profit from supporting skirmish games and the like as well as their larger lines, though.

Indeed, the cost per unit of producing those additional product lines is lower for them since much of the infrastructure for their bigger product lines is reused, and many of their fixed costs don't change (GW don't get a rent break on their B&M stores for not producing specialist games, for example). There’s not mutual exclusivity at work here, that smaller companies with larger per-unit overheads and less well known IP’s manage to make a profit on such products alone shows this.

The_Real_Chris
21-10-2015, 11:54
So back 'in the day' GW tried a soft relaunch of BFG in the states. Articles (was it called black goblin?), a campaign supplement, bunch of visability for the game and models. Overall sales went up, but not very much, and most of the new BFG sales were matched by a fall in 40k sales. Overall costs were up, and the increased sales didn't compensate for this. This is the story the Fanatic staff were told for the context in which they worked.

Herzlos
21-10-2015, 12:01
In the short term, that's exactly what would happen. People only have a limited budget.

In the long term, people getting bored of 40K or just didn't have any more 40K they wanted to buy could go to BFG. People who didn't like 40K could be BFG, and so on, keeping the money with GW. Now people that don't want 40K or don't want to buy any more 40K have to go to X-Wing or Attack Wing or the Halo Fleet game to get their space ship fix; money that GW gets none of. Worse is that once exposed to other ecosystems GW loses some level of control over them and perspective creeps in. That's terrible news for GW.

But if there's anything consistent about modern GW it's the short term-ism. All of their decisions make some sort of sense in the very short term, with apparently no consideration of the long term. It's almost as if the decision maker gets a lot of money from the stock/dividend rate (say, 1.2m/year).

Allen
21-10-2015, 12:35
Who knows what would have happened witha spin off. Maybe it would ahve been to shrink GW main. Maybe it would have stopped the competition being able to establish themselves. We will never know.

The problems GW is facing are not related to niche products being discontinued, and in the hypotetical "what if" universe where Specialist Games are still operational GW would still be in trouble. Their issues come from bad economical management (plainly wrong investments like the finecast fiasco, or their disconcerting race to price out of the market their products) and even worse strategic management (little to none market research, key roles appointed only to current members of the management without fresh ideas coming from outside)...trashing Specialist Games is, quite frankly, nothing than a little bump in the horribly uneven road GW is running on.

About competition nesting in areas abandoned by GW...honestly: if you have a sector of your business that is not profitable (according to the metrics and objectives you developed) and you axe it, if a smaller company encroaches on that niche and start being profitable who cares? You were not profiting from that market after all, what you're supposed to do? Mantain a non-profitable activity just because you want to monopolize it? That idea sounds good only if you never worked in a complex organization. The people you report to (CEO, Strategy Manager, stakeholders, there's ALWAYS someone higher on the food chain) will go medieval on anyone proposing that nonsense. We're not speaking of GW losing money to keep out actual competitors (as in, someone with the same power of projection, resources and so on): that would be a strategic, albeit costly choice...but then we should consider that GW didn't consider strategic at all the niche market of wargame systems with low model count because they wanted (and want) to sell great volumes of stuff.

No, we're speaking of GW investing money without having an actual return in areas they weren't interested in just to smother smaller companies (that, by the way, at the time weren't even in business or were so small to run entirely off the radar) in the crib. Really?



In the short term, that's exactly what would happen. People only have a limited budget. In the long term, people getting bored of 40K or just didn't have any more 40K they wanted to buy could go to BFG. People who didn't like 40K could be BFG, and so on, keeping the money with GW

I don't know...all this stuff seems a non-issue to me. It seems pretty clear to me probably because I work in a corporation where hard to understand, difficult choices have to be made on a daily basis.

Anyway, my two cents: they assessed that, IMHO, and decided (again, correctly IMHO) that the revenue coming from those "side projects" was not worth the resources needed to mantain operative the projects themselves. Yes, mantaining operational the Specialist Games branch could have granted some money from the people tired of buying stuff from your main wargaming systems: but all the resources needed to mantain SG on the market (artists, storage, production machinery, and so on) are worth it? Did those side projects grant what GW needed the most - high volume sales and high profitability?

The answer is, like any other skirmish game, no. Skirmish game does not work well with high volume sales objectives: they require a very low model count, and even if you manage to push your customers to buy ALL your range of models that does not account for much. Then you have to consider that often those models are rarely (or never) replaced...so, even with a skeleton crew of game designers and artists assigned part-time to such "side projects", even optimizing storage/production/packaging...well, the entire thing is still not interesting enough for a corporation that has high sales and high profitability as its core objectives.



