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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
They’re also inherently cooperative games, friends working together to have a laugh and defeat The Big Bad which largely removes TFG type experiences.

I mean... would be nice if it did, but it very much does not ^^. It's simply that the problem players have a different range of behaviours in RPG groups.

Another vote here for "X-wing was an amazing game killed by a scummy sales model and cash grab edition change"

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Another vote here for "X-wing was an amazing game killed by a scummy sales model and cash grab edition change"

But had FFG just gone "X-Wing is done, we've released everything and don't think it needs any more ships, but we'll keep printing everything as long as you keep buying it" then it would also be dead. "Oh they stopped supporting it". cf. Imperial Assualt.

deano2099 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Another vote here for "X-wing was an amazing game killed by a scummy sales model and cash grab edition change"

But had FFG just gone "X-Wing is done, we've released everything and don't think it needs any more ships, but we'll keep printing everything as long as you keep buying it" then it would also be dead. "Oh they stopped supporting it". cf. Imperial Assualt.

Was that what happened with Imperial Assault or was it the announcement of just enough of a different scale to be visually noticeable Legion that killed it?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Another vote here for "X-wing was an amazing game killed by a scummy sales model and cash grab edition change"

Well, for me the overall rules revision and clean-up for X-Wing 2.0 was good. However, their crappy app and the fact they didn't put point values on the cards made it increasingly difficult to put together a force. The latest force-building rules that took away 90% of the options killed it for me utterly. Rebuying the cardboard stung, but as far as an edition refresh wasn't as bad as I've seen some edition changes. It was all pretty much the force-building changes that got me - and eventually the steadily rising cost of the minis themselves. I still have my minis (and a bunch of Armada stuff....), but its been collecting dust because everyone else seems to have dropped it, including the FLGS - the area it once was in has now been taken over by Sigmar minis :( .

I do wish it was feasible for companies to invest in keeping "evergreen" base stock, so at least newcomers have somewhere to start and get into a game. Alas, it seems that's unsustainable as once you reach a saturation point, who needs to buy more of the basic minis?

deano2099 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Another vote here for "X-wing was an amazing game killed by a scummy sales model and cash grab edition change"

But had FFG just gone "X-Wing is done, we've released everything and don't think it needs any more ships, but we'll keep printing everything as long as you keep buying it" then it would also be dead. "Oh they stopped supporting it". cf. Imperial Assualt.

You just basically described what they did to Armada.

> Also lets not forget one reason people DO legitimately abandon armies that the company abandons is because often times when an army gets no more releases and no more marketing nor attention; its often a sign that the company is no longer choosing to invest in that army.

So who's up for a game of... RUNEWARS???

 warboss wrote:

deano2099 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Another vote here for "X-wing was an amazing game killed by a scummy sales model and cash grab edition change"

But had FFG just gone "X-Wing is done, we've released everything and don't think it needs any more ships, but we'll keep printing everything as long as you keep buying it" then it would also be dead. "Oh they stopped supporting it". cf. Imperial Assualt.

Was that what happened with Imperial Assault or was it the announcement of just enough of a different scale to be visually noticeable Legion that killed it?

Imperial Assault was a weird one. It was always designed to be a storyline dungeon crawler and on that, I think it hit its natural endpoint with the release of the emperor. They could do more, but it seems like that was the initial design. The competitive side of it was mostly an attempt to avoid getting sued, which happened anyway and I suspect the game lost a bit of its luster once they had to pay Hasbro to keep making it. I don't think they ever seriously considered it as a tournament game like they had going with X-Wing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Another vote here for "X-wing was an amazing game killed by a scummy sales model and cash grab edition change"

Well, for me the overall rules revision and clean-up for X-Wing 2.0 was good. However, their crappy app and the fact they didn't put point values on the cards made it increasingly difficult to put together a force. The latest force-building rules that took away 90% of the options killed it for me utterly. Rebuying the cardboard stung, but as far as an edition refresh wasn't as bad as I've seen some edition changes. It was all pretty much the force-building changes that got me - and eventually the steadily rising cost of the minis themselves. I still have my minis (and a bunch of Armada stuff....), but its been collecting dust because everyone else seems to have dropped it, including the FLGS - the area it once was in has now been taken over by Sigmar minis :( .

I do wish it was feasible for companies to invest in keeping "evergreen" base stock, so at least newcomers have somewhere to start and get into a game. Alas, it seems that's unsustainable as once you reach a saturation point, who needs to buy more of the basic minis?

X-Wing 2.0 paid for the sins of X-Wing 1.0. That game was based entirely on needing multiples of every ship and went on that was way until they were bleeding things dry. Making it more faction based was sorely needed and the cost to upgrade was very reasonable, but nobody had just one or two factions to upgrade. Even then, I think the greater issue is just that 2.0 has had nearly zero new product for the GCW era factions and is still trying to re-release ships in 2.0 packaging all these years later.

I think regardless of when it happened, the problem simply amounts to there being no proper way to get everything you need to play with the vast collection you already own. If at any point you took a break, there's just no way to jump back in.

deano2099 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Another vote here for "X-wing was an amazing game killed by a scummy sales model and cash grab edition change"

But had FFG just gone "X-Wing is done, we've released everything and don't think it needs any more ships, but we'll keep printing everything as long as you keep buying it" then it would also be dead. "Oh they stopped supporting it". cf. Imperial Assualt.

And is there reason xwing is different to gw games where sales aren't frontloaded?

Gw sales would crash without new releases. Would need to go survival mode with low income.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Anyone know the underlying figures and metrics?

The data is self-reported by retailers, distributors, and publishers, as well as (more recently) Kickstarter sales. The placement correlates to dollar sales, North American market only. Not everyone self-reports (GW does not, so this is based only on self-reporting of retailers sales of GW product and whatever few wholesalers/third party distributors for their products which still remain). In other words, its not really useful or accurate reporting. In this case Battletechs placement is skewed against otherwise incomplete data from other product ranges by the massive kickstarter they just ran. I know Wizkids does self report, and I believe Catalyst does as well, from what I understand AMG/Asmodee only partially reports data (like GW they are protective of their data) and provides an at-best incomplete picture of things. icv2 attempts to guess and estimate their data gap, but it doesn't seem to be very accurate.

In general, I don't put a lot of stock into icv2's reporting data. There was a point where they reported X-Wing was outselling 40k - I can assure you that *never* actually happened and that at its peak X-Wings *worldwide* sales didn't even equal GWs reported sales revenues attributable to the North American market.

I think they try to create some data, but these lists are real heavy on vibes. I would say it's closer to pre-season rankings of sports teams by pundits than actual financial analysis.

I wouldn't say this is BS, but I also wouldn't rely on it, you know?

 ced1106 wrote:
> Also lets not forget one reason people DO legitimately abandon armies that the company abandons is because often times when an army gets no more releases and no more marketing nor attention; its often a sign that the company is no longer choosing to invest in that army.

So who's up for a game of... RUNEWARS???

That also kind of feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy, OTOH

deano2099 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Another vote here for "X-wing was an amazing game killed by a scummy sales model and cash grab edition change"

But had FFG just gone "X-Wing is done, we've released everything and don't think it needs any more ships, but we'll keep printing everything as long as you keep buying it" then it would also be dead. "Oh they stopped supporting it". cf. Imperial Assualt.

Why should it be a dead game if everyone is having fun with the game as it currently is? The obsession with the new content treadmill is baffling.

Because GW marketing tells us that any game that does not get new stuff once a month is dead and not worth playing
And there are enough people who believe this

it's not just GW marketing. Bolt Action, for example, is a dead game to me because they won't put out Soviet miniatures that match the standards of every other standard infantry kit in the line. Warlord instead focus on endless campaign books that only a couple of boomers in England will ever really play through, rather than much-requested kits.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

deano2099 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Another vote here for "X-wing was an amazing game killed by a scummy sales model and cash grab edition change"

But had FFG just gone "X-Wing is done, we've released everything and don't think it needs any more ships, but we'll keep printing everything as long as you keep buying it" then it would also be dead. "Oh they stopped supporting it". cf. Imperial Assualt.

Why should it be a dead game if everyone is having fun with the game as it currently is? The obsession with the new content treadmill is baffling.

Unfortunately because we've been conditioned, by companies such as GW, that if there isn't churn the game isn't interesting and should be dropped like a hot potato. There is such a thing as burn-out where people have played a game long enough that they feel like they've "solved" it and continuing to play without new material is just the same-old same-old with predictable outcomes. Also, over time it becomes difficult to find people who have either kept their stuff or for newcomers to get into the game at an affordable price.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Anyone know the underlying figures and metrics?

The data is self-reported by retailers, distributors, and publishers, as well as (more recently) Kickstarter sales. The placement correlates to dollar sales, North American market only. Not everyone self-reports (GW does not, so this is based only on self-reporting of retailers sales of GW product and whatever few wholesalers/third party distributors for their products which still remain). In other words, its not really useful or accurate reporting. In this case Battletechs placement is skewed against otherwise incomplete data from other product ranges by the massive kickstarter they just ran. I know Wizkids does self report, and I believe Catalyst does as well, from what I understand AMG/Asmodee only partially reports data (like GW they are protective of their data) and provides an at-best incomplete picture of things. icv2 attempts to guess and estimate their data gap, but it doesn't seem to be very accurate.

In general, I don't put a lot of stock into icv2's reporting data. There was a point where they reported X-Wing was outselling 40k - I can assure you that *never* actually happened and that at its peak X-Wings *worldwide* sales didn't even equal GWs reported sales revenues attributable to the North American market.

Not to put too fine a point on it but you're countering collected anecdotal data with "trust me, bro". I don't know you personally but did you work for Diamond or one of the two companies in question at the time? For what it's worth, I actually agree with you by the way from the simple practical perspective that there simply wasn't enough to purchase for a new player (and that's before considering the massive out of stock periods lasting months after each wave) during the height of the Xwing boom compared with 40k to oversell it globally or even just in the US. Buying a full 40k single army of decent size (2k pts) costed more back then than buying multiple of every ship for every faction in the game (and again that's assuming you can find them all in stock at the same time). Maybe if they had been able to meet the massive unexpected demand during those critical initial years then it might have but I doubt it outsold 40k nationally/globally though I do believe it did so at some stores.

 Stormonu wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

deano2099 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Another vote here for "X-wing was an amazing game killed by a scummy sales model and cash grab edition change"

But had FFG just gone "X-Wing is done, we've released everything and don't think it needs any more ships, but we'll keep printing everything as long as you keep buying it" then it would also be dead. "Oh they stopped supporting it". cf. Imperial Assualt.

Why should it be a dead game if everyone is having fun with the game as it currently is? The obsession with the new content treadmill is baffling.

Unfortunately because we've been conditioned, by companies such as GW, that if there isn't churn the game isn't interesting and should be dropped like a hot potato. There is such a thing as burn-out where people have played a game long enough that they feel like they've "solved" it and continuing to play without new material is just the same-old same-old with predictable outcomes. Also, over time it becomes difficult to find people who have either kept their stuff or for newcomers to get into the game at an affordable price.

I really think we're overthinking things here. Unsupported games losing players isn't part of a grand conspiracy or malicious designed obsolence, it's simply that very few people play the exact same game with the exact same options every time. Sure, people keep unsupported games alive in small groups or online or whatever, but if there isn't new stuff to sell, than there really isn't anything worth selling, which means stores won't promote it, and it becomes a cycle.

If you're lucky enough to have a group that includes people that love a particular dead game, that's great! But that's very much not the norm.

While there's truth to the cynical take, games tend to stagnate in a community without an outside force to shake things up. Even if the game isn't "solved" it can feel that way. A lack of new product means a lack of new players to replace the ones that natually move on to other things in their lives.

Now, the internet makes this significantly worse in a lot of ways. People tend to live perpetually in the future; needing the next thing that will make them happy rather than anything that actually exists in the present. A lot of people don't even play. Their enjoyment is often almost entirely based in the speculation and discussion of how what's next will change things.

In a lot of ways I get it. Riding the wave is exciting and keeping players invested when there's not a lot of buzz is hard. I'd love to see better preservation of "eras" of games in general, but I get its more work than many find worthwhile.

 warboss wrote:
Not to put too fine a point on it but you're countering collected anecdotal data with "trust me, bro". I don't know you personally but did you work for Diamond or one of the two companies in question at the time? For what it's worth, I actually agree with you by the way from the simple practical perspective that there simply wasn't enough to purchase for a new player (and that's before considering the massive out of stock periods lasting months after each wave) during the height of the Xwing boom compared with 40k to oversell it globally or even just in the US. Buying a full 40k single army of decent size (2k pts) costed more back then than buying multiple of every ship for every faction in the game (and again that's assuming you can find them all in stock at the same time). Maybe if they had been able to meet the massive unexpected demand during those critical initial years then it might have but I doubt it outsold 40k nationally/globally though I do believe it did so at some stores.

As I said above, stuff like this is very much about vibes. X-wing probably did outsell 40k in a lot of stores for a few months. That, of course, doesn't factor in GW direct sales or GW stores or probably some of the bigger resellers, but I'm sure at it's peak X-wing was 100% the game to have in stock.

Of course, it's a licensed game, and like all licensed games once you run out of stuff people recognize you pretty much need to close up shop. GW has released Space Marine Terminators five times in 30 years, AND continues to mine their own IP for new armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
While there's truth to the cynical take, games tend to stagnate in a community without an outside force to shake things up. Even if the game isn't "solved" it can feel that way. A lack of new product means a lack of new players to replace the ones that natually move on to other things in their lives.

Now, the internet makes this significantly worse in a lot of ways. People tend to live perpetually in the future; needing the next thing that will make them happy rather than anything that actually exists in the present. A lot of people don't even play. Their enjoyment is often almost entirely based in the speculation and discussion of how what's next will change things.

In a lot of ways I get it. Riding the wave is exciting and keeping players invested when there's not a lot of buzz is hard. I'd love to see better preservation of "eras" of games in general, but I get its more work than many find worthwhile.

It's not just games that struggle with this. People love the NBA, but more for the offseason than the post season, which is hilarious. People would rather talk about who might win the title in 2024 than watch to see who actually wins it in 2023.

 Polonius wrote:
As I said above, stuff like this is very much about vibes. X-wing probably did outsell 40k in a lot of stores for a few months. That, of course, doesn't factor in GW direct sales or GW stores or probably some of the bigger resellers, but I'm sure at it's peak X-wing was 100% the game to have in stock.

That's a good point about direct sales for GW both online and in store. As for the second part, the key part are the words "in stock". If you didn't preorder or order newly released ships in that first couple weeks, they were generally out of stock for months afterwards. X-Wing was pretty much the only game in almost 30 years of gaming that I felt the need to make sure the store owner knew I wanted to buy (two of specifically) in an informal "preorder" for the first half dozen or so waves of releases.

Of course, it's a licensed game, and like all licensed games once you run out of stuff people recognize you pretty much need to close up shop. GW has released Space Marine Terminators five times in 30 years, AND continues to mine their own IP for new armies.

And of course that doesn't include the dozens of Chapter/Chaos/Legion/HH variants.

I don't buy the whole constant new releases or the game is dead theory.

My reasoning, Historicals. The Historical wargaming market is huge, I'd argue much bigger than GW.

I damble, playing the old game of nepoleonics or ancients every year or two. Every unit I could ever want for those games already exists, but people are buying those existing models week in, week out. If no company released a single new model for the next ten years it wouldn't matter to the constant sales of existing products.

You don't have to buy it. You honestly, shouldn't buy it. The problem is gaming communities generally due, so you need to actively fight against it to keep games alive when their developers give up on them.

Historicals have a pretty deep culture of this, but specific rulesets also tend to come and go; its just that the models themselves remain relevant since the next ruleset can't put a claim down on real stuff that existed. From that perspective its similar, but the draw of that segment of the hobby is also a bit different.

tneva82 wrote:
And is there reason xwing is different to gw games where sales aren't frontloaded?

I am highly skeptical of GW's claims about front-loading. GW tries to argue two contradictory things: that the majority of their business is selling to new customers, and that new kit releases are highly front-loaded. The two things can't both be true. If new customers are the majority then GW should see consistent sales across time as new players keep generating steady demand for the entire product line. If sales are front-loaded it has to be because the majority of sales are to established customers, the people who already have the back catalog and only buy new releases. And we know that GW's actions with running their retail chain support the belief in new customers being the focus, making it likely that the front-loading argument is a self-serving rationalization for the content treadmill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
it's not just GW marketing. Bolt Action, for example, is a dead game to me because they won't put out Soviet miniatures that match the standards of every other standard infantry kit in the line. Warlord instead focus on endless campaign books that only a couple of boomers in England will ever really play through, rather than much-requested kits.

But that's not really the new content treadmill. The treadmill is about putting out new content even when the game is already fun, not about filling needs that genuinely exist. It's where the driving force behind new releases is "we need a release this month" and poor quality content is shoveled out as fast as possible. The equivalent for Bolt Action would be if you declared that the game is dead for you because even though you have those cool new Soviet miniatures Warlord only put out three campaign books for boomers this month instead of 15.

Lets not get too hyperbolic with the whole "game is dead if it doesn't release anything in a month" angle.


Here's the thing as I see it. Most of GW's marketing focuses on new products. So if there are no new products for Army or Game X GW doesn't say much about X. X doesn't feature in as many supporting articles or events because X has no new models to sell so isn't a focus.

GW instead talks about Y and Z.


You give that enough months or years and X dwindles in popularity, even with new customers, because its not being talked about. It's not being hyped up; its not being marketed to new people. It's not flavour of the month that everyone is excited about and talking about.

So its sales and popularity dwindle whilst new people are encouraged (directly or indirectly) toward more talked about content.


Monkey see monkey do then comes into play even more because if X isn't focused on its not there as much (as other things) to be seen to excite people into it.







When you then layer on that things being ignored for long periods means a higher chance of them being withdrawn from sale and that withdrawn from sale for something like an army means no more rules, no more stats and no updates - esp for GW games where new rules editions every 3 years rework the core rules so you can't even go that long with the old rules before they start breaking up.


Again there is no reason you can't play old stuff, people play old editions all the time. However when something isn't a marketing focus and when something is "ignored" whilst others are not; or even withdrawn from sale - then that does impact people. Esp in wargames where an army is an investment in time.

Do YOU want an army that will see support for hte next 4 editoins; is getting updates and content; or the army that hasn't seen any real update in 10 years? That hasn't had new rules or new content and that might well be withdrawn from sale and vanish? We've seen thta happen before and we've seen those armies even outright vanish (ok Squats came back in the end but it took decades).



Historical games get around it because the "roster" is fixed on historical real world things and so long as its the right scale a Tiger Tank can fit into any rules set. There's also loads and loads of films, school, books and other material "advertising" and presenting that period outisde of the firms making models. GW has to rely purely on its own marketing and rare occasions where 3rd party contracts work out - eg the massive popularity of Old World as a result of Total War Warhammer.

tneva82 wrote:

deano2099 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Another vote here for "X-wing was an amazing game killed by a scummy sales model and cash grab edition change"

But had FFG just gone "X-Wing is done, we've released everything and don't think it needs any more ships, but we'll keep printing everything as long as you keep buying it" then it would also be dead. "Oh they stopped supporting it". cf. Imperial Assualt.

And is there reason xwing is different to gw games where sales aren't frontloaded?

Gw sales would crash without new releases. Would need to go survival mode with low income.

Licensed stuff is cyclical. If a new Star Wars movie comes out, interest is going to go up and so are sales, even the older kits. If several Star Wars movies in a row bomb in terms of fan reception, any Star Wars related game is going to suffer a significant blow to their sales numbers. Why do you think Lego barely makes sets based on the sequels? Most people hated those movies and aren't buying the sets based on them. Therefore Lego makes more sets based on 45 year old movies than 5 year old movies. 40k sales are also more front loaded because the big spending is done by people who have been in the hobby for awhile and probably have all the models they really want that were released 5-10 years ago. I've been playing on and off since 1999 so I pretty much only buy stuff as it releases at this point. Even new army purchases are usually motivated by something getting new releases that really grab my attention.

 Overread wrote:
Do YOU want an army that will see support for hte next 4 editoins; is getting updates and content; or the army that hasn't seen any real update in 10 years?

This is really only a question that comes up with GW and their inexplicable ability to make decisions that would drive any other company to bankruptcy and somehow maintain dominant market share. With virtually any other game the new content treadmill kills the game within a year or three and there's no such thing as an army that hasn't been updated in 10 years.

Toofast wrote:
Licensed stuff is cyclical. If a new Star Wars movie comes out, interest is going to go up and so are sales, even the older kits. If several Star Wars movies in a row bomb in terms of fan reception, any Star Wars related game is going to suffer a significant blow to their sales numbers. Why do you think Lego barely makes sets based on the sequels? Most people hated those movies and aren't buying the sets based on them. Therefore Lego makes more sets based on 45 year old movies than 5 year old movies. 40k sales are also more front loaded because the big spending is done by people who have been in the hobby for awhile and probably have all the models they really want that were released 5-10 years ago. I've been playing on and off since 1999 so I pretty much only buy stuff as it releases at this point. Even new army purchases are usually motivated by something getting new releases that really grab my attention.

