PDA

View Full Version : Why does GW call itself Games Workshop and other favourite questions...



Denzark
03-20-2014, 04:05 AM
I have recently seen the Frontpage post by Reecius and, whilst I know it is being discussed in a Darklink post elsewhere, I thought I would have a punt at answering some of the questions as they are perennial favourites:

1. Why does GW insist on describing itself as a miniatures company first, when its name suggests otherwise?

Look at their history, they used to produce genuine wooden board games such as backgammon. When companies change their focus it is often better for them to retain their names even if it does not describe 100% what they now do. 'Miniatures Workshop' does not exactly trip off the tongue, would take more letters on letter heads and shop signage. BP is no longer British (irrespective of what Obama may think), nor do they deal in just petroleum; they haven't changed the name have they?

2. Why doesn't GW playtest?

Umm, they do. Within the last 24 months I have seen a picture in WD captioned about how it is a playtest game and they always get a lot of attention from the workers at Nottingham (Can't be arsed to find the reference).

3. Why doesn't GW let US the community playtest extensively to destruction and let us publish the results so as to beat the broken combos etc?

Because you/we the community can't be trusted. New stuff would be leaked (probably annoying New Line Cinemas) and leeches like CHS would get the inside skinny on what is coming up allowing their parasitical activities to continue. How many people have already stated quite publically they are going to buy copied VSGs? It all links in.

4. Why don't GW do x/y/z which would please the community more?

I speculate here. I think it is because in the US companies are masters of service industry where the customer is always right, have a nice day etc etc. In the UK we simply don't do things like that and I reckon the attitude permeates into GW business philosophy. Take it or leave it, and we the community are still taking it - Knights sold out at my local GW inside 1 hour.

5. Why don't GW do x/y/z - don't they want a license to print money (see also 'why no Chaos Knights, why no tight rulesets etc)?

I think (again I speculate) GW has a plan. If you read some of the corporate blurb about restructuring, they are not fully through the plan. And, the bottom line is that the profit margins they are making (even if reduced from some years) are sufficient and satisfactory for them. Why do I think this? Because stupid people don't usually sit on million pound companies. If GW HQ were not satisfied with their bottom line, they will change. If they change that means they see a need to be different. If they don't change, they must be happy. Simples. Oh btw rulesets. We are still buying them by the bucketload. The digital deluge recently gives them even better margins. So why the hell would they do anything differently?

Quite simply GW HQ must be content with where they are in this current financial climate (less profits admittedly but still in the black) - they are meeting their UK-law mandated responsibility to their shareholders and as such have no motivation for any change.


This is a lot of speculation with some 'logic' as well - I don't have a dog in the fight, I just think some of the assumptions talked about recently are erroneous.

Mr Mystery
03-20-2014, 04:25 AM
Can we add common myths to this as well? They're always fun to debunk/examine/challenge!

Deadlift
03-20-2014, 04:34 AM
I would like to add I do think GW listens to its fan base. It may not always get it right but I think they do try to add models / elements to the game fans ask for.

The massive ramp up in codex / suppliment releases, new larger impressive models, new stand alone faction, allies, much larger paint range, horus heresy models from FW including primarchs with rules.

These are all things I can remember the interwebers talking about when I 1st starting playing. Now we've got it. More disgruntled people. I maintain those that moan most are in the minority.

Mr Mystery
03-20-2014, 04:44 AM
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/faq.php?faq=termsmaster#faq_termsuse

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4948413472309640&w=113&h=152&c=7&rs=1&url=http%3a%2f%2fbradrants.com%2fblog%2fbiggest-loser-methods-epic-fail%2f&pid=1.7

Psychosplodge
03-20-2014, 04:44 AM
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/faq.php?faq=termsmaster#faq_termsuse



There are aren't there?

Wolfshade
03-20-2014, 04:56 AM
Remember the Terms of Use
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/faq.php?faq=termsmaster#faq_bolsrules

Now can we please get back on track.

Perhaps a better question is "Why isn't the table top wargames produced under Citadel Miniatures rather than the parent GW group?"

Cap'nSmurfs
03-20-2014, 04:59 AM
Never mind that there are spelling/grammar/typesetting errors in every book you can buy.

I remember noticing - painfully - in the new Scott Lynch novel, that every time the word "stories" appears it's printed as "storeys".

Seriously, proofing/copyediting is difficult, and it's not ever perfect. GW does have these people on staff. Imagine what the manuscripts looked like!

I think your rundown is very fair, Denzark.