And, again...all this is from the point of view of the company. As a wargamer I was baffled and irritated from the disappearence of Specialist Games...but it was inevitable. Sadly inevitable. Let's thank Nuffle that other companies (smaller ones, thanks again to the Dice Gods) were able to step in and propose alternatives to what we have lost.

Agrimax
21-10-2015, 12:47
if you have a sector of your business that is not profitable (according to the metrics and objectives you developed) and you axe it, if a smaller company encroaches on that niche and start being profitable who cares?

If a smaller company with higher overheads is making a profit in a market that you couldn’t, you definitely should care. Because it means you were doing something very, very wrong in that marketplace. And if you're doing the same things wrong elsewhere, chances are you're only going to cede more sales to competitors and shrink further.

jtrowell
21-10-2015, 12:49
You have to remember that thos canned products where not unprofitable, they did earn money, just less than 40k (or Fantasy).

Even Fantasy was not in the red when they canned it to replace it with AoS.

Allen
21-10-2015, 12:57
If a smaller company with higher overheads is making a profit in a market that you couldn’t, you definitely should care. Because it means you were doing something very, very wrong in that marketplace. And if you're doing the same things wrong elsewhere, chances are you're only going to cede more sales to competitors and shrink further.

It's a matter of metrics and objectives. See this for example:


You have to remember that thos canned products where not unprofitable, they did earn money, just less than 40k (or Fantasy).
Even Fantasy was not in the red when they canned it to replace it with AoS.

Corporations rarely axe products that are "in red". When it happens, someone fumbled out really badly. GW discontinued products that were not profitable enough. Different corporations, with different objectives, can enter in the same market and decide that skirmish games are profitable for them. Because maybe they don't need a revenue of X linked to a particular range/project to be defined "profitable", for example. Reasons abund, honestly, we can't default on the same old "ah, see, they're SO incompetent". Sometimes it's true and they do stupid things, sometimes it's not true instead.

Look at Osprey: they decided that miniature-producing was not a sector of the wargaming market they were interested in: they're more interested in producing books and rulesets. Are they doing something wrong? Several corporations, big and small, are making money producing and selling miniatures. GW is not really interested in producing quality books/rulesets...are they doing something wrong? Osprey is making big money on it after all. Again, it's a matter of objectives and metrics.

Niall78
21-10-2015, 13:10
The answer is, like any other skirmish game, no. Skirmish game does not work well with high volume sales objectives: they require a very low model count, and even if you manage to push your customers to buy ALL your range of models that does not account for much. Then you have to consider that often those models are rarely (or never) replaced...so, even with a skeleton crew of game designers and artists assigned part-time to such "side projects", even optimizing storage/production/packaging...well, the entire thing is still not interesting enough for a corporation that has high sales and high profitability as its core objectives.


Yeah I'd say X-wing is making horrible losses. Somebody better tell them quickly that a skirmish game does not work well with high volume sales.

You speak as if any corporation will always optimize it's chances of success in the market. Anyone who works in a corporation or even reads the business pages would know this to be a major fallacy. Corporations frequently make horrible choices that damage them or even put them out of business. Many such mistakes are based on short-term gain over long-term success, assuming market-leader today equalled market-leader forever or just plain incompetence, greed or fraud. Problems can build up for years while being disguised, minimised or ignored and before a company understands what is happening they've become the new Nokia, Blackberry, Hoover or VW.

Voss
21-10-2015, 13:22
I'm sorry again, but fantasy and sci-fi are not the cornerstone of wargaming. Wargaming is, mainly, about historical and modern models/game systems. Then there's part of the wargaming market dedicated to fantasy and science fiction, but let's be honest here: we're a very vocal part of the hobby, but shouting louder don't make us the majority. GW always boasted to be on the top of the food chain: they're not and they never were. They were, for a very small part of their life, king of our little pond...but nothing more.

>.> This is only true if you suddenly shift the conversation to the assumption that historicals and fantasy/scifi wargames are part of the same market. They aren't, any more than land line and cellular phones are part of the same market.


I agree with you that the heroic 28mm scale is not the standard for wargaming, but that's all. Game systems with a low model count are not commonplace in the wargaming market - and with "wargaming market" I'm not referring only to GW and the few companies that circle their IP or were founded by its ex-employees. There's a HUGE world out there, and GW IP and miniatures are only a very, very small part of it.
I can't reconcile this with you specifically calling out Osprey only making only books and rulesets, and noting that any given company has its own objectives and metrics.

