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.

It's just bizarre because the boxed set is pretty useless without that rulebook. You can exhaust it in a good evening of games.

The question that comes to mind is, who exactly is that hardcover rulebook aimed at? You'd think it'd be perfect for Lord of the Rings players who wanted the updated rules but without The Hobbit miniatures (though from what I've seen there's a great deal of confusion over whether they're meant to be different games or updated rules) but you literally cannot play The Hobbit properly without it as there is no other source for the points costs or scenarios, and of course if you're just interested in the updated rules then you won't care about the Hobbit scenarios or points costs either (though it does have a number of Lord of the Rings scenarios too - how many or in what detail, I can't say, since I don't have it).

I find it difficult to conclude anything but that this was designed as an additional $140 purchase that you're supposed to be forced to make to make your previous $205 purchase usable. That's not a fantastic way to encourage people to get into the game, which is really sad because it's a very good one.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
. Instead of people being drawn in by Heroquest or Space Hulk, they are drawn in by Dawn of War or Space Marine

So, games that came out nine, four, and two and a half years ago.

If that really is their strategy, I'd work a bit harder at it.

Heroquest 9 years ago? Think you're nearly 20 years out there buddy, you may be thinking of Warhammer Quest, but even then 9 is low, nearer 15.

Dawn of War was nine and four (DoW2), no? And Space Marine 2?

I think a lot of people in this thread don't understand how the Hobbit related to The Lord of the Rings. It isn't a separate entity to the fans it is a prologue. The miniatures line should have fit right in with the previous LotR releases but it would appear that this was not the case. As a huge fan of the GW LotR miniatures I will give you my take on why it didn't do that for me. In no particular order.

1. The look and feel don't fit with my old LotR miniatures!?!?!?! Well seriously WTF Peter Jackson. The dwarves don't feel like the dwarves from the LotR trilogy, Wargs are different (I think better but different), and the orcs and goblins are completely different looking.

2. The price is just insane (well for me anyway). This isn't strictly a problem with the Hobbit miniatures and started to occur when the named ring wraiths were released.

3. Do I really need my seventh Gandalf? I am kidding I actually have nine already. The answer is a resounding NOOOOOO especially not when he is $20.00. The same goes for the rest of the White Council. Most people who really got into the LotR already have at least one of each of those models so why would they shell out that much? (See number 2)

4. And last but not least a lot of the GW sculpts look like crap. For instance the trolls and the orc characters are particularly poor sculpts. There shouldn't be sharp angles on flesh and frankly while I don't think Peter Jackson helped out GW by changing the look a lot of the stuff in the movie (see #1) GW didn't help themselves any with substandard sculpts either.

5. Is it me or has the Heavy Metal team gone down hill? Some of the orcs look like turds. Seriously check out Narzug..... looks like a giant brown turd.

6. Did I mention the price?!?!?!?!?!

7. Lastly but not least where are all the little boxed vignettes from the movie? Ohhh thats right...... you can't sell them for $120 so GW just didn't make them..... did I mention the price?

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
That's not a fantastic way to encourage people to get into the game, which is really sad because it's a very good one.

At the end of the day that's what really annoys me. LOTR/The Hobbit is an awesome lisence for GW to have and it's a good game with good miniatures but GW seem to be doing everything in their power to make it as unappealing and unpopular as possible. I'd love to have more people playing LOTR and it actually being a more major game and the main obstacle to that IMO is GW's handling of it.

 Flashman wrote:
I don't think that GWs pricing strategy helped, but I think you have to place the blame on the film itself.

It wasn't bad entertainment as such, but I don't think many would argue that it was the equal of the original trilogy.

Consequently, I don't think there was the same level of enthusiasm for the game this time around.

I am not sure I agree so much. The hobbit grossed 1 billion dollars and the entire Lord of the Rings Trilogy grossed like 2.9 billion. Obviously tickets are more expensive and inflation and all that jazz but still more than enough people to support a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I am a HUGE LotR fan. I loved the Hobbit. Sure, it wasn't LotR, but you can't expect this. I actually considered buying the minis, but when I saw the price, I just laughed and forgot about it.

I mean, really.

Pretty much my reaction too.

 Polonius wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
. Instead of people being drawn in by Heroquest or Space Hulk, they are drawn in by Dawn of War or Space Marine

So, games that came out nine, four, and two and a half years ago.

If that really is their strategy, I'd work a bit harder at it.

Have you seen the recent updates regarding GW expanding its video game licensing? It seems that they're doing just what you'd want...

They're giving the rights to whomever they can for all that sweet sweet license money.

brettz123 wrote:
4. And last but not least a lot of the GW sculpts look like crap. For instance the trolls and the orc characters are particularly poor sculpts. There shouldn't be sharp angles on flesh and frankly while I don't think Peter Jackson helped out GW by changing the look a lot of the stuff in the movie (see #1) GW didn't help themselves any with substandard sculpts either.

Are you sure this is a problem with the sculpts and not simply with the way GW had them painted? I've often thought different LOTR/Hobbit models looked ugly as sin because of the images of the GW painted ones, but then when I've seen them in the plastic/metal/resin I realise the sculpts are often quite good but they've been painted with hard edges for no reason and in an attempt to bring out the face they've just made it look cartoonishly silly given the models are actually realistic scale unlike the other GW ranges.

5. Is it me or has the Heavy Metal team gone down hill? Some of the orcs look like turds. Seriously check out Narzug..... looks like a giant brown turd.

I have a feeling it's simply how they're being told to paint, more cartoonish, simpler, harder lines and for certain models (I'd argue many models) it simply doesn't work. Look at some of the lines on Narzug's legs, they make it look like the muscles are squared off instead of rounded, but if you rotate the model in the 360 view, you can see they clearly aren't.

It's not just LOTR, look at the Savage Orcs on the GW site and you would think the muscles are all unnatural and square, but the sculpts are actually fine, it's just the way GW have told their painters to paint them.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

brettz123 wrote:
4. And last but not least a lot of the GW sculpts look like crap. For instance the trolls and the orc characters are particularly poor sculpts. There shouldn't be sharp angles on flesh and frankly while I don't think Peter Jackson helped out GW by changing the look a lot of the stuff in the movie (see #1) GW didn't help themselves any with substandard sculpts either.

Are you sure this is a problem with the sculpts and not simply with the way GW had them painted? I've often thought different LOTR/Hobbit models looked ugly as sin because of the images of the GW painted ones, but then when I've seen them in the plastic/metal/resin I realise the sculpts are often quite good but they've been painted with hard edges for no reason and in an attempt to bring out the face they've just made it look cartoonishly silly given the models are actually realistic scale unlike the other GW ranges.

5. Is it me or has the Heavy Metal team gone down hill? Some of the orcs look like turds. Seriously check out Narzug..... looks like a giant brown turd.

I have a feeling it's simply how they're being told to paint, more cartoonish, simpler, harder lines and for certain models (I'd argue many models) it simply doesn't work. Look at some of the lines on Narzug's legs, they make it look like the muscles are squared off instead of rounded, but if you rotate the model in the 360 view, you can see they clearly aren't.

It's not just LOTR, look at the Savage Orcs on the GW site and you would think the muscles are all unnatural and square, but the sculpts are actually fine, it's just the way GW have told their painters to paint them.

Good points. I haven't seen them in person and am just going by the pictures on the website. Not going to drop the money to find out either .

This is what, the third attempt at a LotR/Hobbit starter set/rulebook? I bought the first three original boxes: The green Rohan riders one, the blue Gondor one and I think there was a brown box in there somewhere. Then they came out with Mines of Moria, a new rulebook and new army books and I knew, this was gonna be another GW treadmill with people running trying to keep up with all the book re-releases. So, I shelved it.

