From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Warhammer RPG info?
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:28:05 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug11.103820.14799@cs.tcd.ie> droe@cs.tcd.ie (David Roe) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.181427.20520@mks.com> viktor@mks.com (Viktor Haag) writes:
>>
>>Their standard practice for setting up stores and dealing with competition
>>in England is to approach the owners of privately owned games-shops and
>>invite them to sell their operation to GW.  Should they refuse, GW will
>>open a store nearby, and undercut their prices, until they go out of
>>business.  The net result should be obvious.
>>
>>Also, since GW stores will not carry any games that are not distributed
>>in the UK by their company, the chance of selling your game in the UK if
>>you're a foreign company is next to nil (at a decent profit anyhoo) unless
>>you deal with GW.  I have even heard rumours about recalcitrant store owners
>>being strong armed and muscled, but of course, these are wildly 
>>unsubstantiated, and I tend not to put much credence in them.
>>
>
>These two points are a little contradictory. If GW stores do not carry
>products that GW doesnt distribute, then they will not find themselves
>in competition with the majority of games products in the UK. They do
>distribute a lot, but they dont have exclusive rights to over fifty
>percent of the UK games market. In most cities in the UK with a GW
>store, there is at least one "independant" store aswell, serving non GW
>related products. Also, GW will happily distribute to stores in cities
>that they do not have a shop. If they open one there, then they cease
>distributing to that shop, clearly because they dont want to compete at
>retail level - they dont have to. Macdonalds dont sell their hamburgers
>to other chains do they? 

Not to get too specific, but there are some differences.  To start with, 
McDonalds is a collective francise (sorry about the spelling).  It is not
the same situation as GW stores OWNED by GW.  Legally, this makes a BIG 
difference.  I am aware of three non-GW stores who may file lawsuites if
GW carries on its pratices here in the States.  In addition, McDonalds has
sold various technologies and supplies to non-McDonalds entities.

>
>>I don't know what the internal politics was like at GW, but the miniatures
>>crowd seemed to be gathering more and more momentum, and the sales of 
>>WH40k products and WFB products begain to eclipse WFRP (partly because
>>GW was being *really* unreliable about shippping/writing new material for
>>WFRP).  The Realms of Sorcery supplement that was mentioned in the original
>>rulebook and was apparently ready for final editing/printing was never
>>and will never be released.  The Realms of Choas supplement originally
>>intended for WFRP became split into two sections.  The first section was
>>realeased with more miniature material than WFRP material, although the
>>cover was deceptively marketed to the WFRP people.  The second half of 
>>the supplement came out later, with NO WFRP material in it.
>>
>
>The tone of this article, seems to be anti-miniature gaming. This, I can
>understand. I was once too, very anti-WFB. The point is though, that for
>GW, WFB allowed them to sell loads of lead blisters, which have a very
>high profit margin, much more so than paper and cardstock rules and
>supplements. They used this profit to drive their retail expansion. A
>perfectly valid business strategy in my opinion. If you accept that
>figure gaming is as valid a hobby as FRP, then you might like to hear
>figure gamers - especially WFB 3rd ed. people whinge about GW doesnt
>support _them_. This is the real gripe with GW, IMO. In order to fuel
>their expansion they must continue to sell huge amounts of new products.
>Thus, they constantly push new lines, new games, new models, clearly at
>the expense of support for their existing products. With the relase
>of 4th edition, 3rd. ed. Fantasy battle will cease to exist before the
>end of the year. How's, that for product support? This change looks like
>not only replacing all the rules for the game, but probably will require
>the purchase of new lead models. My point? Its not a question of "The
>minatures crowd" taking over, rather GW's attitude to the people who buy
>their products. 

Valid point.  However, just for a second, examine the viewpoint of a 
WFRP player.  He has invested money into a product with the belief of
a realistic level of support for that product.  The questions here 
( the ones I can quickly think of) are the following:
  1) did GW mislead the buyer into expecting more support than was
     planned to be delievered?  

  2) has GW neglected the consumer by not providing some valid level
     of support.

  3) has Gw practice unfair sales pratices and violated various 
     anti-trust like provisions?

It could be that GW is guilty of one or more of these.  Winning 
a court case (most of this is civil) would however, be very expensive, 
long, and trying for the person(s) bringing the suits and charges.


>
>Are they worse that TSR? Well, maybe, but the second ed. AD&D debacle
>makes me think that very similar strategies lie at the heart of both
>companies. The answer? Buy the games you like, and play them, and be
>prepared to never see any support for it.
>
>	Dave Roe

No, I'm not running for office or becoming a lawer, 

tag@ecn.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc