Does Games Workshop's current business model harm existing factions?

[HollowHills]

So as I understand GW's current business model, the one that has brought them their recent success, it seems to be about constant new releases and generating "hype" for those new releases. 

In the form of the core games this seems to be based around adding new armies to those games coupled with rule support for older armies. 

As an example last year we got DoK, who though using a few older WHFB units, were a new army. Deepkin who were totally new and nighthaunt again using a few old units. For 40k we got custodes, again not an army that had existed on its own previously. We've now had Gitz and are getting genestealer cults, both of which are relatively modern. 

I speculate it is much easier to sell models if someone is buying a totally new army, than trying to sell new kits to the few players already invested in an older army. This seems to be part of what brought WHFB down, a wood elf player wouldn't buy high elves etc. 

What we haven't had since AoS released have been large new model releases for existing factions. The exception being stormcast eternals. 

Now rumours are we may see a few of the launch period aos factions get updates this year. I think whether they see new kits will tell us a lot about the future of the game. 

My main concern is that it will be in GW's interest to come up with completely new armies than support those they've already released. So in five years time we might not see any new DoK or Deepkin units because it's more profitable to release a new aelf faction. 

Any other thoughts on this? 

[Asensur]

I think the "stormcast chamber" will be the new model for army updates. 

For example, a new complete guild for the Kharadron Overlords.

Updates to old armies are possible. However, the new models should be enough to build a complete new army with those models only. 

[chord]

Well.....if people hadn't been grumpy pants over the original AoS, and bought into grand alliances buy whatever you models you like we wouldn't be back in this situation.  That approach they could release small sets of models without having to throw together an entire faction.  They released super high quality books along with it.

I do agree it will harm them in the long run.  I have one main and two small armies.  I'm not buying into another large army or a 4th.  

[Dead Scribe]

I think that at the very least they need to release books for all of the factions.  They can then leak in new models.  To me the rules take precedence over everything, and while I'm happy switching armies as needed to stay on the top tables, not everyone wants to spend that time and money.

[Mosquito onthe TenthFloor]

2 minutes ago, chord said:

Well.....if people hadn't been grumpy pants over the original AoS, and bought into grand alliances but whatever you models you like we wouldn't be back in this situation.  That approach they could release small sets of models without having to throw together an entire faction.  They released super high quality books along with it.

Agree with this in part. It seems to have reverted back to the standard GW models of "army book plus range release. Wait until next update for more"..........but this is what people bought into and requested. GW just followed the money really, so I can't hold it against them. 

Wish they'd sort out more faction books though. Its a bit weird trying to work out what is, what isn't and what might be current.

[Ollie Grimwood]

15 minutes ago, chord said:

Well.....if people hadn't been grumpy pants over the original AoS, and bought into grand alliances buy whatever you models you like we wouldn't be back in this situation.  That approach they could release small sets of models without having to throw together an entire faction.  They released super high quality books along with it.

I do agree it will harm them in the long run.  I have one main and two small armies.  I'm not buying into another large army or a 4th.  

I agree they started with a much more flexible release model. It was a shame it’s seemingly slipped back into it’s old format.  It’s not all doom and gloom as Grand Alliance lists are still a possibility if not as focused as individual faction ones. At least they are better received than the “Soup” lists of 40K. 

[AGPO]

I think @chord hit the nail on the head. Grand Alliances are terrific for encouraging players to take a dip in a new faction. AOS and 8th ed 40k were supposed to make these new collections the norm, but they've stalled with the importance of allegiance abilities. However, I'd say that in general, most collections are going to be relatively slow grow. Players will  tend to stick to their old armies since the barrier to entry for a new army in terms of cost and time is too high. Selling individual kits is therefore going to be easier than whole new armies. The important thing is less to sell someone an entire army but to give them a reason to keep expanding their collection steadily, by adding new strategies, allied options, endless spells etc.

The ideal model (outside of those rare customers who can afford to regularly splash on entire new armies) is something like this:

Build your core army > Add a kit or two from the new hotness to use as allies due to their cool minis/OP rules > Expand those one or two kits into a new army.

The best way for GW to boost this would be to give a boost to Grand Alliance armies and allies.

[SwampHeart]

I don't recall a specific source but I believe one of their new avenues for supporting existing ranges is going to be the 2 faction box. Ala Wrath and Rapture or the Announced Carrion Empire - they're still going to release new product support for both new and existing armies (I doubt very much so that GW is going to say 'you've got a book, we're never going to update that book again'). 

Generally speaking I think the idea is:

-New Army releases - largely a big deal, see Gloomspite, GSC, etc. 
These are a big deal - lots of hype, take time to bring to market, marquee production moments

-Existing Range Updates - this is a chance to bring existing armies into line with the current rules - basically every early codex in 8th, LoN, and BoC are examples
These aren't as big of a deal as the first category but still represent a new release (and with AoS we know spells and possibly terrain). Take less time to have store ready (mostly updating and compiling existing model collections). Will have a more reserved excitement level overall.

-Multi-faction boxes - Wrath and Rapture, Carrion Empire, Tooth and Claw, etc. 
These are ways to provide support for existing ranges before they get one of the above treatments. They usually release with 1-2 new sculpts for each faction and are paired with other existing kits. Not as big a splash as the first two but a window to support two factions at a time in small drips while they wait for a bigger release.  This is how GW can (and appears will) support ranges during their 'down time' when they aren't getting significant releases. 

Overall I think its a pretty unfounded fear - there is still an economic boon to GW in the production of new kits and books for older ranges. They just need to find a better way to introduce them rather than the old model of 'new/revamped army, huge release then nothing for years'.  We've seen GW update the Ork range for 40k recently (a very classic GW release of codex + several new kits) and we've seen their treatment of both BoC and LoN last year. 

[chord]

The 2 faction box is interesting. I'm not going to buy one unless it's 2 factions I already own, and I couldn't find anyone in my area who wanted the other half of wrath and rapture.  

[Melcavuk]

I think at this point it'd be nice to get every armies round 1 releases sorted and then GW can start on a second lap, I'm sure GW started AoS with a list of factions they wanted to revise, plan and release over the first few years as the "core factions" of the game, that is to reach the stage where roughly 40k sits in terms of number of factions there.

Then when these are all released we see round two where factions like Kharadron, Sylvaneth, Fireslayers etc get additional units added to them as we begin our second development lap.

i dont think the model is poor for existing armies, if by existing we take that to mean armies designed for Age of Sigmar, not those that are legacy hold overs from Warhammer Fantasy. Eventually most of the old fantasy armies will be redefined, its just something that is going to happen as Age of Sigmar is about new, the best you might end up with is some hold over in Tomes like beasts of chaos and gloomspite.

[Luke82]

27 minutes ago, chord said:

The 2 faction box is interesting. I'm not going to buy one unless it's 2 factions I already own, and I couldn't find anyone in my area who wanted the other half of wrath and rapture.  

I picked up the box for Warhammer Quest monsters made a huge chunk of the cost back selling the bits I didn’t need on eBay, might be worth considering.

[Overread]

Honestly I think this WAS their plan at the start of AOS. I think its why they fragmented armies into smaller portions and made the Grand Alliances. I think the plan back then was that players would form allied armies (by default) and GW would steadily remove old armies and add new ones; with armies like Stormcast sticking around long term, but each time a new Chamber opened an old one might vanish.

It was a design that I think was tied to the view that they were making models and that lore and story and army support were dead concepts. I think that's why early AoS lore was very light on detail and focused on being infinite and huge and impossibly big so that anything could happen. 

This is why we saw them happy to drop Tomb Kings and Brets at the start;  I think if management had remained the same we might well have seen other army get steadily dropped over time. AoS would have been a bit like Forgeworld in Plastic - boutique models with a casual lore and rules set that focuses on "big launches" but continual rolling factions and stock. 

 

I think its a design choice GW have moved FAR away from now. They clearly want to support many older armies. Remember customers who are not buying models but who are playing are playing all other gamers. Which means sure Bob isn't buying any more Wood Elve;s but he's playing Bill and Trish who are both building brand new armies. 

Also in my observation many people who remain current are happy to buy new models and new sculpts and often as not might drift into a new army rather than stick to just the one. Those who stick to one army composition only are often limited in some way (space, money, time) and thus are not actually current customers to market to anyway (GW can bend over backwards but that kind of customer just isn't in the purchasing frame). 

We can see GW pulling armies  back together into united forces. We can see them generally cleaning up and supporting most armies. We've lot some along the way like the recent Gitz and Greenskins; some might be lost forever some might be a short term thing. It's a shame to lose them; but I think its a result of the fragmented nature of AoS's launch and the fact that some are not popular and running on very old sculpts and GW doesn't have infinite resources. Armies can always come back form the past though - heck this recent few years they've been re-releasing a lot of old games and armies. I still hold out hope that GW might well bring back Tomb Kings 

Supporting old players is good for GW and in my observation old players brought back are likely to replace old models iwth new sculpts; build ever bigger collections; diversify and buy up new sculpts when they come out and also can be encouraged into supporting other armies. If someone has a complete army then its a prime time for them to get interested in another. IF GW supports their old army they are FAR more likely to continue to invest in a new army; feeling safe that their old force can still be used AND that their new army will also continue to be supported.

