Jump to content

Rules vs. Good Design Selling Models - How can Consumers influence GW?


Recommended Posts

Seeing the new Lumineth models shown so far, I can't help but resurface something I noticed with OBR: Good rules sell models, so much so that people even change their tune about the models.

With OBR, they were highly controversial when first released. Much of the criticism on their look faded after their release. In fact, Katakros was one of the highest voted models for "best model of the year", despite a fairly lukewarm reception initially.

Now with Lumineth, out of the gate the response to the Spirit of Eltharion is almost universally positive, while probably around 80-90% of the reaction to Teclis is unfavorable. It is highly likely that Teclis is going to be a highly powerful model, which will drive sales for him. If it plays out like this, how do we as people that want good looking miniatures but also want a good game influence Games Workshop to produce the kinds of models we want to see? If, for the sake of argument, Teclis outsells the Spirit of Eltharion, how does GW get the message that the vast majority of people actually preferred the SoE?

Does anyone else see the role that rules play on miniature sales problematic? 

  • Like 5
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to be expected honestly. We want cool models, sure, but if we are the kind of ppl posting on this forum we likely also want to play them and them to be good

It a goes together

I just tend to find ways to convert models I don't like when they are highly necessary. Works for single models at least, although badly for units

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the entire community is fickle enough to jump to whatever has the most OP rules without considering if they like the models, then maybe goofy looking models are what they deserve.

However, I'm sure the aesthetics are what draw people to the game or a particular army in the first place. That was certainly the case with me. All the advice out there for getting into AoS is "pick whatever army you like the most."

A powergamer looking for nothing more than to win at a strategy game has much more accessible options than this game with so much time, money, and lore dedication. I'd guess that most players care at least a little about how their army looks. Perhaps people just warmed to the OBR after spending time with the models? We've only seen a few glimpses of Teclis from limited angles so far - maybe he'll be better once we get our hands on him.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah this is pretty obvious. Rules, for the most part, sell the models for people that actually play a lot and put a lot of time and effort into their games and go to events. General hobbyists on the other hand will buy stuff cuz they like it which is totally fine and good. But at the end of the day if your goal is to try to do your best and win at events you'll 100% be taking optimized lists and therefore models that fit that list. 

The main issue is GW bases their balancing on these events. They do some internal testing but its no where near enough or the scale that the global player base can. We can pick books apart and find all the crazy stuff that GW doesnt think of simply because we have more time. 

A few examples for me: Ive always loved Fyreslayers since their release. Now how much ive used them has waxed and waned over time. I love the magmadroth models but I dont use them cuz their warscrollsare hot garbage. I also love Gloomspite Gitz but for the squigs and trolls. I dont play the normal grot heavy lists cuz its super boring and overdone. The squigs and trolls are fun to paint and make for a good display on the table but they dont see much gameplay due to not being that great. 

Ultimately that the kind of thinking that drives model sales. Is the unit strong? Points efficient? When GW sees certain models dont sell well they get changes. When they see other models that are overused they get nerfs. Its basically the same as every other gaming company that tracks metrics like that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nighthaunt Noob said:

If it plays out like this, how do we as people that want good looking miniatures but also want a good game influence Games Workshop to produce the kinds of models we want to see?

I do not think we can. Every single model GW produces undergoes a costly process of design and production and needs to get approved at several stages of the process. They would not do it for a model they thought was bad and damages the brand reputation (not that Teclis would do that for me, just speaking generally here).

We can safely assume that the people in charge think of every single model that gets approved as "winners", some more some less. My personal biggest gripe with GW models are the faces... the ****** faces. From Constipated Grandpa Teclis to Regurgitated Duke Nukem Reject Space Marines... This is what the designers prefer, so this is what we will get untill a whole new generation of designers emerge.

