My problems with GW business model.

A place to discuss all Warhammer-related background and products not explicitly connected to the Black Library.

My problems with GW business model.

Postby Therion » Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:06 am

First is the miniatures. Namely, all of them have that campy caricatural look that doesn't fit the seriousness of the setting. I pretty much gave up on the miniature game/modelling part of the hobby in 2003 after buying my first box of Chaos Warriors and realising I just don't want them.
I wish the miniatures would have realistic proportions.

Second is the rules. They don't reflect the in-setting capabilities of units.

The third is the pricing structure. The Marines are simply too cheap which makes them way too popular in relation to more common forces.
Units should be priced basing on their in-setting rarity and power.
Vast majority of player imperial armies should be Imperial Guard with only most dedicated players fielding Space Marines, just like it's today with titans.
"There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush" -Scriptorus Munificantus
User avatar
Therion
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:35 am


Re: My problems with GW business model.

Postby Athelassan » Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:20 pm

This is not, by and large, a list of problems with GW's "business model". This is a list of subjective and in some cases rather idiosyncratic complaints about the products that GW produces.

Indeed, I get the impression that what you think GW ought to do is produce things which are entirely to your tastes and preferences and damn everyone else. And notably, what you seem to want from GW is something it has never actually done and never seriously suggested it was going to do, which means the whole diatribe could equally be about McDonalds and would be similarly realistic.

(I am exaggerating slightly, and I know that early RT stuff was a bit more to your tastes, but that was thirty years ago, man, and they dropped the edgiest elements of that like a stone pretty early on).

I'm not even sure that some of the criticisms are accurate, which is not to say that they are sensible either. For instance, pricing according to in-setting rarity and power... Is that not what they do? There is no reason that a plastic character model needs to cost ten times as much as a rank and file model of roughly the same size and level of detail.

That is not to say that GW's business model is great. Off the top of my head:
  • Pricing its products towards the premium end of the market despite quality being towards the middle
  • Lack of "entry-level" pricing of its own products, including the years-long abandonment of skirmish games
  • Wholesale move to plastic making ranges inflexible and (paradoxically) expensive
  • Insistence that it is its own sector and refusing to acknowledge the existence of the wider wargaming market
  • Refusal to advertise outside its own customers or perform market research
  • The ongoing saga of mismanagement of its stores
  • Being unnecessarily and aggressively litigious
  • Undue reliance on attraction of new business (see also: failure to advertise) versus retention of existing business. At times a deliberate policy of alienating established customers.

Admittedly, they have been working on and even succeeded in rectifying some of these. But still.

Ath
User avatar
Athelassan
 
Posts: 2552
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:44 pm
Location: London


Re: My problems with GW business model.

Postby Xisor » Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:49 pm

Athelassan wrote:And notably, what you seem to want from GW is something it has never actually done and never seriously suggested it was going to do, which means the whole diatribe could equally be about McDonalds and would be similarly realistic.


I was a Dan Abnett talk/Q&A in Canterbury a few weeks back where he was chatting about some of the mad works he's undertaken over the years.

His worst, he says, was when he "sold out" and did a bit of comics writing for...


McDonalds.

They sent him a 30+ pages Writer's Bible that covered the entire thorough history of all the 'characters'. He got a few pages flicked into that tome before it was thrown away ('literally out the window', or words to that effect) and the whole thing gracefully backed out of, never to be countenance again.

-----

It seems one of the fundamental issues re:GW is that they still (arguably even now) see themselves and work miniatures first. Miniatures arrive, *then* the story/setting/lore/fluff comes to fit that. There's a few exceptions, and it's apparently a bit more fluid nowadays, but it's still seemingly the case that if they've got a cool miniature, that'll be priority.

(That also somewhat explains the transition to AoS, if not how bodged and gratuitous/insensitive the End Times were. I mean: fitting the Idoneth Deepkin & Kharadron Overlord models into the Old World may have been... problematic.

But then I think you were right, Ath, in pinpointing the Demigryphs as the point at which the sharp was jumped. Decisions thereafter damned us all, but that was a the first sight of half [demi?] measures hindering rather than helping.)
"When my housemate puts his bike in the middle of the living room floor, I find that inordinately jarring, annoying and rude, but for me to refer to it as "genocide" would be incorrect." -Ath
xisor.wordpress
Xisor's Dice-o-matic Maiminator
User avatar
Xisor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4957
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:13 pm
Location: Canterbury


Re: My problems with GW business model.

Postby Therion » Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:58 am

Athelassan wrote:This is not, by and large, a list of problems with GW's "business model". This is a list of subjective and in some cases rather idiosyncratic complaints about the products that GW produces.

Indeed, I get the impression that what you think GW ought to do is produce things which are entirely to your tastes and preferences and damn everyone else. And notably, what you seem to want from GW is something it has never actually done and never seriously suggested it was going to do, which means the whole diatribe could equally be about McDonalds and would be similarly realistic.

(I am exaggerating slightly, and I know that early RT stuff was a bit more to your tastes, but that was thirty years ago, man, and they dropped the edgiest elements of that like a stone pretty early on).

Well, stuff like weak Marines is an early RT relic when they were just some gangers on steroids. As fluff advanced they quickly turned into something that should be statted more like monsters like Tyranid Warriors than ordinary characters.
And then fluff got even more heroic where basically getting qualified as an Initiate would require being something like a major hero.

Athelassan wrote:I'm not even sure that some of the criticisms are accurate, which is not to say that they are sensible either. For instance, pricing according to in-setting rarity and power... Is that not what they do? There is no reason that a plastic character model needs to cost ten times as much as a rank and file model of roughly the same size and level of detail.

That is not to say that GW's business model is great. Off the top of my head:
[list][*]Pricing its products towards the premium end of the market despite quality being towards the middle

You could have actual rank and file priced towards the middle of the market like Orks and Imperial Guard and more advanced factions priced towards premium.

For example you could have 30 guardsmen for 20GBP or 3 Space Marines.
"There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush" -Scriptorus Munificantus
User avatar
Therion
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:35 am


Re: My problems with GW business model.

Postby Major Rawne » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:45 pm

I'm somewhat loath to address the OPs comments with any seriousness as I arguably find them rather silly (though GWs worlds aren't lacking in the silly). My biggest issue with them is that there is no explanation of how any of it would make GW a better business than it currently is.

I'd agree with Ath that at the moment it amounts to nothing more than "A list of things I don't like about GW".

Further to this, while Ath made a very good stab at putting something together that actually takes a step back to look at GW as a business, I would strongly argue that it is still very much "A list of things I don't like about GW".

I say this from the perspective that as it stands today GW is doing very well, certainly compared to a few years ago, and is one of the big success stories on the high street at the moment. Whilst GWs business model, or more accurately business decisions, can be debated and questioned the reality is I think it's incredibly difficult to point at something they do, say why it's bad and how you would change it, without damaging their current business.
User avatar
Major Rawne
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 11:24 am
Location: Under Your Bed


Return to Board index

Return to Worlds of Warhammer

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests