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.

Ok, so this discussion sprung up in N+R, and being decidedly off topic, I felt it had enough meat on its bones to open it up to a wider discussion.

In brief, I believe GW play it safe, they would rather release a new kit than update an existing one, as there isn't the pressure to make a new kit sufficiently good to persuade people to replace their old one that comes with an update.

In light of some of the responses, mainly from Zweischnied, that outlined some kits that had been updated recently, it jumped out that in most cases, the updates were either relatively low financial risk (monopose single HQs or similar) or had transitioned from metal or Finecast to plastic, which could be argued was done because GW wants to be 100% plastic eventually, and any benefit to the consumer is at best only a factor, and at worst just a side effect of their mission to grow their bottom line.

So, do people think that GW, the game and the models would benefit from or (more importantly from their perspective) sell more units if they took more risks, played with the aesthetics, updated models like 2nd Ed Special Characters or some of the less popular troop boxes (Cadians, Bezerkers all seem to get criticised regularly) or is GWs job to play it safe, produce exactly what you expect and leave the experimentation to FW and BL?

Of course they play it safe.

If FW has a dud, they can keep running that mold for a decade at least and not really take a "hit" as they just don't keep that particular model in constant stock.

With GW proper I don't think that's really an option.

I'd think GW could easily take risks AND play it safe at the same time. It starts with the less popular models.

1) Update unpopular models with something completely new. Make a complete break from the old and put a new spin on that part of the army. The old dark eldar warriors come to mind. I'd NEVER buy them. But the current warriors are part of what makes me want to start a DE army.

2) Highlight the new models in the new codex with new/updated rules.

With this strategy GW would have a new model that people that just want to paint models want to buy coupled with new rules that will encourage people that primarily want to play the game want to buy. It's a risk because people may not like the new model or the new/updated rules. BUT the risk was taken with what was previously a flop anyways. If they missed the mark twice, then that's really on them. The rewards on the other hand, could have a lot of potential.

--edit--

Just, please, please, please GW release ALL new models in PLASTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the context of the games that the company used to release*, and wide variety of (often original models), then today you could say they are prudish enough that an 90-year old Amish man might tell them that they are being a bit square and need to live a little.

But that (much smaller) company of the past has gone now. These days we know the sales department determines what is released and what isn't, and so naturally everything is going to be minimum risk/expenditure, maximum profit margin.

Of course every company does this to an extent, but within the Wargaming industry GW takes it to its furthest extreme.


* This is where the name 'Games Workshop' comes from

As said in the other threat, you're criteria for what is "risky" and what is "not risky" seem unclear and biased towards "what they did was not risky / what they didn't do was too risky" to the degree that the claim seems self-fulfilling.

It would help if you could provide a clear set of criteria of what is "a risky release" and what is "not a risky release" that is independent of what they actually did or did not release.



Most importantly, it is still puzzling to me how - on one hand - there is a claim that "experimentation is left to FW/BL", when neither has done anything remotely as experimental as - as previously mentioned - the Wraithknight / Centurions, while - on the other hand - it is precisely those GW releases you say are "not risky" because they (according to you) incur less financial risk (due to having no predecessors).

If innovation is "risky" (which would be what people would commonly assume), GW-studio takes significantly more risks than FW/BL (e.g. Wraithknight, Centurions, Codex Supplements, etc..). Either way, GW-Studio seems to enjoy and thrive on innovation in ways that both Forge World and Black Library have long ago stopped doing in favour of milking their "safe" Heresy stuff.

If re-visiting existing kits is "risky" (which doesn't feel right to me), there are still things like the re-done Broadsides or Tactical Marines which would seem to contradict your argument.

I think I can sum it up better in pictures than words. Obviously financials are an issue, lots of other things come into play, but they have just made a new Chaplain (a model I'm not sure anyone was crying out for, but still)



This is a finished, painted model, in White Dwarf, so it is reasonable to assume that GW are happy to promote it.

Here's a still unfinished sculpt, unpainted and a second hand photo at that, of FW doing a "chaplain" A little loose interpretation, admittedly, but close enough for comparison.



So, if someone at GW can produce the second model (not one of my favourites even, though I seem in the minority) why the hell is the first one getting out the door?

Because the first is infinitely better than the second.

