# GW in trouble...



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

GW shares plummeted almost 17% in early trading this morning after a profits warning. Sales are down for the six months to the end of November, and the prospects look gloomy for the first half of 2011 as well.

BBC article: here


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

OH NO!.........*goes back to not caring*


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

With the constant price rises and poor value for money, somehow i am not surprised.


----------



## Lucian Kain (Jul 19, 2010)

They've already shot them selves in the foot in New Zealand,theres no way I'm paying $120.oo for a Land Raider or $111.oo for five GK terminators.They need a new plan.Isn't this supposed to be a hobby kids can get into?...It used to be...can't they use recycled plastics or cut wages...something to plug the holes in the bucket and add more water.Unless they've got a plan to crash and burn and start over, starting with weaker currencey nations they might want to look at a bit of hireing and fireing the people in manageing major contracts...good bye pork pie


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Not convinced this means GW are in any more trouble than many other entertainment companies. Its says they are not making as much profit, not making a loss. Although this is bad for GW, it probably doesnt mean they are about to go into liquidation.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

...Sadly, I am not that shocked.

Having studied the figures for last year and the year before, I was worried that Space Hulk was the main reason '09 worked out well.

Expect another price rise guys - and this puts back TWC another 6 months or more. (Because, if you STILL don't get it, it's good business to make you convert them from other plastic kits, then release a fucking gorgeous plastic kit of its own.)

The shift back in stores to the 40k prominence should have given the game away earlier, but I hoped Christmas would be good for GW...obviously not. Remember, when WEFB was released there was a spiel in WD about it being their main focus for a while, how they wanted it to overtake 40k as main seller...and now it's relegated to 1/3 of shelf space again.

Eighth was a failure, and now they are going to push 6th 40k on us early to try and stay afloat.


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

Ouch, it shows that in these times a luxary product will take quite a sales hit. Its interesting though (on a personal level) as that is pretty much the period I reduced my expenditure on GW products - looks like I am with the trend.

Its still surprising though as I would have thought that the DE and WFB releases would have made sales a bit more healthy in that period. I guess it shows that what GW customers want (i.e. more armies, more games) is not necessarily what will drive sales up. Unless of course they would have done even worse without these product lines being released.

I guess we will see what the GW response is, I would imagine some reduction in R&D to keep profits up, and a slowing on store opening.

Ultimately there isn't much that GW can do to effectively increase its sales figures - which is half the financial problem which GW keeps staring down.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

GW actually doesn't put money aside for dedicated R&D. Odd, I know.


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> GW actually doesn't put money aside for dedicated R&D. Odd, I know.


Wow, I always thought they budgetted it in. No wonder they end up with some products being really poor and others excellent - targetted R&D would maybe save them development costs then 

This explains the realm of battle!

I can't see them going for another price rise though, it would be highly counterproductive in the current market. I could however see them going for some special offers, maybe based in WD to try and shift more copies of that arse rag.


----------



## Lucian Kain (Jul 19, 2010)

humakt said:


> Not convinced this means GW are in any more trouble than many other entertainment companies. Its says they are not making as much profit, not making a loss. Although this is bad for GW, it probably doesnt mean they are about to go into liquidation.


Yea I don't seriously think it ever will,just like the product and can't afford it.Stink for me,who cares...


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Bubblematrix said:


> Wow, I always thought they budgetted it in. No wonder they end up with some products being really poor and others excellent - targetted R&D would maybe save them development costs then
> 
> This explains the realm of battle!
> 
> I can't see them going for another price rise though, it would be highly counterproductive in the current market. I could however see them going for some special offers, maybe based in WD to try and shift more copies of that arse rag.


GW hasn't done a sale since the Blue Cross Sales, which I think stopped in about 1996.

Actually...they might have stopped with the Management buy-out, because then they became a PLC, and that makes sense...

GW's profit margin will be slashed in half by these figures - a price rise is inevitable. We can only hope they wait until March, or spare us until the next fiscal year by doing it April/May.

Sales are too limited, and people who can afford toy soldiers now can afford them if they cost another £1.50 a box.

Expect pushier spiel from staff in your local GW!


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Its a 4% drop on the same period last year, means nothing as they had a good year last year, some times your up some times your down thats just business.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

bitsandkits said:


> Its a 4% drop on the same period last year, means nothing.


Unless you have shares in GW, in which case its a 17% drop in your investment.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

KingOfCheese said:


> Unless you have shares in GW, in which case its a 17% drop in your investment.


Depends if your investing for the long term and hoping for reasonable divindend return. Although I'm assuming the drop in sales will mean a drop in the dividend. Share prices can rise just as quickly as they drop, but this kind of drop could be one of those things that will make GW open to a take over.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Go look at its yearly. Its doing quite well, it had one bad day. Its selling at 422.5 right now, up from 350ish in the summer, up from December 10 when it dropped to 419. Not to mention it has been steadily been going up since its initial drop.

I hiccup like that could have been caused by one person dumping the stock back on the market because they heard a rumor.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

djinn24 said:


> Go look at its yearly. Its doing quite well, it had one bad day. Its selling at 422.5 right now, up from 350ish in the summer, up from December 10 when it dropped to 419. Not to mention it has been steadily been going up since its initial drop.
> 
> I hiccup like that could have been caused by one person dumping the stock back on the market because they heard a rumor.


