A New Edition of ACTA is coming...
- Thread starter Court Jester
- Start date
Paladin said:
Actually, it didn't, and it was very much a lesson learned (the ACW argument does _not_ hold for sci-fi).
M1ndr1d3rs
Mongoose
IMO, seriously designed star trek ships are usually nice looking. It's the kitbashed and the reused-God-knows-how-many-times ones that ruins it.
MustEatBrains
Mongoose
Reading the blog made me give upon SG - a pitty, I love the look of the Asgard ships...
:wink: I'm not sure star wars would lend itself to a ACTA game engine well. Trying to stat out a Star Destroyer or even worse, a Super Star Destroyer, is just painful. In star trek, most of the ships are similiar in size, and fighter action is almost non-existent. That would simplfy the rule mechanics...
sidewinder
Mongoose
actually the federation used quite a few fighters during the dominion war. especially in the large battles. They didnt last very long though. I'd hate to see what a federation tactical fighter would do to B5 ships though.
I respectfully disagree. It depends on the size of the gaming company and the nature of the game. It will concede that it is MUCH more difficult for a gaming company seeking to make a profit on a massive scale, but smaller "mom & pop" ventures it's viable. It can also be increasingly difficult to create a large variety of units to continue to develop the game over extended period of time.msprange said:
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
sidewinder said:
Well, any Star Trek ships would wipe the floor with B5, they're light-years ahead in tech. Only the First Ones would have a chance.
/geekiness
Paladin said:
No. Just. . . no. . .
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Don't you want to make a massive profit, Matt? 
Lord David the Denied said:Don't you want to make a massive profit, Matt?
Want, yes. Am, no
Narchy said:
A good few months - we'll announce it with a full preview, complete with piccies of pretty models
Foxmeister
Mongoose
msprange said:
It should also be said that there are probably very, very, very few gaming companies making a "profit on a massive scale".
GW is a publically listed company, so its financials results are publically available.
Looking at the income statement for FY2008 (ending June 08 ), GW had:
- Total Sales: £110 million
Cost of Sales: £33 million
Gross Profit: £77 million
Sounds impressive doesn't it?
However, the Cost of Sales figure only includes cost directly associated with the manufacture of product (i.e. materials, labour etc). It does not include all the indirect costs (operating expenses) associated with the running of the company, or other income such as royalties.
- Operating Expenses: £76 million
Other Income: £2 million
The operating expenses are exceedingly high, but I'm sure most of this cost is going to the cost associated with running their massive retail operation.
This gives us the operating profit, which is:
- Operating Profit: ~£3 million
(Note: I've rounded the figures here to keep them in whole millions - GWs reported OP was actually £2.552 million)
(Source: http://investor.games-workshop.com/...08/full_year/consolidatedincomestatement.aspx)
If you factor in everything GW actually made a loss in 2008, and given the current financial climate I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a profits warning coming out of GW early next year.
The point is that it's very easy to look at the more commercial gaming operations (e.g. WOTC, GW, Mongoose etc) and compare them to the "mom & pop" operations and claim they are just raking in the profits, but truth be told what is generally the case is they have much, much higher operating expenses than the "mom & pop" operations, and so have to charge that much more even if they have a lower overall cost of sales due to economies of scale and purchasing power etc.
I really don't see much gross profiteering going on in the gaming market.
Regards,
Dave
MustEatBrains
Mongoose
msprange said:complete with piccies of pretty models
from IWM?
MustEatBrains said:
No, we have spent the past year rejigging our forge and miniatures producing processes, all in preparation for 2009. . .