I experience enough re-releases with 40k and Fantasy. Noway I'm gonna drop $80+ on another rulebook. I'll just use the three original ones...if I ever happen to find someone who actually plays.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
. Instead of people being drawn in by Heroquest or Space Hulk, they are drawn in by Dawn of War or Space Marine

So, games that came out nine, four, and two and a half years ago.

If that really is their strategy, I'd work a bit harder at it.

Heroquest 9 years ago? Think you're nearly 20 years out there buddy, you may be thinking of Warhammer Quest, but even then 9 is low, nearer 15.

He's talking about the original Dawn of War, I think.

The sculpts for the Hobbit seem great to me, far better than the previous LotR ones.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The scary part is that this year that $140 rulebook goes bye bye in favour of a new $140 rulebook that'll be mostly the same. It's crazy.

As if.

The next book will be $165

 Manchu wrote:
The sculpts for the Hobbit seem great to me, far better than the previous LotR ones.

I’m almost certain that any deficiencies in the Hobbit's (game) success or lack thereof probably has little to do with the miniatures themselves.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The sculpts for the Hobbit seem great to me, far better than the previous LotR ones.

I’m almost certain that any deficiencies in the Hobbit's (game) success or lack thereof probably has little to do with the miniatures themselves.

Totally agree. Frankly I think the LOTR range and The Hobbit range are for the most part really nice looking models (that are sometimes let down by poor painting choices by the 'Eavy Metal team).

 Mannahnin wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
. Instead of people being drawn in by Heroquest or Space Hulk, they are drawn in by Dawn of War or Space Marine

So, games that came out nine, four, and two and a half years ago.

If that really is their strategy, I'd work a bit harder at it.

Heroquest 9 years ago? Think you're nearly 20 years out there buddy, you may be thinking of Warhammer Quest, but even then 9 is low, nearer 15.

Dawn of War was nine and four (DoW2), no? And Space Marine 2?

Ah, prefacing the list with two board games, then only referring to videogames in the time elapsed threw me, I see what he meant now.

I think the failure of the Hobbit game has less to do with GW and more to do with Peter Jackson and the movie. The movie was above average at best. After seeing the movie, my friends and I basically felt it was an ok movie, but no desire to see it again. The Hobbit came and went from the theaters.

How many weeks was the Fellowship #1? I remember it stayed in the top 3 in the US for several weeks. It was an enjoyable movie and a couple of my friends saw it multiple times. We were excited about the movie and couldn't wait for the Two Towers. The Hobbit? After seeing the movie we talked about what we were planning on doing next Friday. The movie didn't generate any excitement, so all the products tied to it didn't generate any excitement.

Kroothawk posted a number of production screw-ups for all the various tie in products. We all remember Bolg? No we don't because he wasn't in the movie! I think GW realized the cluster f' this movie was, threw the game out there, priced it to try to make back it's money, and washed their hands for the most part.

There are other issues that I think also contributed to success of LotR that aren't present anymore, but the movie itself is the main contributor to the games failure.

Hi so I haven't read the whole post to see if this was mentioned but I just wanted to put some input in as a LotR SBG player!

The new rulebook is really the only thing any previous player needed I feel was a huge thing. None of the new models really go well with the previous armies, and some of them just don't even make rules sense on their own! The hunter orcs are WORSE on their wargs? Thats idiotic!

I wanted to get them but that alone was pretty offputting. And leads me to my second point: the new models are hardly anything to build an army around. For example, Rivendell has 1 warrior choice. Azogs band has one warrior choice. Most of the new armies have no variance for warriors, what kind of crap is that!?

So basically then all the hobbit models are only good for small matches and allying, but then it doesnt make sense 1. why youd use them with war of the ring models 2. why youd buy the official rulebook over the cheap insert one in the starter for a couple profiles max.

Not to mention a bunch of the profiles aren't even new. So basically all the previous players don't even need to buy anything other than a rulebook from the starter.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
LotR seemed pretty big, there are lots of accounts of it being a big seller and I remember people complaining about how it was overshadowing fantasy/40k, so I don't think there doubt about its success.

Someone claims GW paid five time more for the Hobbit license, where's the source on that? Seems a little unlikely and if so is rather too much. The Hobbit just seems a smaller franchise, I don't see the massive presence of it generally in toy shops.

As a game from GW it's been released with a bit of a whimper. It doesn't feature strongly in any LGS I've been in, but equally I can't say if it's been selling poorly. But if I didn't read Dakka I probably would barely have registered its existence.

The ludicrous prices are just the final barrier. I just don't know who would pay them other than the most dedicated LotR gamer. They are not casual purchases.

After reading most of the thread I think this is the post that shows what's going on inside GW HQ, they found that LotR was a success, too much of a success that was close to or outselling GW's flagships. After interest waned in the movies the all knowing board members found that a Hobbit game in the wrong hands would threaten WHFB seriously if it was allowed to flourish on the market but at the same time it would be (for GW) something linked to the new movies and then gone and forgotten, so they bidded for the license put out a game and fullfilled the minimum requirements in the contract with New Line with the aim of recouping the investement through sky high prices and then forget about the whole thing and that's the reason of the lack of marketing for the Hobbit game, GW is not interested at all on it, it was a defensive move to protect their games.

I know that the idea above sounds silly, even borders parannoia but it's the best atempt I can come with to explain why a company would spend quite a big amount of money in a license and then say it, I was never interested in the thing to beging with.

M.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The sculpts for the Hobbit seem great to me, far better than the previous LotR ones.

I’m almost certain that any deficiencies in the Hobbit's (game) success or lack thereof probably has little to do with the miniatures themselves.

Agreed. Just assembled a pack of hunter orcs -- twelve figs' twelve poses' all dynamic, only took twenty minutes to put together.

this might seem/sound mainly OT, and to some it could certainly read as such, but as someone said earlier GW doesn't own the IP rights of LOTR/the hobbit, and i personally fail to understand the reasoning behind NOT supporting their already existing games platforms, mainly 40k/whfb, ie in the shape of: necromunda/mordheim spachulk/warhammer quest. the end result of loss of sales? not likely as those games sold out each and every time i went to order from my FLGS/GW's own mail order.

nkelsch wrote:
When LotR was out, I could buy GW's LotR miniatures in every bookstore, toystore and DVD store within 50 miles of me.

Bookstores had a display next to the book sets.
Toys R Us had it right next to the action figures.
Suncoast had it right next to the DVD boxed sets.

Today, every bookstore near me is out of business. Movie stores do not exist and people buy DVDs at the grocery store or digitally. No sign of anything at the toy store.

When you have to go to a store you don't know exists or a website for a product you don't know exists, how can you buy it? At least before there was a TON of stumble upon traffic.

I know we see things from the POV of gamers, but LotR had lots of crossover into non-gamers and I met people who don't wargame but enjoyed painting models when they were kids take a crack at buying LotR models. It was all about putting it in people's faces and getting them to try something.

This had been my experience as well. I could buy LOTR minis everywhere for several years. LOTR was what got me back into minis and gaming after 10 years out. And I went nuts. I have hundreds of LOTR figs and all the previous SBG books. Great value in the beginning and sculpts that were true-scale (comparatively) and fun to paint. The rules were fun and lite and the whole family could play them. I got my youngest son the Hobbit goblin paint/box set, and while he enjoys painting anything, I have to say those goblins are even dumber looking than their movie likeness. The only reason I bought that box was that the FLGS had it marked 30% off less than a month after the movie premiered. The price is just the final nail in the coffin of otherwise bad business practices.

Also: I live in a fairly large metro area. A few years ago we had 2 GW stores and about 5 decent size game stores. Now we have one decent store within 30 miles of me. Both GW stores crapped out. This year GW opened a new store on the other side of town. Haven't been there yet.

 Kingsley wrote:

I myself was drawn into 40k thanks to a magazine advertisement back in 1998. But ironically those who claim that GW doesn't advertise seem to be the ones who are behind the times, as GW now runs a modern version of this strategy. Instead of people being drawn in by Heroquest or Space Hulk, they are drawn in by Dawn of War or Space Marine. Instead of people seeing ads in Dragon magazine, they see ads on Facebook. This doesn't seem controversial or complex to me and I'm surprised that more people don't notice it.

Facebook is only likely to show ads to people who are already interested in GW, so it's a terrible advertising medium.

I'm not convinced the PC/console games are great advertising either; there's no obvious link back to the miniatures games unless you're already aware of them, and as far as I'm aware they didn't ship with any additional leaflets or anything mentioning the store.

So currently GW doesn't appear to be doing much advertising outside it's existing customer base, and even then a lot of them miss stuff (like the Hobbit release).

There are plenty of missed opportunities for advertising: cinema's around the time of fantasy/sci-fi releases (they really should have given a goblin away with every Hobbit ticket sold, or had a GW voucher on the back of the tickets), and there must be dozens of magazines that are bought by GW's target demographic (mostly computer gaming or comics) that they could run ads in to try and get the attention of non-customers.

 Kingsley wrote:
I myself was drawn into 40k thanks to a magazine advertisement back in 1998. But ironically those who claim that GW doesn't advertise seem to be the ones who are behind the times, as GW now runs a modern version of this strategy. Instead of people being drawn in by Heroquest or Space Hulk, they are drawn in by Dawn of War or Space Marine. Instead of people seeing ads in Dragon magazine, they see ads on Facebook. This doesn't seem controversial or complex to me and I'm surprised that more people don't notice it.

And WoW gamers fueled the boom of pen and paper RPGs, sure

There are almost no computer gamers that are interested in lenghthy assembly and painting and finding real life opponent procedures. And they are all aware that for the price of 6 Elven Riders or 4 wizards (Council), they get top notch value in PC games.

The mere hope that someone else advertises GW's products can't distract from the fact that GW makes no advertising itself, excusing lost sales and customers weakly as the result of being niche.

I liked it except for the singing.

Maybe everything went right with the Hobbit. Or should I say, it went as GW planned it. Maybe they did not want the game to be a success. They figured that they would have a big year of sales with 40k. They can offset some of the profits with the losses from the Hobbit. It has been mentioned in several threads that such things are desirable. If they make too much money the stock people will be suspect, and investors will also expect such profits in the future. It has been suggested that GW limits releases so as not to earn too much money. However, with a big loser like the Hobbit, they can have a gang buster year with 6th ed and tau and not appear to be too successful. Also having the license to the Hobbit is very important to GW. It means that noone else has the license. Given that they are suffering from major competition, keeping the license out of other companies hands is very important to them. Imagine if Privateer Press or WOTC got the Hobbit and did it right. They might be able to really cut into GWs fantasy business.

the movie is no more different than the first LOTR, a long introduction, the first LOTR movie was also boring as hell. Weren't people expecting too much?

About the game, i agree with most people above, the price, if you try to sell to moviegoers , than this price is ridiculous!

Wait, there was a game for The Hobbit?

 Mannahnin wrote:
Reminiscing over old ads, pages 1 and 2 of the multi page ad I was talking about..

It's got a quote from Edgar Allen Poe...! And they attribute it to him. That is awesome

As a Baltimore native, that's one way to win my heart right there

Throughout the life of the LotR lines, I never saw the miniatures sold outside of GW shops or LGSs in either southeastern MI or central VA. And I only saw LGSs carrying the line very sparsely. In Richmond today, there are three game shops I can think of and 2/3 carry the Hobbit products. TBF, one of them only carries 40k when it comes to GW and another one is selling off its Hobbit stuff at clearance. None of those three shops sells non-Hobbit LotR stuff, IIRC.

I'm starting to suspect the poor sales of the Hobbit have less to do with GW's practices and more to do with a wider lack of interest in Tolkien-based miniatures.