Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 alextroy wrote:
Where is the proof that more sales happen without the first month of release than in the next several years?

Isn't that pretty much how it goes for most things? And I'm sure GW has talked about this before.

Be that as it may i still think most hype sales go to painters/modellers/buy everything types before cutthroat gamers. At least judging by social media (which is always a fools errand i know as most people simply dont use social media regularly)

hype sales go to everyone who is hyped for whatever reason
and most of those hype sales go on the pile and are never used

hence there are less sales without the hype as in that case only those who really want to use that specific unit/model (be it gaming, painting, conversion) are buying it

 morganfreeman wrote:
A majority of kit sales are seen shortly on its release. Ergo they'll sell more Wracks within the first month of their release than they will over several years immediately after. If a kit is around long enough (like the current carnifex, which is at least 15 years old IIRC) it's likely to eventually "catch up", especially if it sees a second patch in the sun later on as a particularly strong entry.

I imagine the rate of sale is typically highest straight after release. But I'm suspect this represents the majority of sales that kit will ever do.

I guess its covered by the "second patch in the sun" clause - but do you really think Wracks for instance sold more in September/October 2014 than the in the subsequent 8~ years? Do stores which sold say 100 copies of a kit on release, then proceed to only sell an average of 1 of that kit a month from then on?

The rate clearly falls - and so managing stock becomes easier (although we still regularly see things go out of stock as said) - but not to that extent I think.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Where is the proof that more sales happen without the first month of release than in the next several years?

Isn't that pretty much how it goes for most things? And I'm sure GW has talked about this before.

In the reports the sales split was 60% new releases and 40% old stock.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
Be that as it may i still think most hype sales go to painters/modellers/buy everything types before cutthroat gamers. At least judging by social media (which is always a fools errand i know as most people simply dont use social media regularly)

Literally $500+ dioramas for Golden Demon.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Where is the proof that more sales happen without the first month of release than in the next several years?

Isn't that pretty much how it goes for most things? And I'm sure GW has talked about this before.

In the reports the sales split was 60% new releases and 40% old stock.

And this proves nothing about particular kits sales history. Also, how long is something a new release according to this report of sales split? 1 Week? 1 Month? 1 Year?

Oh, I agree. To me it highlights that the best way GW makes money is by continually getting people to pay attention, which means more frequent releases. A codex is just an excuse to get people who might have quit to come back and take a look and see if their army got any fun new toys.

GW's mishandling of codexes is a happy accident to sales at times, but there is no evidence of ongoing manipulation to that effect.

A codex with good internal balance gets people to come back and dip into any unit in the book - not just the OP ones.
A game with good external balance gets people to consider options that work in the meta for that timeframe.

The more balanced things are the more kits people would consider. GW does just fine though with crummy balance, because there's a legion of people who buy models just because.

Tyel wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
A majority of kit sales are seen shortly on its release. Ergo they'll sell more Wracks within the first month of their release than they will over several years immediately after. If a kit is around long enough (like the current carnifex, which is at least 15 years old IIRC) it's likely to eventually "catch up", especially if it sees a second patch in the sun later on as a particularly strong entry.

I imagine the rate of sale is typically highest straight after release. But I'm suspect this represents the majority of sales that kit will ever do.

As has been said, GW themselves have stated that kits earn a majority of their sales right out of the gate. While none of us here have an access to the internal sales and revenue data of GW, we can pretty easily reference what do we know about things in similar spheres or nerd culture. Riot Games, for example, has outright stated that champion skins that aren’t profitable in the first WEEK of their release will never turn a profit. League of Legends isn’t a tabletop war game by any means, it fulfills a similar niche in nerdom. Video games in general (and also movies) see a very similar trend. And while board games have a bit more longevity than both of those, they also lean heavily on their initial sales to turn an overall profit.

So while there are some extrapolations made in my post, they’re pretty reasonable (giving GW products a couple of months to harness that initial fervor instead of a weekend). While it’s possible that GW miniature are the only piece of nerd-targeted luxury entertainment product which doesn’t make most of its sales immediately, it’s also possible that I’m going doing to die in my bed tonight from a plane falling out of the sky. And while I acknowledge both possibilities, I’m still going to sleep soundly tonight.

ccs wrote:

Zarathustra Spake wrote:
what do I want 10th to bring?

A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.

You have that right now.
You don't HAVE to instanly jump into play at 2k pt games involving every bell & whistle, faq, Balance sheet, tourney pack etc.

PenitentJake wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
]unless your area thinks that's all that exists, in which case you kinda do or you play by yourself

Neither is this the fault of the current edition, nor will a new edition change this.

The inflexibility of other people in your play space has never been GW's fault.

No combat patrol will be a completely different set of data sheets for the units and all of the rules still apply. That is assuming the rules themselves aren't different for combat patrol. It is borderline a different game entirely. This will be confusing for people who play a bunch of games with one data sheet only to have that data sheet change when they move to higher points levels.

That's not entirely true, though it is mostly true. AFASIK GW has never put out "optional" rules or a basic rule set and an advanced rule set. Most people use every single rule because every rule is presented as required, including FAQs.

I understand why they don't do that, thier worried the community will be split up between beginner and advanced people and never the twain shall meet (on the field of battle). I don't think that would happen though I think it would make it a lot easier to ease people into the game. You don't dump a college course worth of reading on a person and say you need to know this before you can play the game. You give them maybe 10 consise pages of rules that get you walking down the road.

When your teaching someone something you need to set a good foundation from which they can begin learning more advanced things in whatever order they choose.

