Anyone have insights on how the Hobbit game is doing?

Or the movie for that matter?

It opened in Trinidad on Boxing Day and I saw it over the weekend and it was... y'know good. It felt like LotR with slightly upgraded CGI and a bit more padding. It didn't go anywhere new so it felt very familiar and comfortable.

So I wonder if the toys and merch and all that are doing anywhere near as good as they did 10 years ago.

And of course the new special prices on the Hobbit game can't help much.

I don't have any numbers, but I've visited the local GW a few times since the release and the sales seem pretty slow. I was there on their "Hobbit-day" as well, and even then the interest seemed scarce.

And GW won't get any Hobbit money from me until the dwarves get their own box.

Well, the "Limited" edition of the Starter Set has yet to sell out in ether the UK or in my local GW. While it's probably sold out in other shops, or countries only stores, it isn't a great sign when Dark Vengeance sold out in a few days. The stock from the Hobbit is yet to really sell much, most of it's still from the initial release.

Movie:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htm (You can check up on most other films on Box Office Mojo as well)

Game:

Not a clue - I haven't heard of anyone who are in my circle of gamers who are excited or for that matter even curious about them. I am sure you do have some LotR gamers who are hoping that it will be the second coming and allow them to blow the dust off some of their old models. Probably some collectors who will be buying up all things Tolkien. And I would guess there will be some new blood - but compared to what I heard and saw the first time around...not to impressed.

The change in price points from LotR to Hobbit figures may be able to keep the movie bump to be about the same as it was with the LotR movies...but I don't think you will see the same level of interest.

I don't think the FLGS has sold anything. Maybe a box of a unit but not the main game. But I don't just hang out there as much as I used to. Lots of people looking at it, no one grabbing it.

its no dreadfleet, at least with that game I didn't have to buy anything else

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
its no dreadfleet, at least with that game I didn't have to buy anything else

Didn't Dreadfleet have to be destroyed because it failed to sell as well as GW hoped.

yes, oh how did it
but I gave it a chance before they got rid of it, and I liked it

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
yes, oh how did it
but I gave it a chance before they got rid of it, and I liked it

I imagine GW may regret the Hobbit, like the Lord of the Rings in general.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
its no dreadfleet, at least with that game I didn't have to buy anything else

Didn't Dreadfleet have to be destroyed because it failed to sell as well as GW hoped.

No - GW created the molds and stated that they were stopping production after a set number were made (and sold) though no one really knows what that number was or how fast it sold (I have seen it still on the shelves in three stores in the past month).

Limited Edition creates a [false] demand, as many people believe that things which are limited have an intrinsic investment potential to them. You can see this playing out on eBay right now. There are still a lot of NIB copies available for under the initial retail price, but you also have some people trying to sell it for over $600. They all probably bought several boxes with the intent of turning a fast profit on the limited aspect of the game...many have decided to just cut their losses though - while others still maintain some wishful thinking.

yeah seems because of Space Hulk, GW got an inflated ego (more so then usual)
thinking lotr is just as good as the other 2 so will charge accordingly and feel people will pay for it
but with fantasy on the down and lotr not that popular (as always) and even harder to get into
seems they are on their last game

I dislike being a heavy bearing mod, however, please would you put some grammar into your posts, Rainbow Dash?

It is a rule of the forum for the reason of clarity.

I imagine if GW understood their market a bit better they would have seen that Space Hulk sold on the back of nostalgia. Old gamers knew to expect a great game, and new comers were being told it was something special. It was always going to sell.

It's just so obvious why Space Hulk sold fast. But GW seemed to think they could pull off the same trick with something no one had seen before. That's a challenge before you consider that as games go, Dreadfleet just wasn't very good.

They should have done Warhammer Quest, it ticks all the boxes that Space Hulk did. Now they are probably convinced that one off releases don't work.

No hobbit sales at my local store. Plenty of jokes made about it though. I did put up a post that if anyone at the local store was buying the starter box, I would go in 45 USD just for the scenery bits. Need that fr a Malifaux table.

No Hobbit players in our meta and on the "hobbit" day, the tables were filled with people playing 40k

The box sucks though. I love LotR and all about it, but seriously, a box where you can either play as mentally slowed ugly creatures or a bunch of dwarves?

Not excited at all.

 Sigvatr wrote:
No Hobbit players in our meta and on the "hobbit" day, the tables were filled with people playing 40k

The box sucks though. I love LotR and all about it, but seriously, a box where you can either play as mentally slowed ugly creatures or a bunch of dwarves?

Not excited at all.

...Yeah, not too much choice of subject with this movie though, is there? I mean, if you want to follow the main characters etc...

 martin74 wrote:
No hobbit sales at my local store. Plenty of jokes made about it though. I did put up a post that if anyone at the local store was buying the starter box, I would go in 45 USD just for the scenery bits. Need that fr a Malifaux table.

I'll sell it to you if I decide to get it in late January, early-mid February...

 Bolognesus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
No Hobbit players in our meta and on the "hobbit" day, the tables were filled with people playing 40k

The box sucks though. I love LotR and all about it, but seriously, a box where you can either play as mentally slowed ugly creatures or a bunch of dwarves?

Not excited at all.

...Yeah, not too much choice of subject with this movie though, is there? I mean, if you want to follow the main characters etc...

Make a box that's about the Dwarves vs. Orcs flashback battle. THAT was an epic battle. Have a limited edition Thorin with an actual shield instead of an oak branch.

But goofy goblins? That's stupid.

Hey. I like those goblins!
And so do plenty of folk. Not to your taste perhaps, but they're good models technically, and there's plenty of folks who do like playing the 'evil' dumb critters much more than some silly heroes

Actually, since GW has some fear of having a good side in their games (and women) all you ever play is evil
if it was GW's choice I am sure Gondor would have some secret police that killed people because they badmouthed Denethor or something...and the flag would be a white tree surrounded by skulls?

Oh and of course the story would never end!

Almost no Hobbit sales in my local store, just 2 starter boxes, 1 rulebook and 3 Ork boxes.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Didn't Dreadfleet have to be destroyed because it failed to sell as well as GW hoped.

No - GW created the molds and stated that they were stopping production after a set number were made (and sold) though no one really knows what that number was or how fast it sold (I have seen it still on the shelves in three stores in the past month).

Actually blood reaper is correct: GW actively recalled and destroyed Dreadfleet boxes.

I think the local GW sold 3, tops. The locals and I were shocked by the prices for some of the model cost. The only thing I actually could see being used in range for conversions are the goblins for Nurgle cultist.

I'd buy a starter box once they get cheaper.

Which means I might not buy them at all.

The really scary thing?

It's still cheaper than the lego equivalent.

 Sigvatr wrote:
No Hobbit players in our meta and on the "hobbit" day, the tables were filled with people playing 40k

The box sucks though. I love LotR and all about it, but seriously, a box where you can either play as mentally slowed ugly creatures or a bunch of dwarves?

Not excited at all.

If Jackson was smart he'd have changed the 13 dwarves to hawt elf chicks instead.

Ah well.

GW seems to have a disliking of women

 aosol wrote:
I think the local GW sold 3, tops. The locals and I were shocked by the prices for some of the model cost. The only thing I actually could see being used in range for conversions are the goblins for Nurgle cultist.

I'd love to get a hold of goblin king and those goblins. But I have far too much paint and model and no more time...

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
No Hobbit players in our meta and on the "hobbit" day, the tables were filled with people playing 40k

The box sucks though. I love LotR and all about it, but seriously, a box where you can either play as mentally slowed ugly creatures or a bunch of dwarves?

Not excited at all.

If Jackson was smart he'd have changed the 13 dwarves to hawt elf chicks instead.

If only for the delicious tears of nerdrage

The problem is GW put in a bid for the model rights and the contract was theirs but warner brothers altered the contract before the movies were released and this tripled the contract cost.

Take with a grain of salt of course as I can't back it up but it all comes from my LGS.

Seems to be popular in my local GW- the starter boxes are rarely on the shelves and I've seen the staff sell quite a few. Half of the regular gamers were playing hobbit/Lotr at the last gaming night before christmas.

I did see an adult couple come in and buy the box literally minutes after leaving the cinema (as far as I could hear from their convo).

Thing is, even me seeing lots being sold is as irrelevant as you guys seeing it not selling; loads of people just order online from GW and we can't be in a store 100% of the time to see how the product does.

I worked for GW during the release of LoTR the first time round - nothing can compare to how mental it was during that time, the units were literally flying off the shelves as fast as they could be put out. It was pretty awesome to be honest even as it was exhausting. Whether it's just some added years and me being a bit more jaded I don't know, but there doesn't seem to be the same sense of hysteria surrounding the films this time round - of course I'm only going off the few times I have been in a GW, or walked past a shop since the game was released, but that is just the impression I've got. Of course the game might still be selling reasonably well - but I'd bet my granny's teeth (which she is quite fond of) that they aren't selling even half of what they did back in those days. Actually, it would be physically impossible with just one man in each store

* On a side note, something being 'limited edition' doesn't necessarily mean what it should mean. Unless there is a stamped, coded note in each and every Hobbit box with a certified number out of the total production run (I'm guessing there isn't) then 'limited edition' could quite easily mean this is limited to 100, 10,000, 20-billion, or however many they want to make. As such boxes sat on the shelf doesn't really mean that much. I've worked in Independents that sell die-cast vehicles, stuff sold by Corgi etc. and so know a fair bit about that kind of stuff and the laws surrounding its use.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

If Jackson was smart he'd have changed the 13 dwarves to hawt elf chicks instead.

He did kind of go there...

As far as I know, I am the only person in my area who bought the starter set, and it was only after I got home that I realized I had bought it out of reflex. It has been years since GW released anything that tripped my "Oooh, SHINY!" fixed action pattern.

The new, big, spiffy rulebook hasn't sold, though several lapsed LotR gamers have perused it. Apparently the new rules aren't all that stimulating.

The unit boxes have provoked peals of disbelieving laughter as soon as anyone sees their prices, and would be collecting dust if it were not for the fact that people hand them round saying, "Look, you're not going to believe this."

...And Christmas passed with all the shinies languishing on the shelves, and the influx of after-Christmas stocking-cash has mostly been going to 40K.

The only thing that The Hobbit has really done, is make us all nostalgic for WotR. We're going to have a big 4000 point battle next weekend.

Have to say all this Hobbit stuff made me rewatch the trilogy and I'm interested in digging out some of the old figures to paint. I've also noticed that a few I want are pretty cheap on eBay.

But I've no interest in paying current GW prices on their new stuff. They're just ridiculous. Much as I like the figures, the white council would have to be more than halved in price for me to even consider it.

They'll be prey to metal recasters. Because many people are not fans of either finecast, or paying £12-15 for 28mm figures.

I can tell you this much. The only reason that my local gaming story got in Hobbit was because GW was making them.