 

Miniature wargames buck the trend of our disposable society in that they are products with a LONG lifespan. People want models to last years and years because it might take them 2,3, 5 years to build that army. 

[Thiagoma]

This are my toughts:

 

Since AoS launched and units were defined as "valid" , they all should be supported. Not saying they shouldnt release new armies such as Fyreslayers, Idoneth , Ko and such, but selling unviable units may stop people into buying the game. If a people love Dispossessed but they arent supported.... well they can pick asnother faction or not play the game at all.

Of course factions like DoK and Gloomspite take old players back, considering they have already the core of the army and a bunch of amazing new things to buy.

Imo it is a win win. I have all the High Elves and a bunch of Wanderers and the bazilion microfactions make it a pain to play. You can bet that if GW launches a book and a couple of new kits, i would buy everything asap and many people who got their older armies would be back as well.

[Future]

Here is my theory. I agree with everything said. I think AOS pivoted and is going back to the large alliance format -- just not 4 faction format. LoN, Gloomspite, BoC, most likely (if there is) the new Skaven book (hopefully soon). These are LARGE groupings of models with flexible rules compared to any of the AOS 1 model lines (Ironjaws, Sylvaneth, all forms of dwarf, deepkin).

 

Hear me out. I think we will continue to see small lines coupled with books as they are released, new elf 'chambers' for instance. However I think the grand vision is once all those lines exist to create the elf book. Same with dwarfs. I think eventually everything will be some form of LoN or BoC type book. 

 

I agree with DeadScribe in that I would like to see AOS 2 rulesets for all supported model lines regardless of model releases. The tomes from Nurgle onward are just better in every way than what the older factions have.

[Baron Wastelands]

Surely Gloomspite Gits is a direct counter example? Lots of new kits and new rules, but a significant proportion for things that already existed, (squigs, trolls, Squig Hoppers, mangler squigs, goblin heroes) as well as updated rules for modernish kits, like the arachnarok, and in a way that makes everything useful again, including those night goblin hordes you’ve been saving.  Although I too have anxiety about my favourite armies getting squatted (please don’t ditch my precious Gutbusters) from time to time, I think there is a definite commitment to supporting both the range of armies available, and the majority of kits that are out there and playable. 

If the worry is that models get lost over time, I think that happens naturally. In the late 80s/early 90s, I amassed a large army of metal skaven. I loved (still like) some of those models, but I have over time entirely replaced them with a large army of newer skaven models. Not because at any point my original models became unplayable - on the whole, skaven evolution has been comparatively static - but because I like new models, and I wanted to. (The conversion potential of plastic helped, of course, I still have scars from my early days of converting metal figures).

If they release a new gutbuster book, for example, with models that replace (some of) mine, I will play with mine as much as possible initially, but very likely will replace over time with newer kits, especially if I like them. I’d be sorry to see the army go altogether, but not so much to see it evolve. I play BCR too now because of that evolution. If I don’t like the kits, I’ll move to something that I do eventually.

I also change my car from time to time, sometimes because parts are no longer easily available; I don’t see that as a failing in the car industry.

[kenshin620]

I keep parroting this, but methinks GW NEEDS to release a 2nd book of a non-SCE army to instill hope.

Ironjaw, Seraphon, Fyreslayers, just SOMETHING to say "oh right we didn't forget you".

Sure I'm disappointed even more legacy armies got the squat recently, but when their AoS Original Factions haven't gotten any love, thats possibly just as bad if not worse. Shows some very odd decision making.

I mean it's like..."Hey we killed off WFB to make a NEW WFB! Look at our new orcs and dwarfs!" *2 years later* "We have orcs and dwarfs? Oops we forgot!"

 

Ok sure theres the upcoming Undivided Chaos which may possibly include Archaon, but he kind of doesn't count. His book was....not exactly a proper Battletome.

 

And yea I also understand the typical life cycle of books is VERY long. Most army books and codices are at least 4+ years and AoS is still very young. But while a book full of units and options is ok to last a few years (or in the case of Bretonnia, FOREVER), ones that have like 6 units aren't so much.  Building an IJ thats unique is literally impossible

And I'm not hating on GW (well maybe not as much as some other people) or hating on their current releases. Gloomspite is pretty great and they greatly expanded 40k in the past 5 or so years (seriously everyone would have laughed if you mentioned Adeptus Mechanicus, Imperial Knights, Genestealer Cults, and Custodian Guards back in 4-5th edition). But I am slightly disappointed with their current mentality on their existing lines. I mean they've made all these wonderful Necromunda sets but can't be bothered to make plastic Vahallans or Steel Legion? And lets not get started on the state of kroot!