On playtesting: if you look in the back of a couple of the recent Warhammer Armies books, you'll see they thank their playtesters, and you can see who some of them are: for Dark Elves, one of them is Ben Curry, veteran Dark Elf player, top-end UK tournament player and host of the Bad Dice Podcast. So they do playtest extensively, with people they trust, and with people who know their ****.

Psychosplodge
03-20-2014, 05:13 AM
The FW books are noticeably worse.

daboarder
03-20-2014, 05:32 AM
Never mind that there are spelling/grammar/typesetting errors in every book you can buy.

I remember noticing - painfully - in the new Scott Lynch novel, that every time the word "stories" appears it's printed as "storeys".

Seriously, proofing/copyediting is difficult, and it's not ever perfect. GW does have these people on staff. Imagine what the manuscripts looked like!


I know right, it was so irritating reading the mallorean and having entire segments of the belgariad randomly copy and pasted in there, but as you said, proofreading is hard.:rolleyes:

Cap'nSmurfs
03-20-2014, 07:03 AM
And it isn't just proofing, there's all sorts of stages at which things can go wrong between the writing of the manuscript and printing of the book.

daboarder
03-20-2014, 11:32 AM
And it isn't just proofing, there's all sorts of stages at which things can go wrong between the writing of the manuscript and printing of the book.

that post of mine was sarcasm cap.

as in there is miss spelling the odd word here and there.

And then there is reproducing hole paragraphs from the wrong book

DWest
03-20-2014, 12:24 PM
that post of mine was sarcasm cap.

as in there is miss spelling the odd word here and there.

And then there is reproducing hole paragraphs from the wrong book
That's actually easier to do than you might think; the actual assembly of a book is usually done with something like Microsoft Publisher (well, probably a house-proprietary version, but same idea), and the typesetters are pulling in a bunch of little text and image files from a folder somewhere to fill in the blocks. It only takes one mislabeling or one line of bad instructions to start grabbing the wrong thing and throwing it in there.

DarkLink
03-20-2014, 12:59 PM
1. Why does GW insist on describing itself as a miniatures company first, when its name suggests otherwise?

Look at their history, they used to produce genuine wooden board games such as backgammon. When companies change their focus it is often better for them to retain their names even if it does not describe 100% what they now do. 'Miniatures Workshop' does not exactly trip off the tongue, would take more letters on letter heads and shop signage. BP is no longer British (irrespective of what Obama may think), nor do they deal in just petroleum; they haven't changed the name have they?

I agree that their current practices are heavily influenced by their history from when they were the only game in town.



2. Why doesn't GW playtest?

Umm, they do. Within the last 24 months I have seen a picture in WD captioned about how it is a playtest game and they always get a lot of attention from the workers at Nottingham (Can't be arsed to find the reference).

They do, a little. A little is not good enough. There are some egregious balance issues in the game right now that should have been caught. They weren't. Granted, it's not possible to be perfect, so it would be easily forgiven had they addressed the issues in FAQs or Erratas as they arose. They haven't. Regardless of petty arguments over whether or not they do or don't technically playtest in any fashion, whatever they are doing is not adequate.



3. Why doesn't GW let US the community playtest extensively to destruction and let us publish the results so as to beat the broken combos etc?

Because you/we the community can't be trusted. New stuff would be leaked (probably annoying New Line Cinemas) and leeches like CHS would get the inside skinny on what is coming up allowing their parasitical activities to continue. How many people have already stated quite publically they are going to buy copied VSGs? It all links in.

I agree.



4. Why don't GW do x/y/z which would please the community more?

I speculate here. I think it is because in the US companies are masters of service industry where the customer is always right, have a nice day etc etc. In the UK we simply don't do things like that and I reckon the attitude permeates into GW business philosophy. Take it or leave it, and we the community are still taking it - Knights sold out at my local GW inside 1 hour.

As Reece mentioned, Wraithknights outsell Crimson Hunters hand over fist, despite both being very high quality models and the Crimson Hunter being nearly half the cost of the Wraithknight. Models with poor rules almost universally sell poorly.

Go back to the first question. GW is caught up in its past. It used to be they were the only game in town, so everyone lapped up what they sold. Even when a handful of competitors came around, they were still the biggest game, so they still sold extremely well. That's how they ended up being the big dogs, by getting there fifteen years before anyone else.

That does not mean their business is even remotely optimized. They're losing market share to smaller companies that have realized that while cool models matter, cool rules do as well. GW is stuck in the past where they could just throw out rules and people would lap it up. Now that there's some competition to compare to, a lot of people get dissatisfied with mediocre rules and go elsewhere. 40k is still doing well, but where's Fantasy gone?



5. Why don't GW do x/y/z - don't they want a license to print money (see also 'why no Chaos Knights, why no tight rulesets etc)?

I think (again I speculate) GW has a plan. If you read some of the corporate blurb about restructuring, they are not fully through the plan. And, the bottom line is that the profit margins they are making (even if reduced from some years) are sufficient and satisfactory for them. Why do I think this? Because stupid people don't usually sit on million pound companies. If GW HQ were not satisfied with their bottom line, they will change. If they change that means they see a need to be different. If they don't change, they must be happy. Simples. Oh btw rulesets. We are still buying them by the bucketload. The digital deluge recently gives them even better margins. So why the hell would they do anything differently?

They have a plan, it's the new wave of frequent, small releases such as supplements and digital codices inbetween regular codices. Warmahordes showed them that frequent updates for every army is a much more profitable way of going about things than only releasing stuff for any given army every four or five years. They still haven't done anything to address the Wraithknight/Crimson Hunter issue, though.


Never mind that there are spelling/grammar/typesetting errors in every book you can buy.

I remember noticing - painfully - in the new Scott Lynch novel, that every time the word "stories" appears it's printed as "storeys".

Seriously, proofing/copyediting is difficult, and it's not ever perfect. GW does have these people on staff. Imagine what the manuscripts looked like!

Good book. I'll just add that sometimes novels take liberties and intentionally use words and phrases that sound archaic if it's appropriate to the story. Regardless, while editing is hard, GW isn't just bad at it, they're utterly terrible.



On playtesting: if you look in the back of a couple of the recent Warhammer Armies books, you'll see they thank their playtesters, and you can see who some of them are: for Dark Elves, one of them is Ben Curry, veteran Dark Elf player, top-end UK tournament player and host of the Bad Dice Podcast. So they do playtest extensively, with people they trust, and with people who know their ****.

Extensively is a very, very strong word. Again, they playtest. They just don't do very much of it. In fact, while the community venerates the game design team, Phil Kelly, Jervis, etc, those guys are actually pretty low on the totem pole. They're literally restricted from playtesting beyond a certain limit, because the higher-ups feel it's more important to have them move on and start writing a new codex rather than perfecting the current one. Benefit of knowing people in the industry, you get to hear horror stories about that sort of stuff.

Mr Mystery
03-20-2014, 01:18 PM
Careful on quoting sales figures.

Best any of us can hope for is a very localised snapshot of sales. GW don't publish any breakdown of sales after all.

DarkLink
03-20-2014, 02:08 PM
You didn't see the article a day or two ago? Top five wargames, and Fantasy wasn't on there? Ten years ago, the top five wargames would have been 40k, Fantasy, and that's it. Plus, yes, GW does divulge some sales information. They're a publicly traded company. It's not super detailed, but they are required to release financial reports. Fantasy isn't gone, but it's not doing very well overall. And even if it was only doing poorly in America, that's about a third of GW's sales gone. Not to mention that most of its competitors, particularly PP, are American, so it makes sense that GW would be losing traction to them there first.

- - - Updated - - -

Stupid edit function doesn't work.

Frontline gaming in and of itself is one of the largest retailers on the West Coast. Great Escape Games, where I normally play, is, I believe, the largest. If Fantasy is doing poorly in both, and can't draw the numbers for a large tournament anywhere else on the west coast, that's not a good sign. Same thing with the Wraithknight/Crimson Hunter thing. So, no, I'm not saying this based purely on assumptions.

Cap'nSmurfs
03-21-2014, 04:44 AM
"Good book. I'll just add that sometimes novels take liberties and intentionally use words and phrases that sound archaic if it's appropriate to the story."

That does happen, but not here. It's a mistake they made. You can tell from context. "Storeys" has never been interchangeable with "stories" - they mean different things; furthermore, because they're homophones, there is no point in using an alternative spelling in reported speech; nowhere else in those books is a word arbitrarily swapped like this, the archaisms or invented language is used for parts of the invented world. Context is important. It's a mistake, an obvious and embarrassing one, and yet there it is, in the first run of a major-release hardback fantasy novel. It's not a GW problem, it's a publishing problem.

Daboarder: It's my point exactly: there's all sorts of stages at which errors can happen, as with your sarcastically used example. It's not just "proofing", as DWest said.

ToHitMod
03-21-2014, 05:01 AM
You didn't see the article a day or two ago? Top five wargames, and Fantasy wasn't on there? Ten years ago, the top five wargames would have been 40k, Fantasy, and that's it. Plus, yes, GW does divulge some sales information. They're a publicly traded company. It's not super detailed, but they are required to release financial reports. Fantasy isn't gone, but it's not doing very well overall. And even if it was only doing poorly in America, that's about a third of GW's sales gone. Not to mention that most of its competitors, particularly PP, are American, so it makes sense that GW would be losing traction to them there first.

