PDA

View Full Version : Dreadfleet - how well has it sold?



Pages : [1] 2

Griefbringer
24-11-2011, 18:56
Today I passed by the local independent game store (relatively big) and noticed that they had quite a large pile of Dreadfleet boxes (with the "Great gift" stickers on cover). It seemed to me that there were at least 20 boxes there.

I recall that back in September, before the release, there was some uproar about the Dreadfleet being a "limited edition" release, and some speculation about how fast it would sell out and what sort of prices it might reach on the secondary market once having sold out.

Now almost two months have passed from the release. Has anybody seen a shop that would have actually sold out of their sets yet?

yabbadabba
24-11-2011, 19:12
Indies aren't always the best example of how well a box set has sold. I am surprised any Indie has 20 boxes left, sounds like they made a mistake in their estimates, or made a mistake in listening to a poorly trained, sales driven rep.

However I don't think this has been as successful as GW had planned for, certainly not what they had hoped for. It sounds like there were serious flaws in the release plan, even if it was deliberately planned to see how it would work. Lack of pre-sales gaming for a company like GW is a serious mistake, and it might have cost them 1000 boxes or so, but it would have been worth the investment to get a 75-90% sell out in the first 2 weeks.

If GW don't get to that sell out level by Christmas then it will be a drag after this; interest will go down remarkably and they will be lucky to sell 1 or 2 a month. Its the pattern for most SGs and I can see no reason to think it will be different here.

However that will be good news for me as I cannot afford to buy it for quite some time :D

Deff Mekz
24-11-2011, 19:22
Well WW itself had around 10 copies left at the end of October, so not as well as they hoped I'd say. Which is a shame really, as I could see it stopping GW from doing things like this the future.

Deff

The Phazer
24-11-2011, 19:47
I was just thinking today the fact that GW is still pushing mail order sales on the front page of the website is not a good sign.

Maybe this might have convinced GW that their secrecy/no-preorder/get people into stores! strategy is, well, flipping stupid? It didn't work with Space Hulk, that was just a co-incidence because Space Hulk was limited edition and sufficiently sought after that people weren't willing to take a risk on it. That applies to a very small amount of other stuff.

Phazer

stroller
24-11-2011, 19:47
My local GW has sold out twice. Now on its third batch. Small store. Good manager.

"Great gift" is on lots of items in store - its a GW Christmas sticker.

Nogginthenog
24-11-2011, 20:17
Just picked up Decembers white dwarf at asda today, and they are still plugging it .

The mag comes with a 15 page dreadfleet booklet with a campaign in it, plus the obligatory 'buy it now' message.

SunTzu
24-11-2011, 20:57
The local redshirt was giving it the old "even if you don't want it, buy it to sell on eBay for £400!!!" schtick for a while.

He's still got four boxes left... I hope anyone who fell for that takes it back for a refund. (Though to be fair, at least one person is already listing it on eBay for £120. I hope nobody pays that kind of money when they could get it at nearly half the price direct from GW. OTOH it's not sold yet, and neither have quite a few others at, or around, MSRP).

Llew
24-11-2011, 21:05
I've been past 2 of my FLGS's in the past week. Both still had the single copy of Dreadfleet that they ordered.

golembane
24-11-2011, 21:17
My local store I shop at still has the three boxes they ordered. Apparently there has been no interest from the locals about Dreadfleet at all, even though you go in an find people playing all forms of other table top games at all times of the day.

Longtimelurker
24-11-2011, 22:01
lots of copies left in both my locals.

i think its because you dont get dual use out of the mini's.

TimLeeson
24-11-2011, 22:12
Doesnt sound like it was as successful as they wanted it, the "great gift" thing smells of desperation to me. I wonder if I'm right or not.

popisdead
24-11-2011, 22:15
There are some still at the local store. Plus a return. I think they maybe sold two copies? Maybe a few more? This is a local GW store too.

superdupermatt
24-11-2011, 22:18
My local has 5-7 boxes left, the manager was fuming coz they sent him 5 boxes last month when he didn't want anymore.

xxRavenxx
24-11-2011, 22:27
I have seven of my original ten. And one of those happens to be the one in my house... Blergh.

Incidently, if anyone wants a cheap copy of dreadfleet :P Its a great christmas gift I hear.... heh.

Schmapdi
25-11-2011, 00:01
I've seen a few copies languishing in my local place - and I noticed a few big sites (Warstore, etc) are flogging it in their Black Friday sales. So not terribly well is my guess.

Venkh
25-11-2011, 00:31
I hope this doesnt stop GW from doing more projects in the future. Theyll probably sell tonnes of kits over Christmas.


i think its because you dont get dual use out of the mini's.

I agree with this. You can also use your normal 40K models with the tileset to play games with different factions, combine more than one box to build a super map etc

Spacehulk also taps into nostalgia which is about as powerful a marketing tool as its possible to have.

With Dreadfleet, you get a pretty good game that you might play 10 times or so and thats it.

They should have done Warhammer quest or somesuch. That would have been a sellout.

ForgottenLore
25-11-2011, 01:45
I've seen a few copies languishing in my local place - and I noticed a few big sites (Warstore, etc) are flogging it in their Black Friday sales. So not terribly well is my guess.
Yeah, Warstore has it in the clearance section of their black friday sale, $92 (abut 60 pounds).

I believe my local store sold one copy.

Ozorik
25-11-2011, 07:00
I think its because you dont get dual use out of the mini's.

The price and the very limited functionality and lifespan of the game are also important factors.

Hopefully GW keeps on with these side projects but gives them a little more thought in the future.

Chaos and Evil
25-11-2011, 07:55
I'd add to the above observations that reviews of the game have generally focused on how completely random the game is, meaning it has less appeal to adults than, for example, space hulk (which is a very tactical game).

jullevi
25-11-2011, 09:37
Also, Dreadfleet does not include 11 unique Space Marine Terminators (as far as I know).

Griefbringer
25-11-2011, 09:43
Just picked up Decembers white dwarf at asda today, and they are still plugging it .

The mag comes with a 15 page dreadfleet booklet with a campaign in it, plus the obligatory 'buy it now' message.

How long are the lead times in WD nowadays? They had probably planned that booklet already before the actual release date.

ryansface
25-11-2011, 09:45
My local Indie had 7 on display a couple of weeks ago. Not been in the local GW since the launch, may pop up this weekend to inquire.

librerian_samae
25-11-2011, 10:33
All shops Iv'e seen still seem to have stacks of them lying around (as in not really sold yet) even the local GW.

The major factors for this I think was the blackout on it until release and the pricing being about £20 or more too dear.

I was going to get one but no way at that price, various relatives then thought about nabbing me one for crimbo, untill they too saw the price :(

Spider-pope
25-11-2011, 10:33
My local indie store refused to carry any copies of Dreadfleet, since he knew it wouldnt sell. And it looks like he was right for the most part, judging by the number of copies still on the shelf and stacked under the tables at my local GW.


Doesnt sound like it was as successful as they wanted it, the "great gift" thing smells of desperation to me. I wonder if I'm right or not.

Its a month or so until Christmas. GW should be sticking "Great Gift" stickers onto every £50+ box set they can to maximise sales to parents and grandparents looking for gifts for Little Timmy who likes "those warhammers things". I wouldn't read anything more into it.


I was going to get one but no way at that price, various relatives then thought about nabbing me one for crimbo, untill they too saw the price

The price is the reason people have given me for not buying it. That and the miniatures have limited use - only usable in Dreadfleet - and the space needed to play. Theres also the knowledge that if you rely on your local GW to play, like a fair few people do, company policy means that as soon as it goes off sale you won't be allowed to play it in store.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
25-11-2011, 10:44
My LGS has sold about half of the 20 or so they took in, I think.

azhagmorglum
25-11-2011, 11:03
I don't know nothing about it myself, but as a dreadfleet buyer and player, I can say that the game is great fun and randomness. I understand it doesn't appeal to everybody, and the price tag surely doesn't help either.

I think I saw some copies left in my town's GW (Aix en Provence, France). The support for the game here can be summed up to a table edge space (about 40 cm) and some unpainted boats lying randomly on the (folded) mat. Not sure it helps to boost sale when presented like this...

Griefbringer
25-11-2011, 11:17
Its a month or so until Christmas. GW should be sticking "Great Gift" stickers onto every £50+ box set they can to maximise sales to parents and grandparents looking for gifts for Little Timmy who likes "those warhammers things". I wouldn't read anything more into it.

Considering that Dreadfleet is a stand-alone game and contains pretty much everything necessary to game (unless you want to paint the ships), I think it is perhaps one of the more sensible products to stick a "Great gift" sticker.

[Copies shipped to Sweden might perhaps do better without those stickers, since there is some room for misunderstanding - in Swedish that word could be taken as referring to either poison or marriage...]

AngelofSorrow
25-11-2011, 11:18
I'm lucky enough to have 2 GWs within 30 mins of me. 1 of them sold 20+ copies the other sold 5. I guess it just depends on the crowd. It does seem to be a bit of a failure for GW though.


Ready for eternal war!

scarletsquig
25-11-2011, 11:24
Wonder how many of the sales went to people who actually want to play the game and how many went to investors hoping to make a quick buck.

If we start seeing sub-Australian-RRP sales of dreadfleet on eBay, then that's a sure sign that it's flopped, since GW will be competing with second-hand sales of it's own product while trying to sell the remaining copies.

Kenzaburo
25-11-2011, 11:59
liked the presentation and production values of it, but the price was waaay too steep. at 50 to 60€ i might have thought about it, but with the current price tag, i passed. so did a lot of others i know. space hulk on the other hand was an instant buy even though i was strapped for money at that time. gorgeous models, great game and a better price.
on top of the price tag, some of our regular TT-players complained about pirates vs vampires as a theme. they felt like GW was trying to hop on the vampire band wagon, before the last of the twilight movies has been in cinemas. might be something to it, even though i don't expect twilight and warhammer people to have too much of a common ground. besides all our girlfriends being crazy about those darn vampires, that is. :D

EmperorNorton
25-11-2011, 12:16
Wonder how many of the sales went to people who actually want to play the game and how many went to investors hoping to make a quick buck.
I've seen one guy sell about half a dozen copies on ebay (Germany) over the last few weeks, making a solid 20Ä loss on each.

Griefbringer
25-11-2011, 12:25
they felt like GW was trying to hop on the vampire band wagon

Hasn't GW already been in the vampire wagon starting from the 80's?

6mmhero
25-11-2011, 12:27
I think it depends on location as to how well it sold. Most of my gaming group all brought a copy. Some stores have been getting topped up for the copies that sold etc.

The main reason I think was that there was a lack of interest outside the usual circles. Not helped by the fact that you didn't get to see or play the game firsthand until release. Every store should have had a copy for the Saturday of pre orders.

silks
25-11-2011, 14:11
A lot of my non-wargaming friends have a copy of Space Hulk (because they remember playing the original)
None of them have bought Dread Fleet

ChrisMurray
25-11-2011, 15:07
I noticed there is still a copy in my lgs (although saying that there is still a copy of space hulk too). I don't know how many GW needed to sell for it to be worth them doing another sub game, but hoefully they will do more.

ihavetoomuchminis
25-11-2011, 15:43
My local GW store sold out all the DF (20) of the first batch. They were sent 10 more, and now they have 7 left.


How long are the lead times in WD nowadays? They had probably planned that booklet already before the actual release date.

The Dreadfleet battle report in the November WD was something they decide to fit into at the last minute, seeing as DF didn't sell as good as they were expecting. That's what i've been told from quite reliable sources. So probably the December WD DF content is quite similar (but probably they decided to include it at the same time they decided to include the November WD content)

Rolf
25-11-2011, 17:05
I have every ever edition of Space Hulk, so when the last edition appeared I bought it no problem. I ever got one for a none-gamer friend. But Dreadfleet just hasn't appealed to me which is strange as it was all the elements that should. I play Uncharted Seas even still play the odd game of Man o War but the fact it couldn't be played out side that campain meant I wasn't willing to invest £70 in to it. I like the models though, so I'll probably wait a while and try picking up a cheap copy of ebay.

musical
25-11-2011, 17:12
My local indie sold quite a few and is on third order. I think the fact that she is doing 20% off on them helped a bit.

Dr. Who
25-11-2011, 17:22
The december WD continues to "pimp" Dreadfleet with a dedicated battlereport/advertisment booklet.

Since GW is still running ads in the december WD (and the WD lead time), I think GW expected Dreadfleet to sell at a slower pace than Space Hulk did. I don't remember Space Hulk taking up space in WD other than the issue coinciding with its release.

- Dr.

Karak Norn Clansman
25-11-2011, 17:45
I hope it sell well for GW, because Dreadfleet is a little marvel of a box. When I heard of rumours about a naval Warhammer box, I changed my summer spending plans, hoping for ships and pirates to be released. When I saw the preview, it was an insant buy for me. I am not disappointed one bit with the purchase.

Although I dislike the limited edition runs of one-off games, it is good that GW invest some energy in projects like Space Hulk and Dreadfleet. They are good for veteran gamers and people wanting mini-games. They remind me of the old RPG-approach of GW during the 1980s (not that I was even born back then). Now I hope for a Warmaster one-off starter set if they decide to carry on with these projects, or maybe a Blood Bowl one, or perhaps a Warhammer Quest one. :D

xxRavenxx
25-11-2011, 17:51
I've seen one guy sell about half a dozen copies on ebay (Germany) over the last few weeks, making a solid 20Ä loss on each.

Sounds like hes liquidating stock. At that price hes not *losing* anything, incidently, just not making a penny either.


My local indie sold quite a few and is on third order. I think the fact that she is doing 20% off on them helped a bit.

I've been doing the same, and still no takers. £56 is apparently not in a lot of people's budgets.

SunTzu
26-11-2011, 10:00
Now I hope for a Warmaster one-off starter set if they decide to carry on with these projects, or maybe a Blood Bowl one, or perhaps a Warhammer Quest one. :D

This is exactly the problem, though. Dreadfleet wasn't a starter set. It was just a set. £70 for a game you might not like (and which is inherently limited in scope and duration) with models you can't use in anything else.

As soon as it went up for pre-order I went straight to the GW website, credit card in hand, expecting Man O'War 2.0. Then I saw that the models weren't fleets but a random collection of ships, and I didn't like most of them anyway, but above all else, the one thing that made me put my credit card away, was that it wasn't a starter set. Give me fleet lists and it'll feel like my fleet and my game. Expect me to pay that much money for someone else's random collection and someone else's game, and I'm out.

jack da greenskin
26-11-2011, 10:02
I'm just checking fleabay and £50-£60 seems to be about the going rate, or £66 for BIN. So it seems like if you want a copy of this game, you can buy it for cheaper than GW's shops sell it for... Doesnt bode well IMO :/

static grass
26-11-2011, 10:19
People love to hate.

scarletsquig
26-11-2011, 11:49
I think with closed, non-expandable boxed games like these that aren't going to get played all that often you really have to:

- Have them at a low RRP.
- Reduce the amount of assembly and painting work that needs to be done, and get players playing as quickly as possible.

Dreadfleet is expensive, and takes quite a long time to put together and paint to a good standard. I'm not sure how I'd go about painting the models myself, they're crammed with details and each requires a different paint scheme as well as pre-assembly painting to complicate matters.

Dreadfleet looks really nice, great minis, fun rules, but there are a lot of other really nice "luxury" board games available for £70 or less that are just as visually impressive, have good rules but don't require me to invest any time in the "hobby" process, can just crack them open and start playing.

Dreadfleet is purely a board game in terms of it's scope (whereas space hulk was worth it's RRP value for the terminator models alone), so to me it competes against board game purchases.. and oh boy, is there a lot of quality competition in that field. Got way too much on my "want to buy" list as far as those go already.

Brother Asmodeus
26-11-2011, 11:58
Dreadfleet - Dreadful.

susu.exp
26-11-2011, 14:27
Now I hope for a Warmaster one-off starter set if they decide to carry on with these projects

You mean:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat480011a&prodId=prod1100084&rootCatGameStyle=specialist-games
Not the Warhammer Fantasy version, but Warmaster rules + Warmaster armies + Terrain in a box costing less than Dreadfleet...

Griefbringer
26-11-2011, 14:34
They still have Battle of Five Armies available?

It has been a number of years since it came out, and my impression was that they only did a single limited production run back then.

susu.exp
26-11-2011, 15:26
Well, they never really advertized it, did they? (I think Rick commented on how he wrote a game GW produced and then tried hard to note sell IIRC) Itīs not listed as a limited run, though it probably was and - yes - is still available.

Griefbringer
26-11-2011, 15:41
Coincidentally, I happened to yesterday purchase a copy of the WD where BoFA release was announced (issue 303).

Checking the magazine, there is no mention of this release in the cover and no mention of it in the editorial either. Total coverage that the game gets seems to be 7 pages, out of which 2 pages in the new releases section for the boxed set and metal supplementary figures, and a five page article by Rick himself.

Not sure how many copies of BoFA my local indie store got, but eventually they ended up selling the last copies off at 50% discount.

yabbadabba
26-11-2011, 15:50
Dreadfleet - Dreadful. Care to justify that statement a bit?

shelfunit.
26-11-2011, 16:26
Care to justify that statement a bit?

Not that he has to, but I assume he doesn't like it...

eldargal
26-11-2011, 16:40
I heard it was 'selling as expected', in the UK at least. I think people are fixated on the Space Hulk precedent, so Dreadfleet hasn't been successful because it didn't sell out within a couple of months.

Of course at the time plenty of people claimed that Space Hulk was a disaster.

yabbadabba
26-11-2011, 17:01
Not that he has to, but I assume he doesn't like it... Assume makes an ass out of u and me, as the old saying goes.

shelfunit.
26-11-2011, 17:10
Assume makes an ass out of u and me, as the old saying goes.

It does, but not in this case.

yabbadabba
26-11-2011, 17:14
It does, but not in this case. It was a simple question Shelfunit, could well be B.A. doesn't like it. At the moment there is no indication of that and I would rather ask than assume.

The thread title is "how well has it sold" - I think considering Brother Asmodeus' extremely brief post without reference to any point other than the title by default, the question is valid.

shelfunit.
26-11-2011, 17:54
He said it was dreadful, so it isn't a great leap to him posting this because he doesn't like it. My only issue with your response to his post was why should he have to "justify" not liking it?

EDIT: Let's just quit the bickering and agree in the context of this thread, the post was not helpful.

Llew
26-11-2011, 20:18
I heard it was 'selling as expected', in the UK at least. I think people are fixated on the Space Hulk precedent, so Dreadfleet hasn't been successful because it didn't sell out within a couple of months.

Of course at the time plenty of people claimed that Space Hulk was a disaster.

And I could have sworn that someone on here said that they'd heard from inside GW that Dreadfleet was selling even faster than Space Hulk. (Of course, if the indies bought into the hype, I could understand it selling out of their stocks, but not moving off the shelves where it ended up.)

And I honestly never heard anyone complain about Space Hulk as a disaster of any kind. The most complaints I heard were that it was foolish to do it as a limited edition because it was the kind of thing that would be guaranteed to sell over time for them.

Unfortunately, Dreadfleet seems to have fallen into a wierd space. It has some pretty models (for those that like GW-styled things, as many here do). Pirates aren't as hot as they were, but they're still popular. Naval games seem to be pretty strong lately. And it's a reasonable amount of stuff for the price, even if it may have overshot where other similar boxes from other manufacturers might fall. But many of the games it's competing against are full-fledged wargames with all the variety and expandability that goes with that. Setting it up as a one-off game with no expansions seems to have hurt it.

I'm sure someone is buying the game, but right now it looks like GW misjudged the market. I don't think any store owners bought this product with the idea that it was going to sit on their shelves for several months.

Griefbringer
26-11-2011, 21:01
Itīs not listed as a limited run, though it probably was and - yes - is still available.

I checked again WD303, and on the new releases section on the BoFA section there is a small mention "Only available while stocks last". But you need to pay some attention in order to actually spot that mention.

Whitwort Stormbringer
26-11-2011, 22:03
The mag comes with a 15 page dreadfleet booklet with a campaign in it, plus the obligatory 'buy it now' message.
That sounds like a lot of fun, actually. Is it new scenarios or something? If so, it may be worth it for me to pick up that copy of WD...

Schmapdi
26-11-2011, 23:18
I heard it was 'selling as expected', in the UK at least. I think people are fixated on the Space Hulk precedent, so Dreadfleet hasn't been successful because it didn't sell out within a couple of months.

Of course at the time plenty of people claimed that Space Hulk was a disaster.

I don't recall anyone saying Space Hulk was a disaster sales-wise - just that as a limited edition it was a missed opportunity as a way to bring in new gamers over the long-haul.

And I think people are fixated on it not selling out like Space Hulk was because far fewer copies of Dreadfleet were made.

Went to my other FLGS today (for the first time this year, it's not so local) and they still had copies - discounted down to $99. (They don't offer a regular discount on anything, except really old stock). So it must not be doing well there either.

Steve54
27-11-2011, 00:17
When I was in WHW 2 weeks ago they had 37 copies left and were moving them to the storeroom so it wasn't so obvious that they had so many in store.

eldargal
27-11-2011, 08:55
I think you have it the wrong way around, far fewer copies of Space Hulk were made. I forget precisely but I believe 10,000 copies of Space Hulk were produced compared to 65,000 copies of Dreadfleet.

After Space Hulk had been out for a month or two and GW announced that copies had been rounded up from the warehouse people alternately claimed they were producing more or that sales had flopped.


I don't recall anyone saying Space Hulk was a disaster sales-wise - just that as a limited edition it was a missed opportunity as a way to bring in new gamers over the long-haul.

And I think people are fixated on it not selling out like Space Hulk was because far fewer copies of Dreadfleet were made.

Went to my other FLGS today (for the first time this year, it's not so local) and they still had copies - discounted down to $99. (They don't offer a regular discount on anything, except really old stock). So it must not be doing well there either.

Archaon
27-11-2011, 10:05
Just talked to my local gamestore owner.. i am interested in Dreadfleet but money was a bit tight (still is.. damn christmas and other bills! :mad:) so i'm in no hurry to get it but he still has some in the store and if they sell for Christmas he has a source to get some more.

Big difference to Space Hulk that sold like hot cakes and was gone within a week.

BaloOrk
27-11-2011, 14:55
Please GW, do a remake of Necromunda, it would sell bananas.

EmperorNorton
27-11-2011, 15:59
I think you have it the wrong way around, far fewer copies of Space Hulk were made. I forget precisely but I believe 10,000 copies of Space Hulk were produced compared to 65,000 copies of Dreadfleet.

There never was any official confirmation about how many units of Space Hulk were produced, at least to my knowledge.
The number I remember, which was bandied about at the time (and which somebody heard from a store manager), was 80,000.
Can't be sure if that's correct, but I find it far more believable than 10,000. If it had been that limited, people would probably have killed to get a copy.

f2k
27-11-2011, 17:51
Thereís still a few left in my local shop...


lots of copies left in both my locals.

i think its because you dont get dual use out of the mini's.

^ This...

It didnít appeal to those of us whoíd been hoping for a rerelease of ManíoíWar and it didnít appeal to regular players as they canít use it in a Warhammer game.

In all honesty, I donít know what Games Workshop actually thought they were doing. Releasing an entirely new game in an entirely new scale is not bad in and of itself. But when the release is limited and no future support is promised...

And the exorbitant price certainly didnít help...

Max Jet
27-11-2011, 18:14
I think you have it the wrong way around, far fewer copies of Space Hulk were made. I forget precisely but I believe 10,000 copies of Space Hulk were produced compared to 65,000 copies of Dreadfleet.

After Space Hulk had been out for a month or two and GW announced that copies had been rounded up from the warehouse people alternately claimed they were producing more or that sales had flopped.

What are your sources for the first number?

IJW
27-11-2011, 18:27
10k does sound a bit low. Producing 6.5 times as many copies of an entirely new untested release sounds a bit off as well.

shelfunit.
27-11-2011, 18:39
I thought there were 50,000 copies of SH made?

yabbadabba
27-11-2011, 18:41
In all honesty, I donít know what Games Workshop actually thought they were doing. Releasing an entirely new game in an entirely new scale is not bad in and of itself. But when the release is limited and no future support is promised... I think this is an experiment for GW following on in the vein of a limited release SH box. The market information seems to suggest that Ltd Ed GW miniatures sell quickly and resell beyond their value. A one off box set does not tie GW into support which it cannot afford, prevents LotR fall out with the established games, the theme is also a good choice as it causes little or no clashes with any of the core systems (unlike, say, SH or Necro) and it can cash in on some general themes in the community. Finally it allows GW to test whether this sort of format works for GW as it is the same sort of approach as some other, older games. Plus the release, while not a new approach by GW, is another finger-in-the-water test.

Without Market research GW are going to continue to do this occasionally, and sometimes they will miss. The question will be whether they lose enough here to consider doing some MR before their next similar release.


And the exorbitant price certainly didnít help... I wouldn't have used exorbitant but I think the price is a real factor here. This game would have been far more successful, even at £10 cheaper. Also it would have been more successful with a better release strategy, even at this price.

thinkerman
27-11-2011, 19:03
I think you have it the wrong way around, far fewer copies of Space Hulk were made. I forget precisely but I believe 10,000 copies of Space Hulk were produced compared to 65,000 copies of Dreadfleet.

Wasnt it like 70,000 units on the spacehulk run?

Not surprised GW and everyone else doesnt seem to be able to shift stock. I personally feel the price tag is the biggest problem.

There are still major financial issues effecting the globe and jobs. Some people simply don't have the dosh and those that have are spending it elsewhere.

- £70 is a weeks worth of food shopping to families or the price of filling up the car to get to work - not something which can be thrown at a game!




I'm very surprised though at the size of the run GW did for dreadfleet, 65,000 units. A very high number specially given its legacy (Man O War) was never as popular as hulk.

As above the price tag is the biggest killer i think for passing sales - the £70 price tag.




Would you have paid for a copy if it were £50 instead of £70?

f2k
27-11-2011, 19:25
I think this is an experiment for GW following on in the vein of a limited release SH box. The market information seems to suggest that Ltd Ed GW miniatures sell quickly and resell beyond their value. A one off box set does not tie GW into support which it cannot afford, prevents LotR fall out with the established games, the theme is also a good choice as it causes little or no clashes with any of the core systems (unlike, say, SH or Necro) and it can cash in on some general themes in the community. Finally it allows GW to test whether this sort of format works for GW as it is the same sort of approach as some other, older games. Plus the release, while not a new approach by GW, is another finger-in-the-water test.

Without Market research GW are going to continue to do this occasionally, and sometimes they will miss. The question will be whether they lose enough here to consider doing some MR before their next similar release.

Iím not going to disagree with you on the value of the limited edition releases.

I will, however, disagree with you on the theme. The strength of Space Hulk, as far as Iím concerned, was not only the name and the nostalgia surrounding it, but also the fact that it contained a bucket load of very nice models, all of which can easily be integrated into an existing 40K army.

In short: I believe that it was the name and the 40K compatibility, not the limited release, that drove sales of Space Hulk...



I wouldn't have used exorbitant but I think the price is a real factor here. This game would have been far more successful, even at £10 cheaper. Also it would have been more successful with a better release strategy, even at this price.

Ok, so exorbitant might have been slightly over-dramatic as a term for this but...

In all honesty, the price asked for this set was way over the top. Had they sold it at £50, rather than £70, I think it would have sold much better. £70 was just too painful...

Yes, the release strategy certainly didnít help boost sales, but I still think it was the price, more than the release, that proved to be the main problem.

Without knowing for sure, I think that Games Workshop gambled that the limited edition tag would be enough to make people buy it, even at such a steep price. Hopefully theyíve now realized their folly... Ha! As if thatís ever going to happen...

iamfanboy
27-11-2011, 19:57
And maybe I'm just a cynical bastard, but they may have chosen the least popular and most flopped of their 'classic' games, Man'o'War, just to have an excuse to not do this sort of release again when Dreadfleet doesn't do nearly as well as Spacehulk did.

Okuto
27-11-2011, 20:44
It's a SG so I'm not surprised if it doesn't do great.....

I never felt any appeal as I couldn't use the models for anything besides DF.....now space hulk...I could at least use them in other games.....

EmperorNorton
27-11-2011, 20:58
And maybe I'm just a cynical bastard, but they may have chosen the least popular and most flopped of their 'classic' games, Man'o'War, just to have an excuse to not do this sort of release again when Dreadfleet doesn't do nearly as well as Spacehulk did.

Why would they need an excuse, especially one that potentially loses them money?

Marked_by_chaos
27-11-2011, 21:30
I think dreadfleet was a release that really suffered from the secrecy policy. Although I can understand that they wanted to maintain an initial hype and impulse buy angle the sales beyond the first week or so will really have struggled as a result.

The reason - there were no nicely painted up in store copies for demo games. I find it unbelievable that they had staff hastilly assembling and using grey plastic for intro games.

If you are trying to convince gamers to buy a new system/game this beggars belief. By contrast i thought the games day section was very well organised, well prepared in advance and was enthusiastically received for demo games etc.

This wouos have been less of an issue for space hulk as you had familiar models or archetypes of models and a game that would sell weel through obvious 40k linkage.

Lord Dan
27-11-2011, 21:36
I heard 75-80,000 copies of SH were made.

I'm happy to hear that all the jerks who bought up 10 copies of Deadfleet so that they could put them up on EBay for $500 once it sold out got shafted.

t-tauri
27-11-2011, 21:58
All of the old specialist games were originally produced as limited runs. A certain number of games were made. When they were replaced by the next specialist game the remaining stocks of the previous game were simply flogged off at a tenner a box in a GW sale or sent to remainder book stores to clear the shelves and warehouse.

The genius of the Space Hulk marketing was to announce the limited nature of the release. Instead of deferring purchase as they did with Necromunda or Gorkamorka people lapped Space Hulk up quickly. The entire Specialist Games print run gone in a few weeks. Good for GW as it flew out of stock and cleared shelf space and generated cash flow. I believe this is the idea behind the "limited" nature of so many GW products recently as it hurries through the purchase and churns the stock through quickly.

It would seem that Dreadfleet has not done well as it fails to appeal to any clear GW market. Unpainted demos, surprise release, no real connection or cross over with any preexisting game. Necromunda or Warhammer Quest would repeat the Space Hulk trick. I've a feeling Dreadfleet might make it to remaindered bookshops for next Christmas.

Schmapdi
27-11-2011, 22:04
Well, if it gets cheap enough due to low demand I wouldn't mind snagging a copy - just for the nifty sea mat.



I'm happy to hear that all the jerks who bought up 10 copies of Deadfleet so that they could put them up on EBay for $500 once it sold out got shafted.

That warms the cockles of my heart too.

MikeInfinitum
27-11-2011, 22:40
Two of the key reasons Space Hulk was such a success last time were; it was an update of a previously popular game so people knew beforehand what they were getting into, and secondly it included limited edition minis which could also be used in 40k.

Dread Fleet had neither of these but has still sold pretty well. Given only a set number was produced surely "success" just means selling all of them, which will surely happen.

EmperorNorton
27-11-2011, 22:51
Dread Fleet had neither of these but has still sold pretty well. Given only a set number was produced surely "success" just means selling all of them, which will surely happen.

If it were that easy every company ever would simply produce limited editions of everything, because, hey, it'll sell out eventually.

yabbadabba
27-11-2011, 23:02
I will, however, disagree with you on the theme. The strength of Space Hulk, as far as Iím concerned, was not only the name and the nostalgia surrounding it, but also the fact that it contained a bucket load of very nice models, all of which can easily be integrated into an existing 40K army.
In short: I believe that it was the name and the 40K compatibility, not the limited release, that drove sales of Space Hulk... I think we are at odds here - the theme was beneficial not as a sales angle for an established GW customer but the impact elsewhere in terms of IP etc. Dreadfleet was not going to cause any problems for WFB. For non-established GW gamers then it was a simple one-off game that might have cashed in on some images that are already prevalent in the community, something Space Hulk didn't have. SH's success was in nostalgia and in selling to the 40K crowd but the question might have been did it attract any new customers (GWs prime sales driver)? I'd put a bob or two on no.
GW didn't just release Dreadfleet for giggles so there would have been a purpose to it. What that purpose was is anyone's guess at the moment.

Without knowing for sure, I think that Games Workshop gambled that the limited edition tag would be enough to make people buy it, even at such a steep price. Hopefully theyíve now realized their folly... Ha! As if thatís ever going to happen... The Ltd Ed price tag was for GW customers I reckon and to be honest it wasn't far off the mark - the release strategy was the issue there.
However if it was also angled a bit at capitalising on the whole Pirates genre then price would have been the issue, not the Ltd Ed tag. GW might have set something like 70/75% of sales at the Ltd Ed tag, with the other 30% coming after between release and Christmas.

static grass
27-11-2011, 23:04
TBH I dont think anyone on this thread has either the sales figures nor has GW's definition for success - i.e. "how well it has sold".

Without this information no final answer can be derived - merely speculation.

Liber
28-11-2011, 04:09
However that will be good news for me as I cannot afford to buy it for quite some time :D

Hear, hear!

Dreadfleet is a must have for me personally...i love naval combat games, i love warhammer, and every person i have talked to that has played Dreadfleet has been amazingly positive about it!

However i have yet to find myself with an extra $100 to blow, so i'm very pleased my local indie store still has some left...but nowhere near 20 like the OP said about his store. The guy working at my LGS said they sell like one a week.

EDIT: I should also mention that IMO the price of Dreadfleet is very very fair. I complain about GW's prices when they deserve it, and they often do, but when i do shell out the Cash for Dreadfleet i won't complain.

jimbo2
28-11-2011, 08:42
When comparing Dreadfleet to games like Fantasy Flight's Horus Heresy re-release the sheer quality difference between the two sets' components more than explains the price tag difference.

It's a fantastic game, shame it didn't sell as well as they presumably hoped, as I'm sure it will make it harder for people to push similar projects internally in the future. Anyone taking delight in the fact it didn't sell is really rather missing the point, that it's a fun game and provides a nice bit of variety.

eldargal
28-11-2011, 09:32
Three seperate GW store managers. They may be mistaken, or wrong, I have no idea. Both sides in this 'debate' have nothing but anecdotal evidence rendering the whole thing absurd.:)


What are your sources for the first number?

IJW
28-11-2011, 09:41
Two of the key reasons Space Hulk was such a success last time were; it was an update of a previously popular game so people knew beforehand what they were getting into

As a minor quibble and not really aimed at you:

Space Hulk 2nd edition was a flop. It had much better components than SH1/Deathwing/Genestealer but partly thanks to the unexpandability and more limited rules (it only included rules from the first set and wasn't written in a way that allowed the previous expansions to be used) it didn't sell well and a [i]big[/b] chunk of the production run ended up being sold for £10 a set in remainder shops.

So from GW's point of view, SH3 was quite a big gamble although they appear to have learned a lot from the rules-related mistakes of SH2.

Glabro
28-11-2011, 16:09
lots of copies left in both my locals.

i think its because you dont get dual use out of the mini's.

Why not Uncharted Seas? This is the time they should come out in force for mutual for GW and them.

f2k
28-11-2011, 18:33
I think we are at odds here - the theme was beneficial not as a sales angle for an established GW customer but the impact elsewhere in terms of IP etc. Dreadfleet was not going to cause any problems for WFB. For non-established GW gamers then it was a simple one-off game that might have cashed in on some images that are already prevalent in the community, something Space Hulk didn't have. SH's success was in nostalgia and in selling to the 40K crowd but the question might have been did it attract any new customers (GWs prime sales driver)? I'd put a bob or two on no.
GW didn't just release Dreadfleet for giggles so there would have been a purpose to it. What that purpose was is anyone's guess at the moment.

Hmmm... You might have a point in regards to the IP, Iíll give you that...

But then I ask myself...

There was a time when Hero Quest, Space Crusade, and 1. ed. Space Hulk were the ďentry gamesĒ. I mean: quite a few of us got into the whole Warhammer universe because of those games and they still have a loyal following. And itís my belief that 2. ed. Space Hulk and Warhammer Quest were released to rekindle this particular market.