4 hours ago, Baron Wastelands said:

Surely Gloomspite Gits is a direct counter example?

Beasts of Chaos is a bigger example. Literally no new models other than the Herdstone and Endless Spells. And a good number of them being 6th edition Metal/Resin models.

Making Centigors is a PAIN!😭

But on the other hand at least they have a decent battletome. 😜

[Kyriakin]

I think GW initially had a "churn and burn" attitude, but realised that it might not have been the best course of action.

Assuming they never go pre-painted, this is fundamentally a niche hobby - as most people do not have the inclination to paint tens, or even hundreds, of 28 mm miniatures - and the customer base is therefore somewhat limited. 

Churn and burn may increase short-term profits, but it upsets members of the finite player base that get burned (i.e. TK players, etc.), and spooks many of those that remain. After all, nothing kills a hobbyist's momentum more than wondering if your army might be squatted in the coming weeks, months or years - whether it eventually comes to pass, or not.

Furthermore, outside the UK, the FLGS and game clubs are the main hub of the hobby, and managers/owners of such establishments hold a huge sway over the viability of a given game or company in that community. Upset those guys, and watch him/her push Infinity, Malifaux, Warmahordes (etc.) ahead of your games.

As a result, I feel GW has been on the charm offensive for the past few years, as they attempt to become more likable. Sure, as the industry leader, they will always have a target on their back and it is always cool to hate on the big guy. However, the disdain towards GW in 2012-2015 had gone far beyond that, IMHO.

--------------------------------

More directly on topic. I love the dual box set idea. While, say, Soulblight/LoB and Seraphon clearly need a Gloomspite-style mega release, there are quite a few factions where two or three new kits would make all the difference - be it by replacing some crappy old sculpts (e.g. BCR frost sabres/yhetees, Clan Pestilens priests/censer bearers, FEC Vargulf/courtiers, etc.) or topping up a newer faction with a smaller range (e.g. Ironjawz, Fyreslayers, etc.).

Fireslayers mgiht seem like throwing good money after bad, but I don't think they are conceptually doomed - just badly executed. They desperately need more fire-based units (i.e. similar to, say, Kdaai Fireborn), endless spells and terrain (a volcano and lava flow?), rather than half-naked dwarfs with afros.

[Saxon]

I've always felt that there is some sense in adding new models to existing armies. Personally, I bought back into AOS because I wanted to have a steam tank i couldn't afford when I used to play as a teenager. When I look at 40k i recognise things like Black Templars and Cadians. I don't recognise all these new armies that look strange. Without the old armies like Space Marines i'd have absolutely no connection to 40k at all. 

I'm not sure what kind of market share this would represent but surely it's at least 1 in 5 people starting AOS would be returning to fantasy (based on absolutely no statistics haha). 

[Thiagoma]

Someone mentioned the Ally system.

I really hate how gw further limited allies on 2.0 (1 in 4 units).

It made non BT armies a harder time to make new lists. It also reduced variety in faction armies. 

I wish the next ghb to be more ally friendly, and also give some perks for GA armies.

[CaptainSoup]

I'll be honest I don't quite fully understand the details of the question being asked. This is very much in a opinion territory so I guess I'll post my very general view on this.

When AoS was first released we had a basic transfer of all existing models from WFB and moved them over to the AoS format, essentially the 40k 8th edition equivalent of faction Index books. The presumed idea, like the Index books, was that over time these books (or PDFs in AoS's case) would be slowly replaced with their own dedicated material to fit the new game.

Now we can all agree that the AoS release was more or less a ****** show (for the love of Nagash lets not go down that rabbit hole again) and while they probably did have some sort of plan for how AoS was going to progress, it didn't exactly pan out and over time GW started changing gears into what we see today. We have bi-yearly FAQ and yearly point updates to keep the game as balanced as possible and we have the semi consistent release of new Battletomes to keep the new models flowing.

This brings us back to the original point of the thread. We have all these older model ranges sitting in Grand Allegiance purgatory while new armies/books continue to roll out. Every so often we get books like the new Grot battletome that takes older models out of purgatory and into their own book, with even some new models and spells to go along with them. This seems to be GW's current plan going forward for releases in that they either release a brand new army, give an older faction their old tome (if they are already large enough) or they mix the two incorporating multiple smaller sub factions together.