Maybe they read the Grey knight Codex...:wink:


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

I've lost count of the amount of times I read GW are in trouble yet they are still here and will continue to be here. Its a recession so it is inevitable there will be some loss on the previous year.
However that said, the feeling I am getting increasingly from forums and my gaming club (some 50+ members) is a move away from GW. Our club was founded around GW games yet over the last year we have all begun to look at and collect other systems such as Hordes, Warmachine, Flames of War etc - cheaper and more consistent systems, no codex creep, and actually quite fun! Will be interesting to see how GW compete now there are credible competators in the gaming market.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

djinn24 said:


> Go look at its yearly. Its doing quite well, it had one bad day. Its selling at 422.5 right now, up from 350ish in the summer, up from December 10 when it dropped to 419. Not to mention it has been steadily been going up since its initial drop.
> 
> I hiccup like that could have been caused by one person dumping the stock back on the market because they heard a rumor.


Good point. Just looking at the inter day value it has recovered 2% of the value it lost.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

slaaneshy said:


> cheaper and more consistent systems, no codex creep


...There IS no Codex Creep. 5e Codexes are roughly equivalent in power level, ones from older Editions of the game aren't. If 'Codex Creep' existed then every Codex would be superior to the last. Who here thinks Nids were the best Codex ever when released?

Who here thinks IG and SW are clearly WORSE than DE? Or even worse than BA?

SM=SW=IG=BA=Nids=DE - balance.
Older books are irrelevant, because we know they are obsolete.

(Why does it ALWAYS come to this...)


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

Get ready for another space marine codex.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Deep striking landraiders and vindicators that can fire after full movement, scary masks of Dante that seriously reduce the abilities of HQ choices, heroic intervention on assault troops.
Clearly balanced.

If GW insist on changing rule sets, they should do it for the entire range at one, not wait for armies to play catch up waiting up to 10 years for a revamp. This is not a feature you find in other game systems, which is my point.

And the codex creep you deny is just one of my points, its all combined that are making me and my fellow gamers fall out of love with GW.
But i'm still a GW fan, I feel they just need pointing in the right direction or they risk losing out to the new blood. Try it, you might like it!


----------



## bishop5 (Jan 28, 2008)

Gasp... luxury goods not doing so well in a recession... who'd have thought it? 

I think all we can really do is keep supporting GW in the hope that once the coast is clear, they'll stop thinking about profits and start thinking about spreading the gaming love. :training:


----------



## tu_shan82 (Mar 7, 2008)

I hope GW don't go under, I love my hobby, and as nice Warmachine/Hordes and other game systems in the wargaming market look, they're no substitute for 40k.


----------



## Svartmetall (Jun 16, 2008)

Ehh. It's 4%, which is on the order of 1/3 of the problems HMW were reported as having (anywhere between 10% and 13.6% according to that rather badly-written article); I wouldn't start worrying about the GW sky falling.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

slaaneshy said:


> Deep striking landraiders and vindicators that can fire after full movement, scary masks of Dante that seriously reduce the abilities of HQ choices, heroic intervention on assault troops.
> Clearly balanced.


Oh Noes! That giant misshapen brick you dropped from the sky that still scatters 2d6" and has a fucking huge profile thus making mishaps likely, and not being an Assault Vehicle when it Derp Strikes, and can only fire one weapon thanks to PotMS is so BORKEN! It totally isn't 300+ points of mediocre getting itself within Melta range to save me the hard work! :/

Vindicators still have AV11 Side.

Dante has ALWAYS done that.

Vanguard are shit without Descent of Angels to make their Heroic Intervention WORK, and not that popular among top players even with it.

Really - BA is in NO WAY a better Codex than IG or SW overall.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

I blame Alessio "I FUCKED UP 40k" Cavatore.

I love that bloke, love him like I love having my bung hole shredded by a cactus.


----------



## Svartmetall (Jun 16, 2008)

Jezlad said:


> I blame Alessio "I FUCKED UP 40k" Cavatore.


It could have been worse; given that Alessio's Italian, we could well have ended up with 23 pages of 'how to retreat' rules.



Jezlad said:


> ...having my bung hole shredded by a cactus.


And that's a mental image that'll stay with me all day


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Re. Codex Creep - I think it's a misuse of the term. "Creep" indicates a slow and steady rise in a sequential order, which it isn't. However that is not to say that all codicies are balanced.

Generally speaking TKE is right, 5th Ed > 4th Ed and previous codicies. But what has not been mentioned is that the 5th Ed codicies themselves are not internally balanced. Wolves and IG are way more powerful than, say, Space Marines or Nids.

While we're never going to have a totally level playing field, GW seems to persist in consistantly cocking up massively with certain codicies. Example: Space Wolf Grey Hunters are Tactical Marines with added special rules, added CCW, and added melta/plasma gun. Yet they cost less per model than a Tac Marine. Whoever made that decision should be fired on the spot imo. So long as people make decisions like that, we're never going to have even close to balanced armies.

