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.

So go on then chaps, how would you increase miniature sales? (Black Library and licences seem to be doing ok, so we'll leave them alone)

Quick background... there's a been gradual decline in revenue since the the last LoTR film. We've raised prices year on year above the rate of inflation which has helped stem the flow, but this is probably concealing the fact that fewer and fewer people are buying our products.

How do we reverse this trend? Is it really a matter of finding a juicy looking slot in an army book for each new fantastic miniature we release or is it a more subtle art?

Flashman's view

1. Let's interact with our customer base. Yes, I know we speak at them lots already and tell them what we think they want to hear, but let's actually hear what they've got to say. I think we agree that designing our rulebooks and miniature ranges by mass internet committee would be a bad idea, but we can get a broad idea of what people want from our games before we design each rulebook/army book. And whenever we come up with a really wacky, game changing idea, we can get everyone (i.e. not just our mates) to try it out first.

2. How many armies does the average gamer actually need? I mean really? Yes, there a few crazy kids who collect legions and legions of Space Marine chapters, but most are only going to collect one or two for each system right? So once they've got one, why do they need to buy anything else? Perhaps we need a subset of smaller games that will keep gamers amused between major projects. These could even be used to introduce younger gamers to the hobby too. It's not like we'd need to update the rules regularly, just keep enough new stuff flowing into each game so that people stay interested.

3. And along these lines, isn't a standard points value for a game of 2000-3000pts too high for new gamers? Won't they just buy a few boxes to begin with, feel overwhelmed with how long it's taking to be able to actually play and then run back to the X-box (perhaps making a quick visit to ebay first to sell off all this plastic that they're never going to use)? Maybe we need to stop pushing 2000 points as the target and actively promote smaller games so that people get started quickly and their armies are more likely to evolve over time.

Do you actually have a seat? Or is this a "what would you do if..."?

Isn't GW publicly traded? Wouldn't it be possible for fans and enthusiasts to, bit by bit, buy up the company?

Anvildude wrote:Isn't GW publicly traded? Wouldn't it be possible for fans and enthusiasts to, bit by bit, buy up the company?

Only if people are prepared to sell their shares and the majority is held by a single company IIRC.

@OP -
Strongly agree with point three. Frankly, most people have little-to-no interest in the huge time/financial investment required to get an army up to playable points level, and I really feel that setting the 'norm' at about 1k would be good for the hobby as a whole.

If you could play a solid game with 1 or 2 squads, that lasted at least an hour. That would be a huge improvement.
I'm assembling another 30 models to add to my chaos army right now for the Ard Boys tournament. The most I have played with before was 1500pts and that seemed like a lot.

Now everyone has these HUGE games, I get bored real fast and suicide mission my troops if the game keeps going and going and going.
(See: Blind all in's for poker)

malfred wrote: Do you actually have a seat? Or is this a "what would you do if..."?

Lol, the latter, it's a purely hypothetical exercise

Just my opinions here.....

One: The steady price increases are moving the company's products out of the purchase range of the target consumer. The company needs to find a way to both lower costs, and therefor price... and increase the speed at which new products are released.. increasing revenue stream.

Two: Alter the rate that new editions are produced. A longer period between new editions, and especially between the last codex and the next edition, would allow for customers to become that much more familiar with the products and models available.

Three: Increase the speed that new codex/army books are released. This would create positive "buzz" for each new army, and decrease the amount of "wishlist" false codexes that crop up between releases.

Four: Return White Dwarf to magazine status, instead of it's current "catalog" incarnation. More hobby based articles, fewer onesided, "flavor of the month" battle reports, more, well, FUN. In its current state, White Dwarf is an over priced and ineffective waste of the companies time and money.

1500pts is standard for me. 2000 for fantasy. Other things aren't as balanced.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Anvildude wrote:Isn't GW publicly traded? Wouldn't it be possible for fans and enthusiasts to, bit by bit, buy up the company?

Only if people are prepared to sell their shares and the majority is held by a single company IIRC.

There's been discussion of this before. By my (possibly faulty) understading, you could form a NPO holdings company that every fan and/or enthusiast who was interested would become a part of by purchasing stock and 'donating' their share to the company. It would be expensive, but if every wargamer set aside a portion of the amount of money they spent on GW stuff, we'd probably hit it quickly.

The more important question is: Though you'd be doing it in the best of intentions, how do you know that a fan run GW would make things better? I've seen things posted that made me think, "Wow, I'm glad this person's poorly thought out rant isn't impacting things at GW at all." The truth of the matter is that we're all emotional kneejerkers who are too close to the Warhams to be able to make rational decisions about how it's run.

I'm going to build off of your post, rather than type out my own big huge rant.

Flashman wrote:
1. Let's interact with our customer base. Yes, I know we speak at them lots already and tell them what we think they want to hear, but let's actually hear what they've got to say. I think we agree that designing our rulebooks and miniature ranges by mass internet committee would be a bad idea, but we can get a broad idea of what people want from our games before we design each rulebook/army book. And whenever we come up with a really wacky, game changing idea, we can get everyone (i.e. not just our mates) to try it out first.

I would not put much stock into this, first of all. Yes, you can easily get the "broad idea of what people want from our games"...if you want wildly conflicting ideas. Some players can't even decide what army to play without asking on forums, and you want them to help put forth the "design mandate" for codices?

2. How many armies does the average gamer actually need? I mean really? Yes, there a few crazy kids who collect legions and legions of Space Marine chapters, but most are only going to collect one or two for each system right? So once they've got one, why do they need to buy anything else? Perhaps we need a subset of smaller games that will keep gamers amused between major projects. These could even be used to introduce younger gamers to the hobby too. It's not like we'd need to update the rules regularly, just keep enough new stuff flowing into each game so that people stay interested.

Or rather than introduce new "smaller game" systems...introduce ways to actually play smaller games with unique play. Have the rules in the main rulebook, go from there.

3. And along these lines, isn't a standard points value for a game of 2000-3000pts too high for new gamers? Won't they just buy a few boxes to begin with, feel overwhelmed with how long it's taking to be able to actually play and then run back to the X-box (perhaps making a quick visit to ebay first to sell off all this plastic that they're never going to use)? Maybe we need to stop pushing 2000 points as the target and actively promote smaller games so that people get started quickly and their armies are more likely to evolve over time.

I, personally, do not feel that GW proper likes pushing the "2k points" target at new people. It's become a necessity to do push the target however because they've found that people don't like doing Escalation Leagues, which I personally think are a fanbloodytastic idea. Starting off with the contents of a battleforce and then a headquarters unit and progressing, with time blocked out between games to ensure things get painted? Brilliant!

But there's a reason I've said before that they really should go back to narrative styles of play rather than focus on competitive play when bringing people in.
A small, battleforce sized starter box for major events in the history of 40k/Fantasy Battle/Lord of the Rings chock full of monopose models done up to the standard that we had for Island of Blood. Things like the Dark Angels' assault on the Tellyporta on Kadillus, the Wood Elves' and their "War of the Barrows" for Fantasy, or the Rangers of Ithilien ambushing the Easterlings.
Have enough of these starter box 'types' so that feasibly every faction is included within at least one and you've got something interesting going on there.

I'd really love to see 1000 pts become the norm too. They could do special battle reports here and there for large games or promote them differently, but for new players they should focus on giving them smaller armies to get into the game and when the kid gets hooked they can add to their army.

They should also bring back army deals even if it's a direct only thing, that gives new players that 1000 pt starting army in an easy 1-click purchase.

I think that 1k becoming the norm would be great. The financial impact on people wanting to grab a new army would be less, and you would see less unit spam due to the limit in points. Forcing players to choose units would allow for a more tactical side to unit selection as well. Will some models suffer? Of course, but GW needs to balance these units as much as possible to make the decision harder for the players. I really could go on, and on with this topic.

Or you can move over to the way that WHFB does units and go from there.

Kanluwen wrote:Or you can move over to the way that WHFB does units and go from there.

Not sure what you mean by this, but I am curious. Could you elaborate? Do you mean the limt per unit type that you have in Fantasy?

$pider wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Or you can move over to the way that WHFB does units and go from there.

Not sure what you mean by this, but I am curious. Could you elaborate?

Army Selection is done by 'percentages' of the point value, and duplicate units are limited.
Basically:
An army must include at least one Lord or Hero to be its General. Up to 25% of your points limit is available for Lords and Heroes, with no Duplicate Choice limit.
25% or more of your army's point value must be Core, with no limit on Duplicate Choices.
Up to 50% of your army's point limit can be Specials, with up to 3 Specials of the same type in. You can have 6 if it is a "Grand Army" of 3k points or more.
Up to 25% of your army's point limit, with up to 2 duplicate choices--double if a Grand Army.

How many people were pulled into the GW hobby by the sight of Space Crusade, or Heroquest, in amongst other board games?

Regarding point 2, I find it unbelievable that the company doesn't have a reasonably priced boxed game, which could serve as an introductory set into the world of Warhammer. The imagery they have got on hand is incredible, loads of kids would go straight for it on the shelf. Really, I think this point is unforgivable.