Seeing as these games (save 2. ed. Space Hulk perhaps) were quite successful and have a dedicated following, then why was Dreadfleet not placed closer to the main Warhammer universe? It might have caused problems (though I canít quite see how) but it seems to me that if it was designed to be a one-off game then it should have been placed much closer to the main Warhammer universe to capitalize on the IP and hopefully drag new players into the main games. As a completely unknown game, all it had going for it was the Warhammer IP (and lots of Skulls). And to make matter worse, it had to compete with other naval-based games Ė most of which are not only well-known but also well supported and expandable (not to mention cheaper). So, why didnít Dreadfleet capitalize more on the IP?

Compare with Battlefleet Gothic. Just as Dreadfleet it was placed within an existing universe but in an entirely different setting and scale. However, Battlefleet Gothic was, from the beginning, designed to be expandable and supported throughout its lifetime. So, why wasnít Dreadfleet designed like that? And donít you think it would have been more successful if it had been designed so (disregarding the price discussion for a moment)?

IJW
28-11-2011, 18:58
Off-topic:

Battlefleet Gothic started off as a totally different game called Space Fleet which eventually added extra models via White Dwarf. Quite a few of the added models were actually re-releases of even older spaceship models that Citadel had produced in the early Eighties.

Ozorik
28-11-2011, 18:59
So, why wasnít Dreadfleet designed like that? And donít you think it would have been more successful if it had been designed so (disregarding the price discussion for a moment)?

Quite simply because GW will do absolutely nothing which they perceive will detract from its core games. I strongly suspect that this is the real reason why Space Hulk and Dread Fleet are limited edition.

Its a strategy that I completely disagree with but GW has shown very few signs of changing.

f2k
28-11-2011, 19:12
Quite simply because GW will do absolutely nothing which they perceive will detract from its core games. I strongly suspect that this is the real reason why Space Hulk and Dread Fleet are limited edition.

Its a strategy that I completely disagree with but GW has shown very few signs of changing.

You know, Iíve always wondered about this...

As far as Iím concerned, Games Workshop never had a better period than when they supported three core games and an ever-changing line-up of supplementary games.

As the supplementary games slowly disappeared, so did the players (yes, the price is probably also a factor but for now Iím ignoring it as, letís face it, Games Workshop was never cheap...).

How on earth did they become convinced that running two core games only was a good decision? And is Space Hulk and Dreadfleet a possible light in the dark Ė a tentative return to the days where they supported more games?

xxRavenxx
28-11-2011, 19:26
How on earth did they become convinced that running two core games only was a good decision?

I suppose because many other companies only run ONE core game? (Battlefront and Privateer, for the obvious two mainstream ones.)

shelfunit.
28-11-2011, 19:29
I suppose because many other companies only run ONE core game? (Battlefront and Privateer, for the obvious two mainstream ones.)

Privateer have Hordes and Warmachine, admittedly they have basically identical mechanics, but they are seperate games. They also have monster apocalypse.

sliganian
28-11-2011, 19:38
Privateer have Hordes and Warmachine, admittedly they have basically identical mechanics, but they are seperate games. They also have monster apocalypse.

They also have 'Bodgers' games. In fact, my first PP game was a card game called "Infernal Contraption" (great fun).

Llew
28-11-2011, 20:13
Privateer have Hordes and Warmachine, admittedly they have basically identical mechanics, but they are seperate games. They also have monster apocalypse.

And Privateer Press have announced a Sci-Fi game coming out in 2012 as well.

Spartan isn't a behemoth (yet), but they've got Firestorm Armada, Uncharted Seas and Dystopian Wars which all seem quite nifty in their own ways. (They may have other games, but those are the ones that jump out.)

Spider-pope
28-11-2011, 20:24
You know, I’ve always wondered about this...

As far as I’m concerned, Games Workshop never had a better period than when they supported three core games and an ever-changing line-up of supplementary games.

As the supplementary games slowly disappeared, so did the players (yes, the price is probably also a factor but for now I’m ignoring it as, let’s face it, Games Workshop was never cheap...).

How on earth did they become convinced that running two core games only was a good decision? And is Space Hulk and Dreadfleet a possible light in the dark – a tentative return to the days where they supported more games?

GW dont run two core games only, they have Lord of the Rings as a third core system.

As to your question why, while most gamers agree that GW's best was when they had the core of 40k and Fantasy, with various secondary games supported, their actual financial golden age was during the film releases of Lord of the Rings.

That franchise contributed a huge amount of income to GW's coffers. With a film release schedule to keep up with, its understandable that the specialist games would take a back seat in favour of this new system. It's since dropped off massively however, resulting in attempts to boost LoTR with new gameplay ideas that required more models that havent quite worked.

GW are likely counting on The Hobbit resurrecting their LOTR sales. If it does so i wouldnt expect a specialist game return in the next few years. If history repeats and sales fall off after the last film release, i can see GW dropping the license and bringing back some of their more popular ranges to boost their sales.

jimbo2
28-11-2011, 21:05
Compare with Battlefleet Gothic. Just as Dreadfleet it was placed within an existing universe but in an entirely different setting and scale. However, Battlefleet Gothic was, from the beginning, designed to be expandable and supported throughout its lifetime. So, why wasnít Dreadfleet designed like that? And donít you think it would have been more successful if it had been designed so (disregarding the price discussion for a moment)?

1. Battlefleet Gothic can be played for a lot less money than the core games, you don't want to encourage players to shift their attention to games that lower your bottom line.

2. As a quick one hit you can predict the return. Having an extensible system that requires lots of different blisters to be stocked costs money. This was why in the Specialist Games heyday they had to combine blisters into mixed boxes as they couldn't exceed a set blister count. See Battle of the Five Armies for how badly a one shot game can fail by making it extensible.

3. A number of people, myself included, have limited ability to support lots of collectible games. I could sell the idea to my partner because it was a single one off purchase. If it was extensible she would have been difficult to convince because I already have Battlefleet Gothic.

jimbo2
28-11-2011, 21:07
As the supplementary games slowly disappeared, so did the players (yes, the price is probably also a factor but for now Iím ignoring it as, letís face it, Games Workshop was never cheap...).

How on earth did they become convinced that running two core games only was a good decision? And is Space Hulk and Dreadfleet a possible light in the dark Ė a tentative return to the days where they supported more games?

Inquisitor died on it's feet, Epic 40k died within 6 months, Battlefleet Gothic didn't last much longer. After a string of high profile supplementary games (all excellent games I might add) failed to maintain a player base, despite heavy pushes in White Dwarf at the time, where do you get the idea that supporting these extra games provided a better return on investment?

shelfunit.
28-11-2011, 21:22
1. Battlefleet Gothic can be played for a lot less money than the core games, you don't want to encourage players to shift their attention to games that lower your bottom line.

This is a non-argument - by dropping fleet based and small skirmish games you lose out on customers that probably wouldn't be able to afford the larger games in the first place. Those that can afford the big games at the cost they currently are can easily drop a couple of months budget onto the smaller system. Look at the success of Spartan games for proof of a massive customer base for smaller, fleet based games and PP for smaller than 40K skirmish based games.


2. As a quick one hit you can predict the return. Having an extensible system that requires lots of different blisters to be stocked costs money. This was why in the Specialist Games heyday they had to combine blisters into mixed boxes as they couldn't exceed a set blister count. See Battle of the Five Armies for how badly a one shot game can fail by making it extensible.

This entirely hangs on the game being any good. Spacehulk was an auto-win, simply due to the nostalgia factor, DF simply seemed to be unsure what it was - not a fleet game, too random to maintain any real notion of strategy and models unusable with any other GW system, along with the ridiculous price. BoFA failed as it had zero publicity, and Warmaster had already ceased to be decently supported.


3. A number of people, myself included, have limited ability to support lots of collectible games. I could sell the idea to my partner because it was a single one off purchase. If it was extensible she would have been difficult to convince because I already have Battlefleet Gothic.

This could be said of people who only support fantasy or 40K - you buy what you can afford, in GW terms they don't seem to mind people who are unwilling to pay their premium prices paying other companies for their games.


Inquisitor died on it's feet, Epic 40k died within 6 months, Battlefleet Gothic didn't last much longer. After a string of high profile supplementary games (all excellent games I might add) failed to maintain a player base, despite heavy pushes in White Dwarf at the time, where do you get the idea that supporting these extra games provided a better return on investment?

It died because it was, to be fair a bit pointless. You had necromunda, a small scale skirmish game already availible, Inquisitor was just unneeded and, again the figures were unusable for anything else.

jimbo2
28-11-2011, 21:32
Inquisitor is nothing like Necromunda, at all... Regardless what about all the other side game failures?

BoFA had a reasonable amount of publicity - shop support and a few White Dwarf issues which I have in the loft.

The simple fact is that in the UK there's no other companies that have the shop presence that GW has. You make massive assumptions here, fact is that while some players will go to other companies, others won't and will just collect the core games, thereby paying more money. Who's going to be the weird kid at school who starts collecting Uncharted Seas by themselves when all their friends are playing GW?

There's a balance between the number of customers you lose to other companies and the number of customers who then instead pay more on the core games. GW have the figures, from their actions it's easy to ascertain that the spending of the latter is greater than the spending of the former.

Griefbringer
28-11-2011, 21:49
Epic 40k died within 6 months

However, the earlier Epic games (Adeptus Titanicus, Space Marine 1st and 2nd edition, Titan Legions) stayed in the business for the previous 6 years.

Ozorik
28-11-2011, 21:49
Who's going to be the weird kid at school who starts collecting Uncharted Seas by themselves when all their friends are playing GW?

The one who says that since you can get an entire fleet for £30, why don't you give it a go?

GW quite simply killed of SGs through neglect; they could have easily been profitable and acted as excellent entry level games.

Epic 40k also had some seriously poor rules.

koran
28-11-2011, 21:59
Inquisitor failed because it had a number of fundamental flaws.

It had great models but at a scale that made terrain very difficult to find/make.

It didnt know what sort of a game it was. It was not given the correct rules set to be a roleplay game yet didnt work well as a skirmish game. To make a successful game took a lot of modifications/house rules by a GM. Which could create some great games but shouldnt have been needed.

jimbo2
28-11-2011, 23:04
The one who says that since you can get an entire fleet for £30, why don't you give it a go?

That's a lot of money for a teenager to invest in a game that they don't have anyone to play with though. Youngsters can't make speculative purchases like that when it's uncertain if that £30 will see long term play. If they spend £30 on Space Marines sure they'll get less figures but they get figures that they know they can use long term, there's no risk attached. If they buy Uncharted Seas and their friend suddenly switches to the next flavour of the month they're left with models that they can't use. Plus when they've only been in the hobby a few years there's still so much about GW that is new to them. There's nothing like being pressurised by others to turn you off a system. If you have a friend constantly pressing you to start playing a different game to the one you've already heavily invested in with limited financial assets it can make you associate that attitude with the company (I'll probably never touch a Spartan games title thanks to a certain someone's constant trolling of the Dreadfleet thread for example).



GW quite simply killed of SGs through neglect; they could have easily been profitable and acted as excellent entry level games.

Not really, there was lots of support in the early couple of years and they still failed to materialise the sales. Many of those games failed to make an impact on the player base even when they were first released. Blood Bowl has been the only real success and that was never due to any imput from SG. I love the SGs and it's all very well to blame GW, but let's face facts - the games, as good as they are lacked widespread appeal. People like 28mm.


Epic 40k also had some seriously poor rules.

I don't think so at all, I liked Epic 40k a lot more than the mess that was the previous editions and Armageddon to things to the pinnacle of games design as far as I'm concerned.

yabbadabba
28-11-2011, 23:08
GW quite simply killed of SGs through neglect; they could have easily been profitable and acted as excellent entry level games. I think we need to much discussion of SGs out of this. These arguments will never be resolved without GWs books.

There was a time when Hero Quest, Space Crusade, and 1. ed. Space Hulk were the ďentry gamesĒ. I mean: quite a few of us got into the whole Warhammer universe because of those games and they still have a loyal following. And itís my belief that 2. ed. Space Hulk and Warhammer Quest were released to rekindle this particular market. We have to ignore any games by MB. To be blunt, they were a completely different kettle of fish, and can only be resurrected by GW under a similar agreement. They cannot be compared with anything GW itself has produced because of this, because of the differences in the design and sales approach.

Seeing as these games (save 2. ed. Space Hulk perhaps) were quite successful and have a dedicated following, then why was Dreadfleet not placed closer to the main Warhammer universe? It might have caused problems (though I canít quite see how) but it seems to me that if it was designed to be a one-off game then it should have been placed much closer to the main Warhammer universe to capitalize on the IP and hopefully drag new players into the main games. As a completely unknown game, all it had going for it was the Warhammer IP (and lots of Skulls). And to make matter worse, it had to compete with other naval-based games Ė most of which are not only well-known but also well supported and expandable (not to mention cheaper). So, why didnít Dreadfleet capitalize more on the IP? Dreadfleet is placed as close to WFB but still with its own unique IP. It only had to compete with other similar games in the established wargamers market, something GW would only see as a very minor area of competition because they believe that a) the majority of their customer base do not play these games and b) those who do will decide to buy DF or not without any interference from GW. Finally this is not a pure recruitment product but has that opportunity to be one in a 2nd Ed Talisman/ BB kind of way. In this case it doesn't need any expansions because its seen as a feeder into WFB/40k/LotR.

Compare with Battlefleet Gothic. Just as Dreadfleet it was placed within an existing universe but in an entirely different setting and scale. However, Battlefleet Gothic was, from the beginning, designed to be expandable and supported throughout its lifetime. So, why wasnít Dreadfleet designed like that? And donít you think it would have been more successful if it had been designed so (disregarding the price discussion for a moment)? The Design studio would have considered this. I think sometimes Warseer forgets this (not you mate). GW would have decided on a set of purpose criteria and ensured the design process reflected that. Would it have been more successful, yes possibly. But GW probably didn't want to produce a product like that, so why do it? In addition the Studio would have had a set budget for the porject and would have to come up with some very solid arguments to divert resource from 40K/WFB/LotR to promote and expand a product which didn't sell that well first time around.

As far as Iím concerned, Games Workshop never had a better period than when they supported three core games and an ever-changing line-up of supplementary games. For hobbyists yes. For the company ..... well not from the inside to be honest. The Shiny Toy Syndrome helped mask a lot of internal structural and strategic issues.

How on earth did they become convinced that running two core games only was a good decision? And is Space Hulk and Dreadfleet a possible light in the dark Ė a tentative return to the days where they supported more games? They run 3. And SGs were not making enough money to justify their continued support under the new structures. I have always said the SGs would make a great cottage industry and should be licenced out by GW. The only other way to get anything out of them is as potential loss leaders with a rententive function. DF and SH are board games basically so don't really fall into the SG category. Without the expertise of a professional board game company like MB or Avalon they are worth no more to GW than a Ltd Ed release periodically.

Inquisitor Shego
29-11-2011, 06:39
I will confess I've skimmed the last 6 pages so sorry if I'm digging up old news. I'd like to express two points if able. The Sales Issue and my feelings on it:

I know how a business works. I know that GW HQ has targets and pushes them down onto the poor managers and staff members in my local store. I know it wasn't their decision to decorate the store all piratey.

Now I can't go into a GW without the staff poking me to pick up a copy of the game. A store member had the nerve to say to me once "you've been here long enough. You have to play a game of Dreadfleet if you want to stick around."

My spider sense tingles when I open a White Dwarf and its DREADFLEET!!!! DREADFLEET!!! NECRONS!!!! DREADFLEET!!!! Or when you log onto the website and its the first thing staring you in the face.

The game is not selling well. I can tell by their desperation and over-saturation of sales techniques. Its like when the Defiler first came out in the 13th Black Crusade, and the thing was on damn near every page of a White Dwarf. Not quite that for Dreadfleet, but over a more prolonged period.


My first experience of Dreadfleet was a mystery ???? that would be hitting the shelves in a month. I remember the GW staff being kept in the dark, then one of them got a sneak peek but even on the eve of its release, would only gloat about knowing what it is without telling me.

I felt irked because here was me, someone who has put uncountable thousands of pounds into the hobby being treated like an idiot with no right to know of what's about to happen... fair enough though, its GW's right to do that. I just didn't like it.

Then when it hit I recall my first reaction being "....Is this it? Is this all?"

It was Man-o-War 2, and I hate to break it to the nostalgia fans, but Man-o-War 1 wasn't that great. Its like Squats, Gorkamorka, and old school Chaos Dwarves, made sweet with the fog of old memories* (* this is the opinion of the author, who is seldom right)

So then we go to the switcheroo. The GW member who wanted me to know nothing about it now wants me to know Dreadfleet so indepth I feel like I'm its gynacologist. They've got all the text book answers and ways of attacking complaints that only come from a direhard salesman. I know this because I used similar ones as a Mormon Missionary... but I got out :p

For £70 I get a set of average models... bar the Kraken which rocks. I get a lovely ocean map, but paint-it-yourself rulers? In these days times are tough, and I have to be a little bit more conservative with my cash... we all do. Its horrific, and that £70 could easily get me a battleforce or even pay toward rent and food. Of course value is in the wallet of the beholder.

And what happens in 3 months time? Its not like I can build a fleet or expand. Okay fair enough, the same can be said for... Key to the Kingdom, Hungry Hippos, Ghostly Galleon, Curse of the Idol and Ants in the Pants. Those games are all fun btw, but what you get in the box is all you'll ever get. I just expect more from GW

How to fix the issue

Replace Vampires/Undead with Ninjas. Now you have Ninja vs Pirate. Will sell out in hours.

f2k
29-11-2011, 07:19
Inquisitor died on it's feet, Epic 40k died within 6 months, Battlefleet Gothic didn't last much longer. After a string of high profile supplementary games (all excellent games I might add) failed to maintain a player base, despite heavy pushes in White Dwarf at the time, where do you get the idea that supporting these extra games provided a better return on investment?

I would say that Epic was effectively killed off with Epic 40K. The older versions of epic had a far longer life and were, for a long while, the main game in my local community.

Inquisitor was dead on arrival for much the same reason as Dreadfleet was Ė wrong scale and non-compatibility with the main 40K universe. Now, if they had brought it out as a 28 mm. supplement for Necromunda...

Battlefleet Gothic, I must admit, never really seemed to take off. A pitty since it wasnít a bad game and the models were quite nice. But hey, without support...



GW dont run two core games only, they have Lord of the Rings as a third core system.

As to your question why, while most gamers agree that GW's best was when they had the core of 40k and Fantasy, with various secondary games supported, their actual financial golden age was during the film releases of Lord of the Rings.

I supposed thatís technically true, but personally Iíve never really seen Lord of the Rings as a core game. Rather, I see it as a franchise which Games Workshop snatched up at exactly the right time, milked for every last penny, and which will be dropped as soon as the Hobbit hype has died down.


That franchise contributed a huge amount of income to GW's coffers. With a film release schedule to keep up with, its understandable that the specialist games would take a back seat in favour of this new system. It's since dropped off massively however, resulting in attempts to boost LoTR with new gameplay ideas that required more models that havent quite worked.

GW are likely counting on The Hobbit resurrecting their LOTR sales. If it does so i wouldnt expect a specialist game return in the next few years. If history repeats and sales fall off after the last film release, i can see GW dropping the license and bringing back some of their more popular ranges to boost their sales.

Without delving too much into this, I consider the Lord of the Rings franchise to be very much a double-edged sword. It brought a lot of money into the company at a time where it was sorely needed (which was good) but it helped mask some really serious problems with Games Workshops underlying structure and caused them to effectively shut down Specialist Games (which was all very, very bad).

And, as I said above, I very much doubt that the Lord of the Rings will survive as a game beyond the Hobbit movies. In fact, Iím somewhat doubtful as to whether or not the Hobbit can actually revive the game Ė guess weíll have to wait and see...



Dreadfleet is placed as close to WFB but still with its own unique IP. It only had to compete with other similar games in the established wargamers market, something GW would only see as a very minor area of competition because they believe that a) the majority of their customer base do not play these games and b) those who do will decide to buy DF or not without any interference from GW. Finally this is not a pure recruitment product but has that opportunity to be one in a 2nd Ed Talisman/ BB kind of way. In this case it doesn't need any expansions because its seen as a feeder into WFB/40k/LotR.

I see the point youíre making. I just think itís incredibly arrogant on the part of Games Workshop. They seem to consider themselves too big to fail, and all the while these smaller games are nibbling at their heels and slowly bleeding them dry.

Take the coverage of Dystopean War on Beasts of War, for example. A week long coverage of the game and a good offer of a free rulebook with you purchase certainly stirred things up...

Games Workshop ignores these games at their own peril...

Also, why wouldnít a feeder game get expansions? It has to thrive and develop too...


The Design studio would have considered this. I think sometimes Warseer forgets this (not you mate). GW would have decided on a set of purpose criteria and ensured the design process reflected that. Would it have been more successful, yes possibly. But GW probably didn't want to produce a product like that, so why do it? In addition the Studio would have had a set budget for the porject and would have to come up with some very solid arguments to divert resource from 40K/WFB/LotR to promote and expand a product which didn't sell that well first time around.
For hobbyists yes.

Another point taken. It might very well have been just as you say. I, for one, just donít get the reasoning behind it.



For the company ..... well not from the inside to be honest. The Shiny Toy Syndrome helped mask a lot of internal structural and strategic issues.


Just out of curiosity: what kind of problems?

I wasnít following the workings of the company as closely back then. As far as I was aware, the really big problems didnít start until around the Lord of the Rings...


They run 3. And SGs were not making enough money to justify their continued support under the new structures. I have always said the SGs would make a great cottage industry and should be licenced out by GW. The only other way to get anything out of them is as potential loss leaders with a rententive function. DF and SH are board games basically so don't really fall into the SG category. Without the expertise of a professional board game company like MB or Avalon they are worth no more to GW than a Ltd Ed release periodically.

As I said above, I donít really see Lord of the Rings as a core game...

As for Specialist Games... They might have been making a loss. But, in my opinion, they had a very important function, not only providing a cheap entry into the universe of the main games but also kept player involved with the Games Workshop universes. Just as you say...
But, agreeing that they fulfilled an important function, why were they dropped? It makes no sense...

As for being board games... To be honest, I never thought of it like that. You might be right (in fact, you probably are) but I donít see why a board game couldnít be used.

I mean: why release board games at all unless you want to release them in the right way. Seen as pure board games theyíre facing some really tough competition. But then again, Games Workshop, in their arrogance, probably thought that the IP was enough and that the fanboys would be flocking to the shops to buy this mystery game on release.

Letís hope that the slow sales have taught them a lesson. Next time Ė do it right...

jimbo2
29-11-2011, 08:27
LoTR had nothing to do with SG's closure, they appealed to two very different demographics. My point was that at £20 a Blood Bowl team or £60 a BFG Fleet that player retention you talk about wasn't paying Jervis Johnson's, Andy Hall's and the sculptors wages. They gave very clear reasons why SG was shutdown, none involved LoTR.

Only Mordheim and Necromunda work as introduction games because the others relly on you already being into the IP.

The world has changed, used to be you went into Toys R Us and the shelf was littered with a variety of fantasy and science fiction board games, huge variety. Now those stores stock nothing but Monopoly and Cluedo variations, same for Toymaster, WH Smiths, all the main high street game sellers. The sale of the kind of board games that appeal to the likes of this site's patronage have been pretty much universally pushed to online only.

Most other board games aren't expandable like tabletop wargames.
No other shops will let you try the board games before buying them.
The game is priced in accordance with other board games and is cheaper than BFG models.
Seems people just don't like board games today.

shelfunit.
29-11-2011, 08:31
Inquisitor is nothing like Necromunda, at all... Regardless what about all the other side game failures?

What? Take away the rules and you have 54mm scale necromunda. The only thing they needed to do was release in Inquisitor models at 28mm and rule additions and it could laughably easily been a necromunda expansion. All the other faliures (I can only really think of 2 that you haven't listed) were either terribly (or not at all) supported or were massive departures from the previous editions


BoFA had a reasonable amount of publicity - shop support and a few White Dwarf issues which I have in the loft.

I recall maybe 3 White Dwarfs and 1 battle report and then nothing, as for shop support, a single big box frontage and a couple of blisters - less space than the mega paint set at the GWs that I went into around that time.


The simple fact is that in the UK there's no other companies that have the shop presence that GW has. You make massive assumptions here, fact is that while some players will go to other companies, others won't and will just collect the core games, thereby paying more money. Who's going to be the weird kid at school who starts collecting Uncharted Seas by themselves when all their friends are playing GW?

GW has shop presence, so what? There are plenty of shops that sell non-GW produce, and anyone with even slight internet skills can find things on the web these days. You claim that people will collect things they are not really interested in rather than spend a little time checking out if there is something they are interested in? I am making assumptions*? 10 or so years ago the "weird kid" was the one with the GW models, funny how things change...


There's a balance between the number of customers you lose to other companies and the number of customers who then instead pay more on the core games. GW have the figures, from their actions it's easy to ascertain that the spending of the latter is greater than the spending of the former.

Whist what you say is true, what sort of company throws away customers? How many of those customers a) have no interst in mass battle games, b) are fully immersed in the big games, but need/want a break sometimes? You cannot just dismiss the vast number of people who are playing the various Spartan/PP games these days - most of them are lost GW customers, and these companies have mostly grown to prominence since the specialist games ceased recieving support. GW may have the figures, but all they are currently telling them is that they are losing sales, fast, and that the Hobbit will only be a temporary halt to the slide.

*well, true, but no less that your good self.

yabbadabba
29-11-2011, 08:41
And, as I said above, I very much doubt that the Lord of the Rings will survive as a game beyond the Hobbit movies. In fact, Iím somewhat doubtful as to whether or not the Hobbit can actually revive the game Ė guess weíll have to wait and see... Problem with that angle is that GW do see LotR as a core game, treat it as such, and would not have extended the licences unless they were convinced there was mileage in it. They did not need to buy a 20 odd year licence from Tolkein Enterprises, but they did. If you do not factor that into your observations of GW you will keep coming up with disconnects.

I see the point youíre making. I just think itís incredibly arrogant on the part of Games Workshop. They seem to consider themselves too big to fail, and all the while these smaller games are nibbling at their heels and slowly bleeding them dry.
Take the coverage of Dystopean War on Beasts of War, for example. A week long coverage of the game and a good offer of a free rulebook with you purchase certainly stirred things up...
Games Workshop ignores these games at their own peril... I think there is arrogance there, but I also think there is naivety from the wargames market as well. Again its about looking at the angles. You, as an established wargamer, see GW as a wargames company that is competng for your cash and losing out in some circumstances. GW see you as a customer who, traditionally, they have had little control over, have made substantial efforts to court, and have got little return for those efforts. Recruitment in the 11-18 yr old market provides a far better return for GW even if it is short term for the individual customer, and in wargaming this is a market GW has almost complete control and dominance of. It might be wrong in some cases, but it is pragmatic.

Also, why wouldnít a feeder game get expansions? It has to thrive and develop too... No it doesn't. If anything the last thing you want a feeder game to do is to distract potential customers from getting into your mainline products. It should be a short injection of addiction that ultimatey cannot provide the fulfilment that 40K/WFB/LotR can.

Another point taken. It might very well have been just as you say. I, for one, just donít get the reasoning behind it. Well I think without the notes of the meetings none of us will fully understand the decisions. What I can say is that a project like this would have been extensively discussed, but might have come down to the simple decision of resources deciding the commitment level.

Just out of curiosity: what kind of problems?

I wasnít following the workings of the company as closely back then. As far as I was aware, the really big problems didnít start until around the Lord of the Rings... LotR just marked one of the issues, and that was more a change of philosophy at various critical levels of management. There were issues when at the management buy out time, there were issues all the way up to.... 2000ish of a professional company being run by amateur hobbyists. Money was wasted hand over foot. GW has had plenty of issues and structurally is better run today than it has ever been, but it has for many (me included) come at a cost of GWs soul.

It makes no sense... The Sg argument has been fought to a standstill elsewhere mate. I'll not go into it here.

As for being board games... To be honest, I never thought of it like that. You might be right (in fact, you probably are) but I donít see why a board game couldnít be used.

I mean: why release board games at all unless you want to release them in the right way. Seen as pure board games theyíre facing some really tough competition. But then again, Games Workshop, in their arrogance, probably thought that the IP was enough and that the fanboys would be flocking to the shops to buy this mystery game on release.

Letís hope that the slow sales have taught them a lesson. Next time Ė do it right... I think you are showing a bit too much negative bias here. As a board game in a GW store DF suffers from no competition other than that of price. As a product in an Indie it suffers from the same competition as all GW products, so its up to the Indie to decide if it is worth the investment. GW is not challenging the board game market with this, it is tempting its own market into a board game. GW have deliberately chosen this release route so yes, it will have achieved some of its goals and the lessons will have been learnt (although if there are any staff around next time to remember will be another thing). What is a real issue on Warseer is that hobbyists here were hoping for something GW never said it would deliver, and are criticising GW for it. Warseer is not a good cross section of GWs customer base.

I would say the biggest barrier to the selling of this product is the price. Expansion is almost a non-issue outside of a small core of hobbyists. The price has frozen out all but the most dedicated painters, casual gamers and impulse buyers meaning the product has sold to mostly fanboys and those who really wanted it. That moves it from an impact sales item to a long term sales item and for that to succeed GW will need gaming tables to promote it.

Max Jet
29-11-2011, 08:56
Problem with that angle is that GW do see LotR as a core game, treat it as such, and would not have extended the licences unless they were convinced there was mileage in it. They did not need to buy a 20 odd year licence from Tolkein Enterprises, but they did. If you do not factor that into your observations of GW you will keep coming up with disconnects.

That or to get sure no one else gets their license.

Cheeslord
29-11-2011, 09:00
I would say the biggest barrier to the selling of this product is the price. Expansion is almost a non-issue outside of a small core of hobbyists. The price has frozen out all but the most dedicated painters, casual gamers and impulse buyers meaning the product has sold to mostly fanboys and those who really wanted it. That moves it from an impact sales item to a long term sales item and for that to succeed GW will need gaming tables to promote it.

Quoted for truth. From what I heard of it the game is solid, but for £70 it would have to be worldbeatingly epic to get me to buy it. It doesn't matter how good the miniatures are or how much you need to spend on Warhammer by comparison; unlike a collectible or expandable game, DF is a single item and most people have an idea of the sort of money a board game is worth, and it just doesn't go as high as £70.

I wonder what their margins and development costs are, and what they could have afforded to sell it at.

Mark.

yabbadabba
29-11-2011, 09:06
That or to get sure no one else gets their license. As a sole reason its a waste of money tbh.

xxRavenxx
29-11-2011, 09:23
As a sole reason its a waste of money tbh.

While I mostly agree, I can't help but think of a games company called Yukes, who spent about a decade making WWE's wrestling games into a brand in itself only to be told "Sorry, but now you've made it successful, we're taking it away and giving it to a bigger company who's offered more. Enjoy." They managed to re-negotiate it I believe, but I bet it was a lovely atmosphere in the meantime...

Yearly licensing is definately a no-go.

SunTzu
29-11-2011, 09:38
It amuses me that people are still peddling the line that LotR is still GW's third core game. Two articles in three months in their flagship magazine and, what, zero model or book releases in that time? does not a core game make.

It may take up a quarter of their shelf space in store (not that they promote it at all), and they might be maintaining the minimum facade required to keep the contract and prevent other wargames companies stealing their market share by taking over a well-known IP (the only reason they took it on in the first place), and maybe they're even genuinely of the belief that The Hobbit will solve all their problems (hahaha!)... but to pretend they're giving it anything like a similar level of attention as their own properties as to justifying calling it a "core game" is laughable.

Max Jet
29-11-2011, 09:52
As a sole reason its a waste of money tbh.

Isn't it company practice nowadays to distract their target audience from any competition? I am sure keeping the licence so that the well known Tolkien Universe doesn't get spoken in the same sentence as another tabletop game manufacturer is worth some money.

You know how much money was dished out for the Tetris Movie rights? (10 years ago by the way)

Spiney Norman
29-11-2011, 09:53
It was Man-o-War 2, and I hate to break it to the nostalgia fans, but Man-o-War 1 wasn't that great. Its like Squats, Gorkamorka, and old school Chaos Dwarves, made sweet with the fog of old memories* (* this is the opinion of the author, who is seldom right)


You're entitled to you own opinion of course, but aside from the somewhat antiquated look of the models Man O War was and still is an excellent rules set. I bought a copy of dread fleet but it hasn't by any means replaced Man O war, we still play MoW fairly regularly

Spider-pope
29-11-2011, 10:15
Inquisitor died on it's feet, Epic 40k died within 6 months, Battlefleet Gothic didn't last much longer. After a string of high profile supplementary games (all excellent games I might add) failed to maintain a player base, despite heavy pushes in White Dwarf at the time, where do you get the idea that supporting these extra games provided a better return on investment?

Inquisitor died because it was a different scale and a completely different style of play. From what i recall of its launch, none of the staff at my local GW had any real idea on how to approach it from a sales perspective. How do you run intro games for a heavily narrative based game that basically allows a player to do almost anything and is reliant on the players and GM to show self restraint?

Battlefleet Gothic lasted quite a while, it was on the shelves right up to the release of the first LOTR starter set.

And for every Gorkamorka, theres a Blood Bowl or Necromunda that always sold well when it reappeared on the scene.


LoTR had nothing to do with SG's closure, they appealed to two very different demographics.

That is where you are wrong i'm afraid. Demographics doesn't come into it, limited resources with a contractual need to keep up with three films being released is why specialist games had to take a back seat. There simply wasnt enough time or money to keep developing new games during this period, and once LOTR launched they didnt have the shelf space in stores to keep the old ones in stock.

Which leads to an internet only availability, which means anyone new coming into the store has no idea said games even exist. If you didnt know anything about Epic for example, would you even think to look for a 6mm game based in the 40k setting?

Dreadfleet and Space Hulk make sense in that they are a limited product which requires a limited amount of shelf space, and by making them in limited numbers it encourages people to rush to buy them in case they can't in the future. The only problem this time around is that there doesnt seem to have been much demand for a Pirates vs. Vampires sea based game.


It amuses me that people are still peddling the line that LotR is still GW's third core game. Two articles in three months in their flagship magazine and, what, zero model or book releases in that time? does not a core game make.


If GW keep calling it their third core game, then of course anyone talking about it will refer to it as their third core game. You are also misinformed about how many articles have appeared in White Dwarf. There has been a LOTR article in every White Dwarf since July this year.

The Hobbit will likely resurrect model sales, since the same people who wanted to collect models based on the LOTR films will no doubt want to collect more models based on the new films. But i don't see it resurrecting the actual game unfortunately.

SunTzu
29-11-2011, 10:35
You are also misinformed about how many articles have appeared in White Dwarf. There has been a LOTR article in every White Dwarf since July this year.

I'm not "misinformed" actually, as I have this skill called "reading" and also "counting". It's not very difficult to count to zero, and there were zero LOTR articles in WD two issues ago (UK 382), and only one in each of the two since. That makes two in three months, exactly as I said.

yabbadabba
29-11-2011, 11:01
It amuses me that people are still peddling the line that LotR is still GW's third core game. Two articles in three months in their flagship magazine and, what, zero model or book releases in that time? does not a core game make.

It may take up a quarter of their shelf space in store (not that they promote it at all), and they might be maintaining the minimum facade required to keep the contract and prevent other wargames companies stealing their market share by taking over a well-known IP (the only reason they took it on in the first place), and maybe they're even genuinely of the belief that The Hobbit will solve all their problems (hahaha!)... but to pretend they're giving it anything like a similar level of attention as their own properties as to justifying calling it a "core game" is laughable. What's this got to do with Dreadfleet? Shall we keep it on topic and not descend into personal arguments over other areas?

Isn't it company practice nowadays to distract their target audience from any competition? I am sure keeping the licence so that the well known Tolkien Universe doesn't get spoken in the same sentence as another tabletop game manufacturer is worth some money.
You know how much money was dished out for the Tetris Movie rights? (10 years ago by the way) Again I don't think this is really the place for this. We already have some good threads on this in the LotR forum.

Mr. Ultra
29-11-2011, 13:29
All shops Iv'e seen still seem to have stacks of them lying around (as in not really sold yet) even the local GW.

superdupermatt
29-11-2011, 13:42
Just received my monthly forgeworld order, and it comes with a Dreadfleet leaflet!

My previous two orders didn't come with anything like this, although it could be because it's a "great gift!" for Christmas.

greylark
29-11-2011, 14:09
I think jullevi has hit the nail on the head. People were attracted to Space Hulk partly because it had cool minis that they could use in 40k and I'm not banging the 'its so expensive' drum here but I wasn't going to pay that for some boats that in six months to a years time no one is going to want to go near when I could spend the same on normal systems, I have bfg for that :P.

Erazmus_M_Wattle
29-11-2011, 17:01
I got Space Hulk and it was very much a panic buy. I really wanted it. My wife and I had decided that itv be a joint Christmas present for us. We didn't intend to buy it when we did. The store manager in our local GW told us he only had three left. We had to rearrange our Christmas budget. So you can imagine my disgust when two weeks later GW 'found' more stock. With the shop getting about twenty more copies in, the last of which didn't sell till well after Christmas, I felt slightly conned.

I'd like to get Dreadfleet. It would be a nice game to get out and play on an evening. I just don't know when we'll have the spare dough.

Now that folks mention it, I'd like to get the Battle of Five Armies as well.

Was DF a success. I actually don't have the faintest idea. But from where I'm standing it really doesn't look like it.

Westside
29-11-2011, 17:42
I think DF is a flop (mainly since it hasn't sold out). It's expensive, and takes too much work to put together. The IP is a very limited appeal, but I'm not really into fantasy anyways.
The models, while nice, aren't designed for quick easy pleasing paint jobs. The were CAD sculpted for ease of manufacture and high detail, but not for ease of painting. (do the CAD people even paint?)
When I first heard rumor of DF I almost thought it was a set up to fail (to show the game designers nothing but core works so don't ask to try anything else).
I bought a copy and have yet to play, it looks like a fun side game (why I bought it). But, I won't play a miniature game with unpainted minis, and DF minis are a pain to paint.

EmperorNorton
29-11-2011, 17:47
That's the thing, it's too expensive and too much work to compete with the great number of fantastic board games available and it's too restrictive and not expendable enough to compete with other tabletop games.
Kinda the worst of two worlds...

Voss
29-11-2011, 18:04
My local store I shop at still has the three boxes they ordered. Apparently there has been no interest from the locals about Dreadfleet at all, even though you go in an find people playing all forms of other table top games at all times of the day.

Same here (except they have 4). Store is usually crowded, and it gets no attention at all. I was moderately surprised they made the mistake of ordering 4, especially since the owner's personal philosophy is minimal stock on the shelves.


That's the thing, it's too expensive and too much work to compete with the great number of fantastic board games available and it's too restrictive and not expendable enough to compete with other tabletop games.
Kinda the worst of two worlds...
Agree with this as well. There is a lot of competition out there, and since it doesn't integrate at all with the main game (unlike Space Hulk), there really isn't anything to really push it. Its the wrong economic climate to take a risk on a one-off game that may well be played only once or twice and shelved. It can't even be integrated well into other naval games because the ships are so wacky.

Pretty sad, overall, since we could have gotten a decent release out of October, but didn't because GW wanted to push this.

Sylass
29-11-2011, 18:05
:wtf:

People complained a lot when GW kinda dropped the Specialist Games section lamenting that Games Workshop does not do any independent, fun games anymore like they did in the golden past.

And when GW releases one of these -oh so missed- independent, fun game everyone and his little sister starts to ****-chat about how crappy it has to be because it did not sell out.

Who cares if it sold out or not? At least they *did* release something new, fun, fresh at all!

Seriously, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Easy as that. I'm sure there are lots of people enjoying the release of Dreadfleet who'd look forward to similar releases in the future.

Llew
29-11-2011, 18:12
...I'm sure there are lots...

Define "lots". I suspect you and I have different definitions of the term. And then, if you do, you'll be closer to being in line with what the OP asked.

Personally, I think that GW mishandled this particular game in a number of ways, and it didn't have to be that way. However, it certainly doesn't seem to be flying off the shelves.

Anecdotal evidence: my FLGS ordered 1 Dreadfleet game and still has 1 on the shelves. When SpaceHulk came out, they ordered about 12 copies and sold half of those within days. 5 or 6 months later they still had 3 or 4 on the shelf, but even those sold within another month or so.

SpaceHulk sold well, but even that didn't reach a huge number of gamers in our local area. It would appear that Dreadfleet is far less successful than that, at least in the Louisville Metro area.

Voss
29-11-2011, 18:52
:wtf:

People complained a lot when GW kinda dropped the Specialist Games section lamenting that Games Workshop does not do any independent, fun games anymore like they did in the golden past.

And when GW releases one of these -oh so missed- independent, fun game everyone and his little sister starts to ****-chat about how crappy it has to be because it did not sell out..

Its hardly the same type of game as Epic, Warhammer Quest or even Necromunda, so this doesn't seem like a valid comparison. The scale of the game, production, expandibility and pretty much everything else is entirely different. This is a board game in a box. That _isn't_ what the specialist games were.

Whether this type of game (or the SG type of game) was better for GW and the players isn't even the issue, Dreadfleet is a completely different type of product, and has _nothing_ to do with what SG fans want.

de Selby
29-11-2011, 19:10
I tend to agree with Sylass that it's good for GW to actually create new games, but this one didn't appeal to me. It does seem less successful than space hulk, but it's difficult to guess what GW will consider successful.

I think it was a limited run and they will have budgeted for it to be well in profit assuming they sell all copies, but we don't know if it has even made its development costs yet and we don't know how GW's bean counters account for things like opportunity cost and time spent on shelves. It didn't have the expensive card bits like SH, so probably it doesn't have to sell as well to be 'a success'.

-=Lazuli=-
29-11-2011, 19:30
My painting company has painted 5 Dreadfledt sets and we have 5 more coming in, looks to me like it is selling well. I didn't see a box at a GW store I saw in the mall and my lgs had one left.

Griefbringer
29-11-2011, 22:59
It didn't have the expensive card bits like SH, so probably it doesn't have to sell as well to be 'a success'.

However, that sea mat might have cost something to produce also, and tooling moulds for the six unique plastic sprues contained within might not be entirely trivial expense. How many unique plastic sprues did SH contain?

torgoch
30-11-2011, 13:22
I donít find Dreadfleet at all expensive from a contents perspective.

As some comparisons, my Trafalgar rulebook cost me £20quid, my rather rudimentarily sculpted Navwar fleets cost about £20 each, and that is without any of the templates, scenery matt and other play-aids Dreadfleet comes with. Uncharted Seas definitely is more expensive for the rulebook plus equivalent fleets (and most of them look like awful), so £70 quid all in one doesnít strike me as bad at all, especially for a game that is complete, and I donít need to go out a spend more on.

Compared to a FFG style big-box, Battlelore, Tide of Iron, Horus Heresy, they all run in at about the same price Ė hell Arkham Horror is headings towards sixty quid in our local shop.

So, on price + contents basis, I would definitely buy Dreadfleet, and quite a few of my gaming group would too.

However none of us did, and thatís due to an intense suspicion that the accompanying game would be an appallingly designed piece of mush. Games Workshop simply have no experience of games design anymore, so if they had contracted this out to a FFG designer then I would have taken a chance on this, but instead it comes from the hands of Phil Kelly, and unsurprisingly is reputed to be virtually unplayable.

Brother Asmodeus
30-11-2011, 16:12
It was a simple question Shelfunit, could well be B.A. doesn't like it. At the moment there is no indication of that and I would rather ask than assume.

The thread title is "how well has it sold" - I think considering Brother Asmodeus' extremely brief post without reference to any point other than the title by default, the question is valid.

Well the game has no potential from a miniatures or supplement perspective. Sales will be lower than anticipated because of this and the company never fully supports a product fully that has a 'limited metal tail'. Lets face it, GW hobbyists are toy soldier addicts. They do not want one ship representing a full fleet. they want the full fleet.

And it is dreadful.

Westside
30-11-2011, 17:56
Admittedly the Fantasy IP isn't as hot as 40k and the theme Dreadfleet has limited appeal. But there may be reasons other than lack of interest or poor promotion for the game not selling out yet.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in the thread: perhaps GW made more copies of Dreadfleet so it wouldn't sell out before the holidays. If they would have quickly sold out wouldn't people be complaining that GW are fools for not printing enough copies and how cruel they were for denying children a copy for Christmas etc.

As for their promotion policies. I actually think their limited leaks are working for them. I look more at their official sites for info instead of the fourms, and isn't that what they wanted?

I like that they have had occasional features on Dreadfleet and do mark it as a sign of support that a limited release would and hopefully should get. Instead of claiming that it means Dreadfleet is an abject failure shouldn't GW be given credit for the new scenerios etc. I think we all know if they didn't mention it at all they would be criticized for that.

As I slowly paint my copy up I just wish one of my grandkids was old enough to give this too. This game would have blown my mind when I was a kid (what kid doesn't like pirates?), especially if an adult would have taken the time to assemble and paint it for me as a gift (it would make a great gift then).

So perhaps the demographic targeted was primarily younger than the veteran/competative gamer and perhaps it was produced with holiday sales in mind rather than Ebay speculators. Just a thought.

Liber
30-11-2011, 18:27
I would have taken a chance on this, but instead it comes from the hands of Phil Kelly, and unsurprisingly is reputed to be virtually unplayable.


"Reputed?"

I've heard nothing but good things. Overwhelmingly positive reviews all accross the board as far as youtube vids and people at my FLGS that i have heard from.

Checked over at boardgamegeek.com and it seems to be garnering a healthy average rating of 7.8 with them as well.

Sgt John Keel
30-11-2011, 21:11
"Reputed?"

I've heard nothing but good things. Overwhelmingly positive reviews all accross the board as far as youtube vids and people at my FLGS that i have heard from.

Checked over at boardgamegeek.com and it seems to be garnering a healthy average rating of 7.8 with them as well.

I've not exactly been looking for reviews to read, but I know Jake Thornton's wasn't favourable. So it depends, as usual, on what authorities you trust.

shelfunit.
30-11-2011, 21:24
Checked over at boardgamegeek.com and it seems to be garnering a healthy average rating of 7.8 with them as well.

From a total of 134 ratings, the first one of which (from the comments section) is this classic...


Rating based on appearance and genre (pirates arrrr).

...and they gave it a 10. Not bad for something it appears they have never played.

jack da greenskin
30-11-2011, 21:42
One thing I haven't seen mentioned in the thread: perhaps GW made more copies of Dreadfleet so it wouldn't sell out before the holidays. If they would have quickly sold out wouldn't people be complaining that GW are fools for not printing enough copies and how cruel they were for denying children a copy for Christmas etc.


Can't remember where from, But I was under the impression it was sold in september specifically to *not* detract from christmas sales, as the same amount would be spent anyway. It was meant to sell before as a quick cash injection. Otherwise, why not release it in december?

Liber
01-12-2011, 05:43
...and they gave it a 10. Not bad for something it appears they have never played.


Doesn't matter. That rating is surely balanced out by the few people who gave it a rating of '1' and such. I'm sure all of them bought the game, built the models, and then played a game before giving it a 1/10 right? :rolleyes:

Point being is that the average rating is 7.8, thats what you're supposed to look at. Not pick out single reviews, thats just pointless.

And as I also said in my post I have talked to people IRL that have played it, as well as some youtube vids, all of which were very positive so...yah.

Dreadfleets been a success, and I'm glad as this means GW will not be scared of green lighting projects like it in the future. (Like the rumored upcoming Blood Bowl boxed game! :) )

SunTzu
01-12-2011, 09:09
...as this means GW will not be scared of green lighting projects like it in the future. (Like the rumored upcoming Blood Bowl boxed game! :) )

...unless they call it Skull Ball, and play it on a 6x4 table, with 54mm figures, that you can only get in that one box, and there's only one set and never any more, of just two teams, which are themselves not really teams but a random and ugly collection of individual models, and they're all Star Players so you can't build your own team, and the rules are based around drawing cards and completely different to the Blood Bowl so many people already know and love and which already has twenty years' worth of finely honed rules playtested and refined by hundreds of thousands of people.

Because that (apart from the "finely honed rules" bit :shifty:) is pretty much what Dreadfleet was to Man O'War. Now, GW never promised us Man O'War 2, so that's fine, they may have let down the hopes of a few of us, but not anybody's expectations; but I'm interested that you so confidently declare DF a "success" when there are many criteria by which a game can be judged successful or not. For example, in terms of sales? We don't really know what GW were expecting, only GW themselves can judge that, though intuitively you'd have to assume they'd probably hope to sell out before Christmas, which currently seems unlikely. As a self-contained game? Sounds like you've played it, I haven't, so let's take your word for it that it is a success. As a Warhammer-based naval wargame? Total failure. Granted, it didn't even attempt to fulfil that role, so it might be argued that it's unfair to judge it in those terms; but the opportunity was there to make that kind of game and fill the niche that Man O'War took a decent stab at (and which still has an enthusiastic and loyal, if small, following) and Dreadfleet is unquestionably an abject failure at appealling to people who want to play with entire armies/fleets, collect ships, create their own fluff, convert and paint models their way, and have a sense of ownership in an expandable, unlimited game that can last them decades, not just a couple of weekends; y'know, games like every single other game GW make. I'm not saying that makes Dreadfleet a failure "overall" (because it wasn't something they were aiming for) but it does mean it's, at least, not an unqualified success, and an opportunity missed IMO.

Put it this way: I rushed to the GW website, credit card in hand, the moment it was released, shortly after midnight if I recall; and I saw what it is, instead of what I hoped it would be, and I put that credit card away and didn't buy. I suspect I'm not alone in doing something similar, and I find it hard to conclude that something that so heavily turns off people who had been about to buy it can be deemed staggeringly successful.

shelfunit.
01-12-2011, 09:10
Doesn't matter. That rating is surely balanced out by the few people who gave it a rating of '1' and such. I'm sure all of them bought the game, built the models, and then played a game before giving it a 1/10 right? :rolleyes:

Doesn't matter. That rating is surely balanced out by the few people who gave it a rating of '10' and such. I'm sure all of them bought the game, built the models, and then played a game before giving it a 10/10 right? :rolleyes:

Funny how that can be turned around, and with the volume of easily pleased people who are willing to take anything GW throw them and call it gold, far more likely to be the reality.


Point being is that the average rating is 7.8, thats what you're supposed to look at. Not pick out single reviews, thats just pointless.

...Wait a second...


And as I also said in my post I have talked to people IRL that have played it, as well as some youtube vids, all of which were very positive so...yah.

So it's ok for you to pick and chose your reviews but when....:eyebrows:


Dreadfleets been a success, and I'm glad as this means GW will not be scared of green lighting projects like it in the future. (Like the rumored upcoming Blood Bowl boxed game! :) )

If DF being a success means a bloodbowl re-issue, then I really do hope it has been one, an apparently high volume of sets left in stores does not exude confidence however.

Llew
01-12-2011, 15:11
I think if you read Jake Thornton's review of Dreadfleet, you'll have a pretty good handle on the rules and whether it's a very good game or not. Unfortunately, his opinion of the game is pretty low, and he defends his opinion in some detail. In short, you play a long game to decide who wins by rolling a d6. That may appeal to some people, but it seems like you could just roll the d6.

But, of course he's probably just biased since he doesn't work for GW anymore.

(I'm not knocking dice rolling. What I'm knocking is that the mechanic apparently *always* comes down to 1 die roll deciding who won. Take it with a grain of salt since I'm working from his review, as I'm certainly not dropping cash on the game.)

In the end, it sounds like the best thing that Dreadfleet has going for it is the miniatures. And if you like GW's style, you should be thrilled with them, because they're lovely examples and nicely done. Unfortunately, you're paying quite a premium for some display-piece ships that can't be used for anything else.

(Bad mechanics with pretty components. Why does that sound so familiar?)

Voss
01-12-2011, 16:00
As for their promotion policies. I actually think their limited leaks are working for them. I look more at their official sites for info instead of the fourms, and isn't that what they wanted?


Dunno, personally I think they aren't. Given the short time between knowing whats actually coming out and when it hits the stores (a whole week) I just wait until it hits the stores. Rather than get excited about the rumours and put in a big order with a discount retailer, I wait til the book (or whatever) comes out and take a look at it in a store. For Necrons it meant I bought the book, read it over, decided they didn't fit my playstyle (despite the fact that I liked the new models and the background changes) and ... didn't buy anything else.

Going to the website to look at pictures doesn't incline me to place an order, and usually I only find out that there is something new up on the official site by going to forums, so...

I guess between the two of us, its a wash.

Vos
01-12-2011, 16:07
Like many people, I suspect, I bought a couple of copies for the terrain and the sea scape (sewn them together to make a proper size sea). I'll use them for Man O War and Uncharted Seas.

Might convert or sell the ships.

Vos

Fear Ghoul
01-12-2011, 18:14
I think if you read Jake Thornton's review of Dreadfleet, you'll have a pretty good handle on the rules and whether it's a very good game or not. Unfortunately, his opinion of the game is pretty low, and he defends his opinion in some detail. In short, you play a long game to decide who wins by rolling a d6. That may appeal to some people, but it seems like you could just roll the d6.

But, of course he's probably just biased since he doesn't work for GW anymore.

(I'm not knocking dice rolling. What I'm knocking is that the mechanic apparently *always* comes down to 1 die roll deciding who won. Take it with a grain of salt since I'm working from his review, as I'm certainly not dropping cash on the game.)

Yes, but he clearly doesn't understand the mechanics at all. In his review he says that it took him four hours to play a game, when it should only take up to two hours. At the same time he says there aren't many rules, so what the hell was he spending all that time doing? No wonder he says he got bored. I'd hate to play a game of WFB against him. I'd have to take the day off.

And the result does not come down to a D6. There are a handful of fate cards that can severely hinder one side or the other, but these are the unusual situations and not the norm.

And yes I do own the game.


Doesn't matter. That rating is surely balanced out by the few people who gave it a rating of '10' and such. I'm sure all of them bought the game, built the models, and then played a game before giving it a 10/10 right?

Funny how that can be turned around, and with the volume of easily pleased people who are willing to take anything GW throw them and call it gold, far more likely to be the reality.

You have a serious misunderstanding of polling and statistics. An average implies a normal distribution of results, which means that the unusually positive and unusually negative results balance each other out. Also systemmatic errors such as the higher than expected reporting of positive reviews (an observed phenomenon) are consistent across all polls, and would also apply to any and all game you happen to like. Of all the attempts to discredit Dreadfleet by an entrenched opposition, this is surely one of the most hilarious.:rolleyes:

Voss
01-12-2011, 19:16
You have a serious misunderstanding of polling and statistics. An average implies a normal distribution of results, which means that the unusually positive and unusually negative results balance each other out. Also systemmatic errors such as the higher than expected reporting of positive reviews (an observed phenomenon) are consistent across all polls, and would also apply to any and all game you happen to like. Of all the attempts to discredit Dreadfleet by an entrenched opposition, this is surely one of the most hilarious.:rolleyes:

Funny that he was only doing that in response to someone making that same claim for the '1' rating, to point out how silly it was, and didn't even mention averages and normal distribution, let alone demonstrate a misunderstanding of it. Though I have to say I'm confused how 1s and 10s balance each other out if there is a known bias toward positive reviews. Surely, then, positive reviews are even more worthless and skewing the polls more than negative reviews.

What's really hilarious is the idea of an entrenched opposition to a game.

frozenwastes
01-12-2011, 19:19
The only time I've ever seen anything from the inside the box of Dreadfleet was when I saw the seascape map being used for Dystopian Wars.

Fear Ghoul
01-12-2011, 19:52
Funny that he was only doing that in response to someone making that same claim for the '1' rating, to point out how silly it was, and didn't even mention averages and normal distribution, let alone demonstrate a misunderstanding of it. Though I have to say I'm confused how 1s and 10s balance each other out if there is a known bias toward positive reviews. Surely, then, positive reviews are even more worthless and skewing the polls more than negative reviews.

What's really hilarious is the idea of an entrenched opposition to a game.

No he wasn't. He was criticizing the average score for the game, and did so by picking out one 10 rating which was a poor review based on little information. As Liber pointed out, the same could well be true of the 1 ratings as well. This is simply bayesian statistics, which Shelfunit clearly ignored when making his criticism of the average (which would imply acknowledgement of statistics).

In theory 1's and 10's balance each other out in a normal distribution, which is the only circumstance under which averages are a meaningful measure of repeat observations. However in practice there is an observed phenomena of overestimation of value in many polls, and the theory behind this is that only vocal minority who like something put in the effort to rate something, thus skewing the result. However in general this is not a problematic systemmatic error when comparing ratings for different objects within the same category, such as in board games, because the systemmatic errors will be comparable. Ergo if Dreadfleet is overvalued by a vocal minority at 7.8 out of 10, the same would be true of anything else on boardgamegeek as well. But of course this thread isn't titled "Is Uncharted Seas rubbish because it only has 7.52 out of 10?"

And entrenched opposition to a game does exist. Just look at any forum discussing the differences between Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3.

Voss
01-12-2011, 20:01
Read his post again. He is directly quoting Liber who is saying the same thing with a 1 instead 10. Yes, he picked out a 10 rating earlier, but as you just said, the overvaluing doesn't matter because its systematic and universal. ;)


That isn't 'entrenched opposition'. Thats idiot fanboys with vocal opinions, who don't realize both games are crap. Entrenched opposition would involve camping outside stores and distribution centers trying to prevent the game from being sold.

Sgt John Keel
02-12-2011, 00:04
In theory 1's and 10's balance each other out in a normal distribution, which is the only circumstance under which averages are a meaningful measure of repeat observations. However in practice there is an observed phenomena of overestimation of value in many polls, and the theory behind this is that only vocal minority who like something put in the effort to rate something, thus skewing the result.

I'd also note that the publishing process should really weed out most of the games that would balance the distribution around 5.5, and also that in addition to people being more inclined to vote for a game they like (naturally the haters who vote 1 can easily be disregarded), people are more likely to actually have played games that they think they would like.

So the score skews high for a lot of reasons.


However in general this is not a problematic systemmatic error when comparing ratings for different objects within the same category, such as in board games, because the systemmatic errors will be comparable. Ergo if Dreadfleet is overvalued by a vocal minority at 7.8 out of 10, the same would be true of anything else on boardgamegeek as well. But of course this thread isn't titled "Is Uncharted Seas rubbish because it only has 7.52 out of 10?"

Sure. I do think the number of votes is a bit on the smallish side (for most of the games on BGG), and I don't really know the average score on the site, (is this published somewhere?) so can I really get a good, informed, opinion of the quality of the game from the site? I'd say no.

(The score is also an unholy amalgam of many factors, not just the quality of the rules*, which I think we/you were debating?)

On the whole, my opinion of user–sourced scores are that they are useful for indicating if a product has a fatal flaw, but not much else. Displaying the std. deviation for the game's score is also hilarious. What am I going to do with that, exactly?

*For example, Super Dungeon Explore has a few people saying that the assembly of the models is complicated, which obviously is unrelated to the actual game play but still can affect the scores.

Noserenda
02-12-2011, 00:44
I picked the game up for the models chiefly, our gaming group played a few games and the rest pretty much rolled out and bought it if they hadnt already. Its a good game after a good few evenings play.

To be fair though, our group is at least as heavily into Boardgames as we are wargames and most of us see it more as a boardgame rather than a wargame per se.

The odd game comes down to a dice roll, but to be honest thats true of any dice based game :angel:

(The Seascape and terrain are pretty great too, Dystopian wars ahoy!)

Liber
02-12-2011, 06:58
Put it this way: I rushed to the GW website, credit card in hand, the moment it was released, shortly after midnight if I recall; and I saw what it is, instead of what I hoped it would be, and I put that credit card away and didn't buy.


This is what your wall of text boils down too. You were let down not by the game, but by yourself and your personal expectations...I have an interesting anecdote to tell :)

So this movie called "The Village" came out when i was in high school, and me and a few friends went too see it...I had no idea what it was about, hadn't even seen a preview yet.

After the film was over, everyone except myself had a negative opinion, and started immediately crying about how "it wasn't scary at all!!"

Which left me confused, as i enjoyed the movie, but also didn't find it scary...was it supposed to be scary? I wasn't expecting it to be, but they were. Apparently hype and some previews on t.v made this movie out to be some kind of horror flic...which it wasn't and was never intended to be. So they hated it.

See my point? Its not GW's fault that you expected (probably based largely on Warseer chatter) this to be a "Man O' War 2" type game. So you are automatically hit with a negative reaction which creates a bias...as you state yourself in the above quote.

For the record, i would love a full Man o' War game to be released, i want a dwarf fleet! So i understand/feel your pain. But still think DF is a cool idea for a boxed game.

Liber
02-12-2011, 07:05
Doesn't matter. That rating is surely balanced out by the few people who gave it a rating of '10' and such. I'm sure all of them bought the game, built the models, and then played a game before giving it a 10/10 right? :rolleyes:

Funny how that can be turned around, and with the volume of easily pleased people who are willing to take anything GW throw them and call it gold, far more likely to be the reality.

...Wait a second...

So it's ok for you to pick and chose your reviews but when....:eyebrows:

If DF being a success means a bloodbowl re-issue, then I really do hope it has been one, an apparently high volume of sets left in stores does not exude confidence however.

Funny how that can be turned around? No, you see, that was my whole point, it can be turned around, so it doesn't matter. Crazy extreme ratings of hate will cancel out those on the other end. You seem to agree. You just misunderstood me.

And as far as me 'picking and choosing reviews' well thats just asinine to say.

I'm talking about people i know telling me what they think, and what their experiences are. No 'picking' or 'choosing' whatsoever.

Lastly concerning 'an apparently high volume of sets left in stores'.

My LGS is selling one a week, so they will be gone eventually, and its gonna be different from store to store, so who knows what the real sales are?
For example i constantly here about how flippin fast Space Hulk sold out...and my store still has copies. So yah.

Ozorik
02-12-2011, 08:25
Yes, but he clearly doesn't understand the mechanics at all.

Given that he is a games designer and actually worked for GW in that capacity I find that assertion highly unlikely.

shelfunit.
02-12-2011, 08:38
You have a serious misunderstanding of polling and statistics. An average implies a normal distribution of results, which means that the unusually positive and unusually negative results balance each other out. Also systemmatic errors such as the higher than expected reporting of positive reviews (an observed phenomenon) are consistent across all polls, and would also apply to any and all game you happen to like. Of all the attempts to discredit Dreadfleet by an entrenched opposition, this is surely one of the most hilarious.:rolleyes:

I was not using that to discredit Dreadfleet, what I was doing was...


Funny that he was only doing that in response to someone making that same claim for the '1' rating, to point out how silly it was, and didn't even mention averages and normal distribution, let alone demonstrate a misunderstanding of it. Though I have to say I'm confused how 1s and 10s balance each other out if there is a known bias toward positive reviews. Surely, then, positive reviews are even more worthless and skewing the polls more than negative reviews.

What's really hilarious is the idea of an entrenched opposition to a game.

...what he said above. It was really quite obvious if you just bothered to...


No he wasn't. He was criticizing the average score for the game, and did so by picking out one 10 rating which was a poor review based on little information. As Liber pointed out, the same could well be true of the 1 ratings as well. This is simply bayesian statistics, which Shelfunit clearly ignored when making his criticism of the average (which would imply acknowledgement of statistics).

...read the posts one after the other in the order they were written - see, Voss did it...


Read his post again. He is directly quoting Liber who is saying the same thing with a 1 instead 10. Yes, he picked out a 10 rating earlier, but as you just said, the overvaluing doesn't matter because its systematic and universal. ;)

ihavetoomuchminis
02-12-2011, 08:43
This is what your wall of text boils down too. You were let down not by the game, but by yourself and your personal expectations...I have an interesting anecdote to tell :)

So this movie called "The Village" came out when i was in high school, and me and a few friends went too see it...I had no idea what it was about, hadn't even seen a preview yet.

After the film was over, everyone except myself had a negative opinion, and started immediately crying about how "it wasn't scary at all!!"

Which left me confused, as i enjoyed the movie, but also didn't find it scary...was it supposed to be scary? I wasn't expecting it to be, but they were. Apparently hype and some previews on t.v made this movie out to be some kind of horror flic...which it wasn't and was never intended to be. So they hated it.

See my point? Its not GW's fault that you expected (probably based largely on Warseer chatter) this to be a "Man O' War 2" type game. So you are automatically hit with a negative reaction which creates a bias...as you state yourself in the above quote.

For the record, i would love a full Man o' War game to be released, i want a dwarf fleet! So i understand/feel your pain. But still think DF is a cool idea for a boxed game.

oh, i had a similar experience with District 9 and my friends. They were all upset, as they expected it to be some kind of War of the Worlds..

SunTzu
02-12-2011, 08:53
So you are automatically hit with a negative reaction which creates a bias...as you state yourself in the above quote.

This is what your wall of text boils down to. I know that, I recognise it, I accept it, I stated it, openly and without hesitation. Indeed, it's pretty much the point I was making.

eron12
02-12-2011, 09:10
See my point? Its not GW's fault that you expected (probably based largely on Warseer chatter) this to be a "Man O' War 2" type game. So you are automatically hit with a negative reaction which creates a bias...as you state yourself in the above quote.

Actually, it is sort of GW's fault. By keeping everything dark and not giving any indication what sort of game it would be beyond a "naval Warhammer" game, it left ots of room for people to draw their own conculsions.


Of course it is partially the people who came to the wrong conculsion's fault. But if GW can't be bothered to promote it's products, people are going to get some wrong ideas.

SunTzu
02-12-2011, 09:22
Exactly so. They never promised MOW2, but it's what a lot of people expected/hoped for when it was first rumoured/revealed. A lot of people would have bought that... at least me, for one. GW didn't break any promises, but they did miss an opportunity. Intentionally, perhaps, for whatever reason; but still.

shelfunit.
02-12-2011, 09:23
Funny how that can be turned around? No, you see, that was my whole point, it can be turned around, so it doesn't matter. Crazy extreme ratings of hate will cancel out those on the other end. You seem to agree. You just misunderstood me.

No, I understood you quite well, which is why I reposted your quote with the number switched - there are vastly fewer 1's as scores than 10's, which on a "normal" game would be great - sadly this is a GW game* - and this brings out the polarized vote like ants to a picnic. This is why, when there are so few votes the site has a system to counteract the polarized vote (which is probably in effect on both sides) - the "geek rating" which balences out the fanboy/dissenter score to a more reasonable one - in this case a 6.


And as far as me 'picking and choosing reviews' well thats just asinine to say.

I'm talking about people i know telling me what they think, and what their experiences are. No 'picking' or 'choosing' whatsoever.

Not asinine at all - just pointing out what you are doing - there are not universally positive reviews of Dreadfleet around, as has been pointed out, and a few people you know do not speak for the whole world.


Lastly concerning 'an apparently high volume of sets left in stores'.

My LGS is selling one a week, so they will be gone eventually, and its gonna be different from store to store, so who knows what the real sales are?
For example i constantly here about how flippin fast Space Hulk sold out...and my store still has copies. So yah.

Yes, the game will probably sell out in time, but that's not the point of a limited release - they are marketed to "buy it quick before it's gone!" and this appears to have been the huge marketing ploy by GW. The longer it hangs around the more storage space it eats up for newer releases (it is a big box) and from a financial perspective the "limited release" games have been used to boost sales figures in the years with no new core game edition - at £70 a pop for the reported 65k sets produced that's (with indie discount taken into account) approximately £4m on the half yearly financials.
Your note on spacehulk still being availible at your shop may interest a number of people - I suggest you post where it is :D

*Don't get me wrong here - GW have released some great games.

Liber
02-12-2011, 11:32
Actually, it is sort of GW's fault. By keeping everything dark and not giving any indication what sort of game it would be beyond a "naval Warhammer" game, it left ots of room for people to draw their own conculsions.


Of course it is partially the people who came to the wrong conculsion's fault. But if GW can't be bothered to promote it's products, people are going to get some wrong ideas.

This is totally valid. I am not supportive of GW's 'mysterious' ways of promoting future releases...it just opens them up to negative emotional responses like SunTzu's and many others. And the(likely) reason they keep people in the dark because they think it will increase impulse buys just makes it worse.


@shelfunit

So you did understand my point, you just chose to contradict me anyways, thats nice :eyebrows:

It seems you're basing your opinion over which we are having this stupid disagreement on a single bit of shaky ground - because Dreadfleet was made by GW obviously that means that the rating is going to be skewed in the games favor, a result of there being so much more love than hate for GW in the gaming community...give me a break. Is it true in this case? I don't think so, but its not impossible...but to use that as a general rule of thumb for GW stuff is insane. And yes, saying that i'm picking and choosing when all i've done is reported on what i've heard first hand, is asinine :D

The store i referred to earlier is called Pegasus Hobbies in SoCal.

Fear Ghoul
02-12-2011, 12:27
read the posts one after the other in the order they were written - see, Voss did it...

No, he didn't. Fine. I will play your game. Prepare for a long post:


From a total of 134 ratings, the first one of which (from the comments section) is this classic...

Quote Rating based on appearance and genre (pirates arrrr).
...and they gave it a 10. Not bad for something it appears they have never played.

You are critiquing the average score by commenting on a particular 10 rating review, as if that proves anything about the validity of the score...


Doesn't matter. That rating is surely balanced out by the few people who gave it a rating of '1' and such. I'm sure all of them bought the game, built the models, and then played a game before giving it a 1/10 right?

Point being is that the average rating is 7.8, thats what you're supposed to look at. Not pick out single reviews, thats just pointless.

Liber pointed out the problem with your mangling of statistics...


Doesn't matter. That rating is surely balanced out by the few people who gave it a rating of '10' and such. I'm sure all of them bought the game, built the models, and then played a game before giving it a 10/10 right?

Funny how that can be turned around, and with the volume of easily pleased people who are willing to take anything GW throw them and call it gold, far more likely to be the reality.

Then you again focus purely on critiquing the positive reviews, without considering that the same must be true of the negative ones, which was what Liber said, as quoted previously.

And your sad attempt at ad hominem attacks reveals your prejudice. Just because people like the game doesn't mean that they are easily pleased, or take anything that GW gives them as gold bullion.

shelfunit.
02-12-2011, 13:19
No, he didn't. Fine. I will play your game. Prepare for a long post:

Yawn, yes he did..


You are critiquing the average score by commenting on a particular 10 rating review, as if that proves anything about the validity of the score...

When the very first comment is basically "I love pirates, this looks cool = 10/10" then yes, I feel it does have some bearing, and to be fair brings into immediate question the validity of the score.


Liber pointed out the problem with your mangling of statistics...

Hey - that's not even my quote you're commenting on - it's Libers, which means your reply makes even less sense!




Then you again focus purely on critiquing the positive reviews, without considering that the same must be true of the negative ones, which was what Liber said, as quoted previously.

Not at all - just pointing out that all the reviews are not positive as Liber seems to think. I don't recall ever having said all the reviews were negative - again - if you are going to comment, please read the posts you are commenting on before posting.



And your sad attempt at ad hominem attacks reveals your prejudice. Just because people like the game doesn't mean that they are easily pleased, or take anything that GW gives them as gold bullion.

EDIT: The constant references to predjudice and hatred ([in GW general as a whole] not the latter one in this post) are really begining to annoy. FG, you clearly nead to broaden your opinions - I have no "predjuice" against GW (were you to take the time and read some of my other posts you would realise this), and I suppose whilst it (with some basic latin thrown in) makes your post look very imposing, does reflect poorly on you if your argument boils down to "you have an irrational predisposition against GW, so your posts are invalid". My comment is not directed at everyone who likes the game, but to those like the first one on BGG, who are willing to give it a 10/10 rating based purely on the fact that it is a) A GW product, and b) it looks nice.

EDIT2: Won't be posting on this thread any more - seems to be a waste of effort.

Omniassiah
02-12-2011, 22:41
Okay, first of all, as a BGG native let me clarify some things. First, never use the Average rating, since for that site it is given no weight whatsoever on rankings. What you want to look at is the Geek rating which for Dreadfleet is a 6.05 which correlates to a game that is ok for theme/genre. Now of the 714 people who have logged their copy with BGG only 135 have bothered rating... and that's not mentioning that I can rate it with out owning it. So about a 5th of the owners have bothered posting a rating for it which says a lot right there. Now compare that to say Pandemic... 18,728 ratings out of 20,832. You'll see a much closer geek-average rating as well due to the larger sample size. If there is one website you want to look for on opinions on boardgames its BGG. The Geek ratings are fairly accurate.

Foolish Mortal
05-12-2011, 16:01
Well, I don't claim to have any in depth (or any, really) knowledge of how well DF sold, but they are still plugging it on the GW website, so I guess it can't have been a massive hit.

I also can't speak for the York GW store, but Boyes store in York, as of 01/12/11 had 3 boxes left, and they are selling them at £60.00 each. I think they had 4 boxes when it was released.

I didn't buy it, and have no intention of buying it.

N810
05-12-2011, 16:26
That first 10 is pretty much ballanced by the two rates of a 2 because it wasn't man O war and therefore is terrible. :rolleyes:

Actualy this is how most ratings go on BGG,
check out the bar chart of ratings and the
game has a median score of about 7.5 if I recal.

The average rating for any game on the site is about 5.5 or so.

EldarWonderland
09-12-2011, 13:00
Travelling man in York had some left at £63 the other day.

Now if the numbers were swapped round £36 would be a purchase for me, but there again I played Wooden Ships and Iron Men from Avalon Hill in the 80s and I consider that the best naval game I have ever played.

Another game from AH was Naval War - a riot of fun and anger when played between several people.

LonelyPath
09-12-2011, 14:16
@ EldarWonderand - same here, at £36 I'd buy it too ;) Bother myself and a certain GW employee were commenting that it was roughly £20 over price for what you get in the box.

The GW order I placed for my nephews Xmas present at the start of the week arrived yesterday with a flyer plugging DF. They are still trying to push it on stores I shop at, even though those stores are yet to sell a single copy of those they got in the first place! The last time i was in GW Shrewsbury they still had a few copies there, but the manager was pretty insistent that they'd be gone by Xmas (he didn't bother trying to sell one to me since he knows all to well that no one can push me into buying something I didn't walk in their to buy, lol).

N810
09-12-2011, 14:46
You know stores usualy keep a cerian amount of stock on the shelf, and a certian ablout in storage to replace any that are sold off of the shelves.

Llew
09-12-2011, 15:01
Most indie game stores over here don't. They keep very little backstock, especially given how quickly they can turn around product reorders.

They put it all out on the shelf. Still no movement on our local Dreadfleets.

N810
09-12-2011, 15:12
Well give it a shot when it goes in sale, it's a prety fun game (despite what the MoW crowd says).

The bearded one
09-12-2011, 16:01
Travelling man in York had some left at £63 the other day.

Now if the numbers were swapped round £36 would be a purchase for me

Now that I am in the proces of painting my own dreadfleet, I can tell you that you get quite a lot of high quality crack.. erhm, plastic for it. It's certainly got a hefty priceticket, but I haven't even played the game yet and I'm already happy I eventually decided to buy it.

Voss
09-12-2011, 18:29
Most indie game stores over here don't. They keep very little backstock, especially given how quickly they can turn around product reorders.

They put it all out on the shelf. Still no movement on our local Dreadfleets.

Indeed. Most indie game stores in the US have learned the hard way that excess stock is direct path to going out of business. The ones locally barely have more than the absolute minimum (they got one each of the december monsters, for example), which is why the fact that they bothered to order 4 dreadfleet copies is boggling (especially since they sold none, which is less boggling)

The bearded one
09-12-2011, 22:13
What do you guys then think is the reason for the not-so-overwhelming sales of dreadfleet?

- the price is too high (I think this would be the reason)?

- The rules are terrible and the game no fun (because everybody played it first :rolleyes: )?

- It's not man o' war?

- The miniatures suck?

- The nature of the game does not appeal (stand-alone, no possibility of further expansion or support)?

Todosi
09-12-2011, 22:22
I think the real reason is, it's not Man O War. Space Hulk set the bar rather high with a nice touch of nostalgia recreated and a great game. I think that is what everyone was expecting. I think most of us wanted Man O War. But we need to remember back to the glory days of GW when the developers still ran the roost. They made one off games ALL THE TIME.

I think the consumer expectation is just a bit off from what GW was trying to achieve here. I think it's a fun beer and pretzels nerd game and even if it only gets played once in a while, I have had a blast painting the excellent miniatures.

I'm hoping they release a few new missions as time goes on, but that should be all the support anyone expects to recieve.

SunTzu
09-12-2011, 23:12
"Price" and "not Man O'War" I think would be the major reasons. Even those people who never played MOW, or wouldn't want a MOW 2.0 in the strictest sense, would probably rather have a fleet-based wargame set in the Warhammer World, rather than a self-contained inextensible game with no support for £70. (However, self-contained inextensible game with no support for £40? Yeah, maybe).

The models aren't great in my view, but opinions differ so others probably like them, so I don't think that's a reason.

I don't think "poor rules" is a reason, people seem to say it's fun, I don't know any different... but I do know that a refusal to demo the game in store (or even paint up a set of models) doesn't exactly inspire confidence, or in fact inspire excitement. You get a kid coming into the store going "my mates play Warhammer, is it any good?" then you run them an intro game, they love it, they spend money... bingo. Someone comes in saying "I hear there's a game called Dreadfleet out, is it any good?" and the only response is "Yes!....... erm... trust me!" isn't going to get a sale, it's as simple as that.

The bearded one
09-12-2011, 23:18
but I do know that a refusal to demo the game in store (or even paint up a set of models) doesn't exactly inspire confidence, or in fact inspire excitement. You get a kid coming into the store going "my mates play Warhammer, is it any good?" then you run them an intro game, they love it, they spend money... bingo. Someone comes in saying "I hear there's a game called Dreadfleet out, is it any good?" and the only response is "Yes!....... erm... trust me!" isn't going to get a sale, it's as simple as that.

Odd, my GW has a set of dreadfleet painted up and still has a portion of the table reserved to display it and for introgames.

SunTzu
09-12-2011, 23:28
Mine didn't last time I went in, but it's been a while so maybe they have now. Maybe "refusal" isn't the case then, but I know stores weren't allowed to open a box early to to get a set painted for release day, and my local didn't have a table set aside for gaming on release weekend either. Maybe it's changed since then... the point hasn't though. You want people excited about your game, you show it early and often. AFAICT that's not been the case with DF. (Though as I said, that's still IMO a lesser reason for the lack of excitement than the combined effects of high price and the fact it's not MOW 2.0).

The bearded one
09-12-2011, 23:29
Too high expectations from how Space Hulk went I guess.

Makaber
10-12-2011, 00:06
I didn't bother reading this thread, because it's too long. It's reasonable to assume people is comparing Dreadfleet sales to Space Hulk sales, in which it's bound to lose out. The two important reasons for this:

1) Space Hulk was an established (if old-timey) lisence and a game many people were familiar with and had fond memories of.

2) Space Hulk miniatures could be used in Warhammer 40k. Many, many people brought Space Hulk for the singular purpose of making a sweet ass Terminator squad. You can't do the same thing with Dreadfleet ships.

Also, Space Hulk was their first endavour into single box releases such as this, and it sold out really fast. Maybe the success of Space Hulk compelled them to make more copies of Dread Fleet?

shelfunit.
10-12-2011, 08:10
What do you guys then think is the reason for the not-so-overwhelming sales of dreadfleet?

- the price is too high (I think this would be the reason)?

I'd say this was the "big" one. Relative to SpaceHulk there is very little content in the box - for a game with the components it has £50 should be the price tag - and I believe it would have already sold out at this price.


- The rules are terrible and the game no fun (because everybody played it first :rolleyes: )?

Having not played the game or seen the rules I won't comment on them much, but from the reviews the whole game seems far too random.


- It's not man o' war?

As others have said - a "new" fleet based game in the warhammer world would have grasped a lot of peoples interest, been incorporable into campaigns and had playability. Certainly DF can be brought out to play like a lot of boardgames, but it requires a massive space to play in, so a lot of planning is required to play - it's not a spur of the moment game.


- The miniatures suck?

The miniatures are quite nice - several are a bit excessive - but I guess that's just the "more skullz" and OTT imagery of "new" Warhammer.



- The nature of the game does not appeal (stand-alone, no possibility of further expansion or support)?

There is nothing wrong with a stand alone game, but from the reviews seen there seems to be little replayability with DF as it is. The game just seems to be too random - yes you can play it again and different outcomes will happen, but by the looks of it you can play the game exactly the same way twice (both players) and completely polar opposite outcomes are probable. It's like snakes and ladders with a massive investment in both time and money. Without additional expansions/support outside of gaming groups and the ebay hawkers (I almost feel sorry for them) this game will never be heard of again, and in 5-10 years time people will still be calling fo MoW to be re-released.

The bearded one
10-12-2011, 14:36
The miniatures are quite nice - several are a bit excessive - but I guess that's just the "more skullz" and OTT imagery of "new" Warhammer.

To be fair, I'm 5 ships into painting (4 of which are from the evil side!) and have yet to do a single skull.

shelfunit.
10-12-2011, 14:57
To be fair, I'm 5 ships into painting (4 of which are from the evil side!) and have yet to do a single skull.

I was going with the "general" look - wait until you get to the islands

The bearded one
10-12-2011, 15:10
Fair enough. I guess that's what you get when fighting in a Necromancy infused sea graveyard ;)

EmperorNorton
10-12-2011, 18:00
Fair enough. I guess that's what you get when fighting in a Necromancy infused sea graveyard ;)

I think you have that the wrong way around.

The bearded one
10-12-2011, 18:18
When you put skulls on everything.. you get a necromancy infused sea graveyard...?

Well, fine, sure.


The fluff though is a fleet of undead (+ chaos dwarf), led by a vampire count, who have their lair in this evil, magicly twisted place, called the galeons graveyard.

Mirbeau
10-12-2011, 18:26
The two reasons I believe it hasn't seemed to have sold that well.

- the price is too high

- The nature of the game does not appeal (stand-alone, no possibility of further expansion or support)

I'd add a third two, and that is that it came in the middle of a 40k drought. Sounds bizarre I know, but I think that aided a lot of the hostility towards the game, furthering the negative filter it seems to have often been looked at through (online). Shame, it's quite a fun game.

EmperorNorton
10-12-2011, 18:26
When you put skulls on everything.. you get a necromancy infused sea graveyard...?

Well, fine, sure.


The fluff though is a fleet of undead (+ chaos dwarf), led by a vampire count, who have their lair in this evil, magicly twisted place, called the galeons graveyard.

And I'd bet that the fluff was the last thing done in the design process, i.e. trying to find an explanation as to why the components of the game look as they do.

The bearded one
10-12-2011, 18:32
So the design brief was "create 10 funky ships and some crazy-ass terrain, we'll figure something out with the fluff"?

Seems like a pretty silly way to go.

EmperorNorton
10-12-2011, 18:45
So the design brief was "create 10 funky ships and some funky terrain, we'll figure something out with the fluff"?

I'd venture it went something like:
A: "Hey, John Blanche had these sketches of ships we thought were really cool and we are going to make them into a game of some kind. Can you write up something that gives it at least the semblance of background?"
B: "Sure, how about they are pirates?"
A: "Okay..."
B: "But they are undead!"
A: "I'm listening..."
B: "And they operate out of a ship graveyard infused with necromantic energy."
A: "Sold!!"
B (aside): "Dang, I was totally kidding with that. Who'd want to buy something ridiculous like that?"
Everybody else: "Certainly not us!"

The bearded one
10-12-2011, 18:55
but.. but I bought it :(

you maketh me sad.. :cries:





Another route they might've gone is allowing the artists initially some sketches with only the vaguest brief : "ships, pirates, warhammer" , and after seeing those sketches ironing the ideas out some more and applying focus to the brief. "mmmhmm, ah, yes. This is cool, and that is cool, and that.. myeh, they're elves, so no, not cool. Okay I'd like you guys to continue on this & this, which looked really cool"

We can theorise 3 approaches:
- Fluff first, design second.
- Initial design, fluff middle, focussed design
- Design, fluff last.

Sgt John Keel
10-12-2011, 19:04
The fluff though is a fleet of undead (+ chaos dwarf), led by a vampire count, who have their lair in this evil, magicly twisted place, called the galeons graveyard.

Sure, but must all practitioners of necromancy be so incredibly gauche? (Imagine if it'd been a Lahmian countess-captain instead.)

Though I do love Blanche's art, it feels like it's been interpreted a bit too (ahem) literally in this case.

jimbo2
10-12-2011, 21:33
I don't understand the complaints about the lack of demo games turning people off, I've never, ever seen any shop run demo games for a board game.

jack da greenskin
10-12-2011, 21:52
I don't understand the complaints about the lack of demo games turning people off, I've never, ever seen any shop run demo games for a board game.

I think its the fact no-one knew what it played like before they were able to get hold of it, It could be great, tactically deep, and have a lot of replay value, or be completely OTT random, giving both players a unsatisfied feeling after a game.

EmperorNorton
10-12-2011, 22:01
I have seen a shop run demos for board games.

The problem about Dreadfleet in this regard was the marketing hype about it being a limited edition, pushing people to buy buy buy or lose out forever without giving them sufficient information about gameplay.

I think that hype will bite GW in the ###, because it hasn't worked and probably ruined their chances to use that marketing tool again. Kinda "the boy who cried wolf" situation.

The bearded one
10-12-2011, 22:41
That's certainly a good point. I either cringe or giggle whenever I come across a sentence on the GW site going "buy it now before it's sold out!"

silashand
11-12-2011, 19:04
I don't understand the complaints about the lack of demo games turning people off, I've never, ever seen any shop run demo games for a board game.

Yes, but for most board games you could go to BoardGameGeek or some such and look up reviews about a given game to see if others thought it was any good before buying. I know I've done that several times and glad I did. That GW didn't provide people the opportunity to play, figure out what it was like and maybe tweak a few things here before actually throwing it out there was entirely a failing on their part I think. Space Hulk didn't need that because there was/is a huge following for it anyway and people kinda knew what to expect. Thus the secrecy thing worked for it. But for new, previously unknown products a bit of pre-work on GW's part would probably have done them better. JMO though...

Cheers, Gary

Scaryscarymushroom
11-12-2011, 20:53
I think it's too early to make judgments on Dreadfleet now. The funny thing about selling boxes of plastic models and dice, etc is that they have a practically eternal shelf life. GW can just hang on to them until they sell. (And I believe that eventually, they will sell.)

destroyerlord
12-12-2011, 00:09
That's certainly a good point. I either cringe or giggle whenever I come across a sentence on the GW site going "buy it now before it's sold out!"

The problem is, this is normally true. I.e. the Warhammer magic card sets, Dark Eldar webway portal, Space Hulk, annual mega paint sets. All of them limited release, all of them sold out quite quickly.

scarletsquig
12-12-2011, 00:16
It's easy for ebay sellers to buy out stock of limited releases of low-priced items.

Not so easy when the RRP is £70, lot more risk involved there.

I will probably buy my copy of dreadfleet for sub-RRP prices from an ebay reseller who was hoping to make a profit. :P

The bearded one
12-12-2011, 01:52
The problem is, this is normally true. I.e. the Warhammer magic card sets, Dark Eldar webway portal, Space Hulk, annual mega paint sets. All of them limited release, all of them sold out quite quickly.

What I meant was whenever I read it in relation to dreadfleet, as I don't come across it all that often for other products (some of which where I wished they did. Magic cards limited? wtf why?).

New Cult King
12-12-2011, 07:22
I would have bought it even at AU$150 (which is how much Space Hulk was, and I bought two of those - one for me, and one for a friend's birthday). Not for $190 or whatever silliness it is.

Sure there are some great looking minis in there (the terrain looks great), and the cloth water thinger would come in handy for other games too. But I have to draw a line somewhere.

Dśmon
12-12-2011, 07:58
The popularity and worth of Space Hulk is essentially a core game + plastic individual character pricing + L.E. Which easily drove the demand of it as it can be doubled to be used in 40k.

GW misunderstood this fact and thought core games will always sell well.

Now, if GW wants another success in LE products, they should try one similar to Super Dungeon Explorer which is of course
warhammer Fantasy's counterpart.

winterdyne
12-12-2011, 08:05
You mean re-release Warhammer Quest. That would sell in incredibly high numbers.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
12-12-2011, 09:01
You mean re-release Warhammer Quest. That would sell in incredibly high numbers.

Possibly...but the fantasy dungeon crawl market has a lot of variety at the moment...it would likely sell well to WHF fans, but I suspect many people would stick with Descent and other already-out games?

Pacific
12-12-2011, 09:18
Yes perhaps you are right, I read somewhere that Mantic apparently sold out of its stock of 100,000 Dwarf King's Hold game, and they are now selling it again. That is a lot of board games! I'm sure there will be some who purchased that game (and like you say Descent, the D&D games or any number of others) who would choose not to get Warhammer Quest on that basis.

But on the other hand I think a lot of gamers, particularly younger ones or for whom GW is the soul source of miniatures and dice games, are probably not aware of their existence.

And those of us who have extremely fond memories of that game I'm sure would buy it as well! :)

shelfunit.
12-12-2011, 10:53
Yes perhaps you are right, I read somewhere that Mantic apparently sold out of its stock of 100,000 Dwarf King's Hold game, and they are now selling it again. That is a lot of board games! I'm sure there will be some who purchased that game (and like you say Descent, the D&D games or any number of others) who would choose not to get Warhammer Quest on that basis.

Not wishing to derail the thread, but are you sure of this number? Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of mantic and what they have so far released, but 100,000 copies of DKH sounds a bit high - they are still a relatively small company - selling this many games (whilst a massive achievement if true) is a big task. I would not be suprised if this was an original run of 10,000 and sold out however.

deadly claris
12-12-2011, 13:55
Hope it' fail badly maybe GW will learn not to make pointless new games insted off uppdating the games they allredy have

The bearded one
12-12-2011, 14:08
Hope it' fail badly maybe GW will learn not to make pointless new games insted off uppdating the games they allredy have

"yeah, screw you GW, for providing additional entertainment! We secretly hated you when you made Space Hulk too!" :eyebrows:

Llew
12-12-2011, 14:47
Yes perhaps you are right, I read somewhere that Mantic apparently sold out of its stock of 100,000 Dwarf King's Hold game, and they are now selling it again. That is a lot of board games!

That number is outrageously high and inaccurate. Reducing that by a factor of 20 would probably be much closer. They did, however, sell out of their first printing and second printing within matters of days. They're great games.

They sold out their stock much faster than Dreadfleet, but it was a much smaller release. It wouldn't surprise me if total sales to end customers (who weren't just trying to make an ebay buck) were similar though.

IJW
12-12-2011, 15:06
Yeah, that's kind of numbers that 'mainstream' SF&F games like Settlers or Carcassonne try to reach. Not niche wargamer boardgames.

HailTheAbyss
12-12-2011, 15:30
Actually, I had a staffer tell me that Dreadfleet did more or less sell out in the UK, but they still have copies as it did not sell as well in Spain and Germany and they moved some of the allocation for those countries back here.

No idea how well it did in other territories and why though.

EmperorNorton
12-12-2011, 15:52
Actually, I had a staffer tell me that Dreadfleet did more or less sell out in the UK, but they still have copies as it did not sell as well in Spain and Germany and they moved some of the allocation for those countries back here.

No idea how well it did in other territories and why though.

I'm gonna call shenanigans on that.
Since both Spain and Germany will have had translated versions, they'd be unable to sell these in the UK unless they repackaged the contents and replaced the rulebook.

madden
12-12-2011, 16:03
Well my local GW got 70 copies on release and there have sold out all bar one which tge staff clubbed together to by and use for in store campaigns and display so it did sell in my area.

Daniel36
12-12-2011, 16:05
Just because it didn't sell out doesn't mean it wasn't a success. They just call stuff "limited edition" so that a portion of the community goes into a scare and pre-orders it, so that GW has a fairly accurate estimate of first week sales, for whatever reasons they want to have those. It works too, because quite a few people pre-order it because they are afraid they will miss out. Nothing limited edition ever sells out in the first week, unless it's concert tickets.

If they sell it out in a year time, that's still only a year of it being on sale, which is pretty limited. Warhammer has been on the shelves for 30-some years, and they only take products off the shelf when an updated version of the product is released.

I did buy the Blood in the Badlands book pretty quickly though... But that wasn't too expensive, and I really like having all the books since 8th ed.

The bearded one
12-12-2011, 18:13
I did buy the Blood in the Badlands book pretty quickly though... But that wasn't too expensive, and I really like having all the books since 8th ed.

I'm a bit tight on cash (spending too much!), but I really want Blood In the Badlands too, I just don't want to miss any of the hardbacks, especially not one with contains some dwarven fluff and nifty siegerules.

Steve54
12-12-2011, 18:56
Actually, I had a staffer tell me that Dreadfleet did more or less sell out in the UK, but they still have copies as it did not sell as well in Spain and Germany and they moved some of the allocation for those countries back here.

No idea how well it did in other territories and why though.

and you believed him? :wtf:

The bearded one
12-12-2011, 19:57
and you believed him? :wtf:

After you're done reading GWs dreadfleet-salesrepport, could you send me a copy?

simonr1978
12-12-2011, 22:46
After you're done reading GWs dreadfleet-salesrepport, could you send me a copy?

I don't think for a second that was what was being implied and I'm sure you know that. GW Staffers have always been at best a questionable source for information to the point that pretty much anything prefaced with "A Redshirt told me that..." should be taken with enough salt to nuke the planet's population of slugs ten times over and still leave some left over. Sometimes they're right, but their hit to miss ratio is notoriously low,

ModelCalamity
12-12-2011, 23:48
Redshirts are not the only people working in GW.

And if GW sold through the numbers being mentioned they made over 2.5 mil pound from this. Even if they still have 11k copies left and we assume they will never get sold that's maybe 77k £ of "dead stock"

I would take numbers like that any day for my own business.

Commissar_Kahl
13-12-2011, 03:03
Remember every sale to an independant hobby store is a sale to GW. If it sits on the Indies shelves for all of eternity makes no difference to them and they will consider it a success.

EmperorNorton
13-12-2011, 08:40
Remember every sale to an independant hobby store is a sale to GW. If it sits on the Indies shelves for all of eternity makes no difference to them and they will consider it a success.

Except, of course, those indies will be less likely to buy from GW in the future, fearing their product will keep sitting on their shelves.

The bearded one
13-12-2011, 09:28
They'll definately be cautious, but in cases like dreadfleet all stock isn't made in one go though, right? Doesn't GW make their first batch and see how well it sells to independants before determining the size of their second? Hence if a new stand-alone game were to be released and independants bought few, they wouldn't be left with half a million stock.

shelfunit.
13-12-2011, 10:11
They'll definately be cautious, but in cases like dreadfleet all stock isn't made in one go though, right? Doesn't GW make their first batch and see how well it sells to independants before determining the size of their second? Hence if a new stand-alone game were to be released and independants bought few, they wouldn't be left with half a million stock.

Since DF is/was a "one time only" deal everything would have been done just the once - there would be no "batches" just a single print/production run.

The bearded one
13-12-2011, 10:46
Would they have produced every single dreadfleet copy in 1 single go before selling any to the independants? That seems like a risky move. Seeing as it is limited it will be produced only once, but it would seem more prudent to have the initial batch and see how it takes and determine the total size of the entire dreadfleet production based on the initial sample. I recall someone mentioning something to that effect in one of the threads here..

"Okay, let's make.. mhhmm.. I'm feeling lucky today, let's make half a million copies.
- sir, wouldn't it be better to see how the independants respond?
To hell with the independants! Everybody loves pirates! Make half a million I say!
- but sir..
make it a million!
- sir..
2 million! And every unsold copy is coming out of your paycheck!

deadly claris
13-12-2011, 10:51
"yeah, screw you GW, for providing additional entertainment! We secretly hated you when you made Space Hulk too!" :eyebrows:

Space hulk was NOT pointless its was amazing
Its a classic remake only that will sell , its a 40K game so it allredy have fans(buyers)
it have unique modells ..SPACE MARINS even if you dont play the game you can use the modells for 40K or for painting alone

Dredfleet have nothing of that its a new game that nobody knows anything about! you dont buy a new gamebox if non of your friends plays it (or play it 1 month then back to 40k/fantasy)
the bad looking boats cant be used for enything but dreadfleet (not even for master painting)

So yeah I think dredfleet was pointles and a waste of resources

The bearded one
13-12-2011, 11:07
Space hulk was NOT pointless its was amazing

totally, utterly and absolutely subjective. Not that I disagree it was amazing, but it's still subjective.



the bad looking boats

I think the boats are goodlooking. Is my opinion inferior?

shelfunit.
13-12-2011, 11:31
Would they have produced every single dreadfleet copy in 1 single go before selling any to the independants? That seems like a risky move. Seeing as it is limited it will be produced only once, but it would seem more prudent to have the initial batch and see how it takes and determine the total size of the entire dreadfleet production based on the initial sample. I recall someone mentioning something to that effect in one of the threads here..

"Okay, let's make.. mhhmm.. I'm feeling lucky today, let's make half a million copies.
- sir, wouldn't it be better to see how the independants respond?
To hell with the independants! Everybody loves pirates! Make half a million I say!
- but sir..
make it a million!
- sir..
2 million! And every unsold copy is coming out of your paycheck!

There were not even close to 100,000 copies of DF made - the potential market is too small, especially with usual lack of advertising (not limited to the non-GW public this time though). As has been mentioned numerous times this was a one off, limited edition. The idea was to sell off the back of the hype generated. Any delay or "well, we'll wait a bit and let you know if we need any more sea scape mats/card stock" etc would have driven up costs. The middle part of your imagined conversation is probably acurate though...

The bearded one
13-12-2011, 11:49
There were not even close to 100,000 copies of DF made - the potential market is too small, especially with usual lack of advertising (not limited to the non-GW public this time though). As has been mentioned numerous times this was a one off, limited edition. The idea was to sell off the back of the hype generated. Any delay or "well, we'll wait a bit and let you know if we need any more sea scape mats/card stock" etc would have driven up costs. The middle part of your imagined conversation is probably acurate though...

I know, I grasped at some straws of a post here earlier. Let me see if I can find it.. isn't the rumoured number in the vicinity of 60.000 or so?

ah, here it is:

Just because it didn't sell out doesn't mean it wasn't a success. They just call stuff "limited edition" so that a portion of the community goes into a scare and pre-orders it, so that GW has a fairly accurate estimate of first week sales, for whatever reasons they want to have those. It works too, because quite a few people pre-order it because they are afraid they will miss out. Nothing limited edition ever sells out in the first week, unless it's concert tickets.

IJW
13-12-2011, 11:56
Would they have produced every single dreadfleet copy in 1 single go before selling any to the independants?

Given that it's by far the most cost-effective way to make a boardgame like that in the first place, yes.

As a very rough rule-of-thumb, each time you halve the print run for the printed components or halve the production run for the moulded components you'll increase the total production costs by anything up to 80%.

The bearded one
13-12-2011, 11:58
dang.



No wonder I didn't choose an economic study.

IJW
13-12-2011, 12:16
Think of it this way - you have X days of production in a year with a plastics moulding production line. Every time you want to produce something different you shut the line down, change the moulds, make sure the moulds are all aligned and releasing properly, bring the plastics mixer back up to temperature and start the line up again.

Going through that 2-3 times for one product costs you both in man-hours but also in lost production time because you're cutting into a finite amount of working hours in the year - every changeover means less time in a given period on actual production.

Many years ago I worked in a factory with too many products and very few production lines, we spent more time changing stuff over than running the lines. :(

deadly claris
13-12-2011, 12:26
totally, utterly and absolutely subjective. Not that I disagree it was amazing, but it's still subjective.


No its not subjective, it sold like ice creem on a hot day
It was amazing hit for GW

was dreedfleet ??! think not
people still play and paint Space hulk today

will annony play dredfleet two years from now ? think not
evry day that dredfleet dont sell only make it harder too sell the next

Steve54
13-12-2011, 12:36
After you're done reading GWs dreadfleet-salesrepport, could you send me a copy?

Why would I need the sales report to be able to tell that was a false and quite ridiculous statement from the redshirt?

I'd need that for sales targets, figures etc but even without knowing those
- DF quite obviously has not sold out as there are copies in virtually every GW+LGS. In the 4 I've been to in the past week they had 68 copies in total.
- Recalling copies of DF from abroad would not happen unless we are talking 1000s of copies as the logistics would not be cost effective.
- Why would a product completely, utterly, to the last copy sell out in the UK but have 1000s left elsewhere?
- Recalling those copies from abroad would require new english boxes, rules etc. Even if the logistics were cost effective this would not be.
- Redshirts are notoriously unreliable sources (read virtually any rumour thread) either telling the customer what they want to hear/spreading their own rumours/ parrotting what the manager has told them. I'd hope this was the redshirts own idea (or his manager) to shift the last few copies, bit I wonder if it was from higher up (like the resin is more expensive to cast than metal rubbish with FC).

The redshirt was either wrong or lieing the poster is naive to believe the statement and anybody who has been to a GW/LGS or any forum can see its a crock.

The bearded one
13-12-2011, 13:03
No its not subjective, it sold like ice creem on a hot day
It was amazing hit for GW

Amazing and pointless in themselves are just subjective. If you say "Spacehulk was amazing and Dreadfleet was pointless!" it sounds like an opinion. What you are looking for are descriptions reflecting their financial succes, such as "it sold amazingly well" or "it's selling terribly". I can totally agree that Space Hulk performed amazingly from a bussines standpoint (and that is was an amazing game, but that aside). Dreadfleet being pointless.... I can't actually judge that as I don't know what the criteria for a boardgame are to prevent being pointless. If you were to say that Dreadfleet does not appear to be doing well in terms of sales, I can also agree to that.


The redshirt was either wrong or lieing the poster is naive to believe the statement and anybody who has been to a GW/LGS or any forum can see its a crock.

This is actually not the case for every store. Often there where it was actively demo'd did it perform well. We have about as much info as the redshirt on this so it's apprehensive to say that he is wrong and you are right. A poster in one of the x number of dreadfleet threads mentioned that he had a source inside GW who claimed most copies were sold already, something like 80%? (though yes, he could be lying or wrong, and I believe copies sold to independants are also counted in) I don't believe it either, but don't be too quik to proclaim how false and wrong it is when we don't posses all the info either. Some stores did sell out, while others can't shift their stock. For example:

We went Dreadfleet MAD when the new GW opened last month - had people lined up three deep to play - we all had so much fun they are running a special campaign in Jan - based on an 'Orcapelago' (Instead of archipelago!) and have special terrain made up for it!

The actual game has been a blast - one or two WTF moments caused by funny rules (Like the mechanic for escaping from jepardy and the ghost ship argument that strafing and 1st shot of the game allows the bonus to hit it on better than 6+), but overall a roaring success - so much so they keep ordering 2 copies and sell them out all the time and have to order 2 more!!

So locally a success for sure!

I like to think I am advocating a bit more balanced viewpoint than "dreadfleet is pointless" and "the staffer was wrong or lying" (and not 'zomg, dreadfleet is perfect, praise GW, praise GW!'). I like that GW is releasing one-off games once in a while. There is nothing wrong with some variation to spice it up a little. but GWs secrecy and lack of advertising this new game certainly was a poor way to go. Some might've wanted Man o' war, while others didn't want a game at all and wanted GW to focus on updating codices and armybooks. Myself I'd rather have a standalone release, even if flawed, than none at all. I don't even necessarily need to like the release, I was sceptical about buying dreadfleet but my birthday came in handy, but I think releasing some standalones is a good initiative and it might in itself create new classics that we'll look back at in a decade with nostalgia.


- Why would a product completely, utterly, to the last copy sell out in the UK but have 1000s left elsewhere?

Why wouldn't it? Countries are different and have different tastes and values (and budgets) To give an example... people generally love Monthy Python in the UK and Europe, while in the US not really.

Commissar_Kahl
13-12-2011, 13:47
Except, of course, those indies will be less likely to buy from GW in the future, fearing their product will keep sitting on their shelves.

The title of the thread is "Dreadfleet - how well has it sold?" so I am pointing out that it sold extremely well, I see lots of indies that have a ton of copies on their shelf. Many people on the forum have stated their local GW stores have sold a bunch therefore the game, as near as us wannabee internet sales analysist can tell, has sold very well. I can believe the 80%+ sales number quoted.

Now the question as to whether a lot of customers have bought the game for play and use is entirely different. As is whether indies will be upset and buy from GW again in the future an entirely differen discussion.

But my point is GW doesn't care what the indies think or how this effects their future realtions. They care about sales numbers and, like a guy who is bad in bed, "they got theirs." Businesses now seem to only care about the bottom line for the current quarter, less and less thought goes into long term planning or business strategy.

GW seems to be the epitomy of this, IMO GW's entire business strategy relies on milking every last dime they can outof their customers while they can before the whole business comes tumbling down.

I do think Indies will be hesitant to order from GW in the future, but every store I know already is. They all complain about GW's process yet somehow they got roped into ordering a bunch of copies. Whatever GW's sales pitch to the indie must have been really good b/c they all seemed to have ordered copies where I live, even the stores that don't usually stock GW. And of course those copies are all sitting on the shelf unsold.

Sgt John Keel
13-12-2011, 15:37
(like the resin is more expensive to cast than metal rubbish with FC).

What is the issue with that? I've heard many of the smaller companies claiming the same thing. Both Hasslefree and McVey resins are more expensive than the metal versions.

Steve54
13-12-2011, 17:30
McVeys resin are super-high quality, limited edition, hand cast models. Not the same moulds etc with resin substituted for metal like FC. To suggest a FC resin model costs even a fraction of the cost of it metal counterpart is farcical

N810
13-12-2011, 17:34
... Ummm Deradfleet is made of plastic...

The bearded one
13-12-2011, 18:19
... Ummm Deradfleet is made of plastic...

we've moved on to complaining about finecast again, keep up :p

Etienne de Beaugard
14-12-2011, 03:20
we've moved on to complaining about finecast again, keep up :p

<Key Star Wars Music>

"Stay on topic.... Stay on topic..!!"

Boom!

"It didn't go in... impacted on the pricing thread!"

But seriously,

The only thing we can conclude is that Dreadfleet, based solely on anecdotal evidence, appears to be selling at a a range of paces, from slowly to moderately briskly. We'll need to wait at least 6 months before we know the real success of the game.

Chaos and Evil
14-12-2011, 08:32
McVeys resin are super-high quality, limited edition, hand cast models. Not the same moulds etc with resin substituted for metal like FC. To suggest a FC resin model costs even a fraction of the cost of it metal counterpart is farcical
Actually Finecast seems to use new moulds. Some sort of pressure injection system, rather than spin-casting as was done with the metal models.

Despite slightly increased labour time for the resin casting process, it'll still be costing GW a fraction of what metal models used to cost to produce, mind you.

FabricatorGeneralMike
14-12-2011, 08:57
Are you shure about that C&E? I know you know your stuff about casting but to use some kind of pressure injection wouldn't the molds have to be made of metal? I can't see a RTV rubber mold handling all that well. We do know they are still using some kind of rubber molds because it keeps ripping and getting stuck in the voids on the FC models.

I have the new necron lord..trayzen?/ The one with the powerfist, and he had bits of the mold still in the voids...along with lots of bubbles...but thats another topic. =o]

Chaos and Evil
14-12-2011, 13:14
Are you shure about that C&E?
The model components aren't aligned on the frames for spin casting, so they must be using injection of some sort.

They're not curing under pressure though*, as we can tell from all the bubbles.


wouldn't the molds have to be made of metal?
I don't see why that'd have to be the case.


*As any good resin caster will.

Mr. Ultra
20-12-2011, 16:31
Why are you guys talking about Finecast AGAIN?

t-tauri
20-12-2011, 20:29
Why are you guys talking about Finecast AGAIN?

Because they want to see this thread closed and receive warnings in the process?

Please keep on topic or there will be warnings. Take the finecast discussion to the appropriate thread.