Allen
21-10-2015, 13:22
Yeah I'd say X-wing is making horrible losses. Somebody better tell them quickly that a skirmish game does not work well with high volume sales

I'm sorry, but I thought it was pretty clear in that passage I was referencing to GW, not "every other company ever".
Care to elaborate on your remark?


You speak as if any corporation will always optimize it's chances of success in the market. Anyone who works in a corporation or even reads the business pages would know this to be a major fallacy. Corporations frequently make horrible choices that damage them or even put them out of business. Many such mistakes are based on short-term gain over long-term success, assuming market-leader today equalled market-leader forever or just plain incompetence, greed or fraud. Problems can build up for years while being disguised, minimised or ignored and before a company understands what is happening they've become the new Nokia, Blackberry, Hoover or VW.

You're right. But I'm merely providing an alternative explanation...because many on this forum speak as if GW main output is blunders, and as if GW corporate management is staffed by lobotomized sea slugs. Sometimes the criticism is entirely deserved; sometimes maybe it's better being a little less biased and concede that sometimes their choices were legitimate - even if we don't like them.

Niall78
21-10-2015, 13:31
I'm sorry, but I thought it was pretty clear in that passage I was referencing to GW, not "every other company ever".
Care to elaborate on your remark?

You state a skirmish game is no good for a company like GW. Do you think they'd drop X-Wing if they had it on their books in the morning?


You're right. But I'm merely providing an alternative explanation...because many on this forum speak as if GW main output is blunders, and as if GW corporate management is staffed by lobotomized sea slugs. Sometimes the criticism is entirely deserved; sometimes maybe it's better being a little less biased and concede that sometimes their choices were legitimate - even if we don't like them.

Their choices might be of legitimate benefit to the corporate management or shareholders rather than the company as a whole or its long-term interests. That's a factor you completely brush over. Companies are frequently milked and mined by senior executives until they are squeezed completely dry. The pumping of short-term profits, dividends or bonuses that leads in many cases to collapse and bankruptcy. You assume the corporate management always have the companies best interests at heart - even recent history shows that to be an untenable position.

Niall78
21-10-2015, 13:41
There's also the issue of games like HeroQuest and Space Crusade. Many will state they were their introduction to the hobby twenty plus years ago. If these products hadn't been around that's a potential loss of twenty plus years sales from those customers.

Products like that are golden - even if you are only breaking even on actual sales per unit.

Agrimax
21-10-2015, 14:36
You're right. But I'm merely providing an alternative explanation...because many on this forum speak as if GW main output is blunders, and as if GW corporate management is staffed by lobotomized sea slugs. Sometimes the criticism is entirely deserved; sometimes maybe it's better being a little less biased and concede that sometimes their choices were legitimate - even if we don't like them.

The problem is, even if we are to take GW’s view of “profitable enough” as reasonable from a business perspective (many wouldn’t), taking that single metric in isolation without considering the bigger picture of exactly what SG gave them doesn’t seem any less myopic, and yes - a blunder.

BFalcon
22-10-2015, 00:12
The problem is, even if we are to take GW’s view of “profitable enough” as reasonable from a business perspective (many wouldn’t), taking that single metric in isolation without considering the bigger picture of exactly what SG gave them doesn’t seem any less myopic, and yes - a blunder.

I think we're all agreed on that and, to be honest, if it was purely "insufficient profit" or, worse, a loss... then I could understand them losing the SGs as wanting to optimise their profit... however, it's usually sensible to keep at least one other product going in a slightly different field, preferably 2 or 3... GW only kept one "skirmish game", ie LotR (and, later, The Hobbit) with their home-grown offerings both having become mass-battle games... keeping SGs alive purely for that reason would have been sensible and, worse, in killing off SGs, they killed off many club games in the process, where clubs (like the one I belonged to) used to have to often wait for the room, wait for opponents to arrive, set up the tables and scenery, set up their armies and then, at the other end of the evening, pack everything away and get the tables back to where they were, all in the space of just 2.5 hours. That only really left 2 hours for their games, so SGs were (for various reasons) often a better choice - either due to less setting up or shorter games. Some, like Blood Bowl actually had so little setting up and could be played so quickly that they'd often get 2 games in just the one evening. I think it's that convenience, more than anything else, which GW has lost in dropping (and not reviving) the SGs.

I believe that they'd need to seriously reconsider their stance on this, but I fear it may be too late - they've aimed their prices just far too high, have damaged customer confidence in them just too much and have let too many smaller parties in the back door to recover the situation now. Heck, there's even a sculptor out there who's made some minis of the two "presenters" for Blood Bowl. They really have NOT looked after that IP.