BA and DE have been a step in the right direction though, each codex has several different builds available to it, and no units which are "OMIGOD MUST TAKE" in the manner of Vulkan or Hive Guard. The DE codex also has very few units that people will *never* take, which is impressive. I think BA also uses most of its available units apart from Scouts. If they can sustain this level of codex writing then I think we'll be on to a very good thing.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Bubblematrix said:


> Ouch, it shows that in these times a luxary product will take quite a sales hit.


Luxury goods are doing very well in the economic downturn. If only GW really were a luxury brand company.


----------



## tu_shan82 (Mar 7, 2008)

Svartmetall said:


> It could have been worse; given that Alessio's Italian, we could well have ended up with 23 pages of 'how to retreat' rules.



Despite being half Italian, I find that incredibly funny. It's funny because it's true. That reminds me of a couple of jokes.

Q:"What's the shortest book in the World?"
A:"Italian war heroes."


Q:"How many gears does an Italian tank have?"
A:"Four, one going forward and three in reverse."


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

If they released everything at once then people would bitch that there was to much time between updates and that the codexes were rushed.

The system they have in place has been like this for how many years? Its not the best but it works.

Also if you look at the GW market, its 2 largest markets are in a bad recession but over the last yeah it has gone from 380ish to 450ish. They have to be doing something right.

GW was in bad shape when they closed 90% of their stores. That was the time when it was a bit scary for the GW gamer.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

TheKingElessar said:


> Oh Noes! That giant misshapen brick you dropped from the sky that still scatters 2d6" and has a fucking huge profile thus making mishaps likely, and not being an Assault Vehicle when it Derp Strikes, and can only fire one weapon thanks to PotMS is so BORKEN! It totally isn't 300+ points of mediocre getting itself within Melta range to save me the hard work! :/
> 
> Vindicators still have AV11 Side.
> 
> ...


Calm down old boy, you will hurt your key board!.


----------



## SGMAlice (Aug 13, 2010)

Also being half italian, i was somewhat miffed initially but it is amusing none the less.

GW have had a few bad years and this is just another symptom of a bad economy.
Companies rise and fall all the time so don't read into it too much.
I do, however, agree that it may in part be due to there insane pratices and prices and such.
Who knows, who cares. As long as they continue to give me my grey plastic crack fix.

SGMAlice


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Sethis said:


> Re. Codex Creep - I think it's a misuse of the term. "Creep" indicates a slow and steady rise in a sequential order, which it isn't. However that is not to say that all codicies are balanced.


...


> Generally speaking TKE is right, 5th Ed > 4th Ed and previous codicies. But what has not been mentioned is that the 5th Ed codicies themselves are not internally balanced. Wolves and IG are way more powerful than, say, Space Marines or Nids.


That's 'not mentioned' because I disagree. In fact, I specifically said the reverse in a previous post. 

Space Marines have MotF, Null Zone, Ironclads, Vulkan, Cassius, Combat Tactics, greater Transport capacities, Bike armies and the cheapest TH/SS. Nids have the only (ever!) multi-shot S10 gun, Hive Guard (great in ANY Codex!), the ability to end the game with more Troops than they started it, and the ability to punch out Tanks after they stop them from moving and shooting with their admittedly weaker shooting.



> While we're never going to have a totally level playing field, GW seems to persist in consistantly cocking up massively with certain codicies. Example: Space Wolf Grey Hunters are Tactical Marines with added special rules, added CCW, and added melta/plasma gun. Yet they cost less per model than a Tac Marine. Whoever made that decision should be fired on the spot imo. So long as people make decisions like that, we're never going to have even close to balanced armies.


GH have fewer options, no ability to affect the enemy at range, lesser Leadership, and no Combat Tactics. Are they better at the same job? Yes. But they shouldn't be DOING the same job.



> BA and DE have been a step in the right direction though, each codex has several different builds available to it, and no units which are "OMIGOD MUST TAKE" in the manner of Vulkan or Hive Guard. The DE codex also has very few units that people will *never* take, which is impressive. I think BA also uses most of its available units apart from Scouts. If they can sustain this level of codex writing then I think we'll be on to a very good thing.


Agreed on the DE, though most BA psychic powers are unimpressive, and the Chaplain, Scouts, Tacticals, Scout Bikes, Reclusiarch, Sanguinor, Tycho and Seth are of incredibly limited use. Whirlwinds and Captains in particular are absolute crap.

@darklove - I don't understand your comment, GW sells a luxury item - toy soldiers.

While I don't agree with HOW exactly Alessio fucked 40k up, I agree that his was the primary responsibility. He and Jervis' heads should have rolled.

No joke - I would far sooner see Gav Thorpe write more rules than them. But let's not get sidetracked onto THAT chestnut too...

@Slaaneshy - Keyboards are inanimate. It's not my fault if you don't understand how the system works, and it's not my responsibility to try and penetrate that skull if you have no desire to listen. *Adds to ignore list* - Congrats! You join Stella in my Naughty Corner.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

They can't be in that much trouble when if you look at the same article and there shares price ticker... it had gone up again by nearly 10% again in just 6 hours...