40k has also conditioned people to anticipate the new edition.

People who buy licensed stuff like Star Wars have a shorter attention span. They see a product tie-in and buy it. They're not necessarily in it for the long haul, they just want to interact with their favorite movie or comic book.

Going back a page or two, that was the point with the Decipher card game fiasco. Decipher picked up the Star Wars license when the franchise was assumed to be in hibernation, and they tapped into the nostalgia of the fan base combined with the 90s card game frenzy to rack up some impressive numbers.

When the Star Wars prequels were due out, Lucas sensed that the demand curve was going to shift into even more profitability, and it didn't really matter what the card game was, it would sell. Turns out, he was wrong, and while that was irritating to him, it was catastrophic for Decipher.

Toofast wrote:
If a new Star Wars movie comes out, interest is going to go up and so are sales, even the older kits.

X-Wing was released and had its biggest success in the dead period before the sequels. It's primary selling point was OT nostalgia completely independent of any current events in the franchise.

40k sales are also more front loaded because the big spending is done by people who have been in the hobby for awhile and probably have all the models they really want that were released 5-10 years ago.

GW believes otherwise, they consider new customers to be their primary market. That's why their stores (including the performance metrics that decide if you keep your job) are focused exclusively on new customers, to the point of actively trying to drive away existing customers.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

GW believes otherwise, they consider new customers to be their primary market. That's why their stores (including the performance metrics that decide if you keep your job) are focused exclusively on new customers, to the point of actively trying to drive away existing customers.

My understanding is "driving away old" was Kirby era marketing and very heavily felt in the US market, which often got more "salesman" type staff instead of "hobbyist" type staff employed. Kirby very much was of the "new customers only" marketing approach and it was one of the reason GW was bleeding customers. It's also why when GW turned around on that front their sales went bonkers because a lot of pepole game back.

That said my view is that GW knows a few things

1) In the Fantasy/Scifi Wargames market THEY are the ones doing the lions share of recruiting new people into the hobby. Almost the entire rest of the market relies on leaching from GW (which also explains why so many often started by making games inspired by GW that GW abandoned).

2) If you only focus on old customers you can enjoy a short term period of good growth, followed by the reality that established customers are a finite resource that is not replenished and thus will always dwindle over time.

3) As soon as you get a large enough generation gap at stores/clubs/games it becomes a major barrier to people outside of the established generation(s) joining in. If all your customers are 50+ then getting 30,20,15 year groups into the game is a LOT LOT harder.

4) Customers who are attracted during their young years (teens) are far more likely to transform into long term customers. Meanwhile adults often have less time to devote to totally new hobbies and are much more likely to revisit ones from their youth - even if they only had a passing interest or dabbled a little in their youth.

 Overread wrote:
My understanding is "driving away old" was Kirby era marketing and very heavily felt in the US market, which often got more "salesman" type staff instead of "hobbyist" type staff employed. Kirby very much was of the "new customers only" marketing approach and it was one of the reason GW was bleeding customers. It's also why when GW turned around on that front their sales went bonkers because a lot of pepole game back.

It's still a thing in the US. Maybe they aren't overtly telling staff to kick out the veterans but the stores I've been in are all very much designed for new customer recruiting and nothing else. There's one small demo table and one real game table with a minimum of terrain, there isn't much stock beyond the core new player purchases, there's no attempt by the employees to organize any kind of consistent schedule for gaming, and as soon as you walk in the door you get offered the free miniature and painting lesson.

1) In the Fantasy/Scifi Wargames market THEY are the ones doing the lions share of recruiting new people into the hobby. Almost the entire rest of the market relies on leaching from GW (which also explains why so many often started by making games inspired by GW that GW abandoned).

I think this is more true in the UK than in the US. In the US it's more MTG and D&D getting people into the store, and while 40k still has the dominant share once they start looking at miniatures it's far from exclusive. The old X-Wing group (before 2.0 killed it) we had was almost entirely people who went directly into X-Wing without ever touching or having any interest in GW games. I was one of the few people with any GW experience and I found X-Wing through a book store that had no GW products whatsoever.

(And I suspect that's a big part of why X-Wing had such explosive initial growth, they got the game into mainstream book stores where they had a mass audience GW couldn't even dream of.)