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.

Hecaton wrote:

Mmm, there's no reason to suspect thst Infinity's *marketing* wouldn't scale up to an operation like GW's.

There's also no reason to change what they've been doing, because it's effective. That's one of the keys to business, my friend- if you're doing something that works, don't change it.

Why should they change what they do now? It's just more work without the certainty of it paying off.
Because it will make more sales? You and I both know the stuff they make is going to sell, even if they marketed it with fart noises while giving us the middle finger the very day it released.

For many, many years GW has been selling a $12.00 book of advertisements to people. Sometimes this series of ads for GW products has a handful of rules for one or more of their games in between "how to paint this new thing we made" and "Totally legitimate battle report where the new thing we made wins!" and also "Story about these things we just made that one guy wrote while he was on the toilet this morning". This has been the case for a while now- and it's been that way, because it sells.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


There's also no reason to change what they've been doing, because it's effective. That's one of the keys to business, my friend- if you're doing something that works, don't change it.

Don't try to patronize me. I know what GW's stock price is. However, COVID probably has it in a bubble. And the central problem that I mentioned was part of their issues under Kirby. Rountree put a splint on it, but it's still there.

Hey Dorito. Ah, the fiscal paradise of Tunguska! You guys get all the best fluff, Hollow Men blew my mind when they dropped

I had to check, when you said Infinity only releases 30-35 models a year because I'm a stickler I guess, and I was pretty surprised with the answer - adding up all models from their montly releases totalled 108 models released in 2019! (To qualify, this included dire foes and tin bots, but zero defiance or aristeia.)

I think I generally agree with a lot of your points there, especially about GW being a bit addicted to the surprise reveal. Their whole marketing approach is now built around it, so the discussion here really is a bit academic. But you never know, people at GW do read forums for sure, and we might give them something to chew on, in a nice way.

Hecaton wrote:
Don't try to patronize me. I know what GW's stock price is. However, COVID probably has it in a bubble. And the central problem that I mentioned was part of their issues under Kirby. Rountree put a splint on it, but it's still there.

If that's the way you choose to feel about what I said- then shine on, shiny diamond.

Look, I think what Infinity does with its marketing is amazing. I'm just telling you- I don't think 40k's gonna change what they're doing any time soon, because what they're doing seems to work- and as I understand, this past year was the best year they've ever had. They're going to stick with what's reliably profitable.

I'm also gonna tell you, I'm damned certain they have a backlog of completed products and they decide what to release based on what's generating the most buzz. They're not gonna roll out a cash cow until they need a cash cow, they'll let some milk trickle in between- and they'll focus their bigger releases on summer, Christmas, things like that. I got a little bird that knows a thing or two. Nothing 'that serious', but let's just say I was predicting quite a few of the 9th edition changes long before it was announced (though the timing of the release took me and apparently even my friend 'in the know' off guard).

But I'm gonna be reeeeeeaaaaal honest with you. Wanna compare the marketing of the two companies? Then let's compare their actual market.

Take a good sampling of the people who play Infinity and then take a sample of people who play 40k.

You don't have to answer this, if you're afraid it will cause drama- but I'll sure as hell say it ...look at the difference between the people, and tell me those two groups are even remotely similar in their responses to the company.

Sure, you have 'some of the same types', but I assure you- If Games Workshop posted a message about Peachy becoming a dad, there'd be a hundred people screaming about Eldar models needing new plastic kits. You don't really see nearly as much, even with a per capita comparison, from Infinity.

And that's mainly because- (get ready for shrieking, I'm lighting the fuse here, and it's gonna blow up)- Infinity is the type of game that requires a lot more tactical thinking, and spamming or putting down the biggest and most expensive toy isn't going to win the day. It's a smarter game, and a lot of the more obnoxious people don't have the patience or the wits for it. It can be absolutely infuriating, too- in a good way, but in a way where the less mature people tend to hang it up and go home after having a tantrum.

When you look at the general customer base of both games, they're quite different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grouchoben wrote:
Hey Dorito. Ah, the fiscal paradise of Tunguska! You guys get all the best fluff, Hollow Men blew my mind when they dropped

he protec
he attac
but most of all
HE KRIZA BORAC

 grouchoben wrote:
I had to check, when you said Infinity only releases 30-35 models a year because I'm a stickler I guess, and I was pretty surprised with the answer - adding up all models from their montly releases totalled 108 models released in 2019! (To qualify, this included dire foes and tin bots, but zero defiance or aristeia.)