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

Surely they release stuff bit by bit to balance sales and appease the shareholders?

If they released everything in one go. (which they probably could, or at least sped up the process) they'd get all the sales in one quarter and show huge imbalances on the books for the 3 remaining quarters.




> Generally speaking TKE is right, 5th Ed > 4th Ed and previous codicies. But what has not been mentioned is that the 5th Ed codicies themselves are not internally balanced. Wolves and IG are way more powerful than, say, Space Marines or Nids.


According to who?

You? Noobies who never played any other edition? People who don't play competitive games?

5th edition is shite. Always has been. The game went from tactical and interesting to a "who can enter the battlefield later or stay in their vehicles the longest" borefest. 

I have my reasons for detesting 5th edition. 

Firstly I hate objective based missions (Alpha missions for 4th ed players)
The new rules made every army I used redundant (to the tune of about £600s worth of useless metal and plastic) - nice strategy their, rewrite the rules to make popular stuff redundant and they'll buy the rest. [actually no I won't I'll say SUCK MY GOOCH and stop playing]
All the rules changes were changes for change sake and nothing to do with improving the game.
To top it off GW then went and destroyed the GT making it a fluffy fun and 'friendly' event.

Any correlation between these changes and the fact players are turning to alternative systems in their droves? 

But... that's way off topic.

In the bigger scheme of things this won't matter as all the 10 year old twats will turn to 40k to play Alessios retarded "simplicity, simplicity, simplicity" gameset. Then, as soon as their nuts drop they'll move onto better systems.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

GrizBe said:


> They can't be in that much trouble when if you look at the same article and there shares price ticker... it had gone up again by nearly 10% again in just 6 hours...


One of the investors who was looking for a fast buck will have dumped there shares creating the dip, others will come along and fill the void picking up shares at a cheaper price until it evens out, to be honest the title of the thread is just misleading scaremongering, every time this happens its the same old shit ""gw are going under because sales have dropped blah blah" yet when ever GW are in the black and making profit the same crowd are posting " GW prices are taking the piss out of us the poor wargamers they should be ashamed blah blahblah"

Firstly Its 4% drop in sales for the period when the previous year GW released the one off anniversary space hulk, which if figures are to be believed netted gw an additional 4-5 million in September 2009, were as 2010 saw the same slot filled with island of blood, which as great as it is was never going to pull in the same numbers as spacehulk. Plus as most retailers have said novembers sales were hit very badly by the UK weather, alot of high street stores will report drop in sales over the same period.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

They have Pre-tax profit of 7.5m. Boohoo?


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

B&K is right, quite probably. Although it could be other causes, a temporary dip in share value is most of the time due to some stock buying and selling.

Although I really dislike GW's business model of having player wait years between updates (I hope they move to "a little bit of everything for everyone waves after the whole 5th ed. update), I'm pretty sure that's not the cause of current fluctuation. 

As for the 5th ed. codice, I play with/against them almost every week and I find them a lot better than 4th ed. It's not perfect and yes internal balance is not optimal, but they're definitely getting closer to the bull's eye with some shots a bit over and some a bit under...

Phil


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> That's 'not mentioned' because I disagree. In fact, I specifically said the reverse in a previous post.


I know, possibly I wasn't clear. I meant no-one had articulated anything close to my point of view, which is why I thought I'd contribute it.



TheKingElessar said:


> Space Marines have (...) Nids have (...)


I'm not saying they don't have any good units, just that their armies are overall weaker (I'll come back to this).



TheKingElessar said:


> GH have fewer options, no ability to affect the enemy at range, lesser Leadership, and no Combat Tactics.


They have the options that matter, i.e. a Powerfist and Melta/Plasma. They trade a missile launcher that hardly ever shoots (due to being in a moving transport) for a Melta gun. Generally speaking I'll take the Melta over the ML any day of the week. They have ATSKNF so the lesser leadership effectively means one extra "No retreat" wound, hardly significant. Lack of Combat Tactics is a reasonable loss, but it hardly justifies making them cheaper than a vanilla marine.



TheKingElessar said:


> Agreed on the DE, though most BA psychic powers are unimpressive, and the Chaplain, Scouts, Tacticals, Scout Bikes, Reclusiarch, Sanguinor, Tycho and Seth are of incredibly limited use. Whirlwinds and Captains in particular are absolute crap.


Most special characters are generally crap anyway, and the lackluster scouts/Tacs are probably due to having the much better Assault Marines as Troops. The vanilla Captain and Chaplain are indeed terrible, and so is the WW, but that's what happens when you transplant vanilla choices into a codex with other units that do the same job but with better rules. Overall, BA armies use most of the codex, unlike others that I'm sure you're aware of.




> According to who?
> 
> You? Noobies who never played any other edition? People who don't play competitive games?


