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.

Whether GW's business plan is solid gets us into such rarefied heights of speculation, and is certainly beyond my own skill set and knowledge, that just about any conclusions are possible and they will have more to do with whether a particular poster dis/likes AoS or GW more than anything else. But sure, I am not arguing that AoS could not theoretically (or actually) be a failure. My issues are, we don't know what failure means, we don't know any numbers, we don't have a representative sample, we just really lack any and all of the elements we'd need to come to any kind of meaningful conclusion other than confirmation bias.

 the_Armyman wrote:

Manchu wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
only quoted drno's most recent post, because I couldn't originally be arsed to track down his first comment.

Thanks for clarifying although I think DrNo172000 is trying to get at a business criticism in both of the posts you mention.

I think you're splitting some awfully thin hairs, Manchu. Judgedoug has a little chuckle at mikhaila, then his buddy comes into the discussion shortly after telling us about why businessmen in this line of work fail. I've said my peace, I just don't like to see people run down.

I will admit that my first post is aggressive, I apologize for that. But here's the thing a business is a business, a hobby store shouldn't be run any different. If you know that your customer base loved WHFB and enjoyed the tournament scene, would you have ordered 80 copies? Why not buy into KoW instead which is better suited to the tourney scene anyway.

That's a simple failure to understand the customer base. Heck I even admitted I made the same misstep with SAGA at my store. The difference is I did not do a huge buy in.

Further we don't know why his stores are successful, there are two business in my state that have no idea what they are doing, yet they make a lot of money. One of them even has two stores. This is because they have been open for 30 years. 30 years ago there was no competition in the hobby market. If you want to see the model brick and mortars need to follow if they wish to maintain then look no further than miniature market who is probably making more than all of us store guys talking on here combined.

It is never ever the products fault, especially if you have the power to control what you carry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Then you mention not wanting to see people run down. Are you going defend the people getting run down because they enjoy AoS? Are you going to defend GW getting run down by numerous people? You going to defend the competitive players who constantly get told they are poor sports cause they want to win? What about the casual ones who get made fun of by the competitive players who are actual poor sports? You might have your work cut out for you on the Internet.

Manchu wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
GW has decided not to bother, and just done the easy part.

Pretty cunning stuff. I mean, let's say it costs more to do something that is hard than it does to do something that is easy. And let's say, just for the sake of argument, that GW invested in trying to balance WHFB 8E but not AoS. Let's further assume AoS is projected to do better sales in a similar time frame than WHFB 8E. Cutting costs, increasing revenues. Sounds good.

Except, of course, if it sells worse than Warhammer.

Whoops.

So, cutting costs, and cutting revenues even further... it ended up beng cunning in a Baldrick fashion, perhaps? (Seemed like a good idea at the time... but in reality, not so much.)

The biggest cost in balancing the rules is time... and a willingness to actually listen to your playtesters.

The Auld Grump

Is there a rule that you can't be positive about something GW does without being a complete dick about it?

Also, none of you guys seem to know anything about how a large business works. A lot of the posts in this thread are pretty hilarious, although unintentionally.

If AoS is an absolute disaster (more like Titanic, rather than stubbing your toe), you'll know in January. If it's anything else, it will take more time. Unless, of course, Rountree gets more chatty than he strictly needs to be. Which is pretty unlikely.

 DrNo172000 wrote:
It is never ever the products fault, especially if you have the power to control what you carry.

Disagreed.

A store owner may commit the mistake of trying to sell a terrible product, but that still doesn't make the product any less terrible.

AoS is a mediocre product, IMO doomed to fail in the long run unless crucial changes are made to it. A store owner/manager may do it better or worse at trying to sell it to his/her customers, but in the end, as long as said customers have easy access to better alternatives, AoS will fail.

Because it's not only mediocre, it's also expensive as hell. If the three traditional key aspects of a successful product are "good, pretty and cheap", then AoS may only qualify as pretty, and that depending on who you ask (for starters, I'm not really sold on its aesthetic).