The over-blinged FW one is really a disgrace, really.

But that's just my taste, I assume.




Either way, this doesn't help clarify what you consider risky and what you consider not risky.

If breaking new ground is risky, neither of these models is risky, because power-armoured Chaplains are a well-established element of the 40K-verse. If re-doing miniatures for things that already exist is the true risk (power-armoured Chaplains do exist), than both of them qualify.

Differences in aesthetics may mean that one of them succeeds despite the risk, while the other one fails for having taken said risk. But it doesn't clarify what you consider risky and what not.

Ok.

A risky release.
A model or kit which won't automatically command large numbers, and already has an existing option, that doesn't really need an update other than for aesthetic reasons.

A non risky release
Anything with nailed on sales numbers (so Space Marines,) is a new kit for that update, particularly if supported by strong rules, or has been transitioned into plastic (which, given GWs apparent desire to move everything to plastic, must have its own economic incentive for them)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Because the first is infinitely better than the second.

The over-blinged FW one is really a disgrace, really.

But that's just my taste, I assume.




Either way, this doesn't help clarify what you consider risky and what you consider not risky.

If breaking new ground is risky, neither of these models is risky, because power-armoured Chaplains are a well-established element of the 40K-verse. If re-doing miniatures for things that already exist is the true risk (power-armoured Chaplains do exist), than both of them qualify.

Differences in aesthetics may mean that one of them succeeds despite the risk, while the other one fails for having taken said risk. But it doesn't clarify what you consider risky and what not.

I'm not a massive fan of the Erebus sculpt, but I have such a hard time believing you prefer the plastic one, I think you are being contrary at this point.

 azreal13 wrote:

A non risky release
Anything with nailed on sales numbers (so Space Marines,) is a new kit for that update, particularly if supported by strong rules, or has been transitioned into plastic (which, given GWs apparent desire to move everything to plastic, must have its own economic incentive for them)

Again, that seems confusing. Even if GW has a desire to move things into plastic, this doesn't mean that doing so incurs no risk (especially if previous sculpts exist).

Likewise, I don't see why creating new models may not incur a risk. They can easily fail to sell, despite being new (e.g. CSM Mutilators).



Either way, running with this, the Avatar you keep harping on about would've been a "non risky release" if transitioned to plastic. And FW seem to have a structural advantage to being "risky" in your model, due to not doing plastic (despite the fact that resin moulds that become profitable at far lower sales-numbers would seem financially less risky for whatever you do, compared to hard-plastic with significantly higher up-front costs).

And I am not the biggest fan of the plastic Chaplain, but I fail to see what is even remotely interesting about the detail-encrusted, utterly static Erebus sculpt. Nevertheless, as said, I fail to see what difference aesthetic opinions would make.

I'd argue that the GW one is taking significantly more risks - especially financially - since it requires a lot (a lot!) more sales to get out of the red numbers than a resin mould. You're skewed definition however seems to suggest the opposite.

Yet despite requiring far less sales to break even, Forge World is not taking any risks, They are not creating something new, un-precedented in the fluff / miniature range. They are making a Chaplain instead. They are not even creating a new Character, but leeching off Black Library instead. It's the very definition of "no risk".

Hey Az, can you give a specific example of this:

A risky release.
A model or kit which won't automatically command large numbers, and already has an existing option, that doesn't really need an update other than for aesthetic reasons.

I can't entirely figure out what you mean, but chaplain lemartes is the first thing that came to my mind. Low sales volume. Updated for pure aesthetics.

I think GW tried to take a Risk with Dreadfleet and due to its relative "failure" have since played It fairly safe. I don't know how much it benefits them to take a lot of "risks," especially when it costs multiple thousands to create a new plastic mould.

 cincydooley wrote:


I think GW tried to take a Risk with Dreadfleet and due to its relative "failure" have since played It fairly safe. I don't know how much it benefits them to take a lot of "risks," especially when it costs multiple thousands to create a new plastic mould.

Well, according to the slightly odd definitions at work here, DreadFleet would not be considered "risky" since it's entirely new, where-as Space Hulk would be more risky (plastic aside) for re-creating something that already exists.


Again, the ludicrousness of this, IMO, should make it evident why new kits tend to be the risky proposition (Dreadknight, Riptide, Wraithknight, Flyers, Land Speeder Vengeance, SM Centurions, CSM Heldrake, CSM Mutilators), with plastic more risky than Finecast due to the higher up-front costs, whereas releases that give the customers things they "already know" (with years of sales-data to draw upon) would seem to be the safe bets (often used, rightly enough, to hedge the more risky releases).

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

A non risky release
Anything with nailed on sales numbers (so Space Marines,) is a new kit for that update, particularly if supported by strong rules, or has been transitioned into plastic (which, given GWs apparent desire to move everything to plastic, must have its own economic incentive for them)

Again, that seems confusing. Even if GW has a desire to move things into plastic, this doesn't mean that doing so incurs no risk (especially if previous sculpts exist).

Likewise, I don't see why creating new models may not incur a risk. They can easily fail to sell, despite being new (e.g. CSM Mutilators).



Either way, running with this, the Avatar you keep harping on about would've been a "non risky release" if transitioned to plastic. And FW seem to have a structural advantage to being "risky" in your model, due to not doing plastic (despite the fact that resin moulds that become profitable at far lower sales-numbers would seem financially less risky for whatever you do, compared to hard-plastic with significantly higher up-front costs).

And I am not the biggest fan of the plastic Chaplain, but I fail to see what is even remotely interesting about the detail-encrusted, utterly static Erebus sculpt. Nevertheless, as said, I fail to see what difference aesthetic opinions would make.

I'd argue that the GW one is taking significantly more risks - especially financially - since it requires a lot (a lot!) more sales to get out of the red numbers than a resin mould. You're skewed definition however seems to suggest the opposite.

Yet despite requiring far less sales to break even, Forge World is not taking any risks, They are not creating something new, un-precedented in the fluff. They are making a Chaplain instead. They are not even creating a new Character, but leeching off Black Library instead. It's the very definition of "no risk".

Look, firstly, I am not harping on about the Avatar, I offered it as a possible example of a model that could have been updated in a recent release, that arguably needs it, but was passed over. I even volunteered that it wasn't a great example, due to the existence of the FW one, but was the first that came to mind.

But you're clearly more concerned with me setting some rules so you can prove me wrong and win a discussion, so go right ahead, I was more interested in a more open ended discussion, to perhaps gain some insight into what other people thought, and why I find so many of GWs models so underwhelming these days, despite still playing the game, loving the universe and really wanting GW succeed past these almost apparently self-imposed limitations.

If you just want to try and beat me up for not perhaps choosing my words carefully enough off the back of a stinking migraine and little sleep, go right ahead, get it out of your system and maybe we can all move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
Hey Az, can you give a specific example of this:

A risky release.
A model or kit which won't automatically command large numbers, and already has an existing option, that doesn't really need an update other than for aesthetic reasons.

I can't entirely figure out what you mean, but chaplain lemartes is the first thing that came to my mind. Low sales volume. Updated for pure aesthetics.

I think GW tried to take a Risk with Dreadfleet and due to its relative "failure" have since played It fairly safe. I don't know how much it benefits them to take a lot of "risks," especially when it costs multiple thousands to create a new plastic mould.

Sure, Ragmar Blackmane, all (or most) of the Phoenix Lords, Greater Daemons, with the GW site still down in the UK, and my brain half scrambled, that's the best I can offer just now.

I don't want to beat you up.

If you want to start a discussion saying "most new GW releases leave me cold", do it. I would even agree.

But you explicitly didn't chose to make an aesthetic argument, you chose to make one around financial risk, which is where I think you are wrong.

Just because you didn't like a lot of recent models, doesn't mean releasing them wasn't a financial (or even aesthetic, as far as IP-integrity goes) risk, whereas some of the models many of us (myself included) wouldn've loved to have seen released (e.g. Eldar Jetbikes, Plastic Chaos Space Marine Cult Troops, etc.. ) wouldn't have been ultra-safe shoe-ins.

Same with Apocalypse. A plastic Thunderhawk or Warhound titan would've been easy. GW went the risky route with things like the Khorne Lord of Skulls.

Would I have preferred them to take the safe route? Sure. I might even have bought one (and I didn't buy one of the Khorne thingies). But the Khorne thingy definitely was the iron-balls risky "let's try something whacky and new" approach.

Hmm, "space marines" and "risky release" in the same sentence... not so sure about that.

Space marines are basically 60% of GW's sales.

Pretty much anything for them can be released and it will sell.

Oh my god. I'd pay $30 for a better GW Ragnar sculpt. Or Mephiston. Since they did neither, I bought my new Ragnar from Lefendarion.

 Zweischneid wrote:
I don't want to beat you up.

If you want to start a discussion saying "most new GW releases leave me cold", do it. I would even agree.

But you explicitly didn't chose to make an aesthetic argument, you chose to make one around financial risk, which is where I think you are wrong.

Just because you didn't like a lot of recent models, doesn't mean releasing them wasn't a financial (or even aesthetic, as far as IP-integrity goes) risk, whereas some of the models many of us (myself included) wouldn've loved to have seen released (e.g. Eldar Jetbikes, Plastic Chaos Space Marine Cult Troops, etc.. ) wouldn't have been ultra-safe shoe-ins.

They're pandering more and more to their target demographic, those who are easily seduced by shiny syndrome. I've been in stores, and I've spoken to some of the younger players, they just don't seem to be able to objectively assess things the same way I would, and they simply swallow whatever is shovelled at them.

Therefore, why make new versions of old kits, when so many of your customers will buy the new kits and all the old kits? Unless you can make the old kits cheaper and increase your margins, of course.

Its an easy way to make money, and I think much of the criticism levelled at GW boils down to they're the dominant player in a small industry by a huge margin, and all they really need to do to make their cash at this point is rinse and repeat last year, but drop different factions into the calendar. They're lazy, and as all the creative minds have drifted away from the upper management, have only become more and more stagnant.

I think it would be good for GWs ecosystem, good for the gamer and good for the wider hobby if they took a few more risks, even failures could help, as long as they established a feedback mechanism to listen to why they failed, as opposed to the current "glass up to the adjacent hotel room wall" that seems to have brought us the hardback mini rulebook that nobody was asking for!

I'm sure that the CHS studio case has had an impact on their behaviour, perhaps resulting in rush jobs to get things out in time, even those not obviously affected, as they may have been shoved around to accommodate other things, but I honestly say, other than perhaps the scale of the Wraithknight, which is admittedly impressive, nothing GW have produced in almost two years has excited me.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and Dreadfleet failed because it wasn't 40K derived.

Pretty much everything GW touches these days that isn't 40K seems doomed to failure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
I don't want to beat you up.

Same with Apocalypse. A plastic Thunderhawk or Warhound titan would've been easy. GW went the risky route with things like the Khorne Lord of Skulls.

Would I have preferred them to take the safe route? Sure. I might even have bought one (and I didn't buy one of the Khorne thingies). But the Khorne thingy definitely was the iron-balls risky "let's try something whacky and new" approach.

Exactly, that demonstrates that there is a right and a wrong sort of risk. Either of those suggestions seems like a licence to print money, albeit with a small risk, with high tooling and logistic costs, and a large sticker price, a Warhound (or T Hawk more likely) would seem like a no Brainer.

But "Giant Death Robot Tank" is just silly, and deserves to fail, but I'm not 14 anymore, and I honestly can't say how my 14 year old self would have reacted.

All things considered, 14 year olds and 34 year olds would buy a T Hawk, so you're right, that is the less risky option, but, like Dreadfleet, it isn't something I, personally, would have taken a risk on when there are so many lower risk items.

Perhaps that's the thing? GW seem happy to go big on the big ticket items like a new game or Apoc kit, but not in redoing a small 28m sculpt?

Again, you assume that releasing a new model without precedent will result in sales from whatever target demographic they target (and they may target a different target demographic than Forge World, but that doesn't make one better than the other, though you sound like somebody more in Forge World's cross-hairs than GW's cross-hairs).

Sure, if the risk they take pays off with a new cake, they get to sell the new stuff and the old stuff. That is why they take the risk of things like a Wraithknight. But just because the benefits of actually taking risks (e.g. expand the customer base) are worth it over playing it safe (e.g. just pander to your existing, aging customer base), doesn't mean it isn't a risk to do so.

The fact remains that throwing out things like the Wraithknight or Khorne Lord of Skulls, with no precedent, no old sales-data to draw upon, no pre-existing demand, etc.. is far more risky than playing it safe with yet another variation of Eldar Jetbikes or Chaos Cult Marines.

You may not like their approach, but if you try to paint it as "risk-avoiding", you're using the wrong vocabulary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:


Exactly, that demonstrates that there is a right and a wrong sort of risk.

So now we have "right and wrong sort of risk"?

Seriously, you need to separate your personal preferences and biases from the "risk-argument" you're trying to make.

Dude, this is an evolving discussion, not an argument.

We are not in court.

Quit trying to win my discussion!

Why wouldn't they take more risks on larger, more expensive kits. The tooling costs are going to be similar regardless, yet the margins on something like the Khorne-Mower are going to be significantly higher.

I still don't understand why they don't do a plastic thunder hawk. I can't see them doing titans because those still sell relatively well from FW, but t-hawks far less so. And the t-hawk is all straight lines. Would be easy to do in plastic.

 cincydooley wrote:
Why wouldn't they take more risks on larger, more expensive kits. The tooling costs are going to be similar regardless, yet the margins on something like the Khorne-Mower are going to be significantly higher.

I still don't understand why they don't do a plastic thunder hawk. I can't see them doing titans because those still sell relatively well from FW, but t-hawks far less so. And the t-hawk is all straight lines. Would be easy to do in plastic.

This is somewhat outside my definitely known knowledge, so free to be contradicted, but isn't the tooling cost largely down to the number of sprues? So a large model doesn't necessarily cost more in tooling, but one with a lot of sprues does? The two not being necessarily connected?

 cincydooley wrote:
Why wouldn't they take more risks on larger, more expensive kits. The tooling costs are going to be similar regardless, yet the margins on something like the Khorne-Mower are going to be significantly higher.

Wait? Why would plastic tooling suddenly benefit low-volume, high cost kits?

Given the high cost of plastic tooling, it is the production method of choice for things you sell in high numbers but without massive margins on a single kit (e.g. Tactical Marines). Inversely, the low-volume, more work-intensive production methods from Forge World are generally better suited to large kits with larger profits on every single sale (but far fewer sales overall), no?

The Khorne Lord of Skulls would've been an ideal low-production-run Forge World kit. The fact that it isn't, is a testament to GW willing to take some risks.

(though it should be noted the Lord of Skulls is a pretty clever design, as it uses the same sprue no less than 4 times for the lower chassis).

For some reason I thought I had read that there's a base per sprue but the size difference was a negligible cost difference. So, for instance, the mould for a clamshell plastic character is only marginally less than the 4x size sprue for a Wraithknight. That could be bad recollection on my part.

I'd guess those larger models like the Khorne mower do have larger margins than the librarian (which I like, but would have preferred to see a 2 pack ala the empire general kit). In fact. I don't understand why they're not doing mutipart kits like that for chaplains, librarians, and captains. Grrrrr.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, I'll buy ONE of that librarian. If they did a multipart kit that had a terminator and power armor option, I can see myself buying multiple.

Perhaps I should change the title to

"Why do GW take dumb risks when they should play it safe and vice versa!"

Of course, without sales figures of the LoS, we can't really call whether it was a success or not, but it does strike me as an odd thing to take a risk on, given what we consumers obviously see as a slam dunk for alternatives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
For some reason I thought I had read that there's a base per sprue but the size difference was a negligible cost difference. So, for instance, the mould for a clamshell plastic character is only marginally less than the 4x size sprue for a Wraithknight. That could be bad recollection on my part.

I'd guess those larger models like the Khorne mower do have larger margins than the librarian (which I like, but would have preferred to see a 2 pack ala the empire general kit). In fact. I don't understand why they're not doing mutipart kits like that for chaplains, librarians, and captains. Grrrrr.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, I'll buy ONE of that librarian. If they did a multipart kit that had a terminator and power armor option, I can see myself buying multiple.

Or even just throwing in some bike compatible legs?

That would surely go down well.

I was just saying that If you're going to do low volume kits in plastic, it makes more sense to do larger, more expensive ones that have higher margins than the smaller clamshells.