It seems to me that people had some preconceived notions on how GW was going to update the game and their older model ranges. Perhaps people thought each and every faction as they currently stood  would get their own book with their own set of rules. Or maybe all the factions in their current form would just get more models to throw at their existing armies.

IMO, GW seems to really be getting their head together on what they are planning on doing for the release schedule of new AoS content. The idea of putting a bunch of older model ranges together with new spells, abilities, synergies or even new models is simply a brilliant way of breathing new life into existing model ranges. At the same time they are also bringing in new armies into the frey to further spice up the game which, balance willing, is a good thing for the continued existence of the game.

There is also the idea of simply giving older ranges new models. While we are seeing a lot of stagnation in some armies in how old their models are. Again I think the idea of slowly churning out new BTs that incorporate older models into a new faction is the best win-win for not only for those people still holding on to their old WFB armies but for GW and their profit motive in releasing new content. While it is slow, everyone wins in the end.

In the meantime, the idea of releasing box sets with new models for older armies is a great marketing idea as it spreads the new GW love around for everyone (though IMO I don't' think just releasing one or two new models to an existing army isn't going to change much in the strength of most armies, but a new model is a new model).

So at the end of the day, is what GW is doing with the way they are releasing their AoS content bad for older models? Probably not, but that is solely based on the perspective on someones idea of doing harm to existing models. GW seems to be running on all cylinders pushing out as much content as they can and sticking their fingers in as many pies as possible to keep their customer's busy and for now, it seems to be working pretty well for them.

3 hours ago, Kyriakin said:

Furthermore, outside the UK, the FLGS and game clubs are the main hub of the hobby, and managers/owners of such establishments hold a huge sway over the viability of a given game or company in that community. Upset those guys, and watch him/her push Infinity, Malifaux, Warmahordes (etc.) ahead of your games.

Being from across the pond myself, one could argue the opposite. If the store owners do not support their customer's interests then the customers will simply go elsewhere. It doesn't really make much sense to purposefully alienate your customers because they ****** you off. If you ****** them off they just ban you from the store and move on. Ideally a store owner would want to accommodate as many game systems as they can to not only keep their store up and running but to keep the gaming community alive. Like you may have implied tabletop gaming is very niche over here, so making sure you have an accommodating FLGS with happy customers is more crucial than ever.

1 hour ago, Thiagoma said:

I really hate how gw further limited allies on 2.0 (1 in 4 units). 

All I'll say is be careful what you wish for. If AoS is more forgiving to allies than it will very quickly turn into what 40k is currently dealing with, people cherry picking the best units from different factions to create super meta lists that mono-factions simply cannot compete against. Mark my words. Besides, whats the difference of just choosing a GA as your allegiance then ally all you want? You can mix and match units to your hearts content while the lack of any overbearing abilities will keep your cherry picking in check.

[novakai]

honestly I pretty sure if GW just didn't update Stormcast eternal every single year, people would feel a bit less Jelly of why there army doesn't get any attention for 3 years.

[XReN]

30 minutes ago, novakai said:

honestly I pretty sure if GW just didn't update Stormcast eternal every single year, people would feel a bit less Jelly of why there army doesn't get any attention for 3 years.

Even SCE players don't want that

 

[Barkanaut]

At this point its very clear the first of the new AoS armies are in dire need of updates. I mean GW seen the immense feedback on facebook when they asked last year. I think we'll start seeing more regular updates for existing armies now that the game has so much faction diversity. I would still like to see new armies too just at a slightly slower pace maybe 1-2 new or significantly updates armies a year and 2 updates a year would be a good way to do it for a few years at this point.  However GW itself can follow the bad moon itself when trying to figure out what the heck they are doing lol. Thankfully less so these days but its still can be very hard to figure out. 

[novakai]

43 minutes ago, Barkanaut said:

At this point its very clear the first of the new AoS armies are in dire need of updates. I mean GW seen the immense feedback on facebook when they asked last year. I think we'll start seeing more regular updates for existing armies now that the game has so much faction diversity. I would still like to see new armies too just at a slightly slower pace maybe 1-2 new or significantly updates armies a year and 2 updates a year would be a good way to do it for a few years at this point.  However GW itself can follow the bad moon itself when trying to figure out what the heck they are doing lol. Thankfully less so these days but its still can be very hard to figure out. 

the consistent Primaris Lieutenant releases still baffles me

[AaronWilson]

I think they will revisit the older battletomes / older armies, the Skaven / FEC new toys hopefully prove that as well