Me, who has been playing since Second Edition and competitively since 4th. It's my opinion, that I've arrived at by playing in tournaments, reading the internet (NEWCC, 'Ard boyz 2010, and the collected Australasia results for 2010 to name a few official results that support my point of view), playing games against people at my club and reading the 5th Edition codicies. It is my opinion that the 5th Ed codicies are not on an equal plateau of power, everyone is free to agree or disagree with me as they wish. I do think that I have a fairly good idea of where the game is at right now, so I believe I am justified in speaking my mind with a fair degree of certainty.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

darklove said:


> Luxury goods are doing very well in the economic downturn.


probably since luxery items are cheaper than GW goods.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

TheKingElessar said:


> @darklove - I don't understand your comment, GW sells a luxury item - toy soldiers.


GW sell 'toys and hobby', not 'luxury'. While it might be a luxury for some people to buy toys, you should not confuse subjective luxury with the objective market categorisation of luxury. Toy soldiers are not 'luxury' by default just because they are extrinsic to essential goods.

Even within the toys and hobby category it would be hard to support an assertion that GW's products are luxury, with the possible exception of some of the Forge World products.

Luxury products are doing very well at the moment, it is boom time for LVMH and PPR for example, while GW products are not doing well.

Understood?


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

darklove said:


> GW sell 'toys and hobby', not 'luxury'. While it might be a luxury for some people to buy toys, you should not confuse subjective luxury with the objective market categorisation of luxury. Toy soldiers are not 'luxury' by default just because they are extrinsic to essential goods.
> 
> Even within the toys and hobby category it would be hard to support an assertion that GW's products are luxury, with the possible exception of some of the Forge World products.
> 
> ...


Ah, thanks. 

Well, I know understand what you mean, but I can't agree that 'toys' don't fall under 'luxury'...but I'm a Socialist.

@Sethis & @Jezlad
I think this would be a good conversation to have, I am particularly interested why you think 4e was better (and more fun?! lol ) than now Jez - but it would be better in a dedicated thread methinks.

You're the boss Jez, I can start a new one, or we can reconvene in an existing "I hate 5th Edition" thread, not like there aren't several...

Sethis - I am also especially interested by the distinctions (in our thoughts) you draw, since we've both played about the same time, play the same army etc.


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> Maybe they read the Grey knight Codex...:wink:


That would make me sell my stock as fast as possible. We all know some annoyingly cheesy yet easy to beat BS will be in there that will cause whining for months from anyone stupid enough not to figure out how to beat it. I might be a blood angel's player but "More Dakka" Solves alot of problems.....:laugh:

*Cough*

Anyhow 17% is big but they will bounce back up they always seem to. (When they get to 50 or 60% drop ill be throwing stuff on ebay and preying)


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

GW will do what they've always done, lay off staff, close stores, relocate to cheaper stores, produce new rules whatever... 

I can see GW going towards something like Flames of War, not actually having many "dedicated" stores, just relying on independants and the fewer stores. 

Thats just my opinion though 

EDIT: I'm pretty sure this happened around '05/'06 time, their profits plummeted. They managed to bounce back from that.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

This is really nothing, shares on companys like GW will often hit these lows and recover and bear in mind that a large majority of retail companys have seen similar wobbles in the past year or two. 

Basically It's nothing to worry about



darklove said:


> Luxury products are doing very well at the moment,


There was a 13.5% loss on like for like high street sales between november and december, 
luxury goods sales in most cases were down by only a fraction on last year, however this doesn't take into account the fact that there was a considerably higher loss in income itself due to reduced items, offers and sales items.

LVMH and PPR are but two companys, the fact that just a few companys did well proves nothing.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Bindi Baji said:


> LVMH and PPR are but two companys, the fact that just a few companys did well proves nothing.


Two companies... right... that can't be very representative then. 



Oh hang on a moment, perhaps they are representative (_and I might know what I'm talking about_)! :victory:

LVMH = Moët et Chandon, Dom Pérignon, Krug, Veuve Clicquot, Mercier, Château d'Yquem, Hennessy, Glenmorangie, Ardbeg, Belvedere Vodka, Domaine Chandon California, Fendi, Donna Karan, Givenchy, Kenzo, Berluti, Louis Vuitton, Marc Jacobs, Loewe, Céline, Thomas Pink, Sir Jason Twist, Parfums Christian Dior, Guerlain, TAG Heuer, Zenith, Hublot, Chaumet, Sephora, DFS, Le Bon Marché

PPR = The Gucci Group which owns the luxury brands Gucci, Balenciaga, Yves Saint Laurent, Sergio Rossi, Boucheron, Bottega Veneta, and others, many others...


They might prove something, don't you think?


----------



## 5tonsledge (May 31, 2010)

well the simple fix is start making more army starter kits that have multiple stuff in it and cut cost of making individual unit box sets. Getting tierd of seeing the price of marines go up. Damn near 40 bucks in the us to get one damn unit. why not sell them in box sets of 50 and charge 150 bucks for it. saves me 36.25 and saves them the money making individual box sets. same with rhinos box sets of 5


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

Marneus Calgar said:


> I can see GW going towards something like Flames of War, not actually having many "dedicated" stores, just relying on independants and the fewer stores.