My FLGS has shifted 3 EfGT boxes, and a couple of Goblin Boxes, and one box of Hunter Wargs. Then again that's all they ordered, so...

 martin74 wrote:
No hobbit sales at my local store. Plenty of jokes made about it though. I did put up a post that if anyone at the local store was buying the starter box, I would go in 45 USD just for the scenery bits. Need that fr a Malifaux table.

Maybe this will help?

My local FLGS has sold less Hobbit stuff than Dreadball stuff, and they claim Mantic is DOA for them. I think they sold only one box of the Hobbit. That's gotta smart. Keep in mind this store is 10 minutes away from the LA Battle Bunker and offers a good discount, so most GW stuff sells well.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I imagine if GW understood their market a bit better they would have seen that Space Hulk sold on the back of nostalgia. Old gamers knew to expect a great game, and new comers were being told it was something special. It was always going to sell.

It's just so obvious why Space Hulk sold fast. But GW seemed to think they could pull off the same trick with something no one had seen before. That's a challenge before you consider that as games go, Dreadfleet just wasn't very good.

They should have done Warhammer Quest, it ticks all the boxes that Space Hulk did. Now they are probably convinced that one off releases don't work.

Space hulk sold out because it appealed to more than one audience. 1 a lot of 40k players bought it for the extremely nice models. 2. It already had good street cred. 3. People who like 40k were interested in it because it was the same genre. 4. The game was made out of high quality tile pieces. 5. Anyone who likes small skirmish games were drawn to it as well. I am sure there are a lot more reasons it sold so well. Dreedfleet and Warhammer quest I have not even heard of.

The hobbit - may or may not be selling good. I don't know. I know my area no body plays it or is even interested in it unless they are using the models for conversions or counts as. The Lord of the rings is what got me buying GW models in the first place back when it came out. No one I knew played that either. So after I dropped a couple hundred dollars buying lotr I stopped an bought thousands of dollars worth of 40k models and play the game.

Maybe it's designed to pull in lotr fans into the hobby like it did me.

 Bolognesus wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
No Hobbit players in our meta and on the "hobbit" day, the tables were filled with people playing 40k

The box sucks though. I love LotR and all about it, but seriously, a box where you can either play as mentally slowed ugly creatures or a bunch of dwarves?

Not excited at all.

If Jackson was smart he'd have changed the 13 dwarves to hawt elf chicks instead.

If only for the delicious tears of nerdrage

I love the movie!!

GW really missed the modelling boat. We've talked about this elsewhere, but there were so many opportunities- elf lord on giant elk, flashback dwarfs, radagast with his sled... the list goes on.

They went for very generic offerings, and many folks already went for those kinds of things during the LOTR movies. Impulse buys are reduced due to the high cost. So yeah, I LOVE the Hobbit, but it seems they're missing a lot of sales they could have had if they'd spiced up (and possibly reduced the cost at least ever so slightly!) of their offerings.

 Compel wrote:
The really scary thing?

It's still cheaper than the lego equivalent.

The lego version should be cheaper, since it offers less sfuff (only 8 "miniatures" vs the 56 the GW one offers.)

 RiTides wrote:

I love the movie!!

GW really missed the modelling boat. We've talked about this elsewhere, but there were so many opportunities- elf lord on giant elk, flashback dwarfs, radagast with his sled... the list goes on.

They went for very generic offerings, and many folks already went for those kinds of things during the LOTR movies. Impulse buys are reduced due to the high cost. So yeah, I LOVE the Hobbit, but it seems they're missing a lot of sales they could have had if they'd spiced up (and possibly reduced the cost at least ever so slightly!) of their offerings.

Sadly it just seems to be another example of how risk-averse GW is these days, and not only that but how they seem content to just keep flying in circles, retreading the same old ground time after time.

Always thought it was a shame that Dreadfleet didn't really take off - although it wasn't terribly well done, and felt to me like it had been 'murdered by committee' at the game design stage, at least it was an attempt to try something new and a shade of the kind of magic the company used to produce. And if the game did make very little money, the 'suits' who now control the output of the company will no doubt stymie any future releases of a similar ilk - which again I think is a terrible shame.

Agreed... I bought Dreadfleet, although ended up selling it.

Although I did just find out that apparently the "flashback dwarfs" may be coming soon... but it's just odd how few offerings they have out of the gate.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Almost no Hobbit sales in my local store, just 2 starter boxes, 1 rulebook and 3 Ork boxes.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Didn't Dreadfleet have to be destroyed because it failed to sell as well as GW hoped.

No - GW created the molds and stated that they were stopping production after a set number were made (and sold) though no one really knows what that number was or how fast it sold (I have seen it still on the shelves in three stores in the past month).

Actually blood reaper is correct: GW actively recalled and destroyed Dreadfleet boxes.

I've seen this a couple times and now I've got to ask. Do you have a picture (or can you find one) of the box cover? The local GW carrier in my area still has Dreadfleet boxes, so now I'm curious.

 RiTides wrote:

Although I did just find out that apparently the "flashback dwarfs" may be coming soon... but it's just odd how few offerings they have out of the gate.

I wouldn't be surprised if the film producers didn't have some say on what could and couldn't be in the initial release. Don't want to have too many spoilers before a decent number of people saw it.

 Compel wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

Although I did just find out that apparently the "flashback dwarfs" may be coming soon... but it's just odd how few offerings they have out of the gate.

I wouldn't be surprised if the film producers didn't have some say on what could and couldn't be in the initial release. Don't want to have too many spoilers before a decent number of people saw it.

Spoiler to that pointless flashback scene outside Moria used to shoehorn a villain into the story?

Howard A Treesong wrote:I imagine if GW understood their market a bit better they would have seen that Space Hulk sold on the back of nostalgia. Old gamers knew to expect a great game, and new comers were being told it was something special. It was always going to sell.

Space Hulk is something completely different. It served as the perfect entry to the hobby once, attracting loads of the gamers (because MB did the advertising and marketing). It could have done the same again as the best possible entry product sold in general toy stores. They could have sold three times as much boxes and gained thousands of new customers. But for some reason noone understands, they were happy with only producing stock enough for 2 days and then destroying the moulds for the much needed Tyranid Genestealers and Blood Angels terminators (both getting Codices right after the box but nothing as flashing as these models). By far the dumbest management decision GW has ever done, crippling GW revenue for years to come.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:If Jackson was smart he'd have changed the 13 dwarves to hawt elf chicks instead.

Rainbow Dash wrote:GW seems to have a disliking of women

Flashman wrote:He did kind of go there...

Well, in this case Tolkien is to blame for writing 1500 pages of Fantasy with almost no female character. PJ did everything to expand female presence beyond original texts, even inventing the Elven chick as seen above. Arwen, Galadriel and Eowyn also have a much larger and more active presence in the movie than in the book, because the audience is not acustomed anymore to the strictly passive role Tolkien intended for women.

We've only had one guy pick up a copy since it came out, and holy because he's a notorious impulse spender...not that I'm complaining ;-)

Zoned wrote:
The lego version should be cheaper, since it offers less sfuff (only 8 "miniatures" vs the 56 the GW one offers.)

Absolutely. Just like a Ferrari should be cheaper than a bunch of bananas.

I for one welcome the Elven chick. She can't detract from the story any more than that big albino orc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Zoned wrote:
The lego version should be cheaper, since it offers less sfuff (only 8 "miniatures" vs the 56 the GW one offers.)

Absolutely. Just like a Ferrari should be cheaper than a bunch of bananas.

Lego is Ferrari and GW is bananas?

 Kroothawk wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:I imagine if GW understood their market a bit better they would have seen that Space Hulk sold on the back of nostalgia. Old gamers knew to expect a great game, and new comers were being told it was something special. It was always going to sell.

Space Hulk is something completely different. It served as the perfect entry to the hobby once, attracting loads of the gamers (because MB did the advertising and marketing). It could have done the same again as the best possible entry product sold in general toy stores. They could have sold three times as much boxes and gained thousands of new customers.

Are you thinking more of Space Crusade than Space Hulk? Space Hulk was not handled by MB or sold in toy stores but it was 20 years ago and I don't recall.

 RiTides wrote:


GW really missed the modelling boat. We've talked about this elsewhere, but there were so many opportunities- elf lord on giant elk, flashback dwarfs, radagast with his sled... the list goes on.

They went for very generic offerings, and many folks already went for those kinds of things during the LOTR movies. Impulse buys are reduced due to the high cost. So yeah, I LOVE the Hobbit, but it seems they're missing a lot of sales they could have had if they'd spiced up (and possibly reduced the cost at least ever so slightly!) of their offerings.

It's not like GW have a year to release and sell other models from the film...

 Flashman wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

If Jackson was smart he'd have changed the 13 dwarves to hawt elf chicks instead.

He did kind of go there...

Anything that gets Evangeline Lilly into the movie is fine by me.

 Flashman wrote:

 Compel wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

Although I did just find out that apparently the "flashback dwarfs" may be coming soon... but it's just odd how few offerings they have out of the gate.

I wouldn't be surprised if the film producers didn't have some say on what could and couldn't be in the initial release. Don't want to have too many spoilers before a decent number of people saw it.

Spoiler to that pointless flashback scene outside Moria used to shoehorn a villain into the story?

Nah, the scene at the Lonely Mountain!

Lorizael- They do have a year, but like anything else, people are most willing to buy when something is "hot", which is when the movie is released and soon after. Apparently the flashback dwarfs are coming soon, though, so that's cool

 insaniak wrote:

Zoned wrote:
The lego version should be cheaper, since it offers less sfuff (only 8 "miniatures" vs the 56 the GW one offers.)

Absolutely. Just like a Ferrari should be cheaper than a bunch of bananas.

Right, because comparing lego miniatures to GW miniatures is as reasonable as comparing bananas to Ferraris.

I'd more assume comparing a Pinto to Ferrari, or maybe like a go cart to a ferrari?

 Kroothawk wrote:

Well, in this case Tolkien is to blame for writing 1500 pages of Fantasy with almost no female character. PJ did everything to expand female presence beyond original texts, even inventing the Elven chick as seen above. Arwen, Galadriel and Eowyn also have a much larger and more active presence in the movie than in the book, because the audience is not acustomed anymore to the strictly passive role Tolkien intended for women.

I don't think anyone can blame Tolkein for being a man of his time (he started his Middle Earth works during World War I) any more than we can blame Jackson for being a man of his.

In fact I kind of wish Jackson had gone a bit further in working in dark skinned good guys. It's hard not to be disquieted in LotR where heroic whites fight off hoards of dark skinned savages.

I guess Hobbit 'fixed' that by making the goblins even whiter than the heroes

There will be 3 films yes? Lots of time to build hype.

it won't help because the models are so expensive

Zoned wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Zoned wrote:
The lego version should be cheaper, since it offers less sfuff (only 8 "miniatures" vs the 56 the GW one offers.)

Absolutely. Just like a Ferrari should be cheaper than a bunch of bananas.

Right, because comparing lego miniatures to GW miniatures is as reasonable as comparing bananas to Ferraris.

Good lord, you're really buying into a certain other poster's utter tosh aren't you?

You really cannot compare the two to the same extent. The Lego kit has more than just the figures as it is a kit of hundreds of pieces that are integral to the kit. Everything you need is in this box. This is not true for the Hobbit box from GW as you need a whole host of peripheral items if you wish to use it as the manufacturer intends. I have no idea why people keep bringing up the Lego set as it has nothing to do with GW's release. Then again, if people want to clutch at straws for their desperate arguments I'll just go let them.

Don't forget the DzC scenery BTW!

What, he gets to make a pedantic remark about my post and I don't get to make one back?

Somebody else brought up the lego comparison, and I was simply showing how their price comparison was faulty when you examined the contents.

I wouldn't say it is a matter of one wanting to 'clutch at stars for their desperate arguments.'

It's more a case of, "Hey, 70 quid for Escape from Goblin Town is insane, but it could have been even more insane..."

In any case, I did end up getting the hobbit set but it was more on a whim, with me potentially painting up the models in between other projects. I have no real intention of actually playing the game any time soon...

Zoned wrote:
What, he gets to make a pedantic remark about my post and I don't get to make one back?

Somebody else brought up the lego comparison, and I was simply showing how their price comparison was faulty when you examined the contents.

I'm sorry, are you agreeing with Insaniak that it's a silly comparison or not? I'm getting one thing from one post and another from this.

Zoned wrote:
What, he gets to make a pedantic remark about my post and I don't get to make one back?

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

From my understanding pedantic means overly concerned with details, which I felt Insaniak's post was. I was trying to argue that the price of one thing was lower than another because there were less contents, to which Insaniak's sarcastic reply was "of course a singular ferrari should be cheaper than multiple bananas," a jab at my argument.

I'm sure the dakka community is smart enough to understand that in this context we were talking about comparable items, and didn't need it spelled out for them.

I also didn't really take any serious offense to Insaniaks post, this is the internet, after all, and you're always going to get people making smart aleck comments. I think we should get back on topic, personally, but I do feel compelled to defend my posts.

Stay on topic please

(yeah I can't believe I said that either)

Zoned wrote:
Right, because comparing lego miniatures to GW miniatures is as reasonable as comparing bananas to Ferraris.

Exactly.

There is no basis for comparison between lego and GW miniatures.

And, as others pointed out, the price is not just down to the number of 'miniatures' in the box.

With the higher cost of overall GW products, I think it is hurting their secondary ventures like Hobbit. Most people have a limit at some point.

That could be it, too... finally reaching an end to the elasticity of their current market.

And drawing in less "fresh blood" with a higher entry point for The Hobbit than they had with LOTR.

Insaniak, can you read Kid Kyoto's posts?

So anyway, I ordered the box from a US mail order discounter as a Christmas gift to my wife, since she loves all things Tolkien since LotR came out. With luck, it'll arrive soon.

Had to get the non-LE version, since they're saying that only GW has those boxes - which isn't the case here in Australia, but whatever when it's less than half the local price even after postage. I may or may not pick up some of the other stuff such as Hunters/Warg Hunters, as the US discounted price is comparable to the old LOTR - well, the Warg Riders are, the Hunters are about double the old AU RRP. Won't be springing $66 for those trolls though - unless I get very specific orders..

 scipio.au wrote:
Had to get the non-LE version, since they're saying that only GW has those boxes - which isn't the case here in Australia, but whatever when it's less than half the local price even after postage.

I'm sure you'll be able to find Radagast on ebay for less than $100au and still come out on top

GW made an error in judgement. To make this game successful, they needed to release much, much more than what they did. The problem is that they did two big releases - 6th Edition and The Hobbit - in the same year. By pushing 6th ed a few months back at least would have done a whole lot of good. They could have released the Grimhammer Dwarves, Rivendell Cavalry, more hero figures etc.

But equally, a lot of the responses are from players living in the States. I'd like to see how Ireland, France, Italy, Scandinavia and other European countries are receiving it.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
yes, oh how did it
but I gave it a chance before they got rid of it, and I liked it

I imagine GW may regret the Hobbit, like the Lord of the Rings in general.

Well . . . no. LOTR was a massive success for the company. A lot of the company's revenue in the early 2000s probably came from LOTR players or people who played LOTR and then moved on to Fantasy or 40k (like me). I've heard stories of the games outselling 40k and WFB in some areas . . . combined! Anyway, at GW HQ I bet there are loads of Tolkien fans who would have loved to do this much earlier.

One issue with the Hobbit though is that it's less army based and more individual based - it would suit an RPG a lot more than a wargame. A company of 13 dwarves in a dungeon with a boss creature? Sounds very much like a good setting for an RPG (though 13 PCs is a bit much). Also, the hype for the movie is a lot less than the hype for LOTR.

lotr was always like that, they tried to make a bigger lotr game but that flopped, hard
I never played it, because I couldn't (hobbits aren't a core army, i had about 100 pts at most, and had no interest in any of the other core armies)
lotr was cheap, easy to learn and easy to get into, now its just as expensive and hard to start as the others, killing its real appeal, to me anyways

 Grimtuff wrote:

You really cannot compare the two to the same extent. The Lego kit has more than just the figures as it is a kit of hundreds of pieces that are integral to the kit. Everything you need is in this box. This is not true for the Hobbit box from GW as you need a whole host of peripheral items if you wish to use it as the manufacturer intends. I have no idea why people keep bringing up the Lego set as it has nothing to do with GW's release. Then again, if people want to clutch at straws for their desperate arguments I'll just go let them.

It's true though, that particularly licensed Lego kits are very expensive for the contents. Position of the Lego is in fact quite similar to GW: biggest & most expensive brand in their respective industry and licensed stuff (Star Wars etc) is even more expensive. I mean, small Orc building with 4 Lego figures costs 65 euros! Good thing I don't have kids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroothawk wrote:

Well, in this case Tolkien is to blame for writing 1500 pages of Fantasy with almost no female character. PJ did everything to expand female presence beyond original texts, even inventing the Elven chick as seen above. Arwen, Galadriel and Eowyn also have a much larger and more active presence in the movie than in the book, because the audience is not acustomed anymore to the strictly passive role Tolkien intended for women.

Hollywood obsession of adding run-of-the-mill action chick heroes to their stories has become so cookie-cutter that Tolkien's approach is actually very refreshing.

Tolkien did have active female characters (Luthien, most notably), they just weren't very much present in LotR, other than Eowyn. Galadriel was Middle-Earth's most powerful non-deity being, though in book itself her role was minor.

I'm mildly interested in getting the hobbit set. I like the look of the dwarfs, I like a lot of the GW LOTR models, they were some of the best plastics around at the time they came out and I prefer the realistic scale more than the hero scale GW mostly put out.

My problem with the Hobbit set is that Goblin town doesn't interest me. It doesn't seem bad value (by GW standards) if you actually want Goblin town, but I don't.

To people saying it's bad value, well, it is, like all GW things, but it's not worse value than any other GW stuff as far as I can see. The Hobbit is $125 for 56 models, including 1 large model (Goblin King), a reasonably large diorama and Gandalf and the dwarfs (and we know GW love to charge slightly more for well sculpted character models compared to rank and file models). Seems about on par with regular GW value (or lack there of). I remember Mines of Moria seemed good value back in the day compared to other GW models of the time, The Hobbit seems like the same value as all the other GW junk.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
GW made an error in judgement. To make this game successful, they needed to release much, much more than what they did. The problem is that they did two big releases - 6th Edition and The Hobbit - in the same year. By pushing 6th ed a few months back at least would have done a whole lot of good. They could have released the Grimhammer Dwarves, Rivendell Cavalry, more hero figures etc.

Wowowowowowowowowow! Slow down here, boy!

Pushing a, very much needed, new edition of their #1 game back for the release of a niche system sounds like a really stupid idea to me here.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
lotr was always like that, they tried to make a bigger lotr game but that flopped, hard

I think you missed the point of my . . . point?

The Lord of the Rings features massive armies, huge sweeping narratives and outcomes that change the world. The Hobbit, on the other hand, is on a much smaller scale. The book's great, but it doesn't have the kind of impact that LOTR has. There's only one major battle in it (The Battle of Five Armies) whilst in LOTR there are several. This makes the Hobbit an ideal candidate for an RPG (a rather large one, but an RPG) and LOTR a candidate for a wargame. Even in the movies this is apparent. In the Fellowship, you had Moria and Amon Hen. In the hobbit, you only have the Goblin King attack, which I think would be suitable for a game of D&D should a group play 2 or 3 characters each.

I never played it, because I couldn't (hobbits aren't a core army, i had about 100 pts at most, and had no interest in any of the other core armies)

Fair enough.

lotr was cheap, easy to learn and easy to get into, now its just as expensive and hard to start as the others, killing its real appeal, to me anyways

It's still easy to get into and relatively cheap.

Buy Escape from Goblin Town, the BRB, a box of warriors plus the finecast Captain and you actually have about 400 points of Goblins. For 155 pounds, that's not actually that bad. Plus you have more than 1000 points of Dwarven Heroes who can do fun stuff. The equivalent 40k size of the game would be something like 1300 points. The list isn't exactly competitive and it lacks a good killy thing, but even so, you can get a good amount of play out of it before upgrading because the game is very tactical - apart from Rohan, all the armies are quite balanced.

Now suppose I wanted to start Space Marines with DV. If I bought the set, plus a battleforce, plus the codex, it would cost me 166.50 pounds for a 1300 point army using every Dark Angel/Space Marine model. That's quite a lot of cash. This list is probably totally uncompetitive.

For 11.50 pounds more, what exactly do you get? Chaos Space Marines. With the Goblin Town purchase list, you get all the profiles for all the new models that are coming out in the BRB, the small scale rulebook and 15 good guy models - you get another army that is 1.3333x the size of a big game!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
GW made an error in judgement. To make this game successful, they needed to release much, much more than what they did. The problem is that they did two big releases - 6th Edition and The Hobbit - in the same year. By pushing 6th ed a few months back at least would have done a whole lot of good. They could have released the Grimhammer Dwarves, Rivendell Cavalry, more hero figures etc.

Wowowowowowowowowow! Slow down here, boy!

Pushing a, very much needed, new edition of their #1 game back for the release of a niche system sounds like a really stupid idea to me here.

It is a stupid idea. But if the company wanted The Hobbit to sell well and maybe it not make it as niche-y as it could have been, I listed some of the steps that the company could have taken.

Anyway, I read somewhere (don't quote me for this) that the 6th Edition had been ready for 6 months. What were the company doing for those months?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Pushing a, very much needed, new edition of their #1 game back for the release of a niche system sounds like a really stupid idea to me here.

It's not a niche system, they're just turning it that way through pricing and support. It's one of their main three and which according to several people was flying off the shelves when first released. It was a big seller. A mass, reasonably priced release just before christmas could have done a lot better than letting overpriced stuff dribble out over time. A Hobbit game should appeal to the wider public more than Warhammer however needed it is. After all, Warhammer can be released any time, the Hobbit has a release window attached to the popularity of the films. But GW don't seem to have huge enthusiasm for the Hobbit, not like when LotR came out anyway. Maybe they just don't think the franchise will be widely popular this time so are making a smaller amount of very highly priced stuff.

 scipio.au wrote:
Had to get the non-LE version, since they're saying that only GW has those boxes - which isn't the case here in Australia, but whatever when it's less than half the local price even after postage.

Guess, you are the first person on earth to have a non-limited Hobbit-box then. Or the store sold hoping that there will be a non-limited box within a few months.

Compared to the number of people in the Bluewater GW the last couple of years when I have walked past it at this kind of time of the year, it was almost completely empty when I walked past a couple of days ago (interestingly enough after just coming out of the cinema following seeing the Hobbit ).

I remember going in there 2 years ago and literally having to squeeze round people stood shoulder to shoulder. There could only have been about 4-5 kids in there (children less than 15) when I went past this year.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Almost no Hobbit sales in my local store, just 2 starter boxes, 1 rulebook and 3 Ork boxes.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Didn't Dreadfleet have to be destroyed because it failed to sell as well as GW hoped.

No - GW created the molds and stated that they were stopping production after a set number were made (and sold) though no one really knows what that number was or how fast it sold (I have seen it still on the shelves in three stores in the past month).

Actually blood reaper is correct: GW actively recalled and destroyed Dreadfleet boxes.

Seriously? In an attempt to keep the price up or protect the image by avoiding people selling them off or having them discolor in windows?

 Compel wrote:
The really scary thing?

It's still cheaper than the lego equivalent.

I'd much rather have the lego; there's more to it (nearly 1000 pieces?), it'd amuse me for longer, and won't become obsolete in a few years But then I like building up lego.

Part of GW's premium brand image these days is not to do sales on almost anything. They'd rather destroy old stock than allow it to be discounted.

When Battle for Macragge was replaced I've read that they destroyed a lot of remaining stock. Compare to years previously when GW replaced 2nd ed 40K and 5th ed Fantasy, where they simply discounted remaining game sets and army books to get rid of them. They also used to do new year's sales and the like to shift old stock, I remember bins full of Chaos Dwarves and Sisters of Battle (slightly ironic considering how costly they are to collect now).

Herzlos wrote:

Seriously? In an attempt to keep the price up or protect the image by avoiding people selling them off or having them discolor in windows?

I can't find the thread discussing it but it was reported a while ago - an email went out to retailers asking them to send unsold copies back to GW head office IIRC. Reasons they did it:

1) GW have repeatedly stated that they don't do sales or discounts as it 'devalues the perceived worth of the brand'. Or something.

2) As you say, having a 'Limited Edition' sitting on shelves for ever and ever is not a good thing.

3) They can write off the unsold copies as a tax deduction and so recoup a small amount of money; more so than they would get for taking up valuable shelf space.

I don't know how they destroyed them - whether it was an ET video game style burial or Phil Kelly dancing naked round a bonfire.

 filbert wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

Seriously? In an attempt to keep the price up or protect the image by avoiding people selling them off or having them discolor in windows?

I can't find the thread discussing it but it was reported a while ago - an email went out to retailers asking them to send unsold copies back to GW head office IIRC. Reasons they did it:

1) GW have repeatedly stated that they don't do sales or discounts as it 'devalues the perceived worth of the brand'. Or something.

GW does not, obviously, want to teach the playerbase to "I'll buy it when it's in discount bin"...

Backfire wrote:


GW does not, obviously, want to teach the playerbase to "I'll buy it when it's in discount bin"...

Meh - it works for other companies and in other sectors. Sales are not in and of themselves a bad thing; you can use them to clear old stock, to generate sales and revenue during a lean spell etc etc - 'sale' is not a dirty word.

 filbert wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

Seriously? In an attempt to keep the price up or protect the image by avoiding people selling them off or having them discolor in windows?

I can't find the thread discussing it but it was reported a while ago - an email went out to retailers asking them to send unsold copies back to GW head office IIRC. Reasons they did it:

1) GW have repeatedly stated that they don't do sales or discounts as it 'devalues the perceived worth of the brand'. Or something.

2) As you say, having a 'Limited Edition' sitting on shelves for ever and ever is not a good thing.

3) They can write off the unsold copies as a tax deduction and so recoup a small amount of money; more so than they would get for taking up valuable shelf space.

I don't know how they destroyed them - whether it was an ET video game style burial or Phil Kelly dancing naked round a bonfire.

So GW are modelling themselves after Louis Vuitton now. Who burn all their unsold handbags at the end of the year. I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere.

 filbert wrote:
I don't know how they destroyed them - whether it was an ET video game style burial or Phil Kelly dancing naked round a bonfire.

Also, with all this talk of the lego set, I finally clicked on one of the links people posted and checked it out. It's actually not bad but I agree that it's not at all comparable to GW's box. They're just completely different products, albiet based off the same source material.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

One issue with the Hobbit though is that it's less army based and more individual based - it would suit an RPG a lot more than a wargame. A company of 13 dwarves in a dungeon with a boss creature? Sounds very much like a good setting for an RPG (though 13 PCs is a bit much). Also, the hype for the movie is a lot less than the hype for LOTR.

Funny you should say that, after watching the film a friend of mine decided to run a 13PC AD&D game based around the Hobbit in a single 24 hour session. I have dibs on Kili

Sorry for offtopicness!

Also, I just watched part of the extended Fellowship of the Ring last night, after being inspired by The Hobbit...

Makes one appreciate how GOOD the Hobbit is . Avoided some of the cliche scenes that LOTR was getting heavy on, almost becoming a parody of itself.

That said, only having the extended version to watch probably didn't help matters . Some of the added scenes are fantastic, but it makes the whole thing incredibly long...

 RiTides wrote:
Agreed... I bought Dreadfleet, although ended up selling it.

Although I did just find out that apparently the "flashback dwarfs" may be coming soon... but it's just odd how few offerings they have out of the gate.

It's not that odd when you think about it. With "Fellowship of the Ring", the first batch of releases was stuff which would not really spoil anything for people who have not seen the movie/read the book.

As time wore on they released a lot more. The Elf Lord, Radagast on sled, etc might be coming within the next few months.

Critical mass is very important in table top wargames, like in any industry. 40K continues to sell well, even though alot of people do not like it, because it is easy to find a game. LOTR does not have critical mass. It does not seem that GW is drawing lots of new blood into the Hobbit, despite the success of the film. This makes GWs statements about new players being their main customers look like a lot of hot air.

Just how big was the Lord of the Rings game? I seem to remember playing around the Two Towers time, and it was still the third-tier game at my gaming club back then.

No one in my group of gamers is interested in a Hobbit or Lord of the Rings miniatures game. I bought some of the smaller orks several years ago from the original Lord of the Rings set to make excellent goblins for D&D, though.

 spaceelf wrote:
Critical mass is very important in table top wargames, like in any industry. 40K continues to sell well, even though alot of people do not like it, because it is easy to find a game. LOTR does not have critical mass. It does not seem that GW is drawing lots of new blood into the Hobbit, despite the success of the film. This makes GWs statements about new players being their main customers look like a lot of hot air.

It depends where you live. World wide 40k is obviously a behemoth. My 2 local gaming clubs, though, LOTR is more popular than 40k and about equal popularity as Fantasy. 40k is big if you go to the GW stores themselves and see what people are doing, but at the clubs, it's mostly LOTR and Fantasy and then a bunch of other non-GW games.

The game itself is an uninteresting concept compared to the LOTR game. There you could play human armies against orcs and other monstrosities of Sauron. Here it's dwarves against ugly looking dumb monsters.

GW doesn't help this by having it obscenely expensive or refusing to market it properly.

 filbert wrote:

Backfire wrote:


GW does not, obviously, want to teach the playerbase to "I'll buy it when it's in discount bin"...

Meh - it works for other companies and in other sectors. Sales are not in and of themselves a bad thing; you can use them to clear old stock, to generate sales and revenue during a lean spell etc etc - 'sale' is not a dirty word.

Actually, how most other industries do it (DVD, clothes etc) is that first wave of customers are ripped off with perceived 'advantage' of early purchase, then latecomers get reasonable deals.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
No Hobbit players in our meta and on the "hobbit" day, the tables were filled with people playing 40k

The box sucks though. I love LotR and all about it, but seriously, a box where you can either play as mentally slowed ugly creatures or a bunch of dwarves?

Not excited at all.

If Jackson was smart he'd have changed the 13 dwarves to hawt elf chicks instead.

Ah well.

pointy ears are sexy.

That is all.

Backfire wrote:


Actually, how most other industries do it (DVD, clothes etc) is that first wave of customers are ripped off with perceived 'advantage' of early purchase, then latecomers get reasonable deals.

As opposed to being continually ripped off with GW prices then?

 filbert wrote:

Backfire wrote:


Actually, how most other industries do it (DVD, clothes etc) is that first wave of customers are ripped off with perceived 'advantage' of early purchase, then latecomers get reasonable deals.

As opposed to being continually ripped off with GW prices then?

Yes. Everybody gets to pay the same price, it's much fairer towards the customers.

Backfire wrote:

 filbert wrote:

Backfire wrote:


Actually, how most other industries do it (DVD, clothes etc) is that first wave of customers are ripped off with perceived 'advantage' of early purchase, then latecomers get reasonable deals.

As opposed to being continually ripped off with GW prices then?

Yes. Everybody gets to pay the same price, it's much fairer towards the customers.

Uhm...people know that stuff gets cheaper after a while that's been released. How is it "unfair" if you decided to buy it asap?

 Sigvatr wrote:

Uhm...people know that stuff gets cheaper after a while that's been released. How is it "unfair" if you decided to buy it asap?

Seller is taking advantage of your urgency to get the product.

Backfire wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Uhm...people know that stuff gets cheaper after a while that's been released. How is it "unfair" if you decided to buy it asap?

Seller is taking advantage of your urgency to get the product.

Blaming the seller is a very wrong train of thought. Every proper country is based on capitalism. In a capitalist environment, it's the buyer who decides on the market and thus the buyer is to blame for buying a product. Claiming that the seller is "taking advantage" of someone's urgency of a product is a wrong statement as he does nothing but making an offer. He does not force people to buy the new product. Furthermore, the buyer is even aware of the fact that he can get the same product for a lower price if he waits for a certain period of time.

Blaming the buyer is irrational.

 Harriticus wrote:
The game itself is an uninteresting concept compared to the LOTR game. There you could play human armies against orcs and other monstrosities of Sauron. Here it's dwarves against ugly looking dumb monsters.GW doesn't help this by having it obscenely expensive or refusing to market it properly.

Really?

I'm pretty confident that the new rules allow use of all the forces from the LOTR game. At least my copy does.

Yup, it does.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Uhm...people know that stuff gets cheaper after a while that's been released. How is it "unfair" if you decided to buy it asap?

Seller is taking advantage of your urgency to get the product.

Blaming the seller is a very wrong train of thought. Every proper country is based on capitalism. In a capitalist environment, it's the buyer who decides on the market and thus the buyer is to blame for buying a product. Claiming that the seller is "taking advantage" of someone's urgency of a product is a wrong statement as he does nothing but making an offer. He does not force people to buy the new product.

Which still does not change the fact that seller is price gouging, just as bad (IMHO, much worse) than GW with their "constantly high prices" model.

Backfire wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Uhm...people know that stuff gets cheaper after a while that's been released. How is it "unfair" if you decided to buy it asap?

Seller is taking advantage of your urgency to get the product.

Blaming the seller is a very wrong train of thought. Every proper country is based on capitalism. In a capitalist environment, it's the buyer who decides on the market and thus the buyer is to blame for buying a product. Claiming that the seller is "taking advantage" of someone's urgency of a product is a wrong statement as he does nothing but making an offer. He does not force people to buy the new product.

Which still does not change the fact that seller is price gouging, just as bad (IMHO, much worse) than GW with their "constantly high prices" model.

It's what the customers want...I fail to see how you can blame the company?

I personally like it more than I thought I wood, although the prices have driven me away with this, some of the prices are outrageous! But that's just me.

As for the film I saw it the day it came out and absolutely adored it :'D

Backfire wrote:
Which still does not change the fact that seller is price gouging, just as bad (IMHO, much worse) than GW with their "constantly high prices" model.

Supply and demand. At release, there's many customers who demand DVDs/Vide games, so prices are high. 6 months later, the rate of sales is a fraction of what it was at launch, so the price falls to increase the appeal of the product.

If they released it for a lower price to start with, they wouldn't cover development costs for many video games. If they kept it at a high price long after release, they wouldn't get the trickle of sales that comes later.

What's far more annoying is price differences between countries.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Which still does not change the fact that seller is price gouging, just as bad (IMHO, much worse) than GW with their "constantly high prices" model.

Supply and demand. At release, there's many customers who demand DVDs/Vide games, so prices are high. 6 months later, the rate of sales is a fraction of what it was at launch, so the price falls to increase the appeal of the product.

If they released it for a lower price to start with, they wouldn't cover development costs for many video games. If they kept it at a high price long after release, they wouldn't get the trickle of sales that comes later.

What's far more annoying is price differences between countries.

The latter case is where your example loses value though as you can buy video games from everywhere at the price you want. I, e.g. buy my computer games with my US steam account and thus save a whole lot of money. Can't do that with miniatures (or only to a lesser extent)

Of the places that decided to carry it near me, some are already heavily 30%+ discounting the limited boxes to dump them.

This is a first and would suggest at least in some regions, the release was a total fail.

Californiagamer wrote:
Of the places that decided to carry it near me, some are already heavily 30%+ discounting the limited boxes to dump them.

This is a first and would suggest at least in some regions, the release was a total fail.

Where is that? After the film I'm actually tempted by the box set (if I can get it at about 20+% off)

Herzlos wrote:

Californiagamer wrote:
Of the places that decided to carry it near me, some are already heavily 30%+ discounting the limited boxes to dump them.

This is a first and would suggest at least in some regions, the release was a total fail.

Where is that? After the film I'm actually tempted by the box set (if I can get it at about 20+% off)

Im sure these will turn up on ebay soon at 50% off (60 US for the limited box).

The ones I saw are at small indy retailers in California, so I dont expect they will be of much use to you in Scotland..

Thanks

In saying that, I've found it at 15% off (£63) online and I'm not convinced enough to hit 'Buy'

 Sigvatr wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Which still does not change the fact that seller is price gouging, just as bad (IMHO, much worse) than GW with their "constantly high prices" model.

Supply and demand. At release, there's many customers who demand DVDs/Vide games, so prices are high. 6 months later, the rate of sales is a fraction of what it was at launch, so the price falls to increase the appeal of the product.

If they released it for a lower price to start with, they wouldn't cover development costs for many video games. If they kept it at a high price long after release, they wouldn't get the trickle of sales that comes later.

What's far more annoying is price differences between countries.

The latter case is where your example loses value though as you can buy video games from everywhere at the price you want. I, e.g. buy my computer games with my US steam account and thus save a whole lot of money. Can't do that with miniatures (or only to a lesser extent)

Steam uses a geo IP, you need a VPN or something to get US pricing in Steam, it reads your current location, not where your account was created, I have an Australian Steam account but am living in the US for a year so get US prices despite using an Australian CC and Australian address on an account created in Australia (same with Origin). Either way, it's a pain in the arse to get US pricing if you aren't in the US. Whether it be miniatures or video games, you can import them or order them from international websites, but it's a pain in the arse either way and annoying either way.

It's not as hard as you make it out to be - VPN tools are easy to use and get nowadays

...and given the amount of $ you save, it's well worth the price. A new AAA pc game costs 60€ in Germany and 60$ in the US, thus over at steam, I pay roughly 45€...that's 25% less.

I also use Hulu / Netflix

Look, I'm from Canada!

VPNs are easy.

I think my FLGS sold one set.

It doesn't seem to have a ton of interest and the price is...steep.

It mostly is the price and I still think that the units in it play an important role too. Back when I was 13 / 14, I did not care about those stupid Moria goblins or sth. The real stuff was the Fellowship and the Uruk-Hai, those intense battles at Helm's Deep etc. THAT was the stuff I cared about and I highly doubt youngsters think different now.

Mines of Moria starter set was about the iconic moments - the fellowship lost in the mines, swarmed by goblins. The epic fight at Durin's grave. The huge troll appearing!

EfGT is...lackluster. So what, a bunch of dwarves running from a bunch of goblins most of the time. The company never even seemed in danger in the movie. And the goblin king was justa joke. Remember the really menacing, brutal troll in LotR? The Goblin King is a pathetic weakling compared to him. An epic battle? Far from it.

I think that perhaps the problem is that, as some have noted, the film just didn't have any scenes featuring the main cast which suited conversion into a wargame. One, they run away from (Goblins); another they hide in trees from (Azog and wargs, etc); third they also run away from (wargs); fourth they fight with a bit, argue with a bit (Trolls).

The only scene that really looked like a wargame candidate is a flashback.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It mostly is the price and I still think that the units in it play an important role too. Back when I was 13 / 14, I did not care about those stupid Moria goblins or sth. The real stuff was the Fellowship and the Uruk-Hai, those intense battles at Helm's Deep etc. THAT was the stuff I cared about and I highly doubt youngsters think different now.

Mines of Moria starter set was about the iconic moments - the fellowship lost in the mines, swarmed by goblins. The epic fight at Durin's grave. The huge troll appearing!

EfGT is...lackluster. So what, a bunch of dwarves running from a bunch of goblins most of the time. The company never even seemed in danger in the movie. And the goblin king was justa joke. Remember the really menacing, brutal troll in LotR? The Goblin King is a pathetic weakling compared to him. An epic battle? Far from it.

What else was there to do? It was important to have the whole company in plastic in the box to start off. They COULD have put Warg riders in the box instead of Goblins but that would mean fewer models and a less justifiable price.

The two sets my LGS ordered are gone 2 weeks into stocking them. The rulebook also has gone.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's not as hard as you make it out to be - VPN tools are easy to use and get nowadays

...and given the amount of $ you save, it's well worth the price. A new AAA pc game costs 60€ in Germany and 60$ in the US, thus over at steam, I pay roughly 45€...that's 25% less.

I also use Hulu / Netflix

I don't think I said it was hard, I said it was annoying and a pain in the arse Miniatures are also annoying and a pain in the arse to get, not hard, the last $200 worth of miniatures I bought internationally and had shipped at almost half the price of getting them in Australia. You can set up a VPN to get international pricing on games, but it's an annoyance and if you want something like a collectors edition it's much more annoying since the goodies aren't digital (of the half dozen games I bought last year, 3 of them I either bought physical copies or would have liked physical copies for the sake of collectors edition goodies).

I am passing on the new releases as the sculpts are bad and way overpriced. I am waiting eagerly however for the new dwarven armies that should be coming soon. The dwarves in the flashback scenes were awesome and it held all of the action any wargame should have!

GW's dwarven sculpts for LOTR were terrible with very little character. Now from what we've seen in the movie, we'll have some excellent badass units. Did anyone notice that some of the dwarves looked very Warhammerish with their mohawks and beards?

Maxstreel wrote:
I am passing on the new releases as the sculpts are bad and way overpriced. I am waiting eagerly however for the new dwarven armies that should be coming soon. The dwarves in the flashback scenes were awesome and it held all of the action any wargame should have!

If you're talking about finecast, I agree, however the plastics are mostly pretty high quality (except for the aforementioned cartoonishness which I don't really like).

GW's dwarven sculpts for LOTR were terrible with very little character. Now from what we've seen in the movie, we'll have some excellent badass units. Did anyone notice that some of the dwarves looked very Warhammerish with their mohawks and beards?

I actually really like the existing LOTR dwarf sculpts. They are simple, well proportioned and well posed. The only thing lacking is they don't have any nice looking heavily armoured models. That said, I'm not a huge fan of the Warhammer dwarf miniatures.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

Well, in this case Tolkien is to blame for writing 1500 pages of Fantasy with almost no female character. PJ did everything to expand female presence beyond original texts, even inventing the Elven chick as seen above. Arwen, Galadriel and Eowyn also have a much larger and more active presence in the movie than in the book, because the audience is not acustomed anymore to the strictly passive role Tolkien intended for women.

I don't think anyone can blame Tolkein for being a man of his time (he started his Middle Earth works during World War I) any more than we can blame Jackson for being a man of his.

In fact I kind of wish Jackson had gone a bit further in working in dark skinned good guys. It's hard not to be disquieted in LotR where heroic whites fight off hoards of dark skinned savages.

I guess Hobbit 'fixed' that by making the goblins even whiter than the heroes

Rather off-topic, but Tolkein loathed racism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkein#Politics_and_race

'Tolkien expressed disgust at what he acknowledged as racism and once wrote of racial segregation in South Africa, "The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain."'

I only realised The Lord of the Rings had "racist overtones" when I read as much on the internet. Guess I missed that in the dozen-or-so readings. However he quite blatently despised the urban working class, which none of the liberal "intellectuals" whinging about his racism seem to care about.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
And of course the new special prices on the Hobbit game can't help much.

Supposedly New Line tripled the licensing fees.

I have like $800 worth of LotR, and I would have gone in on The Hobbit, but the prices were just too much for me.

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com

 chris_valera wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
And of course the new special prices on the Hobbit game can't help much.

Supposedly New Line tripled the licensing fees.

If that were the case, it might have been wiser to simply let the license go. They have to have made their money back on what they've spent building the range up by now, with the LOTR bubbles.

 -Loki- wrote:

 chris_valera wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
And of course the new special prices on the Hobbit game can't help much.

Supposedly New Line tripled the licensing fees.

If that were the case, it might have been wiser to simply let the license go. They have to have made their money back on what they've spent building the range up by now, with the LOTR bubbles.

I don't know, Lego got in on it, and if they *had* let the license go, another company (PP?) might have snapped it up. Also, your existing figures are compatible, providing impetus for existing LotR players to check out The Hobbit.

Ultimately I think it'll be seen like the Sega CD and the 32X; an attempt to lengthen the lifespan of the original brand no one really wanted.

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com

 chris_valera wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
And of course the new special prices on the Hobbit game can't help much.

Supposedly New Line tripled the licensing fees.

Interesting if thats true. Although I see that GW decided to pass that cost onto the customer.

Hobbits sort of died a death at the local club. Theres a few of us with LotR forces and tickling interest, but only one person actually bought a copy of the hobbit box.

Even the GW manic who buys a copy of everything direct from GW went "£50 rulebook? Thanks, but no thanks" which was a first.

I don't think the 'rules have stayed the same' criticism is really a valid one, and if anything is to be expected of any GW game these days. People have been playing practically the same game of 40k for almost 15 years, with only minor variations in the rules, and have continued to snap up and play the latest edition.

Anyway if the Hobbit does tank in terms of sales (although, we can't know for sure) - how about Epic or Necromunda/Mordheim back and using the shelf space?

 Flashman wrote:

 Compel wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

Although I did just find out that apparently the "flashback dwarfs" may be coming soon... but it's just odd how few offerings they have out of the gate.

I wouldn't be surprised if the film producers didn't have some say on what could and couldn't be in the initial release. Don't want to have too many spoilers before a decent number of people saw it.

Spoiler to that pointless flashback scene outside Moria used to shoehorn a villain into the story?

I suggest you re-read the book. Azog is in it, mentioned by Gandalf as the goblin who killed Thorin's father in Moria. However they did change the story. In the book Azog was killed by Dain in Moria and Azog's son, Bolg, leads the goblins at the Battle of the Five Armies.

I guess they changed it to avoid having to introduce too many characters and it also gives Thorin a more personal enemy to face during the Battle of the Five Armies.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


I suggest you re-read the book. Azog is in it, mentioned by Gandalf as the goblin who killed Thorin's father in Moria. However they did change the story. In the book Azog was killed by Dain in Moria and Azog's son, Bolg, leads the goblins at the Battle of the Five Armies.

I guess they changed it to avoid having to introduce too many characters and it also gives Thorin a more personal enemy to face during the Battle of the Five Armies.

I think it is easier to have 'the white orc' opposed to 'the bearded orc, son of the white orc, and we don't really explain much about the son'. To most Movie go-ers, all the goblinoid guys look the same and no one even payed attention to what they were named. I was totally fine with the changes they made in regards to Azog simply because it did make sense and did improve the movie for non-book aware viewers. The only thing worse in a Book movie than changing details is shoe-horning in characters who only work because they are developed by off-scene book aspects.

Independents also get a smaller discount on Hobbit products because of the license fee changes, so one reason its probably not selling as much is because of the lack of deep discounting by the big etailers

One of my FLGS's has the Hobbit box set reduced to £60 from £75 (and 2 copies of Mines of Moria for £50), so they're presumably struggling to shift it. They do seem to be stocking less GW in general though and a lot more of the newer companies so it's maybe a bigger trend in that shop than the Hobbit. If it's still there when I get paid I might have to get it for the Dwarfs and scenery. Radagast must be worth a couple of bucks on eBay too.

FLGS here didn't even order Hobbit stuff after seeing the prices combined with the actual value of what was being offered. Owner thought ahead.

 chris_valera wrote:
Ultimately I think it'll be seen like the Sega CD and the 32X; an attempt to lengthen the lifespan of the original brand no one really wanted.

Well, it's the first set of releases for the first movie in a series of 3 movies. We'll see what it turns in to.

Personally I love the LOTR models that GW has developed thus far and I love the LOTR background in general. I'd be more than happy to see them use The Hobbit as an opportunity to flesh out the models and rules in to a proper large scale game. It seemed like that's where they were going for a while, but they kind of just stopped with it.

 spaceelf wrote:
Critical mass is very important in table top wargames, like in any industry. 40K continues to sell well, even though alot of people do not like it, because it is easy to find a game. LOTR does not have critical mass. It does not seem that GW is drawing lots of new blood into the Hobbit, despite the success of the film. This makes GWs statements about new players being their main customers look like a lot of hot air.

Can you point to someplace where GW made a statement about new players being the main customers? I've looked and have only seen people claiming that GW said that, but have never actually seen a statement from GW on the subject. Considering how closed mouth they are about everything I highly doubt they would have made such a stupid statement. That said, I have seen literally hundreds of posts from various interwebz peeplz claiming GW said that. Which brings to mind a quote about how a lie repeated often enough may as well be the truth.. I'm not saying you specifically are lying; just that maybe you should check your sources more.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

Interesting if thats true. Although I see that GW decided to pass that cost onto the customer.

[rant]
Where else do you think GW would "pass the cost" to? Coca-Cola or that little old lady down the street? Maybe to the everyone in your country through government subsidies?

Every private business exists to make money. If the cost to produce something is X then it follows that the company will charge X+P for it, where P is profit. If X increases then of course the total price will increase. There is absolutely no reason, barring a business getting ready to fold due to price pressure, to do anything but increase their prices when costs do.

[/rant]

clively wrote:

Where else do you think GW would "pass the cost" to? Coca-Cola or that little old lady down the street? Maybe to the everyone in your country through government subsidies?

Every private business exists to make money. If the cost to produce something is X then it follows that the company will charge X+P for it, where P is profit. If X increases then of course the total price will increase. There is absolutely no reason, barring a business getting ready to fold due to price pressure, to do anything but increase their prices when costs do.

I think the problem is a lot of us are looking at GW and seeing a business heading in that exact direction.
Besides, I agree there is no reason to reduce prices but they make something like +25% profit on each kit (that's the reason you can find so much stuff for 25% off, that's how much they sell it to 3rd party guys for and they still make a profit on that) and they are losing sales across the board from everything we hear (as you pointed out hearing something doesn't make it true but I have seen sales figures for australia, they are defiantly losing sales here). They could at least stop RAISING prices.

 jonolikespie wrote:
(as you pointed out hearing something doesn't make it true but I have seen sales figures for australia, they are defiantly losing sales here). They could at least stop RAISING prices.

The Australian situation is just terrible. When I started in the hobby around 16 years ago the GW stores were a hive of activity. From memory there were 3 stores in Melbourne and I'd go to 2 of them regularly for games and just to hang out because they were on the same trainline. You could go there any time of day and there'd be people playing games on the tables. Thursday and Friday were insanity, so many people in the stores you could barely move or breathe. We used to have battlecries to decide who would have first turn and you could hear them from across the store (eventually people complained and we had to stop). It was like an extremely nerdy nightclub or something.

The atmosphere has just changed now, the number of people in the store at any given time is a fraction of what it used to be and there's just not the huge swarms of people there on gaming nights like there used to be. The models have improved, the painting has improved, the quality of the gaming tables has improved, but the actual community is a shadow of what it used to be.

 Pacific wrote:
Anyway if the Hobbit does tank in terms of sales (although, we can't know for sure) - how about Epic or Necromunda/Mordheim back and using the shelf space?

Why stop there. I've been clamouring for a Warhammer Quest remake for years. I would have bought a copy second hand, but the asking price these days is on the ludicrous side.

To me The Hobbit and LoTR are the same game. The Hobbit movie, while good, was no where near as epic as LoTR. Same with the games, and LoTR never seemed that interesting to me as a playable game. Honestly LoTR with prepainted minis would have been spot on....but what we've got here is just kind of a meh thing to me. Concept is so meh that I can't even bitch about the prices, because I'd never go there. Sales in my area are nil -ish and the fact that the whole thing is going to be prolonged over the next couple of years is tragic. I can't wait for the day when Tolkien/Jackson crap leaves GW and they sack up and start working on some original material.

 MightyGodzilla wrote:
Honestly LoTR with prepainted minis would have been spot on....but what we've got here is just kind of a meh thing to me.

There was a prepainted minis LOTR game.. just not by GW.

 jonolikespie wrote:

clively wrote:

Where else do you think GW would "pass the cost" to? Coca-Cola or that little old lady down the street? Maybe to the everyone in your country through government subsidies?

Every private business exists to make money. If the cost to produce something is X then it follows that the company will charge X+P for it, where P is profit. If X increases then of course the total price will increase. There is absolutely no reason, barring a business getting ready to fold due to price pressure, to do anything but increase their prices when costs do.

I think the problem is a lot of us are looking at GW and seeing a business heading in that exact direction..

This. Another price rise in a few months as well, so more interesting stuff to come. I assume they'll raise prices of the main rulebooks to match the one set by the Hobbit.

 warboss wrote:

 MightyGodzilla wrote:
Honestly LoTR with prepainted minis would have been spot on....but what we've got here is just kind of a meh thing to me.

There was a prepainted minis LOTR game.. just not by GW.

didn't GW buy them out later?

I do think sticker shock has a lot to do with The Hobbit not flying off the shelves (at all, from what I can tell). It's an optional, luxury purchase for many people in an already optional, luxury niche hobby. So, it's an easy skip or "save for later" for most folks at this stage.

The movie was fantastic, but so far GW is really failing to capitalize on that. People also learned from buying the previous LOTR waves, and might be waiting for all 3 movies to be released before getting anything with a rulebook, etc. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...

 -Loki- wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Anyway if the Hobbit does tank in terms of sales (although, we can't know for sure) - how about Epic or Necromunda/Mordheim back and using the shelf space?

Why stop there. I've been clamouring for a Warhammer Quest remake for years. I would have bought a copy second hand, but the asking price these days is on the ludicrous side.

Indeed, I sold my copy for £100 plus

However, I'd suggest it's not as good as you remember it. A friend and I played it a few times before it went on ebay and we found it too random. On one occasion, we got 3 minotaurs on the first board section. Needless to say that game didn't last very long. Basically, if you were playing it to the absolute letter of the rules, it was far too easy to die.

 warboss wrote:

 MightyGodzilla wrote:
Honestly LoTR with prepainted minis would have been spot on....but what we've got here is just kind of a meh thing to me.

There was a prepainted minis LOTR game.. just not by GW.

Took a look see just to make sure - and there are Clix figures. You can get the 7 figure starter set and a box of 24 boosters for the same price that GW is charging for the White Council.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

didn't GW buy them out later?

That's what I thought too but apparently they were always owned by GW ala Black Library and Forgeworld.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabertooth_Games

 -Loki- wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Anyway if the Hobbit does tank in terms of sales (although, we can't know for sure) - how about Epic or Necromunda/Mordheim back and using the shelf space?

Why stop there. I've been clamouring for a Warhammer Quest remake for years. I would have bought a copy second hand, but the asking price these days is on the ludicrous side.

I would recommend the new Descent Game (second edition) in that case, has been having some fabulous reviews. I own a couple of the D&D box games as well which are fun, although are much less in depth and more suited to a quick evening's play.

Archibald_TK over at Warseer wrote:Limited Edition boxes are still available for February in my country.

A few things that are popping into my mind regarding that issue:
- I hope they did not print more regular boxes than they did limited ones. In December both were available as GW expected people to run out of limited ones in the middle of the month so they are already printed that much is sure. In what quantity is what I wonder.
- If the starter sell so slowly, it may impact what GW had in plan for the next movie, I'm talking about a possible new starter. Thought they may have thought about keeping the Escape from Goblin Town as the only starter for the duration of the whole trilogy.

Interesting tidbits: a friend of mine who worked in the world of printing told me after checking the Hobbit boxes that the method used on them was different from the one used on the regular GW boxes for 40K, WFB and the old LotR range (thought he gave me the name of the two printing method, I of course did not remember them at all). He explained to me that kind of printing is used on lower quantity runs while the one used on regular boxes is usually used only on quite larger runs. That may be a hint that GW expect the color associated with the movies to change by the end of the year in the same way it did for the previous trilogy and thus they would have to redo all of the Hobbit range, thus going for a lower production.
Since a smaller run means that production/licensing costs have to be absorbed by less models, it may have played a role in the Hobbit range pricing.

The pricing is just getting worse and worse, which seems to indicate it isn't selling well (since GW always seem to decide raising the price to cover it up is better than lowering it to sell more).

I have wanted mounted high elves since I first got into the hobby.. about 7 or 8 years ago, and yet at $85au for 6 rivendale knights and $70au for a fincast Elrond on root and mounted I am defiantly not picking up anything Hobbit related.

50USD for 6 LOTR cavalry figures???

I just

I don't even

Uh

Wow

That's it. Good night. I fold.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
50USD for 6 LOTR cavalry figures???

I just

I don't even

Uh

Wow

That's it. Good night. I fold.

Wow, they are expensive. But at the same time they look gorgeous. I'm really desperate to see what GW does with LOTR/Hobbit, I love the miniatures. I'll admit I'm not well versed in many other gaming systems outside of GW, but the LOTR/Hobbit models have got to be my favourite models of anything I can think of at the moment.

GW are trying their best to price me out, but if they can produce miniatures that I really want to paint, it's worth the price premium to me.

I think GW have an absolute gold mine in the Middle Earth IP, but they seem more interested in putting in minimal effort to bleed people rather than turning it in to the game it should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, if GW expand the Elf and Dwarf models enough, I think I'll start a LOTR based Warhammer Fantasy Dwarf and/or Elf army.

They are nice only because the proportions are not 'heroic scale'. Take a look at the faces on the elves, they look like really old, angry men as opposed to, well elves.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
50USD for 6 LOTR cavalry figures???

I just

I don't even

Uh

Wow

That's it. Good night. I fold.

What's the big deal? Just recently PP released a set of 5 cavalrymen for a price of $60.

Perry Miniatures released 12 Knights for £18.00, same quality, probably same sculptors:
http://www.perry-miniatures.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_62&products_id=2713


The recent 4 months look like GW is testing if the market is accepting a 50% price increase across the board.

I went into the local GW for the first time in a long time yesterday, and spoke to the new manager for the first time.

We spoke briefly about the Hobbit, rather than simply state that it looks rubbish and I understood it was selling badly, I phrased my opinion as "it probably needs the next film/s to give more of a battle platform for the game" to which he agreed. I followed this up with "it could really use one of those multi part magazines like last time" to which he began to nod his head vigorously.

I think that is the closest you'll get to an actual admission from a GW employee that things aren't selling well.

He also believed that upcoming releases consisted of "just a few character models" so no big headline kit to change our minds.

 jonolikespie wrote:
They are nice only because the proportions are not 'heroic scale'. Take a look at the faces on the elves, they look like really old, angry men as opposed to, well elves.

Faces are a hard thing to tell from painted miniatures. Once painted, they look more like the paint than the sculpt. I got some older LOTR characters for free when one of my orders from GW was lost, they looked like they had terrible faces in their pictures online, but when I got them they looked awesome. The painted models had completely different expressions and were over exaggerated, the actual sculpts themselves looked quite natural and realistic.

But yeah, I won't deny that the 2 main reasons I like them are....

1) Not hero scale.

2) LOTR styling.

3) I like the way they did the cloth/capes/armour.

LOTR is that perfect mix of fantasy while still looking realistic to me. I'm not in to the anime style miniatures or the cartoon style miniatures or for the most part, historics (depends on which historics, of course). LOTR just nails the style for me.

My favourite is the Grim Hammers. $40 CAD for 12 models, back in 2003 you could get 24 for $30 CAD. That's a 266% increase, or over 10% a year compounded. The sad part is there will still be people coming in saying that it isn't unreasonable.

 Dawnbringer wrote:
My favourite is the Grim Hammers. $40 CAD for 12 models, back in 2003 you could get 24 for $30 CAD. That's a 266% increase, or over 10% a year compounded. The sad part is there will still be people coming in saying that it isn't unreasonable.

Supply and demand, if at least half the people are willing to pay twice the price.

It is a shame, LOTR used to be one of the cheaper sources of decent quality miniatures.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
My favourite is the Grim Hammers. $40 CAD for 12 models, back in 2003 you could get 24 for $30 CAD. That's a 266% increase, or over 10% a year compounded. The sad part is there will still be people coming in saying that it isn't unreasonable.

Supply and demand, if at least half the people are willing to pay twice the price.

It is a shame, LOTR used to be one of the cheaper sources of decent quality miniatures.

Thing is though, from this thread it doesn't sound like there are half as many people willing to pay the price. For alternative heavily armoured dwarves see: http://www.anvilindustry.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=98_101&product_id=193

Why is it that a Mom and Pop shop can produce resin dwarves for %15 less than GW can manage plastic ones. It's just sad.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
My favourite is the Grim Hammers. $40 CAD for 12 models, back in 2003 you could get 24 for $30 CAD. That's a 266% increase, or over 10% a year compounded. The sad part is there will still be people coming in saying that it isn't unreasonable.

Supply and demand, if at least half the people are willing to pay twice the price.

It is a shame, LOTR used to be one of the cheaper sources of decent quality miniatures.

Thing is though, from this thread it doesn't sound like there are half as many people willing to pay the price. For alternative heavily armoured dwarves see: http://www.anvilindustry.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=98_101&product_id=193

Why is it that a Mom and Pop shop can produce resin dwarves for %15 less than GW can manage plastic ones. It's just sad.

Because as we've been over time and time and time and time and time again...

GW's prices are inflated for many reasons, chief among which is because they maintain retail chains.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
My favourite is the Grim Hammers. $40 CAD for 12 models, back in 2003 you could get 24 for $30 CAD. That's a 266% increase, or over 10% a year compounded. The sad part is there will still be people coming in saying that it isn't unreasonable.

Supply and demand, if at least half the people are willing to pay twice the price.

It is a shame, LOTR used to be one of the cheaper sources of decent quality miniatures.

Thing is though, from this thread it doesn't sound like there are half as many people willing to pay the price. For alternative heavily armoured dwarves see: http://www.anvilindustry.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=98_101&product_id=193

Why is it that a Mom and Pop shop can produce resin dwarves for %15 less than GW can manage plastic ones. It's just sad.

And GW themselves produced models much cheaper throughout their history.

This thread doesn't necessarily suggest that there aren't half as many people who would pay the price, it just suggest The Hobbit box set is not appealing. The Moria box set was appealing to me because it included a decent quality Fellowship and the start of Moria force. The Hobbit, the Dwarves are appealing to me, but the goblins and the goblin town scenery, meh, not so much. If The Hobbit starter set included Orcs and Dwarves from the flashback battles or these Knights of Rivendell along with Warg Riders or whatever, I'd be much more inclined to buy it, even if the price per model was the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I love how those Dwarves use a map of Australia as their shield, lol.

They aren't bad models, but I still prefer the GW Grim Hammers and at the end of the day that's what I care about. Not "can I buy 12 dwarves cheaper", it's "can I find 12 dwarves I'd equally like to own/paint for less".

Kanluwen wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:


Why is it that a Mom and Pop shop can produce resin dwarves for %15 less than GW can manage plastic ones. It's just sad.

Because as we've been over time and time and time and time and time again...

GW's prices are inflated for many reasons, chief among which is because they maintain retail chains.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:


Why is it that a Mom and Pop shop can produce resin dwarves for %15 less than GW can manage plastic ones. It's just sad.

And GW themselves produced models much cheaper throughout their history.

This thread doesn't necessarily suggest that there aren't half as many people who would pay the price, it just suggest The Hobbit box set is not appealing. The Moria box set was appealing to me because it included a decent quality Fellowship and the start of Moria force. The Hobbit, the Dwarves are appealing to me, but the goblins and the goblin town scenery, meh, not so much. If The Hobbit starter set included Orcs and Dwarves from the flashback battles or these Knights of Rivendell along with Warg Riders or whatever, I'd be much more inclined to buy it, even if the price per model was the same.

Also, I love how those Dwarves use a map of Australia as their shield, lol.

They aren't bad models, but I still prefer the GW Grim Hammers and at the end of the day that's what I care about. Not "can I buy 12 dwarves cheaper", it's "can I find 12 dwarves I'd equally like to own/paint for less".

I apologize, my question was meant to be rhetorical.

The reason GW prices are what they are has nothing to do with them having their own retail chain, but because people keep paying them.

 Dawnbringer wrote:
The reason GW prices are what they are has nothing to do with them having their own retail chain, but because people keep paying them.

You'd be wrong. Running and maintaining their extensive retail chain (and all the infrastructure that goes along with it) is GW's number one cost. No other table top miniature company has anything similar in terms of cost.

 azreal13 wrote:


I think that is the closest you'll get to an actual admission from a GW employee that things aren't selling well.

Weird- Hobbit/LotR is always selling at my local GW (also UK). At one point before christmas they sold out of the Hobbit starter box.