I was spitballing, pulled that number right out of my butt. Estimating actual models and number of kits and the like, but the number is surprising (also didn't count the little bots). Either way, main thing is there's a lot more work involved in designing a multi-part sprue than there is Infinity's "this is the dude" model with a few that use a single universal torso or something.

Yeah i agree, the two release cycles are chalk and cheese, as are the cultures of the game. I love both for different reasons.

Hecaton wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


There's also no reason to change what they've been doing, because it's effective. That's one of the keys to business, my friend- if you're doing something that works, don't change it.

Don't try to patronize me. I know what GW's stock price is. However, COVID probably has it in a bubble. And the central problem that I mentioned was part of their issues under Kirby. Rountree put a splint on it, but it's still there.

the stock has been climbing for years, and is currently 16 times what it was five years ago. that's not a splint, that's crazy speculation.

Given how much stuff sells out, they seem to be doing a pretty good job with sales as well.

I just don't understand this need to portray GW as incompetent at business.

I don't think anyone can argue in good faith, but I think they can argue that GW are naff game designers (not relevant to this thread).

What is interesting is that this naff game design apparently sells like hotcakes - 8th edition (which IMHO wasn't that well designed at all from a wargame design standpoint) catapulted GW back into the driver's seat as it were in terms of market share.

The real answer is my definition of "fun" is subjective, and sometimes people don't want to play a miniatures WARgame. They want to play a miniatures warGAME. That's my assessment at any rate.

 alextroy wrote:
Everybody knows it. Everybody who cares noticed that Elysian and R&H are not in the MFM and that Corsairs have been reduced to 3 units. We felt your pain the first 5 times it came up. Now it's just annoying.

Today's winner of the Jordan Peterson Harsh Truth Award is Alextroy!

I honestly agree. Most people feel bad for people who's army loses rules, but at some point, you gotta let it go. I've seen people get over divorces faster than some people get over their toys losing rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone can argue in good faith, but I think they can argue that GW are naff game designers (not relevant to this thread).

What is interesting is that this naff game design apparently sells like hotcakes - 8th edition (which IMHO wasn't that well designed at all from a wargame design standpoint) catapulted GW back into the driver's seat as it were in terms of market share.

The real answer is my definition of "fun" is subjective, and sometimes people don't want to play a miniatures WARgame. They want to play a miniatures warGAME. That's my assessment at any rate.

So... it depends on what kind of game you're designing. I've been watching a lot of Board Game criticism lately, even though I don't really play board games, and it's opened my eyes to an interesting theory.

Basically, most people assume that "balance" is a good thing, because it rewards skillful or clever play. The idea being that the winner of the game should be the person who played the best.

Except... most people secretly, or even openly, don't want to play games that only reward the skilled. As hard as it is to make a game that's balanced, it's almost harder to make a game that is unbalanced, but is still fun and rewarding. And that's what GW manages to do, with a fairly decent success rate. 40k isn't really balanced, there is a wide range of power levels between the factions and within them, but even a less skilled player will generally score some points and hang in for most of the game. Compare that to Warmachine, where a skill gap results in quick losses for the worse player.

I'm not sure GW can't make a balanced wargame, but I don't think they are even trying to do so. Instead, they're making a game that's fun to play even if you lose.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone can argue in good faith, but I think they can argue that GW are naff game designers (not relevant to this thread).

What is interesting is that this naff game design apparently sells like hotcakes - 8th edition (which IMHO wasn't that well designed at all from a wargame design standpoint) catapulted GW back into the driver's seat as it were in terms of market share.

The real answer is my definition of "fun" is subjective, and sometimes people don't want to play a miniatures WARgame. They want to play a miniatures warGAME. That's my assessment at any rate.

At some point of a companies size they become too big to fail, specialy if they are a monopoly. People may want to play different games, but if the store only runs and supports GW stuff, or just w40k and AoS, then at least in my part of the world the chances to play something else then a GW game aren't very high. And not everyone is willing to struggle to play a game.

I honestly agree. Most people feel bad for people who's army loses rules, but at some point, you gotta let it go. I've seen people get over divorces faster than some people get over their toys losing rules

People like to say that they feel bad, but I think they only feel bad if it is their child, sibling or close friend gets hit by something like that.

Karol wrote:
People like to say that they feel bad, but I think they only feel bad if it is their child, sibling or close friend gets hit by something like that.

Okay, well, then if people never feel bad, they're not going to start feeling bad when it's months later and you're being annoying about it.

I guess you can assume people are generally decent, but have limited emotional bandwidth, or assume people are selfish, and never care.

Either way, they don't care anymore.

Karol wrote:
At some point of a companies size they become too big to fail, specialy if they are a monopoly. People may want to play different games, but if the store only runs and supports GW stuff, or just w40k and AoS, then at least in my part of the world the chances to play something else then a GW game aren't very high. And not everyone is willing to struggle to play a game.

I don't think it is that. The proliferation of X-wing, Warmachine, Malifaux, 30k, etc. at the end of 7th badly eroded GW's market share (while GW continued to act erratically). They are also proof that people will happy move to other games if they don't like 40k. I think the fact that 40k is back on top firmly is proof that people do indeed enjoy it, which means they weren't really looking for a WARgame in the first place; instead they were looking for a warGAME.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Karol wrote:
At some point of a companies size they become too big to fail, specialy if they are a monopoly. People may want to play different games, but if the store only runs and supports GW stuff, or just w40k and AoS, then at least in my part of the world the chances to play something else then a GW game aren't very high. And not everyone is willing to struggle to play a game.

I don't think it is that. The proliferation of X-wing, Warmachine, Malifaux, 30k, etc. at the end of 7th badly eroded GW's market share (while GW continued to act erratically). They are also proof that people will happy move to other games if they don't like 40k. I think the fact that 40k is back on top firmly is proof that people do indeed enjoy it, which means they weren't really looking for a WARgame in the first place; instead they were looking for a warGAME.

i'd dispute that, especially over here , where GW once was the one and only, nowadays you are just as likely to find BA, malifaux, mantic or any other game really.
It has severly erroded and remains no where near as dominant as it once was.

Karol wrote:

People like to say that they feel bad, but I think they only feel bad if it is their child, sibling or close friend gets hit by something like that.

No, karol. Most people dislike seeing armies lose stuff. Once again, just because you play in a toxic environment doesn't mean that is the norm everywhere.

Non Drukhari players can usually appreciate how it sucks that they lost so many HQ options, or that Orks (temporarly) lost their warboss on bike.

Not Online!!! wrote:
i'd dispute that, especially over here , where GW once was the one and only, nowadays you are just as likely to find BA, malifaux, mantic or any other game really.
It has severly erroded and remains no where near as dominant as it once was.

Hey, we've got an anecdote here!

sure, GW has reached its highest revenues ever, and events are more common and larger than ever before, but dammit, they aren't playing it down at my store, so I'm pretty sure GW is going bankrupt.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Karol wrote:
At some point of a companies size they become too big to fail, specialy if they are a monopoly. People may want to play different games, but if the store only runs and supports GW stuff, or just w40k and AoS, then at least in my part of the world the chances to play something else then a GW game aren't very high. And not everyone is willing to struggle to play a game.

I don't think it is that. The proliferation of X-wing, Warmachine, Malifaux, 30k, etc. at the end of 7th badly eroded GW's market share (while GW continued to act erratically). They are also proof that people will happy move to other games if they don't like 40k. I think the fact that 40k is back on top firmly is proof that people do indeed enjoy it, which means they weren't really looking for a WARgame in the first place; instead they were looking for a warGAME.

i'd dispute that, especially over here , where GW once was the one and only, nowadays you are just as likely to find BA, malifaux, mantic or any other game really.
It has severly erroded and remains no where near as dominant as it once was.

In stores? That's good for you. I moved right before the 7th-8th changeover, so I changed local areas, but I will say that if I go around in my local club (or either of the other two local clubs I also look in) looking for a Malifaux or Mantic game, I'll get a "?!!!? what game now? Is that like Underworlds or Warcry?" look, and I know 1 person that plays Bolt Action (using their roommate to run the second army) and 3 people that play Saga, two of which are adults with kids who have time for maybe 1 miniatures wargame in every 3 months and the other is one that plays BA. 30k is about the only one that's taking off and can be found weekly, and still is only the same 6-8 people playing each other (and I built that one myself with 1 other from the ground up). LOTR has significant overlap with the people that play 30k, ironically, and is less active due to COVID shutting down the main store that supported it.

These clubs, taken as a collective, have nearly 200 people in their chats (how many are active is anyone's guess, but I can look at the numbers of participants in a WhatsAPP group and a discord server).

I just read an article over the weekend. GW is the 3rd highest growing stock on the US exchange. Beating out the likes of Tesla and Amazon. I'm sure its crushing it in London as well.

Have you learned nothing John snow?

People don't want a happy ending. They want to suffer and have subverted expectations. In the end if keeping you in the dark about their releases is making them more money they are doing the right thing. It seems to be working. They should change nothing.

People don't want a happy ending. They want to suffer and have subverted expectations. In the end if keeping you in the dark about their releases is making them more money they are doing the right thing. It seems to be working. They should change nothing.

I agree that what they're doing is working, but I don't necessarily think they are keeping us in the dark. The more I think about it, the more I kind of like where they're sitting with this. Thinking about pre-6/7th time frames where they often said almost nothing about the schedule, to 6/7th where they shifted to the weekly WD model and you found out the week before, I think they currently have it just about right.

We find out about major things a few months in advance, and maybe very general outlines of what they're thinking outside of that time frame. It allows them flexibility, there's still a decent amount of engagement, and a few months is really all I need. Since this is just my hobby, I'm not sure what I would do with, say, a 12 month road map or some such.

Tycho wrote:
We find out about major things a few months in advance, and maybe very general outlines of what they're thinking outside of that time frame. It allows them flexibility, there's still a decent amount of engagement, and a few months is really all I need. Since this is just my hobby, I'm not sure what I would do with, say, a 12 month road map or some such.

Wouldn't you like to know roughly when Codexes (or Codex Supplements) are due to drop be useful, even if they're subject to change? We generally have a reasonable idea of the next three months, thanks to regular previews - currently on Twitch, previously at events - but any idea beyond that tends to be guess work.

I imagine some of the complaining at present from non-SM players might be a little quieter if they knew even how many books to expect in Q1, let alone a list saying - for example - that we'll see the new books for DA, Tyranids, CSM and DE in Q1, with another four books planned for Q2.

Faction loyalty in a toy soldier game is just stupid.

I don't play Eldar or Tau. If GW choose to spend months releasing Eldar and Tau models, fine. I don't have to be annoyed that there's nothing 'for me'. It'll roll around eventually. You don't have to declare loyalty to a faction and be annoyed if other factions get more than you.

The idea that the OP has to 'stomach' other factions getting updates first is just silly.

Most people neither have the time nor the money to support more than one or two factions. Some more people want to play the faction they like, which might not be multiple factions.

 Jidmah wrote:
Most people neither have the time nor the money to support more than one or two factions. Some more people want to play the faction they like, which might not be multiple factions.

I guess if that's true, than how much of the new stuff for their own faction are they going to buy?

I'm just baffled at the idea of these people who only like one faction, feel like they have nothing more to buy for it, but would 100% buy a ton of what they actually want.

If you don't' have the time or money to start a new faction, than GW has basically tapped you out. Why cater to people that won't spend a lot of money. OKay, so they release a new, amazing guardian box set. Guys that only play Eldar, but haven't bought anything new in years, all magically go buy new boxes? I don't get it.

 Jidmah wrote:
Most people neither have the time nor the money to support more than one or two factions. Some more people want to play the faction they like, which might not be multiple factions.

I don't think that was ArbitratorIan's point (assuming you're responding to him).

He's saying incorporating the armies you play into your own identity, especially to the point of 'stomaching' (ie, merely tolerating as personal inconvenience) other releases is fairly absurd.
Its a game, have fun with it. But walking around as the 'ork player' or the 'eldar player' as part of your day by day identity is... unhelpful. And personally, if it gets to the point that other releases make you upset, I'd say it is unhealthy.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Faction loyalty in a toy soldier game is just stupid.

I don't play Eldar or Tau. If GW choose to spend months releasing Eldar and Tau models, fine. I don't have to be annoyed that there's nothing 'for me'. It'll roll around eventually. You don't have to declare loyalty to a faction and be annoyed if other factions get more than you.

The idea that the OP has to 'stomach' other factions getting updates first is just silly.

Playing a game with mediocre rules if you don't care about the setting is "just stupid".

Many people play 40K because they are invested in the lore, it's not just about turning up with the flavour of the month army.

 harlokin wrote:

Playing a game with mediocre rules if you don't care about the setting is "just stupid".

Many people play 40K because they are invested in the lore, it's not just about turning up with the flavour of the month army.

There's a local guy like this. "Plays by the fluff," is his mantra. takes idiosyncratic armies that match his view of the lore, and then is upset when they don't do well. He won't alter his vision, and he wont' accept that his vision might not be effective on the table top.

At some point, if you identify hardcore with one faction, and have a very strong vision for what it should be... you are actually not a profit center. You're the kind of guy who is likely to be very upset when the new models don't match your vision.

 Polonius wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

Playing a game with mediocre rules if you don't care about the setting is "just stupid".

Many people play 40K because they are invested in the lore, it's not just about turning up with the flavour of the month army.

There's a local guy like this. "Plays by the fluff," is his mantra. takes idiosyncratic armies that match his view of the lore, and then is upset when they don't do well. He won't alter his vision, and he wont' accept that his vision might not be effective on the table top.

At some point, if you identify hardcore with one faction, and have a very strong vision for what it should be... you are actually not a profit center. You're the kind of guy who is likely to be very upset when the new models don't match your vision.

Raises hand

I got into Tau when they were a mobile combined arms faction which made use of mechanised infantry supported by tanks, XV8 battlesuit variants (Crisis and Broadside) and stealth teams and alien auxiliaries. When they shook their heads at the concept of giant stompy robots due to the inefficiency of resources.

I stick to that ethos.

 Polonius wrote:


I'm not sure GW can't make a balanced wargame, but I don't think they are even trying to do so. Instead, they're making a game that's fun to play even if you lose.

I really disagree with that. They're making a game that's "good enough" to allow them a certain amount of market dominance with all of the advantages they enjoy. I really do think that GW can't make a balanced, enjoyable watgame that rewards skill. Most people actually enjoy this more (as long ad the skill floor isn't too low). However, GW's games don't reward skill but rather army choice and purchases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:


People don't want a happy ending. They want to suffer and have subverted expectations. In the end if keeping you in the dark about their releases is making them more money they are doing the right thing. It seems to be working. They should change nothing.

People will take what they can get. If there's a game as prolific as 40k that had better rules, people will likely play that instead.

 Polonius wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Most people neither have the time nor the money to support more than one or two factions. Some more people want to play the faction they like, which might not be multiple factions.

I guess if that's true, than how much of the new stuff for their own faction are they going to buy?

I'm just baffled at the idea of these people who only like one faction, feel like they have nothing more to buy for it, but would 100% buy a ton of what they actually want.

If you don't' have the time or money to start a new faction, than GW has basically tapped you out. Why cater to people that won't spend a lot of money. OKay, so they release a new, amazing guardian box set. Guys that only play Eldar, but haven't bought anything new in years, all magically go buy new boxes? I don't get it.

Guardians? Probably not if they are a huge detriment to the army as they are currently.. most Eldar players have more than enough guardians.

But Artel level of awesome aspects?? Stunning phoenix lords that kick ass and new units? Yeah i think people would buy. Id love a swooping hawks theme in my army but im not buying old junky metals or failcrap..

So yeah im not going to give them money for other stuff if the army im invested in is not getting support/design limelight.. ill spend elsewhere and keep working on what I have.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Raises hand

I got into Tau when they were a mobile combined arms faction which made use of mechanised infantry supported by tanks, XV8 battlesuit variants (Crisis and Broadside) and stealth teams and alien auxiliaries. When they shook their heads at the concept of giant stompy robots due to the inefficiency of resources.

I stick to that ethos.

And I appreciate that, but you still play with everything they DO make that fits that ethos, right?

 Polonius wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Raises hand

I got into Tau when they were a mobile combined arms faction which made use of mechanised infantry supported by tanks, XV8 battlesuit variants (Crisis and Broadside) and stealth teams and alien auxiliaries. When they shook their heads at the concept of giant stompy robots due to the inefficiency of resources.

I stick to that ethos.

And I appreciate that, but you still play with everything they DO make that fits that ethos, right?

Yeah, though haven't bought anything in a long time, probably since I bought a start collecting set when they first came out? So my army is pretty much exclusively composed of stuff which was available in 4th edition

Didn't even buy any of the new Broadsides as they just look too big for something which is meant to be based on the XV8 chassis.

wrong thread