- - - Updated - - -

Stupid edit function doesn't work.

Frontline gaming in and of itself is one of the largest retailers on the West Coast. Great Escape Games, where I normally play, is, I believe, the largest. If Fantasy is doing poorly in both, and can't draw the numbers for a large tournament anywhere else on the west coast, that's not a good sign. Same thing with the Wraithknight/Crimson Hunter thing. So, no, I'm not saying this based purely on assumptions.

As Mystery said, this was localised sales data, it said as much in the article, it was taken from a few shops. the fact that no actual figures means that such ranking were useless bunk, was that unit sales? Turnover? Did all shops sell all the ranges? Profits per range? How many stores and how spread out where they? How did they work out the ranking?
You can't draw ANY comparisons outside of a vaugue picture of what was happening in that particular group of stores, and you certainly can't draw any comparions based on what one shop says and what you think you see in another shop in one part of america. Well you can, but they'll be useless.

Games Workshop know what they're doing, thats the reason they're the industry leader making more profit than anyone else. Whining and complaing about them doesn't make you cool, if you hate the company so much, stop playing the game, as you said, there is plenty of competition out there, they don't owe you anything.

Mr Mystery
03-21-2014, 05:27 AM
I was meaning about the Eldar Flyer and Wraithknight sales.

We can't get anymore than 'in my local area, it appears' in terms of accuracy.

As for the reasoning? It may not be the rules. The Wraithknight is objectively a cooler model. Not a nicer model as such, but cooler. It's big and it's stompy and it's semi-posable. That may have more to do with it than their relevant rules.

ToHitMod
03-21-2014, 05:34 AM
Massive stompy model death robot with guns and swords outsells aeroplane model shocker.

eldargal
03-21-2014, 06:18 AM
You didn't see the article a day or two ago? Top five wargames, and Fantasy wasn't on there? Ten years ago, the top five wargames would have been 40k, Fantasy, and that's it. Plus, yes, GW does divulge some sales information. They're a publicly traded company. It's not super detailed, but they are required to release financial reports. Fantasy isn't gone, but it's not doing very well overall. And even if it was only doing poorly in America, that's about a third of GW's sales gone. Not to mention that most of its competitors, particularly PP, are American, so it makes sense that GW would be losing traction to them there first.
Top five sales reported by independent retailers, in the US where fantasy has never been as popular. It doesn't include sales from GW itself which skews the result considerably.

Mr Mystery
03-21-2014, 06:25 AM
Further things which can skew sales comparissons which rely on online sales.

How much are the models? Wraithknight in the UK is £70. Dunno about anyone else, but that's not exactly in shop impulse buy for me. Crimson Hunter? £40. That's a bit closer to the mark.

Now, let's apply a fairly common online discount amount of 20%. Takes the Crimson Hunter down to £32. Much safer impulse buy, and a saving of £8. Wraithknight? £56. Same percentage, but appears to be a better bargain because us humans are actually surprisingly easily fooled with prices and stuff (£9.99 being far more attractive than £10, for instance).

So I'm not necessarily more likely to buy one over the other in the general scheme of things, but I am more likely to buy the bigger, more expensive kit at a discount, and discounts in the UK are typically found only online.

Just more food for thought and fuel for the discussion.

DarkLink
03-21-2014, 11:32 AM
That does happen, but not here. It's a mistake they made. You can tell from context. "Storeys" has never been interchangeable with "stories" - they mean different things; furthermore, because they're homophones, there is no point in using an alternative spelling in reported speech; nowhere else in those books is a word arbitrarily swapped like this, the archaisms or invented language is used for parts of the invented world. Context is important. It's a mistake, an obvious and embarrassing one, and yet there it is, in the first run of a major-release hardback fantasy novel. It's not a GW problem, it's a publishing problem.

If you feel like being that pedantic about it... regardless, I just googled scott lynch storeys and you'll find some threads with people complaining about how someone should have proofread the otherwise good book*. So I wouldn't use this as an example to try and excuse GW of laziness. Plus, have you seen any of their non-ipad digital rules? It's embarrassing. But, heck, even their digital rules in general are so riddled with blatant rules loopholes despite charging an absurd amount of money for an e-book that I don't see why you're unconditionally defending them.


*Someone pointed out that there are 25 instances of storeys, 13 of which are used correctly, so it sounds like someone just used a find and replace function and accidentally got all the stories deleted.