Zoned wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
The reason GW prices are what they are has nothing to do with them having their own retail chain, but because people keep paying them.

You'd be wrong. Running and maintaining their extensive retail chain (and all the infrastructure that goes along with it) is GW's number one cost. No other table top miniature company has anything similar in terms of cost.

Really, well in that case GW is run by a bunch of idiots who have no idea how to run a business. You need to separate the retail from the rest of the business. If a retail store can't run a profit off the percentage they get off the cost of the goods from distributor prices (apparently 45% of RRP) then you need to close the store, which GW have shown they are quite willing to do. In order for the retail side of things to actually cause a net loss it would require them to be run worse than your average FLGS, which seem to be (on the whole) able to make a profit off of the margins they get from their distributors. Now I may think that what GW are doing will cost them in the long run (in terms of keeping profits up at the cost of diminishing market share), I don't think they are as stupid as you require for your theory to hold water.

I don't think I really understood what you wrote there.

Think about most miniature companies. Assume they have relatively the same costs in terms of Executives, games designers, sculptors, raw materials, lease for the building...etc.

GW has the added cost of it's retail chains. North America has about 80 stores, so that means about 80-150 more employees. There are about half a dozen Directors for Growth that they report to (more staff, more salaries.) Those 80 stores means 80 leases GW is paying for. Right now the 80 store managers/store operators travel every three months to HQ for training - more costs in terms of flights, hotels...etc. This also means they are paying for a staff of Trainers to train their employees.

We're also just talking North America here. I'm sure they have similar structures and costs all over Europe, Australia...etc.

So, the retail chain being their number 1 cost isn't a "theory."

Zoned wrote:
I don't think I really understood what you wrote there.

Think about most miniature companies. Assume they have relatively the same costs in terms of Executives, games designers, sculptors, raw materials, lease for the building...etc.

GW has the added cost of it's retail chains. North America has about 80 stores, so that means about 80-150 more employees. There are about half a dozen Directors for Growth that they report to (more staff, more salaries.) Those 80 stores means 80 leases GW is paying for. Right now the 80 store managers/store operators travel every three months to HQ for training - more costs in terms of flights, hotels...etc. This also means they are paying for a staff of Trainers to train their employees.

We're also just talking North America here. I'm sure they have similar structures and costs all over Europe, Australia...etc.

So, the retail chain being their number 1 cost isn't a "theory."

But these aren't libraries, they y'know sell stuff and stuff. They should be making money not costing money.

Zoned wrote:
I don't think I really understood what you wrote there.

Think about most miniature companies. Assume they have relatively the same costs in terms of Executives, games designers, sculptors, raw materials, lease for the building...etc.

GW has the added cost of it's retail chains. North America has about 80 stores, so that means about 80-150 more employees. There are about half a dozen Directors for Growth that they report to (more staff, more salaries.) Those 80 stores means 80 leases GW is paying for. Right now the 80 store managers/store operators travel every three months to HQ for training - more costs in terms of flights, hotels...etc. This also means they are paying for a staff of Trainers to train their employees.

We're also just talking North America here. I'm sure they have similar structures and costs all over Europe, Australia...etc.

So, the retail chain being their number 1 cost isn't a "theory."

But this cost should be covered by the sales (i.e. the 45% of RRP) that those stores make, if it isn't then they should just drop them and distribute. While that may be there number one gross cost(i.e. before you count the sales), it should generate a net profit. So either GW management are drunk at the helm, or your excuse for their prices is just wrong.

Backfire wrote:

What's the big deal? Just recently PP released a set of 5 cavalrymen for a price of $60.

First of all, I consider PP to be even more obscenely expensive on their "plastic" unit boxes. I generally don't buy their stuff.

Second, each PP cavalryman could probably devour the Rivendale horsemen whole. And the horses they rode in on.

Third, PP has a more distinctive style than GW's LOTR line, so you don't have the feeling you're buying outrageously marked-up historical models with funny hats.

Therefore, the higher price tag on PP's stuff is still terrible, but less remarkable.

I don't think you can apply the Trade Account discount to actual GW stores and try to figure the profit they make this way. The reason is because the Trade Account team is perhaps a dozen staff servicing all of North America. So the profit margins are higher since the cost of running that department is vastly lower.

Nevertheless, I do understand your point better now and I do agree there is some validity there.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
its no dreadfleet, at least with that game I didn't have to buy anything else

Didn't Dreadfleet have to be destroyed because it failed to sell as well as GW hoped.

That game is still stacked a couple layers deep in stores around here.

Relapse wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
its no dreadfleet, at least with that game I didn't have to buy anything else

Didn't Dreadfleet have to be destroyed because it failed to sell as well as GW hoped.

That game is still stacked a couple layers deep in stores around here.

FLGS though right? They no longer exist in GW stores, the red/black/local colour here shirts were apparenty told to smash em and drop em in a dumpster well away from their stores.

I doubt each manage was just smashing them and throwing them out. It was more a case of what happened with the surplus 3rd Ed 40K boxes - all returned to HQ, and then sent to landfill.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Backfire wrote:

What's the big deal? Just recently PP released a set of 5 cavalrymen for a price of $60.

First of all, I consider PP to be even more obscenely expensive on their "plastic" unit boxes. I generally don't buy their stuff.

Second, each PP cavalryman could probably devour the Rivendale horsemen whole. And the horses they rode in on.

Third, PP has a more distinctive style than GW's LOTR line, so you don't have the feeling you're buying outrageously marked-up historical models with funny hats.

Therefore, the higher price tag on PP's stuff is still terrible, but less remarkable.

Also. those 5 cavalry will cost 10-12 points, where an average evening's game will be with 35-50pt armies.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I doubt each manage was just smashing them and throwing them out. It was more a case of what happened with the surplus 3rd Ed 40K boxes - all returned to HQ, and then sent to landfill.

Have they never just heard of slapping a 50% off sticker on the damn thing? They'd have probably sold at that price point and made more back than just trashing 'em.


I mean...well, nevermind, it's GW.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I doubt each manage was just smashing them and throwing them out. It was more a case of what happened with the surplus 3rd Ed 40K boxes - all returned to HQ, and then sent to landfill.

Have they never just heard of slapping a 50% off sticker on the damn thing? They'd have probably sold at that price point and made more back than just trashing 'em.


I mean...well, nevermind, it's GW.

GW said that lower prices would "de-value" the brand. Yeah, they're slow-in-mind.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I doubt each manage was just smashing them and throwing them out. It was more a case of what happened with the surplus 3rd Ed 40K boxes - all returned to HQ, and then sent to landfill.

Have they never just heard of slapping a 50% off sticker on the damn thing? They'd have probably sold at that price point and made more back than just trashing 'em.


I mean...well, nevermind, it's GW.

GW said that lower prices would "de-value" the brand. Yeah, they're slow-in-mind.

In case of "limited edition" boxed games, it would be terribly bad business practice to sell them in bargain bin, or letting them rot in shelves years and years, since people buy "limited edition" assuming certain scarcity.

Backfire wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I doubt each manage was just smashing them and throwing them out. It was more a case of what happened with the surplus 3rd Ed 40K boxes - all returned to HQ, and then sent to landfill.

Have they never just heard of slapping a 50% off sticker on the damn thing? They'd have probably sold at that price point and made more back than just trashing 'em.


I mean...well, nevermind, it's GW.

GW said that lower prices would "de-value" the brand. Yeah, they're slow-in-mind.

In case of "limited edition" boxed games, it would be terribly bad business practice to sell them in bargain bin, or letting them rot in shelves years and years, since people buy "limited edition" assuming certain scarcity.

Did any of the package actually state it was an LE though? As far as I can tell, the only way anyone could tell it was limited was GWs website having the hourglass graphic on it.

I don't believe it did, no. There's still a couple copies at the local store and the Hobby Town around here, so I've seen it enough times by now that I should know.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I don't believe it did, no. There's still a couple copies at the local store and the Hobby Town around here, so I've seen it enough times by now that I should know.

However, it was advertised as such, more or less: "...it's worth mentioning that this kit is available ONLY WHILE STOCKS LAST. Do you remember when we released Space Hulk a couple of years ago and how quickly that sold out? Well expect the same of Dreadfleet - once it's gone, it's gone, and you won't want to be sitting there when the ship has sailed without one in your hands." And yes, my own FLGS has couple of boxes left too.

Backfire wrote:
And yes, my own FLGS has couple of boxes left too.

Yours and every other FLGS around the globe that bought into it.

One of our local FLGS's hosted a WHFB tournament a few months ago where the first prize was a Dreadfullfleet box... the tournament had to be cancelled due to a lack of participants!

I showed the new Hobbit models to the staff at my FLGS and we had a good laugh. They all agreed that the pricing was way off, especially for the counsel, and said it would site for years in their store before it would sell.

I'm an independant retailer.. I looked at it, snorted, and walked away. None of my regulars asked me and with the different trade prices for online traders only I decided not to risk money on it.

The LE Hobbit set is also still for sale at my FLGS, for 134$, I heard that it sold in record time from the website though?

It's still available on the UK GW site at any rate, so it couldn't have sold that quickly.

Is GW sales isolated in silos like that? Still in 2013?

And, even funnier, they're now releasing Radagast in February in finecast for £12

 Compel wrote:
And, even funnier, they're now releasing Radagast in February in finecast for £12

Which makes me want to buy one of the old ones. Partially because he's a ton cheaper, partially because the old one is a nice model and partially because I'm not a fan of Mr. Bird Poop Face.

Barfolomew wrote:
I showed the new Hobbit models to the staff at my FLGS and we had a good laugh. They all agreed that the pricing was way off, especially for the counsel, and said it would site for years in their store before it would sell.

Will it sit there or will they pull a Dreadfleet and recall it?

My understanding is at a FLGS it doesn't get recalled, just from the GW stores. I'll have to check if my FLGS has the limited edition DV set still next time I am in but I think once they get their hands on it it's out of GWs hands and wont be recalled.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
The LE Hobbit set is also still for sale at my FLGS, for 134$, I heard that it sold in record time from the website though?

GW artificially does that. Same with the LE dex's and certain WDs, they purposely understock the webstore so they can say it "sold out worldwide" it gives the sell bots the excuse to guilt you into buying it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
My understanding is at a FLGS it doesn't get recalled, just from the GW stores. I'll have to check if my FLGS has the limited edition DV set still next time I am in but I think once they get their hands on it it's out of GWs hands and wont be recalled.

100% true, and because its off the shelves, its no longer "current product" and there fore cannot be returned.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I doubt each manage was just smashing them and throwing them out. It was more a case of what happened with the surplus 3rd Ed 40K boxes - all returned to HQ, and then sent to landfill.

wow...so its like the ET for Atari myth...

'Cept that isn't a myth. And neither is this.