That's pretty much the opposite of GWs strategy - they could simply be a war games and miniatures manufacturer, but they choose not to be. Having a presence on the high street (or a couple of streets away from the high street as the case is for most of the 1 man shops...) to give trial games/learn to paint lessons/instore events etc etc is their way of getting people into the game. It's the same reason as they continue to produce white dwarf - it gives them a presence on newsagent shelves that none of their competitors have, and gives them a way of tempting people who are into one system into trying the others.

You can debate whether it's effective or not, and whether they could do with changing, but since they haven't done for the last 10-15 years I wouldn't expect them to.

Lots of people have commented on the fact that experienced gamers are moving away from GW onto other companies - probably a fair point, but the reason that so many start out with GW games is that they're the only big games company to put themselves out there in this way.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Bindi Baji said:


> There was a 13.5% loss on like for like high street sales between november and december,


In some fairly poor weather, before the Pre-Xmas Sales and Late Night Shopping, combined with Parking and Petrol often excessing Delivery Charges and the Length of Time needed to visit a High Street Store is often far higher than doing the same thing online.

Online as well, you can still talk to your friends far easier, be, in a way, more sociable, stay warmer/drier, carry on with tasks around the home, and there are less distractions. Not to mention buying presents etc becomes a damn sight easier if it matters to someone. (My Girlfriend has two sisters, one can't stand on ceremony, whereas the other is filled with XMas Spirit(s) and has to do it by the book, god help me if I get it wrong).

As to reduced prices/sales/offers, etc, it's the difference between selling 20 £5 Items, or 30 £4 Items.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

It is a widely known open secret that GW don't want to retain experienced gamers, everything is geared towards the new (first-time) player. Other companies are really starting to make progress in their games development and tempting players away from 40k and WFB.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

darklove said:


> They might prove something, don't you think?


yes, just not what you assume it does




darklove said:


> It is a widely known open secret that GW don't want to retain experienced gamers


:wink:

of course they don't




Vaz said:


> As to reduced prices/sales/offers, etc, it's the difference between selling 20 £5 Items, or 30 £4 Items.


It's more a case of high priced items being very highly discounted to push sales.

DSG were selling TV's at a higher % discount then they were the previous january sales, something previously unheard of before xmas.

Kesa (owners of comet) were in a similar position.

Toys R Us were selling video games & top ranged toys at around 50% close to christmas to boost sales and subsequently dropped a majority of sales intended for january.

The Kingfisher group did the same with electrical items.

Even Amazon UK held black friday sales (despite earlier in the year the MD stating there was no point in having black friday style sales in the UK)


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

darklove said:


> LVMH = Moët et Chandon, Dom Pérignon, Krug, Veuve Clicquot, Mercier, Château d'Yquem, Hennessy, Glenmorangie, Ardbeg, Belvedere Vodka, Domaine Chandon California, Fendi, Donna Karan, Givenchy, Kenzo, Berluti, Louis Vuitton, Marc Jacobs, Loewe, Céline, Thomas Pink, Sir Jason Twist, Parfums Christian Dior, Guerlain, TAG Heuer, Zenith, Hublot, Chaumet, Sephora, DFS, Le Bon Marché
> 
> PPR = The Gucci Group which owns the luxury brands Gucci, Balenciaga, Yves Saint Laurent, Sergio Rossi, Boucheron, Bottega Veneta, and others, many others...
> 
> ...


...Well...wow, some of the most heavily advertised brands in the world, and one of those companies owns several ALCOHOL brands...imagine _those _doing well over Christmas...


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

5tonsledge said:


> well the simple fix is start making more army starter kits that have multiple stuff in it and cut cost of making individual unit box sets. Getting tierd of seeing the price of marines go up. Damn near 40 bucks in the us to get one damn unit. why not sell them in box sets of 50 and charge 150 bucks for it. saves me 36.25 and saves them the money making individual box sets. same with rhinos box sets of 5


:laugh: Come down to the southern hemisphere- and then complain. We would absolutely love to pay only forty bucks for a box of tactical marines.

Seriously, forty bucks is not that bad...


----------



## thisisaguard111 (Oct 20, 2010)

If they close the margin of profit of their models to sell more...


----------



## 5tonsledge (May 31, 2010)

coke123 said:


> :laugh: Come down to the southern hemisphere- and then complain. We would absolutely love to pay only forty bucks for a box of tactical marines.
> 
> Seriously, forty bucks is not that bad...


lol still high here, but i do really feel bad for you. I love wargamming but if they dont fix this price rate im going to be playing a little more video games, and masturbating


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

EmbraCraig said:


> That's pretty much the opposite of GWs strategy - they could simply be a war games and miniatures manufacturer, but they choose not to be. Having a presence on the high street (or a couple of streets away from the high street as the case is for most of the 1 man shops...) to give trial games/learn to paint lessons/instore events etc etc is their way of getting people into the game. It's the same reason as they continue to produce white dwarf - it gives them a presence on newsagent shelves that none of their competitors have, and gives them a way of tempting people who are into one system into trying the others.
> 
> You can debate whether it's effective or not, and whether they could do with changing, but since they haven't done for the last 10-15 years I wouldn't expect them to.
> 
> Lots of people have commented on the fact that experienced gamers are moving away from GW onto other companies - probably a fair point, but the reason that so many start out with GW games is that they're the only big games company to put themselves out there in this way.