 Thud wrote:
Is there a rule that you can't be positive about something GW does without being a complete dick about it?

Also, none of you guys seem to know anything about how a large business works. A lot of the posts in this thread are pretty hilarious, although unintentionally.

If AoS is an absolute disaster (more like Titanic, rather than stubbing your toe), you'll know in January. If it's anything else, it will take more time. Unless, of course, Rountree gets more chatty than he strictly needs to be. Which is pretty unlikely.

Exactly, game hasn't even been out a year and the doom and gloom prophecies already abound. There's simply no way of knowing how it's doing. I'll be interested to read the next ICV2 quarterly to see if it hit top ten like Armada did its first quarter release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Korinov wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
It is never ever the products fault, especially if you have the power to control what you carry.

Disagreed.

A store owner may commit the mistake of trying to sell a terrible product, but that still doesn't make the product any less terrible.

AoS is a mediocre product, IMO doomed to fail in the long run unless crucial changes are made to it. A store owner/manager may do it better or worse at trying to sell it to his/her customers, but in the end, as long as said customers have easy access to better alternatives, AoS will fail.

Because it's not only mediocre, it's also expensive as hell. If the three traditional key aspects of a successful product are "good, pretty and cheap", then AoS may only qualify as pretty, and that depending on who you ask (for starters, I'm not really sold on its aesthetic).

If you choose to carry a bad product whose fault is that?

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Except, of course, if it sells worse than Warhammer.

Keep in mind, I am just assuming your point about balancing for the sake of argument. I don't actually believe it. My theory is, AoS is meant to appeal to a different kind of customer than previously, a customer who was not buying enough to play a rule set that was likely a barrier to others joining up. But sure, AoS could sell worse than Eighth. GW could go bankrupt. Disney could buy the IPs and make Space Marine movies.

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 Thud wrote:
Is there a rule that you can't be positive about something GW does without being a complete dick about it?

Also, none of you guys seem to know anything about how a large business works. A lot of the posts in this thread are pretty hilarious, although unintentionally.

If AoS is an absolute disaster (more like Titanic, rather than stubbing your toe), you'll know in January. If it's anything else, it will take more time. Unless, of course, Rountree gets more chatty than he strictly needs to be. Which is pretty unlikely.

Exactly, game hasn't even been out a year and the doom and gloom prophecies already abound. There's simply no way of knowing how it's doing. I'll be interested to read the next ICV2 quarterly to see if it hit top ten like Armada did its first quarter release.

No indisputable way, but anecdotal evidence is still evidence. January will be the telling moment, although that will be obscured by panic buying and BaC.

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
It is never ever the products fault, especially if you have the power to control what you carry.

Disagreed.

A store owner may commit the mistake of trying to sell a terrible product, but that still doesn't make the product any less terrible.

AoS is a mediocre product, IMO doomed to fail in the long run unless crucial changes are made to it. A store owner/manager may do it better or worse at trying to sell it to his/her customers, but in the end, as long as said customers have easy access to better alternatives, AoS will fail.

Because it's not only mediocre, it's also expensive as hell. If the three traditional key aspects of a successful product are "good, pretty and cheap", then AoS may only qualify as pretty, and that depending on who you ask (for starters, I'm not really sold on its aesthetic).

If you choose to carry a bad product whose fault is that?

Yeah, that's the problem with niche markets in general, and then gw has its own can of worms. Some people make a living off of selling gw products, it's a risky business to be in.

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 Thud wrote:
Is there a rule that you can't be positive about something GW does without being a complete dick about it?

Also, none of you guys seem to know anything about how a large business works. A lot of the posts in this thread are pretty hilarious, although unintentionally.

If AoS is an absolute disaster (more like Titanic, rather than stubbing your toe), you'll know in January. If it's anything else, it will take more time. Unless, of course, Rountree gets more chatty than he strictly needs to be. Which is pretty unlikely.

Exactly, game hasn't even been out a year and the doom and gloom prophecies already abound. There's simply no way of knowing how it's doing. I'll be interested to read the next ICV2 quarterly to see if it hit top ten like Armada did its first quarter release.

That is where the anecdotal evidence comes in - from shop owners, describing sales of the game.

Which have not been at all a rosy description.

The thing about seeing something and thinking 'Hunh, that looks bad' - it often means that it is bad.

And when other people look at it and go 'Hunh, that looks bad' - it often means that you were right.

So, let me put it this way:
Hunh, that looks bad....

Without having access to GW's numbers, I can only go by what I see on a local scale.

On the local scale, the reaction to Age of Sigmar has not been bad - it has been terrible.

Worse, the local Non-Affiliated All GW, All the Time store made the mistake of going deep on the game - though GW is going to give them full credit on the returned games, it does still mean that the boxes have been taking up space that could have been used to make a profit.

The point of having product on the shelves is not to break even, it is to make money.

This causes problems going into the Christmas shopping season - they could generally count on at least a few Warhammer starter boxes selling, while AoS... sells fewer boxes.

On the other hand, they are very happy with the sales and pre-sales of BaC - which more than made up for the losses on AoS.

So, while AoS likely is failing, I do not think that it will noticeably damage GW.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* Also, where in the world did anyone get the idea that a thread titled 'Age of Sigmar Failing? If So, Why' might be even remotely positive... I have no idea....

If you choose to carry a bad product whose fault is that?

The company that forces you to carry the stock so you can stock stuff that does sell, irrespective of your own desire to carry the line?

 Azreal13 wrote:
The company that forces you to carry the stock so you can stock stuff that does sell, irrespective of your own desire to carry the line?

 DrNo172000 wrote:
It is never ever the products fault, especially if you have the power to control what you carry.

Not sure how much of a weekly order must be AoS at this point. Is it just new releases? I know GW sales reps can be flexible on this, as well.

Well, Indys don't have full control over what GW stock they carry, and I'd need some details of the extent of the flexibility to make any call on that (is it yes/no or its it take 5/ok you can take 3 instead?)

So any commentary about how it is the retailer's problem for stocking AOS and not selling it is, at best, tenuous without further information.

I'm also sure that the rules vary depending on the size of your average weekly order.

Even if it's only just new releases, that doesn't make the old stock magically evaporate.

 Azreal13 wrote:

If you choose to carry a bad product whose fault is that?

The company that forces you to carry the stock so you can stock stuff that does sell, irrespective of your own desire to carry the line?

GW does not require you to carry the "best sellers" to carry their stock. What carrying the best sellers does is give you free shipping on any sized order and credit for prize support and the like. In fact you don't even have to get your GW product from them, they just give you the best price.

Further it's not even required to carry GW to be remotely successful. I.E. Cool Stuff and Miniature Market.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Well, Indys don't have full control over what GW stock they carry, and I'd need some details of the extent of the flexibility to make any call on that (is it yes/no or its it take 5/ok you can take 3 instead?)

So any commentary about how it is the retailer's problem for stocking AOS and not selling it is, at best, tenuous without further information.

I'm also sure that the rules vary depending on the size of your average weekly order.

Even if it's only just new releases, that doesn't make the old stock magically evaporate.

We absolutely do have full control. New releases aren't required to get the "best sellers" deal.

 DrNo172000 wrote:

If you choose to carry a bad product whose fault is that?

In this case GW's because they told nobody about their product and stores had to buy it and hope for the best (they knew: it's a new game, and that's it). Somehow nobody can imagine that GW did something wrong when a store owner who manages to survive with two stores (over many years and a changing product landscape) suddenly sees that one company's sales go down by 65% (or something like that) over a few months. It has to be his mismanagement but can't be the product's fault when everything else besides that company's products seem to still sell the same.

What should he have done? Said "no, thank you" and just accepted even more lost sales by default?

And the whole "It is never ever the products fault" bit is just completely naive. As if a store owner has magical powers to sell everything to everyone and consumers are completely brainless drones who will buy anything if only you have somebody to talk them into it. It sounds like you were brainwashed by some ad agency. GW didn't advertise their product (so new players finding their game won't happen that easily), ambushed veterans with a completely new system without any preview or introduction (surely they will just buy it out of habit), told nobody about their product and gave stores nothing to work with and introduce the game (sure they will manage to sell a completely new product within a week of having actual seen it).

These arguments sound like standard marketing 101 drivel. They might make sense if you consider some theoretical economy but in reality there are other factors that contribute to a products sales besides being a great salesman who can "sell anything".

Mario wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:

If you choose to carry a bad product whose fault is that?

In this case GW's because they told nobody about their product and stores had to buy it and hope for the best (they knew: it's a new game, and that's it). Somehow nobody can imagine that GW did something wrong when a store owner who manages to survive with two stores (over many years and a changing product landscape) suddenly sees that one company's sales go down by 65% (or something like that) over a few months. It has to be his mismanagement but can't be the product's fault when everything else besides that company's products seem to still sell the same.

What should he have done? Said "no, thank you" and just accepted even more lost sales by default?

And the whole "It is never ever the products fault" bit is just completely naive. As if a store owner has magical powers to sell everything to everyone and consumers are completely brainless drones who will buy anything if only you have somebody to talk them into it. It sounds like you were brainwashed by some ad agency. GW didn't advertise their product (so new players finding their game won't happen that easily), ambushed veterans with a completely new system without any preview or introduction (surely they will just buy it out of habit), told nobody about their product and gave stores nothing to work with and introduce the game (sure they will manage to sell a completely new product within a week of having actual seen it).

These arguments sound like standard marketing 101 drivel. They might make sense if you consider some theoretical economy but in reality there are other factors that contribute to a products sales besides being a great salesman who can "sell anything".

We can agree on one thing GW is terrible at advanced marketing. I tend to hold FFG up as the example of how it's done. However GW reps did in fact give advanced knowledge to retailers, albeit not very much. They also didn't make you buy 80. So it's not a choice of yes or no thank you. It's a choice of how well you think it'll do and placing the appropriate order. As I stated before GW isn't even a necessity. One of our local competitors sells more Malifuax than GW and has MTG pre releases that encroach upon 100+ people. They are very much a competive oriented community and wisely knew not to place a huge order. They instead ordered 20.

Further you're right store owners don't have magic powers (really it's not even the owners responsibility it's his sales manager and GM) and customers aren't drones. Which is why understanding your market is even more critical. I'll go back to the SAGA example our store has a booming Bolt Action community. I noticed that we were the only store that had historicals, so with a gap in the market I tried another historical l. SAGA, it was an utter misstep, I failed to read the community right. I also did not anticipate how difficult it was to get the miniatures. Another factor was price, gripping beast is all metal and so it's expensive and even though our prices are lower than even online retailers it was still a limiting factor. However the caveat was the but in was very small. So even if the decision is made to liquidate it we should still make money. And yes because of my Marine background I believe any failure is a failure of leadership, so SAGA we my fault.

In all honesty sales in a hobby store is very easy, you qualify a customer than make a recommendation. I was a recruiter in the Corps for my b-billet, you want to talk about a hard sell no one wants that product.

Did I miraculously miss people blaming store owners for stocking Dreadfleet because it is clearly their fault for stocking such a bad game?

Did people simply assume they are gak salesmen for not being able to move them?

No! It was a gak game that didn't sell because it was a gak game. I'm not sure why all of a sudden the onus is on the store owners now with AoS.

@jono: except some people actually do like to play Dreadfleet, and others just want the amazing models in the kit...
it is not all as cut and dried as people try and make it out to be...
some stores are still selling it...

the "stop liking what i don't like" vibe is getting pretty strong these days from the people who are discontent with GW's current direction...
one man's crap is another man's treasure, after all...
there is no one objective right way to enjoy one's hobbies...
vote with your dollar, by not spending it in this case, and support a company that you like...

cheers
jah

Copies of Dreadfleet were apparently destroyed because they didn't sell. Users frequently report independents with multiple copies still in stock of this "limited" box.

This is not a ringing endorsement.

This isn't stop liking what I don't like, it's stop trying to persuade people the sky is yellow because you liked the little plastic ships.

Manchu wrote:
Gamers feel better about the fairness of a game if they can add up to a rather arbitrary number that happens to be the same as the number someone else summed. The really important role of points, however, is nothing to do with balance; it actually facilitates the list-building "mini game" that so many people enjoy.

I don't especially enjoy list building, but I do like a "fair" competition/game. As arbitrary and imprecise as points can be, I do expect that the game designers (not just some random "other person") would be able to work out relatively fair values, given that they created the mechanics, profiles, etc. When it comes down to it, I know that 40 wounds worth of Goblins aren't going to be the equal of 40 wounds of High Elves, yet I want to be able to play as the former or the latter and be challenged with a chance of victory and of defeat regardless of which side I am fielding. "Just put stuff down and hope for the best" doesn't do that at all.

I completely understand and I have said numerous times ITT that it is a completely legitimate complaint about AoS that it doesn't adequately support pick up gaming. But I honestly think that wasn't an oversight.

Such an interesting thread to read. So many wrong bits of information and assumptions about myself and my business, from people who don't seem to know me or have been to my stores

Your right all we have is post like this

"AOS gave them a small bump in fantasy sales, but they lost hugely with no 40k sales in those months. My sales are down 65% for the last 4 months on GW. "
"GW found a way to cost me thousands of dollars in sales each month"

Where you clearly blame GW, rather than taking responsibility as a business owner. Is blaming other companies par for the course? How is that smart business? Please explain

"AOS i had nearly all of mine sold through the store, dakka, and ebay before the shipment came in. I could smell the death on that box from a long way out."

And this were you bad mouth a product line.

What conclusion should be drawn? Also I'm curious how AoS tanked your 40k sales? Why would I want to shop with someone that gaks on products and has a negative attitude? Can you tell me?

I don't know man in the Corps I was taught that any failure is a failure of leadership, and that you should never ever bitch down. Maybe it's just the Marine in me but those are my standards of professionalism. The civilian world might have a different one. And if I've drawn a hasty judgement because you posted some stuff in a fit of frustration and didn't really mean those things I apologize.

At any rate your store, my store, and any other store that posted on here and Dakka itself are not indicative of the market. No metric produced here or store complaint or compliment is reflective of a single thing about AoS's success or failure.

Is it smart business for the employee of one store to come on Dakka to bash the owner of another highly successful store based on little information? Honestly I wonder if the owner of your store would be okay with this?

Three of you are posting from the same local group and for some reason seem to have a chip on your shoulders about Dakka in general (lots of statements like "even precious Dakka" from you, which is out of left field), and by extension mikhaila since a lot of posters here reference him. But I really think you should take a step back, you sound pretty aggressive against someone you've never even spoken to, and are making a ton of assumptions based on very little information - the exact thing you're asking folks who think AoS is struggling not to do.

 RiTides wrote:
since a lot of posters here reference him

Yeah that is the crux, I think. This tangent started because a poster decided to make an appeal to authority and mikhaila, for better or worse, was the authority in question. It was a bad argument but I understand why the guy made it because mikhaila is an opinion leader around here, including about AoS.

Dakka is not monolithic. Mikhaila, Reecius, and Sergeant Horse were all referenced as store owners, all shared their own experiences.

Dakka is a completely open framework, and things posted here are absolutely reflective of things going on in the market (to the comment that anything posted here is "not reflective of s single thing about AoS's success or failure"). Not totally so, but they are certainly reflective - even your own positive experience is.

Dakka is a sum of its parts, and it's great to have folks with differing views here - again, we're not monolithic, everyone has their own experience and perspective, and sharing it helps frame the rest of ours. It's what makes Dakka and other forums great! So hopefully you continue to participate here... just note a lot of store owners post here and of course everyone's experience will be different depending on their area / playerbase / etc.

 DrNo172000 wrote:
Where you clearly blame GW, rather than taking responsibility as a business owner. Is blaming other companies par for the course? How is that smart business? Please explain

Ok I asked this half rhetorically to the thread before but I am going to specifically ask you it now.

Do you blame store owners and GW's salesmen for the failure of Dreadfleet, or was it a bad game that did not sell because it did not appeal to people?

 RiTides wrote:
Dakka is not monolithic. Mikhaila, Reecius, and Sergeant Horse were all referenced as store owners, all shared their own experiences.

Also DrNo, the idea that nothing posted here "is reflective of a single thing about AoS's success or failure" makes me wonder why bother reading / engaging on a forum (particularly Dakka given some of your comments). Dakka is a completely open framework, and things posted here are absolutely reflective of things going on in the market. Not totally so, but they are. If you think you can't learn a single thing here then there's no point in reading or engaging on Dakka.

I think things can be learned from Dakka, just not the health of a game or certainly not a company. It's a great resource for gamers to share lists, ideas, ask hobby tips and the like, man I've posted on like three different ones today. There seem to be whole threads dedicated to gaking on games simply because people don't like it. The attitude that I don't like it therefore it is gak is so prevalent it's saddening. You know there are a lot of games I will never play because I don't have fun with them, other people do and that's ok! I mean look at the title of this thread or the "Is AoS going to be retconned" thread I mean seriously. These sort of negatives and elitist attitudes are going to drive gamers away from what we do. And the very worst the very worst is to see someone in the business do it. Anyone I sent you a big PM because I don't want to derail this anymore.

A game shop is sort of like a message board in that both attract a certain set of posters/customers. That's really important to take into account when you want to judge a topic or product by how the set views it. For example, you might think hardly anyone likes Napoleonic miniatures wargaming if you were to judge based on the indifference about that hobby on this website or what kind of sales a handful of LGS's that overwhelmingly sell 40k (both in terms of how long they have sold it and how much of it they sell relative to other miniatures games). But of course that conclusion would be totally wrong. You'd be looking in the wrong place for the answer.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
Where you clearly blame GW, rather than taking responsibility as a business owner. Is blaming other companies par for the course? How is that smart business? Please explain

Ok I asked this half rhetorically to the thread before but I am going to specifically ask you it now.

Do you blame store owners and GW's salesmen for the failure of Dreadfleet, or was it a bad game that did not sell because it did not appeal to people?

Sales is not just about selling on the spot, it's also about understanding the market and ordering appropriately, if you have an unknown like Dreadfleet or more recently the Assasinorum game you bring in very small quantities, if you do a huge buy in and it flops and now you are out thousands that is 100% managements fault.

Yeah and I edited my post above (and will check the PM!). Honestly it's great to have folks like you posting here that love AoS! It's just that I don't think folks who don't (or think it should be retconned) should be labeled grognards (earlier post) / elitist / etc!

It's great to have folks that play different games / styles / etc, again it's what makes Dakka great. I just hope you see Dakka isn't a monolith, part of the reason AoS is viewed negatively here is because it is in many places, and people post here from many places!

There are positive posters for it too, and both can participate without either being elitist or anything like that. It's just a shame GW didn't introduce the game differently to avoid some of the strife created by replacing one game with a very different one, and thus putting some gamers at loggerheads.

But cheers for your post here (and apologies if anything in mine was too strong) I appreciate the debate and having multiple views definitely makes the forum a better place!