Pacific wrote:How many people were pulled into the GW hobby by the sight of Space Crusade, or Heroquest, in amongst other board games?

Regarding point 2, I find it unbelievable that the company doesn't have a reasonably priced boxed game, which could serve as an introductory set into the world of Warhammer. The imagery they have got on hand is incredible, loads of kids would go straight for it on the shelf. Really, I think this point is unforgivable.

Do you know who buys board games now, by and large?

Parents and adults without children for "game nights". Kids don't really factor into it, the board games that sell have a nostalgia factor or are completely unacceptable for children anyways.

The "imagery" we have now for Warhammer in a great many places would be a definitive "NO SALE" for a parent buying for their child however.

Heroquest is how i got into Warhammer but then i quit when i saw some elves in space.

Kanluwen wrote:

Pacific wrote:How many people were pulled into the GW hobby by the sight of Space Crusade, or Heroquest, in amongst other board games?

Regarding point 2, I find it unbelievable that the company doesn't have a reasonably priced boxed game, which could serve as an introductory set into the world of Warhammer. The imagery they have got on hand is incredible, loads of kids would go straight for it on the shelf. Really, I think this point is unforgivable.

Do you know who buys board games now, by and large?

Parents and adults without children for "game nights". Kids don't really factor into it, the board games that sell have a nostalgia factor or are completely unacceptable for children anyways.

The "imagery" we have now for Warhammer in a great many places would be a definitive "NO SALE" for a parent buying for their child however.

Board games are still pretty popular for kids where I am from, not to mention their use in school clubs, and other youth orientated programs.

Without definite sales figures it's impossible to know for sure, but I would make the argument that it is one potential avenue for sales that is not open.

And in the age of GTA and Modern Combat, I would say any cover on a box game short of something Slaaneshi and tentacle orientated isn't that likely to put parents off buying it!

Pacific wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Pacific wrote:How many people were pulled into the GW hobby by the sight of Space Crusade, or Heroquest, in amongst other board games?

Regarding point 2, I find it unbelievable that the company doesn't have a reasonably priced boxed game, which could serve as an introductory set into the world of Warhammer. The imagery they have got on hand is incredible, loads of kids would go straight for it on the shelf. Really, I think this point is unforgivable.

Do you know who buys board games now, by and large?

Parents and adults without children for "game nights". Kids don't really factor into it, the board games that sell have a nostalgia factor or are completely unacceptable for children anyways.

The "imagery" we have now for Warhammer in a great many places would be a definitive "NO SALE" for a parent buying for their child however.

Board games are still pretty popular for kids where I am from, not to mention their use in school clubs, and other youth orientated programs.

Without definite sales figures it's impossible to know for sure, but I would make the argument that it is one potential avenue for sales that is not open.

Ehhh. They might be popular for school clubs and youth oriented programs to buy or have donated, it doesn't mean the kids actually use.

And in the age of GTA and Modern Combat, I would say any cover on a box game short of something Slaaneshi and tentacle orientated isn't that likely to put parents off buying it!

And in the age of parents buying those things for their kids without knowing what it is, uproars are immediately raised when they do find out the material in question.

Look at the scandal about the level "No Russian". It's not required to play through for progression, it just is a story point for MW2. Yet it's been decried as a "murder simulator".

My daughter loves playing board games. She's 11.

When I was talking about pick up and play games, I was largely referring to some kind of specialist game with a team/warband/gang of 15-20 models where not so much commitment is required on the part of the gamer (Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Mordheim etc etc). It was these kind of games that kept me immersed in the GW backgrounds.

Also regarding fan involvement, I was thinking something similar to what Peter Jackson did for Lord of the Rings. Back in the late 1990s, he did a sort of consultation exercise to see what fans wanted from the films. This kind of involvement has to be limited (imagine if an internet forum had actually written the script!), but it can steer the designers vaguely in the direction of what people want e.g. H.B.M.Cs multiple ice cream flavours vs vanilla

Flashman wrote:When I was talking about pick up and play games, I was largely referring to some kind of specialist game with a team/warband/gang of 15-20 models where not so much commitment is required on the part of the gamer (Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Mordheim etc etc). It was these kind of games that kept me immersed in the GW backgrounds.

And it's what kept me away from those kinds of games. The models utilized within largely couldn't be used in your army, and always struck me as kind of a "cashgrab".

Also regarding fan involvement, I was thinking something similar to what Peter Jackson did for Lord of the Rings. Back in the late 1990s, he did a sort of consultation exercise to see what fans wanted from the films. This kind of involvement has to be limited (imagine if an internet forum had actually written the script!), but it can steer the designers vaguely in the direction of what people want e.g. H.B.M.Cs multiple ice cream flavours vs vanilla

And what vocal people like H.B.M.C. want might not be what the rest of the playerbase wants.