Yeah, but what I'm saying is, to keep it this way, they will have to lay off a lot of people, or reduce their prices! If they're making under £10M a year, surely prices shooting down will make buy more? I mean, if they went back to the prices they were at back in 2009, it would be £3 cheaper on a Land Raider? It's ridiculous. People aren't buying from GW because there are cheaper alternatives...


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

Marneus Calgar said:


> Yeah, but what I'm saying is, to keep it this way, they will have to lay off a lot of people, or reduce their prices! If they're making under £10M a year, surely prices shooting down will make buy more? I mean, if they went back to the prices they were at back in 2009, it would be £3 cheaper on a Land Raider? It's ridiculous. People aren't buying from GW because there are cheaper alternatives...


It depends on whether GW think that decreasing prices would actually lead to increased sales - do you think that a Land Raider being £3 cheaper would suddenly make them fly off the shelves faster? Personally, since most marine players have already got a couple, I'm not seeing the gap in the market. 

That bring us back onto the point about GW focussing on newer players - they do, and it's because new players are the ones they can sell to. A new kid coming into game wants the boxed set, scenery, dice, paints and enough models to put on the table to make an army. If you've got them through the door and convinced them that they want to take up the hobby, that's a much easier pile of sales than the single boxed set and couple of pots of paint a month that most gamers who are adding to an existing army will buy.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Here we go again with the price drop bollocks, if you have £100 per year to spend on models you will spend £100 a year, you are not going to suddenly start dropping extra cash in significant amounts on models because they are slightly cheaper, those who are price sensitive will already buy from cheaper sources already. 
Most people buy armies and they dont buy models based on the price they buy based on what they want to include in the army so almost all GW purchases will fall in to two categories those who buy what they want when they can afford it and those who have enough money not to care about the price, neither of those two groups are likely to buy more because its "cheaper".


----------



## Skitarii (Aug 8, 2010)

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! please dont go!

nor am i shocked by this... if anyone in gamework HQ is readed this LOWER YOUR PRICES!!!


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> Here we go again with the price drop bollocks, if you have £100 per year to spend on models you will spend £100 a year, you are not going to suddenly start dropping extra cash in significant amounts on models because they are slightly cheaper, those who are price sensitive will already buy from cheaper sources already.
> Most people buy armies and they dont buy models based on the price they buy based on what they want to include in the army so almost all GW purchases will fall in to two categories those who buy what they want when they can afford it and those who have enough money not to care about the price, neither of those two groups are likely to buy more because its "cheaper".


It gets better.

BoLS published this 'news' a couple hours ago, and I'm putting out fires in the way only someone prepared to trample on egos can do. :wink:

People in this thread don't realise how nice I am to them.
:smoke:


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Its amazing how some people posting in this thread seriously have no fucking clue what they are talking about. I am going to leave it at that, and folks, quit chicken littleing.


----------



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

If only GW made a budget mini range. 
If only VAT wasn't at 20%. 
If only GW had sales.

If only I had some money. :suicide:

I can see why other companies would be stealing customers from GW.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

TheKingElessar said:


> ...Well...wow, some of the most heavily advertised brands in the world, and one of those companies owns several ALCOHOL brands...imagine _those _doing well over Christmas...


You got it! If GW started selling luxury alcohol they'd be doing fine right now 
And that is all year round, not just seasonal. 

Binbi doesn't know what he's talking about, obviously.


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

5tonsledge said:


> lol still high here, but i do really feel bad for you. I love wargamming but if they dont fix this price rate im going to be playing a little more video games, and masturbating


:laugh: Well that's another option I guess...



bitsandkits said:


> Here we go again with the price drop bollocks, if you have £100 per year to spend on models you will spend £100 a year, you are not going to suddenly start dropping extra cash in significant amounts on models because they are slightly cheaper, those who are price sensitive will already buy from cheaper sources already.
> Most people buy armies and they dont buy models based on the price they buy based on what they want to include in the army so almost all GW purchases will fall in to two categories those who buy what they want when they can afford it and those who have enough money not to care about the price, neither of those two groups are likely to buy more because its "cheaper".


Exactly. You're going to spend as much as you will spend, regardless of what you get for that. Actually, it's probable that you'd actually buy the same amount as you currently do, even if it cost less (since buying too much would end up in the nightmare of millions of models to paint at once)- thereby meaning that GW would have a decreased revenue. So why would they decrease prices?


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Bearing in mind that GW make a luxury product it's not surprising that they're losing profits.

Pretty much every British company apart from the supermarkets has lost money since the recession. In the short term this means they have to raise prices, even more so with the VAT rise (though prices haven't increased as much as expected here, speaking personally).

Look at the article, HMV are in trouble as well and are having to close stores. Games Workshop might have to as well I suppose. I hope not because if they do I can see my local store going, unless the manager can rearrange his hours to attract more customers.

Still, we'll just have to wait and see, but somehow even if my local store does close, GW itself will go on trading.

However the one big problem with GW's business model is their dependency on Space Marines. They've made use of this cash cow in a way that's understandable if not condonable, with the result that other lines, notably Warhammer have suffered.