Recently, I've heard of several 40k players telling me they didn't like the AoS design influence creeping in... one of my favorite changes in recent years. Everyone not in touch with 40k in general, check out Mortarion, he was the first model I know of that was very AoS inspired and fits better between Nagash and Archaon than to any other of the big guys in 40k before him. That's also something that will absolutely not change, because it's so tied to the designers currently working at GW and the people needing to approve all new stuff.

I very much agree with the premise that rules sell models and those that are notably unusable in-game will sell worse than very similar looking units that are good. But the overall design philosophy will stick. More AoSy models for 40k and more punchable faces for me etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a business model, GW will need to factor all this in when considering any 3.0 rules and FAQs for less loved new sculpts.

For the money they've spent on OBR, who still look a bit comical and not up to the standard set by Morghast (or Tomb Kings) I expect them to remain OP rules wise, as why else would people buy them? As models they are as marmite as you can get.

KO are the other end of the spectrum. They needed new rules because the original rules were trash. KO are much more fun to play with now and I expect more KO players will return, or create new KO players. The sculpts kept the love, the 2.0 rules have reinforced it.

The new aleves tome may go the same way as OBR: a few questionable sculpts but OP rules to sell them, and that's just how it is. GW need to get a return on their moulds. 

But that doesn't disguise the fact that for a while, GW have become weak at what they are usually the best at: signature sculpts. The Teclis model just looks so... wrong. And it wont be cheap either. They need to look at their design team again and get the sculpts honestly tested before rushing them out.

Edited by Mcthew
*Looking at the Teclis model again it looks terrible. I just cant love it, no matter what. How on earth did it pass quality control? It looks like someone has glued the parts together from other manufacturers' kits. It's a complete ill-thought out mess.
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to come to the conclusion that there is a (significant) relationship between rules and model releases, but I don't find that it's (always) a 1-1 relationship. 

If one were to look at all the releases of e.g. 2019, I believe that you can find just as many balanced (Gloomspite Gitz) or even lackluster (Forbidden Power) releases. 

I also think that GW do model designs meant to last and provide revenue over longer time. An example from 40K are the Centurions, who were originally ridiculed (not unlike the OBR with the skeleton-in-skeleton style), but I'm now seeing people fielding 12 centurions because their rules suddenly become incredibly good 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes i agree with you.

Best example is obr,ugly models but veeeeery broken overpower: result: the mos played army in lvo and cancon.

 

Tryhards players gonna jump from a fotm army to next fotm army(best example is the decline of slanesh player for a minor nerfs and all those players have jumped to obr,when obr be nerfed they gonna jump to next overpower army most likely tzenth)

 

My example as a casual player that dont play tournaments,i bougth 1400 points of 100% new dispossesed 2 years ago when they were veeeery bad,i didnt mind because i wanted the models.

Now with city of sigmar im thinking about buy a luminark that i am not a fan due to how good it is.

 

So even for me that i an a casual player and dont play tournaments the rules sometimes decide my decison about buy a model,i guess for tournaments players is bigger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mcthew said:

But that doesn't disguise the fact that for a while, GW have become weak at what they are usually the best at: signature sculpts. The Teclis model just looks so... wrong. And it wont be cheap either. They need to look at their design team again and get the sculpts honestly tested before rushing them out.

Reusing 3d sculpts is to blame here I think. Sure, they wanna push out stuff to sell (and we want them to too) but the result are lots of very similar figures and a few rather meh ones. Why else would we always get Nurgle after Nurgle fat figure and Stormcast after Stormcast? Or Space Marine after Space Marine - cause it's easy. And there are a few figures that are probably just edited ones too - Tauralon / Teclis' Sphinx and probably the Tauralon took Magnus' wings and a gryph-thingy as the base...

Well, the good news is that we'll probably get new Chaos Warriors at least as they like to recycle stuff. Bad news is that this makes new kits for some armies take longer. Just my theories...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Doko said:

My example as a casual player that dont play tournaments,i bougth 1400 points of 100% new dispossesed 2 years ago when they were veeeery bad,i didnt mind because i wanted the models.