@azreal13, I think GW does take risks given your defination. GW makes a lot of models (old or new) that did not sell well. (ie, New Belial/LS vengence/Dark Talons - new model no one buys; Amsodai/Lemertas - replacement models no one buys)

My idea of risk is GW increaseing their price of models to such a level to see how high they can get away with. With this current release I won't buy some of their kits no matter the quallity.

Here's my take on why current GW models seem underwhelming. Every model is too blinged up. Its nice to have details but GW current technology has allowed them to put insane amounts of bling to even the grunts, and that's why they did. Another reason is plastic kits have way too many bits to kitbash. I'm not saying this is bad but the myriad options feels like I'm building a lego kit. There is no more of the unique script feelings back in the 90s.

 azreal13 wrote:



Or even just throwing in some bike compatible legs?

That would surely go down well.

Ugh. No kidding. Boom. That removes that crappy chaplain on bike Barcode for em too.

I mean, those types of boxed sets seem like no brainers to me.

wufai wrote:
@azreal13, I think GW does take risks given your defination. GW makes a lot of models (old or new) that did not sell well. (ie, New Belial/LS vengence/Dark Talons - new model no one buys; Amsodai/Lemertas - replacement models no one buys)

I'm sorry, but unless you're in possession of last quarters sales figures, you can't make that call, we have only two DA players in our club, and I know that they have two Dark Talons, two Belials and at least one LS Vengeance between them, possibly more.

You have to consider GW is global, and even a low selling line could easily sell in the 000s.

 azreal13 wrote:

wufai wrote:
@azreal13, I think GW does take risks given your defination. GW makes a lot of models (old or new) that did not sell well. (ie, New Belial/LS vengence/Dark Talons - new model no one buys; Amsodai/Lemertas - replacement models no one buys)

I'm sorry, but unless you're in possession of last quarters sales figures, you can't make that call, we have only two DA players in our club, and I know that they have two Dark Talons, two Belials and at least one LS Vengeance between them, possibly more.

You have to consider GW is global, and even a low selling line could easily sell in the 000s.

I am sorry, but good sales don't necessarily mean release X wasn't a risk. It may simply have been a risk that paid off. Or, of course, it may not have been a risky release and performed as expected.

Hence why we'd need a clear definition of risky/not-risky that is a variable independent of personal taste/bias and of eventual sales(or lack of sales) to turn this into an actual discussion about risk (and comparative risk-taking by GW vs. Forge World and/or Black Library and/or other miniature companies).

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

wufai wrote:
@azreal13, I think GW does take risks given your defination. GW makes a lot of models (old or new) that did not sell well. (ie, New Belial/LS vengence/Dark Talons - new model no one buys; Amsodai/Lemertas - replacement models no one buys)

I'm sorry, but unless you're in possession of last quarters sales figures, you can't make that call, we have only two DA players in our club, and I know that they have two Dark Talons, two Belials and at least one LS Vengeance between them, possibly more.

You have to consider GW is global, and even a low selling line could easily sell in the 000s.

I am sorry, but good sales don't necessarily mean release X wasn't a risk. It may simply have been a risk that paid off. Or, of course, it may not have been a risky release and performed as expected.

Hence why we'd need a clear definition of risky/not-risky that is a variable independent of personal taste/bias and of eventual sales(or lack of sales) to turn this into an actual discussion about risk (and comparative risk-taking by GW vs. Forge World and/or Black Library and/or other miniature companies).

I was addressing "which nobody buys" element, which I;m sure you'll agree is baseless and inaccurate

 cincydooley wrote:
Hey Az, can you give a specific example of this:

A risky release.
A model or kit which won't automatically command large numbers, and already has an existing option, that doesn't really need an update other than for aesthetic reasons.

I can't entirely figure out what you mean, but chaplain lemartes is the first thing that came to my mind. Low sales volume. Updated for pure aesthetics.

I think GW tried to take a Risk with Dreadfleet and due to its relative "failure" have since played It fairly safe. I don't know how much it benefits them to take a lot of "risks," especially when it costs multiple thousands to create a new plastic mould.

That was a built failure deliberately placed by corporation. They had no intention for dread fleet to succeed. It was a fill in product during holiday season. There was never going to be support for the product. Which is a terrible idea, because THAT is what killed the product overall