Quite how you reverse that I'm not sure, but the Ultramarines movie won't help matters. Additionally fantasy is such a complicated game compared to 40k that I'm not surprised it's the younger sibling that does better.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

Whatever anyone believes the fact is that a 4% loss of sales in the current economic situation is not ideal but it's far from terrible.

GW shares have already recovered by 4.03% just a day after the bbc article was written, loss of share prices is only a problem if it becomes a trend.

So basically nothing to see here, move along


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Bindi Baji said:


> Whatever anyone believes the fact is that a 4% loss of sales in the current economic situation is not ideal but it's far from terrible.
> 
> GW shares have already recovered by 4.03% just a day after the bbc article was written, loss of share prices is only a problem if it becomes a trend.
> 
> So basically nothing to see here, move along


Loss of share value is a problem if it reduces investor confidence, and if it reduces the perceived value of the company by creditors.

A downward 'trend' would not be a problem for GW, it would be catastrophic. GW isn't owned by hobbyists, so it isn't going to remain propped up for the love of the games.

What sort of recovery are you seeing that nobody else has? By your own statistics, 4.03% gain is less than the 4% drop, so the shares are still worth less than they were. The share value is still 17% lower than a week ago. Please define how you are using the word 'recovered' in this context?


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

EA Shares dropped 8% due to the problems with Medal of Honor on it's day of release, because of reviewers too used to the Call of Duty Playstyle called it out. That was until after a few weeks of playing it, and people actually learning how to conform to the new game, that it became better.

I hate 8th Edition with a passion. It's the worst damn decision to ever make in the game (although my army has since become easier, and more popular to play, I hate the entire ruleset, turning it into effectively 40K in 40 Minutes in Fantasy. I'm seriously surprised they haven't yet called it "4antasy", and that Chariots and Steam Tanks don't have Armour Values), but I've grown used to it, and I'll till play 6th Edition Rules - either with 6th Edition Codexes, er Army Books, or 7th Edition Books, just for shits and giggles.

Reviews makes investors lose confidence, and constant earbashing by the public over "shit" decisions, which really have no bearing (Why no love for Iron Hands in C:SM? Why is 4th Edition C:CSM different from 3.5 Edition?) on th grand scheme of things, is going to obviously be a downturn on the books.

Now, I know you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, but christ, you want to blame GW "going down", blame yourselves =D.

Thank you, and good night.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

darklove said:


> The share value is still 17% lower than a week ago. Please define how you are using the word 'recovered' in this context?


Just how hard is it to read a post before you comment on it?


For those who are hard of thinking:



Bindi Baji said:


> GW shares have already recovered by 4.03% just a day after the bbc article was written


this would indicate that shares are no longer down by 17% as of the end of trading on january 6 (yesterday for the hard of thinking)

I think it's time I left this thread well alone


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Bindi Baji said:


> Just how hard is it to read a post before you comment on it?
> 
> 
> For those who are hard of thinking:
> ...


You have absolutely no idea what it indicates. I don't want to make this personal, but your grasp on basic mathematics appears limp at best. Your knowledge on business matters is non-existent.

A week ago the share price was 421, now it is 351. Shares are trading lower today than yesterday.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

350p is what 3.5 pounds?

How does one buy stock on the London Market in the US?


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Exchange rates? They're what? 1.3ish $ to £? So If GW was on the US Exchange, that would be... about $4.60-80 ish. This is off the top of my head, and those are estimate ball park figures.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

darklove said:


> You have absolutely no idea what it indicates. I don't want to make this personal, but your grasp on basic mathematics appears limp at best. Your knowledge on business matters is non-existent.
> 
> A week ago the share price was 421, now it is 351. Shares are trading lower today than yesterday.


Means nothing, this time last year they were trading at £3.10 and over 12 months they got to a high of £4.50 but things fall away again thats the nature of the markets, its fairly normal for shares in retail to dip post christmas, as for the company being in trouble no, the company issues a profit warning, which its said its still going to come in with profit, just not as much as it had expected but still in "profit".


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

So..... 350p is 3.50 pounds? LOL, I can look up the exchange rate on xe.com I am just not sure WTF a pence(sp) is.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

djinn24 said:


> So..... 350p is 3.50 pounds? LOL, I can look up the exchange rate on xe.com I am just not sure WTF a pence(sp) is.


your equivalent would be the cent


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

except ours has a queen on, so its far superior


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Thanks BnK and bite me Stella


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Iron Hands really DID get a raw deal, didn't they?

No Special Character, no supersize text box like EVERY other Founding Chapter (and Crimson Fists...?!) in the fluff section...

Poor guys.


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

djinn24 said:


> 350p is what 3.5 pounds?
> 
> How does one buy stock on the London Market in the US?


Yes, £1 = 100 pence.

And any stockbroker (either in person or an online one) should be able to arrange for you to buy London listed shares from the US with no problem, subject to all legal stuff, dealing fees, warnings that prices can go up and down etc etc.


----------



## Angelus Censura (Oct 11, 2010)

GW's legal team will be the hero in the recovery of their financial department. Lawsuits are always the answer to income drops :victory:


----------