Now with city of sigmar im thinking about buy a luminark that i am not a fan due to how good it is.

So even for me that i an a casual player and dont play tournaments the rules sometimes decide my decison about buy a model,i guess for tournaments players is bigger

The Hurricanum is a stunning model though, I really like it. So many greebles, bits and bobs. I recommend it to all Cities players (2 battlemages, and a useful and pretty hurricanum or Luminarch, and so much stuff).

If you want to go purely Dwarf, you could craft something else, like a few stout duardin pulling a cart that has measuring and signalling stuff on it, and a mortar for the boomy spell.

Edited by zilberfrid
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

can I just add: a lot of people Buying GW stuff in my social circles don’t/rarely play. 

i don’t know how big that group is, I do know they don’t represent themselves online. At all. 

so good rules might increase sales in your social circles, and here on this forum, but it’s likely not the full story. 

My point being that making any judgement on the OP’s question is extremely hard to quantify. We don’t have sales data, not a way to quantify what a good, middle or bad model. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta agree with Kramer - without sales data, we don’t really have the info to back this claim. Basing this off personal experiences runs the risk of just getting an echo chamber. I don’t play, so most of the people I know who buy don’t play but that doesn’t mean my experience is typical.

As to how can consumers influence GW, the answer is always the same for any company - with your wallet. Social media can be a powerful tool for feedback but at the end of the day, money talks. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, ManlyMuppet88 said:

As to how can consumers influence GW, the answer is always the same for any company - with your wallet. Social media can be a powerful tool for feedback but at the end of the day, money talks

But this is a double edge sword.

 

If you think a mini or army is bad and you dont buy it because you want gw know it its ok but have the chance of gw dont creating more units for that army due to poor sales or even squating it as bretonian or tomb kings due to low sales

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doko said:

But this is a double edge sword.

 

If you think a mini or army is bad and you dont buy it because you want gw know it its ok but have the chance of gw dont creating more units for that army due to poor sales or even squating it as bretonian or tomb kings due to low sales

I don’t disagree but in the end sales is what makes or breaks something. If it sells, GW will continue to support it. If it doesn’t then we can’t expect it to stay around.

WHY it sells is another question but my point there is that we don’t have the sales data to know much about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Doko said:

 

Best example is obr,ugly models but veeeeery broken overpower: result: the mos played army in lvo and cancon.

 

Your example has one weak–point. Objectively the OBR models arent ugly. Thats just your opinion. I think they are the most creative undead models ever created. 

Is the army OP ruleswise? I doubt it, though I admit that they are a very strong, very straight forward army. 

To create a connection though is a far stretch imo. I think GW does their best in creating exciting armies with exciting rules fitting the models and the background. Sometimes those rules work a bit too good together, sometimes a little worse. Thats what Errata and GHBs are for to adjust.

Also I think it would be the worst possible thing if the community could actively influence the design process. After all everyone has a different taste and most people are quite selfish and would just wish for their „main faction“ to be the best while making every effort they can to make other armies worse. (from a rules perspective) 

Dont get me started on the models... If you dont like some of the models dont buy them, but keep in mind that for every person that dislikes a specific model or army in general, there are many people that do like them. 

Its a good thing there is still quite a distance between designers and the community.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2020 at 5:19 AM, Malakithe said:

Yeah this is pretty obvious. Rules, for the most part, sell the models for people that actually play a lot and put a lot of time and effort into their games and go to events. General hobbyists on the other hand will buy stuff cuz they like it which is totally fine and good. But at the end of the day if your goal is to try to do your best and win at events you'll 100% be taking optimized lists and therefore models that fit that list. 

I think you miss one important aspect (IMHO) and that is that rules and points change over time. Most people that I know who have been in this game/hobby for longer than just a year or two keep adding to their armies on a regular basis. Over time you tend to amass a large collection in your preferred faction (some in a lot of factions) and not all of them are point efficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Phasteon said:

Your example has one weak–point. Objectively the OBR models arent ugly. Thats just your opinion.

