Discussing the Negative/Positive Feedback Loop in Model Releases

[Enoby]

By 'the negative/positive feedback loop' I refer to the idea that, if an army gets fewer/more releases, it will become less/more popular, and in return get even fewer/more releases. It is often discussed in passing within many different forums, usually being used to explain why a certain faction gets (or does not get) a release. However, I don't think I've ever seen it discussed in full and I would like to provide the opportunity to do that. 

To give an example of the positive loop (supposedly) in action, a person may argue that Stormcast Eternals get so many releases because they sell so well. Another may then retort that they only sell so well because they get so many releases.

An example of the negative loop would be a person arguing that Slaanesh doesn't get many releases because it doesn't sell. This may be responded to by saying that it doesn't sell because it gets very few new releases (just look at the fiend and the Keeper of Secrets).

There's a few things I'm wondering:

• Do these loops exist? If so, to what extent? 
  • I would assume so, considering GW is a company that needs to make profit and selling popular produce is a good way to do that
  • Space marines, Stormcast, Nurgle, and Khorne could be seen as evidence for their existence 
  • Factions like Space marines and SCE are designed to be 'posterboys', so will they get many releases regardless of if they sell that much better than other factions? I think only GW know the answer to this. They are also much easier to start, and the effect of this can't be overlooked
• Are these loops a bad thing?
  • On one hand, it could be said that it is simply GW catering to their largest consumer bases, which can only be expected. Profit is needed to make this hobby grow 
  • On the other hand, it does leave some player groups out when their army gets very little attention and this may not lead to a healthy community (and missed sales, for example, look at the number of 3rd party Keeper of Secrets-like models) 
• How much impact do model releases have on sales of that faction?
  • By this, I mean are some factions doomed to unpopularity even if they get attention (perhaps Fyreslayers could be an example of this) and are some factions destined to be popular regardless of how much the spotlight is on them (some may suggest that SCE are popular mainly because of how easy they are to paint) and Skaven seem popular regardless of how few releases they have had?
• If you believe the feedback loops do have a negative effect, what would you suggest should be done about them?
  • Either from your position or GW's position 
• What factions are most affected by the feedback loops?
• Do you believe that there are any less-popular factions that just need a little bit of attention from GW and they'll become an instant best seller?

Thanks for your time. Hoping to read some interesting responses from the community  

[Overread]

Without seeing the hard numbers from GW most of what we have is guesswork and logical conclusions.

 

Clearly just looking at Marines tells us that there are feedback loops, but its more than just models. Space Marines get a lions share of Black Library books; of marketing; heck there's a huge metal space marine standing outside the GW head office along with a Rhino. Getting the lions share of marketing; the lore and mode releases builds a massive positive effect that rewards fans. That space marines are also designed to be fairly easy to use on the table (generally tough and simple mechanics and they don't have much in the form of throw-away or chaff units) also makes them a popular entry point into the hobby for new gamers.

Sigmar Stormcast are the exact same marketing model being applied to Age of Sigmar (see even the games title features the core faction - that's a marketing feedback right there). That Stormcast have almost as many listings as, say, Death has for its entire Grand Alliance shows that GW is pushing models in that faction HARD. More models means more diversity so more chance to get fans; more fans means more sales and that feedsback into more desire to feed that loop.

 

 

Now look at Sisters of Battle - few releases in terms of models and rules and they are floundering hard to the piont GW has to remake them. There's a fanbase but its quit dead in sales. Same was true of Dark Eldar and Necrons earlier in their cycles and, in the extreme, the ignoring of Fantasy by GW for a long period meant that it was heading for deaths door as an entire game (though there were other factors). Spartan Games is also a good example to look at for a negative loop. They'd onyl focus on one of their franchise games at a time; but had multiple ones on the go and couldn't support them - when the game got support it sold well and had fans; but when support ebbed away the hype and pressure eased off over the whole game - give it a year or two and gamers start to move on

 

 

Because of the big time investment in wargaming; most gamers like to think the game is getting attention and support at the developer end; that the developer is putting into the game and marketing it; selling it and expanding it. IF they fail to do that then gamers fast start to move into other games where the developer is paying attention to them. 

 

 

Edit - forgot to say

When GW has to restart a faction that is selling poorly they not only have to sell rules but also models - in the case of Sisters of Battle its an entire new line; for many other like Dark Eldar and Necrons it was the same. So for GW its a bad idea because it mean that to bring them back they've got to put all their eggs into one basket to generate a BIG injection of sudden interest and to bring back all the old fans that they can. Now this CAN work well. However its not as ogod as if GW trickles out updates slower and keeps the fanbase happy for longer. Longer fanbase contentment means continued sales not big sudden spikes that can ease off (esp if you put all your eggs into one basket and then release nothign again for a long period).

 

IT should also be noted that this is part models and part rules. Great models without rules won't sell well (AoS at launch did well, but not as well as it could have and part of that was its mess of jovial and childish rules); similarly rules without models won't sell (and worse 3rd parties will make the models if the rules are good - which is why GW no longer puts models into BAttletomes/codex if they don't have a model for them already/at launch

[amysrevenge]

I guess I've only got Debbie Downer talk to share here lol.  My great input into the discussion is that it's not a discussion really worth having.  Helpful!

A lot of the feedback talk is post-hoc reasoning based on how things superficially appear to have worked out, with guesses (at best) of both the reasoning behind various decisions and how successful each decision was, and what the guessed results mean for the unknowable future.  Without knowing even if a given release is successful or not (or even what successful would look like), we can't even say for sure if the feedback is negative or positive in many cases.  Something could sell in large volume, but still fail to reach internal sales metrics.  Or something could sell more modestly, but exceed internal sales metrics. 

Which is the positive feedback: a product with 5000 units sold with an internal success defined at 6000 units sold, or a product with 800 units sold with an internal success defined at 500 units sold?  Which looks like the obvious success story to a schlub like me on the internet?

Ultimately it all smacks to me of a bunch of windy nerds (myself most definitely included) going on at length about things we know less than nothing about, but talking as if our inputs, and thus our outputs, are perfectly valid.

[AGPO]

The elephant in the room is that GW *wants* a lopsided distribution of releases and popularity for its factions because it's simply good for business.

By far the most popular and successful GW army, for many reasons, are Space Marines. Let's make a conservative estimate that about half of all 40k players own a Space Marine army of some variety. Those players will generate the bulk of your sales for any new Marine kit, since there's not the barrier to entry of starting a whole new army. The comparable market for an Eldar release is much smaller, say maybe 10% if we're being very generous. 

Now let's say this popularity is down mostly to the level of support rather than Marines being poster boys who are very easy to paint and play with. What happens if GW make the effort to support Eldar on an equal level? Well lets we say for the sake of argument that the player base is 100 people, each buying one unit of each new release for their army, and that that group of Eldar and Space Marine players does indeed split evenly at 30% of total players apiece. If GW's next four releases target both evenly, they sell 120 units. However under the old model, if three of those releases target Marines, with one token release for the Eldar, they sell 160 units.  

Since the company's design resources are finite, they want to put them where they'll generate most sales. There's still a balance to be struck; maintaining a range of factions is important in order to create an interesting and diverse setting and attract a variety of collectors. The depth and variety in the game and setting is what attracts players, even if most of them buy poster boys.

Grand alliances, allies and their 40k equivalents are an effort by the company to break down these entry barriers. We're all much more likely to pick up a mini we like (say a Knight Incantor) if it can see some play without shelling out a few hundred euros/dollars/whatever for a whole army. That's why the Stormcast can ally with every order faction - the golden boys have an easy buy in to any new order release, and any release for the biggest faction is also readily available to every faction in the biggest Grand Alliance.

[Enoby]

2 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

I guess I've only got Debbie Downer talk to share here lol.  My great input into the discussion is that it's not a discussion really worth having.  Helpful!

A lot of the feedback talk is post-hoc reasoning based on how things superficially appear to have worked out, with guesses (at best) of both the reasoning behind various decisions and how successful each decision was, and what the guessed results mean for the unknowable future.  Without knowing even if a given release is successful or not (or even what successful would look like), we can't even say for sure if the feedback is negative or positive in many cases.  Something could sell in large volume, but still fail to reach internal sales metrics.  Or something could sell more modestly, but exceed internal sales metrics. 

Which is the positive feedback: a product with 5000 units sold with an internal success defined at 6000 units sold, or a product with 800 units sold with an internal success defined at 500 units sold?  Which looks like the obvious success story to a schlub like me on the internet?

Ultimately it all smacks to me of a bunch of windy nerds (myself most definitely included) going on at length about things we know less than nothing about, but talking as if our inputs, and thus our outputs, are perfectly valid.

Haha, I can definitely see your point  Unless one of us is the CEO in disguise, we are just playing a guessing game. That said, I started this topic because I find guessing games fun - I think it's interesting to see the community consensus, accurate or not. 

[kenshin620]

The problem is that it isn't just "new stuff = more sales/more popularity", gameplay and aesthetics play a major role too.

 

Look at the dismal failure of the Dreadfleet boardgame. It was so bad, I have seen stores still have copies of them ON CLEARANCE several years after its production. Granted one could point it being completely incompatible with normal warhammer mini games, even the old Man O War.

For a warhammer example, well theres always Beastmen. Non stop complaining of poor balance and terrible sculpts quickly dropped them to near Bretonnia levels of popularity despite being a late 7th edition book.

Even Space Marines can suffer from this. Only the die hard fans seemed to have bought the "Power Armor in Power Armor" Centurions due to their poor gameplay performance when they first debuted (and eve through 7th edition).

And then there was the bizarre phase of "mini codex supplements". Just because they released Codex Supplement "Crimson Slaughter" didn't really seem to have made people buy Possessed Marines despite it making them troops. 

 

Plus it's not just GW, I'd reckon most miniature games do this. Warmachine/Hordes current strategy right now is to either A. Release a new mini faction or B. Release a new wave of "Themed" list for a major faction. In contrast to their old strategy of slowly sprinkling a few models for each faction each book. Whether one is better for their system is up for debate.

 

That is not to say there isn't a spike of interest anytime there is a release. There definitely is. But it takes more than a new book to get people to buy things. Cough Codex Imperial Agents doing nothing to making a good inquisition army Cough.

[Warboss Gorbolg]

Will just speak to my personal experience with Fyreslayers since you brought them up.  I have not bought heavily into Fyreslayers despite being tempted probably monthly since release. My perception of Fyreslayers being poorly supported is the primary factor holding me back. In this specific case, my view that a single dual-kit of hearthguaurd and the single- Vulkites kit do not provide adequate unit variety for the faction in terms of hobby and gameplay.

Another dual-unit kit composed of something other than more Fyreslayers on foot would have probably been enough for me to buy in. Ironjawz suffer similarly from my perspective. I often consider larger factions as better purchases, even if they do not excite me as much.

[Vasshpit]

From a consumer point of view, i believe GW has a huge part in deciding whats popular and isnt. 

Popular consensus being that Eternals and Marines are popular hugely because they're designed to be. 

You know, as a consumer, that they are safe. They will constantly have an influx of new shiny toys. They will always have a higher spot in the competitive tier. They will always have many options to play with. 

They're given continual support. 

They're safe and neutral from a design perspective. 

These are all intentional. 

I firmly believe that if most other factions were given this same treatment they would be equally as popular.  

I dont find this good or bad just is. 

 

Id really appreciate a few new models spread out across factions though. I dont think everything needs a giant new battletome or lore reboot. I genuinely feel bad for consumers of factions that get left hanging.... cough, Beastclaw, cough. Heh. 

Even upgrade sprues would go a long way to just expanding units. (Looking at you, crossbow Brutes ?)

I also think they spread themselves a little thin. There are so many sub games its crazy! 

[RuneBrush]

I think there is a certain amount of what you say, where there's a cyclical trend where the popular things get more popular.  Within our hobby, the more people there are collecting one army, the more people there will also be "shouting" about that army - we've all seen it, in a group of 100 you're going to get one or two more vocal people.  The more noise a group makes, the more "popular" that group appears to be.

What we do have too are a number of curve balls that can be thrown.  Some armies simply gain popularity against the odds, somebody may create a particularly fantastic conversion or paint job of a less popular army that inspires people to collect something similar.  You've also got the sculptors themselves, love it or hate it, the 40k Taurox was created as a lunchtime project and ultimately directed the Tempestus Scion army. 

One thing that I think muddies the water when we come to analyse this subject is that the lead times on new models coming out is also huge (on average 2 ~ 3 years), we can't actually gauge how GW reacts.  If you think about it, that means that the Beasts of Chaos release we've just had was done around the time the first generals handbook was released... 

[AaronWilson]

Would like to add something helpful but I'm too dense to understand it all. On the brightside I'm glad GW is smashing releases out so we have a lot of options out there. 

[Overread]

There is one other thing I forgot to say - staff at GW how WANT an army to work. Wayback in the dark ages of 40K there were the SQUATS. Since 40K was basically fantasy in space the squats were the dwarf equivalents with lots of short warriors and big warmachines/war engines. Today the only survivor of them is the rattlings that the Imperial Guard can take (and I can't even recall if they are still around any more). 

However internally when they came to update to a new edition the Squats didn't have a champion in the team; the member of the team who was inspired by them left and the remaining design team didn't have the energy, time. money nor pressure to push forward with them. It didn't help that they felt the squats needed a big revamp and name and lore change to make them a touch more serious and grimdark instead of being "squats" which is a jovial name for a faction. So sometimes if there isn't someone in the design/management team to PUSH a faction forward then if that faction isn't a top seller it can fall to the wayside.

 

That said the extreme example of Squats is RARE. Most times factions fall to the wayside for a while then come back with a bounce. Fantasy suffered horribly though with losing a lot of models and, almost randomly, Tomb Kings. Whilst there is statements out there that GW just "forgot" about them until it was too late to add them; personally I think that it was simply upper management beginning a general cull of fantasy factions/models. Early AoS was built on the idea of "lets make cool models and people will buy them" It was essentially turning it into a Forgeworld style business plan, only without any real rules even for a core game. I wager if we'd kept old management and that approach we'd have seen more models and factions dropped over time with GW adding new factions all the time in an "ever changing world" and mostly focusing on big impressive models and a few neat looking troops and such. 

You can see that in how they shattered many major factions into multiple little factions. Little factions easily added to with a couple of models and then easily dropped. Setting AoS up for a rolling style of peek sales and fast drop off followed by dumping as they release a new shiny. 

Thankfully that plan is dead and buried ! Though AoS is still suffering the aftereffects of it and will continue to do so until GW can get it fully battletomed up (I'd also love to see them get Tomb Kings back - hoping that they still hvae the masters/moulds from those models! )

[RuneBrush]

16 minutes ago, Overread said:

However internally when they came to update to a new edition the Squats didn't have a champion in the team; the member of the team who was inspired by them left and the remaining design team didn't have the energy, time. money nor pressure to push forward with them. It didn't help that they felt the squats needed a big revamp and name and lore change to make them a touch more serious and grimdark instead of being "squats" which is a jovial name for a faction. So sometimes if there isn't someone in the design/management team to PUSH a faction forward then if that faction isn't a top seller it can fall to the wayside.

As a completely random aside, did you know that GW tried to put out the feelers for help?  There was a "Save our Squats" snippet in Sci-fi and Fantasy Magazine asking for ideas on how to revitalise the Squats and make them work for the changing background.

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

One thing that I think muddies the water when we come to analyse this subject is that the lead times on new models coming out is also huge (on average 2 ~ 3 years), we can't actually gauge how GW reacts.  If you think about it, that means that the Beasts of Chaos release we've just had was done around the time the first generals handbook was released... 

Very true, but isn't the lead time mostly models and Beasts of Chaos only comes with three models? None of which are dual kits or really anything 'special' that would waren't a long lead time. I wouldn't be surprised if these models cut into the line because it's an relative low time investment faction to release. 

Just guesswork of course. 

[MacDuff]

I think Shadespire, MP, and ST are introducing a new approach beyond splash releases. These serve to inspire a longer term sense of anticipation, promise, and rumor mongering. Even a couple of SoB models have helped keep that flame alive. But for a major new line or major reinvention, there are a lot of moving parts. First, you need strong concept art and a team of model designers who share the vision. Then you need to step back and figure out distinctive rules, and then get writers involved, because "new" these days demands a novel backstory, clever twist of the wider world story, and all the artwork, novels, and human interest narratives that bring a model line alive. It takes longer, sure, but with KO, DoK, ID, Nurgle, and even Stormcast it's led to entirely new play experiences.

[Bufkin]

Why are stormcasts/space marines so popular?

Main reason is not gameplay, release schedule, ease of painting, starting boxes and so on….

Its because they are humans.

Its just easier for everyone, its easier for designers and writers and its definitely easier for the audience.

There is a reason why Imperial Guards or empire are a very iconic part of games workshop, they are never as big as marines/stormcast from a sale perspective, for every IG army you see at the tables there are many more space marines… but IG are lorewise very popular and important, and empire lore was huge in WFB and freeguild still is very important in the lore.

We don’t have the numbers of course but I would be surprised if empire had fantastic sale figures for WFB…. but they have had an enormous amount of models over the years….

Imperial guard has had several lines of different troppers, they just have different clothing, there is no chance that it was sound from a pure sale point… but it was cool and it built the feeling of the world.