Zarathustra Spake wrote:
AFASIK GW has never put out "optional" rules or a basic rule set and an advanced rule set. Most people use every single rule because every rule is presented as required, including FAQs.

I understand why they don't do that, thier worried the community will be split up between beginner and advanced people and never the twain shall meet (on the field of battle). I don't think that would happen though I think it would make it a lot easier to ease people into the game. You don't dump a college course worth of reading on a person and say you need to know this before you can play the game. You give them maybe 10 consise pages of rules that get you walking down the road.

When your teaching someone something you need to set a good foundation from which they can begin learning more advanced things in whatever order they choose.

The 8th and 9th Core Rules both mark some rules as "Advanced Rules" to distinguish them from "Basic Rules" such as "Moving over terrain" and "Flying" in the Advanced Rules box on page 11 of the 9th Ed core rules pdf. Similarly, all of page 12 and 13 of the core rules, covering "Transports" and "Aircraft" are "Advanced Rules".

That most of the community seems to always use the Advanced Rules doesn't mean GW presents them as required.

Aash wrote:

Zarathustra Spake wrote:
AFASIK GW has never put out "optional" rules or a basic rule set and an advanced rule set. Most people use every single rule because every rule is presented as required, including FAQs.

I understand why they don't do that, thier worried the community will be split up between beginner and advanced people and never the twain shall meet (on the field of battle). I don't think that would happen though I think it would make it a lot easier to ease people into the game. You don't dump a college course worth of reading on a person and say you need to know this before you can play the game. You give them maybe 10 consise pages of rules that get you walking down the road.

When your teaching someone something you need to set a good foundation from which they can begin learning more advanced things in whatever order they choose.

The 8th and 9th Core Rules both mark some rules as "Advanced Rules" to distinguish them from "Basic Rules" such as "Moving over terrain" and "Flying" in the Advanced Rules box on page 11 of the 9th Ed core rules pdf. Similarly, all of page 12 and 13 of the core rules, covering "Transports" and "Aircraft" are "Advanced Rules".

That most of the community seems to always use the Advanced Rules doesn't mean GW presents them as required.

Exactly!
In 9th edition, stratagems, detachments, terrain traits, and CP stuff are all Advanced Rules.

We play the Basic game, it works great for us.

I think theyve always differentiated between basic (movement, shooting, combat) and advanced (the rest). Or certainly in more editions than not.

 Blndmage wrote:

Aash wrote:

Zarathustra Spake wrote:
AFASIK GW has never put out "optional" rules or a basic rule set and an advanced rule set. Most people use every single rule because every rule is presented as required, including FAQs.

I understand why they don't do that, thier worried the community will be split up between beginner and advanced people and never the twain shall meet (on the field of battle). I don't think that would happen though I think it would make it a lot easier to ease people into the game. You don't dump a college course worth of reading on a person and say you need to know this before you can play the game. You give them maybe 10 consise pages of rules that get you walking down the road.

When your teaching someone something you need to set a good foundation from which they can begin learning more advanced things in whatever order they choose.

The 8th and 9th Core Rules both mark some rules as "Advanced Rules" to distinguish them from "Basic Rules" such as "Moving over terrain" and "Flying" in the Advanced Rules box on page 11 of the 9th Ed core rules pdf. Similarly, all of page 12 and 13 of the core rules, covering "Transports" and "Aircraft" are "Advanced Rules".

That most of the community seems to always use the Advanced Rules doesn't mean GW presents them as required.

Exactly!
In 9th edition, stratagems, detachments, terrain traits, and CP stuff are all Advanced Rules.

We play the Basic game, it works great for us.

@Aash yes but you can't say that ALL the rules related to transports are optional when almost every start collecting box comes with a transport. These aren't optional, these are required. Smite and perials are also in the Advanced Rules. Charging over terrain, objective markers, objective secured.

These are not optional. They are required to play the game, and if you actually read all the "Advanced Rules" most of them, if you left even some of them out, would cripple some armies, others are just unfieldable, no mechanized infantry armies at all, melee armies would be so terrible it wouldn't be funny. Other armies would become so crazy powerful it wouldn't be funny. Imagine never modifying characteristics or using a damage tables.

@Blndmage yes and so are any modifiers to units as well as any effects from terrain.

Let me give an example. Rather then having the basic rule be "terrain exists put what ever you want where ever you want." Make it so there are two types of terrain "raised" and "depression". raised blocks line of sight, depression gives +1 armor save. Those would be the basics then you build from there.

Dai wrote:
I think theyve always differentiated between basic (movement, shooting, combat) and advanced (the rest). Or certainly in more editions than not.

They have but only to denote things that are more complicated not to distinguish between optional rules and required rules.

Zarathustra Spake wrote:
.
@Blndmage yes and so are any modifiers to units as well as any effects from terrain.

Let me give an example. Rather then having the basic rule be "terrain exists put what ever you want where ever you want." Make it so there are two types of terrain "raised" and "depression". raised blocks line of sight, depression gives +1 armor save. Those would be the basics then you build from there.

From the free core rules

Unless the mission you are playing instructs you otherwise, you should feel free to create an exciting battlefield using any terrain features from your collection that you wish. In general, we recommend having one feature on the battlefield for every 12" by 12" area (rounding up). Don’t worry if your battlefield doesn’t match these requirements, but keep in mind that playing on a battlefield that is either a barren wasteland or filled to overflowing with terrain features may give an advantage to one side or the other.

It's not perfect advice, but it's at least some guidance. The one piece per 1sqrft method is constantly reverenced in terrain discussions.

When I said we use the basic rules, I ment the free core rules.