Agreed. I really like the models. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I bought many thousands of points of them before reading their rules. 

Going back to old TK, I owned (still own) what has got to be a base minimum of 10,000 points of them as well. Even after their bad, bad rules came out, I kept buying more of them. I think I topped out at 18 ushabti with bows and about 24 with great blades. Actually, there are probably at least another 12 unassembled and unpainted in my bins.

Just to describe my type of involvement with the gaming part of the hobby, I am someone who really wants to play more games, both at home and at events, but usually gets in about a game every two months and plays in about three events each year. Most of my gaming time is with a group, so we play Zombicide, Arcadia Quest, Mansions of Madness and the like more often than AoS or 40K. We had a solid run where we played Kill Team and Underworlds several times a week, but priorities have changed.

My desire to win when I play is strong but not obsessive. I'll do my best, but I'll also go with the models I want. In some cases I'll even play hopeless armies (like TK in Warhammer where I lost a good 85% if my games but stuck with them anyway).

Rules matter, but good ones or bad ones have far less to do with what I buy than the models or my theme ideas. And again, I really do want to play much more, including at events, but it doesn't work out that way, nor would I take "the current best army" to an event at the expense of enjoying what I see on my side of the table when I play.

 

Edited by Sleboda
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2020 at 4:19 AM, Malakithe said:

Ultimately that the kind of thinking that drives model sales. Is the unit strong? Points efficient? When GW sees certain models dont sell well they get changes. When they see other models that are overused they get nerfs. Its basically the same as every other gaming company that tracks metrics like that.

No evidence what so ever for this line of thinking. We dont know what drives sales or even what sells. According to the "Best Sellers" portion of the UK website, AOS is in a terrible shape as there isnt one AOS product in there. Of course that isnt an accurate way to gauge anything  but it's still more of an official source than  completley uninforned speculation. Even within this community which is a tiny representation of GW's consumer base, the notion that poor selling models get buffs or one that sell well get nerfs would be controversial to say the least.

Again there's no way to be sure on this without official data but all superficial and anecdotal evidence points to the fact that GW's biggest selling line are Space Marines who dont fit your criteria re balance and changes at all.

22 hours ago, Mcthew said:

As a business model, GW will need to factor all this in when considering any 3.0 rules and FAQs for less loved new sculpts.

GW are performing phenomenally year after year without doing any of that, I doubt they will see the need to change. Their current business manifesto dosent even mention their games, just miniatures:

"We have a simple strategy at Games Workshop. We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world, to engage and inspire our customers, and to sell our products globally at a profit. We intend to do this forever. Our decisions are focused on long-term success, not short term gains."

The first time their games are ven mentioned is within a context of their USP as a social and community experience. Nothing in there at balance or updates or anything:

"We know that, for a niche like ours, people who are interested in collecting fantasy miniatures will choose the best quality and be prepared  to pay what they are worth. The games are a key part of both our Hobby and our business model. Our games are played between people present in a room (a Games Workshop store, a club, a school), not with a screen. They are truly social and build a real sense of community and comradeship. This again makes good business sense."

Whatever people on gaming sites think about the financial importance of gaming viability and having games which are balanced, updated, patched etc, GW's manifest lack of investment in it paired with a repeated increase in sales year on year suggests that to the people with the metrics the evidence is it dosent matter. Updates and balance are not mentioned once in their business plan.

The fact is GW are not just a phenomenon within gaming but within business, they are one of the most successful FTSE 250 companies of the past decade, their high street presence and profit has increased where pretty much everyone else's has suffered, all this off the back of selling *toy soldiers*.