I rather play a one dimensional army in a diverse world than playing a diverse army in a one dimensional world…. And the easiest way to build diverse worlds are to use humans.  

I have never played empire, but I still know the names of several states and what color they have and what is special about them.

I can keep track of different elves when they have different models, but its harder to learn that white lions are from a different place than phoenix guards even though they have different models compared to keeping track that the same empire model painted black/yellow or red/blue are “completely” different.

The difference between a blood angel and a dark angel is really small, if they were anything else but humans people would mix them up constantly… buts its really super easy because they are humans.

[123lac]

I am sure GW is constantly analysing such feedback loops. Any successful business must be aware of how to generate both short term and long term revenue.

 

I imagine that pumping out Stormcast to the detriment of most other factions is a great short term source of revenue, but not a great long term source. Because doing so will cause many customers to leave, with only the Stormcast buyers sticking around.

 

So yes they'll be considering these feedback mechanisms when determining what factions receive their attention, but they'll also be considering a myriad of other factors as well, such as how to keep their Ork buyers happy and so on.

 

I like to think that they are smart enough to understand the need for a diverse lineup of factions in order to engage their customer base for a long period of time.

[Overread]

Interestingly Kirby era GW had kirby saying that they didn't need customer surveys or feedback because they knew what the customers wanted.Beginning of this year we had a big GW survey (or was it end of last year) and in that the call for Sisters of Battle was so strong that GW added them into the 40K line up as a major new release - ergo full new models and everything. So I think that GW of old was more focused on its own internal ideas of "what the gamers wanted". We saw this again with the attitude into the launch of AoS where it was mostly "gamers won't need any rules they'll just buy cool models because we make them." Which was why its launch rules were a literal joke. It was only the big reaction of the market to that major choice that prompted GW to make the Generals Handbook and take a full turn around in their AoS attitude. I think it also marked the start of a big change in upper management and pressure to change the leadership as clearly they didn't "know what the customers wanted" 

 

I think right now GW is clearly aware of what is needed for AoS; that's why its had a lions share of model releases compared to 40K and why I think it will continue to get that for the most part until such time s they've cleaned it up. It's just going to take time. The bonus is that GW is cranking out stuff so fast that this is an achievable target within one or two years from now I'd wager.

[SuperHappyTime]

Casual reminder that GW stock took a massive dive when they released the underwhelming 6th Ed Tyranid Codex. (The joke here is that anyone who actually understands the stock market knows this isn’t true).

A real possible example of negative feedback: Tomb Kings. They got a competitively poor release for 8th and appear to have suffered for it (Theyre out of print now).

Brets are a possiblility too but, and this is my speculation (ain’t it all?), they didn’t know where to go with Brets in AoS that wasn’t Empire. Just too much overlap and the setting had changed too much.

Beastmen suffered in popularity from being a 6th edition book (and terrible).

5 hours ago, Overread said:

I think right now GW is clearly aware of what is needed for AoS; that's why its had a lions share of model releases compared to 40K and why I think it will continue to get that for the most part until such time s they've cleaned it up. It's just going to take time. The bonus is that GW is cranking out stuff so fast that this is an achievable target within one or two years from now I'd wager.

What I worry about is that they’ve bought into “seasonal”/edition mantra and that while this year was an AoS heavy year, the next year is very light on the releases. My gaming wallet needs a break.

[Enoby]

 

Exciting news

 

EDIT: sorry, wrong thread!

[Ollie Grimwood]

How it works is GW produces and releases a range. If it sells well they release more for it and it continues along in the same vein. If it doesn’t they look at tweaking  or changing the range (can be rule, background or models) to try and boost it, however this takes time (upto 4 years for a whole new race or faction according to Jes Goodwin on WHW TV) also they aren’t going to immeadiatelt start on revamping a poor selling line straight away as there will be other projects going on.  If a line isn’t doing well there’s going to substantial gaps between releases  

As a business they’ll need some steady sellers to keep the money flowing and things ticking along and these are always going to be the ones that sell the most so those ones will get more releases.  They’re aren’t going to keep pumping resources into poor selling lines constantly in the hope that they’ll take off that’s just not going to work business wise, those lines need to reworked/reimagined. 

Slightly off topic but it has come up, Ratlings are not Squats and never have been, they are not some hold over from the Squats both existed at the beginning of 40K and they are different things (halflings and Dwarfs in Spaaaaaace)