How do GW improve sales?

[Captain Idaho]

There is another catachan devil amongst the gretchin in that sometimes it's appropriate for a major company to "tick off" a release even if they don't make profit on it, from a perspective to removing competitive other games and companies.

 

An example is Legions Imperialis being around means other games in that scale will always be behind GW owned property. Getting people to play the non-GW game is difficult especially for casuals, so if there is a GW alternative it just won't exist as a viable property. 

 

Ergo, having some games that fill a niche but don't appear to turn much profit works from a portfolio perspective.

[Adeptekon]

10 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

 

Ergo, having some games that fill a niche but don't appear to turn much profit works from a portfolio perspective.

Like a monopoly?

[ZeroWolf]

9 minutes ago, Adeptekon said:

Like a monopoly?

Not really? As GW can point to several companies nearby who it's in competition with should a watch dog come sniffing around (literally Warlord games is a 5 - 10 minute walk from GW and I think Mantic are the other side of Nottingham).

[Dark Shepherd]

They really seemed to drip feed/toetest epic with Aeronautica and then Titanicus

 

Both had lots of awesome/popular models and anecdotally Titanicus seems to be ranked as their best or most fun scifi game in terms of rules and mechanics

 

Aeronautica was basically a Warhammer 35k game in terms of models/setting

 

Its a big unknown unknown if they saw bad sales for Xenos in Aero and that affected L.I or (my guess) Xenos aircraft were just a last hurrah for forgeworld resin. That said I refuse to believe Orks, Nids, Necrons, Eldar wouldnt have done well in Epic

Edited Friday at 04:22 PM by Dark Shepherd

[Captain Idaho]

I've got 3 friends who would immediately buy in if official Tyranids, Necrons and Orks were released for LI.

 

Anecdotal of course, but I don't hear opposition. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

9 hours ago, ZeroWolf said:

Not really? As GW can point to several companies nearby who it's in competition with should a watch dog come sniffing around (literally Warlord games is a 5 - 10 minute walk from GW and I think Mantic are the other side of Nottingham).

I don’t think physical proximity has anything to do with monopolies 

[ZeroWolf]

8 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I don’t think physical proximity has anything to do with monopolies 

No, but GW also has real competition in the hobbysphere, two of which are located by its doors. GW may have a large part of the market, they do not completely dominate it, especially when other companies are growing. A monopoly is when one company has complete control. GW has nothing of the sort (which is a good thing). Market leader doesn't equate to monopoly 

[Xenith]

On 10/21/2026 at 4:42 PM, TwinOcted said:

This was definitely the attitude at GW back when I worked for them, between '02

The market now is those same kids that were into Warhammer during the boom in early 3rd, and who now have disposable incomes. 

 

Teens are the entry into the hobby but it's people with jobs that are buying more.

[Griefbringer]

3 hours ago, ZeroWolf said:

GW has nothing of the sort (which is a good thing). Market leader doesn't equate to monopoly 

 

True.

 

Market leader however can sometimes reach a dominant market position, in which case some legal limitations may apply to what they are allowed to do (e.g. undercutting prices and selling temporarily at loss to force competitors out of business).

 

That said, if we consider UK toys, models and games market as a whole as the relevant reference market, I would not even count on GW being a market leader (though I have not looked for any hard numbers for this market). In any case, few people have accused GW of deliberately undercutting their prices.

[Marshal Rohr]

I don’t think anyone has to worry about GW undercutting prices.