Whatever any of us think is important for them to consider financially going forward,  regardless of how obvious or self evident it might appear, is dwarfed by how good they are at making money off what they do. If they're not investing in updates and troop rule viability etc, it's not through ignorance, it's because at present it simply dosent matter to GW as a buisness, their focus is on making toys, at profit, worldwide, for people to enjoy as part of a social experience.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nos out of interest where are you finding the Best Sellers list? Because the way the UK site (and the whole GW site) is organised the only way to see a Best Selling tab option is to click on one of the categories. Far as I can see you can't get a universal list for the whole site. You can get the "available to order" list of basically everything (or at least a good 800 products) on the New and Exclusives tab; but otherwise all the best sellers are locked behind game tabs. So you can't compare 40K to AoS nor even either of them to specialist games. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Overread said:

@Nos out of interest where are you finding the Best Sellers list? Because the way the UK site (and the whole GW site) is organised the only way to see a Best Selling tab option is to click on one of the categories. Far as I can see you can't get a universal list for the whole site. You can get the "available to order" list of basically everything (or at least a good 800 products) on the New and Exclusives tab; but otherwise all the best sellers are locked behind game tabs. So you can't compare 40K to AoS nor even either of them to specialist games. 

 

I just searched GW best selling, which brings up a few things, the original link took me to this

 https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/searchResults?N=1125463923+132992523

But I see also now theres one exclusively here for AOS too.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/searchResults?N=647457687+3455591753

Three observations though 

1) I never claimed it was some sort of indication or proof of what sells. I said explicitly that we dont have that information.

2) For both systems the things that are selling according to those pages are precisley the stuff I would expect any company to be shifting the most units of: new shiny things and things bundled into a hefty discount. Not things with the best rules or most recently  amended rules or best rules support.

In fact best sellers 2 and 3 for AOS, Sacrosanct and Nighthaunt, are considered bottom tier among this community just now and had basically no changes made at all in the FAQ which was released only shortly after their army sets were. According to the poster I was replying to, both these armies should be in receipt of greater GW support *as a  buisness concern*.

The reality Is that in spite of them being very uncompetitive on the table and recipients of books which are also considered bottom tier, and in receipt of no buffs that have changed this, loads of people are wanting to buy entire armies of them. 

3) In the same Google search there are multiple other companies who list all their best selling GW products of all stripes and their list are combined. Most of these are dominated by 40k, and the majority of best sellers across both systems are the core boxes, battle boxes and start collecting. Again, this isn't a surprise to me personally but it flatly contradicts the notion that GW need to keep the grognards happy and focus on them and the balance of the games they play for its lifeblood. 

As above, none of us have the metrics and data so none of us can say for sure, but the scant information we do have that can maybe be instructive towards a more informed impression of what sells and GW's priorities are is not supported at all by the idea that balanced and updated rules are key to selling miniatures. Far more likely going off what GW say is that it is quite simply the case that the quality of the miniatures and the way in which GW uses its marketing monopoly mean they basically sell themselves regardless of how they play on the tabletop.

Edited by Nos
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doko said:

That is 100% the same answer that every artist give when someone says that his work is ugly.

 

But agree with you,it is only mi opinion, tastes are personals.

I'm pretty ambivalent about OBR but willing to back your point as else you'll get gangbanged here for criticizing something others like. :P To tell you the truth I haven't seen another faction that divides AoS fans as much as the OBR do. It's fair to say that something about their design irks a lot people and most other factions had fewer "haters". I think about something quite unusual like KO  for example - lots of people wouldn't collect them I guess but those that won't are more ambivalent about their dislike for them than say OBR.

Personally I don't mind the noses or faces, I think their armor is too busy (so carapace-like) which simply doesn't look good in combination with the fused bone-construct look IMO as it makes it very busy. I would say they're objectively ugly and I won't feel bad about it - they're kinda meant to be. Most dudes in my army (Tzeentch) are ugly as sin as well and I'm cool with that fact and if someone else tells me that my heroes won't win any beauty pageants. What I think can't be said about them is that they're all bad models. For me personally, due to the IMO mismatched aesthetic they're not good models but from a technical POV they probably are decent models.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...