Cash grab or not, the other games added variety. Currently GW have two major gaming systems and another one that people generally aren't all that interested in.

Whilst both game systems have great depth, most gamers only has so much time to create armies and this limits their enjoyment of what GW has to offer. Smaller games would offer alternatives if you haven't got the time for another major project. And it is alternatives which will get people spending.

Kanluwen wrote:A small, battleforce sized starter box for major events in the history of 40k/Fantasy Battle/Lord of the Rings chock full of monopose models done up to the standard that we had for Island of Blood. Things like the Dark Angels' assault on the Tellyporta on Kadillus, the Wood Elves' and their "War of the Barrows" for Fantasy, or the Rangers of Ithilien ambushing the Easterlings.
Have enough of these starter box 'types' so that feasibly every faction is included within at least one and you've got something interesting going on there.

+1 for this. I truly don't understand why GW hasn't figured out that not everybody likes buying a "starter set" of only 2 armies. I know if 40K had a Nid option in a Starter box, I'd have bought it in a heartbeat. Warhammer in general relies (imo) a lot on the "Oooh, shiny" aspect to snag new gamers, and if you can't buy a balanced (or at least playable) starter box army to play with your friends, it sets the entry price prohibitively high. If they got around to offering 2 or 3 other options for Starter Boxes (Nids and DE, BA and Tau, Necrons and SW, etc.), I'd think they'd suddenly see the number of new gamers explode (Plus, it would make it much easier to buy and split boxes, as you can look for people playing more armies than SM/Orks or HE/Skaven). Basically, the only costs for GW I'd see would be the cost of making a new box, and packaging new sprues into them, and maybe the occasional unbought box (Fixed by simply changing the army contents away from the unpopular ones)

Flashman wrote:Cash grab or not, the other games added variety. Currently GW have two major gaming systems and another one that people generally aren't all that interested in.

Debatable. I never actually saw Necromunda or Mordheim played, but their models were never on the shelves at my FLGS. They were great conversion fodder though, as I saw many of the models(or parts of them at least ) on the tabletop.

BFG however just sat there and rotted. The FLGS still had it all on the shelf when the place they rented from refused to renew their rental agreement. There's, I kid you not, a storage unit filled with BFG stuff.

Whilst both game systems have great depth, most gamers only has so much time to create armies and this limits their enjoyment of what GW has to offer. Smaller games would offer alternatives if you haven't got the time for another major project. And it is alternatives which will get people spending.

Which goes back to a question of how people play.

The "Escalation League" idea is a good one. Start low, and build up from there. Have "official" days for the League, but also "unofficial" days for people to play and get the feel for their armies.
The problem is that many people buy armies in one huge go(I'm guilty of this myself) and get overwhelmed by it. There then becomes a big huge rush when they do decide to play in a tournament, which was scheduled at the end of the Escalation League and open to anyone and everyone.

Escalation Leagues, while they do have some minor issues with army tailoring vs opponents strengths, are actually a good idea, and I really enjoyed when my local club did one (Although I found out the hard way Tyranid Warriors get significantly less effective at 1000+ pts).
I do wish GW would add/encourage Skirmish-size 500pts games at their lgs, so people can get a feel for armies before dropping major $ on them. Plus, it would reduce the time investment needed to finish a game (Do I have 3 hours at the mall to spend playing a game? Probably not. But 30 minutes? Sure, if it's a fun experience), helping snag more people into the hobby that would have only briefly considered it before.

They need to stop basing battleforces on the newest models, thats what they need to stop doing

CSM would be a cool army to get into if you didnt have to waste money on possessed in the starter. If they sat down and actually went through what would make a solid starting army INCLUDING if you bought multiple of the sets then you would have people buy those sets

Take for example the lizardmen battleforce. It has Saurus, temple guard, skinks and coldone knights which is an amazing core of models (Coldones werent awful in 7th).. Then, if you bought 2 of those sets you got a complete unit of temple guard, enough skinks and a good amount of saurus to play a DECENTLY sized game

That is how they should base the battle forces.. but I guess thats too smart

Yes, better bulk deals and actual starter sets would almost certainly help sales. You almost think it's so blindingly obvious there has to be a reason they're not doing it.

e.g. Assault Marines currently come in packs of 5 at £20.50. Some people might want to field them in squads of 10, so is it such a monumental ask to sell two lots of the sprue in a bigger box for £35.00?